Just Accidental?

[QuestioningMind]

The Wonder Element.....Carbon.

Carbon—The Wonder Element

From AWAKE! NO. 5 2016
The Wonder Element
Carbon atoms “No element is more essential to life than carbon,” says the book Nature’s Building Blocks. The unique characteristics of carbon enable it to bond with itself and many other chemical elements, thus forming millions of compounds, more of which are constantly being discovered or synthesized. As the examples here show, carbon atoms can also combine to form various shapes, including chains, pyramids, rings, sheets, and tubes. Carbon truly is a wonder element!
DIAMOND A diamond Carbon atoms form pyramids, called tetrahedrons, making the structure extremely rigid and making diamond the hardest naturally occurring substance known. A perfect diamond is essentially a single molecule of carbon atoms.
GRAPHITE A lead pencil Tightly bonded carbon atoms are set out in loosely bonded layers that can slide away from one another like sheets of paper on a stack. Because of these characteristics, graphite is both a fine lubricant and a key compound in lead pencils. *
GRAPHENE A pencil trace This refers to a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in a hexagonal mesh, or lattice. Graphene has a tensile strength many times that of steel. A pencil trace may have small amounts of graphene in single or multiple layers.
FULLERENES These hollow molecules of carbon come in shapes that include microscopic balls and tubes called nanotubes. They are measured in nanometers, or billionths of a meter.
LIVING ORGANISMS Living cells that contain carbon The many cells that make up plants, animals, and humans are built on a framework of carbon—an element found in carbohydrates, fats, and amino acids.

“[God’s] invisible qualities . . . are perceived by the things made.”—Romans 1:20.

A star Carbon—A Product of Ultrafine Tuning in the Stars
Carbon is formed by the fusion of three helium nuclei, which scientists believe occurs inside stars called red giants. For the helium to combine, however, certain conditions must be exactly right. “Change just a few of the settings [of physical laws] even an infinitesimal amount,” wrote physicist Paul Davies, and “we’d have no universe, no life and certainly no humans.” How can we account for such ultrafine tuning? Some say it just happened. Others see it as evidence of a wise Creator. Which view do you consider more reasonable?

" Some say it just happened. Others see it as evidence of a wise Creator. Which view do you consider more reasonable?"

Until you can provide additional evidence for a creator other than "I just can't imagine that this all happened WITHOUT a creator," I'm going to have to go with random chance. Thus far that's where all of the evidence we do have points. Random chance is something we have evidence DOES exist beyond the context of theorizing that it's responsible for the creation of the universe. Random chance is the explanation for how lottery winners are chosen. It's a demonstrably real thing.

On the other hand there is no evidence for a creator God beyond your claim that you feel the universe it too complex to have come about without a creator. However something seeming 'reasonable' is not verifiable evidence that it's true. Anyone who has ever watched the sun rise in the east, travel across the sky, and set in the west would be reasonable to conclude that the sun it circling around the Earth; yet what seems reasonable on the surface is not reality in this case.

 

[Deeje]

"Evolutionists simply play with the numbers and shroud their silly theory in jargon so that people will naturally assume that they have proof for what they believe."

This is a quote from someone who has been told by others what evolutionist play with numbers and shroud their silly theory in jargon. Anyone who has actually taken the time to study and understand evolution knows that what you claim is not true.

Then furnish the evidence. I have taken a great deal of time to scrutinize what evolutionists are actually saying....it isn't much when you really read it.....and nothing is based on hard evidence....its all supposition.
All I have read is embellished suggestion masquerading as fact. I have furnished examples of what I found.
There is nothing you can bring up that hasn't already been addressed already, many times.....don't be lazy.....read the thread.

I suggest you actually study the evidence for yourself instead of taking someone else's word for it... your posts would be far less ignorant if you did.

May I suggest that you take your own advice.....
Please don't come in late on a very long thread and imagine that you have anything new to add.....

 

[Deeje]

"And all you can do is throw tantrums and regurgitate what science had led you to believe."

It amazes me how some people think they get to pick and choose what parts of science they'll accept and what parts they can just ignore.

Well, it amazes me that some people can pick and choose parts of science and demand solid evidence for it, yet blindly accept other parts with no proof whatsoever.

Someone using a computer to post their thoughts clearly accepts the scientific method when used to determine how to harness electrons in this manner. Yet when the exact same scientific method is used in other areas they suddenly claim that science is a fraud and that scientists are just making stuff up.

Someone using a computer does not assume that it designed and manufactured itself over millions of years. How many working components does a computer need, assembled in the right sequence, to function? Could those components ever come together in the right sequence by chance?

The human brain surpasses any man-made computer, yet you say it needed no designer or maker.

Where is the logic in that?

But I guess it shouldn't be terribly surprising.

Yes, I find that a lot of scientists are very good at 'guessing'. "This might have happened" or "this could have happened" is not the same as saying something "must have" happened. Do you see the difference? Probably not.
Evolutionists prefer to denigrate anyone who disagrees with them.....such a hostile lot.

After all, these are usually the same people who pick and choose what parts of their religious texts are valid and which parts can simply be ignored. How sad.

Oh, yes...its an absolute tragedy! Those who pick and choose which bits of the Bible to accept and which parts to ignore have no business calling themselves Christians......just as those who swallow the rhetoric of evolutionary science have no business calling themselves scientists. Macro-evolution has no actual proof for its validity. Adaptation is what is observable, but there is nothing but suggestion to take it outside the boundary of a single "kind" of creature. I think that this thread has proven that conclusively.

You guys are big on talk but very short on evidence. Your theory is shot down before it has anywhere to go IMO.

 

[Deeje]

Again it's interesting to see you associate an understanding of science as being a religious position, thereby further confirming that this is a religious issue for you.

I cannot separate science from the one who created it. You seem to see no connection....that is entirely your problem.

Its not a religious issue at all, since the Creator is inextricably tied to his creation.

I look forward to seeing Dr. Yan-Der Hsuuw's revolutionary paper where he overturns evolutionary theory. And thanks again for illustrating my point about you only being able to copy from TWS.

A lot of what I have posted on this thread has not been taken from WT sources at all.
No one will overturn the evolutionary theory but the Creator himself. You think he can't?

He says he will....and I believe him.

Highly educated humans don't want to believe in a Creator because it makes them appear to be the smartest creatures in existence and then they end up worshipping one another. The Creator is laughing at all those very clever humans who are all like 'grasshoppers' to him. Humans, falling all over one another trying to be the smartest grasshopper.
Science is ego-driven, not knowledge driven, as I believe this thread has clearly demonstrated.

 

[metis]

Please provide evidence that an amoeba can transform into a dinosaur over millions of years.

"In this case"? Again please provide evidence that a plant can evolve into a sentient, animate creature.

I posted that these things ("kinds") can hypothetically happen because of what we know of "speciation" that has been observed: Speciation - Wikipedia

You don't seem to be getting the point here metis. "In the beginning God created" all the various "kinds" of creatures. Genesis details the order, and the prepared habitat into which they were placed.

You've moved the goalposts as you had previously claimed that these different "kinds" were made by God over time (sequential), thus going against what the creation accounts actually say. So, again, you're just playing games here. The fossil records clearly show different "kinds" emerging at different intervals, and it's clear you realize this because of your previous post, so now you're just being disingenuous. .

You think science presents 'objective' evidence? All I see is science interpreting evidence to fit their theory. I see no objectivity.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, which you reject out of hand, and yet you cannot provide one single shred of objectively-derived evidence for a theistic causation. Since you clearly cannot and have not done this, your position cannot be taken seriously, so let me suggest you find a Christian denomination that actually works with reality and not reject it.

 

[Jose Fly]

I cannot separate science from the one who created it. You seem to see no connection....that is entirely your problem.

Its not a religious issue at all, since the Creator is inextricably tied to his creation.

You continue to post the most baffling contradictory statements. This time, it's "I cannot separate science from the one who created it.....it's not a religious issue at all".

Weird.

No one will overturn the evolutionary theory but the Creator himself. You think he can't?
He says he will....and I believe him.

Where did God say he would overturn evolutionary theory?

Highly educated humans don't want to believe in a Creator because it makes them appear to be the smartest creatures in existence and then they end up worshipping one another. The Creator is laughing at all those very clever humans who are all like 'grasshoppers' to him. Humans, falling all over one another trying to be the smartest grasshopper.
Science is ego-driven, not knowledge driven, as I believe this thread has clearly demonstrated.

Why are you associating evolution and science with atheism?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Then furnish the evidence. I have taken a great deal of time to scrutinize what evolutionists are actually saying....it isn't much when you really read it.....and nothing is based on hard evidence....its all supposition.
All I have read is embellished suggestion masquerading as fact. I have furnished examples of what I found.
There is nothing you can bring up that hasn't already been addressed already, many times.....don't be lazy.....read the thread.

May I suggest that you take your own advice.....
Please don't come in late on a very long thread and imagine that you have anything new to add.....

 

[QuestioningMind]

I suggest that you read 'What Evolution Is' by Ernsy Mayr. The simple fact that you can sit there and claim that evolution is based on supposition and not hard fact is proof positive that you never have taken the time to actually study the subject. The exact same scientific method using the exact same hard science that science used to figure out how your computer works is the same scientific method and hard facts that have determined evolution. If you genuinely accept that the scientific method is valid you can't then pick and choose when you will accept scientific results and when you'll simply discard them as inconvenient. The truth is that there is far more hard scientific evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory that the Earth orbits the sun. Take the time to actually study the subject yourself and you'll see. By just taking the word of some creationist that it's all a bunch of supposition makes you come off as extremely ignorant.

I been reading the thread and realized that the questions I'm asking are the ones you've been making a poor attempt to ignore or dodge throughout the thread. As for taking my own advice and studying your position, you need to come up with something better than "GOD DID IT!" because for anyone who employs the scientific method that's just not good enough.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Well, it amazes me that some people can pick and choose parts of science and demand solid evidence for it, yet blindly accept other parts with no proof whatsoever.

The proof is there for anyone to examine. So sad that you've never taken the time to study it yourself and instead rely of what some creationist has told you.

Someone using a computer does not assume that it designed and manufactured itself over millions of years. How many working components does a computer need, assembled in the right sequence, to function? Could those components ever come together in the right sequence by chance?

The human brain surpasses any man-made computer, yet you say it needed no designer or maker.

Where is the logic in that?

All the proof I need to determine that you've never actually studied evolution is how you continually act as if evolution even addresses how life BEGAN. It doesn't. It ONLY discusses how simple lifeforms develop into more complex lifeforms over time. That's why the vast majority of Christians ACCEPT the valid scientific findings of evolution. They understand that the theory of evolution doesn't eliminate the possibility of a God. It's their understanding that evolution is the method that God used to create all life. If you're convinced that the human brain is so complex that it required a designer, then fine... just accept that the method God used to deign the human brain was the process of evolution. The pope understands this as do the majority of religious people, because they realize they can't just ignore a major area of scientific study that uses the exact same scientific methods as any other area of science.



Yes, I find that a lot of scientists are very good at 'guessing'. "This might have happened" or "this could have happened" is not the same as saying something "must have" happened. Do you see the difference? Probably not.
Evolutionists prefer to denigrate anyone who disagrees with them.....such a hostile lot.

Actually you're right, hypotheses or educated guesses is exactly how all science begins. It's an attempt to come up with explanations for things in the physical world we can't explain. Oh, but don't make the mistake of thinking that it stops there! No, no! A mere scientific hypothesis means NOTHING unless and until the scientist who proposes it finds a means of TESTING the hypothesis. After testing that test must be able to be replicated by any other scientists attempting to do so. And even that isn't sufficient to elevate a mere hypothesis to the level an on actual theory.

Now creationism isn't science because it does NOT use the scientific method. Until someone finds a way to perform a test for the hypothesis that God created everything it will forever remain nothing more than a hypothesis.

Oh, yes...its an absolute tragedy! Those who pick and choose which bits of the Bible to accept and which parts to ignore have no business calling themselves Christians......just as those who swallow the rhetoric of evolutionary science have no business calling themselves scientists. Macro-evolution has no actual proof for its validity. I think that this thread has proven that conclusively.

You guys are big on talk but very short on evidence. Your theory is shot down before it has anywhere to go IMO.

You keep claiming there is no evidence, yet all of your posts prove again and again that you've never actually taken the time to study the evidence available. If you're going to call the theory of evolution rhetoric then you have to call the theory that the Earth orbits the sun rhetoric as well. Religion may be something where you can pick and choose... genuine science is NOT.

"Adaptation is what is observable, but there is nothing but suggestion to take it outside the boundary of a single "kind" of creature."

What do you even mean by 'kind' of creature? Anyone who has actually studied evolution and not just taken other people's word for what it is would know that saying 'kind of creature' is meaningless. Quit pretending as if you've studied the theory extensively and concluded that it's all bunk. All those of us who have need to do is read your uneducated posts and it's obvious that you haven't.

Maybe if you spent less time picking out clever emoticons to add to your posts and more time educating yourself on the facts you wouldn't come off as so ignorant.

 

[Jose Fly]

You keep claiming there is no evidence,

She'll say that until you press her. Then she'll switch to saying that it's scientists' interpretation of the evidence that she doesn't like. But then all you have to do is wait a few days, and she'll go right back to claiming there's no evidence.

Basically, she'll just say whatever serves her purposes at that particular point in time, with no consideration of what she said previously.

"Adaptation is what is observable, but there is nothing but suggestion to take it outside the boundary of a single "kind" of creature."

What do you even mean by 'kind' of creature?

If you can get her to tell you what a "kind" is, you'll win the internet. She's been dodging that question since I've been here, even stooping so low as to claim that she has defined the term, yet somehow not bothering to say what that definition is nor linking to the post where she gave it.

Also, if you can get her to tell you what the differences are between "evolution" and "adaptation", you'll have done something no one else could do.

Good luck.

 

[Deeje]

I posted that these things ("kinds") can hypothetically happen because of what we know of "speciation" that has been observed: Speciation - Wikipedia

"Hypothetically"? Speciation has never been observed outside of their "kind", metis. Not once has a creature morphed into another creature....it is only speculated that they "could" do this....but no one has ever seen it happen. Speculation that it "could have" was replaced by a mindset that it "must have"....but suggestions and biased interpretation of evidence did not "prove" that it ever took place. This is based on science fiction, not science fact. The fossils do not have a voice, so science gave them one...like a ventriloquist gives voice to a dummy. They can make them say whatever they like...who will question them? Other scientists who also have the same agenda? Seriously?

The fox guarding the hen house?

When Darwin observed the various species on the Galapagos Islands, he did not see the finches becoming something other than finches.....the iguanas were still clearly iguanas, and the tortoises were still tortoises.....nothing but minor changes to facilitate a different environment with different food sources was seen. Imagination created the rest. You can't test imagination. So believing becomes the basis for what is accepted as truth. We each have a belief that we cannot prove by any human means. I believe I have more evidence for what I accept as truth, than you do. But that is just my belief.

You've moved the goalposts as you had previously claimed that these different "kinds" were made by God over time (sequential), thus going against what the creation accounts actually say. So, again, you're just playing games here.

Please read my posts again. JW's do not believe that the Genesis account is talking about 7/24 hour days. We believe that the Bible makes allowance for the creation "of the heavens and the earth" to have taken place well in advance of its preparation for habitation....perhaps millions of years before.

The creative "days" could well have been many thousands or of years in length. This gives ample time for creation to have been a slow and well thought out process by a master designer who was deliberate and imaginative in his creation. He is not some kind of a celestial magician who just 'poofed' everything together with a wave of his hand in an earth week. This is a myth promoted by Christendom.

The word "day" in Hebrew is "yohm" and can mean 'an unspecified period of time'. People seem to want to place limits on the Creator and fail to take into consideration that their interpretation of what he says may be the problem. Interpretation is key to our understanding of any subject......religion or science is no exception.

The fossil records clearly show different "kinds" emerging at different intervals, and it's clear you realize this because of your previous post, so now you're just being disingenuous.

You have completely misunderstood my understanding of Genesis then. The "kinds" in Genesis were created on specific "days" in their specifically prepared habitats. Each creative day could have been thousands or even millions of years long....the Creator does not operate in earth time. He is not restricted by the same time constraints as we are.
What is disingenuous about that? It fits the Genesis description and it is perfectly logical.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, which you reject out of hand, and yet you cannot provide one single shred of objectively-derived evidence for a theistic causation. Since you clearly cannot and have not done this, your position cannot be taken seriously, so let me suggest you find a Christian denomination that actually works with reality and not reject it.

Since when is man's interpretation of how life changed on this planet the basis for defining God? Evolutionists are quick to fob off any question about abiogenesis as if the origin of life is meaningless compared to how it changed over time. Which is the more important question? If life was created then the whole theory falls in a dead, smelly heap.

The "evidence" that science presents is interpreted to fit the theory by those who have a vested interest in promoting it....there is nothing "overwhelming" about any of it IMO....except maybe the volume of the misinterpretation and its eager acceptance by the adoring converts to science. Egos drive academia....we all know that. Look at the prizes awarded to those who strive for the accolades. How many scientists are poor? Desire for what science provides tends to work against what God says are the desirable human qualities.

What if the Creator cannot be squeezed into a scientific equation, used by mere humans with a little knowledge? You think man's capabilities and present knowledge can compare to the one who created the brains that scientists use to discredit him?

Isaiah 40:22:
"There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers."

What do these "grasshoppers" imagine about their own capabilities and knowledge compared to what the Creator knows?

Any wonder he is bemused by their ignorance. Read King Solomon's words at Proverbs 1:22-33. This is a real expectation for all of us. God doesn't go away just because you don't believe in him.
One does not want to be on the wrong side of this issue. (Hebrews 10:31)

........but we each must make our own decisions about these things, based on who we really are at heart.

 

[Deeje]

You continue to post the most baffling contradictory statements. This time, it's "I cannot separate science from the one who created it.....it's not a religious issue at all".

Weird.

Its only "weird" when you separate the Creator from his creation and attribute his brilliant designs to the forces of blind chance rather than to the deliberate actions of the Creator. "Natural selection" is science's substitute for "God did it". How is it a better option?

Where did God say he would overturn evolutionary theory?

It will be overturned along with every other godless thing in this world.

According to the apostle Peter...
"by reducing the cities of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah to ashes, he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly people of things to come....Jehovah knows how to rescue people of godly devotion out of trial, but to reserve unrighteous people to be destroyed on the day of judgment" (2 Peter 2:6, 9)

"First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.”
5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people." (2 Peter 3:3-7)

None of them thought it could ever happen.......but it did, and it will again.....believe it or not.

Why are you associating evolution and science with atheism?

Because those who don't believe in a Creator are usually those who deny his existence, and those who want to fuse creation with evolution (theistic evolution) are trying to have a foot in both camps, as if it makes them acceptable to both. The scriptures do not allow for that position. We have to choose. Either God is the Creator he claims to be, or he does not exist and we are all doomed to exist in this present world until science makes all life on this planet extinct.

 

[Deeje]

Maybe if you spent less time picking out clever emoticons to add to your posts and more time educating yourself on the facts you wouldn't come off as so ignorant.

Yes they are clever.....I like them a lot.

But as for the educating of myself, I have read enough to see science fiction when I read it. If you could see what you accept as fact through the eyes of those who see through the pure supposition being presented, you would see the absence of genuine facts, substituted with assumptions and pseudo-science. Read back through the thread, and you will see that the truth of those scientific explanations is exposed in red. "Could have"...."might have"....."it is suggested that"...."leads us to the conclusion".....and many similar phrases betray the lack of certainty about any of it. A suggestion is not a fact unless you can prove it. You have no more real proof for your theory than we do for our Creator. You can't admit that though, can you?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yes they are clever.....I like them a lot.

But as for the educating of myself, I have read enough to see science fiction when I read it. If you could see what you accept as fact through the eyes of those who see through the pure supposition being presented, you would see the absence of genuine facts, substituted with assumptions and pseudo-science. Read back through the thread, and you will see that the truth of those scientific explanations is exposed in red. "Could have"...."might have"....."it is suggested that"...."leads us to the conclusion".....and many similar phrases betray the lack of certainty about any of it. A suggestion is not a fact unless you can prove it. You have no more real proof for your theory than we do for our Creator. You can't admit that though, can you?

Guess what, there are just as many "could haves... might haves... it is suggested that's... and it leads us the conclusions... " in EVERY OTHER branch of science. You know why,. that's because every single branch of science is constantly evolving, based upon new information. The theory of plate tectonic ( how land masses formed on Earth over time) is an established scientific theory. It's universally agreed upon within the scientific community that plate tectonics is VALID. Yet scientists still debate SPECIFICS of the theory. Just because scientists disagree on precisely when land mass A moved from point A to point C does NOT mean that the entire theory of plate tectonics is a fraud. It simply means that as new information comes in the SPECIFICS concerning the theory might change. The same is true for evolution. The theory is accepted by virtually all scientists, it's merely specifics (when exactly did animal species A start to transition to species B) that are disagreed upon, NOT the theory itself.

You say "I have read enough to see science fiction when I read it. " Then clearly you stopped reading too soon. If you have a genuine grasp of how the scientific method works, the validity of evolution is obvious. If you think that evolutionists are practicing pseudo-science then you obviously don't really grasp how the method works. The exact SAME methods that have enabled us to determine that the Earth orbits the sun, even though we have never actually 'seen' the Earth orbit the sun, are the same methods used to determine the validity of evolution. One such method is making correct predictions. For instance, IF we truly understand the orbits of the planets THEN we should be able to predict where planets A, B, and C will be on date X. Low and behold, come date X, planets A, B, and C are ALL precisely where scientists predicted they would be. This is evidence SUPPORTING the theory that the Earth orbits the sun. The same happens with evolution. IF species A eventually evolved into species B THEN we should be able to predict that a series of transitional species existed as well. And when over time fossils for those transitional species are discovered, this becomes evidence SUPPORTING the theory of evolution.

If you're satisfied that science knows what it's talking about when it comes to the Earth orbiting the sun then you should be MORE than satisfied that science knows what it's talking about when it comes to evolution, because we have TONS more verifiable evidence for evolution than we do for the theory that the Earth orbits the sun. If you don't then just admit that you pick & choose what parts of science you accept and which parts you consider to be fraudulent and quit pretending otherwise.

 

[Deeje]

Here's an interesting video where College professors and students majoring in various branches of science are asked the difficult questions about hard evidence for Darwinian evolution....

Some people are pretending that there is evidence.....I wonder who?

Is evolution a fact or a belief? Can we be confident that science knows what it's talking about when it comes to evolution?

 

[roger1440]

These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation? What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?

I have seen some women in my time that I’m certain that were beat down with an ugly stick, yet they were married. Either there husband was outright blind or beauty truly is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[metis]

"Hypothetically"? Speciation has never been observed outside of their "kind", metis.

I'm using "kind" in reference to the emergence of new "species", and this has been observed.

The fossils do not have a voice, so science gave them one...like a ventriloquist gives voice to a dummy.

Like with interpreting scripture, we look for patterns, especially on items that may not be abundantly clear. The fossil record leaves patterns that can be and continue to be analyzed. Much like a court makes decisions dealing with evidence, this is what we do in science, but you don't do that with your theology as there simply is no objective evidence for divine creation.

When Darwin observed the various species on the Galapagos Islands, he did not see the finches becoming something other than finches.....the iguanas were still clearly iguanas, and the tortoises were still tortoises.....nothing but minor changes to facilitate a different environment with different food sources was seen.

But he went on to explain in both of his books that these changes may well have implications that go well beyond just "kinds", so all you are doing is "picking & choosing" here.

The "evidence" that science presents is interpreted to fit the theory by those who have a vested interest in promoting it....there is nothing "overwhelming" about any of it IMO..

This shows how little you know about how science works as scientists often are in disagreement with one another. Why don't you go to the library and get some copies of "Scientific American" and read the commentaries at the beginning of each issue for proof for this? But I highly doubt that you will because you really don't want to know, much preferring to believe in fairy tales that you've been indoctrinated to believe.

What if the Creator cannot be squeezed into a scientific equation, used by mere humans with a little knowledge?

But, AGAIN, notice that you are offering 0 evidence for your assertion that God created all. Nothing. Nada. Zero.

Therefore, it is absolutely hypocritical for you to demand evidence when you cannot do it for that which you believe. So, again, please present any objective evidence that you have that clearly indicates that one deity made all, Deeje. If you can't, and I think you know that you can't, then don't go around demanding that everyone else needs to present evidence-- even though more than enough has been presented to you.

 

[Jose Fly]

Its only "weird" when you separate the Creator from his creation and attribute his brilliant designs to the forces of blind chance rather than to the deliberate actions of the Creator.

Again you seem to be completely oblivious to your self-contradiction. You do it so often, it's become one of your defining traits.

"Natural selection" is science's substitute for "God did it". How is it a better option?

Well that's odd, since we see natural selection in action all the time. We even exploit the process to our own ends (e.g., domestication). So it's really strange to see you promote a dichotomy where it's either God or natural selection.

It will be overturned along with every other godless thing in this world.

Is chemistry godless? Physics? Electrical engineering?

According to the apostle Peter...
"by reducing the cities of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah to ashes, he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly people of things to come....Jehovah knows how to rescue people of godly devotion out of trial, but to reserve unrighteous people to be destroyed on the day of judgment" (2 Peter 2:6, 9)

"First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.”
5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people." (2 Peter 3:3-7)

None of them thought it could ever happen.......but it did, and it will again.....believe it or not.

Funny......not one mention of God overturning evolutionary theory, yet you claim that's what the above says. How bizarre.

Because those who don't believe in a Creator are usually those who deny his existence, and those who want to fuse creation with evolution (theistic evolution) are trying to have a foot in both camps, as if it makes them acceptable to both. The scriptures do not allow for that position. We have to choose. Either God is the Creator he claims to be, or he does not exist and we are all doomed to exist in this present world until science makes all life on this planet extinct.

So in your world, if you were to become an "evolutionist" you would have no choice but to also become an atheist. Is that correct?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's an interesting video where College professors and students majoring in various branches of science are asked the difficult questions about hard evidence for Darwinian evolution....

Some people are pretending that there is evidence.....I wonder who?

Is evolution a fact or a belief? Can we be confident that science knows what it's talking about when it comes to evolution?

How about a video where people ask biologists and geneticists some science questions? You'd at least be closer to making a relevant point.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Here's an interesting video where College professors and students majoring in various branches of science are asked the difficult questions about hard evidence for Darwinian evolution....

Some people are pretending that there is evidence.....I wonder who?

Is evolution a fact or a belief? Can we be confident that science knows what it's talking about when it comes to evolution?

Yes we CAN! PLEASE don't confuse opinions of individual scientists with what SCIENCE has determined. Individual scientists can have agendas or simply be uninformed. Fortunately the SCIENTIFIC METHOD ensures that such factors are weeded out over time. Individual agendas and misinformation are easily revealed via this method and that's why evolution is as valid a science as any other science out there. The people who claim there is evidence are the ones who have actually STUDIED the evidence. You really ought to try it some time. And that doesn't mean study until you get confused and decide it must all be a bunch of bunk... I mean really STUDY the evidence... take the time to understand the confusing parts instead of just rejecting it because it's above your ability to grasp. It's amazing the doors that will open for you if you do.