Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Teejay

Questions For Theistic Evolutionists

Recommended Posts

>>

When it comes to biological decay, you're not talking about a ten hour candle.  From your own source, some of this stuff can survive (under certain conditions) to 1,000,000 years.  Putting it to scale, you can't tell me if that candle is 10 hours or 50,000,000 hours.  Based on everything we know, if there's a reliable "candle" in the room at all, it is radioactive decay..... even given the problems and limitations of the methods.>>

 

The variation in degradation of collagen is primarily determined by temperature, so IF we can have some degree of certainty about the GENERAL temperature of the environment...then we can INDEED have a good idea of the duration of the "candle."  And we don't need to be all that certain for all that long.  The area of where the dino lived certainly was NOT a frozen wasteland, as would be needed for the 1,000,000 year duration you suggest could be possible if conditions were right.  If indeed the temperature was around 20C for the 10,000 years or so after the death of the dino, (as everyone would surely agree) then the degradation would be complete.  That is what prevailing science was saying up until MS did her reporting.  And there is no good reason today to think otherwise.  However the ev's are all in desperation mode, now that they cannot reasonably dispute that she really DID identify actual dino soft tissue.  Earlier of course they USED THE VERY ARGUMENT I AM USING to try to prove she DID NOT really ID dino endogenous tissue.  But now when *I* use it...since it is no longer a convenient truth to the AE view...then the point is treated as if it were invalid.  Yeah, those AE scientists...they are the only ones really seeking truth!  Right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

 

I teach Christian Apologetics at a Christian HS to seniors about to go off to college. I am a Young Earther by the way. This year, I encountered a student whose father was an Old Earther. This made me realize that, while I take the Bible literally, I should delve into Theistic Evolution and find out a little more about it. So, I will ask one question at a time of you theistic evolutionists. I want to get one questions resolved before moving on to the next question.

 

Question 1: "And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, 'I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done'" (Gen. 8:21).

 

All Old Earthers I have encountered thus far in my life do not believe the Flood was worldwide, but local. So, how could a local flood "destroy every living thing" if it were just a local flood? And, if it were a local flood, then God would have broken His oath here each time there was a local flood anywhere on Planet Earth. Right?

 

TeeJay

It didn't destroy everything. In my opinion, the factual Noah's Ark flood was a localized event in the area of what is today Iraq, but was then Mesopotamia or Sumer. A man likely gathered a pair of all of his domestic animals and put them on board a large version of the traditional river vessel of the region: a hollowed out, circular boat. This hypothesis of mine is supported by the fact that a 4000+ year old clay tablet was unearthed in the past few years from Iraq, depicting just such a story. If I'm not mistaken, the name of the man is also Noah.

This event was likely the kernel of truth behind the legend. The story was seized upon by people across the region of various faiths. This is why we see older, polytheistic versions of the Noah's ark story, such as the famous Epic of Gilgamesh, in which the Noah figure goes by the name Utnapishtim. All religions that sought to tell the more mythical version of the actual events did so in the context of their own gods.

In Jewish tradition, the flood was exaggerated to cover the whole Earth instead of just a region, so that all humans but Noah were wiped out. The reason for this exaggeration is that the story was probably never meant to be taken literally. Instead, it is a parabolic device meant to show God's immense power, and even more importantly, His promise to humanity that He would never bring such a cataclysm on them again is meant to demonstrate His love.

 

A story doesn't have to be entirely literally factual in order to be true. It's all about conveying a message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piasan,

 

Please listen to the latest show on Real Science Radio. Fred is away on assignment, so Bob was solo. This show covers the discovery of more soft dino tissue and Bob and his guest cover the impossibility of this tissue being 70 million years old--preposterous even. This show might make you doubt your present worldview--that dinos and man did not live together.

 

TeeJay

Dino blood was crazy rich in iron. Iron at such high level acts as a very effective preservative. This quote from the article is good, but read the whole thing for the full story.

 

"Previous research findings that identified proteins in dinosaur soft tissue seemed to confirm that the tissue was indeed fossilized dinosaur tissue. But there were still doubts in the scientific community about these findings in part because of a lack of understanding about the chemical processes behind such preservation.

Recent research based on ALS studies now shows that the presence of hemoglobin—the iron-containing molecule that transports oxygen in red blood cells—may be the key to preserved ancient proteins within fossils. The iron contained within the hemoglobin and myoglobin is the key; it is released from its protein cage as the animal begins to decay. Once released, it is highly reactive, while in the protein, it is not. Dinosaur blood cells were likely to have more hemoglobin per cell than mammals, which would amplify iron's preservative effect on the tissues.

At the ALS, researchers identified iron particles associated with soft tissues recovered from two Mesozoic dinosaurs. Iron chelators increased fossil tissue immunoreactivity to multiple antibodies dramatically, suggesting a role for iron in both preserving and masking proteins in fossil tissues."

 

http://www-als.lbl.gov/index.php/holding/951-iron-is-the-key-to-preserving-dinosaur-soft-tissue.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dino blood was crazy rich in iron. Iron at such high level acts as a very effective preservative. This quote from the article is good, but read the whole thing for the full story.

 

"Previous research findings that identified proteins in dinosaur soft tissue seemed to confirm that the tissue was indeed fossilized dinosaur tissue. But there were still doubts in the scientific community about these findings in part because of a lack of understanding about the chemical processes behind such preservation.

Recent research based on ALS studies now shows that the presence of hemoglobin—the iron-containing molecule that transports oxygen in red blood cells—may be the key to preserved ancient proteins within fossils. The iron contained within the hemoglobin and myoglobin is the key; it is released from its protein cage as the animal begins to decay. Once released, it is highly reactive, while in the protein, it is not. Dinosaur blood cells were likely to have more hemoglobin per cell than mammals, which would amplify iron's preservative effect on the tissues.

At the ALS, researchers identified iron particles associated with soft tissues recovered from two Mesozoic dinosaurs. Iron chelators increased fossil tissue immunoreactivity to multiple antibodies dramatically, suggesting a role for iron in both preserving and masking proteins in fossil tissues."

 

http://www-als.lbl.gov/index.php/holding/951-iron-is-the-key-to-preserving-dinosaur-soft-tissue.html

 

Was this the study performed by Schweitzer and co?

 

IF it was then do you think bathing bones in blood for two years is an experiment borne of real-world conditions? or perhaps borne from attempting to tow the party line?

 

Did plastic containers exist back when the dinosaurs did? Did dino blood pool around the bones and not become absorbed into sand or the dirt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this the study performed by Schweitzer and co?

I guess you didn't bother to read the article. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you didn't bother to read the article. 

 

I did.... In fact the link down the end was where I got Schweitzer's name, I copied and paste it...

 

Just wanted to ask the question, whether GG knew the article since someone's interpretation of a scientific article isn't that great a evidence to go from.

 

Can you address my points or are you going to troll my posts?

 

 

IF it was then do you think bathing bones in blood for two years is an experiment borne of real-world conditions? or perhaps borne from attempting to tow the party line?

 

Did plastic containers exist back when the dinosaurs did? Did dino blood pool around the bones and not become absorbed into sand or the dirt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did.... In fact the link down the end was where I got Schweitzer's name, I copied and paste it...

 

Just wanted to ask the question, whether GG knew the article since someone's interpretation of a scientific article isn't that great a evidence to go from.

 

Can you address my points or are you going to troll my posts?

 

 

IF it was then do you think bathing bones in blood for two years is an experiment borne of real-world conditions? or perhaps borne from attempting to tow the party line?

 

Did plastic containers exist back when the dinosaurs did? Did dino blood pool around the bones and not become absorbed into sand or the dirt?

Toby will no longer be answering posts. Bonedigger dumped him back under the bridge where he belongs. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this the study performed by Schweitzer and co?

 

IF it was then do you think bathing bones in blood for two years is an experiment borne of real-world conditions? or perhaps borne from attempting to tow the party line?

 

Did plastic containers exist back when the dinosaurs did? Did dino blood pool around the bones and not become absorbed into sand or the dirt?

My link, while plenty good in its own right, is only one of several experiments performed in the last 5 years that confirm the fact that iron-rich dinosaur blood can preserve the inorganic framework underlying all tissues. It doesn't truly preserve the organic tissue itself, just the protein "skeleton," if you will.

 

Your last comment above is sort of ridiculous. The blood was INSIDE of the body. It didn't leak out all over just because an animal died. When there is a funeral, do you normally see a pool of blood in the bottom of the casket? Please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My link, while plenty good in its own right, is only one of several experiments performed in the last 5 years that confirm the fact that iron-rich dinosaur blood can preserve the inorganic framework underlying all tissues. It doesn't truly preserve the organic tissue itself, just the protein "skeleton," if you will.

 

Your last comment above is sort of ridiculous. The blood was INSIDE of the body. It didn't leak out all over just because an animal died. When there is a funeral, do you normally see a pool of blood in the bottom of the casket? Please

 

And one would normally see blood in examining the bones of a 68 million yr old T-Rex fossil? Well, not until M. Schweitzer discovered one. Before that such a notion was considered ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And one would normally see blood in examining the bones of a 68 million yr old T-Rex fossil? Well, not until M. Schweitzer discovered one. Before that such a notion was considered ludicrous.

Schweitzer's discovery is a great example of "serendipity" in science.  Before that, no one had ever deliberately cracked open a large dinosaur bone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My link, while plenty good in its own right, is only one of several experiments performed in the last 5 years that confirm the fact that iron-rich dinosaur blood can preserve the inorganic framework underlying all tissues. It doesn't truly preserve the organic tissue itself, just the protein "skeleton," if you will.

 

Yes, though the bones were kept within containers of blood for two years....

 

1- Two years isn't representative of a few million

2- Blood doesn't congeal around the bones for years on end... Let alone millions of years...

 

 

Your last comment above is sort of ridiculous. The blood was INSIDE of the body. It didn't leak out all over just because an animal died. When there is a funeral, do you normally see a pool of blood in the bottom of the casket? Please

 

Please try and engage your higher reasoning functions, it helps ;)

 

The experiment was performed under the guise that somehow bones will be engulfed by blood for two years, this is not what happens in reality. What happens to a body when it dies?... Does it magically stay intact for "millions of years" or does it decay meaning the blood leaks out and dries up....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, though the bones were kept within containers of blood for two years....

 

1- Two years isn't representative of a few million

2- Blood doesn't congeal around the bones for years on end... Let alone millions of years...

 

 

 

 

Please try and engage your higher reasoning functions, it helps ;)

The experiment was performed under the guise that somehow bones will be engulfed by blood for two years, this is not what happens in reality. What happens to a body when it dies?... Does it magically stay intact for "millions of years" or does it decay meaning the blood leaks out and dries up....

 

Magically? How do you know it would require magic? Do you have any experiments to back that up or are you merely making assumptions? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by leaks out and dries up. The remnants of the blood were found deep inside a completely intact and sealed t-rex femur ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magically? How do you know it would require magic? Do you have any experiments to back that up or are you merely making assumptions? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by leaks out and dries up. The remnants of the blood were found deep inside a completely intact and sealed t-rex femur ......

 

A Better Question to support the Assertion, since many are making the claim the "IRON" has Magical Millions of Years Preservation Power, is show the Experiment that VALIDATES this in the First Place.....?
 
Let's scrutinize the "Proposition", eh?
 
Or do you find it reasonable and logical for people to "Make Stuff Up" then demand others falsify it.... BEFORE Validating their "Made Up Stuff" has any merit?  
 
 
“If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?â€
Yeoman, B., Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery, Discover 27(4):37–41; p. 39, 2006.
 
Lets go further and ask about DNA Preservation....
 
“These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these dinosaur cells.â€
Schweitzer, M. H. et al. Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules, Bone, 17 October 2012 | doi:10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.010.
 
"However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80–85 Myr old Cretaceous bone.
Allentoft, M.E. et al., The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils, Proc. Royal Society B 279(1748):4724-4733,7 December 2012 | doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1745.
 
 
AND
 
So we're not Begging The Question till the Cow's come Home......Where'd you get DNA in the first place?  Start Here...
 
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
 
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !
 
Then the Wholly Mammoth in the Room... 
 
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?  
In other words, show how ink/paper/glue molecules can author War and Peace ?
 
 
Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
 
Why is it impossible? please provide evidence for your claim it is impossible.

 

 

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?  
In other words, show how ink/paper/glue molecules can author War and Peace ?
 
Atoms don't have software.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
 
Why is it impossible? please provide evidence for your claim it is impossible.

 

 

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?  
In other words, show how ink/paper/glue molecules can author War and Peace ?
 
Atoms don't have software.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
 
Why is it impossible? please provide evidence for your claim it is impossible.

 

 

 

The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is positive as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides along with 50 other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks".  Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids). That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas.  I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT. 

 

To Refute:  Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin!

 

 

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?  
In other words, show how ink/paper/glue molecules can author War and Peace ?
 
 
Atoms don't have software.

 

 

 
Well DNA is made up of Atoms, AND...
 
"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic Code booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
 
 
 
"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {Emphasis Mine} 

Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) 

 
“DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff — hardware — but as INFORMATION, or SOFTWARE. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.†{Emphasis Mine} 

Paul Davies PhD Physics: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/dec/11/highereducation.uk

 

 

So you were saying....?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is positive as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides along with 50 other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks".  Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids). That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas.  I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT. 

so you agree it could have happened out of direct sunlight?

 

 
Well DNA is made up of Atoms, AND...
 
It is not because dna is made out of atoms that atoms have software.
I am nnot going to reply on the rest of your argument, becuase your first premisse is incorrect.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is positive as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides along with 50 other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks".  Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids). That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas.  I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT. 

 

1.  so you agree it could have happened out of direct sunlight?

 

 
Well DNA is made up of Atoms, AND...
 
It is not because dna is made out of atoms that atoms have software.
 
3.  I am nnot going to reply on the rest of your argument, becuase your first premisse is incorrect.
 

 

 

 

 

 so you agree it could have happened out of direct sunlight?

 

 

No I don't agree, that was merely One Reason; It's Impossible.  Nice Straw Man Attempt however.

 

 

It is not because dna is made out of atoms that atoms have software.

 

 

What on Earth is this?  Can you phrase this into somewhat of a "Coherent" statement.

 

This is not a Because or Rationale as to the "Why" or "Why NOT"...it's an "IS" motif.

 

This is very simple....

 

DNA contains Software/Information.                       TRUE

DNA is made of Atoms.                                           TRUE

Therefore, Atoms MUST contain SOFTWARE.       This must BE TRUE, from the Premises.

 

Refute it "Coherently"....?  Best wishes.

 

 

I am nnot going to reply on the rest of your argument, becuase your first premisse is incorrect.

 

 

Why???  Cause you said so?  How Scientific of you.  I suggest you look up

 

You also need to take an Elementary "SPELLING" course,  OR...

 

.... when there's a red squiggly line under a word...it's Misspelled.  Right click on it for correct spelling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is positive as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides along with 50 other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks".  Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids). That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas.  I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT. 

 

To Refute:  Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin!

 

 

 

 

 
Well DNA is made up of Atoms, AND...
 
"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic Code booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
 
 
 
"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {Emphasis Mine} 

Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) 

 
“DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff — hardware — but as INFORMATION, or SOFTWARE. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.†{Emphasis Mine} 

Paul Davies PhD Physics: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/dec/11/highereducation.uk

 

 

So you were saying....?

 

 

That video of Craig Venter is interesting. Is he a creationist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As is the case with most scientists, Venter is an atheist. When asked by “60 Minutes†interviewer Steve Kroft if he believed in God, Venter quickly replied:


No. I believe that the universe is far more wonderful than just assuming it was made by some higher power."   http://hollowverse.com/craig-venter/ 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncertain, but unlikely.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter

OK, cheers!

 

 

 

"As is the case with most scientists, Venter is an atheist. When asked by “60 Minutes†interviewer Steve Kroft if he believed in God, Venter quickly replied:

No. I believe that the universe is far more wonderful than just assuming it was made by some higher power."   http://hollowverse.com/craig-venter/ 

 

lol this is similar to Albert Einstein who believed in some higher power "Spinoza GOD" yet but he doesn't call himself an atheist but an agnostic? Why don't Venter become an agnostic if he believes in a higher power other than GOD? Great, now we see new atheism and the old atheism taking the position of not believing in GOD but someone like Venter can believe in a higher power but still call himself an atheist? I don't get your worldview? It's like 2.0 USB upgrading to 3.0 USB lol and altering on the GO like trying to define evolution? Now we see the same with the atheism worldview?

 

Don't mind me I am only voicing my opinion ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol this is similar to Albert Einstein who believed in some higher power "Spinoza GOD" yet but he doesn't call himself an atheist but an agnostic? Why don't Venter become an agnostic if he believes in a higher power other than GOD? Great, now we see new atheism and the old atheism taking the position of not believing in GOD but someone like Venter can believe in a higher power but still call himself an atheist? I don't get your worldview? It's like 2.0 USB upgrading to 3.0 USB lol and altering on the GO like trying to define evolution? Now we see the same with the atheism worldview?

 

Don't mind me I am only voicing my opinion ;)

Theistic evolutionists are not atheists.....

 

Just pointing out the obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kairos, it's interesting that Venter says, the universe is, "far more wonderful". Whatever does he mean by, "wonderful"? Is that not a subjective term? If atheism is true, what is, "wonderful", it is nothing, therefore Venter's opinion is nothing, because his opinion is nothing more than some chemicals bouncing around his head, that have evolved from pond-scum.

 

I find that an interesting epithet to use, "wonderful".

 

Now if you are a Christian, you can appreciate the true wonder of creation for what it is without lying. You don't have to pretend that a butterfly is only beautiful to the human but that objectively it is a created thing. You don't have to believe morality is invented by man, you don't have to believe that freewill is an illusion. You don't have to pretend that a miraculous level of design in organisms and in nature generally, is a mirage and that it was intelligently designed by something with no intelligence. (evolution).

 

In short, you can take reality for what it is - truly wonderful because it is a miraculous creation. A creation with meaning. But in Venter's world - what is 'meaning'?, What is 'wonderful'? They are nothing more than the opines of relativity. They are dust, shadows, phantoms, and the atheist becomes the puppeteer that animates them, having no tether to the earth himself.

 

Furthermore, if the creation is wonderful then since the Creator made it, the Creator would be wonderful as the creation is a reflection of the creator. It is an assumption that we "assume" God is there, just because the atheists say we do, as though they have proven the bible is not God's voice to us.

 

To say the universe is too wonderful to be made by God is like saying that a wonderful song is too wonderful to be sung by a wonderful singer. A contradiction, for they both compliment eacother. To imagine that God existing would not be wonderful, is bizarre and shows how far from God the unbelieving mind is in it's belief in falsehoods and contradictions and a failure to even understand base-wisdom.

 

Where do these guys come from, Goku? Who are these people you quote, that have no wisdom and state contradictions as though we should value them?

 

S O P H I S T R Y. Why do you glorify these glorified sinners in your mind?

:acigar:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol this is similar to Albert Einstein who believed in some higher power "Spinoza GOD" yet but he doesn't call himself an atheist but an agnostic? Why don't Venter become an agnostic if he believes in a higher power other than GOD? Great, now we see new atheism and the old atheism taking the position of not believing in GOD but someone like Venter can believe in a higher power but still call himself an atheist? I don't get your worldview? It's like 2.0 USB upgrading to 3.0 USB lol and altering on the GO like trying to define evolution? Now we see the same with the atheism worldview?

 

Don't mind me I am only voicing my opinion ;)

 

I think Venter is saying that he doesn't believe in any higher power.

 

Where do these guys come from, Goku? Who are these people you quote, that have no wisdom and state contradictions as though we should value them?

 

S O P H I S T R Y. Why do you glorify these glorified sinners in your mind?

:acigar:

 

People asked what his religious beliefs were, and since his wiki didn't address it I found an article that did and posted it. It was not meant to be anything more than informing people what his religious beliefs were as people seemed to be curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Goku: People asked what his religious beliefs were, and since his wiki didn't address it I found an article that did and posted it. It was not meant to be anything more than informing people what his religious beliefs were as people seemed to be curious.

 

 I wasn't picking on you really, there was some tongue-in-cheek in me accusing you, as I cannot resist a bit of mischief with old Goku-guru. :D

 

(It seems to me you do have more sense than to state some of the things that some of these guys say. All I ask is that they think through what they say first, so often some of these guys make indirect STABS at people like us (theists), like when he says, the world is far too wonderful, which obviously implies that our belief as theists is some kind of simplistic stereotypical "assumption" we are all indulging.  That's arrogant because he doesn't know what each person believes and why they believe it, because God is a simple concept to Him doesn't mean that God is a simple concept or "assumption".

 

Can you not see how that might be throwing a flame? Why do these guys need to demote theism in order to promote atheism? Can't they provide a case for atheism without relying on the demotion of theism? (It's something for you to think about)

 

The only way it seems, that these guys can win, is if they try and make it seem like we are the ones with the losing argument, but where are the POSITIVE arguments for atheism. I don't hear many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms