Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D
Firstly - I am not an atheist. Second - Creationist keep stating that the big bang is not logical because everything must have a first cause but God does not need a first cause. This is a logical inconsistency. If you can state that God exists with out a first cause - then you logical must say that it is plausible that the universe does not have a first cause.
Because you are saying matter has always existed, which is disproved by science:
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.
Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.
Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.
Fossil Gaps 13
d. “The insect fossil record has many gaps.” “Insects: Insect Fossil Record,” Britannica CD, Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).
e. Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:
“As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.” Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.
“How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill.” Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.
“Origin of the vertebrates is obscure—there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time.” Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.
f. “... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” Taylor, p. 60.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
D
I did not say that matter always existed - the primordial atom is a place holder - we do not know what it was so we call it an atom. what ever it was our language does not have the words to accurately describe it, nor our current state of knowledge even to accurately define what it was - it existed outside of all known laws of science and nature as they exist at the moment.
It doesn't to me. It is stating the idea of a first cause, but the property of being the first cause is not synonymous with God. Being the first cause is a property that God has, but there are many other potential first causes throughout many philosophies that do not have the other property of God, or a god in general. All this is saying is that this concept and God share one property in common, and not a very important one for the definition of God or gods.
I'm against calling this concept the primordial atom because it makes it very confusing. Obviously it isn't an atom in the sense that we use the word today.
I'm against calling this concept the primordial atom because it makes it very confusing. Obviously it isn't an atom in the sense that we use the word today.
I don't think that all atheists claim this to be the case, but I would bring it up in conversations if I had to show that the idea of a first cause doesn't necessitate a god. I think one of the biggest problem with the cosmological argument (being used to talk about god) is that it doesn't come close to implying a god, but simply a first cause.
H
We can all speak terribly complicated Eschatology / Biblical / Theology speak..but it makes not a blind bit of difference....because it is not us. God is the creator and the sustainer of our faith. End of. The Holy Spirit, H is the one that causes the belief to spark. Could be if you are reading this He has caused your 'spark' and you have responded...toward God...or away. Your choice. For me, i was 40 years old when it happened. Did i expect it? No. it was a bit of a shock to my friends and my family but, it has been an amazing blessing. When i see all these 'academic' arguments, these endless wrangling, i sigh....means nothing really. Nothing.
At the end of the day....why are you here? on a Christian web site trying to convince Christians they are wrong?
Yes...you are being called.
God Bless you and welcome, Hattie, <><
At the end of the day....why are you here? on a Christian web site trying to convince Christians they are wrong?
Yes...you are being called.
God Bless you and welcome, Hattie, <><
Who said it had to be intelligent? The cosmological argument certain doesn't make the claim. I think the word "powerful" probably isn't the best word to use here, though it can work. I would just say that if it exists all it would need is the quality to begin the universe.
This isn't a new concept either that is made up by new Atheists, it has existed in many philosophies even before the time of Jesus.
Could you explain to me why you find it comical?
This isn't a new concept either that is made up by new Atheists, it has existed in many philosophies even before the time of Jesus.
Could you explain to me why you find it comical?
What do I find hilarious? Your lack of logic.
Listen, every effect has a cause, and every cause has an effect.
This is rudimentary Newtonian law.
What I find particularly funny is how you suspend all the known laws of the physical universe.
Just to hold your beliefs. (Try flying sometime)
Your abrogation of logic as it applies to the physical universe strikes me as humorous.
- - What you are claiming is an effect that caused itself, and this proposition is madcap three stooges humor; no matter how you case it.
Listen, every effect has a cause, and every cause has an effect.
This is rudimentary Newtonian law.
What I find particularly funny is how you suspend all the known laws of the physical universe.
Just to hold your beliefs. (Try flying sometime)
Your abrogation of logic as it applies to the physical universe strikes me as humorous.
- - What you are claiming is an effect that caused itself, and this proposition is madcap three stooges humor; no matter how you case it.
The only claim of belief I had was that I thought the cosmological argument is poorly constructed and that I don't think, well I actually know, that all atheist make the claims similar to that of a primordial atom. I suppose you can laugh at the idea that someone believing in a causeless anything is ridiculous, but I don't believe that anyway.
My objection to it was you said it was my lack of logic, when it wasn't my position to begin with.
That is what the cosmological argument is claiming. Also, it doesn't directly state that the first cause came from an effect that caused itself, nor do I think anyone was claiming that here. I wasn't even saying that in my statements about things other than gods that follow from the cosmological argument.
My objection to it was you said it was my lack of logic, when it wasn't my position to begin with.
That is what the cosmological argument is claiming. Also, it doesn't directly state that the first cause came from an effect that caused itself, nor do I think anyone was claiming that here. I wasn't even saying that in my statements about things other than gods that follow from the cosmological argument.