Adam was born how many years ago?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miguel2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am waiting:

Now show us how you would design your universe.

Would it have creatures? Would they be equal to you?
How would you design the environment?
What would you do to creatures who broke your rules? Would your system have perfect justice? Mercy?
Would you grant free will or would your designed creatures be programmed to worship you?
Could your designed creatures harm each other?
Would your creature be able to adapt to changes?
How would you design survival?

These are just a few.
 
jan10000 said:
No we don’t because the multiverse can be perpetual.
Click to expand...
AHhh, this nonsense. Intellectual atheists have long abandoned this one.

Remember you are making claims or you would not be in this forum. Why bother…
 
jan10000 said:
Again, you are the one defining “fine tuned”. Please tell me the probability that one of these 30 parameters not be “fine-tuned”. 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in a trillion?
You can’t because you don’t know.
Click to expand...
Don’t know much about ID, I can see. All you know is it can’t be so…
 
jan10000 said:
1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in a trillion?
You can’t because you don’t know.
This is nothing more than an appeal to incredulity, which is a fallacy.
Click to expand...
Here are some references

Barry Parker (cosmologist) : “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

“This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s.” Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
Roger Penrose - English mathematical physicist

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist) : “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature�s numbers to make the Universe…The impression of design is overwhelming”.
Paul Davies : “The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”.

Antony Flew ( Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater ) “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of [DNA] research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. Fred Hoyle
 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
You keep ignoring the fact that the possibility of a multiverse completely invalidates the argument.
Click to expand...
It is an unfalsifiable atheist escape clause. It is blind faith and championed to deny design. Absent this escape clause you have nothing.
 
jan10000 said:
Roger Penrose, for example, is discussing the requirement regarding INITIAL CONDITIONS for the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
You agree the conditions for the big bang were fine tuned?

“This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been,” Penrose

But he can speak for himself

 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
Your explanation that the Christian God created the universe because it is too hard to fathom otherwise is exactly the same thing you are accusing me of.
Click to expand...
The Jews had this information revealed to them well before science caught up. It is your problem that you are willing to accept a blind faith construct that can never be proved to escape the obvious.

I am looking forward to your designed universe…
 
buffalo said:
It is your problem that you are willing to accept a blind faith construct that can never be proved to escape the obvious.
Click to expand...
No more than it’s also your problem that God is a blind faith construct that can never be proven, either. Obviously…😇
 
Pattylt said:
No more than it’s also your problem that God is a blind faith construct that can never be proven, either. Obviously…
Click to expand...
Correct, God probably won’t lay down on your lab table for you to inspect.

My faith is based on reason, logic and evidence. I will add - experience.
 
jan10000 said:
How does this in any way contradict evolution?
Babies aren’t born knowing how to speak English.
However, clearly our brains evolved such that those capable of understanding language had an selective advantage.
I would think your example is proof of evolution not against it.

Please clarify. I am very much interested in real examples. Your comment “The evidence for evolution is also the evidence against it” cries out for clarification. It’s obviously not a serious comment and only meant for effect.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can explain how our ancestor ditched the gene controlled mode of communication to one that is acquired through learning.

And, remember:
  1. Language is words and their meaning(s)
  2. Must be taught/learned for one to understand the words and its meaning(s)
  3. Words and their meaning(s) must be understood by at least two members of the population for it to be a language and be used for communication
  4. Word application follow certain rules
  5. Rules require certain words and their meaning
  6. Words and their meaning require rules
  7. Teaching requires words and their meaning and words and their meaning require teaching
  8. So nothing between words, their meaning, teaching, rules of word application can come before the other, they come as a package.
  9. Plus many other complexities
 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
And again - Penrose is referring to INITIAL CONDITIONS required for a Big bang to reach steady state and not collapse upon itself.
Click to expand...
Maybe you didn’t watch it all the way through. He clearly says - “this is fine tuning, this is incredible precision in the organization of the initial universe.”
 
jan10000 said:
Why is so hard to believe that grunts became, sounds, sounds became, words, words became phrases, and so on?
Click to expand...
Any evidence for your assertions?

Grunts becoming sounds which later become words is not a problem but where does the ‘meaning’ come from and how does one get to calibrate the populace about the meaning of a particular sound? and why would anyone ditch their easy mode of communication in search of a new way to communicate?
jan10000 said:
But this in no way invalidates evolution. Some psychologists, in fact, say it validates evolution because there is little parallels to the fossil record that applies to language (ie, brain tissue is not preserved).
Click to expand...
It totally invalidates the idea that species variation is as a result of mutations and natural selection. Human language is just one among many specific variations which clearly isn’t emergent from mutations.
 
Last edited:
Noose001 said:
jan10000:
Why is so hard to believe that grunts became, sounds, sounds became, words, words became phrases, and so on?
Click to expand...
Any evidence for your assertions?
Click to expand...
There’s zero evidence that human languages - evolved over time - from grunts or groans…

What is remarkable is how humans possess
an almost impossible to assess superiority wrt Language
than does any other known living creature.
 
Jupp said:
40.png
EndTimes:
There’s zero evidence that human languages - evolved over time - from grunts or groans
Click to expand...
The languages are constantly evolving.
Click to expand...
Defending upon how one views the entire history of Human Languages
Human languages which began with Adam - who was granted Speech from God,
are evolving And/Or ‘devolving’…

The incident at Babel … concerns the first major Divisions of The Language
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top