A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Hello!
you have a devil amongst you I'm agnostic... maybe you can try to convert me?
I was born in mexico (lived there 11 years, moved to NC), raised as a catholic, don't agree with what the bible says because i'm a science nut, and the more I talk about religion the more convinced I get that it's not right. We shall see what my point of view is later eh?
what I'm wondering is if you'll allow an agnostic like me to chat here... I'm new so I don't know if i'm the only agnostic here or what.
EDIT: after some reading I see you're opposed to censorship and will allow "evil" lol. great!
WillieH: Hi Alpha Wolf (Mr agnostic indeed!)
Well Mr. Agnostic (which is just another word for "fence sitter"...) You're not sure whether or not there is a God, mainly because you are a "science nut" eh?
Well, ...here's a little science for you to chew on...
The fact of the EXISTENCE of everything we see and experience has to be
the product of one of 2 possible beginnings (let's leave out the "aliens" because they - if they exist - are the product of one or the other themselves)... those possibilities are either GOD CREATED everything or it happened by RANDOM CHANCE...
In either case... all things came about via one of the following equations:
2. GOD (intelligent purposeful designer) + His power and WILL = everything (Creation equation)
Holding to equation number ONE, I could hold up my wrist before you a display my WATCH... then ask - Is this WATCH (which IS NOT ALIVE), in your opinion, ...a product of DESIGN... A resounding YES would inevitably follow...
Now, ...continuing to hold to equation number ONE, I ask of YOU Mr. Agnostic - in your opinion, the DESIGNER of this WATCH - MAN which IS ALIVE... is a product of RANDOM CHANCE? (Do you see the foolishness in this? If not... please proceed...)
Okay, lets leave that for a moment in favor of more SCIENCE...
The BUILDING BLOCK of ALL Living Systems is DNA... But. if one holds scientifcally to the "Random Chance Theory of Evolution" there is a problem concerning this little "building block"...
It is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that DNA CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT ...PROTEINS..
It is also a SCIENTIFIC FACT that PROTEIN is PRODUCED by DNA... therefore.. you cant have DNA without Protein, and yet, ...Protein is manufactured by DNA.. Hmmm...
It is THEREFORE a SCIENTIFIC FACT that BOTH of these ELEMENTS of the "building block" of LIVING SYSTEMS, had to have APPEARED simultaneously... AT THE SAME TIME.. To state that this happened by "random chance" is utter fantasy... and SCIENTIFIC foolishness..
Charles Darwin, himself even stated within his "Origin of the species" that without TRANSITIONAL proof or evidence (of one living entity changing into another) that his "theory" was nothing but worthless words... (which is what it is!)
To date, ...not even ONE trace of TRANSITIONAL EVIDENCE exists concerning ANY SPECIES.. of the millions of lifeforms and living systems on the Earth, not even ONE piece of TRANSITIONAL proof! Hmmm...
Your "precious science" PROVES that there had to have been... some-one or ....some-thing that had the ability to bring forth both DNA and PROTEIN simultaneously... because logic dictates that one would have to "transition" to the other to eventually become the building block entity we observe today..
Just put it in to another prospective... because someone has built an automobile body doesn't mean it is ready for driving... the MOTOR is necessary to accompany it... THEN and ONLY THEN would it be considered a road worthy, operational automobile...
Needing the same necessities, ...DNA and PROTEIN are BOTH necessary elements NEEDING - ONE ANOTHER, and, ...both are needed to establish LIVING SYSTEMS...
There you are Alpha Wolf... a little science courtesy of our CREATOR..
To observe the complexity of this planet, even of one human being, and consider its origin to be of random chance is as foolish as thinking a tornado blowing through a junkyard could assemble a fully functional, with seats, food, instruments and fuel.. a 747 Jumbo Jet... Come on ya'll!
You're not sure whether or not there is a God, mainly because you are a "science nut" eh?
well, let me put it this way. If the only choices were your god and nothing, I'd be an atheist. I completely deny the existance of a god like christians say god is like. However, I am agnostic and not an atheist because I do not know if there is one god, two, three, four, a trillion, if they're omnipotent or not, if they're nice or not, I don't know if there is no god, If there are infinite number of universes popping up in infinite number of dimensions, I don't know if there is just one universe, I don't know if there is just one place in the universe with life (although I strongly believe there are probably millions of worlds out there with life), I just don't know. There is an infinite number possibilities. I'm not that narrow and close minded.
Quote:
Well, ...here's a little science for you to chew on...
bad science I might add. There was no science in your post at all actually.
Quote:
those possibilities are either GOD CREATED everything or it happened by RANDOM CHANCE...
or that two gods created everything, or that a trillion gods created everything, or that one god created something that then allowed everything to exist but that one god didn't actually create everything, or that everything isn't random chance but ruled by the laws of the universe, or... etc.
Quote:
2. GOD (intelligent purposeful designer) + His power and WILL = everything (Creation equation)
let's analyze your "equation". What created god and his power and will? surely it is much easier to believe that little ultra microscopic balls of something with tiny charges and all that was what began everything and not that this ONE omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. was just... there... out of nowhere...
nothing + nothing= god (creation equation)
Holding to equation number ONE, I could hold up my wrist before you a display my WATCH... then ask - Is this WATCH (which IS NOT ALIVE), in your opinion, ...a product of DESIGN... A resounding YES would inevitably follow...
a watch is human made. Of course something human made is designed.
Quote:
Now, ...continuing to hold to equation number ONE, I ask of YOU Mr. Agnostic - in your opinion, the DESIGNER of this WATCH - MAN which IS ALIVE... is a product of RANDOM CHANCE? (Do you see the foolishness in this? If not... please proceed...)
yes, that is incredibly idiotic. (that man is a product of random chance)
there are laws of physics, which aren't random, and there is natural selection, which by it's own name is not random. SELECTION isn't random.
Quote:
The BUILDING BLOCK of ALL Living Systems is DNA
which indicates common ancestors. There are many possible nucleic acids, some of which aren't as prone to mutation as deoxyribose nucleic acid.
Quote:
But. if one holds scientifcally to the "Random Chance Theory of Evolution"
there is no such thing. You obviously don't even know what evolution is. It has nothing to do with the beginnings of life, or with god, or anything you have mentioned.
Quote:
It is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that DNA CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT ...PROTEINS..
no it isn't. it can exist without proteins.
Quote:
It is also a SCIENTIFIC FACT that PROTEIN is PRODUCED by DNA
no it isn't. DNA CODES for protein. RNA and ribosomes are the ones that ASSEMBLE proteins.
Quote:
therefore.. you cant have DNA without Protein, and yet, ...Protein is manufactured by DNA.. Hmmm...
You can have nucleic acids without proteins. They have been found in asteroids. If the right conditions are given, DNA can also form from it's component chemicals, kind of like a crystal, and it can grow... like a crystal too. In labs they have made a type of self replicating RNA. that's another possibility. RNA could have been the one that started in life, not DNA... but then along the way the RNA gained the deoxy.
Quote:
It is THEREFORE a SCIENTIFIC FACT that BOTH of these ELEMENTS of the "building block" of LIVING SYSTEMS, had to have APPEARED simultaneously
stop calling all your conclusions scientific facts. They're not even scientific, let alone facts.
Quote:
To date, ...not even ONE trace of TRANSITIONAL EVIDENCE exists concerning ANY SPECIES.. of the millions of lifeforms and living systems on the Earth, not even ONE piece of TRANSITIONAL proof! Hmmm...
There are tons of examples. one of them being with humans. Experts disagree which fossils are fully human and which are pre-human species. How more transitional can you get? There are also transitional fossils of whales, horses, and many others.
another thing... living organisms couldn't be "transitional proof". Although you CAN get an idea what things looked like.
Quote:
because someone has built an automobile body doesn't mean it is ready for driving... the MOTOR is necessary to accompany it... THEN and ONLY THEN would it be considered a road worthy, operational automobile...
yes, human made machines are examples of something irreducibly complex. There is no such example in organisms.
Quote:
DNA and PROTEIN are BOTH necessary elements NEEDING - ONE ANOTHER, and, ...both are needed to establish LIVING SYSTEMS...
nope.
Quote:
There you are Alpha Wolf... a little science courtesy of our CREATOR..
sheesh, this creator of yours is very unscientific. another reason not to believe in it.
Quote:
To observe the complexity of this planet, even of one human being, and consider its origin to be of random chance is as foolish as thinking a tornado blowing through a junkyard could assemble a fully functional, with seats, food, instruments and fuel.. a 747 Jumbo Jet...
that's quite a horrible analogy. There's so much wrong with it I don't even know how or where to begin.
the principal things wrong with it (there are plenty more, believe me) are that:
1)evolution isn't random chance, nor was the origins of life, scientifically speaking.
2) a tornado doesn't have the things necessary to create such a thing. there are inter and intramolecular forces your analogy doesn't take into account, it doesn't provide the way for screws to screw themselves in, etc.
3) the origins of life and evolution both work in steps. your analogy starts with nothing and then makes a jumbo jet.
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:11 am Post subject: Short & sweet..
WillieH: Hi AW...
First, though I dont have much time to reply, I would like to say that the GOD that you think I worship and believe in is in all likelihood much different than the Orthodox religious belief... (no Hell, all saved, non-trintitarian.. to name a few)
2nd... In short, your view is of MACRO Evolution, not MICRO Evolution which actually does not exist... There are NO transitional proofs in microevolution.. there are however theories that ASSUME Evolving from one species to another has occured, ...based on non-transitional fossil finds, carbon dating etc.. which are scientifically unacceptable when scrutinized and examined.. Carbon dating assumes conditions that exist today... always have been... this is very unwarranted... and falls into the DEEP POOL of ASSUMPTION...
I'll get back to you in detail as soon as I can... til then, I mean no offense to you... just was looking to get your attention.. You appear to be somewhat knowledgeable in your speech.. that's good... maybe you have something else to learn..
I would like to say that the GOD that you think I worship and believe in is in all likelihood much different than the Orthodox religious belief
christian god right? omnipotent, omniprescent, omniscient, etc., created the universe, pure love and kindness and all that, etc? and you believe the bible right?
That's the god i'm talking about.
Quote:
In short, your view is of MACRO Evolution, not MICRO Evolution which actually does not exist ... There are NO transitional proofs in microevolution.. there are however theories that ASSUME Evolving from one species to another has occured,
wait wait wait... you're confusing me. You believe in macro evolution but not micro evolution? without micro evolution there's no macro evolution. I think you mixed the two?
they both exist and both have been PROVEN.
but first to define the two terms-
micro evolution- changes in a population of a species over time, that do not cause speciation (one population becoming another species)
macro evolution- with lots of "micro evolutions" (that really doesn't make much sense but you get my drift), speciation occurs (again, one species becoming another species)
both have been observed. micro evolution is just like in the galapagos finches that were blown out of one island landed on another island and now their beaks are changing shape and their songs are changing too, however they are still the same species. Basically all domestic species are examples of micro evolution too. from dogs, which are decendants from wolves, to chickens and strawberries.
macro evolution has also been observed. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html check out that site. quite a few examples. Even answersingenesis.com , a creationist website, accepts that macro evolution (speciation) has been observed.
Quote:
...based on non-transitional fossil finds, carbon dating etc
like I showed above, it's not just on that. speciation has been observed with living breathing organisms. I'd also like to point out that it is difficult to see speciation in fossils. Two similar species are very alike, and fossils are maily bones... many times one needs much more than just bones to tell two species appart. For that reason, transitional fossils are mostly between genera and things like that, not species. And like I said before, there ARE quite a few transitional fossils.
Quote:
Carbon dating assumes conditions that exist today... always have been... this is very unwarranted... and falls into the DEEP POOL of ASSUMPTION...
it's not just carbon dating, and in fact carbon dating is only good for a couple thousand years. There are dozens of other radioactive isotope dating methods, as well as ice layers, tree rings, layers in the crust, and various other dating methods, and they pretty much all agree.
Quote:
I mean no offense to you... just was looking to get your attention..
none taken, and no offense meant to you either.
Quote:
You appear to be somewhat knowledgeable in your speech.. that's good... maybe you have something else to learn..
LOL well, I do like learning. Give me your best shot. :)
hm, Eugene, didn't we already have two posts for this? Perhaps you could simply append these posts to the other evolution one?
By they way Alpha, had some new articles for ya to chew over :) Have to dig em all up. One of my favorite print journals on the subject put their whole 25 years worth of stuff online!
Incidentally, an unscientific believer does not make for an unscientific God any more than poor scientist disprove a true scientific theory.
an unscientific believer does not make for an unscientific God any more than poor scientist disprove a true scientific theory.
Of course not, but willieh said that it was a curtesy from the creator. not form himself. I was making a hypothetical argument that if it's from the creator, than the creator is very unscientific.
By they way Alpha, had some new articles for ya to chew over :) Have to dig em all up. One of my favorite print journals on the subject put their whole 25 years worth of stuff online!
So, where are they? I've been waiting.
I just hope they're not all full of ancient outdated data or things like that, which many creationists are fond of citing.
Sorry about the delay. Working way too much lately. I should have a day off tomorrow.
Since it covers 25 years, some of them doubtless do contain some old data :) But the newer ones are recent stuff. They do some of their own research too.
Joined: 21 Feb 2006 Posts: 6 Location: University of Waterloo, Ontario
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject:
I find it very unfortunate that this topic ended so long ago. This is an extremely complex subject that has been debated over for eons.
I'm a bit of a theoretical physicist myself, so I have a LOT to say on this matter.
Firstly, we cannot even begin to conceptualize about space, since it is something of an abstraction. It is something EXTREMELY fundamental yet impossible to know. The best we can do is REPRESENT space with equations that are good at both predicting and explaining its workings. This has nothing to do with what it actually IS or how it WORKS.
There are so many holes in your evolutionary argument WillieH that I can't even BEGIN to pick at them. First of all... let me explain something to you. A trademark of an excellent design is SIMPLICITY, not COMPLEXITY! It is a common mistake among creationists to believe that, because humans are SO complex, there must be a designer, because complex things are made by intelligent beings. Wrong.
Humans are INCREDIBLY inefficient beings... if we were made by a designer, why are we so pathetically assembled? (please do not argue about this, because I could think of a million ways to make us better).
You have the wrong idea about evolution. "Microevolution" is nothing but genetic mutation! We see microevolution ALL THE TIME! We cannot observe macroevolution directly because we would need lifespans of millions of years to do so, or the technology to replicate and entire animal atom for atom from a mere fragment. Did you know that DNA only exists BECAUSE it's self replicating? Think about this... it didn't have to start off as a giant double helix. It could have started as a single set of nucleic acids, which isn't that hard to find in methane-based atmospheres that have been charged by electricity. As long as one set had, at one point, been split in any way (not necessarily by the proteins that NOW split our DNA), they could duplicate themselves much in the same way. It's not like the entire DNA molecule just APPEARED out of nowhere. How foolish is this.
Your argument about the watch being made is also faulty. Indeed, one COULD say that the watch is a product of nature... what is it but a set of natural impulses in the brain that make us move our hands and conceptualize about a watch. Last time I looked electricity is a rather natural occurrence.
I'm frustrated by people who believe that humans are somehow special. I've been asked the question, "why are we at the top of the food chain"? Well, firstly, SOMETHING has to be at the top. Secondly, go to Africa alone in the jungle and tell me if you're at the top of the food chain. We're at the top because we've developed methods of cooperation to ensure the survival of our species.
Evolution is a theory. Everything is a theory. We cannot prove anything, but we can indeed say, "this explains what we've observed best". We will never know if next time we take a step down the stairs, our foot will go through the stairs and emerge unharmed, the stairs untouched. We can only ASSUME that, because we have never seen this happen, that it is most unlikely to happen. It is a theory of the constancy of material structure. Evolution explains life as it is MUCH more accurately than creation. For your argument of the impossibility of "nothing + nobody = something" is just as faulty if you consider God as "something".
Also, just so you know, our universe isn't unique or special. SURPRISE! And let me get this straight? You think that the ENTIRE universe is only 5000 or something years old? And that God placed everything perfectly so that it looked to us as if it was billions of years old? Why would he want to trick us? Is it the working of the devil trying to lure us into nonbelieving? That wouldn't make sense either, because this means that Satan has control over the universe! Woe be upon us!
But I digress. The main point that must be made again is this: complexity is a sign of random evolution... if you don't agree, I could spit out some probability equations that would make your head explode. Let me make something clear... it is not the arrangement of atoms that is random... that is not how evolution works. If this were true, our evolution would be so impossible that the chance of our existence AS IS on any planet in the entire universe would be next to nil.
Let us, again, look at the watch. Complex? No. It is an extremely simple system of rotation and lateral movement. Designer? Yes and no. We did not design the watch any more than a series of events "designed" DNA.
Good luck to you all in coming up with scientific proof of God
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:13 am Post subject: Blah.. blah.. blah.. blah-blah
WillieH: Hi R... peace....
You are full of yourself... and so I leave you to yourself... One day, your eyes will open, until then... the only thing you see is the self you adore...
I wont argue with you... even though you are wrong... it is not my ministry to bark back and forth with one that is so "near-sighted"
Guess you need "millions of years" to prove your THEORIES then...
I'll concede that YOU have the biggest mouth
Here's your cup... you win... hope you enjoy it...
romistrub wrote:
I find it very unfortunate that this topic ended so long ago. This is an extremely complex subject that has been debated over for eons.
I'm a bit of a theoretical physicist myself, so I have a LOT to say on this matter.
Firstly, we cannot even begin to conceptualize about space, since it is something of an abstraction. It is something EXTREMELY fundamental yet impossible to know. The best we can do is REPRESENT space with equations that are good at both predicting and explaining its workings. This has nothing to do with what it actually IS or how it WORKS.
There are so many holes in your evolutionary argument WillieH that I can't even BEGIN to pick at them. First of all... let me explain something to you. A trademark of an excellent design is SIMPLICITY, not COMPLEXITY! It is a common mistake among creationists to believe that, because humans are SO complex, there must be a designer, because complex things are made by intelligent beings. Wrong.
Humans are INCREDIBLY inefficient beings... if we were made by a designer, why are we so pathetically assembled? (please do not argue about this, because I could think of a million ways to make us better).
You have the wrong idea about evolution. "Microevolution" is nothing but genetic mutation! We see microevolution ALL THE TIME! We cannot observe macroevolution directly because we would need lifespans of millions of years to do so, or the technology to replicate and entire animal atom for atom from a mere fragment. Did you know that DNA only exists BECAUSE it's self replicating? Think about this... it didn't have to start off as a giant double helix. It could have started as a single set of nucleic acids, which isn't that hard to find in methane-based atmospheres that have been charged by electricity. As long as one set had, at one point, been split in any way (not necessarily by the proteins that NOW split our DNA), they could duplicate themselves much in the same way. It's not like the entire DNA molecule just APPEARED out of nowhere. How foolish is this.
Your argument about the watch being made is also faulty. Indeed, one COULD say that the watch is a product of nature... what is it but a set of natural impulses in the brain that make us move our hands and conceptualize about a watch. Last time I looked electricity is a rather natural occurrence.
I'm frustrated by people who believe that humans are somehow special. I've been asked the question, "why are we at the top of the food chain"? Well, firstly, SOMETHING has to be at the top. Secondly, go to Africa alone in the jungle and tell me if you're at the top of the food chain. We're at the top because we've developed methods of cooperation to ensure the survival of our species.
Evolution is a theory. Everything is a theory. We cannot prove anything, but we can indeed say, "this explains what we've observed best". We will never know if next time we take a step down the stairs, our foot will go through the stairs and emerge unharmed, the stairs untouched. We can only ASSUME that, because we have never seen this happen, that it is most unlikely to happen. It is a theory of the constancy of material structure. Evolution explains life as it is MUCH more accurately than creation. For your argument of the impossibility of "nothing + nobody = something" is just as faulty if you consider God as "something".
Also, just so you know, our universe isn't unique or special. SURPRISE! And let me get this straight? You think that the ENTIRE universe is only 5000 or something years old? And that God placed everything perfectly so that it looked to us as if it was billions of years old? Why would he want to trick us? Is it the working of the devil trying to lure us into nonbelieving? That wouldn't make sense either, because this means that Satan has control over the universe! Woe be upon us!
But I digress. The main point that must be made again is this: complexity is a sign of random evolution... if you don't agree, I could spit out some probability equations that would make your head explode. Let me make something clear... it is not the arrangement of atoms that is random... that is not how evolution works. If this were true, our evolution would be so impossible that the chance of our existence AS IS on any planet in the entire universe would be next to nil.
Let us, again, look at the watch. Complex? No. It is an extremely simple system of rotation and lateral movement. Designer? Yes and no. We did not design the watch any more than a series of events "designed" DNA.
Good luck to you all in coming up with scientific proof of God
Joined: 21 Feb 2006 Posts: 6 Location: University of Waterloo, Ontario
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:11 am Post subject:
Again, I don't know where to start... perhaps I'll start from the beginning. (Peace be upon you as well, WillieH).
Quote:
You are full of yourself... and so I leave you to yourself... One day, your eyes will open, until then... the only thing you see is the self you adore...
Are you twelve years old or something? What, in my previous arguments, made you believe that I'm full of myself? I do not assume that I am some being that is greater than any other human being. You might take note, however, that so-called "humble" God-fearing citizens believe they are better than animals... often better than other cultures or even citizens of their own culture who do not believe in the same theology.
I wont argue with you... even though you are wrong... it is not my ministry to bark back and forth with one that is so "near-sighted"
First off, this is one of the strangest things I've heard come from a grown man. To me, this sounds like you refuse to listen to what I have to say, as if you're shutting your ears and singing a song... And then you have the gall to say I'm wrong? Wrong about what? Or am I just wrong in general... about everything I've ever said? This statement is so vague that it completely loses any credibility that it may have had. Also, what do you mean by "near-sighted"? Clearly you envision the development of some proof of God? The next coming of Jesus? Or is it that I cannot see what's directly in front of me? Maybe it's because reality doesn't DEAL with what we see, my friend. Science has developed FAR beyond your "what you see in front of you" since I last checked. Can you see atoms? Quantum fluctuations? I hope not... but you DO see the effects, right? Yup, because everything that has ever existed and you've ever observed is a product of these effects.
Quote:
Guess you need "millions of years" to prove your THEORIES then...
Typical for religious folk to ignore what is said. First off, once again, theories cannot be proven. If you REALLY need someone to explain this, go back to highschool philosophy or something. Secondly, evolution, in case you've been in a hole, or reading only religious magazines for the past 40 years... has been proven to a far greater extent than a creator! By this I mean that they have shown quite convincingly how a pool of methane and other complex organic molecules can, given time and energy, form simple organisms. I don't understand how a mass of people still think this is impossible! Then again, these are the same people who think that a huge array of photons were amassed to fool us into believing that the universe has a specific age in the billions of years, and that the rate of expansion of the universe supports the same age on a completely independant level. Just because God wants to trick us. But "he works in mysterious ways" now doesn't he?
Quote:
I'll concede that YOU have the biggest mouth
Now what good is this doing you? Does it make you feel better about yourself when you tell me I have a "big mouth"? I'm quite curious as to how you can convince me that God is the right path by telling me I have a big mouth. I made no personal jabs at you in my original post, yet you, a supposed man of God, decided to take one at me. How pathetic of you. I'm going to find a forum where big boys with real things to do in their spare time can have a decent conversation dealing with FACTS, not prejudices.
Quote:
Here's your cup... hope you enjoy it...
Again, does it make you feel better about yourself? To put someone with facts supporting his ideas down for the sake of your ego? You have no idea how angry this makes me. Let me tell you something... you remember the Galileans and things such as this? Religious folk have been proven wrong time after time after time. Let's take a good look at the times when they believed the Sun went around the Earth! Pure genius! And ironically, I can't think of a time when the scientists were proven wrong by religion... thinking... still thinking... nope, I've got nothing.
Good luck in grade 10 or whatever grade it is you're in!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
