witnessdater
JoinedPosts by witnessdater
-
41
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 04-10-2011 WT Study (CREATION)
by blondie inthe physical heavens, the earth, and everything.
heavens themselves were made, and by the.
creative days three through six, god created.
-
-
-
41
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 04-10-2011 WT Study (CREATION)
by blondie inthe physical heavens, the earth, and everything.
heavens themselves were made, and by the.
creative days three through six, god created.
-
-
witnessdater
Drwtsn32,
Take a look at this from Behe. Facts are facts. Evolution is merley a word argument. Science cannot demonstrate it. Microevolution occurs, but never has there been a demonstration with fossilsor otherwise how we got from single cell organisms to all of the creatures today. Look in particular at his answer about slinging mud onto a wall and it accidentally creating Shakespeare. When science cannot explain it, as it cannot demonstrate evolution or intelligent design, then one has to go to philosophical thinking. This is where the evolutionists have no ideas that make sense. Nice try though.
-
41
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 04-10-2011 WT Study (CREATION)
by blondie inthe physical heavens, the earth, and everything.
heavens themselves were made, and by the.
creative days three through six, god created.
-
-
witnessdater
JG,
I think you are misunderstanding me. He is presenting all of this "evidence" that evolution is what happened, and that the laws of cause and effect breakdown at the quantum level. He doesn't understand that he is talking about physical laws as we know them. And trying to apply it before the Big Bang, when there was nothing. The general rule of cause and effect still remains. The question "Where did everything come from" is a valid question. Obviously, if God created the matter of the Big Bang, it is by definition a supernatural occurence. Something does not come from nothing, but he seems to suggest that maybe it can. If we accept this as true, then anything is true, and the question self-destructs.
His answer is telling me that it is possible that the question is meaningless. I am telling him that if evolution and non-creation by intelligent being of the universe has been proven, then belief in God would have fallen WAY off. Churches would be devastated. Therefore, all of the "evidence" he is putting forth hasn't proven anything.
-
41
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 04-10-2011 WT Study (CREATION)
by blondie inthe physical heavens, the earth, and everything.
heavens themselves were made, and by the.
creative days three through six, god created.
-
-
witnessdater
If the evidence were in and proven, no one would be going to church anymore. It would have been proclaimed that there is no God.
On the original source of energy, there must have been a source for that. If you can't trust your logic on that, then you cannot trust your logic on any of this. There must have been an "idea" for there to be anything. If you are only a random collection of brain cells and logic is thrown out the window, nothing yo say can have any meaning. Yes, Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation (ask a child) to the question "Where did it all come from?" 99.9% of the time the answer will be God. That is the simplest explanation. Instead of "Okay folks, here's what happened: Against all odds, enough amino acids ended up in the same pool somewhere, had all the right mutations to eventually make a strand of DNA within a cell (this alone would have taken up a billion of the years) Then all of the creatures and plants you see around you were formed from this, branching off from each other. If you want to know how this happened, read entire tomes of writing." That is simple? Nope, God (an intelligent being) is.
Different question: Do you believe that there is good and evil?
-
41
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 04-10-2011 WT Study (CREATION)
by blondie inthe physical heavens, the earth, and everything.
heavens themselves were made, and by the.
creative days three through six, god created.
-
-
witnessdater
Both very powerful, the video and the news story. Several comments though.
One, the news story was from 2008. Why has this not been on the front page of the NY Times, who screams from the rooftops any advance made in the advance of evolutionary theory? It seems this would have been a well known story by now. I suspect that the reason it never took off is that it is dealing with bacteria, just as one of hamsters arguments did. A cell does not live on its own. Bacterium do. It is an organism on its own. And no bacteria has been ever demonstrated to turn into a cell. The bacteria didn't turn into anything new, as the bird Hamster cited also did not turn into anything new. It gained an ability to process some chemical. Is there even a theory out there that postulates HOW a human cell might have evolved, all the way from amino acids, and how it could have been done in the time alloted? The assertions made by the speaker should most definitely be fact-checked. The reality is that Stephen Hawking is to the point of declaring that the laws of gravity and physics THEMSELVES created the universe (with pre-existing matter I suppose - whoops, no, that wouldn't be creating). That is where anti-creationism and/or atheism is now. That is the newest theory, put forth only weeks ago from the smartest man in the world.
For the video, the first thing I noticed is that it took a very long time to put forth what it was TRYING to say. First, why would "light-sensitive cells" ever exist in the first place? Did they evolve into more focused eyes later? The video showed several different animals which had varying degrees of light sensitivity or focus. Have the fossils confirmed from one of these species to the other that they evolved from one another? I have seen nothing in that regard for confirmation. The very occurence of "light-sensitive cells" occuring in just the right cells in the right place, what are the chances?? With no intent by anyone, no knowledge of the cells themselves of what they wanted to be? Why didn't the light sensitive cells show up in my skin or heart instead? Again, take away any portion of a cell, and it will not live, and certainly not without an organism that supports it, with all of the thousands of chemical reactions which take place in all of our cells everyday. Way, way out on a limb are the evolutionists. Ask Stephen Hawking where he is. It simply seems that were this any kind of a viable theory, major documentaries and coherent movies would have been made about it. Plenty of money exists among those believing no God to get the right scientists together, and prove it once and for all. We are talking about physical sciences, with archeological proof to be displayed. It isn't there. It is just a guess, but an improbable reality. There is a cause for everything. There must be an ultimate uncaused cause. I call that uncaused cause "God".
The general feeling is that for all of this to happen by chance, and in the correct sequence for us to all still be here, is a stretch beyond all imagination. Not sure I am spelling it correctly, but "Ockham's Razor" says that the correct explanation for anything is the simplest one. To absolutely deny the possibility that God created the universe, and us, and hold to a most improbable theory, is all the more reason to exit this place as soon as possible. Otherwise, why stay? To think the thoughts that we are able to think, and to be able to even concieve of God, proves that we are not mere automata. To have free will and choice, among the animals, and concieve of time, space, science, have new ideas proves this. And it cannot be disproven.
-
41
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 04-10-2011 WT Study (CREATION)
by blondie inthe physical heavens, the earth, and everything.
heavens themselves were made, and by the.
creative days three through six, god created.
-
-
witnessdater
Hamster,
You wrote: "Mutations that remove the ability to speak in ignorant people IMPROVES the overall feelgood factor of people who have acquired (by mutation) the inability to swallow intellectual shit churned out by the former."
Since this is not an actual mutation, I took it as being directed at anyone who speaks out their belief in creation (like me). Sorry if I took it the wrong way.
My intent was obviously to say that mutation has never been demonstrated to create a feature or organism, only to alter an existing one. If you know of one, let me know. I will take the absence of that as proof that the fact remains that no mutation has ever been shown to create anything. If you have shot that down before, please do again, it shouldn't be that hard for you. As far as I know, this is not an atheist or a creationist board. It is a board regarding the WTBTS. You spoke out on the subject of non-creationism first, then I spoke.
-
41
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 04-10-2011 WT Study (CREATION)
by blondie inthe physical heavens, the earth, and everything.
heavens themselves were made, and by the.
creative days three through six, god created.
-
-
witnessdater
If you look at Hamsters examples of mutations that have occured for instance, you will see one constant argument being made - that the mutations helped the SURVIVAL of the species. He made not one argument that kindeys, livers, skin, brains were created by mutation. His argument goes nowhere. Obviously, there are mutations. Obviously, natural selection is a logical and real occurence. Either alone or put together, they create nothing.
Scientifically speaking, more than anything the law of irreducible complexity proves creation to me. For the cell to work, it can't be built piece by piece over millions of years. And the exact mutations that needed to occur to maintain survival, if it were possible for the cell to survive are again incalculable. The cell must work, all at one time. And if a cell appears alltogether, all at one time, that is creation, the very definition.
-
41
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 04-10-2011 WT Study (CREATION)
by blondie inthe physical heavens, the earth, and everything.
heavens themselves were made, and by the.
creative days three through six, god created.
-
-
witnessdater
Cadelin,
I certainly don't claim to know everything about evolutionary theory. But, the argument at hand, that evolution (the combination of mutation and natural selection) brought forth from either amino acids or say, one organism, all of the life on earth including us, can be observed in very general terms to where one does not have to know all of the science of it. It is observed (which is the essence of science - observation) that mutations do not add - they change what is already there not to a new species but change attributes, or take away, or actually cause sickness. In essence, the do not create. This is my main point. The question about the arm out of the head was a joke, but all humor has some truth to it. If this is all random, and not part of a plan of creation, then why do we not see much more mutations that miraculously produce humans with a zoom lens in their eyeball for instance? Or six fingers on each hand? Anything significantly different?
Natural selection obviously eliminates. Only the strong survive is the principle, and the result is less species.
And not only could the theory not play out in 6000 years, it couldn't have occured in billions.
As for fossils, the reason they haven't found the transitional fossils is because they are not there to find.
-
41
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 04-10-2011 WT Study (CREATION)
by blondie inthe physical heavens, the earth, and everything.
heavens themselves were made, and by the.
creative days three through six, god created.
-
-
witnessdater
Hamster,
The vast majority of visible mutations are admitted by the evolutionists themselves to be bad. Furthermore, it has not been shown experimentally that mutation and natural selection can produce new structures or organs. Most mutations are deleterious or change (lots of times for the worse)something that is already there, they do not create livers, hearts, arms and legs. Limited changes have been observed in all species, but that does not prove that these species could evolve in millions of years into entirely different kinds of creatures. Scientists merely assume that this happened in the past when no scientists were present to observe the process.
The human skin cell itself is so complex, it would all have to have evolved all at once (by sheer chance with no intent by anything), or that cell would have died or would not have done its job. Same for the human eye. This is the principle of irreducible complexity. But your argument is that from all of the chance, accidental mutations of the past, the result we have is absolute beauty and order in our organism and universe.
-
41
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 04-10-2011 WT Study (CREATION)
by blondie inthe physical heavens, the earth, and everything.
heavens themselves were made, and by the.
creative days three through six, god created.
-
-
witnessdater
"Since nothing evidently does NOT exist, the universe as we know it is more likely, though we cannot, as said above prove the mathematical probability of this unique event that did nevertheless happen."
Hamster,
Just because we are conscious and what is here is obviously here, that means that we cannot observe the fact that if certain measured or calculated physical forces were off by a trillionth of a percent, then the universe would have collapsed long ago? What you are saying to me is that ANY universe is equally as improbable as this. But when you put the cosmological constants into the picture, that isn't true. Any other universe would not exist, it would die. In any case, we'd never know. Just because we are here does not mean we can't make these observations, and then deduce that it is highly improbable that the universe was not created. Or, in other words, if it were virtually any other way, there would not be anything.