Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Evidence of God's Design


  • Please log in to reply
442 replies to this topic

#61 hambone

hambone

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts

Posted 10 July 2010 - 09:47 PM

Quag, Okay what or which part have I not been clear enough on. First of all this thread started in "What happens after you Die" or something like that. You need to go back and read some. I don't claim everyone will or wants to believe in or on any god's (little g) so they live to what they think is okay for them. Fine got that point. I I Let me say it again I believe in an all knowing all powerful God. What you believe is your decision. You want proof of something ask me I'll try to give you the most scientific logical answer you will be able to digest. :thumbsup:
  • 0

#62 hambone

hambone

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts

Posted 10 July 2010 - 09:53 PM

Lmao.. I'm sorry, but your "knowledge" of the world astounds me.

OMG. I FIGURED IT OUT. YOU ARE A TROLL. I mean, your username does mean "A bad perforerm, esp. with a black accent." I think I know who you are, mah gansta homie. :P I refuse anyone.. can.. be.. this silly.

You have learned nothing, which is why unreality one upped you in the other thread so hard.

YEAH. THANK YOU GOD FOR SENDING YOUR SON WHICH WAS ALSO YOURSELF TO DIE FOR ME FOR THE SINS YOU ALLOW TO BE COMMITED, WHILE ACTUALLY KILLING YOURSELF, SO YOU'RE COMMINTING SUICIDE, AND ALLOWING THE PERSECUTION OF JEWS SO MANY YEARS LATER. I LOVE YOUUUUU, YOU SADOMASOCHISTIC BASTARD.

Omf.. You know the suicide bombers are cults, not following the way of Islam, recruiting young orphans and brainwashing them to do their dirty work, right? Read the Koran, it's almost identical to the Bible. It says suicide is wrong. Also, I recall God telling Abraham to kill his only son Isaac, and Abraham was going to do it when God was like "No bro, it was only a joke!" Nice dude, eh?]

No, you weren't born into it, neither were you born into beliving in Santa. You just didn't get over it when you turned 5. :P

What no one told you Santa is real too. :lol:
  • 0

#63 EDM

EDM

    Smiley Queen

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4238 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At my laptop...:P

Posted 10 July 2010 - 10:08 PM

What no one told you Santa is real too. :lol:



oh, yeah :duh: .....i thought i'd forgotten something.....:D

Izzy, Santa Claus is a fictional character based on the real Santa Claus who was a saint named Nicholas who lived long ago...... :D

http://en.wikipedia..../Saint_Nicholas

Edited by EDM, 10 July 2010 - 10:09 PM.

  • 0
Please Have a Look at The Board Guidelines... :) Before You Start Partying At The Site...Rules help out, here... :D :D :D
I'm The Smiley Queen Posted Image...Bow Down To My Smiley Smileyness!!! :P :D :D :D

#64 hambone

hambone

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts

Posted 10 July 2010 - 10:20 PM

Spoiler for The next one will be interesting.

The theory of evolution suggests that all living things on
Earth have come into being through accidental, random natural
processes that began with a primeval mass of subatomic particles
and radiation billions of years ago. Further, evolution states
that life formed spontaneously from non-living inorganic matter
and, through chance and random good mutations, life gradually
evolved from a "simple" cell into the remarkable diversity of
plant and animal life, as well as humanity. Evolution is taught
as a fact, not as a theory, in the universities and high schools
throughout the world.
Although Charles Darwin popularized the theory
almost 150 years ago, it remains just that--a theory--because the
scientific evidence required to prove it has never been found.
The only thing holding the tattered theory of evolution together is
the powerful desire of millions of people to hold on to the notion
of evolution, regardless of its scientific weakness, because the
alternative is unthinkable to its believers.
The only logical
alternative to evolution is obviously the theory that a supernatural
being--GOD--purposefully designed and created the Universe and man.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth!

Next will be Scientific reasons to Reject Evolution
  • 0

#65 Izzy

Izzy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3054 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 11 July 2010 - 12:05 AM

oh, yeah :duh: .....i thought i'd forgotten something.....:D

Izzy, Santa Claus is a fictional character based on the real Santa Claus who was a saint named Nicholas who lived long ago...... :D

http://en.wikipedia..../Saint_Nicholas

Yeah. And Jesus was real too. He was a messenger of peace 2010 years ago. ..Then we idolized him and turned him into an imaginary god. Oh the similarities. :P
  • 0

#66 hambone

hambone

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts

Posted 11 July 2010 - 12:23 AM

Spoiler for Reasons to Reject Evolution. PLEASE READ SLOWLY IT'S COMPLICATED

One of the most basic of all scientific observations is known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This fundamental law of science states that the total amount of usable energy throughout the Universe is constantly decreasing. This law is fundamental in science because scientists have never found a single exception to this observation. Okay guys this must mean, unless you can find what scientists have not that the Universe must have been created at some point in time and has been running down ever since. This means that the "steady state" theory of some early evolutionary scientists that the Universe has always existed is false.

The first problem of evolution that must be faced is this: Where did the Universe and its massive energy come from and when did it begin? It is ILLOGICAL to believe that the Universe accidentally came into existence out of nothing and out of random chance. The only logical conclusion is that the Universe was purposefully created with intelligent design and supernatural power by some Being who exists outside of the Universe, space, energy, and time itself. That Designer must be God.
The second fundamental problem faced by the theory of evolution is the absolute impossibility that life was spontaneously generated by chance from inanimate or non-living inorganic elements. The evolutionists account for the chance development of life from non-living matter by imagining the the Earth's primitive oceans and atmosphere in the distant past ( In a Universe without any life) were composed of an unusual chemical mixture the call "prebiotic soup." Look it up. In other words, they suggest that the oceans and atmosphere on the primitive Earth were accidentally composed of every single one of the essential chemicals and that some energy source, possibly lightning, stimulated these unlikely chemicals to bond together over billions of years by pure chance to spontaneously generate life from non-living material. How CRAZY IS THAT? But if you don't believe in a Creator YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE.

The words of Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, an eminent British scientist: "One of the earliest questions that was raised in connection with the primordial soup was deciding whether at any early stage in the Earth's history, if there was a situation when the Earth's atmosphere was not of its present character, that is, was REDUCING [without free oxygen] rather than oxidizing. We looked at this rather carefully, and we decided that the Earth's atmosphere was never of the right character to form an organic soup...we published this in a book under the title of 'LIFECLOUD'...Geo chemists and geologists have now come round; they now go on to say the the primordial soup had to be imported from outside...THERE'S NO WAY IT COULD HAVE DEVELOPED UPON THE EARTH...The organic soup itself is not such a marvelous thing. It is a prerequisite for any biological activity to start; that's certainly true. But it doesn't follow that if you have an organic soup it could get life started...And when we looked at the probabilities of the assembly of organic materials into a living system, it turns out that the improbabilities are really horrendous, horrific in extent and I concluded along with my colleagues that [this] could not have happened spontaneously on the Earth...There's not enough time, there's not enough resources and there's no way in which that could have happened on the Earth."

If the atmosphere contained free oxygen, as most scientists believe, the the oxygen would have combined with the amino acids, which would make them useless to the process. However, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUEMENT, lets imagine the the impossible actually occurred by chance, producing the soup. But then what are the odds against the spontaneous generation of life developing accidentally from this "prebiotic soup"? Biologists have calculated that the odds against these chemicals spontaneously generating organic life by chance, according to Dr. Wickramasinghe, are only one chance in 10, to 40,000 The odds are equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? To put this in perspective, scientists have calculated that the total number of atoms existing throughout the known Universe of 50 billion galaxies (each containing hundreds of millions of stars like our Milky Way) is only 10 to 74. That is a 1 followed by 74 zeros.

Please!

IN THE BEGGINING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. gen 1-1
  • 0

#67 andromeda

andromeda

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3699 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Serbia

Posted 11 July 2010 - 02:06 AM

The words of Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, an eminent British scientist...


Did the lady offer a better explanation? :)

I'm curious...
  • 0

#68 plasmid

plasmid

    Senior Lolcat

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1461 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 July 2010 - 02:37 AM

When it comes to knocking evolution, I feel I have to step in. I get upset when people dis my profession. Particularly if they're drawing scientific conclusions from some fables about a spirit who came to earth and healed the lepers and the insane by driving out the demons that caused their illness. Fables which, as EDM even pointed out, don't explicitly exclude a figurative interpretation in which God set in motion the process of evolution as the means through which he created the various forms of life... it would be perfectly understandable to simplify that part of the story in order to convey the main point since people 2000 years ago wouldn't have been able to grasp such concepts.

On a molecular level, my colleagues and I use evolution as a scientific tool. If you want to find out how HIV will evolve resistance to antiretrovirals, culture it in the presence of subtherapeutic concentrations and see how it evolves. On a larger scale, I think I put it fairly succinctly in a past post:

Bran, on Apr 27 2009, 09:05 PM, said:
[some rubbish cut for brevity] Why is only the theory of evolution only in schools? It has more holes in it than a Dutch dam made of Swiss cheese. For more info about the spiritual world, see the book of Revelations.

Plasmid:
Please inform the new swine flu that it could not possibly have evolved and therefore does not exist.
Perhaps it will listen to your reasoning and be convinced to stop killing people.


Maybe you'll concede that viruses and bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics, but assert that humans could not have evolved from apes? The 1% difference between the human and chimpanzee genome (implying a roughly 0.5% difference between modern humans and chimps when compared to their last common ancestor) doesn't honestly seem that daunting, particularly if a majority of that is due to expansion or contraction of gene duplications. Expansion of gene duplications doesn't even take evolutionary time periods to happen. Examples are fragile X syndrome and Huntington's disease, both caused by expansion of repeated DNA elements on the X chromosome that can show expansion of repeat lengths and worsening of disease expression that's noticeable even from one generation to the next as the repeats are expanded in carrier women.

If you still think that God created man, which form of man did he create? Homo habilis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo neanderthalensis, or homo sapiens? And why did evolution stop at that point and require divine intervention to take over?

If the issue is not with evolution but with abiogenesis, then that's fine. Theories abound, but there has been no demonstration yet that self-replicating complex particles along the lines of the "RNA world" hypothesis can be generated from early-Earth conditions. To say that it would be impossible seems a bit premature though.

Finally, about the second law of thermodynamics, it does not say that more complex things cannot arise from simpler things. It simply says that the entropy of a closed system will increase. You can be inside a box with a bunch of clay can sculpt it into an aardvark if you like, the entropy of the clay will have decreased, but as long as enough energy was converted to heat in the process, the net entropy of the box would have increased to satisfy the second law. And when it comes to the beginning of the universe, it might sound very strange to hear this coming from a scientist, but I don't think the second law of thermodynamics necessarily applies. To rehash an old post again (yes, we seem to revisit these topics a lot):

Since Bran and Izzy were alluding to this, I hope it's not off topic.

Regarding the origin of the universe, I'd always been taught the second law of thermodynamics as a probabilistic concept. There is no fundamental "force" driving entropy to increase, it only increases because a system will be most likely to adopt a state with maximum degeneracy.

To bring that slightly closer to English, if you have a bunch of gas particles bouncing around in a room, there isn't a "force" keeping them evenly distributed. They only end up being evenly distributed because the probability of having all the gas particles move to one side of the room at the same time is infinitesimally small. The same concept applies to chemical reactions. Any reaction at the molecular level can theoretically go either in the forward or reverse direction. It's just that one direction often ends up being favored because of the resultant energetic and entropic change.

There is a point to all of this physics rambling. If the second law of thermodynamics is based entirely on probabilities and the assumption that you will never realistically see any highly improbable reactions taking place in your lifetime (such as matter spontaneously being created in a reaction that is the reverse of annihilation) then would the second law not really apply in an empty universe where you quite literally have all of eternity to sit around and wait for a big bang to spontaneously happen?

I don't mean to mislead anyone into thinking that this is a generally accepted scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe. It just seemed reasonable to me. I'm just posting to try to find out if anyone who really knows a thing or two about physics has ever heard of an argument along those lines and could tell me if it's even theoretically credible. That at least would provide a possible scientific explanation for the origin of the universe that doesn't involve a god.


This theory is called "creation ex nihilo" and has a history of at least 25 years in physics. It is one of many theories for the origin of the big bang not yet proven or disproven.


Edited by plasmid, 11 July 2010 - 02:43 AM.

  • 0

#69 andromeda

andromeda

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3699 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Serbia

Posted 11 July 2010 - 02:51 AM

Did the lady offer a better explanation? :)

I'm curious...


OK... first of all I made a mistake, it's a dude. :lol:

Second, he did offer an explanation, I just looked it up, it's right HERE.

The problem with his theory is that 3,8 billions of years ago there was no ozone layer. The UV light would destroy the microbes/organic molecules that would be brought to the earth by comets. To create ozone you need molecular oxygen, and "back in the days" billions of years ago, you needed photosynthetic organisms to create molecular oxygen. Life, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, was most probably generated in a small niche with the optimal conditions for a self replicating organism to be created, ON EARTH!

The probabilities that he is mentioning are a bit off too in my opinion. I think that those numbers are much lower due to the fact that atoms have tendencies to join together with some other particular atoms depending on their chemical properties.
  • 0

#70 hambone

hambone

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts

Posted 11 July 2010 - 03:06 AM

As difficult as it is to believe, the scientific evidence is now overwhelmingly in support of the conclusion that the entire "ascent of man" from ape-man to modern humans is one of the greatest scientific frauds in history. Just because you make a lie your choice or line of work does not make it true. No offence.
The Piltdown Man 1 and 2 or Ramapithecus or Java Man or Nebraska Man maybe Lucy or Homo erectus: Peking Man, Neanderthal Man, Cro-Magnon Man. From what I have scene and researched all can and have been explained. :duh:

Edited by hambone, 11 July 2010 - 03:07 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users