Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him

[Suicide Junkie]

What evidence can you provide to prove your your hypothesis? In your evolutionist point of view, how did all that is get here? How do you explain irreducible complexity in relation to forms of life? Can you tell me how is it possible that they could have come about? What about the utter lack of intermediate forms, which should be superabundant, given the amount of time and fossils which have been uncovered? Or the fact that even given the greatest possible amount of time, the radical changes from one type to another are impossible?

1) Reams of results from archaeology, biology, physics and everywhere.
2) It starts with a large star. Star goes nova, generating heavy elements. Heavy elements are mixed into galactic gas, from which Sol & system forms. Add energy indirectly from Sol, in various forms, and relatively complex molecules form. You roll the dice in billions of places for ages, and you get the jackpot of a simple self replicating molecule. Then it really starts steamrolling.
3) Quite simply, its not.
4) Too vague.
5) See Zeno's paradox, and quit your silly recursion.

[gbrutt]

Perhaps they seem ridiculous, as they are lifted out of context without any backround or explanation. A tenent of basic Bible study is that, �A text without a context is a pretext.� The Bible is never meant to be taken as some pretty, sanitized look at what we want life to be. It is life and death and war and love. There are songs and psalms, history, battle accounts, science and every other imaginable detail that God wants us to know. That is why it resonates with such force. Lewis Sperry Chafer said this about the Bible, �It is not such a book as man would write if he could, because it condemns him, or could write if he would, because it surpasses him.� There are details in it that are disturbing and difficult to explain, but they are hardly ridiculous. Read the Scriptures yet again, my friend.

As to your comments on the issue of prebiological evolution, there is still too much- perhaps, maybe, kinda- in the pro-evolutionist posts to even pretend that it is rooted in science. The sticking point of this is the fact that there has never been a way for Darwinists to explain how life got started in the first place. It is one thing to say that this is what could have happened, given the right conditions. It is quite another to show that it did happen, let alone how it happened. That is precisely what evolution cannot do; prove any of its claims. The Miller-Urey experiment of the 50�s showed all too well the fact that even under controlled conditions, all you end up with is a dirty glass beaker, not life.

The software analogy doesn�t work, not because I do not understand programming, but because the analogy is faulty. Even if it is a simulation of evolution it is not evolution. First, because it is only a simulation of what someone thinks might have occurred, given the properly staged conditions. Second, evolution is at best a philosophy. In desperation, some cling to this old and unproven theory and look in vain for anything to support their hope of random order derived from nothingness. Lacking this, as all evolutionists do, they go to any and every concievable extreme to cling to their beloved �faith�. Such are men like Eldredge and his admission that, �We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports the story of gradual adaptive change, all the while really knowing that it does not.� Better still is Francis Crick and his �directional Pan-spermia� theory. He believed that aliens seeded our planet. Isn�t this the humanist equivalent of a miracle? At its worst it all smacks of a bizarre form of pseudo-religion, with all the trappings and none of the content.

Consider this for a moment. If what you and others believe is true, that we are nothing more than accidental groupings of molecules, what is the purpose to life? What ultimate meaning and reason do you have for your existence? Does your faith in nothingness and chance give you comfort at the end of the day? Does it lead you to strive for excellence in all that you do? That�s not the answer given in the Bible. Man is made in the image and likeness of God. Each and every man has great worth in God�s eyes. We can choose to ignore the truth, or look into it for ourselves and see if these things are not so. I leave you with the words of the Apostle Paul.

�Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:� Romans 1:19, 20

[Instar]

I tried my best to explain it, but I guess it wasn't good enough. You failed to understand, which is partly my fault, but I guess you didn't want to understand, either.
The evolutionary algorithm analogy IS relevant. Self-modifying programs can create concepts similar to what we see today: a diversity of life, natural selection, and so on. Of course, I'm just repeating myself.

"that we are nothing more than accidental groupings of molecules"
Accidental? Hardly, evolution can explain where we came from, and study into the first life forms can find that origin. Study of astrophysics tells us that everything seems to have come from the Big Bang.
"what is the purpose to life?"
Why must there be one?
"Better still is Francis Crick and his �directional Pan-spermia� theory"
His ideas are NOT representative of the whole. Just as I cannot judge you by the words of Anne Coulter ("Hang all liberals from lampposts" and "Forcibly convert muslims to christianity"). Anne Coulter is a horrible person (specifically, she is ethnocentric, racist, and suggesting mass homicide).
"Does your faith in nothingness"
Who said I have faith in nothingness? I have faith in myself, in science, and other things. I think you're just tossing an emotionally loaded and vague term around here.
"Does it lead you to strive for excellence in all that you do?"
In fact, yes. I strive to be the best person I can be, everyday.

You've had your turn.

The Christian faith is full of logical inconsistencies.
Christian dogma says that God is omniscient -- past, present, and future -- and omnipotent. This premise is core to the Christian faith.
Also, the Christian faith says that man has free will.
The premise that a supernatural being being omniscient, past, present, and future, automatically negates free will. You are not free to choose if someone has already charted your every thought and action. You cannot choose a different path. It has already been determined.

Christian dogma also states God is benevolent. It would seem that this supernatural deity isn't omnibenevolent, because it is well within this omnipotent deity's powers to prevent all suffering, and indeed, "save their souls." Given that you have no choice in the matter (no free will), human suffering and eventual trip to purgatory (for bad people) is all but determined. What kind being would arbitrarily condemn many individuals to eternal torment?
It would be like a child care facility sourrounded by stoves, with the children unable to stop themselves from getting burned.

The Christian faith has also divided the world many times. If God was so kind, he would not have let the various factions of Christian war against each other for so long. Christianity must not be his chosen church, because of its fractitious nature. Also, I hope you're willing to condemn at least 4/5 of the world's population to eternal suffering. How kind of God to let only the majority of Europeans and related groups only go to heaven.
"Each and every man has great worth in God�s eyes"
Unless you're a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist.

If the only way to get people to behave is through the promise of eternal paradise (heaven), that doesn't say much about humanity. In my opinion, people ought to be good, not for some reward, but because it is the wrong thing.

" I leave you with the words of the Apostle Paul."
If you keep quoting the Bible, I will start quoting the Qu'ran, or better yet, some crazy *** Wiccan stuff. Or maybe one of the many Christian cults. Or Satanists. Big whoop.

[Phoenix-D]

One comment since I don't have time to do a thourgh reply tonight:

If the Bible is not meant to be taken out of context and used as examples, etc..

WHY do Christians insist on doing it? You begin your post telling him not to do that and end it doing exactly that!

[Azselendor]

Gbrutt, That's the problem, behe didn't discuss the topic he used, he simply offered opinions. Thay didn't expand on the topic, this is what his critics point out. Oddly, you say he's not a christian, however, any research into his work history shows the amount of work he did for creationist/intelligent design schools. By simplying saying someting is complicated and thus has to have someone design it on purpose, means nothing. It's grasping. Blood Clotting is a bio-chemical process and any doctor can tell you how it happens. Eye Development could more than likely be answered or even covered by any high school biology teacher. Exploding beatles? Come on now, that's something you can look up in a library. Science is never about answers, it is about finding the answers. Behe really needs to think before he rights. You should be able to find his critics by simply running a google search just like I did and pulling up the relevent articles and clippings.

On computers, while each step does involve a human mind, it's not the direction of a sole individual. It's the input and suggestion and needs of many being realized via the efforts of a single process. the programmer merely acts as evolution, not as god. that is a significant difference. As for the outcome requiring favorable conditions, not always. Infact, life has shown a remarkable ability to endure and continue even when faced with certain doom. to quote, "Life Finds a Way"

Excuse me, Biogenesis today is a corruption of the original concepts of Biogenesis. Creationists have latched onto it hoping to unseat evolution. Keep in ming the Miller-Urey experiment produced some of the organic components of life, but failed to produce a living, reproducing organism. not a borken breaker. This should be looked as not as a failure, but as a simple example that the technology doesn't exist yet to preform the tasks. And yes, we can create matter and energy in a lab. living creatures are just harder

Yes, the Steady State Theory has been alrgesly disproven, but keep in mind that the rate of expansion in the universe shouldn't be accelerating either. Big Bang theory doesn't make allowances for that.

Using the word 'Miracle' doesn't validate theology. Miracale is a way of expressing extreme probability.

The problem with creationist mythology is the fact that it does not answer questions. It just provides commentary from a book that people write off as answers without giving it a citital thought. You attack my phrases, but examine your own. You'll say one thing, a retract it or say something counter to a previous post. Behe, for example. How can you not know his religious standings? did you even read his book or just the inside dusk jacket flap? You own attacks on evolution are merely questions poised to look like you mock it. Answer Colin Patterson if they were directed to a creationist. The bible doesn't provide testable answers, it just says, "this is the answer, don't question it or you're satan". Besides, SJ's beat me to it. lol

Actually, I do not assume humans are as they always are today. Humands today differ from humans 100 years ago and from humans another hundred years more. Creationism and Bible Apologists assume humans have always been the same. You're entire argument on the lines from your misassumption of what i was talking about actually has nothing relevent to what I was saying. lol

What I was saying, and you didn't grasp it, was that if you assume god designed humans as they are today, then you also assume he did a piss poor job of making us in his image. Not a booboo, a PissPoor Job. The kind of job I'd expect from someone not paying attention to what they are doing.


SJ, I was pointing out humans are promoting evolution in various insects and bacteria by allowing the strongest of them to survive and reproduce by eliminating the the lower 99.9% of all life. Survivial of the fittest via dues ex machina.


back to gbrutt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Read an learn beyond the bible thumping. You need to get your facts straight.

[Atrocities]

I think, no better to say that I believe, I believe that we are doing more harm in the long run by tampering with the genetic code, biological make up, and the use of hormons in live stock and in the field of bioengeneering than we could possibly even begin to comprehend now. By splicing this bugs dna with that bugs dna in the hopes of creating a super bug that eats bad bugs, we are putting ourselves, and indeed our world at risk. This goes for insects, animals, planets, as well as virus - bugs and such.

[Instar]

Atrocities said:
I think, no better to say that I believe, I believe that we are doing more harm in the long run by tampering with the genetic code, biological make up, and the use of hormons in live stock and in the field of bioengeneering than we could possibly even begin to comprehend now. By splicing this bugs dna with that bugs dna in the hopes of creating a super bug that eats bad bugs, we are putting ourselves, and indeed our world at risk. This goes for insects, animals, planets, as well as virus - bugs and such.

So you're against animal husbandry? We've been genetically manipulating animals and plants for thousands of years. Genetic mondification isn't some bogeyman we can just invoke to scare people.

[Azselendor]

Take bananas, I mentioned them before as being open to extinction due to a lack of genetic diversity. Most livestock is the same way, it's part of the reason why Mad Cow and Hoof&Mouth diseases spread so quickly in the cattle population.

Let's say Cattle, Pigs, Goats, and a large vareity of popular fruits all go extinct. How much world starvation and suffering would that lead to? How many deaths? Genetic Engineering can prevent that. And don't forget the numerous genetic diseases that plague millions upon millions of humans.

As isntar said, Genetic Engineering isn't some boogymen that can be used to scare people one way or another.

[Suicide Junkie]

ISTM that Genetic engineering today is comparable to the technology of Fire back in the stone age somewheres.

We can see it happening naturally, and direct it a little with breeding. We've just recently discovered how to start our own in a very rough manner by rubbing sticks and scraping flint.
We've got a long way to go before we can make the steam engine of genetics, and like fire, it will have its dangers long past the time when we do have fine control.

[Instar]

SJ, you raise a valid point. But, as I said, we shouldn't fear it or ban it. GM food is one example. The general public sees it as "frankenfood," which just is not true. Copious amounts of research has gone into this field, and I can say that the chance that someone will get hurt is nonexistant.
This does not mean that I am for any genetic modification. Responsible science is needed, and thorough investigation is always needed.