How best to argue against creationists

[tumbleweed41]

The evidence for creation has been presented over and over, and the evolution proponents choose to ignore it:

Please. enlighten us with your evidence FOR creation in one of the two appropriate threads.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ism/95456-creationists-heres-your-chance.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/88277-prove-creationism-id-here.html

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Personally, I think there are two types of creationists. There are those that believe in creationism because of their religious indoctrination, and (for whatever reason) haven't challenged themselves to find the truth. These people may still yet seek information that will eventually expose them to the evidence, and finally to the knowledge and understanding that is derived from it. We have several (if not many) members here on RF that have traveled exactly this path. Heck, most of us have.

Then there are the creationists like rusra, jollybear, newhope, and their ilk, that not only refuse to consider the evidence that challenges their dogmatic faith, but want to portray themselves as martyrs for the cause, in the hope that their God is watching them.

When a person ignores evidence, and shuns education, the outcome is inevitable. And it isn't pretty. Reading the painfully ignorant posts in which they wear their intellectual dishonesty to a badge of honor is all one needs to see.

Take a look at this:

... The downfall I see with science is that it sees the effects of creation with a fairly good certainty and then assumes the cause.

I mean, honestly - what can you say to statements like this? If Walkntune were a 13 year old kid, or someone that had never been shown how the scientific method works, then I could see taking the time to try to help him. Once a person has had it explained to them, if they insist on putting forward such tripe, then you have no choice but to conclude that they are not listening, and have no intention of doing so.

After a while, derisive contempt seasoned with a hefty dose of acidic mockery is the only prescription that the good Doctor of Thinkology can offer the afflicted. Rather like a morphine drip for the terminally stupid.

 

[Krok]

The evidence for creation has been presented over and over, and the evolution proponents choose to ignore it:

Where, please provide a link? we're waiting. Problems with evolution is not evidence for creation.

Unlike Darwin, modern day evolutionists skip over the critical first step in the evolutionary process. i.e. how did life begin.

Evolution is very specific. It does not include the origin of life. Darwin skipped over it too. He mentioned it and wondered if it came from a pool of scum or not. He didn't include it in his theory.

The Bible gives the only plausible answer.

No, the Quoran does.So does the Zulu creation myth.

Evolution cannot respond so they claim that is a question for another type of scientist.

Evolution involves Biology. Abiogenesis involves Chemistry. Yes, two different types of scientists.

ToE propronents ignore the simple fact that an intelligently designed object or thing requires an intelligent designer.

And Intelligent Design proponents ignore the fact that badly designed object require either a very bad designer or no designer at all.

Evolutionists have no reasonable answer for this simple truth.

Yes we do. Either no design or the designer you propose is an idiot. Nothing to sing our praises to.

Even single celled organisms or a single cell are hopelessly complex.....

So are a lot of rocks.

...., brilliantly designed structures that put the largest human achievements to pale in comparison.

Yes, even badly designed objects had billions of years to try and improve.

Saying they have no builder (saying they 'evolved') is more nonsensical than saying a subdivision of well-built homes mutated into existence.

Homes don't breed on their own or in pairs.

Despite all the posturing of evolutionists, the fossil record does not support transitional forms that Darwin supposed would eventually be found.

Yes it does. You ignoring them won't change the fact.

Fossils show complex lifeforms appearing suddenly,

Starting to ignore fossils found since 1860 is a either a sure sign of desperation,a sign of ignorance or a sign of pure stupidity.

with no transitional links between different biological families, and no partial body features..

Are you refering to half an eye? If you do, you should get the other half of your brain somewhere.

As Heribert Nilsson, a swedish biologist wrote after 40 years of research, "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that..the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

The words of one Swedish non-paleontologist writing in the 1950s whom you've never heard of except that you found his name in a creationist quote mine will not magically make that fact disappear.

. Scientists cannot reproduce what ToE claim happened totally randomly, the genesis of life.

That's abiogenesis. Go study something.

There is no evidence that one family of animals morphs into another, except in cartoons, although there is great variety in each family.People can be extremely short or extremely tall, and short parents can have tall offspring, but they're not producing a new species.

Great, now you're starting to understand evolution.

The so-called speciation is nothing more than variety within a species. Biological families such as the horse family, cannot successfully mate with the cat family (or kind).

A horse is not a species. A cat is not a species. Any definition of 'kind', or are you making it up?

The known facts support what the Bible says.

No, the known facts support the fact that the Bible is talking ****e.

Intelligence requires a mind, and a mind requires a living entity.

That's what logic, experience and science (and evolution) says.

The intelligence manifest in natural things is attributed in the Bible to an intelligent person, Jehovah, the grand Creator.

No, it's attributed to Allah.

BTW, I do not personally believe and more importantly the Bible does not teach that the earth is only 10,000 years old, a statement I have made repeatedly and the evolutionists apparently ignore.

Most fundies like you do state explicitly that the earth is no more than 10 000 years old. You are an exception, but still has fundie ideas.

What you have written here is not evidence for creation. That's what this thread is about. We need the evidence for creation.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

BTW, I do not personally believe and more importantly the Bible does not teach that the earth is only 10,000 years old, a statement I have made repeatedly and the evolutionists apparently ignore.

It's quite telling that you wrap up your Manifesto for Stupidity and Illogical Thought with this disclaimer - as if you want credit for dipping your toe into the bathwater of knowledge.

 

[tumbleweed41]

5. There is no evidence that one family of animals morphs into another, except in cartoons, although there is great variety in each family. People can be extremely short or extremely tall, and short parents can have tall offspring, but they're not producing a new species. The so-called speciation is nothing more than variety within a species. Biological families such as the horse family, cannot successfully mate with the cat family (or kind).

Little note here for those who use this extremely lame argument.

If a Horse could mate with a Cat and produce offspring.
OR
If a Cat gave birth to a Dog, or the infamous 'Catdog'.
The entire Theory of Evolution would be disproven!!!
(Along with the pseudoscientific concept of 'Kinds")

Using this argument shows a complete lack of understanding of the ToE and basic biology.

 

[Autodidact]

The evidence for creation has been presented over and over, and the evolution proponents choose to ignore it:

1. Unlike Darwin, modern day evolutionists skip over the critical first step in the evolutionary process. i.e. how did life begin. The Bible gives the only plausible answer. Evolution cannot respond so they claim that is a question for another type of scientist.

This is the sort of thing that makes us wonder whether you are ignorant or dishonest. It's just so nonsensical. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is not a theory about how life began. That's a separate subject, called abiogenesis, which biologists are working on but is not as well settled as evolution.

Once they figure that out, it will be a new, separate theory.

2. ToE propronents ignore the simple fact that an intelligently designed object or thing requires an intelligent designer. Evolutionists have no reasonable answer for this simple truth. Even single celled organisms or a single cell are hopelessly complex, brilliantly designed structures that put the largest human achievements to pale in comparison. Saying they have no builder (saying they 'evolved') is more nonsensical than saying a subdivision of well-built homes mutated into existence.

Can you not see how circular this argument is? Do I need to lay it out for you?

3. Despite all the posturing of evolutionists, the fossil record does not support transitional forms that Darwin supposed would eventually be found. Fossils show complex lifeforms appearing suddenly, with no transitional links between different biological families, and no partial body features.

This is simply, blatantly, false, as I would be happy to easily show you. And what on earth is a partial body feature?

As Heribert Nilsson, a swedish biologist wrote after 40 years of research, "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that..the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

Remember, quote mining = lying! For more on this dotty Swede who died over fifty years ago, and his whacko hypothesis that creatures spring into existence fully formed, read here.

4. Scientists cannot reproduce what ToE claim happened totally randomly, the genesis of life.

I should preserve this one in amber. It may combine the highest percentage of errors per word of anything ever posted on the internet.

1. It's irrelevant. We're not discussing the origins of life.
2. ToE makes no claims whatsoever about the origins of life, so it's a lie.
3. ToE does not claim that anything happens randomly.

5. There is no evidence that one family of animals morphs into another, except in cartoons, although there is great variety in each family. People can be extremely short or extremely tall, and short parents can have tall offspring, but they're not producing a new species. The so-called speciation is nothing more than variety within a species. Biological families such as the horse family, cannot successfully mate with the cat family (or kind).

rusra really packs the mistakes in, doesn't he. His posts end up basically gibberish. ToE does not claim that anything morphs into anything. And again, he here denies that speciation happens, but like most YECs I believe actually asserts that it happens rapidly and constantly.

YECs excel at one thing, and that's evasion. You will not that rusra is still gibbering on about a non-existent category called a "kind," whatever that may be, but has ignored all reasonable requests to tell us what that might be.

6. The known facts support what the Bible says. Intelligence requires a mind, and a mind requires a living entity. The intelligence manifest in natural things is attributed in the Bible to an intelligent person, Jehovah, the grand Creator.

This poster is so deeply confused it's a wonder he's able to type. He seems not to have grasped the elementary concept, which I'm confident has been explained to him many times, that ToE is not atheism, any more than any other scientific theory is atheism.

BTW, I do not personally believe and more importantly the Bible does not teach that the earth is only 10,000 years old, a statement I have made repeatedly and the evolutionists apparently ignore.

Well, what is your position then? Explain it to us.

 

[Autodidact]

Personally, I think there are two types of creationists. There are those that believe in creationism because of their religious indoctrination, and (for whatever reason) haven't challenged themselves to find the truth. These people may still yet seek information that will eventually expose them to the evidence, and finally to the knowledge and understanding that is derived from it. We have several (if not many) members here on RF that have traveled exactly this path. Heck, most of us have.

Then there are the creationists like rusra, jollybear, newhope, and their ilk, that not only refuse to consider the evidence that challenges their dogmatic faith, but want to portray themselves as martyrs for the cause, in the hope that their God is watching them.

When a person ignores evidence, and shuns education, the outcome is inevitable. And it isn't pretty. Reading the painfully ignorant posts in which they wear their intellectual dishonesty to a badge of honor is all one needs to see.

Take a look at this: I mean, honestly - what can you say to statements like this? If Walkntune were a 13 year old kid, or someone that had never been shown how the scientific method works, then I could see taking the time to try to help him. Once a person has had it explained to them, if they insist on putting forward such tripe, then you have no choice but to conclude that they are not listening, and have no intention of doing so.

After a while, derisive contempt seasoned with a hefty dose of acidic mockery is the only prescription that the good Doctor of Thinkology can offer the afflicted. Rather like a morphine drip for the terminally stupid.

I think you're jumping to an unjustified conclusion regarding our new friend, Newhope. However you left out Danmac.

 

[newhope101]

"Then there are the creationists like rusra, jollybear, newhope, and their ilk, that not only refuse to consider the evidence that challenges their dogmatic faith, but want to portray themselves as martyrs for the cause, in the hope that their God is watching them." By the Voice of Reason and an inflated sense of self importance. I wonder if that's primal.

Listen pal, I'm not so narrowminded as to disparrage those that do not share my beliefs. Nor do I insuate that you are a moron. As with any science you choose to accept what suits your paradigm of life. In your own science of evolution there are more theories than you can poke a stick at and finds that are contradictory. Evolutionists believe that life was magically formed out of non life even though in a contolled environment scientists are unable to reproduce this magic. You presume to know it all so you know the RNA & DNA building blocks required. A random selection of these building blocks may only encode gibberish but life doesn't exist based on gibberish. You have to have them in a certain sequence in order for them to accomplish any sort of purpose even accouting for the filler pieces that don't do anything but mark and fill. And this encoding of information increases the probabilities to even greater odds AND implies intelligence.
So basically I assert that you and all of you that get so inflamed with anger as to be degrading to those of diferent views have not matured past the egocentric phase of childhood.
You believe in the magic that suits you just as I do. Sorry to say your the view is no more important than anyone elses. Being bitter and twisted is not a good look! ..not even for a neanderthal.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I think you're jumping to an unjustified conclusion regarding our new friend, Newhope. However you left out Danmac.

You are correct. I misspoke when I included Newhope, and I apologize to him (or her).

Mea culpa.

The I read Newhope's post:

Listen pal, I'm not so narrowminded as to disparrage those that do not share my beliefs. Nor do I insuate that you are a moron. As with any science you choose to accept what suits your paradigm of life. In your own science of evolution there are more theories than you can poke a stick at and finds that are contradictory. You presume to know it all so you know the RNA & DNA building blocks required. A random selection of these building blocks may only encode gibberish but life doesn't exist based on gibberish. You have to have them in a certain sequence in order for them to accomplish any sort of purpose even accouting for the filler pieces that don't do anything but mark and fill. And this encoding of information increases the probabilities to even greater odds AND implies intelligence.
So basically I assert that you and all of you that get so inflamed with anger as to be degrading to those of diferent views have not matured past the egocentric phase of childhood.
You believe in the magic that suits you just as I do. Sorry to say your view is no more important than anyone elses. Being bitter and twisted is not a good look!

I don't mind the insults that you directed at me (a couple of them are actually pretty good). On the other hand, equating science to magic, and your statement that "Evolutionists believe that life was magically formed out of non life even though in a contolled environment scientists are unable to reproduce this magic", is making me think that I might have been right in the first place.

It appears that I may have offered my apology a bit prematurely.

 

[Autodidact]

Oops, looks like I was wrong about you. I must now frubal TVOR for being right. O.K., starting from the top:

"Then there are the creationists like rusra, jollybear, newhope, and their ilk, that not only refuse to consider the evidence that challenges their dogmatic faith, but want to portray themselves as martyrs for the cause, in the hope that their God is watching them." By the Voice of Reason and an inflated sense of self importance. I wonder if that's primal.

Listen pal, I'm not so narrowminded as to disparrage those that do not share my beliefs. Nor do I insuate that you are a moron. As with any science you choose to accept what suits your paradigm of life.

No, that's not how science works. You don't get to cherry pick. Either the scientific method works or it doesn't. If it works, then part of it is a commitment to accept the results, even if they don't "fit your paradigm of life," whatever that means. If you only choose to accept the results that fit your preconceived notions, you're not doing science, and you're dishonest.

In your own science of evolution there are more theories than you can poke a stick at and finds that are contradictory.

Evolution is not a science. It's a specific scientific theory in a specific field--Biology. There are not various competing theories--any more. There were, over 100 years ago, but the evidence caused the Theory of Evolution (ToE) to win out. There is a lot of exploration, cheerful disagreement, disputes about specific applications of ToE, but virtually no disagreement any more about ToE itself.

Evolutionists believe that life was magically formed out of non life even though in a contolled environment scientists are unable to reproduce this magic.

You would do yourself a great service by learning what ToE is. I'd be happy to explain it to you. *hint* it has nothing to do with what you just said. Oh, and there's no such thing as an "evolutionist," who "believes" something. The term you're looking for may be "biologists."

You presume to know it all so you know the RNA & DNA building blocks required. A random selection of these building blocks may only encode gibberish but life doesn't exist based on gibberish.

Again, you really need to learn some science basics. *Another hint* It's not about random anything.

You have to have them in a certain sequence in order for them to accomplish any sort of purpose even accouting for the filler pieces that don't do anything but mark and fill. And this encoding of information increases the probabilities to even greater odds AND implies intelligence.

Yeah, oh ignorant one, explain basic genetics to us. Too bad all of the world's geneticists are so stupid that they need you to explain what they're doing wrong.

So basically I assert that you and all of you that get so inflamed with anger as to be degrading to those of diferent views have not matured past the egocentric phase of childhood.

Well, call me crazy, lying makes me angry.

You believe in the magic that suits you just as I do. Sorry to say your view is no more important than anyone elses. Being bitter and twisted is not a good look!

So you see science as basically magic then?

I think the truth is important, and I think science helps us learn the truth. Do you disagree?

 

[painted wolf]

Here is the problem with the "looks designed" is where do you draw the line... did God handcraft these rock formations? Or were they the result of natural properties of the rock?

wa:do

 

[rusra02]

This is not evidence for creation.


You have to show that a creator is REQUIRED.
Thus far you have not.


You can throw out all the fossils and it will still not hurt the ToE.
How is this evidence of creation?


Neither can creationists.
So how is this evidence for creation?


This comment shows either your ignorqance of the ToE or it shows you are a bold faced liar.

Either way it is not evidence FOR Creation.


This has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution is about why there are so many different life species.
It matters not how said life started.


So every time it is mentioned it has to be directly to and or about you?
Are you really that egotistic?


You have not presented a single piece of evidence for creation.
You seem to think that discrediting evolution somehow proves creation.
This is simply not true.

I'll just reply to one statement you made regarding the fact that design requires an intelligent designer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rusra02
2. ToE propronents ignore the simple fact that an intelligently designed object or thing requires an intelligent designer. Evolutionists have no reasonable answer for this simple truth. Even single celled organisms or a single cell are hopelessly complex, brilliantly designed structures that put the largest human achievements to pale in comparison. Saying they have no builder (saying they 'evolved') is more nonsensical than saying a subdivision of well-built homes mutated into existence.

You have to show that a creator is REQUIRED.
Thus far you have not.

A subdivision or even a single house requires a builder. Any reasonable person would not argue to the contrary. A single cell is immeasurably more complex than a house. It's intricate design argues that there is a designer. Now multiply that by billions of intricately designed entities, living and non-living. You say I have to show a creator is required. If that were the case, it could be similarly argued that a home requires we prove that a homebuilder built it and that it didn't evolve. The argument is ludicrous and specious. A court case can be decided on the basis of evidence presented without eyewitnesses. No one alive today can be an eyewitness for Creation. However, the evidence for Creation and a Creator is overwhelming to persons willing to honestly examine the facts. As the Bible states at Romans 1:20,21: "For [Gods] invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened.

 

[rusra02]

Here is the problem with the "looks designed" is where do you draw the line... did God handcraft these rock formations? Or were they the result of natural properties of the rock?

wa:do

Another question: Where did the rock and 'natural forces' come from?

 

[rusra02]

What you have written here is not evidence for creation. That's what this thread is about. We need the evidence for creation.

Cop to man with gun standing over dead body. "You're under arrest for murder."
"You can't arrest me, you have no evidence".
"You have a smoking gun in your hand"
"That doesn't prove I shot him".
"I see powder burns on your fingers".
"That doesn't prove I fired the gun. Without an eyewitness, you have no proof."
Most cops: "Put your hands behind your back."
ToE cop: "You are absolutely right. Good thing one of my stupid fellow cops isn't here. They may have jumped to wrong conclusions based on flimsy evidence. Have a good day."

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I'll just reply to one statement you made regarding the fact that design requires an intelligent designer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rusra02
2. ToE propronents ignore the simple fact that an intelligently designed object or thing requires an intelligent designer. Evolutionists have no reasonable answer for this simple truth. Even single celled organisms or a single cell are hopelessly complex, brilliantly designed structures that put the largest human achievements to pale in comparison. Saying they have no builder (saying they 'evolved') is more nonsensical than saying a subdivision of well-built homes mutated into existence.

You have to show that a creator is REQUIRED.
Thus far you have not.

A subdivision or even a single house requires a builder. Any reasonable person would not argue to the contrary. A single cell is immeasurably more complex than a house. It's intricate design argues that there is a designer. Now multiply that by billions of intricately designed entities, living and non-living. You say I have to show a creator is required. If that were the case, it could be similarly argued that a home requires we prove that a homebuilder built it and that it didn't evolve. The argument is ludicrous and specious. A court case can be decided on the basis of evidence presented without eyewitnesses. No one alive today can be an eyewitness for Creation. However, the evidence for Creation and a Creator is overwhelming to persons willing to honestly examine the facts. As the Bible states at Romans 1:20,21: "For [Gods] invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened.

See, you argue that creation is just too complex to come about by chance but you ignore the fact that god would have to be infinitely more complex than the universe he's being invoked to explain. So the whole thing begs the question: What designed the designer?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Cop to man with gun standing over dead body. "You're under arrest for murder."
"You can't arrest me, you have no evidence".
"You have a smoking gun in your hand"
"That doesn't prove I shot him".
"I see powder burns on your fingers".
"That doesn't prove I fired the gun. Without an eyewitness, you have no proof."
Most cops: "Put your hands behind your back."
ToE cop: "You are absolutely right. Good thing one of my stupid fellow cops isn't here. They may have jumped to wrong conclusions based on flimsy evidence. Have a good day."

And how is this evidence for creationism?

If your arguing that creation is self-evident then you're going to have to do much better than that. Try actually presenting something tangible.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Cop to man with gun standing over dead body. "You're under arrest for murder."
"You can't arrest me, you have no evidence".
"You have a smoking gun in your hand"
"That doesn't prove I shot him".
"I see powder burns on your fingers".
"That doesn't prove I fired the gun. Without an eyewitness, you have no proof."
"Put your hands behind your back."
"No, you don't understand, God did it. He killed the man and then just made it look like I did it.
Creationist cop: "Wow, I almost made a huge mistake! Good thing one of my stupid fellow cops isn't here. They may have jumped to wrong conclusions based on flimsy evidence. Have a nice day."

There, I fixed it.

 

[rusra02]

See, you argue that creation is just too complex to come about by chance but you ignore the fact that god would have to be infinitely more complex than the universe he's being invoked to explain. So the whole thing begs the question: What designed the designer?

You are changing the subject. And I am not ignoring the fact that God 'would have to be infinitely more complex..' etc.

But to answer your question, the Bible answers at Revelations 4:11 "You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.”
As the grand Creator, Jehovah As the King of eternity (1 Timothy 1:17), Jehovah has always existed
"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) Our finite minds cannot grasp fully the infinite. Space, time, numbers are things that seem to have no beginning nor end. So it is with the one true God.

 

[rusra02]

Cop to man with gun standing over dead body. "You're under arrest for murder."
"You can't arrest me, you have no evidence".
"You have a smoking gun in your hand"
"That doesn't prove I shot him".
"I see powder burns on your fingers".
"That doesn't prove I fired the gun. Without an eyewitness, you have no proof."
"Put your hands behind your back."
"No, you don't understand, God did it. He killed the man and then just made it look like I did it.
Creationist cop: "Wow, I almost made a huge mistake! Good thing one of my stupid fellow cops isn't here. They may have jumped to wrong conclusions based on flimsy evidence. Have a nice day."

There, I fixed it.

Yeah, as ToE proponents frequently do when presented with evidence, they change the focus, move the goal posts, use the rope a dope, or simply deny any evidence was presented, instead of responding to the evidence presented. WHY? Because the evidence is overwhelmingly against the ToE.

 

[Walkntune]

I mean, honestly - what can you say to statements like this? If Walkntune were a 13 year old kid, or someone that had never been shown how the scientific method works, then I could see taking the

time to try to help him. Once a person has had it explained to them, if they insist on putting forward such tripe, then you have no choice but to conclude that they are not listening, and have no intention of doing so.

After a while, derisive contempt seasoned with a hefty dose of acidic mockery is the only prescription that the good Doctor of Thinkology can offer the afflicted.

Since I like your humorous wit I will let you slide.
If you will tell me whether evolution is completely deterministic or not I will retract my statement about ToE jumping to conclusions on causation.
I am a self thinker and not educated in science but it is not hard to see where the theories line up with reality if you are open and honest.
Since I already assume the theory is going to change I am not foolish enough to stand on it as it is on sinking sand.
Meanwhile i sit back and watch as man uses the same scientific method and put us in a resistant state to nature (through medical sciences and whatnot) and create a war that we cannot win as we are only fighting our own resistance to nature and actually are foolish enough to think "look at our achievements!"
There is a creative force of energy in nature and we can fight and become resistant to it or we can surrender and be at peace with it and actually become a momentum from it.
Letting go of resistance is the key to happiness, peace, and health, not fighting and creating our own enemy of resistance.
Man is fighting and destroying himself and science will be the method!(or the ego thinking we know more and can control nature)
Proverbs 16:25 There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.