Some questions about evolution.

[tumbleweed41]

I do appreciate your comments. However, I don't agree with them. Whatever you call a law, it is still a law. And laws require a lawgiver. Period.

A Scientific Law is a statement of fact that describes an action or set of actions that occur naturally. It is not a decree stated by some "lawgiver", be it Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu or the Amazing Pink Unicorn.

 

[rusra02]

A Scientific Law is a statement of fact that describes an action or set of actions that occur naturally. It is not a decree stated by some "lawgiver", be it Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu or the Amazing Pink Unicorn.

"a set of actions that occur naturally." That rolls trippingly off the tongue but what does "naturally" really mean? Are you using 'naturally' as a synonym for 'by chance'?
To paraphrase, all laws of the universe just ...'happened'. The water cycle, the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle, weather, the tilt of the earth,.. just occurred 'naturally'? The intricate machinery of life was guided by 'natural selection' and mutations? The facts argue otherwise. No wonder evolutionists attack so vociferously any who question their theory. The evidence supports the Bible's simple but profound statement: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

 

[rusra02]

What you saying here is that things happen in the material world (cause and effect) and therefore God (the cause of all causes and effects) is like the material world. But the contingent world doesn't have to exist (no contradiction involved) and therefore, according to your argument, neither does God!

No I didn't say that God is like the material world, you did. God is a Spirit. The Bible says concerning God: "Before the mountains themselves were born, Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God." (Psalm 90:2) The Bible states that God had no beginning and will never have an end. Revelation 15:3 calls Jehovah the King of eternity. Can anyone explain how someone or something can be infinite? No. But we know of things that are,or appear to be. Time, space, numbers.
The promise God made of everlasting life for those who do his will would be a hollow promise if God could not deliver on it. (John 3:16)
There must eventually be a Source, a first Cause for the universe. As men learn more about the cell and DNA, the astounding complexity and brilliant engineering of these become more evident, and the more difficult for ToE proponents to explain away by evolutionary processes. No wonder that famed atheist Antony Flew, after studying DNA, began to express belief in some intelligent cause of life.

 

[rusra02]

LuisDantas isn't actually claiming that a bacterium came about by random chance.
There is a big step from molecules to bacteria.

And why 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000 zeros exactly?

Whether we talk of molecules or bacteria the fundamental question remains. Can random chance account for all the life we see around us, every day?

The calculations are not mine, but do reveal the impossibility of life arising by 'natural selection' or 'mutation's. There gets to be a point where it just ain't possible... and that point is far less than 1 to the 100,000,000th power in my opinion. Now we're talking in terms of mythology and science fiction, not facts.

 

[rusra02]

Okay then. Name one physical law of the Universe and demonstrate that it was made by an intelligent agency.

If you can't do that, then your assumption is baseless.

First, prove to me that a rock with the name JOHN JONES - 1763 was created by an intelligent agency...

 

[rusra02]

Then it should be easy for you to prove this. I defy you to prove that all laws require a lawgiver.




Prove that the law of gravitation requires someone to establish it. Even if it was an effect in need of a cause, prove that the cause is a "someone" as opposed to a "something".

You say "stuff just doesn't happen". I'm not clear as to what you mean by this.

I never said that houses build themselves. You say that the universe didn't "build itself". How would someone like myself be able to infer that the universe is designed? I haven't seen enough designed universes and opposed to nondesigned universes to demarcate the difference(s). But since you're arguing that the universe is designed, what does it have that makes it an object of design as opposed to a universe that wasn't?

I honestly don't know how someone like yourself would be able to infer that the universe is designed.

 

[johnhanks]

The calculations are not mine...

No, you have merely swallowed them unquestioningly. They have been refuted several times over in posts above.

, but do reveal the impossibility of life arising by 'natural selection' or 'mutation's...

No, they reveal the impossibility of some imaginary event that forms no part of any theory of abiogenesis or evolution.

 

[cottage]

No I didn't say that God is like the material world, you did. God is a Spirit. The Bible says concerning God: "Before the mountains themselves were born, Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God." (Psalm 90:2) The Bible states that God had no beginning and will never have an end. Revelation 15:3 calls Jehovah the King of eternity. Can anyone explain how someone or something can be infinite? No. But we know of things that are,or appear to be. Time, space, numbers.
The promise God made of everlasting life for those who do his will would be a hollow promise if God could not deliver on it. (John 3:16)
There must eventually be a Source, a first Cause for the universe. As men learn more about the cell and DNA, the astounding complexity and brilliant engineering of these become more evident, and the more difficult for ToE proponents to explain away by evolutionary processes. No wonder that famed atheist Antony Flew, after studying DNA, began to express belief in some intelligent cause of life.

With respect, your argument is that God created the universe, and causation is a feature of the material world.
So where there are only two possibilities, in this case a self-existent world or a created world, only one of the possibilities can be true, and the most reasonable explanation will be the acceptable one. Which, then, is the more likely or reasonable – a world that we agree exists, in which cause and effect is a known phenomenon, or a supposed external source that is assumed to have those same features of our known world, upon which the theist must depend in order to argue for what is claimed? Both hypotheses can be denied without contradiction, and so neither of them is demonstrably true, but I contend that my argument is the more reasonable. For if the universe is necessary, then God is not. And while we cannot of course demonstrate that the universe is necessary, we know for certain that it exists, but in the case of God we have no such assurance.

Heat, precipitation, oxygen and nitrogen etc supply our needs for life; objects degrade and die and new objects appear from the old constituents and then grow to maturity, ensuring the continuity and the cyclical balance of life. So the undeniable fact is that the universe exists as a sustaining power. Why then is it necessary to look for a further sustaining power? And why should the physical world be created? That last point is known as the argument from sufficient reason. A self-existent world doesn’t require an explanation or need a reason for being, but if a thing is created there must be a reason or a purpose for its creation. So…what is it?

 

[tumbleweed41]

"a set of actions that occur naturally." That rolls trippingly off the tongue but what does "naturally" really mean? Are you using 'naturally' as a synonym for 'by chance'?
To paraphrase, all laws of the universe just ...'happened'. The water cycle, the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle, weather, the tilt of the earth,.. just occurred 'naturally'? The intricate machinery of life was guided by 'natural selection' and mutations? The facts argue otherwise. No wonder evolutionists attack so vociferously any who question their theory. The evidence supports the Bible's simple but profound statement: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

Try not to confuse "chance" or "random" with the natural progression of things.

 

[Matthew78]

I honestly don't know how someone like yourself would be able to infer that the universe is designed.

I don't know how I could, either. And I doubt you do, as well. In order to infer that something is designed, I argue, you need a sufficient enough sample size of designed objects and nondesigned objections to note the differences. With the universe, we would have to exist outside of the universe to be able to infer that it's designed. We would have to exist outside of the universe and compare it to other universes.

I believe that the argument from design can only apply to living organisms so far. I could be wrong about this.

(Correction: in a previous post, I stated..."designed universes and opposed to.." which should have read "designed universes as opposed to..." My apologies for the error)

 

[rusra02]

With respect, your argument is that God created the universe, and causation is a feature of the material world.
So where there are only two possibilities, in this case a self-existent world or a created world, only one of the possibilities can be true, and the most reasonable explanation will be the acceptable one. Which, then, is the more likely or reasonable – a world that we agree exists, in which cause and effect is a known phenomenon, or a supposed external source that is assumed to have those same features of our known world, upon which the theist must depend in order to argue for what is claimed? Both hypotheses can be denied without contradiction, and so neither of them is demonstrably true, but I contend that my argument is the more reasonable. For if the universe is necessary, then God is not. And while we cannot of course demonstrate that the universe is necessary, we know for certain that it exists, but in the case of God we have no such assurance.

Heat, precipitation, oxygen and nitrogen etc supply our needs for life; objects degrade and die and new objects appear from the old constituents and then grow to maturity, ensuring the continuity and the cyclical balance of life. So the undeniable fact is that the universe exists as a sustaining power. Why then is it necessary to look for a further sustaining power? And why should the physical world be created? That last point is known as the argument from sufficient reason. A self-existent world doesn’t require an explanation or need a reason for being, but if a thing is created there must be a reason or a purpose for its creation. So…what is it?

There is a reason and purpose for the creation of the universe. Our Creator has told us what this is. "For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the true God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited." (Isaiah 45:18)
God gave Adam and Eve stewardship over the earth, telling them to "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)
He gave them a beautiful garden home as a starting point to expand into a global place of peace and beauty. They and their offspring would enjoy life without end and continue to worship the One who so blessed them.
Since this is God's purpose, it will be accomplished. Despite the actions of wicked men and the Devil, God will see that his original purpose is carried out regarding the earth. (Revelation 21:1-4) Love is what motivated God to form this purpose.
(1 John 4:8)

​

​

 

[tumbleweed41]

There is a reason and purpose for the creation of the universe. Our Creator has told us what this is. "For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the true God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited." (Isaiah 45:18)
God gave Adam and Eve stewardship over the earth, telling them to "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)
He gave them a beautiful garden home as a starting point to expand into a global place of peace and beauty. They and their offspring would enjoy life without end and continue to worship the One who so blessed them.
Since this is God's purpose, it will be accomplished. Despite the actions of wicked men and the Devil, God will see that his original purpose is carried out regarding the earth. (Revelation 21:1-4) Love is what motivated God to form this purpose.
(1 John 4:8)

Yes! Preach it! And while we are at it, let's debunk this sun as the center of the solar system nonsense with some well chosen Bible verses too.


Joshua 10:12-14


12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 14And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.


Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Psalm 104:5
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

1 Chronicles 16:30
Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.