Perceptions of God, Creationism and Evolution

[Vangelovski]

At the cosmological level, it has become increasingly apparent that the physical laws and parameters governing our universe (e.g. the force of gravity, the energy density of empty space, the difference in mass between neutrons and protons, etc.) are so exquisitely fine-tuned to permit the emergence of life, that even the tiniest alteration in any of these laws and parameters would have catastrophic consequences.

Astrophysicist, Dr Hugh Ross, for instance, has identified 148 astrophysical parameters that must be ‘just so’ for a planet to exist that can support human life, yet the odds against this happening by chance are, he calculates, many times greater than the total number of stars in the entire universe!

Given such facts, even so great an astronomer and former atheist as Fred Hoyle, has written: “I do not believe that any scientists who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars.”

That and other such observations from Hoyle have prompted Harvard astronomy professor, Owen Gingerich, to comment: “Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a super-intelligence.”

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/advanced/does-science-contradict-religion.htm

[Delodephius]

Hm, I have not looked at humans other than as talking apes, "monkeys that learned to build machines", for a long time.

[George S.]

ON the theory of evolution it says that animals are evolving.How come there is no visible evolvement today & how come for "millions of years you have got crocodiles are the same,the shark is the same.To say that man has evolved from the monkey makes a mockery of the whole thing.Isn't man more intelligent than a monkey.Mankind is a special species.Each animal has it's own species.Each animal was made from it's own kind.
Also biodiversity means that whilst some things appear similar they are not in way related.
If evolution is true how come man is not evolving into something else.A lot of these so called skull discoveries have been proven to be just hoaxes.Out of all the "animals" on the earth man is the most intelligent,man can reason & plan,design & other qualities compassion etc.Where as the animals are guided by instinct & brute force.
If we look at the complexities of man & animals man is far more complex.It is said that man was made in the image of god.Man can have communion with his maker also mans destiny or potential is to become god in gods kingdom.To partake & be god in the next life.The animals do not have that potential.They are there to serve mankind.That's another reason why human life is so precious that god giveth & god taketh away.
The bible makes it clear that in man god is reproducing themselves,man is on a higher plane than the other animals.When got made animals he made them complete not to evolve into something else.God has a definite plan for whatever he does.That is evidence in his creation handiwork.Jesus said forgive them father for they do not understand what they do.Jesus said it's so simple a little child can understand it,Flesh & blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god only that that is of the spirit can enter the knigdom of god.

[vojnik]

A more plausible scenario would be that the tide occurred just as the Israelites approached the waters with the falling sea level lasting long enough for them to cross to the other side, after which the level rose while the Egyptians were still on their way. Tides occur everyday, the divine intervention is in the timing.

I don't know the geography of the Red Sea area in order to reject the idea that a low tide causes a land bridge across from one side to the other but I am doubting it I will try find something and will return with an answer

[Vangelovski]

Here is a list of about 800 (last count) scientists who consider darwinism to be, frankly, BS:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

They come from all over the world, Christian and atheist. This is the statement that they have signed up to:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

They signed this declaration because:

During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.

The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

[Vangelovski]

Can 'irreducible complexity' really be classified as as a powerful objection? It appears to be widely dismissed as psuedoscience based on ignorance by most scientists, bioligists and peer-reviewed journals, and finds its main support in the theory of 'intelligent design' and creationists.

I'm not sure where you got that from, but regardless, can you explain then, or provide an explanation of, how biological organisms that consist of multiple co-ordinated parts (which must all co-exist in order for it to function) evolved? If it is so readily dismissed, this should be easy.

P.S. I gave you the view of a Darwinian scientist as well.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Another powerful objection to Darwinian theory is its inability to offer a convincing solution to the problem of ‘irreducible complexity’ – i.e. the existence of biological organisms and systems comprised of multiple, co-ordinated parts, all of which must co-exist to ensure the proper functioning of that organism or system.

Can 'irreducible complexity' really be classified as as a powerful objection? It appears to be widely dismissed as psuedoscience based on ignorance by most scientists, bioligists and peer-reviewed journals, and finds its main support in the theory of 'intelligent design' and creationists.

The Red Sea could not have parted without Divine Intervention from God. If lets say this tsunami theory were true then the tsunami would of had to freeze to allow the Moses and the Jews to cross then resume its destruction to destroy the Egyptians.

A more plausible scenario would be that the tide occurred just as the Israelites approached the waters with the falling sea level lasting long enough for them to cross to the other side, after which the level rose while the Egyptians were still on their way. Tides occur everyday, the divine intervention is in the timing.

[Vangelovski]

Even if we ignore the many difficulties facing Darwinian theory and the lack of convincing evidence for macro-evolution, one compelling reason exists for dismissing it completely: the accidental emergence of complex life-forms does not become more probable by being divided up into many little steps.

Since the evolutionary process is ‘blind’ because it has no conscious purpose or ‘target’ at which it is aiming, there is no reason why all the little steps required for the development of the human eye, for instance, should occur at the right time and in the right order.

To quote one agnostic scientific critic of Darwinism, Richard Milton, writing in his book, The Facts of Life (Corgi Books, 1992, p.180): “The improbability of step number 2 correctly following step number 1, correctly followed by step number 3 and so on for 100 mutations, is as great as leaping to the 100th step in one go…It does not become any easier for an eye to come into being just because the first of the 100 or 1,000 accidents needed has taken place, even if that first step is a very important general innovation such as light-sensitive tissue.”

The next random mutation may be a wrong step, “such as providing eyelids before providing the muscles to move them, thus blinding their possessor.” Even if favourable mutations did accumulate within one species, their survival value could be counterbalanced by favourable mutations within some hostile predator, or else nullified by some harmful change in climate or physical environment.

Since, in addition, most mutations are harmful, why should it be likely that enough favourable mutations would accumulate by accident to produce a progressive upward trend in organic evolution?

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/advanced/does-science-contradict-religion.htm

[makedonin]

One should give the Bible the credit, sometimes it is pro animal rights:

28And Jehovah openeth the mouth of the ass, and she saith to Balaam, `What have I done to thee that thou hast smitten me these three times?'

Numbers 22:28

Talking ass wow.

This days, just like with the miracles thing, God forgot to fight the animals abuse, exactly when it is most needed.

[Vangelovski]

No need for that, it is your jurisdiction and realm!

Have fun while it lasts

I really wonder what is going on in your lala land when you say something like this:


and than complain about science and throw bs around. Science has more conclusive evidence than your Bible and creationist camp will ever dream to have, and yet you stick to the foolishnes.

You really are Model example of Pauls ideology:

"we [are] fools because of Christ" 1 Corinthians 4:10

Feel free to provide scientific evidence for your beliefs or refute the scientific evidence I have already provided.

[Bill77]

The Red Sea could not have parted without Divine Intervention from God. If lets say this tsunami theory were true then the tsunami would of had to freeze to allow the Moses and the Jews to cross then resume its destruction to destroy the Egyptians.

And Moses would have been an ass (lucky) to predict this tsunami to happen at that moment. The Egyptians should have known that when you see the tide going out, run like fuck because its a sure sign of a tsunami. Those silly Egyptians.

[Onur]

What do you mean by 'ethnocentric'? Has Christianity ever excluded non-Jews?

The Jewish religion was ethnocentric, exclusive for the Jews themselves and to their descendants. Christianity adopted their faith, made some changes and presented it to the whole world as an universal religion.

The Jewish religion is still ethnocentric belief today. If you want, you can be a christian or muslim but you cannot be a real Jew if you didn't born by a Jewish mother.

What are your perceptions of the man who was Muhammed? Was he just a disgruntled Arab who adopted 70% of the Jewish and Christian beliefs and scriptures, and inspired his followers to spread this religion through the sword, just like their subsequent lackeys (like some Turkish tribes) did afterwards? Is that a fair assessment, or is it cynical, like your assessment of Christianity?

Yes, this might be fair assessment but the key point here is not the identities of Mohammed or Jesus. Most of the stories about their life probably exaggerated or maybe completely false. You know, we still don't have a proof whether a man called Jesus really existed or not.

These are just details. You gotta look at the big picture. And when i look at it, i see what Daskalot said;

Religion is a tool used by the few to control the many, quite simple.

This never changes. First christians used religion to free people from the grasp of Jews and pagan Romans and then control them for their own needs. Then first muslims used their religion to free people from the grasp of alexandrian church and pagan Arabs of Mecca and then control them for their own needs.


Religion is also a tool for legitimization of the ruling core`s actions. What Bush said when they bombed Iraq? And what French said when they bombed Libya? Both mentioned about a new crusade.

What Al-Qaida or any other middle-eastern terrorists says when they attack somewhere? They say that they are doing this in the name of islam.

What Israel says when they bomb Palestine? They say that they do it in the name of Zionism.

One of the biggest event of the christianity was the adoption of the religion by the Roman empire. You know how that happened; Roman emperor Constantine, sees the vision of Jesus and a cross while he walks on a bridge and a voice inside his head tells him that "You will conquer under this banner/cross" and he becomes a christian. People like Vangelovski believes this story and thinks that Jesus appeared to the Roman empire and magically, he became a christian! but people like me believes that Constantine saw this new religion as a new opportunity for his reign and he thought like he can manipulate people in his realm with that and this gives him basis to convince ordinary people to fight for his own benefit. I can say the same for the early Turkish states and their adoption of islam.

[makedonin]

Makedonin, still chasing the unicorn?
.

No need for that, it is your jurisdiction and realm!

Have fun while it lasts

I really wonder what is going on in your lala land when you say something like this:

Can you prove to me that we actually exist, as opposed to being in the matrix or a figment of someone’s imagination?

and than complain about science and throw bs around. Science has more conclusive evidence than your Bible and creationist camp will ever dream to have, and yet you stick to the foolishnes.

You really are Model example of Pauls ideology:

"we [are] fools because of Christ" 1 Corinthians 4:10

[Vangelovski]

Another powerful objection to Darwinian theory is its inability to offer a convincing solution to the problem of ‘irreducible complexity’ – i.e. the existence of biological organisms and systems comprised of multiple, co-ordinated parts, all of which must co-exist to ensure the proper functioning of that organism or system.

As Darwin himself admitted in The Origin of Species: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Precisely such a demonstration has been made by American biochemist, Dr Michael Behe, in his award-winning best-seller, Darwin’s Black Box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. In this book, he argues that many biochemical structures within living organisms are ‘irreducibly complex’, like, for example, those involved in vision and blood-clotting. Behe shows that even the simplest form of vision requires a dazzling array of chemicals in the right places, as well as a system to transmit and process the information.

The blood-clotting mechanism similarly needs many different chemicals to work together in order to prevent us bleeding to death from minor cuts. If a simple mousetrap cannot function if any of its component parts are missing, how could an evolutionary process produce infinitely more complex single-cell organisms?

As one Darwinian scientist, Franklin M. Harold,has pointed out in his book, The Way of the Cell, (Oxford University Press, 2001, p.205), a single-cell organism is a biological high-tech factory complete with: “artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction…[and] a capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.” Not surprisingly, he reluctantly concludes: “…we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (p.329).

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/advanced/does-science-contradict-religion.htm

[vojnik]

I read somewhere the red sea "parted" was a tsunamai

The Red Sea could not have parted without Divine Intervention from God. If lets say this tsunami theory were true then the tsunami would of had to freeze to allow the Moses and the Jews to cross then resume its destruction to destroy the Egyptians.