Anyhow, I don't think "creation" was one event that took place at some point in time. I think creation is still going on. . . Our universe, our evolution, our existence, is all part of the process of "creation". Nothing is stagnant. . .everything changes. EVERYTHING. My 1.75 cents. Kinda broke 

I rest my case

Sends Krayola £5.

Banderas:

Again the pathetic and impolite response. People like you make me ask God, from the bottom of my heart how on earth you and I are both christians. Dude, what does it cost you to make simple and polite conversation? "Mumbo Jumbo". Who even uses such language in 2009 anyway?

I apologise if the word mumbo jumbo is outdated and offensive to you, what of the phrase putting your shoe in the mouth, will that be accurate and appropriate?

Banderas:

I'm not going to answer those lengthy questions in page one - it'll be quite silly of me to try and equal someone else's (definitely not yours of course) well thought out argument in one casual post.
Give me YOUR own questions. Questions from your head, not from a book. Not from a novel that someone took years of research to prepare, and I'll answer.

Why then did you jump in the waters only for you to realise that the questions were not original, have you heard of the saying "watch before you leap" or blind faith?

Banderas:

And while you're thinking this up, see if you can answer the question I asked earlier - If there is absolutely no evolution, where did the black man, the white man, the yellow man and the red man come from? Is there perhaps a verse in the bible that tells you "God made man. Then he saw that man was not diverse enough, and so he called his angels and said "verily, we needeth some colour. Let us now make black men, pink men, yellow men with slanted eyes, and a few others. Since we don't work through evolution, let us go down, and add a gene to the black man's body that will enable him to fight malaria better than others. "

Since you claim to be more intelligent than Einstein and that all your knowledge is not dependent on what you were taught in school but that you taught your teachers and professors.  You didn't go to school to learn but to teach because your thoughts are original not even dependent on the Bible as your posts suggests.  You thought them up originally.  Come down from your high horse and educate yourself on what you are ignorant about in this link.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races

I re-iterate my earlier argument - MAN has evolved and changed over the last few hundred years, our bodies have adapted to an ever-changing environment. If all creation was ended, where did the diseases come from? The new mutation of cells and microorganisms? (Read about the flu - you can only get a variety of flu (or common cold) once. If you get another cold, it's a different strain. The cold virus is KNOWN to change (or should I say evolve?) constantly.)

Here are the facts:
Creation exists. But to say that creation is independent of evolution is folly.
Evolution exists. But to say that evolution is independent of creation is folly.


PS: I actually thought Krayola was lauging WITH me AT you, but obviously I was mistaken.

If you are ready to learn the basics of science and theology start with real scientists that are christians and not your so called theist evolutionists that are neither scientists nor christians.

These are examples of theologians who are not really scientists but can engage atheists when they are defending the truth of the Bible, and not by compromising the truth so as to look intelligent with the atheists.

[flash=400,300]http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/a0EEBuU-Psg&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

Oga, again you dance around the main question, claiming "theologians" can engage atheists. Seriously dude.

Again and again I have tried to be polite with you, yet you resort to rather petty name calling. As from this moment, I will therefore belittle and insult you in my replies, since that is the accepted means of argument between us.

Your documentary doesn't address any of the issues that I presented, but attempts to explain the existence of God. I have not questioned God's existence, so this is not relevant.

I asked a question about race, you have been unable to answer it, choosing instead to attack the concept of race. So I shall leave the word race out. A man from Nigeria has a much higher resistance to malaria than a man from Germany. This shows to me that the man from Nigeria, and his body, have "evolved" to handle malaria, while the german, not being exposed daily to malaria, has not. This to me is proof of evolution, which I regard as a continuing engine of creation. You insist that creation ended on the 6th day, please explain these recent changes Sir.

To state it in terms simple enough even for you to understand, we both agree to the presence and influence of a creator, our disagreement is in his methods. You accused me of "compromising the truth". Now I accuse you of being BLIND to the obvious which is happening around you daily.

It's really quite simple, though I understand that it may be too difficult for people like you who simply refuse or in your case, are unable, to think. I'm almost sure you're not going to be able to respond directly to this post.

I do not think I know everything, my current conclusions are a result of a fair bit of thinking and meditation, and a working relationship with my maker. But neither do I consider everything said by christians to be the gospel truth, nor do I consider any scientific discovery by non-christians to be false. If evolution exists as I believe it does, and as it's obvious it does, then God must have created it.

The only way you can argue against the existence of evolution is to prove to me that evolution doesn't exist, and creation - okay that's too broad, let's choose just one part of creation: mankind - hasn't evolved one bit since the day of creation.

Banderas:

Oga, again you dance around the main question, claiming "theologians" can engage atheists. Seriously dude.

The reason for my assertion is because you make the same claims atheists and evolutionists make.

Banderas:

Again and again I have tried to be polite with you, yet you resort to rather petty name calling. As from this moment, I will therefore belittle and insult you in my replies, since that is the accepted means of argument between us.

Can you show me at least one instance where I have been calling you names?  All I have been doing is showing you what you have been doing, making the same mistakes atheists and evolutionists make.  Again I apologise if these observations are offending you.

Banderas:

Your documentary doesn't address any of the issues that I presented, but attempts to explain the existence of God. I have not questioned God's existence, so this is not relevant.

What I was attempting to show you was how Christians who are not even scientists show how science confirms the biblical claims in the account of creation, they did not have to compromise the truth of the Scriptures so as to look 'intelligent'.  The foolishness and weakness of God is wiser and stronger than the most intelligent of men.  That is why the gospel of Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing but it is the wisdom and power of God to those who believe.

Banderas:

I asked a question about race, you have been unable to answer it, choosing instead to attack the concept of race. So I shall leave the word race out. A man from Nigeria has a much higher resistance to malaria than a man from Germany. This shows to me that the man from Nigeria, and his body, have "evolved" to handle malaria, while the german, not being exposed daily to malaria, has not. This to me is proof of evolution, which I regard as a continuing engine of creation. You insist that creation ended on the 6th day, please explain these recent changes Sir.

Can you show me where I attacked the concept of race?  I gave you a link that answered your objections, instead of you to peruse it you ended up accusing me of attacking its concept.  Honestly I don't know where you got that from.  What you mistake for 'evolution' is infact called natural selection.  Natural selection does not drive molecules to man evolution as you have been made to believe, it does not give new information to the genome as molecule-to-man evolution requires, it only works with information that already exists.  Can you name any organism that has added new information to the genome?  Natural selection is a process whereby organisms possessing specific characteristics survive better than others in a given environment (i.e., antibiotic resistance in bacteria).  Those with certain characteristics live, and those without them diminish in number or die, and that explains the reason why a Nigerian will develop a much higher resistance to malaria than a German.

Banderas:

To state it in terms simple enough even for you to understand, we both agree to the presence and influence of a creator, our disagreement is in his methods. You accused me of "compromising the truth". Now I accuse you of being BLIND to the obvious which is happening around you daily.

As I said above, natural selection should not be confused with what you call 'evolution' and it is not the primary mechanism that drives your so called molecule-to-man kind of evolution.

Banderas:

It's really quite simple, though I understand that it may be too difficult for people like you who simply refuse or in your case, are unable, to think. I'm almost sure you're not going to be able to respond directly to this post.

The battle is not between evolutionists and creationists, neither is it between young earth vs. old earth adherents nor between billions of years vs. six days, the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs. man's fallible opinions which you call 'intelligence'.

Banderas:

I do not think I know everything, my current conclusions are a result of a fair bit of thinking and meditation, and a working relationship with my maker. But neither do I consider everything said by christians to be the gospel truth, nor do I consider any scientific discovery by non-christians to be false. If evolution exists as I believe it does, and as it's obvious it does, then God must have created it.

You said that you believe that evolution exists as I highlighted above, therefore, it is a myth that has to be taken by faith and not by empirical evidence.  I will need more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in creation or in the Uncreated Creator.  See why God couldn't have used Evolution to create the universe here.

Banderas:

The only way you can argue against the existence of evolution is to prove to me that evolution doesn't exist, and creation - okay that's too broad, let's choose just one part of creation: mankind - hasn't evolved one bit since the day of creation.

The onus is on you and your bedfellow evolutionists to prove that evolution exists.  Mankind is a distinct kind different from the animal kind.  I admit that there are different kinds of biological life but there are variation with each kind due to natural selection (microevolution) as I have stated above.  What I dispute is that one kind can cross over to another kind due to evolution or what is called macro evolution, this has not been observed neither is it possible, it is up to you to show us one evidence of one organism changing from kind to another.

First of all, I want to appreciate your last post  - I feel you made an effort not to make me feel "attacked", and I appreciate that

My opinion about the bible is from my observation of the scripture. Isaiah wrote about the "lamb of God". A lot of our christian scientists, if they had been born when Jesus came, would have INSISTED that God was going to send a lamb, not a man, to be our saviour.  I can go on - sometimes God locks his wisdom in scripture, and expects his more diligent, his wiser followers to unlock it.

You keep knocking man's wisdom, yet the bible says that the wisest man that ever lived was Solomon, and he got his wisdom from ,   yep, God. There were also those two mixed race jews - the one who worked on the tabernacle with Moses, and the other one who worked on the temple with Solomon, they were supposed to be the wisest artisans of their time. Yet they were only part jew. Does this mean Solomon and Moses were foolish?

Nobody is doubting the omnipotence of God, if I gave you that impression, I'm sorry. God is omnipotent. But let us imagine for one moment, the book of Genesis being written. I'd like you to picture God explaining minor genetic detail to Moses, and Moses in turn writing in any kind of detail the gene code of mankind.  And I insist - the cold/flu virus has mutated - re-arranged it's protein structure several times. That my friend is a new organism. The sickle cell is a re-arrangement of existing proteins, just as human dna is a re-arrangement of monkey DNA. So saying that nothing new has been added is not quite,  true. I believe that God gave "life-forms" the ability to mutate and to evolve if needed.

Regarding you attacking the concept of race - I actually was referring to the link you sent. To be honest, I personally don't believe in the concept of race, I only believe in one race - the human race.

Molecule - man evolution - a different story entirely. Beyond my "acceptance" of the theory of evolution. I'm open to it, I don't deny it, but I don't insist on it's existence.

This battle you speak of, if we break it down, is simply between one set of people's understanding of the way God's work vs another people's belief. If God is indeed the root of all wisdom, then all wisdom MUST obey the word of God, otherwise it is folly. But here's the thing - sometimes it takes a great deal of wisdom simply to understand the wisdom of God.

The onus is not on anyone of us to be honest. We all are like the story of blind men touching an elephant. Those who touch the body insist the elephant is like a wall. Those who touch the tusks insist he is sharp and weaponlike. Those who touch the legs insist he is tree-like. They are all correct. They are all wrong.

Again - I no longer believe that the entire person of God, and all his actions are contained in the bible. I believe the bible are a set of guidelines that enable us to access God, they are not a set of rules God MUST follow, as you seem to believe

Many a time, we choose to claim we are wise, instead of critically analyzing every word that comes from out mouth. It still baffles me today, that scientists have not even fully explored their own physical body talk less of other life's mysteries. We can hardly explain the concept of sleep. We do not know all the functions of the millions of nerves in our brain. And we do not know how to make 100% usage of our brain. we keep thinking we understood it only to find out some years later that we didn't really understand it, or that there is something we missed. In the Pythagorean cult, when one became a member, the person spent at least three years of solitary study. He will not be allowed to talk or question, only listen. I think that will be the best for most nairalanders including me.

Banderas:

You keep knocking man's wisdom, yet the bible says that the wisest man that ever lived was Solomon, and he got his wisdom from , yep, God. There were also those two mixed race jews - the one who worked on the tabernacle with Moses, and the other one who worked on the temple with Solomon, they were supposed to be the wisest artisans of their time. Yet they were only part jew. Does this mean Solomon and Moses were foolish?

Don't mind the hypocrite, he knocks man's wisdom as nothing yet he wears man's clothes, uses man's computers, takes man's drugs and even studies man's knowledge. I sort of wonder why he is not wearing the skins god supposedly covered the naked man and woman with when he purportedly chased them out of Eden.

Banderas:

The onus is not on anyone of us to be honest. We all are like the story of blind men touching an elephant. Those who touch the body insist the elephant is like a wall. Those who touch the tusks insist he is sharp and weaponlike. Those who touch the legs insist he is tree-like. They are all correct. They are all wrong.

Again - I no longer believe that the entire person of God, and all his actions are contained in the bible. I believe the bible are a set of guidelines that enable us to access God, they are not a set of rules God MUST follow, as you seem to believe

Those are tru words in bold my brother, and to take the concept further God/The creator could actually be randomness and not an intelligent sentient being as he is often purported to be can't he? I personally think the pursuit of god is an unecessary endeavour, you're searching for something you don't even know exists such that even if you find it you can't even know that you have. In my opinion, we shouldn't be the ones looking for god if he exists and wants to be found, rather he should be the one looking for us and to then announce boldly to us all when he has found us and this is my basic philosophy of life.

God's Work of Providence
September 20, 2009

"Thou visitest the earth, and waterest it: thou greatly enrichest it with the river of God, which is full of water: thou preparest them corn, when thou hast so provided for it." (Psalm 65:9)

The 65th Psalm speaks especially of God’s great work of "providence" as supplementing His primeval work of creation. The latter was completed in the six days of Creation Week (Genesis 2:1-3). The work of providence, however, still goes on, perpetually reminding us of God’s care for His creatures. "He left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness" (Acts 14:17).

God’s providential concern, however, extends not only to men and women. "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle" (Psalm 104:14). "So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts. . . . These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season" (vv. 25, 27). "Behold the fowls of the air: . . . your heavenly Father feedeth them" (Matthew 6:26).

Note that He is not their heavenly Father, He is your heavenly Father--yet He feeds them! He is merely their maker and provider; yet a single sparrow "shall not fall on the ground without your Father" (Matthew 10:29).

He even provides for the inanimate creation, "upholding all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3). The omnipotent God of creation is thus the ever-sustaining and ever-caring God of providence.

Still, some choose not to believe, even though "that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen . . . so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20). HMM

Darwin's Day

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2:1)

Thousands of clergy have signed "An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science." On the Sunday closest to Charles Darwin's birthday, these "pastors" eulogize him and endorse evolutionary science as compatible with the Bible. Here are five reasons why this idea is grossly wrong.

• The Bible has absolutely no hint of ages of evolutionary development. Forcing the "days" of Genesis 1 to mean "ages" can be done, but there is no support for that idea in the rest of Scripture (Psalm 33:6-9, 148:5-6; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:3; Revelation 4:11; etc.).

• Evolution is not observed at all today. Empirical science is based on observation and verification. Nothing (from bacteria to people) is "evolving" into a "higher order." Period.

• Fossil data does not show any transitional forms. If evolution occurred prior to recorded history, it can only be documented by the fossils embedded in the water-deposited rocks of earth. Those "missing links" are still missing.

• God's character absolutely forbids evolutionary methods. God's holiness demands truth, and His omniscience demands perfection. He cannot know what is best and then "create" something inferior. He wrote that He took six days to create the universe (Exodus 20:11). And He cannot lie!

• God's stated purpose for creating excludes evolution. The creation reveals the Creator (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1-4), gives authority to the message of Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14, Colossians 1:16-18), and is the foundation for the gospel and for worship (Revelation 14:6-7). Creating is what God does at the moment of the new birth (Ephesians 2:8-10). HMM III

Hi OLAADEGBU,

Yours views are acknowledged, but some of them make some of us wonder. Let me pick a few from the most recent:

OLAADEGBU:

• The Bible has absolutely no hint of ages of evolutionary development. Forcing the "days" of Genesis 1 to mean "ages" can be done, but there is no support for that idea in the rest of Scripture (Psalm 33:6-9, 148:5-6; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:3; Revelation 4:11; etc.).

This suffers a huge problem from the onset. The 'days' in Genesis 1 could refer to 'ages'; notice I said 'could', and I do so in the simple conviction that there does not seem to be any fast-and-dry rule to hold 'day' as a literal 24hrs in the same Genesis 1.

One reason why I say so is because Genesis 1 does not hold that the age of the created universe began on what we read as the 'first' day. Prior to verse 5 (the 'first day'), there is 'the beginning' in verse 1. It was in the beginning that the heavens and the earth were created, and not rather on the first day. How long that 'beginning' is, we do not know.

• Evolution is not observed at all today. Empirical science is based on observation and verification. Nothing (from bacteria to people) is "evolving" into a "higher order." Period.

When we argue like this, perhaps it has never occured to us as Christians to examine our own argumements. Science being based on 'observation and verification' does not mean that anyone 'observed' creation 'in the beginning' either. There does not seem to be any basis for us to argue like this, because we cannot just sit back and talk about 'observation' to 'verify' anything if asked about 'the beginning'.

But that does not mean that I don't believe in creation - I do. But how do I go about 'testing' out any empirical sciences for creation that occured 'in the beginning' when was not even there to begin with?

• Fossil data does not show any transitional forms. If evolution occurred prior to recorded history, it can only be documented by the fossils embedded in the water-deposited rocks of earth. Those "missing links" are still missing.

True, 'missing links' (ie, transitional forms) are still a huge problem for Darwinism - Darwin himself had problems with fossils. But fossil alone does not falsify or validate anything - for instance, fossils do not tell us anything about 'creation' other than point back in history to their 'existence'.

• God's character absolutely forbids evolutionary methods. God's holiness demands truth, and His omniscience demands perfection. He cannot know what is best and then "create" something inferior. He wrote that He took six days to create the universe (Exodus 20:11). And He cannot lie!

I'm not persuaded that is what Exodus 20:11 states. In six days the LORD 'made' (aśah), not 'create' (bara'), the heavens and the earth and all in them. The distinction between 'bara' and 'asah' could be seen in Psalm 104:30 - God renewed the face of the earth. If one turns to Proverbs 8:22-23, we find some epochs that precede what we call the 'first day' - let's see:

'The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.'

Please look carefully at those highlighted words:

* there was a period before the works of old

* there was also 'the beginning' before the earth came into existence.

In all this, I have a problem with the idea that God "created" the universe in six days! That is simply because we're counting a convenient timescale that ignores what is written.

Just my observations.

viaro:

Hi OLAADEGBU,

Yours views are acknowledged, but some of them make some of us wonder. Let me pick a few from the most recent:

This suffers a huge problem from the onset. The 'days' in Genesis 1 could refer to 'ages'; notice I said 'could', and I do so in the simple conviction that there does not seem to be any fast-and-dry rule to hold 'day' as a literal 24hrs in the same Genesis 1.

Could God have created in six days?

viaro:

One reason why I say so is because Genesis 1 does not hold that the age of the created universe began on what we read as the 'first' day. Prior to verse 5 (the 'first day'), there is 'the beginning' in verse 1. It was in the beginning that the heavens and the earth were created, and not rather on the first day. How long that 'beginning' is, we do not know.

Why Christians should not accept millions of years

Gap ruin reconstruction theories

viaro:

When we argue like this, perhaps it has never occured to us as Christians to examine our own argumements. Science being based on 'observation and verification' does not mean that anyone 'observed' creation 'in the beginning' either. There does not seem to be any basis for us to argue like this, because we cannot just sit back and talk about 'observation' to 'verify' anything if asked about 'the beginning'.

Perhaps it never occurred to you that God was an eyewitness to the work of His Creation and that He has left us a witness both in creation and in His Word.

viaro:

But that does not mean that I don't believe in creation - I do. But how do I go about 'testing' out any empirical sciences for creation that occured 'in the beginning' when was not even there to begin with?

True, 'missing links' (ie, transitional forms) are still a huge problem for Darwinism - Darwin himself had problems with fossils. But fossil alone does not falsify or validate anything - for instance, fossils do not tell us anything about 'creation' other than point back in history to their 'existence'.

"Archaeoraptor is hardly the first 'missing link' to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England's Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man's ape-like ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax." -- U.S. News & World Report, February 14, 2000.

"Darwin admitted that millions of 'missing links,' transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single [i]missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated."[/i] Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God

"The gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict." -- David Berlinsky

"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record." -- Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977

"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing." -- G.K. Chesterton.

viaro:

I'm not persuaded that is what Exodus 20:11 states. In six days the LORD 'made' (aśah), not 'create' (bara'), the heavens and the earth and all in them. The distinction between 'bara' and 'asah' could be seen in Psalm 104:30 - God renewed the face of the earth. If one turns to Proverbs 8:22-23, we find some epochs that precede what we call the 'first day' - let's see:

'The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.'

Please look carefully at those highlighted words:

* there was a period before the works of old

* there was also 'the beginning' before the earth came into existence.

In all this, I have a problem with the idea that God "created" the universe in six days! That is simply because we're counting a convenient timescale that ignores what is written.

Just my observations.

Could God have created in six days?

Gap ruin reconstruction theories

Couldn't God have used evolution?

Read the links suggested above.

Thanks OLAADEGBU. I would have appreciated your own views directly in response to the issues I raised. The links are appreciated, so don't get me wrong on that. However, even when one visits those links, they seem to be saying the same things that warranted my comments for us to look a bit more closely on the rigid statements that many people hold without first having thought them through after carefully examining what Scripture says.

That aside, I'm sure I'm not the first to call your attention to some of these issues. I shall now look at some of your remarks:

OLAADEGBU:

When we argue like this, perhaps it has never occured to us as Christians to examine our own argumements. Science being based on 'observation and verification' does not mean that anyone 'observed' creation 'in the beginning' either. There does not seem to be any basis for us to argue like this, because we cannot just sit back and talk about 'observation' to 'verify' anything if asked about 'the beginning'.

Perhaps it never occurred to you that God was an eyewitness to the work of His Creation and that He has left us a witness both in creation and in His Word.

I am very well acquainted with God being a witness to His own work - but that is not the point in my comments in what you quoted. In as much as I did not question God being present to witness His own creation, what are you trying to say? Meanwhile, the point in mine still stands: you cannot be talking about "science" if you mention "observation and verification" when you have produced no such scientific verification for observable inferences that occured "in the beginning" - where you there to personally observe things for yourself? that is the question. A tacit yes or no would do nicely. And if you were not there to "obverse" creation personally, how do you begin to cross the boundaries of science the way you prescribed?

"Archaeoraptor is hardly the first 'missing link' to snap under scrutiny.  In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England's Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man's ape-like ancestor.  It took decades to reveal the hoax." -- U.S.  News & World Report, February 14, 2000.

"Darwin admitted that millions of 'missing links,' transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species.  Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single [i]missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated."[/i]  Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God

"The gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead.  No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so.  It is simply a fact.  Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict." -- David Berlinsky

"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record." -- Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977

"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing." -- G.K. Chesterton.

What do these have to do with my observation that fossils posed difficulties for Darwinism? Reposting those quotes does not run contrary to my observation though - do they?

However, I had hoped to see lines where you would address concerns such as what I stated earlier:
"But fossil alone does not falsify or validate anything - for instance, fossils do not tell us anything about 'creation' other than point back in history to their 'existence'."
I could extend this to say that fossils does not validate anything about your observation of creation from the beginning in as much as you were not present to carry out the observation yourself. Yes, God was there - I heard that already: but were YOU there? If not, where is your science and observation to verification? I'd like to see this brought out scientifically, not conjecturally.

--------THE DISCUSSION--------
Darwinisim is a mad perception for anyone who knows his life history.
Denial of the truth is the maddest thing!
This elephant that everyone is touching and trying to explain, -the explanation has already been done by someone who fully knows about the elephant and how it was born. But due to our blindness, only those with opened eyes see the truth. They cannot do anything about it because the blind do not believe they are blind and will never agree to anything you say, because to them it is a lie.

skydancer:

They cannot do anything about it because the blind do not believe they are blind and will never agree to anything you say, because to them it is a lie.

It all depends on what you say. Not everyone is blind, even though we all try to touch the 'elephant' from various angles.

The Elephant in question can be discovered in the quote below which was posted some time back. I hope this will explain why the so called scientists try to sweep it under the carpet.

OLAADEGBU:

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled "The Biologist," that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G" (Caylor) and "J" (the scientist). We joined the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.

J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.

G: What elephant?

G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!

Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research says:

[Scientists] see the evidence for creation, and they see it clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political correctness, and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing. And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself.

Author: Daryl E. Witmer of AIIA Institute .

viaro:

It all depends on what you say. Not everyone is blind, even though we all try to touch the 'elephant' from various angles.

Of course I don't say that everyone is blind.

@OLA: You are inviting attack. Don't raise sentences that go off the point. It only causes diversion if you haven't noticed

viaro:

Thanks OLAADEGBU. I would have appreciated your own views directly in response to the issues I raised. The links are appreciated, so don't get me wrong on that. However, even when one visits those links, they seem to be saying the same things that warranted my comments for us to look a bit more closely on the rigid statements that many people hold without first having thought them through after carefully examining what Scripture says.

You will have to pardon me for referring you to those links. I had to resort to this because questions asked had been answered one way or the other by me and so not to sound like a broken record it will be better if posters read it from the source first and if they still have any objections they should identify such and bring it for discussion.

viaro:

I am very well acquainted with God being a witness to His own work - but that is not the point in my comments in what you quoted. In as much as I did not question God being present to witness His own creation, what are you trying to say? Meanwhile, the point in mine still stands: you cannot be talking about "science" if you mention "observation and verification" when you have produced no such scientific verification for observable inferences that occured "in the beginning" - where you there to personally observe things for yourself? that is the question. A tacit yes or no would do nicely. And if you were not there to "obverse" creation personally, how do you begin to cross the boundaries of science the way you prescribed?

Thank you for acknowledging that God Himself was an eyewitness to the work of His Creation. Since Creation is the work of God we will not be too far to address Him as the Supreme Scientist who has passed the observation test. After the work of His creation He saw that it was very good. We can see that God is the originator of all the material world that we are studying, man is only discovering what God has created. And no, I did not observe Him when He started His work of creation but I can see the evidence of His design in His creation and also in His Word. When I see a building I need no rocket scientist to tell me that there was a builder and fact that for there to be a painting there has to be a painter. And that is the essence of creation design.

viaro:

What do these have to do with my observation that fossils posed difficulties for Darwinism? Reposting those quotes does not run contrary to my observation though - do they?

However, I had hoped to see lines where you would address concerns such as what I stated earlier:
"But fossil alone does not falsify or validate anything - for instance, fossils do not tell us anything about 'creation' other than point back in history to their 'existence'."
I could extend this to say that fossils does not validate anything about your observation of creation from the beginning in as much as you were not present to carry out the observation yourself. Yes, God was there - I heard that already: but were YOU there? If not, where is your science and observation to verification? I'd like to see this brought out scientifically, not conjecturally.

Evolutionists use the claim that the order in the fossil record as evidence of the progressive organic evolution to today's plants and animals through various transitional intermediary stages over millions of years from common ancestors.  To the biblical creationists, the underlying thick strata sequences which are devoid of fossils and were therefore formed during creation week and the pre-Flood era which shows that most of the fossil record is a record of death and burial of animals and plants during the Flood as described in the biblical account, rather than being the order of a living succession that suffered the occasional mass extinction.  As a result of what God has communicated to us through His Word and what we observe in His world, we can safely conclude that the order of fossils in the rock record can be accounted for by the year-long Flood, as a result of the pre-Flood biogeography and ecological zonation, the early burial of marine creatures, the hydrodynamic selectivity of moving water and the behaviour and higher mobility of the vertebrates.  Therefore, the order of the fossils in the rock record doesn't favour long ages, but is consistent with the global, catastrophic, year-long Genesis flood cataclysm, followed by localised residual catastrophism.

skydancer:

Of course I don't say that everyone is blind.

@OLA: You are inviting attack. Don't raise sentences that go off the point. It only causes diversion if you haven't noticed

I thought you were talking about the Elephant called Creation Design.  No vex.

This is an example of how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory.

In science you can easily refute a false idea that does not stand up to the laws of nature or scientific laws. Let us see a couple of ideas that scientific laws can tell us whether they are false or true.

In Mathematics:

(x + y)²= x²+y²

This is false because the law of Mathematics has been violated. The correct equation will be:

(x + y)²= x²+2.xy + y²

In Chemistry:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₃O (This is a false equation because the law of Stoichiometry has been violated. The correct equation will be:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₂O

In Biology:

The statement "Man has evolved from a long process of evolution"

How do we know whether this statement is true or false? We can know by testing it with the law of nature otherwise called scientific law. There are at least three realities that we can observe, which are life, information and matter. Louis Pasteur is the only scientist who has formulated and scientifically discovered the law of life that God originated; that life can only come from life. All other attempts by evolutionists, including the statement in quote above, have proven to be false.

The father of Microbiology, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), who was an outstanding scientist and opponent of evolution formulated this law. Each time you go to the refrigerator and take out a bottle of milk, you should be reminded of the work of the outstanding French scientist, Louis Pasteur. He discovered Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Sterilization, Immunization etc. He also proved the scientific law that life came from life, He said that: “Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves”. This was a kick in the teeth to the evolutionists that have been peddling the fallacy of spontaneous generation and they still teach this in textbooks and schools inspite of the fact that it is unscientific, illogical, irrational and unreasonable.

Despite all the efforts of the evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found, hence it remains a theory and not a fact. When this question was asked of Prof. Richard Dawkins, this is what he had to say: "evolution has been observed it's just that it hasnt't been observed while it's happening." Classic

Hi again OLAADEGBU,

I saw your replies to my enquiries; but even though I've been in and out of the Forum, I thought to give some time and thought to yours when less busy. If my replies here are not as detailed as I had planned, I shall try to expound them when I have more time.

OLAADEGBU:

You will have to pardon me for referring you to those links. I had to resort to this because questions asked had been answered one way or the other by me and so not to sound like a broken record it will be better if posters read it from the source first and if they still have any objections they should identify such and bring it for discussion.

That's fine with me. And the reason why I initially entered this thread is because I've had the opportunity to see those links prior to my initial posts here; and yet, I don't see how they had addressed the subjects in my concerns. My apologies if it seems mine missed the point.

Thank you for acknowledging that God Himself was an eyewitness to the work of His Creation. Since Creation is the work of God we will not be too far to address Him as the Supreme Scientist who has passed the observation test.

Lol, this is precisely what I wonder about. The first question that pops up in reading that is this: who subjected the 'Supreme Scientist' to those 'observation tests'? What theories did He postulate to be tested out scientifically?

Please don't get me wrong. It is not as if I question Him on anything; rather, my questions are often directed at those who make Him into a 'Supreme Scientist' and speak on His behalf to have passed some test or the other. See, it goes like this: when speaking scientifically, the moment someone hypothesizes that this or that or someone has passed some 'test', the two initial scientific assumptions that are necessary are these:

(a) what are the theories or models by which we could make such statements?

(b) how do you subject those theories or models to any scientific falsifiability?

It is quite untennable to hold that something or someone had passed any tests if there are no scientific theories or models to bring to the table for falsifiability. We make speak in general terms about 'the Supreme Scientist' passing these, any or other tests; but what is clear is that such talk are hanging hypothetically until the theories and models are presented for others to ascertain where and how such tests were passed. A necessary thing that logically follows would be that the result of such tests would be published as 'science', and others could then be able to point back to them and say precisely what was tested and how. If there's nothing to table for falsifiability, we cannot speak 'scientifically' but rather teleologically (ie., the philosophical study of design and purpose). It is the very paradigm that undergirds my concerns about advancing these notions of passing tests for the 'Supreme Scientist'. I hope you can understand my point in all that?

After the work of His creation He saw that it was very good. We can see that God is the originator of all the material world that we are studying, man is only discovering what God has created. And no, I did not observe Him when He started His work of creation but I can see the evidence of His design in His creation and also in His Word. When I see a building I need no rocket scientist to tell me that there was a builder and fact that for there to be a painting there has to be a painter. And that is the essence of creation design.

I get you, bro. Indeed, I agree with you on the issue of 'evidence' - the painting points to a painter, etc, etc, etc. Again, that is all in the domain of teleology, not science.

Science (in its current paradigm) is not just about pointing to 'evidence'; it is more about adducing an analytical and methodological structure by which we arrive at any interpretations we call 'evidence'. During the process of these methods and analysis, hypothesis are formulated, which are then tested out, re-analysed, and further tested out under other conditions - before they emerge as 'theories'. In brevity, science is more about theories rather than 'evidence'. Miss that, miss everything else.

The reason why theories are central to science is because they point to indices that have 'explanatory powers' at what is being observed as 'evidence'. If there are no theories, then we don't have anything to hold unto as 'explanatory powers' for the indices that we observed. As such, what we call 'evidence' would be 'evidence' only on the grounds of teleology rather than science.

Evolutionists use the claim that the order in the fossil record as evidence of the progressive organic evolution to today's plants and animals through various transitional intermediary stages over millions of years from common ancestors.

Yea, I know and understand that. Much as I'm not a fan of such ideologies, I'm yet willing to admit that if we are speaking scientifically, at least, evolution has hypothesis, theories, and models - the very things that are lacking in your teleology. Let's look at the next line and see what the difference is:

To the biblical creationists, the underlying thick strata sequences which are devoid of fossils and were therefore formed during creation week and the pre-Flood era which shows that most of the fossil record is a record of death and burial of animals and plants during the Flood as described in the biblical account, rather than being the order of a living succession that suffered the occasional mass extinction.

Hang on mate. . I didn't quite get you. Perhaps that up there needs an editing, because it all sounds somehow contradictory. It seems to me that what you're saying is:

(a) the underlying thick strata sequences are devoid of fossils

(b) but again, there are fossils in same strata pointing to 'burial of animals and plants'

(c) which again, the difference you are seeking is say no fossils in a strata, but
when speaking about creating, assume fossils are present in the same data.

I may be wrong, that is why I need clarification. Please, if you may.

As a result of what God has communicated to us through His Word and what we observe in His world, we can safely conclude that the order of fossils in the rock record can be accounted for by the year-long Flood, as a result of the pre-Flood biogeography and ecological zonation, the early burial of marine creatures, the hydrodynamic selectivity of moving water and the behaviour and higher mobility of the vertebrates.  Therefore, the order of the fossils in the rock record doesn't favour long ages, but is consistent with the global, catastrophic, year-long Genesis flood cataclysm, followed by localised residual catastrophism.

Okay, thank you - but these are all teleology. If you believe they are science, please provide a falsifiable theory that tidies up what you have just stated. If we cannot find a testable hypothesis that can survive into theories, the explanations in that quote above lack explanatory powers scientifically, and therefore unconvincing.

It is not that teleology is useless. No - infact, teleology is quite powerful if and only if ("iff" the person using it is able to test out his or her hypothesis. But I shall save further comments until my next replies.

I had made these statements earlier:

viaro:

It is quite untennable to hold that something or someone had passed any tests if there are no scientific theories or models to bring to the table for falsifiability. We make speak in general terms about 'the Supreme Scientist' passing these, any or other tests; but what is clear is that such talk are hanging hypothetically until the theories and models are presented for others to ascertain where and how such tests were passed.

That said, let me next take a look at how you described 'creation design' as falsifying the evolution theory.

After having read through your comments about the above, I didn't find how your explanation had 'falsified' the evolution theory. Please let's understand a few things:

(1) we're trying to look at issues from a scientific perspective

(2) therefore, what we talk about should be evaluated scientifically (as much as we're able to)

(3) consequently, we should avoid mixing issues up between teleology and science

(4) as a result, we cannot use teleology to examine a theory (any theory) on scientific basis if our teleological assumptions are lacking the potential 'explanatory powers' that follow current scientific paradigms.

Let me take up the 4th point above before saying anything else. For anyone to be able to 'falsify' any theory (it does not matter whether it is TOE or any other), he or she should be able to offer an "alternative" hypothesis upon which the initial theory is to be falsified. That is the way scientific theories work. Therefore, if we are going to "falsify" any theory at all, we should be able to adduce alternative theories that have potential explanatory powers on the scientific grounds (not teleolgical grounds alone). These 'alternative explanatory powers' (AEP[/b]s) cannot just be floating around in arguments; rather, they should follow a structure that we can reference, such as passing through the stages of -

- testable [b]hypothesis

- functional models

- falsifiable theories

Anyone can argue ideas out in attempts to "falsify" this, that or any other theory. Generally, if we're going to falsify a "scientific theory", we should possess a premise that is scientifically defined. At the initial stage, what matters is not whether any groups of people are asserting that such and such is 'not a theory', or rather it is a 'mere theory' or even that 'it is not scientific'. No, issues of this nature are not settled that way. What follows logically is that when a theory is postulated, it would first have to be examined on its merit before any opinions can be formed. If it is "falsified", it does not survive for long and would have to be discarded while alternative theories are being pursued.

Okay, enough of my comments in this regard for now - let's go on to examine what you said.

Evolution is a fact which has stood the test of time over 150 years

Here then are my observations for your post #339.

OLAADEGBU:

This is an example of how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory.

It seems to me that what is called 'Creation Design' is not even a theory; and one cannot use a teleological argument as the basis for "falsifying" a scientific theory - it just does not work that way. One could appraise the difficulties that the evolution theory still faces; but which 'theory' does not have difficulties for that matter?

Even if we may take for granted that 'Creation Design' (CD) passes for a 'theory', it would have difficulties of its own by necessity - it cannot be a 'done deal' that is so watertight in its postulations and presuppositions. If the CD is not a theory, and does not have its own difficulties, it cannot be taken seriously either as an alternative theory, or a hypothesis, or even a model that has any AEP (alternative explanatory powers). Please remember: I'm trying to reason out issues scientifically.

In science you can easily refute a false idea that does not stand up to the laws of nature or scientific laws.

That is absolutely true. But. . . what do you use to "refute a false idea" in science? Since the answer is already given by you as 'scientific laws', the what do we call CD ('creation design'? One cannot assume CD to be a 'scientific law' if it has no scientifically testable hypothesis, models or falsifiability of its own. As such, your opening statement of "how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory" is a serious misconstruct. Other scientific indices could be adduced to "falsify" the evolution theory; but the CD which is yet undefined by a scientific paradigm does not fall within this purview - it simply does not have a model or testable hypothesis at the moment (that does not mean that it will not have such in future).

Let us see a couple of ideas that scientific laws can tell us whether they are false or true.

Okay.

In Mathematics:

(x + y)²= x²+y²

This is false because the law of Mathematics has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

(x + y)²= x²+2.xy + y²

Excellent.
Now please apply the same to Creation Design and see if it applies.

In Chemistry:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₃O (This is a false equation because the law of Stoichiometry has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₂O

Good. . . I'm following your reasoning.

In Biology:

The statement "Man has evolved from a long process of evolution"

How do we know whether this statement is true or false?

We don't know at this point. But I'm more interested in the proof of your opening statement: "how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory" - that is what I'm particular about.

We can know by testing it with the law of nature otherwise called scientific law.

The law of nature is not to be confused for 'scientific law' - they don't mean the same thing. What is commonly called the 'law of nature' is a theory that posits the existence of a law; while a 'scientific law' shows a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science. Let's not mix them for the sake of this discussion.

There are at least three realities that we can observe, which are life, information and matter.  Louis Pasteur is the only scientist who has formulated and scientifically discovered the law of life that God originated; that life can only come from life.   All other attempts by evolutionists, including the statement in quote above, have proven to be false.

What is the "scientifically" referred to as the 'law of life'? What testable hypothesis did he formulated, and how did that (or those) hypothesis emerge as a "scientific theory"?

The father of Microbiology, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), who was an outstanding scientist and opponent of evolution formulated this law.  Each time you go to the refrigerator and take out a bottle of milk, you should be reminded of the work of the outstanding French scientist, Louis Pasteur.  He discovered Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Sterilization, Immunization etc.  He also proved the scientific law that life came from life, He said that: “Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves”.  

Let's not make a serious mistake here. The language that something "must" be something lies in the domain of teleology, not science. As a scientist, Pasteur could have found it difficult to imagine that life originated from non-life; but to assert that something "must have" done something is philosophical reasoning, not a scientifically structured statement. The fact that it is difficult for someone to have imagined the possibility of 'A' does not mean therefore by necessity that he had formulated the conditions for 'B'. That is why scientifically speaking, I'm just wondering what you mean by "the law of life" - it would be interesting to see the scientific formulae that established his testable hypothesis, models and theories into a "law of life" as a scientific law.

This was a kick in the teeth to the evolutionists that have been peddling the fallacy of spontaneous generation and they still teach this in textbooks and schools inspite of the fact that it is unscientific, illogical, irrational and unreasonable.

Okay, all that reaction is not necessary. I'm still looking to see "how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory". That's what is exciting to watch.

Despite all the efforts of the evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found, hence it remains a theory and not a fact.

Spontaneous generation is not the totality of the evolution theory. Like I said, theories by necessity would have their difficulties - nearly all theories formulated to date have had (and many still do have) difficulties. Even those theories that we consider as fact today (such as gravity) have their own difficulties, but the difficulties in themselves do not throw the theories completely overboard. Spontaneous generation is just one of the several hypothesis for the evolution theory: it is not the only basis of the TOE.

When this question was asked of Prof. Richard Dawkins, this is what he had to say:  "evolution has been observed it's just that it hasnt't been observed while it's happening."  Classic  

Dawkins is a showman - many people (including his colleagues) know that for a fact. Example? The scientist and evolution bilogist Michael Russ once quipped that Dawkins would fail an introductory Philosophy class - and I agree.

However, the evolution theory as a "theory" does not stand or fall on Dawkins' quotes and misquotes. Which was why I had excitedly anticipated a good discourse on what you set out to accomplish from the onset: "how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory". Need I say that you have no demonstrated that very thing at all?

Having said all that, let me leave a postscript.

I've only tried to distinguish issues on this subject on the basis of common science language. That does not make me any authority on any matter. However, when we place our concerns logically and carefully on the table, we should be able to follow common conventions in discussions of this nature.

It was not my intention to find flaws in some of the things you had stated. Not at all. Infact, as a Christian believeing in creation, I don't find Darwinism satisfying in many of its claims (and no, Darwin is not the originator of 'evolution theory'). However, if 'Creation Design' (CD) is presented as the basis of falsifying a 'theory' in science, then CD itself should have scientific hypothesis and models that are testable by scientific laws as well.

What are my convictions thereto?

Well, I strongly believe in creation as a fact; but in discussions of this nature, I may not be able at this time to present 'CD' (creation design) as an alternative scientific theory as the basis for the falsifiability of any scientific theory (not just the evolution theory). Yes, I said 'any' scientific theory, because there are also several other theories about 'origins' - such as the Big Bang theory, the panspermia hypothesis, etc. If 'Creation Design' is a scientific theory or hypothesis with its own difficulties and alternative explanatory powers (AEPs), then it would have to first undergo its own falsifiability in order to show its strengths and weaknesses. Its hypothesis would be tested scientifically under various conditions, and it should be able to add knwoledge to other scientific disciplines as well. However, since these are seriously lacking in what is commonly called 'Creation Design', it cannot even be passed as a scientific theory to begin with.

Yet, as a teleological pursuit, Creation Design is a powerful tool for reasoning about the world - if and only if ("iff" the teleologist knows how to present his arguments for considerations. It is not enough to assume that a painting points to a painter; because I have seen several phenomena that appear as art works without the likehood of involving the mechanical efforts of any painter or artist. Philosophically, a teleological argument (when well-articulated) is indeed a powerful tool that helps us to think about the world and ourselves. Not only does it ask questions and seeks deeply reasoned answers, it is also able to show the weaknesses (and strengths) of other disciplines and human endeavours.

However, let me share with you what I would recommend. Rather than try to advance a dogmatist outlook on world phenomena (such as the unscientific constructs of "thus and thus must be thus", a better discipline is what is now known as "Systemics". Let me cite a summary of what systemics is from Wikipedia:

[list]Systemics is an emerging branch of philosophy that studies systems based on holistic view points. It tries to develop logical, mathematical, engineering and philosophical paradigms and frameworks in which physical, technological, biological, social, cognitive and metaphysical systems can be studied and developed. Systemics can be considered an alternative name for all research related to General Systems Theory and systems science.[/list]

Since our known world is so vast and mysterious, we understand that no single discipline has all (or even nearly all) the answers. This is why even though the evolution theory (as a 'theory') may try to explain certain observable phenomena, it does not answer even half of the mysteries of our universe. The same thing with other theories - no single one could begin to answer nearly all possible questions of our quest to understand the world. This is where questions are also necessary to evalute the postulations of 'Creation Design' - how powerful a model does it demonstrate in answering deeply thought-out questions of our universe? A blanket statement about 'creation' is hardly a satisfying answer. Therefore, what creationists, evolutionists and other scientists should be looking at here is what is referred to as "Systems Science" - it is a holistic approach that considers broad-based enquiries, including metaphysical ones.

I should pause here for your comments thus far; and if you don't see me for some time, I shall consider them when I can be less busy.

Thank you so much for engaging.

Lee Strobel makes a case for the existence of the Uncreated Creator, using science and mathematics.  Click on the subsequent clips to see how he logically made his case.

The Evidence of Physics and Cosmology:

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN2oc7l1mPU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

The Evidence of Biological Information.

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUw6aRB9VMg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

Evidence of Information

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1xkpncGHEQ&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1[/flash]

Lol, I'm amazed that many people do not know how to talk the language of science. When we say 'evidence', what exactly do we mean? The idea of 'evidence' of this and that - what are they pointing to?

~ evidence of physics and cosmology

~ evidence of biological information

~ evidence of information


. . . etc., etc., etc. - what are these 'evidences' pointing to? Deity? Puhleease!! How does anyone study anything scientifically to adduce 'evidence' of a supernatural kind? Information, cosmology, physics, biology. . even mathematics - are best regarded as tools to ILLUSTRATE our own theories of 'God', they are not the 'evidence' for 'God'.

Bur before anyone assumes that I might be stretching things too far, let me ask: what is a 'scientific' evidence? Just what does it mean, what does it do, and what are its limitations? If these questions cannot be first dealt with, I'm afraid that as religious people we're contributing to the problem and not the solution.

@viaro,

It is becoming clear to me that you speak more like an atheist evolutionists more than a creationist.  Why do you say that these guys don't know what they are talking about, do you know their qualifications and professions?  Who do you think invented the scientific method, evolutionists?  Go figure out before you begin to say what you know little or nothing about. You can tell that to your evolutionist bedfellows.

The laws of nature or the scientific laws depend on other laws of nature which ultimately depend on God's Will.  God created the laws of physics in just the right way so that the laws of chemistry would be correct so that life can exist.  It is doubtful that any human would have been able to solve such complex puzzle.  Yet, God has done so.  The atheist cannot account for these laws of nature, even though he agrees that they must exist, for such laws are inconsistent with naturalism.  Yet they are perfectly consistent with the Bible.  We expect the universe to be organised in a logical, orderly fashion and to obey uniform laws because the universe was created by the Power of the uncreated Creator.

OLAADEGBU:

@viaro,

It is becoming clear to me that you speak more like an atheist evolutionists more than a creationist.  Why do you say that these guys don't know what they are talking about, do you know their qualifications and professions? 

I know that Lee Strobel is a lawyer NOT a scientist. . . .So he clearly does NOT know what he is talking about. . .

mazaje:

I know that Lee Strobel is a lawyer NOT a scientist. . . .So he clearly does NOT know what he is talking about. . .

And who told you that lawyers don't know what they are talking about? We are talking about scientific laws, is it only scientists that know about scientific laws. Strobel who used to be an atheist used his legal and journalistic skills to investigate the truth about Jesus and came to the conclusion that God not only exists but had Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour. In the video posted you will see him building a case for the existence of God using the scientific laws to buttress his point. IMO, theist evolutionists do more harm to the gospel than atheist evolutionist. You guys should learn from Lee Strobel and use whatever skill you have to search for the true and living God.