• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science Disproves Evolution

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
'Bout time for me to check out of this thread.

Pahu, you're just shooting yourself in the foot. Nobody other than you is taking you seriously.

Bandwidth thieves should be banned instantly, IMHO.

Whether he works for that site, or is merely an unwitting accomplice, that site is getting a hell of a lot of free advertising, not to mention multiple copies of itself spread all over the internets for free to help with search engine hits.
 
Last edited:

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
This was a lot to read...Noah and the Ark..All you really need to know is to have Faith in Him and the Word

When every myth that intends to establish not only teh deity but his authority is easily disproven, BLIND faith is all you need.
 

Pahu

Member
When every myth that intends to establish not only teh deity but his authority is easily disproven, BLIND faith is all you need.

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” ]Reincarnation in the Bible? - iUniverse
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Without addressing your logic, I find these premises unverifiable:
2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10
Those things about the material world don't appear knowable using the scientific method.
Premises 1 & 8 look good though.
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
Copying and pasting a Roger Lewin quote mine is sad:
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
Creationists conveniently edit the very next sentence:
“What is not clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally
decoupled from macroevolution; the two can more probably
be seen as a continuum with notable overlap.”


That's all I have off the top of my head. The rest of Pahu's post is full of mangled interpretations of natural selection, Behe (garbage) and Løvtrup (I have yet to read his book but I do know he did acknowledge evolution but had problems with Darwin's presentation of natural selection).

:sleep:
 
Last edited:

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
crying-baby-0509-s2-99576567.jpg
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
It is interesting that in this site titled "Religious Forums" the rules do not allow educational information to be shared. My last two posts continuing the information about natural selection were deleted. This is a method of silencing those who share information that cannot be tolerated when it conflicts with what the censors want to believe. Apparently instead of information based on known laws of physics confirmed by scientists, they prefer unsupported opinions.

I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, that’s fine. I believe the free exchange of facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with known physics confirmed by the scientists being quoted, not me.

The mentality of unredeemed human nature has remained unchanged since Cain murdered Abel over a disagreement. History is full of examples of people silencing those with whom they disagree:

......

Please take all complaints about forum administration directly to the staff.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank

Bounded Variations


Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few (c). New features apparently don’t evolve.

a. “...the discovery of the Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen that the more or less constant somatic variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis in species change cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of ‘indefinite departure.’ ” Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 227.

b. “The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available...” Peter R. Sheldon, “Complexity Still Running,” Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104.

c. Bland J. Finlay, “Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species,” Science, Vol. 296, 10 May 2002, pp. 1061–1063.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 4.** Bounded Variations

Walt Brown is crazy. Loony-tunes. Completely insane. Posting his lunatic hallucinations is not helping you.
 
Top