Since according to scientists, energy can never be created or destroyed, then that means it has always existed and always will. So they know there's a God because they know that an eternal force exists. They just don't call energy God even though they acknowledge that it's a powerful unseen force whose power is limitless and infinite. So they have just defined God yet they deny Him at the same time. :o Incessant contradictions. :roll:
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
[_ Old Earth _] Even scientists know there's a God
- Thread starter Heidi
- Start date
D
Deep Thought
Guest
I'll just turn on my light switch now and experience god. :P
J
Jayls5
Guest
Heidi said:
By limitless and infinite, you mean finite and measurable. We know precisely how much energy mass has. Nice try. And by nice try, I mean another epic failure.
heavens1gate
Member
I always wondered why people try to disprove God with Science.
Actually, I always felt that science shows proof of God.
Look at all the complexities of the universe, which we know only 0.000000000001% about.
Could an 'accident' cause all this? I dont think so.
Actually, I always felt that science shows proof of God.
Look at all the complexities of the universe, which we know only 0.000000000001% about.
Could an 'accident' cause all this? I dont think so.
heavens1gate said:
true.
but look at who your dealing with, people that believe that we came from a rock, germ-fish-something-something blah blah human, over "millions of unprovable years" these men of "science" can never bend over and accept logical evidence, because it leads to god and they can't have that .
johnmuise said:
Not true. It's clear from your posts that you still have no understanding of the scientific theory you keep railing against. There is no "conspiracy" to keep God out of science. Creationists cannot or will not understand this. Scientists simply follow the evidence. but look at who they're dealing with: people that believe that the universe and everything in it was magically "poofed" into existence in their current forms , in spite of the fact that the universe does not operate that way, and all the evidence we have shows that not to be the case.
freeway
Member
Ignatz wants me to believe::
this means he is the sole authoritative on this subject.
.Gee ma I'ma guessin we'ens don't know nuttin..come on I used to push this garbage myself
Oh there's not? again ignatz is here showing his soul authoritative on said subject... check out any public school.. its evolution 101 prime time all the time...
cannot understand means you are of a lesser intelligent. will not understand means I believe in God and His power to create all living things form the beginning and choose not to believe in the crap your trying to push...
yea God is awesome...
again you choose to believe that... evidence.. that has been distorted to fit modern thinking, to try as hard as we can to prove there is no God...
Clearly. I don't believe that you know anything about the theory you so vehemently oppose. If I'm right in my assessment, this means that your opinion on the matter is utterly worthless. But maybe I'm wrong. Prove me wrong. Perhaps you can explain, in a few short sentences, what the roles of mutation and natural selection are in the current ToE. And I don't mean cutting and pasting definitions of the words. explain how these processes propel ToE. This can be easily done in a short paragraph by anybody with the faintest understanding of ToE. I'm not even asking you to believe it. I'm simply asking you to show that you understand what this forum is about, and that I can take your disagreements seriously.
Things like "conspiracies" or faulty logic/math/etc. are weeded out quickly by the process peer review from other detached groups of scientists who are trying to survive and earn grant money for their projects. Pointing out flaws in a hypothesis/theory earns a scientist "points" in the form of increased respect and credibility and more grant money. Scientists live for that.
There is the separation of church and state in the united states. 'Nuff said.
The fact that science requires that something be falsifiable and follow the scientific method is not a "conspiracy". You want creationism or ID taught in science class? Then go do what scientists do and put on your big-boy pants, do the necessary hard work and go out and gather EVIDENCE. If it can withstand being picked apart over the years, like every other scientific theory, it will have earned it's place. Quit whining that nobody takes you seriously! MAKE them take you seriously! Build your case! Find the evidence!
Fine, you pick. (But I think I know what the real answer is)
: But you could prove me wrong by answering my above question.
What is the evidence that has been distorted? More to the point, what is the evidence that the evidence supporting ToE has been distorted?
freeway
Member
Ignatz, look at this again....
just to show you guys I cut and pasted this from an evolutionist website, them describing what evolution is.. all I did was add the words "soup" and also added "and billions" and of course everything after the "billion years". Other than that straight as it is written... I thought I had the link, but can't find it as I'm writing this, but I will find it... so... just to show you guys that it doesn't matter what we answer, in your narrow way of thinking it wrong, so it does not matter if I answer your question a million times.. and by the way I can, but why again..
just to show you guys I cut and pasted this from an evolutionist website, them describing what evolution is.. all I did was add the words "soup" and also added "and billions" and of course everything after the "billion years". Other than that straight as it is written... I thought I had the link, but can't find it as I'm writing this, but I will find it... so... just to show you guys that it doesn't matter what we answer, in your narrow way of thinking it wrong, so it does not matter if I answer your question a million times.. and by the way I can, but why again..
freeway01 said:
That is abiogenesis, NOT evolution! The definition is wrong, it just IS, and it came from a creationist website.
The reason you can't answer my question is because you have no idea what you are talking about.
So again, what is the role of natural selection and mutation in the current ToE?
In your OWN WORDS. (Not a cut-and-paste definition of abiogenesis.) Seriously, if you cannot do that, you have no understanding of ToE, and cannot argue against it.
That's why you should shut me up by proving that you actually know what you are talking about. How can you disagree with it if you don't even understand it?
BTW, "..so it does not matter if I answer your question a million times.."
A MILLION times? I'd settle for ONCE!
Here it is again: what is the role of natural selection and mutation in the current ToE, as you understand it?
Freeway, here is the link you cut and pasted from.
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewart ... 4&id=36858
It's from a guy named Willie Maartens. here's what he has to say:
"I am a qualified Topo-cadastral, Engineering, and Geodetic Surveyor (Geodetic Engineering) and have a doctorate in Business Economics and Management."
A BUSINESS degree? Hmmmm..
"In a certain sense, Economics ("Human Ecology") is more of a philosophy than a science, but in another sense it is as hard a science you ever will find. In Paradise, there is no Economics, but the rest of us have to live with it. However, I have always been an Engineer first, and only an Economist as an afterthought".
Seriously, you actually QUOTED this guy as an authority on the subject? He doesn't even have his definitions straight.
I'm not trying to tear the guy apart, he's clearly interested in the subject, as am I, and I'm no scientist, I suppose he's trying to muck his way through it as best he can, but anybody who has actually studied ToE for ANY length of time should know what the definition really is. If you don't believe me, google-up some evolutionary biologist and see how all of them define "Evolution"
You may not agree with it, but once you know what it is, you can debate it.
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewart ... 4&id=36858
It's from a guy named Willie Maartens. here's what he has to say:
"I am a qualified Topo-cadastral, Engineering, and Geodetic Surveyor (Geodetic Engineering) and have a doctorate in Business Economics and Management."
A BUSINESS degree? Hmmmm..
"In a certain sense, Economics ("Human Ecology") is more of a philosophy than a science, but in another sense it is as hard a science you ever will find. In Paradise, there is no Economics, but the rest of us have to live with it. However, I have always been an Engineer first, and only an Economist as an afterthought".
Seriously, you actually QUOTED this guy as an authority on the subject? He doesn't even have his definitions straight.
I'm not trying to tear the guy apart, he's clearly interested in the subject, as am I, and I'm no scientist, I suppose he's trying to muck his way through it as best he can, but anybody who has actually studied ToE for ANY length of time should know what the definition really is. If you don't believe me, google-up some evolutionary biologist and see how all of them define "Evolution"
You may not agree with it, but once you know what it is, you can debate it.
freeway
Member
first I'm not going to say I did not use that paragraph, but I will say it was not that site, sorry never been to that site, but thanks for the link..
2nd. as far as your question, by your definition. evolution is a slow process of a lower form of life changing into a higher more complex form.." yea right" oh yea I almost forgot.. we need million of years to do this, so as not to be seen or witnessed..
one last thing, tomorrow I'm takin the kids down to the museum to check out all those transitional fossils you guys are always talking about. We're going to take a big lunch because we'll need a lot of time to find the unicorn and the flying monkeys section. I'm sure the fossil we'll be looking for will be right between them. If their there, tomorrow night I'll be a full blown evolutionist again!
freeway01 said:
I can't believe that somebody else cut and pasted from that guy...fascinating.
freeway01 said:
Please, that is not my question.
My question is: Can YOU quickly explain the roll of mutation and natural selection in our current understanding of ToE.
If you know what the ToE is, then you MUST know about mutation and natural selection.
Nobody is trying to "trick" you by asserting that evolution happens slowly, just like continental drift, for example.
freeway01 said:
EVERY fossil is a "transitional" fossil. Every fossil is a "transitional" form between its ancestors and its descendants.. Also, every time we discover a new fossil showing a different stage in a species evolution, a new "gap" is also created, Take the "missing human link" example. Draw a horizontal line on a piece of paper, and draw an "H" at one end of the line for "human". Then, write "HH" on the opposite end of the line for "Homo Habilis". Now you have 1 gap in the sequence between the 2 species. Next, draw "HE" in about the middle of the line for "Homo Erectus". Now you have 2 gaps. Then go put a big ole "N' for "neandertal"between human and homo erectus. 3 gaps, etc. and so on.
YOU are a transitional form between your parents and your children.
Incidentally, if you were to find the remains of a monkey with wings, you'd be forever known as the guy who single-handedly dis-proved evolution. Such an animal would destroy the theory of common ancestry, etc. ToE would be proven useless and false, and another theory would have to be developed to explain it.
And, You were never a "full-blown evolutionist" if you cannot answer my above question.
1. Transitional fossils are lacking, there should be billions of transitional fossils.
2. We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps.
Specific examples of non-transition:
1. There are gaps between invertebrates and vertebrates.
2. There are gaps between fish and amphibians.
3. There are gaps between amphibians and reptiles.
4. There are gaps between reptiles and birds - Archaeopteryx was probably not an ancestor of modern birds. - Archaeopteryx is fully bird, Duck-billed dinosaur find disproves its bird ancestry.
5. There are gaps between reptiles and mammals
6. There are gaps between land mammals and whales.
7. Horse fossils don't show evolution.
8. Arthropods arose suddenly, There are no fossil ancestors of insects.
9. There are no fossil ancestors of plants, Progymnosperms are imaginary evolutionary ancestors.
2. We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps.
Specific examples of non-transition:
1. There are gaps between invertebrates and vertebrates.
2. There are gaps between fish and amphibians.
3. There are gaps between amphibians and reptiles.
4. There are gaps between reptiles and birds - Archaeopteryx was probably not an ancestor of modern birds. - Archaeopteryx is fully bird, Duck-billed dinosaur find disproves its bird ancestry.
5. There are gaps between reptiles and mammals
6. There are gaps between land mammals and whales.
7. Horse fossils don't show evolution.
8. Arthropods arose suddenly, There are no fossil ancestors of insects.
9. There are no fossil ancestors of plants, Progymnosperms are imaginary evolutionary ancestors.
Ignatz said:
God is much more than just energy. But Again, as Jesus said; "God is Spirit." So I don't care what group I sound like. When I agree with Jesus, I'm always right.
When one considers how much intelligence there is in even one fertilized egg (DNA codes, chromosomes that enable a dot no larger than a speck of dust to grow into even one human being)that is unseen to the naked eye, then it's inconceivable that anyone could deny that God exists. It's just plain ignorance.Heidi said:Ignatz said:
God is much more than just energy. But Again, as Jesus said; "God is Spirit." So I don't care what group I sound like. When I agree with Jesus, I'm always right.
There is no "intelligence", as you say, in it. It's plain 'ol biology, and it is a natural process that doesn't require a supernatural explanation.
Your view that "wow, this stuff is really amazing" is not "proof" of your position, your position is unfalsifiable, just like another's claim that everything was created by the "flying spaghetti monster". You cannot prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, but that doesn't make it true that it exists.
johnmuise said:
This is ridiculous. First of all, there are lots of transitional fossils. just do a web search. creationists like to claim that there are no transitional fossils. This is a claim made by many creationists seeking to distort or flat-out ignore the evidence that exists.
Secondly, "gaps" in the fossil record are not evidence against the ToE, only evidence that fossilization is delicate business, requiring specific conditions for fossilization to occur, instead of allowing the animal to decay and disintegrate. we find new fossils all the time. Archaeopteryx is the most cited transitional form, so I'll use that example. We can see that Archeopterix had a breast bone, but paleontologists can't be sure if the muscle attachments were large enough to support powered flight, and Archeopterix bones aren't hollow like modern birds, so If it did fly it was more like the flight of a road runner than the flight of an eagle. Archeopterix does have feathers, their impressions are clearly visible on most of the fossil specimens. Archeopterix also has a wish bone. It also may have an opposable big toe (it's hard to tell on the fossils) which would be another Avian feature. Finally the Archeopterix has an elongated and backward facing pubic bone, another characteristic of birds.
but don't birds have bills? Does Archeopterix have a bill? No, it has very dinosaurian jaws. Bird's trunk vertebrae are always fused but Archeopterix trunk vertebrae are not. Birds do not have bony tails, Archeopterix does, as do dinosaurs and reptiles. Apart from the pubic bone pointing backwards, the entire structure of the Archeopterix pelvis is mostly dinosaurian, including the pelvic "peduncle" (I had to look that word up.) which is a very prominent feature in such dinosaurs as the Tyrannosaurus. There are more reptilian/dinosaurian features on Archeopterix than there are Avian features, and to me the most interesting fact is that the Archeopterix had teeth. When was the last time you saw a bird with teeth? But then, when was the last time you saw a reptile with feathers? It is clearly a transitional.
Another common argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features, This is also used by people trying to prove irreducable complexity. It is true, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to a wing, for example, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings often still retain all of these functions, while also being used for active flight.
While Archeopterix is the most cited transitional form, it is not the only one. An extremely interesting set of fossils links the modern whale with a land-dwelling ancestor. Finding the land-going ancestors of the whale was anticipated by scientists using the precepts of ToE, which shows that the theory has predictive value. The same is true with horses and the Hyracotherium. It was predicted in the 1800's that a small ancestor to the horse would be discovered in the early Eocene Epoch. It was named Eohippus, or " Dawn Horse" This is something that "Creation Science" could never do. Since it is not a valid scientific theory no predictions could be made from it.
As I pointed out in my above post, all living organisms are in fact to be regarded as intermediate, transitional forms when they are compared to some other related life-form. there are many species alive today that can be considered to be transitional between two or more groups. We have found fossils showing the transition from fish to amphibian. The time when this transition should have occurred is known, so finding these fossils was only a matter of looking for the right kind of rock formation (i.e. a sedimentary rock formation from the right time period) and start looking for fossils. They found fossils that shared traits of both fish and amphibians. Evolution has predictive value as any rigorous explanation of natural phenomenon should.
the platypus is an intermediate form between reptiles and mammals because it retains certain reptilian traits no longer found in modern mammals and also possesses traits of a highly specialized aquatic animal, and it is alive today.
.