Conclusive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

C’mon, Tony. You got your 1,000 posts. How about claiming victory and letting it go?

It’s not a question of “victory”, Brad, but of life-long fascination with the topic.

No one is compelled to follow this thread. The fact that it has survived so long demonstrates that I’m not the only one who is interested. I wouldn’t have kept writing just for my own satisfaction!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

Try again - there’s nothing here that suggests anything other than natural causes. Sagan remained an atheist (perhaps even a naturalistic pantheist, as I am) despite being aware of such things. Where in this do you see evidence of any conscious, intelligent being taking a hand?

You made a flat out statement as follows: You said nothing here below about Intelligent Design.
**
Again, if there was evidence of the supernatural - and in principle, there should be, if the supernatural interacts in any way with the natural, as it is claimed to do - then scientists will be the first to detect it, not theologians who seek to rationalise the stories to which they have already committed their faith.**

The refutation I offered you was based on confirmation by atheist Carl Sagan, who apparently was not well versed enough in Scripture to know that science’s description of the early universe being filled with light corresponded with “Let there be Light” in the first book of Genesis.

As astronomer Robert Jastrow has pointed out:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The Big Bang itself has to contain the elements of Intelligent Design. The Bang produced enormous elements of light and heat, both required to sustain life. It also provided the dominant element of the universe, hydrogen, without which water could not exist and therefore life could not exist. Then as time passed, the universe cooled off sufficiently to produce hard matter, namely the planets, which would in time become the nests on which life could be born and nurtured. On one of these planets a creature would be born who could fathom the history of the universe itself. The notion that all these events transpired as an accident without a purpose defies reason and probability. This is why atheism can only hang its hat on the tree of highly improbable logic. And that’s ironic because atheism always insists on proof certain and conclusive from theology.

 

[tonyrey]

Sair

Try again - there’s nothing here that suggests anything other than natural causes. Sagan remained an atheist (perhaps even a naturalistic pantheist, as I am) despite being aware of such things. Where in this do you see evidence of any conscious, intelligent being taking a hand?

You made a flat out statement as follows: You said nothing here below about Intelligent Design.
**
Again, if there was evidence of the supernatural - and in principle, there should be, if the supernatural interacts in any way with the natural, as it is claimed to do - then scientists will be the first to detect it, not theologians who seek to rationalise the stories to which they have already committed their faith.**

The refutation I offered you was based on confirmation by atheist Carl Sagan, who apparently was not well versed enough in Scripture to know that science’s description of the early universe being filled with light corresponded with “Let there be Light” in the first book of Genesis.

As astronomer Robert Jastrow has pointed out:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

A delightful image! Of course science doesn’t account for the beauty of light or even its utility…

 

[Jesusaves777]

There are often no witnesses to murders either, yet the evidence that remains after the fact either is or is not sufficient to convince a jury and obtain a lawful conviction for the perpetrator. The evidences of evolution and the origins of the universe are of this kind - perhaps we will never know exactly what happened, but there is sufficient evidence to make some possibilities far more plausible than others. The operation of a vast supernatural intelligence is a proposition for which there remains no evidence other than pure speculation and wishful thinking.

(In any case, I might point out parenthetically, you are incorrect in stating that the mechanisms that drive evolution, for example, are not repeatable or observable - they have indeed been observed, both in the field and the laboratory; as for the conditions obtaining at the origin of the universe, well, that’s pretty much what the Large Hadron Collider was built to replicate…)

Again, Let’s see some evidence…There is none. You can observe all you like, and we can see trees, animals, humans, all sorts of different types of vegetation. If evolution is true, how did we get here before we evolved?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

In any case, I might point out parenthetically, you are incorrect in stating that the mechanisms that drive evolution, for example, are not repeatable or observable - they have indeed been observed,

It has become so tedious to have to point out yet again to evolutionists … the fact that the first life form to exist has never been observed to have evolved, and could not have evolved (since there for no previous life to evolve from).

 

[tonyrey]

Sair

In any case, I might point out parenthetically, you are incorrect in stating that the mechanisms that drive evolution, for example, are not repeatable or observable - they have indeed been observed,

It has become so tedious to have to point out yet again to evolutionists … the fact that the first life form to exist has never been observed to have evolved, and could not have evolved (since there for no previous life to evolve from).

Dawkins went to the absurd extreme of applying “natural selection” to inanimate objects before life existed. No doubt it was in order to bolster his hypothesis that it is the supreme factor in any form of development - except that of his own intellect, of course, which obviously has a privileged status in the grand scheme of things (or rather **his **grand scheme of things. Atheistic fundamentalism gone beserk! )

 

[prodigalson2011]

Again, Let’s see some evidence…There is none. You can observe all you like, and we can see trees, animals, humans, all sorts of different types of vegetation.

There is actually plenteous evidence for the common ancestry of living things; this alone is not contrary to Judeo-Christian tradition. Even in our own inadequate vernacular rendering of Genesis, the text reads, “Let the Earth bring forth…”, the implication being that the seeds of life were planted in the Earth and, by extension, the universe itself, from the beginning.

What there is increasingly damning evidence against is the idea of the accidental, chance origin of life and evolution based solely on random mutation and selection. Such oft-brushed-under-the-rag data as the fact that life appears in the geological record far too early for it to have arisen by chance (a fact admitted by many prominent atheist scientists, by the way) or the growing conundrum of convergent evolution (i.e. the emergence of nearly identical organs in species whose oldest common ancestors did not have them):

The gene that controls the development of the eye is the same in all mammals. That is not surprising. The fossil record implies a common branch for all mammals. But what is surprising, even astounding, is the similarity of the mammal gene–the gene that controls the development of eyes in mollusks and in insects. The same can be said for the gene that controls the expression of limbs in insects and in humans. In fact so similar is this gene, that pieces of the mammalian gene, when spliced into a fruit fly cell, will cause a fruit fly eye to appear at the site of the ‘splice’ . This would make sense if life’s development were described as a tree. But the bush of life means that just above the level of one-celled life, insects and mammals and worms and mollusks separated.

The eye gene has 130 sites. That means there are 20 to the power of 130 possible combinations of amino acids along those 130 sites. Somehow nature has selected the same combination of amino acids for all visual systems in all animals. That fidelity could not have happened by chance. It must have been pre-programmed in lower forms of life. But those lower forms of life, one-celled, did not have eyes. These data have confounded the classic theory of random, independent evolution producing these convergent structures. So totally unsuspected by classical theories of evolution is this similarity that the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the Untied States, Science, reported: “The hypothesis that the eye of the cephalopod [mollusk] has evolved by convergence with vertebrate [human] eye is challenged by our recent findings of the Pax-6 [gene] … The concept that the eyes of invertebrates have evolved completely independently from the vertebrate eye has to be reexamined.”

The significance of this statement must not be lost. We are being asked to reexamine the idea that evolution is a free agent. The convergence, the similarity of these genes, is so great that it could not, it did not, happen by chance random reactions.

geraldschroeder.com/Evolution.aspx

* If evolution is true, how did we get here before we evolved?*

Can you explain what you mean by this?

 

[Jesusaves777]

There is actually plenteous evidence for the common ancestry of living things; this alone is not contrary to Judeo-Christian tradition. Even in our own inadequate vernacular rendering of Genesis, the text reads, “Let the Earth bring forth…”, the implication being that the seeds of life were planted in the Earth and, by extension, the universe itself, from the beginning.

What there is increasingly damning evidence against is the idea of the accidental, chance origin of life and evolution based solely on random mutation and selection. Such oft-brushed-under-the-rag data as the fact that life appears in the geological record far too early for it to have arisen by chance (a fact admitted by many prominent atheist scientists, by the way) or the growing conundrum of convergent evolution (i.e. the emergence of nearly identical organs in species whose oldest common ancestors did not have them):

I was asking a question to the atheist evolutionist, how did we get here in the first place. I think I’m confusing people. I’m a Christian, I believe (as many others as well) in creation by a Creator (God) I was asking a question to the evolutionist… so far no answer.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

 

[PJM]

=Jesusaves777;10156884]Hmm, so we? as a society are intelligent to rub out the FACT that God does exist? Evolution and big bang are nothing more than a hypothesis, it is neither fact nor theory. Why do you ask? Well, if you ask an evolutionist to explain their position they always come to a point where science can’t answer what happened. If science can’t answer the whole of evolution…then it was never proven in the first place. I love science (REAL SCIENCE) and right now I’m in a biology class. The scientific method goes all the way to a peer review…However, if the peer review has a bias, their hypothesis is thrown out as “Junk science” Please allow me to give you a quote by one of your own;
George Wald, an evolutionist, states, “When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!” (“The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954). [2] I have other quotes from credible scientists who say they would rather believe in the impossible than God. Personal opinions are not how science works. Thank you for your time!

And humanity alone and in and of itself refutes such a silly claim.

Why and How?

Isa.43 Verses 7 and 21: “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." AND the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.”

This was written about 700 years before the Birth of Christ [propheises themself prove the existence of God]; but there’ more.

Of the BILLIONS of created things in the Unverse; Only One: **Only man can **do the following.

Re-create [to make sonething new out of other things] Build the Sears Tower or fine art for examples.

Caculate [The Einstein theory for example]

Send a man to the moon and back

Rationalize

Choose to love or hate

to Know “of god” and even to “Know God”

And to prove God DOES exist by actual emmulation of God

To do any or all of the above requires a “package of attributes” exclusive to humanity:

A mind; intellect; and a freewill ALL of which are attached to our Souls [for this discussion: that which annimates all life forms]; and ALL of which are “Spiritual Realities” [As is God]

Take for example your “freewill”. Certianly every person has one. So define yours. What is its shape, weight, color? Can’t be done because like our minds, intlellects, and Souls these ARE all “Spiritual Realities”

We can inherit our physical attributes from our biological parents; BUT Not our Spiritual attirbutes. Science tells us “like” must orginate from “like.” An apple tree can’t produce bannas for example. So our “Spiritual attributes” must originate from a Spiritual Source:thumbsup:

Because there MUST be a “First Cause” and because of the complexity and organization of the Universe and the “Natural Laws”; essential for Life on earth; the ONLY planet in the universe that can be PROVEN to support the life forms we know of; and for examplw the sun and moon and their rotation; which too is essential to life forms on earth; that only a First Cause and sustainer of ALL the Universe could make these realities possible.

The ENTIRE Universe exist ONLY so that man; should man choose to do so [right appliaction of our minds, intellects and freewills], know “of the First Cause” which we choose to call “Our God.” Then man alone can further use these same attributes to actually Know God.

Man exist precisly as Isaiah some nearly 3,000 years ago taught[quoted above]
. So that we could choose to Know of God and to actually KNOW God:tiphat:

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[prodigalson2011]

I was asking a question to the atheist evolutionist, how did we get here in the first place. I think I’m confusing people. I’m a Christian, I believe (as many others as well) in creation by a Creator (God) I was asking a question to the evolutionist… so far no answer.

The atheist’s answer would be that the first single celled organisms arose by chance chemical reactions over the course of eons, and promptly began replicating themselves. As they did so, small mutations in their DNA would occur causing changes to their physical makeup. Those changes which proved beneficial would have been retained as those with less-beneficial mutations would die off. Over hundreds of millions of years, those beneficial mutations have accumulated to the point of creating sentient intellectual beings called homo sapiens.

As I noted though, there are more than a few problems with this theory. However, the general idea that the universe brought forth biological life without any extra divine intervention from God is not contrary to Christian belief, and was in fact a very well established interpretation of Genesis from long before Darwin’s time. The difference being that, from the Judeo-Christian perspective, the universe was “front-loaded” to produce life. In other words, God designed the laws of nature as such that the emergence of life as we know it was the inevitable result–being omnipotent and omniscient (all powerful and all knowing), it is superfluous to suggest that God would need to create a universe then come back and insert individual lifeforms into it. It is entirely reasonable to suppose that God’s creative act (though not the created things themselves) should be as singular and perfect (attaining all desired results) as he is. And, as I previously noted, the geological record supports this idea rather than the materialistic account: Life is evident in Earth’s geological record almost simultaneously with the appearance of liquid water, a necessary condition for the emergence of life–the odds of something as complex as a living cell emerging so quickly in a universe of chance are essentially beyond the realm of possibility. The implication here is that the universe was “rigged.”

 

[Jesusaves777]

The atheist’s answer would be that the first single celled organisms arose by chance chemical reactions over the course of eons, and promptly began replicating themselves. As they did so, small mutations in their DNA would occur causing changes to their physical makeup. Those changes which proved beneficial would have been retained as those with less-beneficial mutations would die off. Over hundreds of millions of years, those beneficial mutations have accumulated to the point of creating sentient intellectual beings called homo sapiens.

As I noted though, there are more than a few problems with this theory. However, the general idea that the universe brought forth biological life without any extra divine intervention from God is not contrary to Christian belief, and was in fact a very well established interpretation of Genesis from long before Darwin’s time. The difference being that, from the Judeo-Christian perspective, the universe was “front-loaded” to produce life. In other words, God designed the laws of nature as such that the emergence of life as we know it was the inevitable result–being omnipotent and omniscient (all powerful and all knowing), it is superfluous to suggest that God would need to create a universe then come back and insert individual lifeforms into it. It is entirely reasonable to suppose that God’s creative act (though not the created things themselves) should be as singular and perfect (attaining all desired results) as he is. And, as I previously noted, the geological record supports this idea rather than the materialistic account: Life is evident in Earth’s geological record almost simultaneously with the appearance of liquid water, a necessary condition for the emergence of life–the odds of something as complex as a living cell emerging so quickly in a universe of chance are essentially beyond the realm of possibility. The implication here is that the universe was “rigged.”

Yes, I’ve heard that answer from atheists before, but how do they know? and where did they get their information? Essentially, if evolution even were remotely true it would still be creation. as a rocket scientist said;“They (evolutionists) challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? They say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the grounds that they cannot conceive Him?”- Werner Von Braun

 

[prodigalson2011]

Yes, I’ve heard that answer from atheists before, but how do they know? and where did they get their information? Essentially, if evolution even were remotely true it would still be creation. as a rocket scientist said;“They (evolutionists) challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? They say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the grounds that they cannot conceive Him?”- Werner Von Braun

They get their information from scientific experiments which produce, to a much smaller degree, the kinds of effects they are talking about. The fact of genetic mutation and adaptation is an observable and proven fact. They simply expand this idea to the whole of biology: in the same way that a genetic mutation might produce an unusual growth in an individual, so might a genetic mutation have given rise to the first photosensitive cells in our primitive ancestors and so might more and more beneficial mutations have produced the mammalian eye.

Now, of course, there is an obvious shortsightedness to this theory, taken as it is on purely materialistic grounds: it presupposes the conditions which allow not only living things, but matter itself, to exist. Further complications arise from the consideration of, again, convergent evolution and the unexpected antiquity of the bio-geological record as well as other things-taken-for-granted: for instance, the ability of the very first organism to replicate. It hardly seems an implicit or likely feature, and given the extreme improbability of the first organism’s chance genesis to begin with, should immediately give rise to great suspicion in the inquisitive mind. For given the unlikelihood of life’s emergence, it would be audacious to propose that it arose independently on numerous occasions here on our Earth. And it would be even more audacious to suppose that the singular instance of its beginning should have just so happened to have the hitherto unknown and unbelievably fortuitous ability to make more of itself!

 

[Jesusaves777]

They get their information from scientific experiments which produce, to a much smaller degree, the kinds of effects they are talking about. The fact of genetic mutation and adaptation is an observable and proven fact. They simply expand this idea to the whole of biology: in the same way that a genetic mutation might produce an unusual growth in an individual, so might a genetic mutation have given rise to the first photosensitive cells in our primitive ancestors and so might more and more beneficial mutations have produced the mammalian eye.

Now, of course, there is an obvious shortsightedness to this theory, taken as it is on purely materialistic grounds: it presupposes the conditions which allow not only living things, but matter itself, to exist. Further complications arise from the consideration of, again, convergent evolution and the unexpected antiquity of the bio-geological record as well as other things-taken-for-granted: for instance, the ability of the very first organism to replicate. It hardly seems an implicit or likely feature, and given the extreme improbability of the first organism’s chance genesis to begin with, should immediately give rise to great suspicion in the inquisitive mind. For given the unlikelihood of life’s emergence, it would be audacious to propose that it arose independently on numerous occasions here on our Earth. And it would be even more audacious to suppose that the singular instance of its beginning should have just so happened to have the hitherto unknown and unbelievably fortuitous ability to make more of itself!

Great thanks!! God does exist(which I already knew that!!) and our ancestors were Adam and Eve! I really don’t get how hard that is to understand. And praise God that we get our education from schools that Christians built. God Bless!!

 

[Sair]

They get their information from scientific experiments which produce, to a much smaller degree, the kinds of effects they are talking about. The fact of genetic mutation and adaptation is an observable and proven fact. They simply expand this idea to the whole of biology: in the same way that a genetic mutation might produce an unusual growth in an individual, so might a genetic mutation have given rise to the first photosensitive cells in our primitive ancestors and so might more and more beneficial mutations have produced the mammalian eye.

Now, of course, there is an obvious shortsightedness to this theory, taken as it is on purely materialistic grounds: it presupposes the conditions which allow not only living things, but matter itself, to exist. Further complications arise from the consideration of, again, convergent evolution and the unexpected antiquity of the bio-geological record as well as other things-taken-for-granted: for instance, the ability of the very first organism to replicate. It hardly seems an implicit or likely feature, and given the extreme improbability of the first organism’s chance genesis to begin with, should immediately give rise to great suspicion in the inquisitive mind. For given the unlikelihood of life’s emergence, it would be audacious to propose that it arose independently on numerous occasions here on our Earth. And it would be even more audacious to suppose that the singular instance of its beginning should have just so happened to have the hitherto unknown and unbelievably fortuitous ability to make more of itself!

There are a couple of obvious counters to this - one is that the first organism capable of replication only had to emerge once - once in 13.7 billion years (approximately) in order for life as we know it to get started. Secondly, no matter how improbable the emergence of life, or even the conditions that might give rise to life, might have been, the improbability of a vastly intelligent being capable of creating such conditions is more improbable by far. And if the claim is that God has always existed, then it’s also much simpler to suppose that a far simpler entity, such as a quantum vacuum, has always existed. That is all that is ultimately necessary for a universe to arise.

Yes, this is definitely a materialist interpretation. But materialism is all we have evidence for, all we have to go on. It’s not enough to say, “Well, I don’t understand how this could have arisen in a purely physical universe, therefore God.” You need to have substantive evidence for your God - that is, evidence that is not explicable in terms of detectable, measurable, physical phenomena.

 

[Sair]

Great thanks!! God does exist(which I already knew that!!) and our ancestors were Adam and Eve! I really don’t get how hard that is to understand. And praise God that we get our education from schools that Christians built. God Bless!!

The problem is perhaps that the Biblical myth of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is a bit too easy to understand, and doesn’t square with the actual evidence we have of human and other animal evolution - which, it has to be said, is just a bit more complicated. There is genetic evidence for a ‘first’ man and a ‘first’ woman, who have been nicknamed ‘Y-chromosomal Adam’ and ‘Mitochondrial Eve’, and are the earliest identifiable common ancestors of all modern humans - only ‘Eve’ has been dated at least 80,000 years older than ‘Adam’…

 

[Sair]

The atheist’s answer would be that the first single celled organisms arose by chance chemical reactions over the course of eons, and promptly began replicating themselves. As they did so, small mutations in their DNA would occur causing changes to their physical makeup. Those changes which proved beneficial would have been retained as those with less-beneficial mutations would die off. Over hundreds of millions of years, those beneficial mutations have accumulated to the point of creating sentient intellectual beings called homo sapiens.

As I noted though, there are more than a few problems with this theory. However, the general idea that the universe brought forth biological life without any extra divine intervention from God is not contrary to Christian belief, and was in fact a very well established interpretation of Genesis from long before Darwin’s time. The difference being that, from the Judeo-Christian perspective, the universe was “front-loaded” to produce life. In other words, God designed the laws of nature as such that the emergence of life as we know it was the inevitable result–being omnipotent and omniscient (all powerful and all knowing), it is superfluous to suggest that God would need to create a universe then come back and insert individual lifeforms into it. It is entirely reasonable to suppose that God’s creative act (though not the created things themselves) should be as singular and perfect (attaining all desired results) as he is. And, as I previously noted, the geological record supports this idea rather than the materialistic account: Life is evident in Earth’s geological record almost simultaneously with the appearance of liquid water, a necessary condition for the emergence of life–the odds of something as complex as a living cell emerging so quickly in a universe of chance are essentially beyond the realm of possibility. The implication here is that the universe was “rigged.”

If the universe was ‘perfectly rigged’ to give rise to life as we know it, why would a perfect - and perfectly benevolent - God rig it such that horrific suffering was a necessary part of the process of evolution? Either God has vastly different plans in mind than any compassionate human would ever formulate, or he is not as competent as he is claimed to be, or he doesn’t exist.

The geological record supports a materialistic account of the evolution of life. How could it do otherwise, being a material record? There is no evidence that points unambiguously to divine intervention - all that supports the god hypothesis is supernaturalist speculation. As I said before, life only had to arise once in order for the whole process of evolution by natural selection to get started. And natural selection, as a process, is as inherently cruel as it is potentially benevolent. I am reminded of David Attenborough’s response to those who castigate him for not acknowledging and praising God for the wonders of creation - such people are always thinking about the beautiful things in nature, which are most certainly present; but they forget the ugly, cruel, painful and horrific aspects of nature which, if God made all, he also created. Why would a god that cared for humans make a parasitic worm that could only survive by burrowing into the eye of a human child? And would this God ever bother to furnish his human worshippers with a plausible explanation for doing so? Or would he just let them gloss over it and say, “Well, it’s all part of God’s plan…”?

 

[tonyrey]

Why would a god that cared for humans make a parasitic worm that could only survive by burrowing into the eye of a human child?

It’s time you thought of an original horror story rather than constantly regurgitate the same old chestnut by a TV celebrity who jumps to conclusions without even having studied the subject in depth…

1. Can you explain how in an immensely complex world with countless billions of organisms struggling for survival there could be not one instance of interference of one with another?
2. Do you believe the occurrence of such meaningless events outweighs the value of all life on this planet and that it would be better if it had remained as sterile as the moon?
3. Do you allow such events to interfere with your enjoyment of life?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

If the universe was ‘perfectly rigged’ to give rise to life as we know it, why would a perfect - and perfectly benevolent - God rig it such that horrific suffering was a necessary part of the process of evolution? Either God has vastly different plans in mind than any compassionate human would ever formulate, or he is not as competent as he is claimed to be, or he doesn’t exist.

You are so very inclined to demand of God a perfect utopia. He created one in the beginning … Eden. So that takes care of your objection that God didn’t get his original design right. What happened later was not God’s will, but the will of men that God need not be obeyed. It was men, not god, that brought wickedness and suffering into the world. You can’t object that God should have prevented such evil, for then you would be taking away from men the most precious gift of god … free will. But then you are probably a determinist and don’t believe in free will either.

Even with as much suffering as there is in the world, we hold on to life as a precious gift. That alone proves that suffering cannot eclipse hope and the joy of being alive … unless one uses his free will to abandon hope and deliberately choose the course of wickedness.

You choose to play the sympathy card when you talk about children who die from fatal diseases. Sooner or later we ALL die from fatal diseases. So your real objection is to death. Well, that is the consequence of sin. Yet God offers you eternal life if you choose to earn it. That is a point you artfully ignore in your argument against God.

The child who suffers and dies has surely earned eternal life before His benevolent throne. The same cannot be said for many adults.

 

[aragonjohn1]

They get their information from scientific experiments which produce, to a much smaller degree, the kinds of effects they are talking about. The fact of genetic mutation and adaptation is an observable and proven fact. They simply expand this idea to the whole of biology: in the same way that a genetic mutation might produce an unusual growth in an individual, so might a genetic mutation have given rise to the first photosensitive cells in our primitive ancestors and so might more and more beneficial mutations have produced the mammalian eye.

Now, of course, there is an obvious shortsightedness to this theory, taken as it is on purely materialistic grounds: it presupposes the conditions which allow not only living things, but matter itself, to exist. Further complications arise from the consideration of, again, convergent evolution and the unexpected antiquity of the bio-geological record as well as other things-taken-for-granted: for instance, the ability of the very first organism to replicate. It hardly seems an implicit or likely feature, and given the extreme improbability of the first organism’s chance genesis to begin with, should immediately give rise to great suspicion in the inquisitive mind. For given the unlikelihood of life’s emergence, it would be audacious to propose that it arose independently on numerous occasions here on our Earth. And it would be even more audacious to suppose that the singular instance of its beginning should have just so happened to have the hitherto unknown and unbelievably fortuitous ability to make more of itself!

And then there is an issue to many evolutionary theories and some creationist theories called chromosomes…



Merry Christmas
God bless