Conclusive evidence for Design!

[Jesusaves777]

Jesusaves777:
**On the shroud of Turin; Really? It’s been ruled out as a piece of art and when they look at as a negative it is a positive…so someone mastered the art of photography 600 years before it was invented?? According to Dr. John Heller and Dr. Allen Adler (blood specialists) found blood marks that were loaded with bilirubin that would only show up if a man was severely beaten. Pathologist Pierre Ballon agreed and said the blood stains were human type AB. Dr. Max Frei also looked at it he is a pollen annalists, he found 58 types of pollen only 17 native to Europe. The rest were from Palestine in southern Turkey, 13 are growing in Israel today. there is a lot more info on that. **Thank You!!

 

[Jesusaves777]

Jesusaves777:
**On Macro and Micro evolution; And you have documentation to back this up? Please post it with sources. Thank You! I have put my responses in bold on your responses. I had run out of time to do so, so I had to post the others separate. Sorry about the confusion, I’m not on here enough to know all the rules of posting. **

 

[tonyrey]

**On Macro and Micro evolution; And you have documentation to back this up? Please post it with sources. Thank You! I have put my responses in bold on your responses. I had run out of time to do so, so I had to post the others separate. Sorry about the confusion, I’m not on here enough to know all the rules of posting. **

A spectacular series of posts to commence the New Year! It will be fascinating to see the responses… if any…

 

[Jesusaves777]

It comes with A LOT of studying!! I always try to make Christ the center, Thank You!!

 

[Jesusaves777]

A spectacular series of posts to commence the New Year! It will be fascinating to see the responses… if any…

 

[cornbread_r2]

It comes with A LOT of studying!! I always try to make Christ the center, Thank You!!

If I might, just one quick question…

How old do you think the universe is?

 

[tonyrey]

If I might, just one quick question…

How old do you think the universe is?

Just one quick question. How is your question related to the topic?

 

[tonyrey]

Oh, there are plenty of horror stories I could find, and biologists in the field are coming up with more every day.

Only a warped mind seeks the horror and ignores the beauty of nature.

Whilst sticking with Attenborough, you might recall the scene in Trials of Life - assuming you’ve seen it, that is - in which a band of chimpanzees (our closest genetic relatives) capture a colobus monkey and tear it to pieces, alive.

You might recall that the species to which you belong are guilty of far greater atrocities - not to survive but** in order to destroy** - but of course you believe there is no essential difference between one type of animal and another…

And as for regurgitating the old chestnut about the worm in the eye, that might be because no-one has ever explained why a benevolent, omnipotent god would design such an organism in the first place. It will keep getting regurgitated until the creationists pony up with the counter-argument.

It is constantly regurgitated because the regurgitators cannot swallow the conclusive evidence for Design! They prefer to regard themselves as the supreme masters - or mistresses - of themselves…

Sure - if that world was presided over by an omnipotent, perfectly benevolent god. Isn’t it your Bible that says, “the lion shall lie down with the lamb”? If God can fix things to be that way, why not make them that way in the first place?

Snippets are titbits for nitwits……

Why would I believe that? I’m not the one who’s trying to argue for the existence of a perfect designer who cares about humans and has plans for all our individual lives.

Of course not. You are the one who’s trying to argue that we should care about everyone even though we’re incapable of controlling no one - not even number one!

 

[Sair]

with all due respect, youve gotta be kidding me. “three” does not exist in the material world. it belongs to the spiritual realm, just like the forms. when the light reflects off of the apples and hits your eyes and the image enters your brain, there is nothing contained within that image or the apples which is 'three"

Really? What might we ever have perceived of quantity if there were no physical referent for quantity in the world we inhabit?

it is not the work of the imagination either. for if this were the case, there would be no universal understanding of mathematics within the human race.

Quantity is a universal understanding because it has a common physical referent.

same with perfection. we have never observed or encountered pefection, yet we can still concieve of it. the man born and raised in sweden has a conception of a straight line, a circle, etc. so does a person born and raised in the congo.

Because the latter have physical referents. ‘Perfection’ is not a singular, regular concept - unlike, for example, quantity - but is relative to the object to which such a description is applied, and is conceived differently by different people in different circumstances. Sometimes, indeed, perfection can only be conceived in relation to its antithesis…

 

[Sair]

1. So you do believe values are human inventions and not objective facts…

In short, yes - values are always relative to those doing the valuing.

1. Please give the name of the precise individual who **invented **the principle of human equality.

You think it was Jesus, but you can’t demonstrate that to be the case. It was not ‘invented’ by any individual, so far as we can tell - it’s a more complex process than that. It’s an idea that gained currency through a shift in social attitudes.

1. What is the **rational **basis of the principle of human equality? Or is it irrational?

Rational basis? Well, the closest we can get to that is the idea that if you treat people in such a manner as you might yourself wish to be treated - or at the very least, refrain from treating others in ways you would not wish to be treated (hence the earlier version, the silver rule), then others will, in turn, see you as someone worthy of benevolent treatment. But then, the way we interact socially is intricately bound up with emotion as well, so perfect rationality is not to be automatically expected.

An evasion of the fact that it was Jesus who taught that we are all equal because we are all children of the same Father in heaven.

How interesting, then, that it took well over a milennium and a half after Jesus’s lifetime for the idea of human equality to really catch on - and that primarily in the West. What of those in places who never heard of Jesus until Western ‘missionaries’ descended upon them? By crediting the idea solely to Jesus, you are evading the fact that any concept of social relations requires widespread acceptance in order to become a practical reality.

 

[Sair]

Irrefutable! It is absurd to think mathematical descriptions do not correspond to physical reality.

I think you’ve actually agreed with me here…

 

[Sair]

Sair

You nicely evade the question of comparing Genesis with Carl Sagan so far as the Big Bang is concerned.

And I’m not even going to start on the vast discrepancies between Genesis and the scientific accounting of biological evolution…

And a good thing that you don’t. In all the ancient accounts of creation, none even comes close to the general insights of Genesis: that the earth was created and divided into the land and the sea; that the first living animals were in the sea and the sky, that life moved from the water to the land, that all the animals then appeared, and that the appearance of man was last … all this precisely agreeing with the theory of evolution in its general outline, even if the particulars discovered by Darwin could not have been revealed to a pre-scientific civilization such as that of the Jews.

“Precisely agreeing” with a “general outline”?

But, then, of course you wouldn’t think this was a matter of chance, since as a creationist, you don’t believe chance plays a part in anything.

Just to quibble about the supposed ‘precision’ of the Genesis account - life did indeed, so far as we can discern, begin in the water; but in the sky? Where did flying animals come from, exactly, according to the Genesis account? They had to make it out of the water first.

I still think it’s stretching credulity to suppose that the authors of the Genesis accounts had any actual insight into the reality of biological evolution - it takes relatively little luck to be accurate if your summation is so broad. And that’s very generously ignoring the “six days” schtick…

And come to think of it, why couldn’t the particulars have been revealed by a benevolent, interested God to those who set down the supposedly ‘historical’ record?

 

[Sair]

Sair;10197013:

But the fact that no-one has ever reliably seen or otherwise experienced God/gods

OK well there’s only one God,

How do you know? Details, please…

 

[Sair]

Sair
Many of whom were religious and believed in God, including Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, and Voltaire.

And who had no access to the later scientific investigation that rendered God as creator irrelevant.

 

[Sair]

Well, That’s why Catholics came up with science to quote Johann Kepler who said “To think God’s thoughts after him.” Until people started questioning the church like the enlightenment, that may have been brought on by Martin Luther and the reformation. It is truly a better explanation than the pseudo-science indoctrination of something-came-from-nothing. Where did matter come from? Where did time come from? And I’m sorry but didn’t even Richard Dawkins who is known to be an evolutionary biologist…he’s actually a Zoologist, say and I quote;“We don’t need evidence for evolution, we just need to know that evolution is true.”…which is a statement of faith, he also says that faith has no evidence…really??

A couple of things - Dawkins is quite correct in saying that faith requires no evidence, because, well…if it had evidence, it wouldn’t be faith, would it?

It seems that in “coming up with” science, then, Catholics were the instrument of the destruction of their own dogma.

It may well have been Luther who laid the foundations for the Enlightenment, in his outspoken questioning of religious authority that sparked the Reformation. Similarly, the development of scientific enquiry in the 15th and 16th centuries was primarily (according to John Gribbin, an eminent scientific historian) a severing of the ties to ancient scientific authorities and the pursuit of intensive, intimate investigation of nature. Goodness knows where medicine, for example, would be these days had not our forebears cast off the yoke of the likes of Galen, the Ancient Roman physician whose texts had informed medical practitioners throughout the Middle Ages, often to the detriment of their patients.

Newton, though he may have been a believer (in all sorts of weird things, apparently), was followed by others who expanded upon his findings (the way scientific knowledge has generally been extended). One such is Pierre Simon Laplace, who is reported to have responded to Napoleon Bonaparte’s query about the hand of God in the cosmos with the statement, “Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis.”

Furthermore, no religious believer has yet succeeded in elucidating precisely how God created something from ‘nothing’, if indeed the philosophers’ ‘nothing’ (a state of complete non-existence) could ever have obtained. Present-day physicists are much closer to understanding how the universe could have originated without the hand of God. The cosmologists’ ‘nothing’, as it’s currently understood by those in the profession, is not a state of non-existence but a quantum vacuum. Such a state of affairs does not, apparently, require any divine (name removed by moderator)ut to give rise to a universe, and is a far simpler entity than any being with identifiable personal qualities, let alone infinite intelligence, creativity and benevolence…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**And who had no access to the later scientific investigation that rendered God as creator irrelevant. **

So you would like to think, and with not one iota of scientific proof.

**And come to think of it, why couldn’t the particulars have been revealed by a benevolent, interested God to those who set down the supposedly ‘historical’ record? **

Because this was not a scientific culture that could flesh out the details, as in the case of Evolution and the Big Bang. What you have yet to explain is how Genesis, while not precise in many of the details, could be so close in a general way to the origin and evolution of the universe as we have come to perceive it by way of science. No other religious culture has a creation account that even comes close to our modern scientific account.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

And who had no access to the later scientific investigation that rendered God as creator irrelevant.

You are apparently referring to Darwin. Then how do you explain why so many great modern scientists since Darwin have not seen evolution as a means to make God irrelevant?

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations
“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale
“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics
“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron
“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist
“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

And that’s just a few!

 

[tonyrey]

1. So you do believe values are human

Being relative is not being entirely subjective - as you seem to think.

1. Please give the name of the precise individual who **invented **

the principle of human equality. You think it was Jesus, but you can’t demonstrate that to be the case. It was not ‘invented’ by any individual, so far as we can tell - it’s a more complex process than that. It’s an idea that gained currency through a shift in social attitudes.

An **idea **does not originate in a shift but in a mind.

1. What is the **rational **

basis of the principle of human equality? Rational basis? Well, the closest we can get to that is the idea that if you treat people in such a manner as you might yourself wish to be treated - or at the very least, refrain from treating others in ways you would not wish to be treated (hence the earlier version, the silver rule), then others will, in turn, see you as someone worthy of benevolent treatment.

A wish alone is not a reason.

But then, the way we interact socially is intricately bound up with emotion as well, so perfect rationality is not to be automatically expected.

It is not a question of perfect rationality but human rationality - which is not associated with animal behaviour. If man is regarded as no more than a biological species akin to an ape there is no valid **reason **for ascribing equality to one and not the other.

An evasion of the fact that it was Jesus who taught that we are all equal because we are all children of the same Father in heaven.

How interesting, then, that it took well over a milennium and a half after Jesus’s lifetime for the idea of human equality to really catch on - and that primarily in the West.

Considering that many human beings don’t even practise equality in our “civilised” society - and some put the life of their pets before persons - that is hardly surprising. It has only “caught on” in **theory **because the truth is not acceptable in practice to those who value their personal desires more than an abstract principle, demonstrating how ineffective wishes are as the sole basis of morality.

 

[tonyrey]

Sair

And who had no access to the later scientific investigation that rendered God as creator irrelevant.

You are apparently referring to Darwin. Then how do you explain why so many great modern scientists since Darwin have not seen evolution as a means to make God irrelevant?

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations
“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale
“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics
“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron
“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist
“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

And that’s just a few!

That is enough to crush any rational objections to Design…

 

[tonyrey]

Present-day physicists are much closer to understanding how the universe could have originated without the hand of God. The cosmologists’ ‘nothing’, as it’s currently understood by those in the profession, is not a state of non-existence but a quantum vacuum.

It’s far more likely that a quantum vacuum exists in the atheist’s mind - given that she rejects its very existence!

Such a state of affairs does not, apparently, require any divine (name removed by moderator)ut to give rise to a universe…

Such a state of affairs is an ideal solution for those who require nothing but human (name removed by moderator)ut in explaining **this **universe!

… and is a far simpler entity than any being with identifiable personal qualities, let alone infinite intelligence, creativity and benevolence…

A far more convenient entity which neatly disposes of any rational foundation for intelligence, creativity and benevolence, thereby providing a perfect carte blanche for “free” thought and “free love”…