-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .
- Thread starter Jared Jammer
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
Thus you reveal your blatant ignorance of internet forums.
Sad really, that you are so proud of your blatant ignorances.
I am left to wonder if you even know just how ignorant you sound.
"common logic"?
Please start using some.
Your continued reliance on lies, dishonesty and misinformation in order to hold onto your faith.....I see that none of you can answer the simple questions that I have posed thus far. You can provide us with disgruntled words and ruffled feathers but you all know that you have no absolute "proof" of your beliefs about evolution at all. Protesting that educated guessing is science "fact" is dishonest. Can you not just admit that the conclusions of the evolutionary scientists are "assumptions" based on what they "believe" happened.....is it really all that hard?
outhouse
Atheistically
Because you keep promoting your fanaticism, and you keep fighting credible education taught worldwide as fact.
Why you hate academia so much?
outhouse
Atheistically
Agreed.
gnostic
The Lost One
What are you talking about?
Do you mean "something" coming from nothing?
If there are nothing there, then there is nothing.
What I am saying is that - nothing = nothing. Can nothing come out of nothing? You betcha!
But if you are saying that something come out of nothing, then that's a different matter.
What do you mean by "pre-existing life"?
If you are talking about "spirit", then I would have to say there are no such thing as spirit, and you can't provide any evidence to support the existence of "spirit".
But if you talking about pre-existing life, then (pre-existing) daddy-bear mate with (pre-existing) mama-bear, to make baby-bear (ie. new life), then sure.
Evolution is about life making life; because there would ancestors and descendants. And ANCESTORS are not "NOTHING".
Evolution is not about non-life making life, because that's a different subject to evolution; this is abiogenesis, using inorganic matter into organic life.
But even then, abiogenesis is not about life being made out of NOTHING. Abiogenesis is about how SOMETHING-NOT-LIVING to SOMETHING-THAT'S-LIVING. Inorganic matters are not "nothing".
Again, I think you don't really no what you are talking about.
Last edited:
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
LOL, are you seriously this pedantic about all words, or just mine?
I think you know what I meant.
It is what science knows for a fact....all life springs from pre-existing life....not exactly rocket science, is it?
I don't recall mentioning "spirit" at all.
Hooray!!!! Success at last! life comes from life...it doesn't just appear out of nowhere.
I think we have already established that some pages ago.
Abiogenesis is about how life began. Science would have us believe that "life" came magically out of nowhere. Yet no scientist has ever produced life from non living matter. Can science really define what "life" is? They can fiddle with life and alter things genetically, but they cannot produce "life" itself. Only the Creator can do that.
Since abiogenesis is a relatively open subject that does not entirely discount the existence of an intelligent progenitor of all life, then what would happen to evolution if a Creator actually made his existence apparent? What difference would it make to those who roundly deny the possibility of the existence of such a being? I have never been able to do that. Everything points to purposeful design, not things that result from blind random chance.
Evolution is based on assumption by interpreting "evidence" found in the fossil record and the study of genetics.
Why is it that no one can admit that they are not scientific "facts"? These are science "assumptions". Using the same criteria applied to us....wanting to believe something, doesn't make it true.
Actually I know more of what you all are talking about than you think...I just can't swallow it.
I have read many things about evolution, watched videos and documentaries and I see what you all apparently choose not to see. None so blind is how it appears ......but that is just my opinion. You say the same about me.
1 Cor 2:12-15....."Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit that is from God, so that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God. These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we explain spiritual matters with spiritual words.
But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man."
I read scriptures like this and understand why you cannot see what is plainly obvious to us.
outhouse
Atheistically
Unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Abiogenesis can be a form of simple chemistry that takes about a half million years with he right environment.
outhouse
Atheistically
You blindly place religion before factual academia.
That is what makes fanaticism and fundamentalism so terrible.
gnostic
The Lost One
Isn't that what creationists believe, that god make everything out of nothing? By just saying the magic word, there is "light"?
Light required a source for light; it doesn't just appear because some imaginary deity say "Let there be light", and then poof, light appeared.
It say that this light is what separate light from darkness, day from night, morning from evening, and yet there are no Sun for 3 consecutive days, and yet there are 3 days of "evening and morning".
How can there be morning, without the Sun?
Then there's whole nonsense, that from dust of the earth, hence soil. Dust is not life. Dust is lifeless waste. Humans were never made out of dust, soil or clay. We not a bloody seed to sprout magically from the ground. So how can dust formed a human being?
In Genesis 1, humans came out of nothing, but in Genesis 2, it came from the ground, without reproduction and without birth. One moment it is dust, then the next moment, a fully grown human being, already with the ability to think and have knowledge, without learning. That's a myth.
Genesis 1 & 2 have nothing to do with biology or chemistry, but imaginary God do everything.
The most basic building block of life, is amino acid, which is the molecule that make up what in DNA, RNA and proteins. The chemistry is there, so it didn't simply magically appear out of nowhere or out of nothing.
Soil is mainly inorganic matters of weathered rocks and mineral. The organic part of soil, come from animals' excrement, decomposed bodies, dead plant life, etc, none of which happened in the 1st 6 day of creation, unless this non-existent god magically put organic matters into the soils.
You believe in make-believe book, which has no bearing on life, nature and physical reality.
Life didn't come out of no where. Not even abiogenesis say that life on earth came from nowhere or from nothing. If you bother to pick some science books or journals, read them and understand them, you would know that you would realize that you are dishonestly making things up that you have no understanding.You are keep attacking strawman, not understanding science at all.
Your dishonesty and bias is what keep you from really learning what science is actually saying, but you are more content is spreading misinformation in the science you don't understand.
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
Creationists may believe that. I don't know.
Those that believe in a more balanced approach to creation believe that all life stems from life. The one source being that deity you consider imaginary. Likewise light or energy comes from him as he is the source of all energy.
With you is the source of life;
By your light we can see light.
- Psalm 36:9
gnostic
The Lost One
I am engineer, not a scientist, and nothing I learned in physics and chemistry say anything about god, so why should biochemistry of abiogenesis even consider "god"?
Why should either abiogenesis or evolution mention god, when other fields and branches of science need god or religion? Why singled out abiogenesis and evolution to be the exceptions?
When I was studied background in physics and chemistry for civil engineering course, I didn't require to pray god that my design would work or ask god to design it for me. When I was studying foundation for buildings or bridges building, I learn geology, from materials available to me, not from the bible.
The existence of god is irrelevant.
When I changed my career, and went back to university to study computer science, not of the subjects required to know if god exist or not, because he is bloody irrelevant, and praying to god or reading the gospels or Genesis, would in no way aid me in my studies.
Just as science, engineering and mathematics don't require the belief in god, so why should evolution or abiogenesis?
Would praying or reading Genesis help anyone understand biology or biochemistry any better? Is God relevant? If God is relevant to biology, then where in this so-called Good Book, does it teach me, biology? How about Earth science? Can I learn anything from the bible about what the Earth is made out of or how it was formed? Does God teach me anything about astronomy or physical cosmology?
No, JayJayDee. God is not apparent anywhere, except in your imagination and delusion.
gnostic
The Lost One
So God is light?
If that's the case, then why in 7-bloody-hell would God need to create "light" in the first place?
You are not making any sense.
Does light need to create light?
Energy required a source, that usually come from mass or some particles. But according to what the church have taught me God is spirit, and spirit being "incorporeal", means that God have no body, no substance, no matter, therefore God has no mass?
But from what I learn from science, mass and energy are related. And this is true in the well-known relativity equation by Einstein:
E = m c^2
where E = energy
m= mass
c = constant of speed of light
c = constant of speed of light
How can something (like God) that have no mass, have energy?
So this God can't be the sources of all energy.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
And you expect us to believe that god just sprung from nowhere - because for some unimaginable reason you actually think a god popping out of nowhere is more likely than life emerging naturally. We are left to imagine how that makes sense to you.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Now here is the classic..."you don't understand science" man revealing that he knows nothing about creation. If you are going to debunk creation, at least have some idea about what the Bible teaches regarding it.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".....Big Bang? The "heavens" would include all the universe and he specifically talks about the earth, because this is where he was first going to create life.
2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters. 3 And God said: “Let there be light.” Then there was light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day." (Gen 1:1-5)
Read the words.....the earth was formless and waste and no light penetrated to the earth's surface from any existing light source. When God said "let there be light" he was merely indicating that light now penetrated the darkness, perhaps by removing a thick cloud layer, and was now visible on earth's surface.
Your assumptive deductions might work for evolution, but the Bible speaks for itself.
Light, perhaps in a diffused form was now visible, where it had not been visible before. There was no imaginary deity making light magically appear. The Creator was preparing the earth for habitation. Light is required for life. God is spoken of as "the source of life" as Kolibri has mentioned.
The creative "days" we're not 24 literal hours in length. The term "day" in the Bible means more than a 24 hour period.
Evening and morning simply means the beginning and ending of the creative period. We ourselves use the term "dawn of a new era" or "in my grandfather's day"....we are not talking about literal days there.
The sun was there along with all the other "stars" as part of the heavens, so was the moon. They were just not clearly visible.
We have mornings without sun when it is raining. We can't see the sun, but we see the light.
The elements of the earth are what we are made of...even science knows this.
This is not what the Bible says at all. Adam was not formed with knowledge installed as if he was somehow programmed like a computer. For a very long time, God educated Adam and he was assigned to name the creatures he shared life with on this planet. As family head, it was Adam's job to educate his wife, just as his Creator had educated him. The first humans were created to reproduce their "kind", like all other life forms on earth.
He is only imaginary to those who are unbelievers. He will not reveal himself to those who are certain that they have no need of him. The truth is...he has no need of them. He will not force you to believe in him. He gives you the choice to learn the truth or to reject it.
But this is what evolution teaches.....that life sprang out of nowhere and magically became all the forms of life we see on this planet through blind undirected chance. There is not one shred of solid evidence that this is what happened. It is assumed by those who wish to promote their theory.
By the time living things appeared, grass and other vegetation was already provided in abundance. The Creator knows how to plant and grow the things he created.
I believe that the "book" contains more answers about the origin of life than any man-made, unsubstantiated theory.
You can reject it if you like.
I understand enough to know that the science books and journals are all the same. They all use the same terminology which betrays the fact that they have no evidence apart from what they deduce from that evidence. There are no "facts"...but lots of supposition. Please produce some evidence to the contrary. Show proof that one creature evolved into another completely different creature. It is assumed..."believed" that this took place.
You yourself are spreading misinformation about creation. All I have ever asked is that evolutionists admit that their theory is just that...an unprovable theory. They promote and teach evolution as "fact" to children, when it is actually dishonest to do that.
Teaching both creation and evolution in schools will allow kids to make up their own minds without making those with spiritual values out to be morons. We are not unintelligent nor are we uneducated.....we are believers, with as much right to hold our views as you do.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
”half million years”? You’re not talking about 14C dating, are you?
outhouse
Atheistically
Wow your post mirrors exactly what you complain about. You still don't have any evidence for your mythology do you? Is tat what all this complaining is really about?
If you have not figured it out, there is no debate or arguement.
Evolution is fact, it snot up for debate.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Replacing one logical fallacy with another doesn't make them a positive.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Evolution says nothing whatsoever about how life first appeared. It could have been through abiogenesis, panspermia, or even the intervention of a supernatural intelligence. It makes no difference. All evolution states is that all species that currently exist are a result of natural selective pressures (amongst other selective factors) on mutations within populations of living organisms, and thus all life shares a common ancestry.
The fossil record clearly shows a progression from simple, unicellular life forms through to modern species laid out in perfect succession through the geological strata. If you do not believe that evolution is the best explanation for this demonstrable phenomena, then you must believe that within every hundred thousand years or so every species spontaneously dies out and is magically replaced by another, very similar, species that came out of nowhere that just so happens to resemble a both a creature that came before it and a species that came after it for no reason at all. The DNA evidence shows ERV inserts and genetic similarities which scientists believe is conclusive evidence on its own that common ancestry can be considered a fact. The only other explanation for DNA to be similar or contain ERV inserts in the same locations across related species is a chance so improbable that it goes beyond any reasonable doubt.
Anyone who says "there is no a shred of evidence" for evolution simply has never looked for any, or otherwise cannot bare to admit it.
You do realise that plants and grass are living things too, right?
Also, do you have absolutely any evidence for this? When did the first plants appear in relation to the first animals?
See above.
Also, YOU CONTINUE TO USE THE WORD "PROOF" DESPITE IT BEING EXPLAINED AT LENGTH, AND WITH RELEVANT REFERENCES, THAT THE WORD - AND THE CONCEPT - OF PROOF DO NOT EXIST IN SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Please write that sentence down and either stick it to you computer screen via a sticky-note, so you can stop embarrassing yourself.
Evolution is science, and should be taught as such. Creationism is not science, and should not be taught as such. The teaching of evolution in no way makes people with spiritual values "out to be morons", as you assert, and frankly that assertion just demonstrates your own personal agenda in this.
Sure. But you don't have the right to your own facts, and you don't have the right to declare your beliefs as equal to the most widely accepted and credible theory in any scientific field. While you may be an intelligent person, you are clearly woefully ignorant of science. You do not understand the theory of evolution, general biology, the notion of academic honesty, or even basic scientific terminology. Do you honestly think that it is you who should be the one dictating what is and isn't taught in science lessons when you fail to grasp so many of the concepts involved?