-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I do not believe in evolution for the following reasons and I have not heard anybody else say this.
Evolution is all by chance with no central mind of intelligence.It says we adapted to certain things as time went on.
But riddle me this.
If evolution is true then when it began it cannot sense smell,taste,hearing,seeing,and it does not have ears or any thing else to sense those things.
When evolution first started it senses nothing nor does it have senses to sense anything.
When evolution first started to knows nothing,and it senses nothing.Evolution would not know that there is anything to see to give us eyes to see it,so how can we adapt to seeing things if evolution does not know there is anything to see to give us eyes to see it.
Why would evolution cause us to adapt to hearing things is evolution does not know there is anything to hear to give us ears to hear,as well as anything that it supposedly caused us to adapt to.
Evolution does not know anything to cause us to adapt to it.Evolution does not sense anything to cause us to adapt to it.Evolution has no central mind of intelligence to cause us to adapt to anything or cause tings to come about.
Evolution knows nothing,and has no senses.Why would evolution cause us to adapt to having ears to hear,and eyes to see,when evolution does not know there is anything to hear or anything to see to give us ears and eyes to hear and see.
Evolution would not know that there is anything to see to cause us to adapt to seeing and people are going to say that is by chance.
God said that He gave sight cannot He see.God sees things and knows that there is things to see so He can give us for us to see.
Evolution knows nothing and has no senses so it would not cause us to adapt to anything no matter what it is.At best it would be lifeless matter that cannot do anything no matter what they say.
You mean by chance evolution gave us eyes,taste,feeling,ears,ability to speak,sex that feels good,made our body not only the best it can look but for best functioning,intelligence,and other things.
Get out of here especially when it understands nothing and has no senses.
If somebody says they cannot believe that a God exists that has no beginning then they would have to believe that matter has no beginning.How can matter have no beginning.It makes more sense that a God exists forever that can give life.Something has to have no beginning.
I do not believe in evolution because the only way a human baby can be born or an animal is if there is a female and a male that come together.How can evolution produce the necessary ingredients without there first being a male and female.
Evolution is all by chance with no central mind of intelligence.It says we adapted to certain things as time went on.
But riddle me this.
If evolution is true then when it began it cannot sense smell,taste,hearing,seeing,and it does not have ears or any thing else to sense those things.
When evolution first started it senses nothing nor does it have senses to sense anything.
When evolution first started to knows nothing,and it senses nothing.Evolution would not know that there is anything to see to give us eyes to see it,so how can we adapt to seeing things if evolution does not know there is anything to see to give us eyes to see it.
Why would evolution cause us to adapt to hearing things is evolution does not know there is anything to hear to give us ears to hear,as well as anything that it supposedly caused us to adapt to.
Evolution does not know anything to cause us to adapt to it.Evolution does not sense anything to cause us to adapt to it.Evolution has no central mind of intelligence to cause us to adapt to anything or cause tings to come about.
Evolution knows nothing,and has no senses.Why would evolution cause us to adapt to having ears to hear,and eyes to see,when evolution does not know there is anything to hear or anything to see to give us ears and eyes to hear and see.
Evolution would not know that there is anything to see to cause us to adapt to seeing and people are going to say that is by chance.
God said that He gave sight cannot He see.God sees things and knows that there is things to see so He can give us for us to see.
Evolution knows nothing and has no senses so it would not cause us to adapt to anything no matter what it is.At best it would be lifeless matter that cannot do anything no matter what they say.
You mean by chance evolution gave us eyes,taste,feeling,ears,ability to speak,sex that feels good,made our body not only the best it can look but for best functioning,intelligence,and other things.
Get out of here especially when it understands nothing and has no senses.
If somebody says they cannot believe that a God exists that has no beginning then they would have to believe that matter has no beginning.How can matter have no beginning.It makes more sense that a God exists forever that can give life.Something has to have no beginning.
I do not believe in evolution because the only way a human baby can be born or an animal is if there is a female and a male that come together.How can evolution produce the necessary ingredients without there first being a male and female.
I never said I didn't believe in the Big Bang Theory, in fact I use it as one of the single greatest evidences for God. I love the Big Bang, I just happen to know who Banged it. Mind you, there are a few kinks that could be knocked out of it such as the speculation of a singularity which has no evidence to support, or the idea that this happened 14 billion years ago which is only an assumption. The evidence for the Big Bang is incredibly strong, but it only proves that the universe had a beginning, not when that beginning was. After all, Genesis 1:1 states "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" sounds an awfully lot like a Big Bang to me. Each of the six days of creation begins with "And God said" which begins after verse one. The universe had a beginning and matches up with the Bible's account.
You're right, it is logically possible for something to exist uncaused. However based on the evidence for the Big Bang, we know that the universe had a beginning, and therefore, the universe had a cause. The question is whether or not an intelligence caused the universe, or an object (such as a singularity) caused the universe.
There is no evidence for the existence of a singularity, it's just a philosophical assumption based on the evidence that everything exploded out of what appears to be literally nothing. Scientists logically know that things don't appear to explode out of nothing, and since God isn't the answer, then there must have been a pre-existing 'thing' such as a singularity.
There is evidence for God however, due to the extreme fine-tuning of the universe in order to support life. Of course the common atheist response to this issue is the multiverse theory, which much like the singularity response, is simply an assumption based on no evidence. Besides, the multiverse theory only pushes the problem back even further. The question then is "Where did the multiverse come from?" Ironically you still need God to make the multiverse.
So let's tally this, shall we? Evidence for Theism: 1 Evidence for Atheism: 0
So what's my point in this? my point is that not only did the universe have a beginning, but that this is positive evidence for God. The Atheist explanation presents no positive evidence to back up the claim, only philosophical assertions that seem to fall short. It is not just an assumption that the universe has a beginning, it is backed by incredibly hard evidence. If the universe has a beginning, then logically it must have a cause. There is positive evidence that this cause was intelligent due to the fine-tuning, and there is no positive evidence that this cause was from that of a singularity, nor that the fine-tuning is result of any multiverse. Now if this cause is intelligent, then logically this intelligent cause created the universe. If this cause created the universe, then logically it exists outside the universe. Now let's examine the properties of the universe shall we? The universe is composed of three-dimensional space, time, and matter/energy. Logically, if what caused the universe is intelligent and exists outside the universe; then it must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. That's just how the logic goes.
Now, is it really that outrageous of a theory based on the evidence, to suggest that an intelligent being created the universe and fine-tuned it for the sole purpose of creating life?
Why certainly, I will go to the Bible.
See, the thing is Starcrash, not only is the logic above complete, but it's supported by evidence. Both Biblically and scientific. And eve if we didn't know anything about God anyway, that wouldn't disprove his existence. Think of it this way, if you were to go into your backyard and dig up some ancient clay statue from some unknown ancient civilization, just because you don't know anything about the person who made the statue, would you deny that someone made it? Of course not. So without even knowing anything about God, where he came from, who he is, what are his attributes; it still doesn't disprove his existence. However nonetheless, we can know his attributes which I have presented above.
I hope and pray you read this and see the truth.
Peace and God Bless.
You're right, it is logically possible for something to exist uncaused. However based on the evidence for the Big Bang, we know that the universe had a beginning, and therefore, the universe had a cause. The question is whether or not an intelligence caused the universe, or an object (such as a singularity) caused the universe.
There is no evidence for the existence of a singularity, it's just a philosophical assumption based on the evidence that everything exploded out of what appears to be literally nothing. Scientists logically know that things don't appear to explode out of nothing, and since God isn't the answer, then there must have been a pre-existing 'thing' such as a singularity.
There is evidence for God however, due to the extreme fine-tuning of the universe in order to support life. Of course the common atheist response to this issue is the multiverse theory, which much like the singularity response, is simply an assumption based on no evidence. Besides, the multiverse theory only pushes the problem back even further. The question then is "Where did the multiverse come from?" Ironically you still need God to make the multiverse.
So let's tally this, shall we? Evidence for Theism: 1 Evidence for Atheism: 0
So what's my point in this? my point is that not only did the universe have a beginning, but that this is positive evidence for God. The Atheist explanation presents no positive evidence to back up the claim, only philosophical assertions that seem to fall short. It is not just an assumption that the universe has a beginning, it is backed by incredibly hard evidence. If the universe has a beginning, then logically it must have a cause. There is positive evidence that this cause was intelligent due to the fine-tuning, and there is no positive evidence that this cause was from that of a singularity, nor that the fine-tuning is result of any multiverse. Now if this cause is intelligent, then logically this intelligent cause created the universe. If this cause created the universe, then logically it exists outside the universe. Now let's examine the properties of the universe shall we? The universe is composed of three-dimensional space, time, and matter/energy. Logically, if what caused the universe is intelligent and exists outside the universe; then it must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. That's just how the logic goes.
Now, is it really that outrageous of a theory based on the evidence, to suggest that an intelligent being created the universe and fine-tuned it for the sole purpose of creating life?
Why certainly, I will go to the Bible.
See, the thing is Starcrash, not only is the logic above complete, but it's supported by evidence. Both Biblically and scientific. And eve if we didn't know anything about God anyway, that wouldn't disprove his existence. Think of it this way, if you were to go into your backyard and dig up some ancient clay statue from some unknown ancient civilization, just because you don't know anything about the person who made the statue, would you deny that someone made it? Of course not. So without even knowing anything about God, where he came from, who he is, what are his attributes; it still doesn't disprove his existence. However nonetheless, we can know his attributes which I have presented above.
I hope and pray you read this and see the truth.
Peace and God Bless.
The multi-verse is not assumed. It's not fact, either. It's simply a hypothesis of how a fine-tuned universe *could* exist, based upon The Law of Large Numbers. For example, while it is highly improbable that you will win the lottery if you buy a single ticket, it's highly probable that someone will win the lottery when a very large number of tickets are purchased. The multi-verse is based on this concept -- our universe is improbable, but given many universes, our universe becomes probable, and we just happen to be the winning lottery ticket holder (based on the anthropic principal). Now you can argue that this hypothesis is unproven and may be unproveable, but so is the God hypothesis. We can't go back in time to observe the creation of the universe, so it can't be proven scientifically.
Again, your argument that the universe must have been caused is also an assumption. We can inductively reason that everything is caused because everything that we have observed was caused, but the problem with this specific example is that we're discussing the beginning of time and we can't conceive of an event being caused "outside of time". Events happen over time, beginning at one point in time and ending at another. But even if we grant the universe has been caused, calling the cause "God" is misleading because the conclusion of the cosmological argument only defines God as "the cause". Attributing anything other than "being a cause" to the god of this argument is logically fallacious, because such attributes haven't been deduced. Thus, if it turned out that this universe was spawned from another universe (for example), then God would be that other universe. It doesn't lead us to believe in any god in the normal meaning of the word, and definitely doesn't distinguish that first cause as your God.
2 Peter 3:8 is an appallingly misused verse, as it is used to basically state "God doesn't understand time, so don't listen to Him when he describes measurements of time." Do you really accept this to be true? If God created us, then he understands what we mean when we use terms like "day", so it's illogical for him to use those terms to describe a different measure of time. If you hadn't heard this verse abused in this fashion so often, you'd probably conclude that it means that God is infinitely patient, not that his sense of time is so off-kilter that we ought to ignore God when he describes time units.
Your second verse is worse, because it doesn't even answer one of the questions that I posed to you. It does indeed say "For by him all things were created", but that only ascribes to him "things that were created". We still don't have any evidence that time, the universe, or any of the subject matter that we're discussing was necessarily created. If you agree that things can exist without being created (and you did concede exactly that), then there is no logical reason that we even have to argue about how the universe was created -- we haven't even established that it had a beginning.
Your conclusion doesn't make sense. As I described in the above two paragraphs, you haven't shown that the bible describe God as uncaused or that the bible said that God existed before time, so I don't agree that you've given biblical evidence for these propositions. But worse, you argue that you showed it to be true scientifically, and I don't even see an attempt of that in your entire reply. Do you understand what science is, and how it works? Science is conducted with testing; you take two groups that have only one difference, and you measure the results of differences between the two groups over time, and then you conclude that the difference in those groups is caused by the variable (the single difference between them). God's creation can't be proven scientifically because, if we assume that this universe was created by God, you can't point to what an uncreated universe looks like and compare the two. You make guesses about what a "random" universe would look like, and most scientists will agree that this is the universe that we're living in. They make guesses about what a universe would look like if created by a god, and that doesn't appear to be the universe that we live in. But in either case, we can't know with a high degree of certainty because there's no control group to which to compare the universe.
Last edited:
Agreed. I never argued that God was impossible or that the universe is definitely uncaused, but without good positive evidence for these propositions then we're left with skepticism. Disbelief in a creator-god doesn't force one to believe that the universe was uncreated or that it was creator was any one specific thing. Saying "I don't know the answer" when faced with bad evidence or no evidence is a perfectly fine response. Saying "I know because I have faith" or "I know because a holy book said it was true" shows the same credulity that drives people to believe in laughably unproven theories such as promoted by the Church of Scientology.
Last edited:
How does one even "create" without time already established? To "create" something, as we know it, there has to be a moment where that thing doesn't exist, followed by a moment where the thing does exist, and those moments have to be separated by time. The alternative is creation in which things have both been created and have not been created simultaneously (meaning "at the same time"), which would make the thing's existence mutually exclusive and illogical.
Genesis 1 makes a lot more sense when seen as the ancient writings of a society that didn't realize that time was a physical dimension that required a creation explanation.
Genesis 1 makes a lot more sense when seen as the ancient writings of a society that didn't realize that time was a physical dimension that required a creation explanation.
It would have to be allegorical, given the evidence we have for an ancient universe, but Genesis 1:5 makes it pretty clear what the bible means by "day". Or are "morning" and "evening" defined by light and darkness also allegorical?
Furthermore, the idea that "day" not only described a measure of time but the same measure of time that we call "day" is clarified when the bible describes the "Sabbath day" and exactly why God wanted the Jews to rest on the "seventh day".
Furthermore, the idea that "day" not only described a measure of time but the same measure of time that we call "day" is clarified when the bible describes the "Sabbath day" and exactly why God wanted the Jews to rest on the "seventh day".
Last edited:
C
I will authoritatively tell you that the earth did NOT develop IN ANY WAY from the Sun and the laws of physics back this up!
In the Millennium the major source of light and heat for the Earth will NOT be the sun but the New Jerusalem orbitting at L5
this will have the effect of a year being about 352 days
In the Millennium the major source of light and heat for the Earth will NOT be the sun but the New Jerusalem orbitting at L5
this will have the effect of a year being about 352 days
The Hebrew word for day doesn't have to mean a 24 hour day. The word is used variously in the OT and other Hebrew writings. Also, the fact that God rested on the seventh 'day', however you take the word day, doesn't conclusively prove that Genesis HAS to mean literal 24 hour days, any more than having, say, Education Week proves that education is confined to a very specific set of 5 literal 24 hour days. It can also justifiable be shown that that Week is symbolic of a greater reality that is not confined to a specific amount of time.
I'll also note that the verse of Genesis 1:5 you refer to also recurs almost identically, adjusted slightly to accomodate the features of each day, for six of the seven days, but not for the seventh. That feature alone (in connection with the it was goods) lends a theological and poetic flavour to the text, which leads to to enquire "What is the actual purpose of the text, particularly in relation to other contemporary ancient accounts of creation from other cultures?"
My basic point is, while there is obviously a causal relationship between the days of creation and days of the week (in that days of the week are meant to mirror the 'days' of creation), there's also plenty else going on on the text that confounds the idea that the two must necessarily be identical in terms of actual time span.
I'll also note that the verse of Genesis 1:5 you refer to also recurs almost identically, adjusted slightly to accomodate the features of each day, for six of the seven days, but not for the seventh. That feature alone (in connection with the it was goods) lends a theological and poetic flavour to the text, which leads to to enquire "What is the actual purpose of the text, particularly in relation to other contemporary ancient accounts of creation from other cultures?"
My basic point is, while there is obviously a causal relationship between the days of creation and days of the week (in that days of the week are meant to mirror the 'days' of creation), there's also plenty else going on on the text that confounds the idea that the two must necessarily be identical in terms of actual time span.
I find nothing wrong with understanding of Scripture changing with time and understanding. If it's true, it's true. Why should I fear that?
But again, the initial point I made still stands - can you honestly read the first two chapters of Genesis and confidently state that it is meant to be a historical textbook, and that there is not a whiff of deliberate symbolism or literary-ness anywhere within it? Or are you simply making this point because it suits you to do so?
In any case, an at least partially allegorical reading of Genesis 1 in particular is not a new idea. The likes of Philo, Origen and Augustine all argued that the first chapters of Genesis were not literal play-by-play accounts of literal history. So neither Darwin, nor the fossil record, nor any other vaguely contemporary development, brought this argument to the fore. To say so is to be historically ignorant. In fact, one could easily argue that the only reason it's become such a heated issue today is because of the ideological battle between religion and science that was brought about by the Enlightenment, and lingers as a modernist remnant in our culture.
But again, the initial point I made still stands - can you honestly read the first two chapters of Genesis and confidently state that it is meant to be a historical textbook, and that there is not a whiff of deliberate symbolism or literary-ness anywhere within it? Or are you simply making this point because it suits you to do so?
In any case, an at least partially allegorical reading of Genesis 1 in particular is not a new idea. The likes of Philo, Origen and Augustine all argued that the first chapters of Genesis were not literal play-by-play accounts of literal history. So neither Darwin, nor the fossil record, nor any other vaguely contemporary development, brought this argument to the fore. To say so is to be historically ignorant. In fact, one could easily argue that the only reason it's become such a heated issue today is because of the ideological battle between religion and science that was brought about by the Enlightenment, and lingers as a modernist remnant in our culture.
J
look at nature itself.. how could nothing make something so perfect, look at our human bodies how perfect it is, with the joints bones everything and nature itself should tell you that nothing can make something, look how each of us were bone we came out of our mothers womb, see where i'm leading at? why did nothing stop making something? why doesn't it just continue making more things, and if we came from evolutions why don't we continue evolving into something else.. even evolution professors admitted that it makes no sense and when they did God enligthen them with the truth, that's what you have to Do lean not on your own understand but have faith that God created everything and died for our sins, that's the only way you will know what the truth is through faith.
W
Thank you, and I enjoy your responses as well. However ironically your bias is still driving you to insist that these things can't possibly be known. The thing that you have to accept is that everyone has presupposed bias on every issue, they simply need to recognize it and be open to the possibilities of others. If we did not have this bias then we would become skeptical of everything. However that is philosophically impossible, because if you were skeptical about everything then eventually you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. My point is eventually you have to accept some bias, recognize it for what it is, and be open to discussing other possibilities despite it.
Second, you defeat your own argument when saying that "these things can't possibly be known." Do you know that for sure? If some things can be known, why not these things? How do you know that 'these things cannot be known'? Your argument doesn't live up to it's own standard. Obviously these things can be known, and that's exactly the purpose in my discussing this.
The absurdity of the Multiverse theory is not the Law of Large Numbers. It is the assumption of there being an infinite number of actual things. The best way I can explain the fallacy in this is simply to post this quick six minute video:
[video=youtube;lobeX6ft6PA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lobeX6ft6PA[/video]
As you see, it is logically impossible for there to be an infinite number of actual things. If this is true, then the universe indefinitely had a beginning. Now if there was a multiverse for example, then logically it must be a finite number of universes, not an infinite one. Therefore if there is a finite number of universes, then there must still be a beginning point to them all. The multiverse hypothesis only pushes the 'God problem' back further for skeptics, it doesn't eliminate him. We have no evidence for the existence of a multiverse, and instead we have evidence of fine tuning, a beginning of the universe we live in, and a philosophical argument that makes it impossible for there to be anything other than a beginning to everything. Based on the evidence of not only there being a beginning in the finite past, but based on the fine tuning, the best explanation by far is God.
Tsk, tsk. 'Cause outside of time' is in no way what I meant. It doesn't logically make sense for there to be a cause outside of time, because cause by definition is a beginning or change, beginning and changes can only take place within time. What I'm saying is that God caused the beginning, and the beginning is the very result of the first cause.
Now when we look at the argument I presented above, we can know more about the beginning's cause based on other evidences. The fine tuning being one of them. The fact that that cause specifically fine tuned the universe to support life means that it could have logically only come from an intelligent mind. Objects don't design things, minds do. We can logically attribute many things to this cause, which all seem to point to an all-powerful creator God.
This is nothing more than your subjective interpretation of the verse. The main point in my posting the verses was simply in your asking for biblical support, and I at least found in fully justified.
This is the problem with modern science is the hardcore belief in Scientism - meaning that you believe nearly all things can simply be explained scientifically. This isn't true. If you can scientifically explain to me your moral stance on things like abortion, gay marriage, and the death penalty, then maybe I'll believe in scientism.
What I am doing is debating philosophy. My responses are fully justified philosophically, and I simply used scientific evidence to justify it. If more scientists used good philosophy, then they wouldn't make so many mistakes scientifically.
Second, you defeat your own argument when saying that "these things can't possibly be known." Do you know that for sure? If some things can be known, why not these things? How do you know that 'these things cannot be known'? Your argument doesn't live up to it's own standard. Obviously these things can be known, and that's exactly the purpose in my discussing this.
The absurdity of the Multiverse theory is not the Law of Large Numbers. It is the assumption of there being an infinite number of actual things. The best way I can explain the fallacy in this is simply to post this quick six minute video:
[video=youtube;lobeX6ft6PA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lobeX6ft6PA[/video]
As you see, it is logically impossible for there to be an infinite number of actual things. If this is true, then the universe indefinitely had a beginning. Now if there was a multiverse for example, then logically it must be a finite number of universes, not an infinite one. Therefore if there is a finite number of universes, then there must still be a beginning point to them all. The multiverse hypothesis only pushes the 'God problem' back further for skeptics, it doesn't eliminate him. We have no evidence for the existence of a multiverse, and instead we have evidence of fine tuning, a beginning of the universe we live in, and a philosophical argument that makes it impossible for there to be anything other than a beginning to everything. Based on the evidence of not only there being a beginning in the finite past, but based on the fine tuning, the best explanation by far is God.
Tsk, tsk. 'Cause outside of time' is in no way what I meant. It doesn't logically make sense for there to be a cause outside of time, because cause by definition is a beginning or change, beginning and changes can only take place within time. What I'm saying is that God caused the beginning, and the beginning is the very result of the first cause.
Now when we look at the argument I presented above, we can know more about the beginning's cause based on other evidences. The fine tuning being one of them. The fact that that cause specifically fine tuned the universe to support life means that it could have logically only come from an intelligent mind. Objects don't design things, minds do. We can logically attribute many things to this cause, which all seem to point to an all-powerful creator God.
This is nothing more than your subjective interpretation of the verse. The main point in my posting the verses was simply in your asking for biblical support, and I at least found in fully justified.
This is the problem with modern science is the hardcore belief in Scientism - meaning that you believe nearly all things can simply be explained scientifically. This isn't true. If you can scientifically explain to me your moral stance on things like abortion, gay marriage, and the death penalty, then maybe I'll believe in scientism.
What I am doing is debating philosophy. My responses are fully justified philosophically, and I simply used scientific evidence to justify it. If more scientists used good philosophy, then they wouldn't make so many mistakes scientifically.
The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
Big Bang > Cosmic Inflation > Big Bang Nucleosynthesis > Stellar Formation > Galaxy Formation > Stellar Nucleosynthesis > Solar System Formation > Earth Formation >Abiogenesis > Evolution
Note: Crystallisation is one example of how matter can readily self-organise into complex, ordered shapes and structures eg. Bismuth.
Argument from poor design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
Big Bang > Cosmic Inflation > Big Bang Nucleosynthesis > Stellar Formation > Galaxy Formation > Stellar Nucleosynthesis > Solar System Formation > Earth Formation >Abiogenesis > Evolution
Note: Crystallisation is one example of how matter can readily self-organise into complex, ordered shapes and structures eg. Bismuth.
Argument from poor design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It really doesn't. I don't have to reject an article in the New York Times just because it might describe an event using literary language, or use metaphor to allude to real events. It's simply disingenuous to say that because something is allegorical, it is not also true, or even to say just because the Bible contains allegory, therefore the whole Bible must also be allegory.
It's to do with text type, and what the actual use of allegory is designed to achieve. Whether you agree on the truth or not of any of the Bible, you will of course agree that Genesis 1-2 is demonstrably a different text type to Acts, or the Gospels, or 1&2 Chronicles, or Ecclesiastes, or even other parts of Genesis, yes? I'm not even talking at the level of theology, or philosophy, or ideology. At this point, I'm simply discussing the issue at the level of the structure and composition of the text, in relation to the time in which it was written.
It's to do with text type, and what the actual use of allegory is designed to achieve. Whether you agree on the truth or not of any of the Bible, you will of course agree that Genesis 1-2 is demonstrably a different text type to Acts, or the Gospels, or 1&2 Chronicles, or Ecclesiastes, or even other parts of Genesis, yes? I'm not even talking at the level of theology, or philosophy, or ideology. At this point, I'm simply discussing the issue at the level of the structure and composition of the text, in relation to the time in which it was written.
Logic 101:
As for a creator being beholden to a preexisting dimension such as time:
"I am the first and the last, the alpha and the omega".
Also, science does not hold to a multiuniverse.
Neither do scientists. Theoreticians do.
No evidence exists for it. Therefore it is not science, nor do scientists claim it.
Don't mix up scientists with philosophers.