5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists - Religion (15) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists (53696 Views)
Woman Crashes Car After Hitting A Pole While Trying To Show That God Is Real / What Will The Atheists Say After The Rapture? / Counter Thread To "5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists" (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by cloudgoddess(f): 12:56am On May 14, 2016 |
Tellemall:Ok. You're still accusing me of saying things I genuinely do not recall ever saying, without providing any proof. Feel free to abandon this conversation whenever you choose but just keep in mind that false accusation is dishonest (and I'll remind you that it's a "sin" as well, since that might be relevant to you). Also, recognize that your perception isn't necessarily an accurate representation of reality. You may very well be attributing arrogance and concete to my posts because you personally feel belittled by having your beliefs questioned. Doesn't mean I'm trying to belittle you, those are your internal emotional reactions biasing the way you read my posts, and causing you to extract insults that aren't there. Similar to what I explained above. |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by odijeks(m): 1:04am On May 14, 2016 |
cloudgoddess:I didn't come to my conclusions based on shallow researches. As regards addition of genetic traits, gene duplication is the major mechanism in multi-cellular organisms in which new genetic material can be added. Now follow me. First off, for such mutation to be relevant to evolution, it must be a germ line mutation. that means a mistake occurs during the replication of sex gametes. A gene known to be responsible for a particular trait duplicates itself by error. Does that really count as addition of new information that could lead to more complex-organism formation? The section of the gene that duplicates by error had a function and this function doesn't change as only one part of the duplicate can participate in the cell's consequent activities. I like to look at this claim of germ line mutation with this analogy; lets look at the gonads of an organism where this germ line mutation occurs as an estate consisting of several perfectly identical buildings. (The perfectly identical buildings are the haploid sex cells). The Estate manager makes sure a Nokia 3310 mobile phone is placed in each building for the purpose of making calls and sending text messages. (Let this This Nokia mobile be the section of a gene wielding a particular function). Now, the idea of gene duplication is that the estate manager by error drops 2 Nokia 3310 mobile phones in a single building, instead of the usual one. Has any new function really been added to that house? The point the evolutionist is trying to make is this: "the presence of 2 Nokia 3310 mobiles in a single house could lead to the presence of the functions of an Iphone 6". we both see how that can't be true. Furthermore, Gene duplication is known to occur by random error. That means any section at all in the gene can be copied twice. If somehow such a mutant organism lives and possesses superior qualities, for it to establish a new specie it has to mate with an opposite sex that had exactly the same form of mutation i.e exactly the same section of its gene altered as it did. Remember that all of these is by random chance. Why would I believe such a scenario occurred accurately several times in the past? If gene duplication doesn't bring about new function, evolution becomes impossible. you can read this later on wiki as regards gene duplication and evolutionary change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication#Gene_duplication_as_amplification Here is also another link (this is not a Christian site this time) that shows that there are indeed huge issues with the evolution theory http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50 I also doubt evolution because I related the scientific claims with certain facts I can see occurring presently in our age. If germ line mutation is the back bone of evolution and speciation (at least in the multicellular level), that means every time or at least most of the time it occurred in the course of evolutionary change, it always had a positive outcome in the progeny. You once said that we are constantly evolving right? And we have germ line mutations occurring in our time and age. But even a single germ line mutation that is beneficial to the offspring is non-existent. In fact, most of the germ line mutations we see today are lethal, yet, you expect me to believe that germ line mutations that occurred in the past were beneficial to the proceeding offspring. Perhaps such a mutation can occur luckily (even though we don't know how that happened), but if its this sort of chance is what you attribute to the formation of about 8million species that walk the earth today and several millions that have gone extinct, then that's just unlikely. Considering the number of species existent, germ line mutation should have had beneficial outcomes on the offspring for more than 8 million times it occurred in the past. Yet you can't show me one positive germ line mutation from those occurring presently. 2 Likes |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by Tellemall: 1:42am On May 14, 2016 |
cloudgoddess: Sin? Belittled? I would laugh if that weren't just not funny. I think you need to read your past posts. It's the general sentiment. Nothing like all the psychobabble you're brewing. First off, I'm open to all religions/schools of thought. So the last thing to belittle me will be the exposure to a little more thoughts from another person. Nothing you've said is new, your logic is standard, but the manner in which you put it across is conceited. Most conceited people don't even know that's how they are and would not like to believe it. Secondly, you really need to see your posts. You keep avoiding that. Thirdly, I'm not the first to perceive you in that way. It points to a trend. Through out your posts, all you do is beat on your deductions from "logic and rationality, as though you have something spectacular we haven't seen before to point out very insultingly to us. Hence the reason I do not read your posts, save one or two lines. There was the time I got to understand that you are a teenager. Or something of the sort. For that reason I decided to steer clear. You believe you are in the right, and nothing anyone says can change that, be it on matters of religion or on points noted in interactions. Good and fine. The only thing that got me quoting you, in the first place, was that you sounded civil. I would assume so from the little I read. And that's a huge surprise. 2 Likes |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by cloudgoddess(f): 4:17am On May 14, 2016 |
odijeks:On it's own, no. The duplicated gene in itself isn't the beneficial trait. It serves as raw material upon which beneficial traits can later emerge due to further mutation. The section of the gene that duplicates by error had a function and this function doesn't change as only one part of the duplicate can participate in the cell's consequent activities.Correct, the old gene maintains it's present function and the newly duplicated gene does not necessarily have any phenotypic effect. It can simply just be there, inactive, until later mutations occur on it (in later generations) that confer activity. Now, the idea of gene duplication is that the estate manager by error drops 2 Nokia 3310 mobile phones in a single building, instead of the usual one. Has any new function really been added to that house? The point the evolutionist is trying to make is this: "the presence of 2 Nokia 3310 mobiles in a single house could lead to the presence of the functions of an Iphone 6". we both see how that can't be true.That actually isn't the idea of gene duplication, as I explained above. Gene duplication alone does not add new functionality. And if this analogy was applied to the process of mutation creating new functions, it still wouldn't work because the individual base pairs that code for a gene do not have any determined function on their own like a Nokia phone or an iPhone 6. They are building blocks that can create different phenotypic outcomes based on how they happen to be combined. Codons (a set of three base pairs) code for different amino acids, which then interact to form new proteins, which are expressed outwardly as specific traits or alterations of pre-existing ones. You can change a few base pairs in a particular way and get something "bad", or make a different change and get something "good", or get something that has little to no effect on the organism's survival. And the "goodness" & "badness" can only be evaluated based on the environment the organism in question finds itself in. For example, if a mutation in a gene causes a bird to have a bigger beak, but the bird lives in an environment in which it's beak must be small to access food, that bird has conferred a deleterious mutation. For a different bird species who's surroundings favor bigger beaks, the same mutation would be beneficial. An iPhone is always "better" than a Nokia from a human perspective. But a particular mutation is not always "better" or "worse" from a molecular perspective. It all depends on what amino acids result from those particular base pair changes, and what the resulting proteins mean for an organism's phenotype and thus it's survival in it's particular environment. Furthermore, Gene duplication is known to occur by random error. That means any section at all in the gene can be copied twice. If somehow such a mutant organism lives and possesses superior qualities, for it to establish a new specie it has to mate with an opposite sex that had exactly the same form of mutation i.e exactly the same section of its gene altered as it did.Like I said before, gene duplication on its own does not necessarily confer phenotypic effect, positive or negative, so a duplication would not be responsible for the superior quality. And speciation doesn't work anything like this. I'm becoming more and more doubtful you've researched this much at all  Sexually reproducing organisms usually possess multiple versions of alleles for a gene. Alleles are expressed in different ways depending on dominance/recessiveness. If the organism with superior qualities (mutant) mates with an organism without said qualities (wild type), his beneficial mutation can absolutely pass along to the next generation and be expressed in his offspring if the allele he posesses for the trait is dominant to the allele his mate possesses. And if this happens, that in itself wouldn't establish a new species. That would only introduce a new beneficial allele to the gene pool. If said allele continues to be passed down & spread throughout the population, it may become "fixed", or a permanent trait that all members of the population possess. Both beneficial and neutral alleles can become fixed. Speciation only occurs after enough alleles have been fixed (and removed) from a population over a significant enough number of generations to isolate the species from the ancestral population it came from. This is a very step by step, gradual process. There is no such thing as a single mutant + wildtype mating = new species. Remember that all of these is by random chance. Why would I believe such a scenario occurred accurately several times in the past?Well, we already have evidence that mutations do occur in all organisms, and a small portion of those mutations confer survival benefits which can then be inherited. That's how antibiotic resistance happens - and it's a very real problem in medicine. If gene duplication doesn't bring about new function, evolution becomes impossible. you can read this later on wiki as regards gene duplication and evolutionary changeThat isn't true at all. I've already explained how gene duplication isn't thought to bring about new functions in the first place. Here's an exerpt from that same wiki page that confirms everything I've said here: "Gene duplications are an essential source of genetic novelty that can lead to evolutionary innovation. Duplication creates genetic redundancy, where the second copy of the gene is often free from selective pressure — that is, mutations of it have no deleterious effects to its host organism. If one copy of a gene experiences a mutation that affects its original function, the second copy can serve as a 'spare part' and continue to function correctly. Thus, duplicate genes accumulate mutations faster than a functional single-copy gene, over generations of organisms, and it is possible for one of the two copies to develop a new and different function." Here is also another link (this is not a Christian site this time) that shows that there are indeed huge issues with the evolution theoryThese are not "huge issues" for the validity of evolution. They are questions to be further explored as we learn more about evolution. No field of science is complete. The fact that a subject still has questions to cover in no way invalidates what the study has verified thus far. If germ line mutation is the back bone of evolution and speciation (at least in the multicellular level), that means every time or at least most of the time it occurred in the course of evolutionary change, it always had a positive outcome in the progeny.No, that's not what that means. Most mutations are either deleterious or neutral, which is why most progeny do not survive to reproduction. Only the individuals with high enough relative fitness to the other inhabitants of their environment, get to survive and reproduce get to pass on their genes - this is a very small subset of all individuals born or conceived. But even a single germ line mutation that is beneficial to the offspring is non-existent. In fact, most of the germ line mutations we see today are lethalBoth these sentences are false. Like I just said, most (but not ALL) mutations are either deleterious or neutral. Beneficial mutations do indeed arise reliably over time in every species, they are just rare. And deleterious mutations do not have to be so severe that the organism can't survive at all, many are "nearly neutral", in that they confer a slight survival disadvantage but not enough to prevent them from reaching fixation, or to purge the trait from the population entirely. Germline mutations that are severely deleterious enough to impede development result in spontaneous abortion (20-40% of mammalian conceptions have this fate). you expect me to believe that germ line mutations that occurred in the past were beneficial to the proceeding offspring.Lactose tolerence is one example of a beneficial mutation that arose relatively recently in our evolutionary history & has persisted throughout several generations of non-African humans. but if its this sort of chance is what you attribute to the formation of about 8million species that walk the earth today and several millions that have gone extinct, then that's just unlikely.It isn't. Every species has presumably had billions of members who were ever born, or have died -- I'll say 1 billion for this example. Even if the chance of a single beneficial mutation arising was something like .00001 for each billion-base pair genome of those 1 billion organisms (which is already very low), you would still see 1,000 beneficial mutations that could potentially have gone to fixation throughout said species' existence. Yet you can't show me one positive germ line mutation from those occurring presently.You never asked; there are countless. In addition to the lactose intolerance I mentioned above: the various mutations responsible for antibiotic resistence in hundreds of bacterial species. Fur colors in oldfield mice that allow beach populations to avoid eagle predation. Enhanced viability in drosophila flies. Malaria resistance in people who possess just one HbS allele. 8 Likes 4 Shares |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by odijeks(m): 2:08pm On May 14, 2016 |
cloudgoddess:Regardless of the further mutation that would occur, there still needs to be an addition of new information to the 2nd dormant duplicated gene pair to confer a better function. The only advantage that exists for that gene duplicate organism is it would not have a lethal phenotypic expression if there is a lethal mutation gene change in the dormant pair. It doesn't still answer how the new information would come in.No. The gene duplication in itself isn't the beneficial trait. It serves as raw material upon which beneficial traits can later emerge due to further mutation. That actually isn't the idea of gene duplication, as I explained above. And if this analogy was applied to the process of mutation creating new functions, it still wouldn't work because the individual base pairs that code for a gene do not have any determined function on their own like a Nokia phone or an iPhone 6. They are building blocks that can create different phenotypic outcomes based on how they happen to be combined. Codons (a set of three base pairs) code for different amino acids, which then interact to form new proteins, which are expressed outwardly as specific traits or alterations of pre-existing ones.And what are the chances of these process occurring in nature? The problem is even when such processes occur, there is still a higher chance of creating a lethal trait than a beneficial one. These are just speculations of which the missing gaps were left to extreme and unreasonable levels of luck of producing a good trait. you can look through this also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofunctionalization#Selective_Constraints Sexually reproducing organisms usually possess multiple versions of alleles for a gene. Alleles are expressed in different ways depending on dominance/recessiveness. If the organism with superior qualities (mutant) mates with an organism without said qualities (wild type), his beneficial mutation can definitely pass along to the next generation and be expressed in his offspring if the allele he posesses for the trait is dominant to the allele his mate possesses.Let's not go too far. We are still talking about gene duplication as regards possible consequent possession of better functions and not just dominant/recessive genes. The whole "improved function story" rests mostly on the shoulders of the inactive duplicate gene pair. The chances of that duplicate gene getting better functions is still where the mystery lies. even when gene duplication occurs, there are 3 possible fates which it can undergo. It can either be lost totally consequently, undergo subfunctionalization, or Neofunctionaliztion. Out of these 3 fates, only neofunctionalization can lead to consequent improved function. These 3 fates (with 2 of them being irrelevant to evolutionary progress) further reduces the possibility of addition of relevant info by gene duplication. Even neofunctionalization process, as i've stated earlier, is not clear cut on how relevant info is added. The chances are made further slim. These are not "huge issues" for the validity of evolution. They are questions to be further explored as we learn more about evolution. No field of science is complete. The fact that a subject still has questions to cover in no way invalidates what the study has verified thus far. Yet you would agree that these are very important questions that without reasonable answers could rubbish the whole idea of evolution. I don't even want to get into the details of those 4 "big issues". Lactose tolerence is one example of a beneficial mutation that arose relatively recently in our evolutionary history & has persisted throughout several generations of non-African humans.What!?! Dis you just say there are countless beneficial germ line mutation? Don't even say that. Most of them are non-beneficial and harmful, )at least in man). Lactose tolerance I may agree (even though I don't yet see how that could be relevant to subsequent speciation). Antibiotic resistance is not a germ line mutation as that is what i'm concerned with for now. Even Antibiotic resistance occurs by loss of a gene involved in the production of a particular structure that is susceptible to a chemical. This particular error occurred prior to exposure to the harmful chemical. i.e the resistant factor was always present in the colony. it just became more conspicuous when other bacteria that didn't have this error in their DNA died off, and those who had this error thrived and rapidly replicated. Note that this beneficial mutation had to do with the loss of a susceptible structure. loss of structure is irrelevant and even counterproductive from an evolutionary point of view. We are talking about addition of functions and structures, not loss. You also did well to hide the fact that malarial resistance has to do with mutant sickle cell patients. After analyzing the benefits and disadvantages of such a mutation, do you still regard the overall mutation as a benefit? Do sickle cell patients thrive better than others whether they inhabit a malarial prevalent country or not? Kindly add sickle cell mutation back to the long list of lethal germ line mutations we have. 1 Like |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by UyiIredia(m): 4:31pm On May 14, 2016 |
@ odijeks: Keep on slaying cloudgodesss with sense. She needs it . . . DESPERATELY. |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by omonnakoda: 8:43pm On May 14, 2016 |
I fail to see what this self indulgent and vainglorious twaddle has got to to with the subject matter |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by Weah96: 9:07pm On May 14, 2016 |
Read the first proof on page one and saw that this guy doesn't understand the argument. The butterfly was probably designed so therefore Moses saw the burning bush, or a Jew resurrected. That's basically his argument. We skipped the part where a designer becomes the Bible god. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by JacksonD7: 11:01pm On May 14, 2016 |
cloudgoddess: I read them and I still believe in God. Those comments don't convince me and their arguments seem illogical. 1 Like |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by Solozzo(m): 6:06am On May 15, 2016 |
The issue is either God does not exist or we do not know God at all. We are only making God in our Own image. |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by cloudgoddess(f): 1:45pm On May 15, 2016 |
JacksonD7:In what ways? I'm genuinely curious. It's one thing to not be convinced because you're determined to stick to your pre-existing beliefs regardless of what you're exposed to (doxastic closure). That's not uncommon. But if you genuinely find the arguments put forward illogical & not making sense to you, then that's genuinely surprising. To me most if not all of the theistic arguments put forward on this thread so far, including the OP, have proven unsubstantiated, & seem to have been thoroughly deflated by the opposition. |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by cloudgoddess(f): 1:47pm On May 15, 2016 |
UyiIredia:Simmer down. You're getting excited over nothing. |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by odijeks(m): 2:45pm On May 15, 2016 |
cloudgoddess:you don't have to think for anyone. Let individuals weigh issues and raise their own conclusions |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by gevans(m): 10:18pm On May 15, 2016 |
Yes God exist |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by Nobody: 3:25pm On May 19, 2016 |
An excerpt from "Mankind's Search For God" published by Jehovah's witnesses. "If there was no creator, then life must have started spontaneously by chance. For life to have come about, somehow the right chemicals would have had to come together in the right quantities, under the right temperature and pressure and other controlling factors, and all would have had to be maintained for the correct length of time. Furthermore, for life to have begun and been sustained on earth, these chance events would have had to be repeated thousands of times. But how likely is it for even one such event to take place? Evolutionist admit that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113, or 1 followed by 113 Zeros. That number is larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe! Mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probability of occurring of less than 1 in 10^50. But far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity, and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10^40000! 'If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court," says astronomer Fred Hoyle. On the other hand, by studying the physical world, from the minute subatomic particles to the vast galaxies, scientists have discovered that all known natural phenomena appear to follow certain basic laws... They have discovered logic and order in everything that is taking place in the universe, and they have been able to express this logic and order in simple mathematical terms. 'Few scientists can fail to be impressed by the almost unreasonable simplicity and elegance of these laws,' writes a professor of physics, Paul Davies, in the magazine New Scientist. A most intriguing fact about these laws... Is that there are certain factors whose values must be fixed precisely for the universe, as we know it, to exist... For example, Freeman Davies has pointed out that if the force between nucleons were only a few percent stronger, the universe would be devoid of hydrogen. Stars like the sun, not to mention water, could not exist. Life... As we know it, would be impossible. Brandon Carter has shown that very much smaller changes in (newton's universe constant of gravitation) would turn all stars into blue Giants or red dwarfs, with equally dire consequences for life. (Professor) Davies concludes: 'in this case it is conceivable that there might be only one possible universe. If that is so, it is remarkable thought that our own existence as conscious beings is an inescapable consequence of logic' ...if the universe is governed by laws then there must be an intelligent lawmaker who established the laws. Furthermore, since the laws governing the operation of the universe appear to be made in anticipation of life and conditions favorable to its sustenance, purpose is clearly involved. Design and purpose - these are not characteristics of blind chance; that are precisely what an intelligent creator would manifest. ... The brain, the eye, the ear, the hand shows design so intricate that modern science cannot fully explain it... The annual migration of certain birds over thousands of miles of land and sea... Photosynthesis... The development of one fertilized egg into a complex with millions of differentiated cells with specialized functions... Are all... Evidence of intelligent design... The more we know about the world around us, the more evidence we have for the existence of an intelligent creator, God. Thus, with an open mind we can agree with the psalmist as he acknowledged: 'how many your works are, o Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions' - psalm 104:24 " 1 Like |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by Nobody: 6:09pm On May 19, 2016 |
The following was taken from "Reasoning From The Scriptures" published by Jehovah's Witnesses. IS EVOLUTION REALLY SCIENTIFIC? The "scientific method" is as follows: observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution? Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "to their chagrin [scientists] have no clear cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened." Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: "after having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past" According to New Scientists: " an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists... Argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all... Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials" Physicist H.S. Lipson said: the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it. The scientific magazine Discover said: "Evolution... Is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study fossil record, there is growing dissent." |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by JacksonD7: 10:35pm On May 19, 2016 |
cloudgoddess: Maybe you should sincerely read the theists' rebuttles, and try to understand why we find your arguments lacking |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by JacksonD7: 10:37pm On May 19, 2016 |
cloudgoddess: No they don't deflate their arguments. If I told you that a tornado passed through a garage and a junkyard and by a string of random accidents mechanical components were arranged in perfect order and when the storm cleared a brand new Ferrari in working order popped out would you believe me?. Probably not, but you expect me to believe that simple bacteria which is infinitely more complex than anything man has ever created arose by chance. You expect me to believe that the human eye which is more efficient than any camera on earth arose by a series of freakish accidents, that is illogical. Unless you can prove to me that a Ferrari can be crafted by accident in a tornado I'm going to have a hard time believing that the human brain which has more connections than the entire communications system on earth and which has a billion times more memory than the largest computer network on earth arose by accident and chance. So, if you put up a plausible theory explaining the accidental Ferrari maybe I'll start taking your arguments seriously. 2 Likes 2 Shares |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by Nobody: 7:08am On May 20, 2016 |
The following was taken from "Reasoning From The Scriptures" published by Jehovah's Witnesses. ARE THOSE WHO ADVOCATE EVOLUTION IN AGREEMENT? HOW DO THESE FACTS MAKE YOU FEEL? The scientific magazine Discover said: "Evolution... Is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study fossil record, there is growing dissent." Scientists have identified over 100 chemical elements. Their atomic structure displays an intricate mathematical interrelationship of the elements. The periodic table points to obvious design. Such amazing design could not possibly be accidental, a product of chance. |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by Nobody: 12:05pm On May 20, 2016 |
The following was taken from "Reasoning From The Scriptures" published by Jehovah's Witnesses. IN THIS MODERN SCIENTIFIC WORLD, IS IT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE IN CREATION? "the natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody." - Quoted from Wernher Von Braun, who had much to do with sending American astronauts to the moon. PLANET EARTH: when crossing a barren desert, if you came to a beautiful house, well equipped in Every way and stocked with food, would you believe that it got there by some chance explosion? No; you would realize that someone with considerable wisdom built it. Well, scientists have not found life on any of the planets of our solar system except the earth; available evidence indicates that the others are barren. This planet is as the book The Earth says, "the wonder of the universe, a unique sphere." It is at just the right distance from the sun for human life, and it moves at just the right speed to be held in orbit. The atmosphere, of a kind found only around earth, is made up of just the right proportion of gases to sustain life. Marvelously, light from the sun. Carbon dioxide from the air. And water and minerals from fertile soil combine to produce food for earth's inhabitants. Did it all come about as a result of some uncontrolled explosion in space? Science news admits: "it seems as if such particular and precise conditions could hardly happen at random" The bible's conclusion is reasonable when it states: of course , every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God" - Hebrew 3:4 |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by cloudgoddess(f): 4:14pm On May 20, 2016 |
JacksonD7:The blind watchmaker argument. This is indeed a fallacious argument, there are multiple reasons why it doesn't work. I'll break it down so it's easier to comprehend. If I told you that a tornado passed through a garage and a junkyard and by a string of random accidents mechanical components were arranged in perfect order and when the storm cleared a brand new Ferrari in working order popped out would you believe me?To start with, this is a misrepresentation of the situation. What we're dealing with when we talk about the origin of our presently, somewhat orderly universe, our currently life-sustaining planet, & complex life as we presently know it, is processes. Processes that are relatively simple when broken down, and that lead to more and more complex results as time proceeds. The big bang and evolution are such processes. Each involve minute molecular interactions that have been going on for billions of years - ample time to lead to the fruits we now know. Neither present a model of pure chaos and randomness poofing into sudden order, like this tornado + junkyard analogy. Probably not, but you expect me to believe that simple bacteria which is infinitely more complex than anything man has ever created arose by chance. You expect me to believe that the human eye which is more efficient than any camera on earth arose by a series of freakish accidents, that is illogical.The human eye developed via a gradual, systematic process that is well-understood. Again, in contrast to the junkyard+tornado, this anatomical spectacle was preceded by millions of prior forms, each a tiny step towards the present result. The first primitive "eye" was merely a spot on microorganisms that was able to detect faint sources of light. As time progressed, mutations arose, and selection occurred (another nonrandom process), and that eyespot obtained more cells with more specialized functions, like the ability to detect specific wavelengths of light, and the ability to resolve clearer pictures. This process, given billions of years, would indeed lead to something like the human eye (which by the way is not the "apex", there are many animals with far better eyes than we). A thorough study on evolution makes the formation of specific anatomical structures much less mysterious. Unless you can prove to me that a Ferrari can be crafted by accident in a tornado I'm going to have a hard time believing that the human brain which has more connections than the entire communications system on earth and which has a billion times more memory than the largest computer network on earth arose by accident and chance. So, if you put up a plausible theory explaining the accidental Ferrari maybe I'll start taking your arguments seriously.Like the eye, the brain and nervous system are the result of an ongoing, stepwise process that has had billions of years to unfold. Now back to your earlier statement about abiogenesis. Although all evidence we have so far points towards natural processes, there are certainly still questions about how the very first life form arose. And I can see how it would be tempting to insert "god created it" right into that slot of uncertainty. But when observed closely, assuming a god/creator actually just adds even bigger problems. For one, why would creation (defined as deliberate formation by a supernatural entity) be the only potential answer that can fill that slot? Especially given that every certain discovery made about our universe to date has been natural - not a single supernatural cause has been proven. Wouldn't it be more likely, then, that whatever lead to that first life form, was a natural cause that we do not yet completely understand, but may very well given more research? Moreover, why should we conclude that this feat was performed specifically by a Jewish god called Yahweh (just one out of the thousands of proposed gods throughout human history, some several millennia more ancient)? People in South Asia were worshiping Krishnu for almost a thousand years before Christianity arose. And before them, hundreds of other tribal gods. Why then should your creation idea be held as more legitimate than theirs when they feel just as "faithful" about theirs, and none have been substantiated by solid conclusive evidence that would prove one more valid than the other? But probably the biggest problem is, how did this god him/her/itself come into being? This god, if it truly created the universe and everything within it, must be even more complex than the universe and any of the processes we observe within it. How did something even more complex than anything we know, arise out of nowhere? If you do insist a god must have done it, you're left wanting for an explanation of why that god, more complex than anything in the universe, can simply exist eternally without itself needing to have been formed by some process, or an even more powerful creator who would then need an explanation of it's own (& this could go on & on ad infinitum). |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by Nobody: 4:31pm On May 20, 2016 |
cloudgoddess: Splinz: The Amazing Human Eye The balance of this discourse contains a series of brief examinations of various examples reflecting God’s creative genius and bear testimony to a literal, divine creation. Each of these miracles of engineering defies atheists and evolutionists! Think carefully about what you are reading and ask yourself if even one of them could have evolved. Begin with the human eye. This mechanism is spectacularly complex and is a particularly inspiring testimony to the greatness of God’s supreme intelligence. Here are three statements from Dr. David N. Menton. The first represents the magnitude of difficulty in having the human eye evolve to its current state of extraordinary design and complexity: “The most amazing component of the camera eye is its ‘film’ or retina. This light sensitive layer, which lines the back of the eye ball, is thinner than a sheet of Saran Wrap and is vastly more sensitive to a wider range of light than any man-made film. The best man-made film can handle a range of 1,000-to-one. By comparison, the human retina can handle a dynamic range of light of 10 billion-to-one (or 10 million times more) and can sense as little as a single photon of light in the dark! In bright daylight, the retina bleaches out and turns its ‘volume control’ way down so as not to overload. “The light sensitive cells of the retina are like an extremely complex high gain amplifier. There are over 10 million such cells in the retina and they are packed together with a density of 200,000 (per millimeter) in the highly sensitive fovea. These photoreceptor cells have a very high rate of metabolism and must completely replace themselves about every 7 days! If you look at a very bright light such as the sun, they immediately burn out but are rapidly replaced in most cases. Because the retina is thinner than the wavelength of visible light it is totally transparent. Each of these minute photoreceptor cells is vastly more complex than the most sophisticated man-made computer.” Now notice: “The evolutionist Dr. Ernest Mayer once said: It is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.” Even Darwin once said that the very thought of the complexity of the eye gave him chills. Here is another reason Darwin said this. This quote, while inspiring, certainly is chilling: “It has been estimated that 10 billion calculations occur every second in the retina before the light image even gets to the brain! It is sobering to compare this performance to the most powerful manmade computer. In an article published in the computer magazine, Byte (April 1985), Dr. John Stevens said: ‘To simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous non-linear differential equations one hundred times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways it would take a minimum of a hundred years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second’” (Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D., The Eye, Missouri Assoc. for Creation, Inc.—emphasis mine). You are left to draw your own conclusions about how such a marvelous organism—the human eye—could have evolved. No wonder my own optometrist told me that he believes that the eye did not evolve. He understands that it could not! It was “invented” by the Great Inventor. Okay. What's up people........? Later. |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by Nobody: 6:53pm On May 20, 2016 |
How can the theory of evolution be tested? The most obvious answer is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another really happened. Did it? No, as a number of scientists honestly admit. One, Francis Hitching, writes: "When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there." - The Neck Of The Giraffe - So obvious is this lack of evidence that evolutionists have come up with alternatives to Darwin's theory of gradual change. The truth is, though, that the sudden appearance of animal kinds in the fossil record supports a special creation much more than it does evolution. Moreover, Hitching shows that living creatures are programmed to reproduce themselves exactly rather than evolve into something else. He says: "Living cells duplicate themselves with near total fidelity. The degree of error is so tiny that no man made machine can approach it. There are also built in constraints. Plants reach a certain size and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances devised." Mutations induced by scientists in fruit flies over many decades failed to force these to evolve into something else. Why does man have the ability to make plans and organize the world around him, the capacity for love, a high intelligence, a conscience, and a concept of past, present, and future? Evolution cannot answer this. But the bible does, when it says: "God proceeded to create man in his image, in God's image he created him." (Genesis 1:27). So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What about the the principle that Pasteur proved? Billions of years ago, the chemical and physical conditions on earth were far different. Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap between non living matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton, in his book 'Evolution: A Theory In Crysis, says: " between a living cell and the most highly ordered non biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. The Bible's explanation that 'life comes from life' in that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the facts. Despite the problems inherent in... Evolution, belief in creation is viewed today as unscientific, even eccentric. Why is this? Why does even an authority such as Francis Hitching, who honestly point up the weaknesses of evolution, reject the idea of creation? Michael Denton explains that evolution with all its failings will continue to be thought because theories related to creation "invoke frankly supernatural causes." In other words, the fact that creation involves a creator makes it unacceptable. The truth is that... evolution, despite its popularity, is full of gaps and problems. It gives no good reason to reject the Bible's account of the origin of life. The first chapter of Genesis provides a completely reasonable account of how these "unrepeatable" "unique events" came about during creative 'days' that stretched through millenniums of time. FROM "THE BIBLE GOD's WORD OR MAN's" by Jehovah's Witnesses. |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by cloudgoddess(f): 7:05pm On May 20, 2016 |
chistev12:Why did you quote my post without reading it? |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by Nobody: 7:59pm On May 20, 2016 |
cloudgoddess: After reading that you still believe wholeheartedly that the human eye came about by a series of undirected processes? Something intelligent humans cannot replicate perfectly is assumed to have been produced by nature? Even when the brightest minds have tried and failed to produce simple living cells in controlled environmental conditions, nature is thought to have done itself? And even if scientists do manage to create a simple living cell, with a controlled environment that is supposed to be that of prehistoric times, do the scientists represent blind chance or intelligent creator? |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by SujiAndrew(m): 8:38pm On May 20, 2016 |
Why I don't want to make Heaven http://www.sujiandrewonline.com/2016/05/why-i-dont-want-to-make-heaven.html?m=1 I believe the current church has erred in several ways which includes doctrines and practices. I believe one of the truth we must recover is the place of the believers in Christ. My question is; if heaven is our goal, why didn't God take us there immediately we got saved? This post will bless you richly!. |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by cloudgoddess(f): 1:50pm On May 21, 2016 |
chistev12:Evolution isn't undirected. It's very much guided and shaped. Just not by an invisible superguy. And how does human capacity for replicating things determine whether or not a process is supernatural? Humans can't replicate stars, but we still know how they form (naturally) and are assured that none of it is voodoo. Why assume that if we can't make something with our human hands, it's magic? And why assume that minds like ours must be behind everything that exists? That's a very human-centric way of viewing our universe. Humans are not the pinnacle of everything. We are only one species on one planet. We still only understand about 1% of all there is to understand about nature, and for good reason. We've been doing hard biological science for what, 2 centuries now? That barely scrapes the duration of our existence. To assume that our ignorance means anything other than, "we need to research more", would be jumping to uncalled for and unnecessary conclusions. And from my post above: "This god, if it truly created the universe and everything within it, must be even more complex than the universe and any of the processes we observe within it. How did something even more complex than anything we know, arise out of nowhere?" That's still unanswered. If the most complex thing that supposedly exists did not require a creator itself, why then must anything in nature need one? Demanding a creator turns the argument on that very entity. |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by Nobody: 2:41pm On May 21, 2016 |
cloudgoddess: "Evolution isn't undirected. It's very much guided and shape" how can random processes be directed and guided, does that make sense to you? If evolution was directed then we aren't here by chance right? But evolutionist say the opposite. "The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues” (Behe, Michael J., Molecular Machines). |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by cloudgoddess(f): 4:08pm On May 21, 2016 |
chistev12:Its not random. Do you know what evolution means and what it involves? As in have you actually studied or read on it from legitimate learning sources? |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by Nobody: 7:30pm On May 21, 2016 |
cloudgoddess: Evolution is not random and it is directed? Wow. You really really need to explain that because I'm completely confused
|
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by cloudgoddess(f): 8:59pm On May 21, 2016 |
chistev12:Answer my question. Have you actually studied what it involves? |
| Re: 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists by Nobody: 9:20pm On May 21, 2016 |
cloudgoddess: I've read about evolution. And I know evidence points to creation. So answer my own question? |
(1) (2) (3) ... (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (Reply)
Apostle Suleman Reacts To Arsenal Sacking Unai Emery / "Witches & Wizards In Nigeria, Leave Me Alone": Lady Living In USA Publicly Begs / Church Buildings That Will Amaze You!!
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 212 |