ArchitectureWeek DesignCommunity Forum Index » Fireside Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic
Author	Message
ArchiMotion Joined: 31 May 2008 Posts: 315	Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:26 am    Post subject: Nobody can dismiss God, unless you want to find yourself fighting against God himself.
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
ArchiMotion Joined: 31 May 2008 Posts: 315	Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:49 am    Post subject: What if some allien species came down to earth and told you: "You guys on earth got it all wrong. It didn't evolve from nothing, we planted it there as an experiment, and combined monkeys with us alliens to produce the human species". Would you believe this? Of course you would, if they came and told you so. So why then wouldn't you believe God, if He came and told us that He put it here? Now, why would God need to come and tell this to every human being individually? If a person is willing to analyze the evidence and believe in something, then there is hope. When one utterly refuses to believe in anything but illogical theories, then there is no hope, and not even worth one's time trying to answer the questions of the skeptics.
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
csintexas millennium club Joined: 06 Feb 2006 Posts: 1960 Location: USA	Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:14 pm    Post subject: Quote: "You guys on earth got it all wrong. It didn't evolve from nothing, we planted it there as an experiment, and combined monkeys with us alliens to produce the human species". Would you believe this? Of course you would, if they came and told you so. Why should I believe that? Does this alien have proof? Quote: So why then wouldn't you believe God, if He came and told us that He put it here? If God came and told me he made all this I would certainly believe him. Quote: Now, why would God need to come and tell this to every human being individually? God doesn't need to. Theoretically God has infinite power and so could tell everyone at once. Quote: When one utterly refuses to believe in anything but illogical theories, then there is no hope I agree completely. Saying life can't begin spontaneously but God (which is life) can begin spontaneously is totally illogical. _________________ Chris Stewart Modern Texas Home Project
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
ArchiMotion Joined: 31 May 2008 Posts: 315	Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:47 pm    Post subject: The Big Picture Quote: "If God came and told me he made all this I would certainly believe him." Well, you see that is the point. God is constantly at work in the universe and in men but it is only those who have ears to hear that recognize this. Quote: "God doesn't need to. Theoretically God has infinite power and so could tell everyone at once. " And that He already did also but are people really willing to listen? Quote: "I agree completely. Saying life can't begin spontaneously but God (which is life) can begin spontaneously is totally illogical." And then how can anyone assume God has a beginning or an end, or that he began spontaneously? Have I or you lived forever to know what forever is? If there is a forever, then in the forever there is no beginning and there is no end. So then God didn't need to start anywhere, nor does he need to end anywhere. Forever means there is no beginning and no end in the mind and nature of God. Our universe, according to the laws of enthropy, will eventually extinguish itself, as all the energy of the stars will burn up and the entire thing will consume itself. Then some believe the universe itself is eternal, and keeps expanding and collapsing in an infinite sequence of events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity Quote: "There are a number of arguments for eternity, by which proponents of the concept, principally Aristotle, purported to prove that matter, motion, and time must have existed eternally." and -->> "Eternity as a timeless existence Quote: Augustine of Hippo wrote that time exists only within the created universe, so that God exists outside of time; for God there is no past or future, but only an eternal present. One need not believe in God in order to hold this concept of eternity: for example, an atheist mathematician can maintain the philosophical tenet that numbers and the relationships among them exist outside of time, and so are in that sense eternal." and further -->> Quote: "Whichever definition of eternity is understood, it is common to observe that finite human beings cannot fully understand eternity, since it is either an infinite amount of the time we know or something other than the time and space we know." and Quote: "Related to the notion of eternal existence is the concept of God as Creator, as a being completely independent of "everything else" that exists because he created everything else. (Contrast this with panentheism.) If this premise is true, then it follows that God is independent of both space and time, since these are properties of the universe. So according to this notion, God exists before time began, exists during all moments in time, and would continue to exist if somehow the universe and time itself were to cease to exist." and ..."This aspect of God and eternity leads to the human mind assuming that both are completely separate entities, and God himself is bound by the rules of eternity. There are no examples of this, and there never will be. Both entities in this aspect are beyond the "finite" capabilities of the human mind as mentioned above. It cannot be proven or unproven, for if it happened there would be no life or device to document this." An Eternal Universe? So then, getting back to the concept of a never ending universe --->> in this concept, there is no beginning and end. But even for each cycle, for life to start over again, it depends on the interaction of the Great Designer, or the laws of enthropy lead everything to distributed, less available energy, not the other way around. (See links below on this). And the current balance of the universe, the position of the planets, the stars, the heavens demonstrate a plan, a design - why do you think astronomy and astrology exist ? Everything is connected and they try to figure out meaning in it all. Such a high level of complexity as we see in our universe, in it's perfect design is not the product of random chance, this defies the laws of physics and of the natural world. Things tend to go to greater chaos and to a lower form of energy, and from order to disorder....unless there is some organizing intelligence to bring everything into order, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy The second law Main article: Second law of thermodynamics Quote: "An important law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value; and so, by implication, the entropy of the universe (i.e. the system and its surroundings), assumed as an isolated system, tends to increase. Two important consequences are that heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body: i.e., it is impossible to transfer heat from a cold to a hot reservoir without at the same time converting a certain amount of work to heat. It is also impossible for any device that can operate on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work; it can only get useful work out of the heat if heat is at the same time transferred from a hot to a cold reservoir. This means that there is no possibility of an isolated "perpetual motion" system. Also, from this it follows that a reduction in the increase of entropy in a specified process, such as a chemical reaction, means that it is energetically more efficient." Thus, when the stars all burn up, you have maximum enthropy and then maximum distribution of this energy, thus less available energy to do work in such systems, and no-where matter and life can draw energy to survive from. Enthropy in Closed and Open Systems "Ice melting example Main article: disgregation Quote: The illustration for this article is a classic example in which entropy increases in a small 'universe', a thermodynamic system consisting of the 'surroundings' (the warm room) and 'system' (glass, ice, cold water). In this universe, some heat energy δQ from the warmer room surroundings (at 298 K or 25 °C) will spread out to the cooler system of ice and water at its constant temperature T of 273 K (0 °C), the melting temperature of ice. The entropy of the system will change by the amount dS = δQ/T, in this example δQ/273 K. (The heat δQ for this process is the energy required to change water from the solid state to the liquid state, and is called the enthalpy of fusion, i.e. the ΔH for ice fusion.) The entropy of the surroundings will change by an amount dS = −δQ/298 K. So in this example, the entropy of the system increases, whereas the entropy of the surroundings decreases. It is important to realize that the decrease in the entropy of the surrounding room is less than the increase in the entropy of the ice and water: the room temperature of 298 K is larger than 273 K and therefore the ratio, (entropy change), of δQ/298 K for the surroundings is smaller than the ratio (entropy change), of δQ/273 K for the ice+water system. To find the entropy change of our "universe", we add up the entropy changes for its constituents: the surrounding room, and the ice+water. The total entropy change is positive; this is always true in spontaneous events in a thermodynamic system and it shows the predictive importance of entropy: the final net entropy after such an event is always greater than was the initial entropy. As the temperature of the cool water rises to that of the room and the room further cools imperceptibly, the sum of the δQ/T over the continuous range, at many increments, in the initially cool to finally warm water can be found by calculus. The entire miniature "universe", i.e. this thermodynamic system, has increased in entropy. Energy has spontaneously become more dispersed and spread out in that "universe" than when the glass of ice water was introduced and became a "system" within it." Yet this Wiki article is not clear, and avoids the key issue. It can be seen better here -->> Demonstration how the Second Law Makes Evolution <Modern Big Picture Evolution. Impossible -->> http://www.- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html And some scientists try to rebut this, and as seen here -->> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Life%3F_%28Schr%C3%B6dinger%29 Quote: "Schrödinger explains that living matter evades the decay to thermodynamical equilibrium by feeding on negative entropy. Life is based on a different principle, "order-from-order." and then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_entropy and even this "Negentropy" applies only to living biological life, not the entire systems of matter in the universe. There is no proof of this. So the Second Law of Thermodynamics still is not broken. And more on all these subjects and more can be found here -->> http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/content/view/3028/ With various related articles such as this one -->> http://www.- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.org/pcid/2002/1/4/mullan_primitive_cell.php Probabilities of randomly assembling a primitive cell on Earth This link is interesting as well --->> The Anomalities and Similarities Not Explained by Evolution -->> http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/content/view/2610/#theory Quote: "Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanation—similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, molluscs and even in some bacteria. The α-hemoglobin of crocodiles has more in common with that of chickens (17.5 %) than that of vipers (5.6 %), their fellow reptiles. 8 An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels. 9 And there are many other examples of similarities that cannot be due to evolution." and -->> Quote: "evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows." and -->> Quote: "What the fossil record shows in reality, even granted the evolutionary ‘dating’ methods, is that this clear-cut progression exists only in the minds of evolutionary popularists. Marvin Lubenow, in his book Bones of Contention (right), shows that the various alleged ‘ape-men’ do not form a smooth sequence in evolutionary ‘ages’, but overlap considerably. For example, the time-span of Homo sapiens fossils contains the time-span of the fossils of Homo erectus, supposedly our ancestor. Also, when the various fossils are analysed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic. The morphology overlaps too—the Journal of Creation paper by creationist John Woodmorappe, titled The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists’ terms concludes from the analysis of a number of characteristics that Homo ergaster, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis as well as H. heidelbergensis , were most likely ‘racial’ variants of modern man, while H. habilis and another specimen called H. rudolfensis were just types of australopithecines. In fact, H. habilis is now regarded as an invalid name, probably caused by assigning fragments of australopithecines and H. erectus fossils into this ‘taxonomic wastebin’." Fossil Flip Flop -->> Quote: Actually, evolutionists could easily accommodate such ‘out of place fossils’, as they have with living specimens of the Coelacanth fish and Wollemi Pine. These are just as sensational from an evolutionary paleontologist’s perspective as finding a living dinosaur. Since the materialistic paradigm (interpretive framework) is all important, evolutionists would be able to explain an ‘old’ human fossil by ‘reworking’ (displacing from the initial burial depth), or may even reassign such bones to another creature, since after all ‘we know’ that humans can’t be that deep in the fossil record! For example, the famous fossil footprints at Laetoli, Africa, of an upright walking biped—the University of Chicago’s Dr Russell Tuttle has shown that these are the same sorts of prints as made by habitually barefoot humans. But since they are dated at millions of years prior to when evolutionists believe modern humans arrived, they are regarded as australopithecine prints, by definition, even though australopithecine foot bones are substantially different from human ones. And then in an amazing twist, the same prints are held up as evidence that australopithecines walked upright like humans—regardless of the fact that other aspects of their anatomy indicate otherwise. Another good example of how a researcher’s presuppositions can lead to all sorts of special pleading is the explaining away of clear evidence for a fossil belemnite in Fossil flip-flop. and -->> Quote: The fossil order can be explained in a creationist framework, which avoids some of the contradictions of the evolutionary view. See link "Where are all the human fossils?" and the link "The Fossil Record: Becoming More Random All the Time" (more technical). Big-Picture Evolution Disgards the Possibility of God -->> Quote: "big-picture Evolution is really just a grab-bag of ideas about naturalistic (God-less) origins." and -->> A NON-COMPLEX LIFE FORM IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY Quote: "Incidentally, it’s important to note that a non-complex life form is an impossibility, since it needs to have the ability to reproduce. Even the simplest known true self-reproducing organism, a Mycoplasma, has 482 genes with 580,000 ‘letters’ (base pairs). But even this appears not to be enough to sustain itself without parasitizing an even more complex organism. Most likely, the parasitism resulted from loss of some of the genetic information required to make some essential nutrients (see Genome decay in the Mycoplasmas). Therefore a hypothetical first cell that could sustain itself would have to be even more complex." and notice how yet, in evolution, organism that are parasites are placed prior in the evolutionary chain to independent organisms, that produce their own energy and do not depend on parasiting. and -->> Quote: "Actually, they have found out how some major building blocks CANNOT be formed, e.g. cytosine (see Origin of Life: Instability of building blocks)." Quote: "spontaneous polymerization is a major hurdle for non-living chemicals to overcome (see Link - Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem). So is producing molecules all of one handedness (see Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem), and overcoming the inherent instability of the alleged building blocks (see Link Origin of life: instability of building blocks). Chemical evolutionists have yet to solve these problems, let alone produce any self-replicating system which has any relevance to cells (Self-Replicating Enzymes?)." Did Life Come From Space? Quote: Again, wishful thinking, partly motivated by the hopelessness of current theories about life spontaneously generating on Earth—see Sugars from space? Do they prove evolution? and Did life’s building blocks come from outer space? referring to this link ->> http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/content/view/1613/ and http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/content/view/1549/
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
ArchiMotion Joined: 31 May 2008 Posts: 315	Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:26 pm    Post subject: More interesting links here -->> https://store.- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/intl/product_info.php?sku=10-2-173 Bones of Contention (Revised and Updated) [10-2-173] AU$27.27 Bones of Contention (Revised and Updated) Quote: Find out what evolutionists don’t tell you about human fossils. The author gives you the results of his 35 years of fossil research, and shows without doubt that so-called human evolution is a myth. Easy to read and well documented. (High School–Adult) 400 pages See sample PDF --->> No actual sample fossils of humans - they are kept away from scientific scrutiny, and are rather elaborations of science. The only thing available to see are plastic replicas, inventions of science. "Show Me Your Fossils; I'll Show you Mine" "Technical Solution: mtDNA Neandertal Park - A Catch 22 The Dating Gap:Laying a Really Large Egg The Pretend Humans: The Nonhuman Fossil Primates So how can human evolution be based on fossil evidence if practically nobody including Darwin had access to any of the original fossils to examine them? All they had were plaster replicas, (which could in some cases have much fill-in material not present in the original fossils, as "inferences"). Quote: "The story is that when scientists came to study the fossil, they were blindfolded, driven to the bank, and unmasked...." Get the picture? Evolution is one big hoax being shuved down the throat of an unsuspecting population, in order to dispel forever the Christian views and excommunicate from public schools anything but the evolution ideas from being taught. Any mention of ID leads a teacher to be black-listed with no questions asked, totally removing them from the educational system forever. Thus, anything which does not confirm the invented lyes is treated as heresity and removed immediately from the dictatorial educational system which exists in American Schools. We are thus reaching or have reached a communist state, in every definition of the terms...beyond the practices of the government of torture, mis-information, control of civic liberties, human rights abuse and homeland security take-over of individual rights of speech, liberty, and the inherant premises of the constitution. "One nation, under God....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Really? We are far from that today. and back to the previous points which had been drawn above -->> The Second Law of Thermodynamics http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/content/view/3727 1. Open systems 2. Crystals 3. The 2nd Law and the Fall Wikipedia and science would have us believe enthropy is being erroneously applied. Another distortion of the facts. PROTEINS ARE NOT THE PRODUCT OF RANDOM PROCESSES - the sequences of DNA and proteins must be produced by an outside intelligent process Quote: Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of DNA and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process. Proteins are coded in DNA, and the DNA code comes from pre-existing codes, not by random processes. Many scientific experiments show that when their building blocks are simply mixed and chemically combined, a random sequence results. To make a protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesn’t occur. The same goes for preparing a DNA strand in a correct sequence. See Q&A: Origin of Life. The evolutionary origin-of-life expert Leslie Orgel confirmed that there are three distinct concepts: order, randomness and specified complexity: and -->> Quote: "Even the simplest known self-reproducing life form (Mycoplasma) has 482 genes, and it must parasitize more complex organisms to obtain the building blocks it cannot manufacture itself. The simplest organism that could exist in theory would need at least 256 genes, and it’s doubtful whether it could survive.3 See How Simple Can Life Be?"
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
ArchiMotion Joined: 31 May 2008 Posts: 315	Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:52 pm    Post subject: One for Djswan And here is one for djswan -->> http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/content/view/775 Chaos theory: no help for evolution Quote: Occasionally it is claimed that the discovery of patterns of order in seeming chaos is a bright star of hope for evolutionists. They feel it holds promise for their struggle to explain how disordered chemicals could have assembled themselves into the first self-reproducing machine, in opposition to the relentless tendency to universal disorder. However, present indications point to this being an illusory hope. One of the classic examples of such ‘order out of chaos’ is the appearance of hexagonal patterns on the surface of certain oils as they are being heated. The minute the heating stops, this pattern vanishes once again into a sea of molecular disorder. These patterns, like the swirls of a hurricane, are not only fleetingly short-lived, but are simple, repetitive structures which require negligible information to describe them. The information they do contain is intrinsic to the physics and chemistry of the matter involved, not requiring any extra ‘programming.’ Living things, on the other hand, are characterized by truly complex, information-bearing structures, whose properties are not intrinsic to the physics and chemistry of the substances of which they are constructed; they require the pre-programmed machinery of the cell. This programming has been passed on from the parent organisms, but had to arise from an intelligent mind originally, since natural processes do not write programs. Any suggestion that the two issues are truly analogous denies reality.
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
csintexas millennium club Joined: 06 Feb 2006 Posts: 1960 Location: USA	Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:09 pm    Post subject: Quote: Well, you see that is the point. God is constantly at work in the universe and in men but it is only those who have ears to hear that recognize this. I realize that people who want to believe do but otherwise you are going to have to produce hard evidence. Quote: And that He already did also but are people really willing to listen? What did God say? I hear a lot of stories, which is the correct one? Quote: And then how can anyone assume God has a beginning or an end, or that he began spontaneously? Have I or you lived forever to know what forever is? If there is a forever, then in the forever there is no beginning and there is no end. So then God didn't need to start anywhere, nor does he need to end anywhere. Forever means there is no beginning and no end in the mind and nature of God. Our universe, according to the laws of enthropy, will eventually extinguish itself, as all the energy of the stars will burn up and the entire thing will consume itself. Then some believe the universe itself is eternal, and keeps expanding and collapsing in an infinite sequence of events. I personally believe existence is infinite and has no beginning or end but certainly if God can just exist than it logically follows that we can also just exist. The universe will not entropy into a uniform cloud of matter because of gravity. All this neither confirms nor dismisses the idea of God. There may well be God. All I know is that I have not seen conclusive proof. It is a pleasant idea though. _________________ Chris Stewart Modern Texas Home Project
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
ArchiMotion Joined: 31 May 2008 Posts: 315	Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:09 pm    Post subject: csintexas wrote: I personally believe existence is infinite and has no beginning or end but certainly if God can just exist than it logically follows that we can also just exist. The universe will not entropy into a uniform cloud of matter because of gravity. All this neither confirms nor dismisses the idea of God. There may well be God. All I know is that I have not seen conclusive proof. It is a pleasant idea though. Your reasoning is just not logical enough for me to try to submit proof. What you believe in, when it comes to the origin and life and the universe, pre-establishes the notions of science and the universe that you accept. If you are either an agnostic (which you appear to be), an atheist, a Deist, a Zionist, a Satanist, a Mason, an advocate of the ultimate enlightment of the soul, based on the foundations of the religions of Atlantis, or some other form of earth bound intelligent species, caught in the grips of human thinking.. perhaps a little searching of the soul and search for this "mysterious god" will start to reveal the answers....
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
csintexas millennium club Joined: 06 Feb 2006 Posts: 1960 Location: USA	Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:44 pm    Post subject: I doubt you could find a more logical thinker. I would have to say believing things you have no proof of is illogical. Yes, I would consider myself an agnostic who likes the idea of God but has not seen any evidence. Frankly I don't see why it matters though. Regardless of what anyone believes we should all try and be good people and make this a better world. That is what is important. _________________ Chris Stewart Modern Texas Home Project
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
ArchiMotion Joined: 31 May 2008 Posts: 315	Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:39 pm    Post subject: Well, if there any reading these posts who does think it matters, I suggest you read the book of John in the Book of Books and you will certainly find the answers there. This is a good start. Then you can come back with any questions and will be happy to discuss more about who God is, according to this book of John. Very eye opening, in a spiritual sense. For those who have ears to hear. A few passages one could start with -->> John 1:1-18 John 3:16 John 5:37 Or read the entire chapters at a time and come back with sincere questions.
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
csintexas millennium club Joined: 06 Feb 2006 Posts: 1960 Location: USA	Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:55 am    Post subject: Yeah I read it, it's a nice story but doesn't constitute any sort of scientific proof. There are several books like that and I guess you don't believe them all or have seriously studied others to see if they may actually be the more correct teachings. The thing that puzzles me is your need to have scientific proof of your beliefs. If it is always going to boil down to "God is just here and I don't have to explain why" than you will never have credible beginning theory because you simply are not starting at the beginning. _________________ Chris Stewart Modern Texas Home Project
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
ArchiMotion Joined: 31 May 2008 Posts: 315	Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:26 am    Post subject: The Universe is Actually Expanding Faster! See this is the thing with people like you - you never make any sense as well. Even if God were to shout down from heaven - " I made you", you would come up with some excuse to not believe. You would say "it was the voice of an ET", or "someone was using some advanced technology with loud speakers. Now, how can we know whether one could even look at God? What if He is so brilliant in splendor, that to even look at Him would be immediate death? Mere mortal man questioning God? The moment you looked up to see if He is really there you would turn into ashes. Just think, can we even look at the sun, no matter how distant it is in the sky, and not damage our eyes? Now even Moses was not able to look at God. Simply, I do not need to give you the proof, since you refuse to accept it. I could if I wanted to. But I am not going to do it simply for the reason that no amount of proof will be enough for people like you. You will never believe no matter how much evidence is given. You refuse to analyze it from a scientific point of view, then how then would you begin to even begin to grasp more advanced ideas that go beyond the realm of science and are spiritually decerned? Even Jesus said this John 3:12 - "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" So as I said, answering questions of gnostics who refuse to consider the scientific evidence to prove God exists is going nowhere, since you people are hard of heard and ears and will not listen even if an angel came down from heaven and told us so. You would simply say it was an ET, or some wild secret technology some government is developing. There will always be an excuse to not believe what we cannot understand. For those who are really serious, then you will consider the enourmous amount of scientific elements and begin to realize Evolution is teaching us lies: THE LIES OF EVOLUTION (just a few of the lies, not a comprehensive list): 1. ALL DEFINITIONS OF EVOLUTION ARE FACT AND NONE OF IT IS THEORY. This is the biggest lie. Only some types of definitions are correct and the others all lack empirical evidence to prove, as I have demonstrated above. We have micro and macro evolution. Quote: Even among evolutionists, there is dis-agreement. For example, "supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution ( saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria ) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing change is so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle." Or "with the origin of birds, there are two main theories: that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory), and that they evolved ‘trees-down’ from small reptiles (the arboreal theory). Both sides produce devastating arguments against the other side. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right—birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all." More on this later. 2. EVOLUTION CAN EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE As I have demonstrated above, not even the simplest living cells can be explained by evolution. They require programming. Quote: "This is just bluff, since spontaneous polymerization is a major hurdle for non-living chemicals to overcome (see Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem). So is producing molecules all of one handedness (see Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem), and overcoming the inherent instability of the alleged building blocks (see Origin of life: instability of building blocks). Chemical evolutionists have yet to solve these problems, let alone produce any self-replicating system which has any relevance to cells (Self-Replicating Enzymes?)." http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/content/view/2610/#origin 3. THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS DOES NOT DIS-PROVE EVOLUTION Simply put, when all the energy becomes distributed, there is no more energy needed to produce WORK. Work is needed for the living organisms to metabolize, absorb energy of the sun etc. It is the energy differential that makes life possible. With all energy dissipating into the cosmos, all the temperature becoming the same, eventually this temperature is going to slowly decrease, as the energy dissipates itself further out into the infinite reaches of space. Soon the energy becomes so scattered and all the stars are burnt up. Even if all this energy somehow were to implode on itself, if this were possible, what would explain the increasing density of this energy becoming matter and what would create the atomic structures necessary for matter? In fact, in laboratories, when matter is created, it is quickly anialated and creating conditions of anti-matter to make it stable is a monster of an experiment not so easily reproducible, if at all possible in a laboratory. Even the simplest atomic structures require a plan, a design to maintain themselves stable and hold together. The binding forces that hold matter together are so strong, that each sub-atomic particle contains an incredible amount of contained energy, and the forces holding it together are so strong and complex that no known natural process could have produced this simply by chance. http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/content/view/3038 4. THE FOSSILS ON WHICH EVOLUTION IS BASED PROVE EVOLUTION Not even Darwin had access to them. Only a handful of people have ever been able to analyze the original fossils. They are kept locked away so that nobody can study them. Quote: "Actually, Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted: ‘Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.’ 13" http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/content/view/2610/#transitional 5. MODERN RADIODATING TECHNIQUES ARE ACCURATE A lie. I have already demonstrated this in the links above - more on this later. Just read the post also "One for Ed" for more information on this. 6. THINGS CAN GO FROM NOTHING FROM NO ORDER TO HIGH ORDER OF ORGANIZATION AND COMPLEXITY ALL ON THEIR OWN SPONTANEOUSLY or THE WORLD IS GOING FROM CHAOS TO AUTO-ORGANIZATION ALL ON IT'S OWN This defies the second law of physics - of enthropy, as shown. 7. ERRORS WITH RESPECT TO MUTATIONS and other similar errors Quote: "the raw material on which natural selection acts is random copying errors (mutations). If evolution from goo to you were true, we should expect to find countless information-adding mutations. But we have not even found one ." Info on this here -->> http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/content/view/2610/#mutations More on this later. 8. ALL SCIENCE IS CREATED EQUAL A lie. Scientific Creationism is banned from schools, from the most popular science magazines, from public opinion with a vengeance. There is no objectivity to science, since it refuses to allow alternate viewpoints into the public eyes. It makes every effort to pond them down and abolish even the mention of the possibility of anything but evolution, such as Intelligent Design. Our public schools have become a sort of communist state, with total control on what is being taught, and no alternate points of view are allowed to any degree. Not even the suggestion of an alternate point of view is accepted. It is treated as heresy and all it's members are excommunicated from the system, so as to "purge the system" from the impurity of Scientific Creationism. This is communist behavior at it's best. Truly the idea that ex communist States would become more capitalistic and free with time, and free capitalistic democratic States would become more restrictive and communist has become true. The world is leading to one common denominator and system that will embrace all ideas into one. More info on this can be found on my other posts. Further info on these topics -- * Does God exist ? * Is there objective evidence that God exists? * What are the consequences of atheism? * Where did God come from? Can we know God personally? http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf Chapter 4: What about carbon dating? PDF file available. * What about carbon dating? * How does the carbon ‘clock’ work? Is it reliable? * What does carbon dating really show? * What about other radiometric dating methods? * Is there evidence that the earth is young? http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf Chapter 7: What about arguments for evolution? PDF file available. * What about arguments for evolution? * Do similarities between creatures prove that they had a common ancestor (evolved)? * Is human and chimp DNA very similar? * Do human embryos go through animal stages as they develop? * Do we have useless left-over bits of animals in us? What about ‘ape-men’? http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter7.pdf And a master list of online books on these subjects here -->> http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/content/view/4884 and even in this secular article The Greatest Story Ever Told http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/18magazines_greatest.php There is no explanation for the origin of life -->> Quote: Within the chemically rich liquid oceans, by a mechanism unknown, there emerged simple anaerobic bacteria that unwittingly transformed Earth's carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere into one with sufficient oxygen to allow aerobic organisms to emerge and dominate the oceans and land. and it is suggested man evolved his own intelligence somehow -->> Quote: "One big-brained branch of these mammals, that which we call primates, evolved a genus and species (Homo sapiens) to a level of intelligence that enabled them to invent methods and tools of science; to invent astrophysics; and to deduce the origin and evolution of the universe." So the article starts out well, and gives an scientific possible explanation for how the universe started, by fails to explain how life formed or how the species of man could have evolved out of the primordial soup into a highly intelligent being. From the origin of the species up to modern man, it is all speculation. In fact, the entire model of the Big Bang is the best model we have to explain the universe, but who is to say that it was not God who was doing all this for a reason? That He was in control of all these events? In fact, we still do not have complete scientific evidence yet to prove the Big Bang -->> http://www.geocities.com/beyondearth2/det1.htm Quote: "In April 1992 at the time of the official announcement of the first COBE results, the media stated that these observations had brought the final proof the Big Bang. This was wrong because what the COBE displayed for us was a picture of the deep space background, showing what the universe looked like in the distant past. The big news was that after 300,000 years the shape of the universe was slightly visible as the formation of galaxies had started to take place. The essential point is that we have observed the intensity and the scale of fluctuations of the density of matter as they were 300,000 years after the Big Bang, and now we can attempt to deduce how galaxies and clusters of galaxies were formed." So this is all theory as a model to explain reality, but as all theory, is open to interpretation and cannot be considered fact until it is experientially observed, which is not yet completely possible even with modern technology. "Big Bang" or "Big Crunch"? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. http://www.- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.org/articles/print/2199 Quote: "Q. Some scientists have suggested that the Universe started via the “Big Bang,” and will collapse via a “Big Crunch.” Then the whole process will start all over again. Does such a concept have any merit? A. The origin and destiny of the Universe always have been important topics in the creation/evolution controversy. In the past, evolutionists went to great extremes to avoid scenarios that suggested a Universe with a beginning or ending, because such scenarios posed bothersome philosophical questions (“What came before the beginning?” or “What will come after the ending?”). Only theories that guaranteed an eternal Universe were worthy of consideration. BACKGROUND One theory offered in an attempt to establish the eternality of the Universe was the Steady State model of Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleagues. Even before he offered this unusual theory, however, scientific evidence had been discovered which indicated that the Universe was expanding. Hoyle set forth the Steady State model to: (a) erase any possibility of a beginning; (b) bolster the idea of an eternal Universe; and (c) explain why the Universe was expanding. His idea was that at certain points in the Universe (which he labeled “irtrons”), matter was being created spontaneously from nothing. Since this new matter had to “go” somewhere, and since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, it pushed the matter that already existed further into distant space. Hoyle asserted that this process of matter continually being created (the idea even came to be known as the “continuous creation” theory) avoided any beginning or ending, and simultaneously accounted for the expansion of the Universe. For a time, Hoyle’s Steady State hypothesis was quite popular. Eventually, however, it was discarded for several reasons. Cosmologist John Barrow suggested that the Steady State theory sprang “from a belief that the universe did not have a beginning.... The specific theory they proposed fell into conflict with observation long ago” (1991, p. 46). Indeed, the Steady State theory did fall “into conflict with observation” for a number of reasons. First, new theoretical concepts being proposed at the time were completely at odds with the Steady State model. Second, empirical observations no longer agreed with the model (see Gribbin, 1986). And third, it violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed in nature. Therefore, the Steady State model was abandoned. The Big Bang model replaced the Steady State theory by postulating that all the matter/energy in the observable Universe was condensed into a particle smaller than a single proton (the famous “cosmic egg”). The Big Bang model, however, suffered from at least two major problems. First, it required that the “cosmic egg” be eternal—a concept clearly at odds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. John Gribbin, a highly regarded evolutionary cosmologist, voiced the opinion of many when he said: “The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical—perhaps even theological—what was there before the bang?” (1976, pp. 15-16). Second, the expansion of the Universe could not go on forever; it had to end somewhere. The Universe had a beginning, and would have an ending. Robert Jastrow has addressed both of these points: “And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up” (1978, pp. 48-49). Matter could not be eternal, because eternal things do not run down. Furthermore, there was going to be an end at some point in the future. Such a scenario is unacceptable to evolutionists. Jastrow himself admitted: “Astronomers try not to be influenced by philosophical considerations. However, the idea of a Universe that has both a beginning and an end is distasteful to the scientific mind” (1977, p. 31). To avoid any vestige of a beginning, or any hint of an ending, evolutionists invented the Oscillating Universe model (also known as the Big Bang/Big Crunch model, the Expansion/ Collapse model, etc.). Dr. Gribbin suggested: “[T]he best way around this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the Universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely” (1976, pp. 15-16). That is to say, there was a Big Bang; but there also will be a Big Crunch, at which time the matter of the Universe will collapse back onto itself. There will be a “bounce,” followed by another Big Bang, which will be followed by another Big Crunch, and this process will be repeated ad infinitum. In the Big Bang model, there is a permanent end; not so in the Oscillating Universe model, as Dr. Jastrow explained: But many astronomers reject this picture of a dying Universe. They believe that the expansion of the Universe will not continue forever because gravity, pulling back on the outward-moving galaxies, must slow their retreat. If the pull of gravity is sufficiently strong, it may bring the expansion to a halt at some point in the future. What will happen then? The answer is the crux of this theory. The elements of the Universe, held in a balance between the outward momentum of the primordial explosion and the inward force of gravity, stand momentarily at rest; but after the briefest instant, always drawn together by gravity, they commence to move toward one another. Slowly at first, and then with increasing momentum, the Universe collapses under the relentless pull of gravity. Soon the galaxies of the Cosmos rush toward one another with an inward movement as violent as the outward movement of their expansion when the Universe exploded earlier. After a sufficient time, they come into contact; their gases mix; their atoms are heated by compression; and the Universe returns to the heat and chaos from which it emerged many billions of years ago (1978, p. 118). The description provided by Dr. Jastrow is that commonly referred to in the literature as the “Big Crunch.” But the obvious question is—after that, then what? Again, Jastrow explained: No one knows. Some astronomers say the Universe will never come out of this collapsed state. Others speculate that the Universe will rebound from the collapse in a new explosion, and experience a new moment of Creation. According to this view, our Universe will be melted down and remade in the caldron of the second Creation. It will become an entirely new world, in which no trace of the existing Universe remains.... This theory envisages a Cosmos that oscillates forever, passing through an infinite number of moments of creation in a never-ending cycle of birth, death and rebirth. It unites the scientific evidence for an explosive moment of creation with the concept of an eternal Universe. It also has the advantage of being able to answer the question: What preceded the explosion? (1978, pp. 119- 120). COMMENTS Several questions arise. First, of what benefit would such events be? Second, is such a concept testable scientifically? Third, does current scientific evidence support such an idea? Of what benefit would a Big Bang/Big Crunch/Big Bang scenario be? Theoretically, as I have noted already, the benefit to evolutionists is that they do not have to explain a Universe with absolute beginnings or endings. A cyclical Universe that expands and contracts infinitely is much more acceptable than one that demands explanations for both its origin and destiny. Practically, there is no benefit that derives from such a scenario. Astronomer Carl Sagan of Cornell University noted: ...information from our universe would not trickle into that next one and, from our vantage point, such an oscillating cosmology is as definitive and depressing an end as the expansion that never stops (1979, pp. 13-14). Could the Oscillating Universe model be tested scientifically? Gribbin felt that it could. The key factors which determine the ultimate fate of the Universe are the amount of matter it contains and the rate at which it is expanding.... In simple terms, the Universe can only expand forever if it is exploding faster than the “escape velocity” from itself.... If the density of matter across the visible Universe we see today is sufficient to halt the expansion we can observe today, then the Universe has always been exploding at less than its own escape velocity, and must eventually be slowed down so much that the expansion is first halted and then converted into collapse. On the other hand, if the expansion we observe today is proceeding fast enough to escape from the gravitational clutches of the matter we observe today, then the Universe is and always was “open” and will expand forever (1981, p. 313). Does scientific evidence support the theory of an “oscillating” Universe? The success or failure of this theory depends, in part, on the amount of matter contained in the Universe, since there must be enough matter for gravity to “pull back” to cause the Big Crunch. This is one reason why cold dark matter is so important. Dr. Gribbin has said: “This, in a nutshell, is one of the biggest problems in cosmology today, the puzzle of the so-called missing mass” (1981, pp. 315-316). In discussing the Oscillating Universe model, astronomers speak of a “closed” or an “open” Universe. If the Universe is closed, theoretically the Big Crunch could occur, and an oscillating Universe becomes a viable possibility. If the Universe is open, the expansion of the Universe will continue and the Big Crunch will not occur, making an oscillating Universe impossible. Joseph Silk remarked: “The balance of evidence does point to an open model of the universe” (1980, p. 309, emp. added). Gribbin commented: “The consensus among astronomers today is that the universe is open” (1981, p. 316, emp. added). Jastrow observed: “Thus, the facts indicate that the universe will expand forever” (1978, p. 123, emp. added). Recent evidence seems to indicate that an oscillating Universe is a physical impossibility (see Chaisson, 1992). Evolutionary cosmologist John Wheeler has drawn the following conclusion based on the scientific evidence: “With gravitational collapse we come to the end of time. Never out of the equations of general relativity has one been able to find the slightest argument for a ‘re-expansion’ of a ‘cyclic universe’ or anything other than an end” (1977, p. 15). As Ross has admitted: “Attempts...to use oscillation to avoid a theistic beginning for the universe all fail” (1991, p. 105). No one yet has improved on Genesis 1— “In the beginning, God created....” And further, there is evidence that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, which baffles scientists. If there would be a Big Crunch, there should be a de-acceleration, but something stronger is pulling everything away faster !!
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
csintexas millennium club Joined: 06 Feb 2006 Posts: 1960 Location: USA	Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:20 am    Post subject: