Creation: The big and the small of it

by Zechariah 85 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Zechariah

  More than any time in history respect and the awe of God has seriously eroded . Man has taken creation for granted and have allowed themselves to believe that no intelligence was required in the making of the universe. Random impersonal forces they delude themselves could have caused all we see in the universe. What appreciation can they have for something they believe could and did happen all by itself.
  

  • Man well respects and praises the creations of men and marvel at them. But the creations of a quantam leaps superior designer remains unappreciated as something that happened by accident of nature.

    At a different time in history King David while watching the sheep in the field would marvel at the glories of nature as God creation. He was in awe of the creation. The awe of God for evolutionists has disappeared.

    Man cannot comprehend the concept of infinity although he knows it exists. Man knows but chooses to ignore the importance of the inability to comprend that the world is infinitely large as it is infinitely small. Thats right theres no beginning and no end. Consider if we traveled into space looking for its end maybe we will find a brick wall somewhere. Aren't we going to wonder next how thick is the wall and whats on the other side of that. Our curiousity can never be satisfied because the question is incomprehensible for humans to contemplate. Even more than this is that the world is infinitely small as it is large with worlds inside of worlds.

    Evolutionists on the board have prided themselves with the belief they presented sufficient evidence in peptides ad amino-acids that man could have self generated without the benefit of intelligence. The simplicity of the supposed original organism is what they rely on to make their case. The probabilities they know and understand of even this happening is several quantumkizillion to one.

    But wait . Evolutionists can get off that easy. There are smaller components of all things material (physical) that must be accounted for first. What about the atom. Is it one solid piece of something or is it not the unfathomable reality that all matter regardless of how small is more nothing than something. The atoms internal structure can only be physically observed by the representations provided by some radioactive processes. It has been discovered basically that a atom is a world within a world. There are protons, electrons, neutrons and a nucleus comprised of protons and neutrons bonded together. Here are some amazing facts about the atom from the Worldbook encyclopedia.
    

    • The smallest speck that can be seen under a ordinary microscope contains more than 10 billion atoms.
    • Though atoms of different substances are all approximately the same size they can have greatly variable weights depending on what they are. A atom of plutonium, the heaviest known element can weigh over 200 times more than a hydrogen atom, the lightest element.
    • The protons, neutrons and electrons all orbit the neucleus at fantastic speeds. Electrons being the vastly smaller particles with very little mass. There does not appear to be any smaller parts to it but I wouldn't bet on it. The mass of a electron can be written in grams as a decimal point followed by 27 zeros and a 9.
    • The atomic number that determnes a elements place on the periodic table is the number of protons a atom of a particular element has.
    • The nucleus contains most all the weight of a atom. It is comprised of protons and electrons bond together with a exact equal number of electrons orbiting the nucleus.
    • If a hydrogen atom were about 4 miles in diameter, its nucleus would be no bigger tan a tennis ball.
    • The electrons whirl through the space around the nucleus completing billions of trips around the nucleus each millionth of a second. The fantastic speed of these electrons makes atoms behave as if they were solid like the moving blades of a fan prevents a pencil from being pushed through.
      
      The awesome facts go on and on showing tremendous order and complexity. It cannot be accidental.

      The smallest particle of matter is not a molecule nor is a atom. Thre has recently been discovered smaller particles called quarks that is theorized to be another well ordered universe.

      Discover: The Glue That Holds the World Together.(gluons)

      God a spirit is not limited by anything physical. We can yheorize that he could be anywhere at once and can travel in any universe no matter how small. It all is his creation. Can we imagine that on some electron or proton there exists micro intelligent lifeforms.

      Zechariah
• 

  Undecided

  But where is God when we need him??? Why did he make fleas to torment dogs and other animals as well as transmit bubonic plague to humans? Why mosquitoes to transmit disease? Why poisonous snakes and spiders? Why so much cruelity in nature, and other things like lightening, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes? Where is all this love he is supposed to represent? Why have those who claim to represent God caused so much death and hatred?

  Just a few questions that have never been answered satisfactorily.

  Ken P.
• 

  Gedanken

  Zechariah,

  You understand little or nothing about science - actually, probably less than nothing. The same sorts of scientists who made the discoveries which allow you to tabulate your list of "facts from introductory physics" also discovered the evidence for evolution. By focussing on abiogenesis you miss the point that abundant evidence exists for evolution of species.

  You also totally fail to see the difference between a scientist and a creationist. A creationist cannot conceive of his or her beliefs being wrong. So, all new data must conform to preconceived beliefs. A scientist, on the other hand, really couldn't care less personally whether any theory or not is correct. No scientist would lose sleep if they found out that life came about because aliens seeded the planet. They would be excited. If God turned out to exist and have created life, and had also every-so-often destroyed the majority of species for the fun of it - well, that would be interesting too.Personally, though, I don't know why anyone would want to worship a God who invented smallpox, the black death, komodo dragons and religion.

  That's the difference between the scientific method and the idicy - for it is that - that you expound - were all people to think like you then we would still be torturing people for not believing that the Earth is the center of the Universe. I'd vote for a an atheist woman for president any day - just look how bloodthirsty all these born again Christian men are!

  I'd also add that any scientist who could overthrow the idea of evolution would get a nobel prize. That's how science works - the incentive is to destroy current theories because that provides a true test of their viability.

  gedanken
• 

  Nathan Natas

  Demonstrate the existence of your alledged spirit realm.
• 

  Gedanken

  Oh, I totally missed this bit of nonsense:

  :* The electrons whirl through the space around the nucleus completing billions of trips around the nucleus each millionth of a second. The fantastic speed of these electrons makes atoms behave as if they were solid like the moving blades of a fan prevents a pencil from being pushed through.

  What garbage - check out Rutherford's Gold Foil alpha-scattering experiment - it's discussed in all introductory Chemistry texts. If you spout such nonsense on even the most elementary aspects of science, how are you qualified to comment on more complex issues such as evolution.

  Gedanken
• 

  Francois

  You say that Undecided doesn't know what he's talking about when it's quite obvious that you have copied your information from some other source than your own thinking and that it is YOU who is ignorant of the subject you introduce. Plus, you didn't do a very good job of re-keying that information since terms like "a atom" break the rules of English grammar. The correct expression is "an atom" and so on as respects a noun consequent beginning with a vowel. If you can't handle language, how are we to believe you can handle existential argumentation on the borderland of matter and reality?

  Some of your information is also in error, as I have seen scanning photographs of the benzene ring with individual atoms in their proper places. The size of the smallest "speck" than can be seen with an "ordinary" (whatever that means) microscope has no bearing on this conversation. Further, it cannot be said that electrons orbit the atomic nucleus as the planets orbit the sun. This concept has been out of date for at least thirty years. Since the Uncertainty Principle says (and it has been demonstrated) that both the location and the velocity of an electron cannot be known at the same time, we don't really know what the electrons are doing, but it can be said that they do not orbit - as explained above. The fact that if a given atom were expanded to be X size, the nucleus would by Y size is yet another irrelevancy which you would know if you knew what you were saying rather than parroting someone else's information. And this is what characterizes the creationists arguments: a predeliction for irrelevancy as your post so clearly demonstrates. Since you don't understand what's being said, and you are so obviously impressed with its sound you apparently think everyone else will be similiarly impressed. We aren't. Your arguments have been dispensed with decades ago.

  How about proving the existence of one single angel? I'm not asking for proof of the existence of God here mind you. One little bitty angel will suffice. Tell you what. I'll hold my breath and you zip out and get your proof and get back here with it before I need to take another breath and I'll become a believer in Creationism.

  francois
• 

  pomegranate

  Why did he make fleas to torment dogs and other animals as well as transmit bubonic plague to humans? Why mosquitoes to transmit disease? Why poisonous snakes and spiders? Why so much cruelity in nature, and other things like lightening, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes?

  I believe God created the physical world to mirror the condition the spiritual world was in when he began creating the physical things. Good and Bad.

  For instance: cute little doggie = Good/Domestic mirrors Good/Angel. Big bad wolf = Bad/Wild/ mirrors Bad/Demon.
  
  No one can deny if God created everything, He PURPOSELY created a world filled with good and bad.

  How bout those blood sucking parasitic ticks? Hmmm. Image and likeness of Bad spirits?

  Good. Bad. Good. Bad...God creates BAD and calls it GOOD? Yup. Mosquitoes GOOD? They bite, they suck, they itch they SPREAD CONTAMINATION. Hmmm. Image and likeness of Bad spirits? Me thinks so.

  I believe when God created the physical, the spiritual was already in a major revolt. Satan started spreading the "poison" in heaven, the "plague", the "disease" and it spread like LEAVEN. Contamination. God created things that cause contamination, in the image and likeness of the world he was thrust into by the Adverasry.

  If he was going to be tormented and bugged, so would ALL of creation.

  Of course, until He says it's time to squash "the bugs."
• 

  Farkel

  : At a different time in history King David while watching the sheep in the field would marvel at the glories of nature as God creation. He was in awe of the creation.

  Right, and he also believed the world was flat, looked into the livers of dead animals for "signs" from God and had a decent man sent to the front lines to die so he could boink the guy's wife.

  There's a lot we can learn from David (if you're into putting garbage in your head.)

  Farkel
• 

  Gedanken

  jriszo,

  I notice that, as is typical, you ignored the main points. But to answer your question, the relevance of the specific remark you quoted is that religious "belief" has been notorious for holding back scientific progress. That has been the case for centuries - and it still is.

  Really it boils down to the symbiosis between people who are ill educated, ignorant and full of superstitious fear and those who can exploit those feelings. Go figure who is who.

  If you think that parrotting a few facts and non facts from the worldbook encyclopedia, and the notion that God lives on an electron is "food for thought" then God only knows what you would consider nonsense to be.

  Gedanken

  ps: the difference between the KH and scientific debate is that substantive arguments will win out against the entire scientific establishment - provide dthey are substantive. But the sheer nonsense propagated by thos eignorant of science will not. What you fail to understand is that no matter what evidence is presented, you cannot, and will not let go of what you "know" to be "the truth." So who's more like a dub, you or me?

  Edited by - Gedanken on 23 October 2002 16:26:25
• 

  pomegranate

  the relevance of the specific remark you quoted is that religious "belief" has been notorious for holding back scientific progress. That has been the case for centuries - and it still is.

  That's pure bovine meadow muffins.