[_ Old Earth _] Evolutıon????

[ahmetcelik]

I’m asking for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Many top scientists agree

From microbiology to astronomy, hundreds of top scientists - MSc/PhD level - find so much evidence of Intelligent Design that they reject the atheism of their education & worship the Almighty Creator

I just have 10 minutes, so I'll recommend the excellent 16-page A4 size magazine, "Design Revolution" from New Life Publishing, Nottingham

It sprang from public response to last autumn's lecture tour, "Darwin Revisited", by Prof Phil Johnson & Dr Adrian Snelling, & has been featured in Elim's Direction Magazine & AoG's Joy Magazine & others

I subsequently read both The Revised & Expanded Answers Book, & Refuting Evolution 2, by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, published by http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org - who also produce Creation Magazine

A comprehensive menu of very readable & informative articles is @ http://www.creationism.org

Briefly, there are MILLIONS of missing links, at every so-called step of the so-called evolutionary ladder

The fact we can so clearly distinguish not only dog from fox from wolf, but even King Charles Spaniel from Cocker, for example, shows each species of life to be Designer made by the Most Brilliant Brain ever

No 2 snowflakes are identical; no 2 grains of sand are either - the Almighty Creator is abundant in His creativity

Small wonder that Romans 1:20 says that no-one has any excuse for ignoring God, just from creation alone!

Must go!

 

[Quid]

Evolution =/= the origins of life.

 

[peace4all]

I’m asking for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer.

so.. how did god get here?



here is the problem.

neither evolution OR intelligent design can say exactly what started teh process off.

evolution says "well, there was the whole random combination of molecules..."

well where did the molecules coem from?


ID says
"god did it"

where did god come from?

neither group can answer those 2 questions.. However, evolution uses science to prove parts of the theory correct, or, incorrect, so it can be mended until we find the right answer.

 

[Quid]

evolution says "well, there was the whole random combination of molecules..."

Evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species.

You'll note in the definition it doesn't state how evolution began.

 

[Quath]

You also have to remember what science's goal is. It tried to find the best models. This does not mean "truth."

So we do not have to understand the quantum theory of gravity to use Newton's theory of gravity. Newton's theory works very well as a model for gravitation under certain limits. However, Newton's theory may not be truth. Angels could be responsible for keeping things attracted to each other. However, the best model at this point is to assume particles or geometric curvature is what causes gravity.

Likewise, the first self replicating molecule is research in a different area of biology or chemistry.

Quath

 

[peace4all]

evolution says "well, there was the whole random combination of molecules..."

Evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species.

You'll note in the definition it doesn't state how evolution began.

that was my point.

the definition of evolution doesnt state how thigns are created....

neither does the bible.


the bible says" everything came from god" but where did god come from?

thats the problem..

 

[Quid]

My concern is you believe the theory of evolution includes "there was the whole random combination of molecules...".

 

[Solo]

Physical Science is at detrimental capacity within itself as it is finite in its objective attention as it only observes that which operates within the physical realm. It completely negates and ignores any possibilities beyond the vision of a finite creature making the observations. Physical Science is not holistic in its approach to reality as it ignores the metaphysical portion of existence, and has been falsely passed on to society as being totally comprehensive in knowing that which is.

Science which includes the additional portion of life called the spiritual is more complete with a wisdom and understanding that goes beyond a "flat earth" mentality, and expands into the horizon of spiritual consciousness in the realm that Physical Science is blinded to.

Belief and Faith play an intergal role in Complete Science as it understands the limitations of the physical, and is assured of the spiritual.

Faith is defined in the Word of God as, "... [F]aith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" Hebrews 11:1-3

The author of the heavens and the earth has not only given man the physical realm as evidence of His glory, but He has also given man the Spirit of God to know the spiritual. Where Physical Science ignores the spiritual realm of man's existence, so to the physical man ignores the spiritual realm of man's existence. Physical Science and Physical Man are lacking from a complete understanding of reality and the holistic environment created by the Creator.

 

[Barbarian]

Haven't seen that ploy tried in a long time.

Never works very well.

"You have to believe what I say you have to believe, and it's false!"

Funny.

 

[Quath]

Physical science does not address the spiritual. However, it does address the places where the spiritual and physical cross over. So if the brain is governed by the spiritual, then we should find spiritual receptors in the brain. If statues bleed blood, then we can perform DNA analysis on the blood or measure the force the blood is pushed out. If someone walks on water, we can measure the force against the water and on the air.

Quath

 

[NOTW]

I’m asking for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer.

so.. how did god get here?



here is the problem.

neither evolution OR intelligent design can say exactly what started teh process off.

evolution says "well, there was the whole random combination of molecules..."

well where did the molecules coem from?


ID says
"god did it"

where did god come from?




Peaceforall, i think you'll find this interesting.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Gramma ... t/bet.html


For a clearer very detailed audio version of the above, plus some other excellent points of interest regarding the beginning, go to http://www.ccphilly.org

Click on the tab online audio, and then verse by verse listen now. Click on genesis 1:1 and listen.

Peace to you also,
NOTW................

 

[Barbarian]

I’m asking for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot.

:-D

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

What if you just build a series of basements?

At any rate, in response to Solo:

Unless you are willing to say you have quantifiable and undeniable access to a realm that no other human has access to, or that no scientist can reasonably be able to access in any way, then you don't have any knowledge of what may lie beyond the realm of things which are observable.
There is an epistemic problem with you saying that such a realm exists at all. Saying that there should be a "Complete Science" that mixes spirituality and empirical evidence is facetious and pointless. Science deals with things we can know or more precisely that we can be assured of a reasonable probability of knowing. Because you cannot assume any error less than infinite when dealing with anything beyond your ability to make observations, you cannot make any definite remarks one way or another.

Your system of spirituality is limited in the fact that there are plenty of other people who have different and contradictory ideas about realms beyond observation. We can all say that we perceive there to be some form of objective reality about ourselves. We can all say that there appear to be machines that allow highspeed and precise calculation and computation that are connected via a vast network and allow for the transmission of verbally formatted ideas. This is a metaphysical fact, there are some metaphysicians who might argue with whether or not our perception of reality refers to reality, or solipsists who would argue that we're all just figments of their imagination.(I should say solipsist, as it would be against the philosophy to say that there are other solipsists) But that brings me to my point, you've got some idea of an unobserved realm that you feel ought to be taken into account by science, but you demand at the same time that it cannot in any way interact with what we percieve to be real. This quite simply makes any and all research into the subject pointless.

 

[Solo]

What if you just build a series of basements?

At any rate, in response to Solo:

Unless you are willing to say you have quantifiable and undeniable access to a realm that no other human has access to, or that no scientist can reasonably be able to access in any way, then you don't have any knowledge of what may lie beyond the realm of things which are observable.
There is an epistemic problem with you saying that such a realm exists at all. Saying that there should be a "Complete Science" that mixes spirituality and empirical evidence is facetious and pointless. Science deals with things we can know or more precisely that we can be assured of a reasonable probability of knowing. Because you cannot assume any error less than infinite when dealing with anything beyond your ability to make observations, you cannot make any definite remarks one way or another.

Your system of spirituality is limited in the fact that there are plenty of other people who have different and contradictory ideas about realms beyond observation. We can all say that we perceive there to be some form of objective reality about ourselves. We can all say that there appear to be machines that allow highspeed and precise calculation and computation that are connected via a vast network and allow for the transmission of verbally formatted ideas. This is a metaphysical fact, there are some metaphysicians who might argue with whether or not our perception of reality refers to reality, or solipsists who would argue that we're all just figments of their imagination.(I should say solipsist, as it would be against the philosophy to say that there are other solipsists) But that brings me to my point, you've got some idea of an unobserved realm that you feel ought to be taken into account by science, but you demand at the same time that it cannot in any way interact with what we percieve to be real. This quite simply makes any and all research into the subject pointless.

Just as Physical Science is cluttered with hoaxes, counterfeits, and pseudo observations, which is contractory to the true reality, so too can Complete Science experience the same in the Spiritual realm. The truth of the matter is, that there is undeniable access to the Spiritual realm. It is just that those who refuse to enter in are placated with a short-sighted view of reality, and the Science that they accept is lacking since they have bought into reality with a finite perception of truth.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

So you are saying you have an infinite perception of truth and the ability to parse true ideas about this spiritual realm you claim to have access to from false ideas. I find this to be unreliable, there is no reason for me to believe you rather than a Hindi mystic or an Incan priest or Plato when asking questions about this so-called realm.
Here is the logical quandry you are forcing scientists to just jump over and into your camp but which we are unwilling to do unless you can solve for us the problem of Buridan's ass. Imagine a donkey standing equidistant between two perfect bales of hay, both utterly perfect in every way imaginable yet it is impossible for the donkey to eat both. So the donkey must choose. The answer is that if the donkey is being forced to choose between one or the other it would invariably starve right between them.

So here is science, at the center of a circle of mystics, each of which with different ideas about this that or the other having to do with an unobservable world. Science may say well aren't all those ideas neat. But science cannot choose any of them, cannot assent to any spiritual philosophy no matter how vehemently the mystics demand that it choose their own. Science has no reason to believe you over the myriad or more who have other ideas, and because you cannot make any empirical observations about your realm(QED) you cannot convince science of the necessity of your view over another.

I also disagree with your assesment of physical science as hoax ridden. Science has a method of parsing truth from fiction by making any claim subjected to impartial testing. When everybody gets the answers that coincide with the predicted answers then science moves forward. I ask you to provide proof of this dearth of rigor that you suggest.

 

[NOTW]

How do we account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?" Anyone want to talk about the mover? Or the unmoved mover?

The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God.
God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.
The are absolute because there is an absolute God.
The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.


Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD

 

[Quath]

You are asserting that God creates the laws of logic. So if God did not exist, there would be no logic. How can you prove that?

It is like saying that 2+2=4 is due to God and if God did not exist, 2+2 could equal to 5 or 100.

This just seems all made up to me.

Quath

 

[ThinkerMan]

Perhaps Quath or Syntax could better articulate this, but to claim that there are "logical absolutes" ignores quantum mechanics, in which uncertainty, not certainly, plays the dominant role.

God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.

If that is true, God is a capricious fellow, given the dymanics of quantum uncertainty.

 

[reznwerks]

I’m asking for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer.

How can you teach ID when you can't even locate or even confirm a creator exits? That would be the first task and the second task is to determine if and when a creator is found that he(she) actually did in fact want to create the earth and man. Wouldn't it be funny if God said we just happened to occur in something he created? It would be kind of and offshoot of what happens in R/D. As to answering your quest for a logical answer does the default to "God did it" a logical answer? Is it logical to assume that a creator did everthing when he can't be determined to exist. Isn't it more logical to continue to look at the "hard evidence" and to link the many tests that confirm the "theory" is correct rather than to ignore what is there and default to "God of the gaps" as a solution to unanswered questions. You have to realize that some questions are not now answered and some questions may not ever be answered. This does not mean that evolution is in error and does not mean that a God exists.