CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Who Here Is a Creationist, Intelligent Design, or God Guided Evolution?
If you are a Creationist, ID, or divinely "guided" evolution supporter on CD, please explain what you believe exactly and why? Also, why do you rejection the notion of Evolution occurring from wholly physical processes? Do you think that you have gotten an accurate and full representation of the evidence or do you feel unsure of what evolution purports to explain and the evidence for it? From there, your views will be open to comment/critique by others
Nomenclature believes that a magical nothing manifested reality from its magical nothingness, so he's at least a pseudo theist. He also wants to rabidly hump Prophet Muhammed's leg, so it's possible that he's a Muslim. Maybe you could probe him about his gods.
I believe that God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality clearly created everything, designed everything, and guides evolution. I do not deny the notion of evolution occurring from wholly physical processes. Evolution is something that happens in the physical world, that is, the world of causality. The world of causality would not exist if not for The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. If God didn't exist, there could not be physical processes.
I don't see how a belief in God and a belief in evolution are mutually exclusive at all. I don't believe that evolution makes sense without God. If you can't reconcile God with evolution, it might have to do with you having a superstitious idea of what "God" means. When I say "God", I am speaking of The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. That is MY God, The Omnipotent!
The probability of there being a being of higher power is more probable than there not being a being at all, but what evidence is there to support your statement other than the theory of intelligent design? When you delve into the idea that everything within the universe is God, then that would be entirely plausible.
The God I speak of is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Evolution has no foundation without the existence of God. Science itself has no foundation. Without God, there could be nothing. I am talking about The Necessary Existence. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. I gather that you believe a "higher power" is more probable than there not being a "higher power", however I can't follow the rest of your statement. Could you rephrase this please? Also, what do you mean by a "higher power" and "God"?
I'm going to bite here, just to surprise you. As you know, by the definition of most people I'm an atheist. I am opposed to the practice of religion and I don't for a second believe in the Biblical God.
However...
Do not be too quick to associate all arguments for creationism with the zealots and the 13th century throwbacks who have unfortunately discovered the internet. This is something I have seen men as intelligent and articulate as Richard Dawkins do, and I can make a good counterargument as an atheist by referencing the genetic code.
Codes are in my opinion very special because (if we discount the genetic code for just a moment), nature does not produce them on her own. If we look briefly at what a code represents it is the intent to communicate information between two or more parties. Information can be and is transferred every moment by inanimate, insentient objects, but the crucial point is that the information is never encoded. There is no way around the problem that I can see: creating a code requires the intent to move information from one place to another.
I have raised a debate about this previously, but it was unfortunately hindered by ignorance. Many people were seemingly under the impression that the genetic code (which governs the behaviour of DNA) is the same thing as DNA. As you can imagine from your own experiences here, it was very difficult to convince them of their mistake.
In any case, I believe there has been at least some form of intervention into what we know as biology, although by who and for what reason is anybody's guess. Perhaps we are the experiment of ancient aliens. Who knows? I certainly do not have the answers, that is for sure. All I can do as a human is try to assess the evidence fairly to reach what I believe is the most likely conclusion. In this instance, I choose to believe that the genetic code evidences some form of intellectual intervention rather than believe it is the only known naturally occurring code.
Codes are in my opinion very special because (if we discount the genetic code for just a moment), nature does not produce them on her own.
You are asserting this but we know that the sequencing of ATCG's in DNA produces something very similar to Digital Coding. The assumption that DNA is not "natural" is an implicit necessity in this statement (and is not self-evidently true, it requires justification). Also, physics has detected "error correcting codes" when delving into the Maths of Superstring Theory (although it may or may not be valid).
There is no way around the problem that I can see: creating a code requires the intent to move information from one place to another.
I do not know why you state that intent is necessary. What is fundamental is the symbolic arrangement of data in a set of instructions. There are many things in nature that we have artificially "re-created" in our own way that have been used/applied/discovered by Nature first. Richard Dawkins talks about this often in his books, it is also a big topic in Biology. There are many credible documentaries you could find on this topic as well (I know one good one but the name of the program escapes me at the moment).
Many people were seemingly under the impression that the genetic code (which governs the behaviour of DNA) is the same thing as DNA. As you can imagine from your own experiences here, it was very difficult to convince them of their mistake.
DNA itself is not the genetic code, it is the code carrier. The way in which the ATCG's are sequenced/ordered are the genetic code.
Information can be and is transferred every moment by inanimate, insentient objects, but the crucial point is that the information is never encoded.
These are much less complicated structures (e.g. a rock). Is it your contention that once a system reaches a certain level of complexity then it becomes implausible that it could have self-assembled as a product merely of the Laws of Nature alone?
In any case, I believe there has been at least some form of intervention into what we know as biology, although by who and for what reason is anybody's guess. Perhaps we are the experiment of ancient aliens. Who knows?...In this instance, I choose to believe that the genetic code evidences some form of intellectual intervention rather than believe it is the only known naturally occurring code.
Can you elaborate on this please. Do you mean something along the lines of what is illustrated in the movie Prometheus? An earlier intervention more toward the beginning of life or when the jump between single-cellular life went to multi-cellular life, or at some other point?
Wouldn't this just open up a larger mystery about how this intelligent being(s) are alive?
No, I'm observing it. You can label it as an assertion if you like, but only on the grounds that I can't observe the entire universe.
The assumption that DNA is not "natural"
But I categorically am not assuming this. I tried to make clear that the genetic code and DNA are different things when I wrote: "Many people were seemingly under the impression that the genetic code (which governs the behaviour of DNA) is the same thing as DNA. As you can imagine from your own experiences here, it was very difficult to convince them of their mistake."
I do not know why you state that intent is necessary.
The first reason is observation. Excluding the unknown origins of the genetic code, all known codes were intentionally created for the purpose of communicating information. The second reason is common sense. The existence of a code evidences that the information being sent can be unlocked only by something with a key. This in turn indicates that there are intended recipients to the information. For example, a human intentionally passes information to a computer through means of a code. If we remove intent as a factor then the human unplugs the keyboard, types the same code, and hopes the computer finds it.
There are many things in nature that we have artificially "re-created" in our own way that have been used/applied/discovered by Nature first.
This is both vague and misleading. It's like trying to argue the Great Pyramid of Giza must be a natural phenomena because nature produces triangles. In fact, it isn't even that accurate an analogy, because you have not enlightened us as to who you believe discovered codes in nature and decided to reapply them, where they discovered these codes and when they did it. You've just written a purposefully vague statement which is applicable to pretty much anything and everything except what you are actually trying to apply it to (since the first code ostensibly discovered in nature came thousands of years after humans first developed and began using codes).
DNA itself is not the genetic code, it is the code carrier.
Let's be fundamentally clear about what the difference is. DNA changes. The genetic code does not change or evolve. It is exactly the same for all biological life on Earth.
These are much less complicated structures (e.g. a rock)
I think you are confusing life with complexity. Something does not have to be alive to be complex.
Is it your contention that once a system reaches a certain level of complexity then it becomes implausible that it could have self-assembled as a product merely of the Laws of Nature alone?
Of course it isn't. My argument has nothing to do with either complexity or systems. Forgive me, but it appears that you are trying to cynically warp my argument into something Dawkins has already refuted. Biological complexity is the result of biological evolution. What cannot be the result of biological evolution is the genetic code, because it hasn't changed. At least not since it has been on our planet.
Can you elaborate on this please. Do you mean something along the lines of what is illustrated in the movie Prometheus?
That would actually be a very good example. As far fetched as you might think it sounds, the existence of the genetic code makes it a definite possibility. There is something in physics (thermodynamics) called the law of conservation of energy, and what it fundamentally means is that the universe rarely wastes effort unnecessarily. Put simply, the universe has no cause or reason to write instructions to itself. It does not require instructions for gravity, electromagnetism or anything else except biological life.
Envision a code as a set of mathematical instructions for locking information behind a door. The very fact that the door is locked implies that someone doesn't want everybody to be able to get in there. That is why intent is integral to the creation and application of codes. Codes facilitate the intent of isolating a specific party for the receipt of information.
"But I categorically am not assuming this. I tried to make clear that the genetic code and DNA are different things when I wrote: "Many people were seemingly under the impression that the genetic code (which governs the behaviour of DNA) is the same thing as DNA. As you can imagine from your own experiences here, it was very difficult to convince them of their mistake.""
Right, and I addressed that point when I stated "DNA itself is not the genetic code, it is the code carrier. The way in which the ATCG's are sequenced/ordered are the genetic code."
It would be more accurate to say that you are making the assumption that the genetic code cannot be natural (e.i. the sequence of ATCG's).
Excluding the unknown origins of the genetic code, all known codes were intentionally created for the purpose of communicating information.
It depends what you mean by intent. All eyes were created with the intent of vision. This is very different than the intent that you seem to be describing.
The existence of a code evidences that the information being sent can be unlocked only by something with a key. This in turn indicates that there are intended recipients to the information. For example, a human intentionally passes information to a computer through means of a code. If we remove intent as a factor then the human unplugs the keyboard, types the same code, and hopes the computer finds it.
The reason for the code is a transference of information from one generation to the next and to initially construct the organism that holds the code (roughly speaking as a sort of blueprint). A problem here is the application of the term "code" with the sequencing of the nucleotide bases in dna is not completely analogous to computer code. Language that draws on concept by strong analogy is often invoked in science. Here are a few links that are somewhat useful on the topic that I quickly found:
Also, this does in no way necessitate that there is going to be someone with a key that can unlock the code someday and read it. We are beginning to be in that position but that doesn't mean events had to be that way.
Let's be fundamentally clear about what the difference is. DNA changes. The genetic code does not change or evolve. It is exactly the same for all biological life on Earth.
What? The 4-base system/codons do not change but the genetic code most definitively changes and varies. Did you just misspeak or is this your intended position?
I think you are confusing life with complexity. Something does not have to be alive to be complex
No. Biological systems are more complex then non-biological molecular systems. Hence the adage; When Physics becomes too complex it is turned over to the Chemists, when Chemistry becomes too complex it is handed over to the Biologists, when Biology (of the brain) becomes too complex it is handed over to the Neuroscientists, when Neuroscience (of mind) becomes to complex it is handed over to the Psychologists, ect.
Of course it isn't. My argument has nothing to do with either complexity or systems.
How does it not have to do with complexity. As the chemical processes involved became increasingly complex, they correspondingly required a "blueprint" to assemble in such a manner as to create an organism/life/ect. as compared to the much more simple Chemistry involved in a grain of sand, landscape, rock, ocean, volcano, ect.
What cannot be the result of biological evolution is the genetic code, because it hasn't changed. At least not since it has been on our planet.
?? What do you mean "the genetic code...hasn't changed"? Your genetic code and my genetic code are different. The genetic code of all humans are different than that of zebras, although we are related to zebras through our genetic code. Are you misspeaking here or is this the position you intend to defend?
That would actually be a very good example. As far fetched as you might think it sounds, the existence of the genetic code makes it a definite possibility
So how do you explain all of the vestiges of our evolutionary past as well as the strong overlap between our genetic code and all other life on Earth? The movie Prometheus was made out of pure ignorance to the facts we know from both Evolutionary Biology and Genetics. It was an entertaining Sci-Fi film and may have seemed like a reasonable hypothesis a few hundred years ago, but now it would raise far more questions than it helps answer. There should be no more question surrounding "Who created us" as there would around "Who created Worms"; Do you not agree with this? Or do you think that there is a special mystery surrounding Homo Sapien life as compared to other species? (Are you familiar with Abby Martin btw?)
Also, I would recommend Francis Crick's book "Life Itself" for more on this topic if you are particularly interested in it (this is where I first learned of the hypothesis of Directed Panspermia).
There is something in physics (thermodynamics) called the law of conservation of energy, and what it fundamentally means is that the universe rarely wastes effort unnecessarily. Put simply, the universe has no cause or reason to write instructions to itself.
I've taken courses on Thermodynamics. Evolution does not violate these Laws. We can get into that further if you like. (Are you getting this from reading ID websites/books and/or watching ID lectures/debates? Also, have you read Dawkins books? He addresses exactly this point in multiple books I believe)
Here are a few useful links on the topic that I quickly found:
It does not require instructions for gravity, electromagnetism or anything else except biological life.
This is loosely worded. The Laws of Physics/Nature are fundamentally "inscribed" into the Universe and do provide a framework for how the Universe was/is going to evolve and function. That is why "Where did the Laws of Physics come from?" is such a challenging question and may potentially be unanswerable for us. There is nothing fundamentally different about the Laws of Biology as compared to the Laws of Physics. From everything we know, the laws of Biology obey the laws of Physics, the system simply becomes many orders of magnitude more complex than what Physics traditionally studies.
Envision a code as a set of mathematical instructions for locking information behind a door. The very fact that the door is locked implies that someone doesn't want everybody to be able to get in there. That is why intent is integral to the creation and application of codes. Codes facilitate the intent of isolating a specific party for the receipt of information.
There is an entire branch of Mathematics known as Cryptography that studies encryption (amongst other topics). The mere existence of an encryption does not necessitate nor imply there is intent that "someone doesn't want everybody to be able to get in there". All it does provide is that; "Encryption of a message means the information in it is hidden so that anyone who’s reading (or listening to) the message, can’t understand any of it unless he/she can break the encryption." ( Keijo Ruohonen, pg. 1 Mathematical Cryptography)
Right, and I addressed that point when I stated "DNA itself is not the genetic code, it is the code carrier. The way in which the ATCG's are sequenced/ordered are the genetic code."
You said this after you accused me of arguing that DNA was not natural.
It would be more accurate to say that you are making the assumption that the genetic code cannot be natural
It is not an assumption. It is an observation based upon the known history and purpose of codes.
It depends what you mean by intent
I don't intend to enter a semantic argument about the meaning of intent.
All eyes were created with the intent of vision
No. This is untrue. Eyes were not created. They evolved. There was no intent behind the evolution of the eye.
This is very different than the intent that you seem to be describing.
I haven't described intent at all. Neither have you.
A problem here is the application of the term "code" with the sequencing of the nucleotide bases in dna is not completely analogous to computer code.
I didn't say the genetic code was a computer code. I just said it was a code.
Also, this does in no way necessitate that there is going to be someone with a key that can unlock the code someday and read it.
Then the code would be useless and you are left explaining why nature produced a code which is useless. Again, see the law of conservation of energy.
What? The 4-base system/codons do not change but the genetic code most definitively changes and varies. Did you just misspeak or is this your intended position?
Neither. It is simply a matter of fact. I'm not stating an opinion.
Even though life on our planet continues to evolve, the genetic code, that mystery machine which drives life has remained static using the same ‘commands’ and components in the same way it did in the distant past, billions of years ago.
The genetic code appeared at the beginning of the history of life and has remained substantially the same ever since (The Codes of Life: The Rules of Macroevolution, Biosemiotics 1, Barbieri M, 2008, University of Ferrara, Italy.)
No. Biological systems are more complex then non-biological molecular systems
No. Complexity does not have a standardised scientific definition and no scale exists with which to measure it.
One of the problems with studying the mechanisms and history of complex systems is the lack of a working definition of complexity.
Furthermore, you appear to be continuing to ignore that my argument has absolutely nothing to do with complexity in the first place.
How does it not have to do with complexity
That is such a stupid response that I'm going to ignore it.
What do you mean "the genetic code...hasn't changed"?
What does it sound like I mean?
Your genetic code and my genetic code are different.
No, they are not. Our genes are different. The code that organises and regulates the genes is the same. It is not just the same for you and I but for every living creature on this planet. Forgive me, but I do not see why this is difficult to grasp for an intelligent person such as yourself.
Before I respond to anything I need to know exactly what you are claiming is plausible or even likely. Please explain in full as it pertain to the plot of the movie Prometheus. (You mentioned Ancient Aliens before)
What exactly do you mean when you said, "That would actually be a very good example. As far fetched as you might think it sounds, the existence of the genetic code makes it a definite possibility." (In reference to the movie "Prometheus")
Second, I want to know exactly what you are claiming about the conflict between the Laws of Thermodynamics and the 'natural' evolution/construction of the genetic code (don't use a "hand wavy" response, I want you to reference the law and point to where/how it comes into zero-sum conflict).
Before I respond to anything I need to know exactly what you are claiming is plausible or even likely. Please explain in full as it pertain to the plot of the movie Prometheus. (You mentioned Ancient Aliens before)
Brother, I am not arguing that ancient aliens were responsible for anything. I'm merely suggesting that it is a possibility which has yet to be discounted. The problem, as I see it, is that something intentionally created the basic genetic code. What that something was and what its reasons were I have not the faintest idea. There is also the possibility that I am entirely wrong. But all I can do is observe the evidence as best I can and offer what I consider to be the most logical conclusion.
What exactly do you mean when you said, "That would actually be a very good example. As far fetched as you might think it sounds, the existence of the genetic code makes it a definite possibility." (In reference to the movie "Prometheus")
I meant that a civilisation predating our own could have provided the universe with the code required for the evolution of biological life as we know it. Earlier you talked about assumptions. Is it not an assumption that all forms of life are carbon-based and Earth-like?
Second, I want to know exactly what you are claiming about the conflict between the Laws of Thermodynamics and the 'natural' evolution/construction of the genetic code (don't use a "hand wavy" response, I want you to reference the law and point to where/how it comes into zero-sum conflict).
Forgive me, but I think it is you who needs to explain why you believe the universe would create a code, encode information, and then not let anything access the information it encoded. Wouldn't that just be a giant waste of time and energy?
Brother, I am not arguing that ancient aliens were responsible for anything. I'm merely suggesting that it is a possibility which has yet to be discounted.
Agreed. That is why I discussed the Directed Panspermia Hypothesis. Now, is that a consensus view in science? No. Has it been taken seriously by very esteemed scientists? Yes. Francis Crick was a champion of this view and discusses it in his book "Life Itself" (which is an interesting read). Moreover, a Swedish Physicist named Arrhenius was the originator of the Panspermia idea. Now, in Francis Crick's view, it would have been microorganisms that were sent here in an unmanned spaceship from a more advanced civilization some billions of years ago. Then, life started here when these organisms were dropped into the primitive ocean and began to multiply. However, and here is the salient difference between your reasoning and Francis Crick's and I am going to quote this from his book;
"What the code suggests is that life, at some stage, went through at least one bottleneck, a small interbreeding population from which all subsequent life has descended.
Now, there is no strong reason to why such a bottleneck should not have occurred during the earlier stages of evolution on earth. One version of the code may have been so much better than any other, may have given its possessors such a selective advantage over all its competitors, that it alone survived, all the others becoming extinct. Nevertheless, one is mildly surprised that several versions of the code did not emerge, and the fact that the mitochondrial codes are slightly different from the rest support this...the fact that the code is so uniform lends a small measure of support for Directed Panspermia" -Francis Crick, pg. 143 "Life Itself"
Now, Crick does not see any issue with a genetic code arising on Earth (or anywhere in the Universe for that matter), rather he is surprised that there only appears to be one. You are taking issue with the idea that a genetic code could arise from "nature", and suppose that an artificial construction is the most likely (only?) explanation. Crick never states that the or any genetic code must be artificially constructed. This is the first big claim you are making that I am contesting (not the idea of Panspermia or Directed Panspermia; unless you are in anyway talking about the "Engineers" that created humans in the movie Prometheus, which is an entirely different kind of Directed Panspermia that is overwhelmingly implausible indeed (unless you are taking a non-traditional view of the movie that is not explicit in the movie where the "Engineers" sent microorganism to Earth some billions of years ago and evolution then played its course)). Furthermore, he certainly doesn't see an issue with the Laws of Thermodynamics and the "natural" construction of a genetic code. This is the second major claim you have made that I am taking issue with.
I meant that a civilisation predating our own could have provided the universe with the code required for the evolution of biological life as we know it
Provided the Universe? Please be more specific here. How would they be able to transfer microorganism with the code across the entirety of the Universe? To other locations in their own Galaxy, sure. But the Universe is way too vast unless you are invoking a Ray Kurzweil Singularity type explanation?
Earlier you talked about assumptions. Is it not an assumption that all forms of life are carbon-based and Earth-like?
When did I ever say that all life in the Universe is Earth-like or Carbon-based?
Forgive me, but I think it is you who needs to explain why you believe the universe would create a code, encode information, and then not let anything access the information it encoded. Wouldn't that just be a giant waste of time and energy?
The Laws of Physics do not prohibit the known laws/principles of Biology as we currently understand them. If you are claiming that they do, then you need to provide substantial reasoning.
I am taking the position that it is a "natural" consequence of the Laws of Physics and Laws of Chemistry (this is the favored view amongst the scientific community btw). Moreover, it serves a definite purpose in constructing Biological (very complex Chemical) systems.
I'm not even sure what you mean by a "giant waste of time and energy" frankly? That sounds like quasi-religious reasoning. A giant waste of the Universe's time? What does that even mean? A waste of the Universe's energy? I think human brains and life forms are a remarkable transitory manifestation of matter/energy and use of energy in the Universe.
Now, Crick does not see any issue with a genetic code arising on Earth (or anywhere in the Universe for that matter)
Crick is wrong for reasons I have already stipulated. Codes do not evolve. He is doing exactly what the proponents of abiogenesis do and that is to overextend the theory of evolution to phenomena it was never intended to explain. Evolution is a theory about how biological life became more complex over time. It is not a theory about the origin of codes or about the origin of life.
How would they be able to transfer microorganism with the code across the entirety of the Universe?
It is reasonable to point out that this question is irrational. I have no way of knowing how a more advanced civilisation would achieve something beyond human capabilities because, if I did, then it would not be beyond human capabilities and we would be as advanced as the civilisation we were enquiring about.
In actual fact I contend there to be no enigma or logical incongruity here at all. Perhaps someone or something simply fired organic matter out into space with great velocity. Presently, Voyager 2 is 10 billion miles from Earth.
It is reasonable to point out that this question is irrational...In actual fact I contend there to be no enigma or logical incongruity here at all. Perhaps someone or something simply fired organic matter out into space with great velocity. Presently, Voyager 2 is 10 billion miles from Earth.
One light-year is nearly 6 trillion miles while the closest star to ours is 4.2-4.3 light-years away. So, you would have to invoke a Ray Kurzweil beyond the Singularity type Civilization (such as he discusses at the end of his book "The Singularity is Near") in order to explain the transference of information across the entirety of the observable Universe (and beyond?). That is, this Universe (and others?) would have to be a playground to such a civilization, much like to the life form "Q" from Star Trek. Have you read "The Singularity is Near" out of curiosity? Although I like Ray Kurzweil and I enjoyed his books greatly, it gets exceptionally speculative at areas (even the most ambitious Sci-Fi writers would be hesitant to run away with some of the claims he confidently asserts as though it were self-evidently factual). "The Physics of Star Trek" and "Beyond Star Trek" from Lawrence Krauss are good books that illustrates my skepticism on this matter.
Just to be more clear, if all you were saying was that you think a Francis Crick style Directed Panspermia hypothesis is plausible to even more likely than the alternative thus making it your operative view of the world, than I would not be arguing with you. The reason why I am having an argument/debate with you is because you appear to be claiming much more than this.
You are personifying nature, even making it a proper noun being the name of a specific place, person, or thing by capitalizing the first letter. Saying that we, who are persons, have done in a small degree what is done in nature where the procession of life exists only shows that those things are done by intent. There is no logical reason to believe life came into existence without external intent.
There is no logical reason to believe life came into existence without external intent.
There are many reasons to think that it is possible or even overwhelmingly likely the explanation. Have you read anything I posted on FactMachine's follow up debate about this topic?
You can believe whatever you want to believe, you will know Jesus Christ as your Judge if you will not know Him as your Savior. The One who created you died in your place to redeem you from the curse of your sins; death. By His power He is risen from the dead and willing and able to save you if you will believe, repent of your sins, and ask God to save you so you can receive Jesus Christ as your Savior.
There are plenty of Christians that believe non-life turning into life through "natural" processes is consistent with their conceptions of God, Jesus, Divine Universe, ect.
I doubt that they are Christians. Jesus clearly upheld the Biblical view of creation and history. Whoever it is you call "Jesus" or "Divine Universe" has nothing to do with Jesus Christ the Living God revealed by His Holy Word, the Bible. You need an education.
There are a lot of forces outside of our perception sculpting our reality.
The source of all that is God. None of these gods could exist without God. These gods are mortal and pass away, but God will always be there. The God I speak of is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
There's no evidence that's true. A gust of wind or river could scatter debris in a symmetrical order, without a mind being involved. Order can arise by chance or by design.
Order means that there is a perception of predictability. The observed can be seen to fall into certain patterns that can be used to precisely predict.
Chaos means that there is a perception of unpredictability. It has to do with not being able to make sense of what is being observed. It can also be the culmination of too many unaccounted for variables effecting an experiment. When you get to the quantum level, it is why they deal in probabilities.
IT HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL VARIABLES
The point is that order and chaos when it comes to science has all to do with observation.
True Chaos and True Order are one and the same, the spirit behind them is The Singularity. This is The One God, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. This is The Source.
The Supreme Order implies a mind. What is the mind of God? What is the mind of an ant? The Supreme Mind is even more alien to us and the ant than our minds are to the ant.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality created all of this in ways that we could never comprehend. All glory to God. Omnipotence necessitates that every created thing had to have been created by God. Omnipresence follows from being behind every influence, and necessitates that nothing can hide from God. Omniscience comes from the fact that nothing can hide from God, not even the most secret of thoughts, and that God is even there.
All of these traits follow for what The Supreme and Ultimate Reality Is. Where duality collapses. Totally transcendent of the world we live in, this world of duality, this world of creation. The Uncreated Creator, The Lord of All Worlds.
Why doesn't Steven Hawking not believe in God? He's said...
"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist."
Basically, he's saying that he doesn't believe in God because he can't know the mind of God. Steven Hawking is truly a man who has faith in what he thinks is knowledge! What he is expressing here is not science. He thinks that science offers a more convincing explanation than The Supreme and Ultimate Reality? What is the explanation?
Steven Hawking clearly doesn't understand what "God" means, right? Yet this same man goes on and on about "The Singularity" all the time. That's all he obsesses about.
Maybe there is some clever game going on. I don't know. I don't know the mind of Steven Hawking. I guess science offers a better explanation... There is no Steven Hawking.
Really though, if it is impossible to account for all variables, what does that say about the accuracy of science?
So basically, Steven Hawking has more faith in his understanding than The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Don't get me wrong, I lean on my understanding a lot. Don't we all? But my God and your Lord is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and I don't have to know it to have faith.
Ah? what is symmetric order doing here also with debris? in relation to the make up of an entire universe in an obviously purposeful orderly manner.
A car somesaults and lands back on its tyres so what?
Your gun mistakenly went off and shot a game on hunting so what?
Your little flower pot fell off the window and smashed right on top of the head of the guy who tried to break into your houses when you weren't around so what?
A huge vehicle machine's cry wakes you up the exact time you needed to wake up to prepare for a job interview when you had no alarm so what?
The universe is not a coincidence.
Coincidences don't hold as long as the revolution and rotation of planets in space in effect(purpose) helping datings, personal/business planning, etc. not as long as seasons in a year for weathers, plants, and not as long as reproduction and species possesing wombs to make the next generation...
The universe assembled into an APPEARANCE of order. Is it really orderly? Massive stretches of purely empty space, dotted with suns of various compositions and sizes, spackled with little rocks, asteroid belts, and just clouds of random gasses. Things flying through empty space only to collide with other things.
Where exactly is the order youre talking about?
The planets seem to circle the sun in an orderly fashion. Yet we can replicate in a lab how gravity pulls things into orbit. We know that planets orbiting a sun could happen entirely on its own. Nobody needed to put the earth here. It just needed to be close enough to an object of greater mass.
Things appear orderly on some level because on some level there are fundamental physical laws that govern everything. The universe is this way becuase it HAD to be this way. It couldnt have been any other way otherwise our physical laws would be entirely different.
Also we as humans adapted to the earths rotation and day and night cycle because it was convenient for us. The cycle doesnt exist FOR us.
Also just because you put the word purposeful in bold doesnt mean its purposeful. If youre going to assert creation you must prove a creator.
OmG another one. Another one who believes the world is a coincidence.
I have argued every single one of these particular with quantumhead(he i can best remember) and others and as usual i always had the last word. I should pull up the links so reference but am getting stressed out with this same shit over and over again.
The natural result of the laws of physics doing what they do? Yes.
If you think im going to pour through your debate with another person youre even more retarded than I had initially assumed. Debate me and my arguments and ideas or fuck off.
The natural result of the laws of physics doing what they do? Yes.
Exactly. Is that difficult to comprehend (@jefferyone)?
Now, the question of where the Laws of Nature come from to begin with is a very difficult question and one that we may never have an answer to. It could be that this is the way things are because this is the way things have to be due to the constraints of the Laws of Nature. Does this mean that the laws of nature themselves are necessarily without artificial construction? No, not necessarily. The universe could be a simulation from a more advanced civilization than our own. However, this and other similar lines of argumentation are very different than the magical/supernatural type of purpose you (jeffreyone) are claiming, which is almost definitely wrong (at least there is no reason that we know of to suppose it).
Exactly. Is that difficult to comprehend (@jefferyone)?
You can't win this argument against creationists because everything you can't explain they automatically attribute to God. Since you can't explain everything they are always going to have the last word. Welcome to the right wing, where reason is a disadvantage in an argument.
Every Evolutionist/Atheist lives in a fool's paradise. while you's ignore free common sense, that; the world is designed and apparently of a mind(a higher one ofcourse).
Stop affiliating me with creationism. My place is with common sense and that is what inspires my opinions on these matters.
Apart from the bible(fundamental source of creationism) i have never sort to find books of creationism to even read half a page of any such books. I don't even know a single name of one popular creationist pioneer or advocates of creationism. So i am not influenced by creationism.
Common sense is free and don't call me greedy while you struggle to stay comfortable in your fool's paradise.🗿🗽 Common sense welcomes everyone.
To some point in your arguments you seem to understand life did not emerge how evolutionists/(abiognesis)🐛🕷🦎🐢🐋🐊🦍 describe it then again you hate to admit the God factor so you sit on the fence .. sad poor thing.
That is the nature of truth, it is not about what you enjoy or hate, it only belongs to where it truly belongs 💯and denying it is a never ending fight... it's worse than fighting your DNA😁
Now, the question of where the Laws of Nature come from to begin with is a very difficult question and one that we may never have an answer to.
From the designer.
The universe could be a simulation from a more advanced civilization than our own.
Yes advanced civilisation. But it is just one being in play here not a community of creators. One creator who has his own planet called heaven with cities like man's, with people in charge like mayors on earth, with military as angels, musicians, healers/doctors, has animals, water, plants and even a prison/dumpsite called hell. More advanced civilisation. Earth is a primitive version of it.
However, this and other similar lines of argumentation are very different than the magical/supernatural type
When you say more advanced civilisation, then its definitely gonna sound like magical. Imagine a civilisation using 100% of it's brain capabilities... what do you expect? They travel by cars?n ships n planes?, Use our primitive ;medication?, way of communication?, have you heard of Psychokinesis?...
Using when a cripple thinks all cripple like, walking or running will be magical for him, you are thinking within your limitation and call anything beyond magical and therefore nonsensical.. dont worry you would have also thought the same if you were born a cripple in a community reserved strictly for cripples and all movies were featuring only cripples within a state in america you were never allowed to travel out of(all you see is cripples for 30yrs of your life) and someone alleges there are people who walk and run, you would also call that nonsense too... wouldn't you?
of purpose you (jeffreyone) are claiming
Purpose is only in man not other animals. There is something we have other creations donot and that is the only reason we will be judged unlike plants and animals. So we cant live foolishly like animals as homsexuals do. We shall be held responsible
Jeffrey, you have to prove a designer exists before you can attribute anything to him. In the context you are using the word, "designer" means exactly the same thing as "don't know".
Designer/God is too big to be contained in the planet earth. That is why he made a smaller version of himself called man in earthly material so man can utilize well the materials on earth. So God lives/exists in everyman. He is furnishing reality and consciousness in everyman. So his consciouness exists in every living man, the minute he draws himself out, man seizes to live.
The earth is his foot stool.
If he is too big for a planet, why do you think a piece of writing can entirely contain him. Yet i have severally proven irrefutably the existence a creator on here with common sense but what you demand is something more tangible or physical enough for your earthly body to sense. Remember God is to be a higher conscious and powerful being unlike a bird that can be tied and displayed on any stage. He appears whenever and wherever he wants. And yes he has over 7billion times since the human race began.
All i can share is experiences which can easily be debanked by just calling it fabrications.
Unless God himself feels like communicating with you or you ready to travel to where i describe, you'll never have that proof.
Regardless, your ignorance cannot be more convincing to me than my experiences.
I can agree with you on something; if there is a supernatural creator on the level of 'God' he would be to us what we are to a game character or movie character (where we partially write the movie) and so just like we can't just come into the game or movie in our true form he needs momentary avatars that may be hard to code and wire to be exactly like the real him/her/it.
moron. you use the word law and yet say the universe is not in order.
What is the essense of laws(system of order) here then?
You already grant there is law. and say not a coincidence and then disagree it is not purposeful/deliberate/planned. your brain is unstable and mind unhealthy.
Which club, country, institution has rules/laws that came without intent and neither is it a coincidence?
The maggots have eaten really deep into your brain. Dead brain. #RIP. YOLO.
Typing words in bold doesn't make them true. You can't demonstrate that the universe has a purpose and neither can anybody else, so your use of phrases like "obviously purposeful" is intellectually dishonest.
Evolution itself was written of in The Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun in 1377. Darwin wrote The Origin of Species in 1859. That's almost 500 years before Darwin.
There is never any question of whether or not God is involved in evolution in The Muquaddimah, In fact, it is a given.
Yeah, so people who believe in God thought about evolution as being a fact long before people came up with the absurd and superstitious idea that evolution somehow disproves God.
It is true that the concept of evolution was "in the air" before and during Darwin's time (before his major work was published), however the salient observation/contribution Darwin made was the mechanism of evolution via Natural Selection. This idea is what proved to be such a "game changer".
I am both ID and GGE. If you begin to comprehend that goddess Fate enjoys experimenting with combinations of DNA and life events to see which results in the best adaptation and worst maladaptation to the given environment you will comprehend both.
It's not as simple as just straight up creationism though, she relies on her highest ranked demigods to sort out the aliens and such to then sort our planet out. So, there's several layers of control between the true goddess Fate and us and these are why the experiment doesn't seem perfectly organised but somewhat chaotic.
I would say I am a Creationist and I believe in Intelligent Design. I say I believe this because it makes sense. When I look around the earth and even the things of the earth I see an Intelligent mind behind all that lays forth in the earth. Just like there is a mind behind an architect of a building who designed the building, the building didn't arise by chance or millions and millions of years. Chaos doesn't produce order at all. The reason why I reject evolution is because it teaches us that we aren't made in the image of God, and that we are just bags of protoplasm and that our ancestors were fish. Evolution basically deems us worthless and have no dignity, value, or worth.
