You are saying that the 'Creator' of the universe... The one that created the heavens and earth could not do this??? Your argument is fallible on the premise of God since you are judging God by the limits we are held to... Is God not more powerful than us??? Do you not hold more power over something you create with your hands???
Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
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.
Fossil Gaps 14
g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionists’ own time scale, this “transition” occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.
[See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411–415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]
It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile’s egg. [See Denton, pp. 218–219 and Pitman, pp. 199–200.]
h. “Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.” Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
The god of Spinoza is the first cause that Einstein believed in, which also happens to be the fabric of the universe. That being said, Einstein was a little stubborn and resisted following the evidence when it came to certain concepts that came up in quantum mechanics that put doubt on his ideas about how this first-cause/base-material functions. Einstein may have believed in a traditional thought of a first cause, but many physicists today do not.
There are logical problems with the first cause argument because it has a textbook case of special pleading within the syllogism. All of the arguments don't even specify that it has to be limited to one first cause, it simply posits that contingent systems must start with something that is not an effect. This could mean that there were many first causes and the interaction between the effects that followed from them created everything we experience and more. One of the premises is also based on an argument of ignorance, because it is just saying that since we, or at least the person making the argument, can't imagine a 'causal chain that has an infinite length' that there absolutely cannot be one. This is something that has to be accepted before hand in order for the syllogism to work and I feel that the premise has not properly been justified, and this could have to do with my ignorance on the concepts of time and other systems that allowed for contingent events that may have existed before time. But all the things I mentioned are simply attacking the first cause argument from a purely philosophical point of view.
The god of Spinoza is the first cause that Einstein believed in, which also happens to be the fabric of the universe. That being said, Einstein was a little stubborn and resisted following the evidence when it came to certain concepts that came up in quantum mechanics that put doubt on his ideas about how this first-cause/base-material functions. Einstein may have believed in a traditional thought of a first cause, but many physicists today do not.
There are logical problems with the first cause argument because it has a textbook case of special pleading within the syllogism. All of the arguments don't even specify that it has to be limited to one first cause, it simply posits that contingent systems must start with something that is not an effect. This could mean that there were many first causes and the interaction between the effects that followed from them created everything we experience and more. One of the premises is also based on an argument of ignorance, because it is just saying that since we, or at least the person making the argument, can't imagine a 'causal chain that has an infinite length' that there absolutely cannot be one. This is something that has to be accepted before hand in order for the syllogism to work and I feel that the premise has not properly been justified, and this could have to do with my ignorance on the concepts of time and other systems that allowed for contingent events that may have existed before time. But all the things I mentioned are simply attacking the first cause argument from a purely philosophical point of view.
D
What I am saying is that the posts are logically inconsistent. It was stated that the universe obeys laws and these laws existed in the past as in the present and the only way this could have happened was if God designed it - then the next post states that God arbitrarily broke the laws for no apparent reason. No logical consistency. You are taking, on the one hand saying cosmology is wrong while also taking the findings of cosmology as fact (namely that the universe is in fact ~40 billion light years across). It is frustrating - especially as there are creationist theories out there that attempt to solve the distant starlight problem with some scientific explanation.
D
I never stated that - the singularity that created the big bang - existed outside of time and space as we know it. The laws of physics did not exist for this singularity - those laws are man made constructs designed to explain the workings of the known and observable universe - I have consistently said this.
The logical inconsistency is when it is stated categorically that the laws of the universe came from God and are unchanging and have remained unchanged in the past (the quotation from answers in genesis stated this was biblical teaching) then the statement says God broke these laws for no consistent reason.
The logical inconsistency is when it is stated categorically that the laws of the universe came from God and are unchanging and have remained unchanged in the past (the quotation from answers in genesis stated this was biblical teaching) then the statement says God broke these laws for no consistent reason.
The singularity is only special pleading if it is added to the Cosmological argument without reason. There is reason for the exception. I think it is important to point out that not all physicists believe in the singularity because it goes back before the observable universe and therefore cannot be explained by means of the physical laws and therefore the belief in it is not justified; nothing can be said of the state before the first moments of the Big Bang. It is special pleading if someone says that the "Big Bang singularity" is the only possible thing that can break the rules of causality. Ddallen isn't doing that, I believe that he is just saying that anything that exists outside of the observable space-time universe that our logic and laws are based upon could potentially be causeless. The reason it potentially could be causeless is because we cannot determine the properties of anything outside of space-time because it wouldn't be something we can expect our laws and logic to apply to. God could potentially fit within this set depending on how we is defined, but there are potential consequences to that.
The reason the posts are logically inconsistant in your eyes are because of two things....
1.) You are reading multiple peoples points of views and mashing them together... If you did that in an atheist community you would be thrown out in an instant... But since you do it too people who you consider 'khalifs' it is fine because even if they tell you your wrong, they are khalifs and you laugh in their faces... My point being most atheists get a peer review mentality and create peer's out of people who think along the exact same premise... SO you create a intellectual hierarchy and if you don't believe me watch any news show which focus' on a atheist audience... Do you not notice they view themselves as intellectually elite? So how can you argue fairly and actually understand the other side when you consider your side superior...
*you can say that we Christians do this on the premise of God but this brings me to point number 2
2.) You do not understand that God is all powerful all knowing all just... Even if you don't believe in God yet read this sentence you would cower at a debate with a Christian do to that fact... Yet you dismiss that sentence and that knowledge for your personal gain? Is that good use of being a man of science? To dismiss a piece of factual evidence... And don't say it is not factual because if you do then you are denouncing the entire scientific body based on the scientific definition of 'fact'. Which brings me back to point 1, if you accept that fact then your hierarchy is abolished...
You have created a Hippocratic situation that you use clever words and null evidence to support...
1.) You are reading multiple peoples points of views and mashing them together... If you did that in an atheist community you would be thrown out in an instant... But since you do it too people who you consider 'khalifs' it is fine because even if they tell you your wrong, they are khalifs and you laugh in their faces... My point being most atheists get a peer review mentality and create peer's out of people who think along the exact same premise... SO you create a intellectual hierarchy and if you don't believe me watch any news show which focus' on a atheist audience... Do you not notice they view themselves as intellectually elite? So how can you argue fairly and actually understand the other side when you consider your side superior...
*you can say that we Christians do this on the premise of God but this brings me to point number 2
2.) You do not understand that God is all powerful all knowing all just... Even if you don't believe in God yet read this sentence you would cower at a debate with a Christian do to that fact... Yet you dismiss that sentence and that knowledge for your personal gain? Is that good use of being a man of science? To dismiss a piece of factual evidence... And don't say it is not factual because if you do then you are denouncing the entire scientific body based on the scientific definition of 'fact'. Which brings me back to point 1, if you accept that fact then your hierarchy is abolished...
You have created a Hippocratic situation that you use clever words and null evidence to support...
Obviously a Creator God with the powers ascribed to YHWH could do the things we're talking about; the incredulity comes from these claims that God is doing increasingly elaborate and senseless things in order to make it look like a universe where He didn't do anything at all. It seems both silly and just plain deceptive.
G
