The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.

by Nickolas 269 Replies latest jw friends

PSacramento

I believe that we know God, can ONLY know God, through Love so yes for me it is "very powerful stuff".
I don't really know how to react to certain things some posters say about God, but I try to understand that pain that drives that kind of hate ( if hate is the right word, certainly it can't be indifference since indifferent people don't care enough to voice their views about what they are indifferent about).
The issue of suffereing is probably the biggest issue that I have noticed and it was THE issue for me too.
jay88

The only issue I can think of is the Methods that followers of Christ use to propagate their "truth" or "revelation".
I can not handle stuff that is "over the top", "flamboyant" if you will. I don't need to know what your beliefs are, unless we are trying to come to and understanding
I want to see how you communicate with others, without using the "christ tag" every interaction.
For me it is distasteful.
I am all ears otherwise.
jay,
Jack C.

How would an elephant correctly explain the existence of humans? How can humans explain the unexplainable? The unexplainable does exist and Myth, metaphor and conjectore are the only tools available.
tec

Faith is not evidence. It is an unshakable, cherished belief in something that cannot be proven but is nevertheless taken to be absolutely true and beyond questioning. That different faiths contradict one another belies their legitimacy. All that remains is evidence.
Faith is something believed upon (actually 'known', more than believed), based on evidence. It is not blind.
There are different kinds of evidences, Nickolas. Even in a court of law.
If you are looking for scientific PROOF, however, you are not likely to find it. Though scientific PROOF of many things is not going to happen, since science is alway growing, changing, learning.
So lets eXamine some evidence that has been listed just in this thread:
1) Hearing the 'voice' of Christ. Faith for those who hear is based on evidence, and as Shelby pointed out (peace to you), the more times one hears (the more evidence gathered), the further strengthened is their faith. This would be first party witness evidence; which can be accepted or not for whatever reason.
2) Help granted when asked, prayers answered, etc. Same as above.
3) The 'roots' of faith. Where it all began. Why every culture everywhere, and every 'when' has always believed in spirits, gods, God, goddesses, etc. The SEEKING of more than just the phsyical to the point that it is a need for many. That is evidence (evidence, not proof) that there is something beyond just the physical.
4) Written witness accounts in the bible and other writings, to Christ. This, I believe, is circumstantial evidence, but still evidence.
Now what you choose to do with all of this evidence (not proof) is entirely up to you. But the evidence IS there.
Peace,
Tammy
Awen

@ Nickolas
One of the things that has confused me for a long time is the process of mutation and the fossil record.
The theory of evolution would have us believe that some long past creature developed wings so it could fly, escape enemies, and capture food. That horses developed long legs so they could run fast, and graze. That lizards lost their legs and became snakes so as to move faster in certain terrains. Or that wasps developed stingers to protect them from enemies. The list could go on and on. What underlying force or intelligence explains this? How would a wingless bird know how to grow wings? How would a short-legged horse know to grow larger legs to enable better mobility? How would any species "know" how to perfectly mutate the exact addition or alteration in body form which would give it the new capability? The staunch "scientific" view states that all genetic mutations were accidental, minor, and occurring over very long periods of time, and that things such as physical organs, entire bodily systems (circulation, nervous, etc.) and organic mechanisms (i.e. bee stingers, bat's sonar, human eye, etc.) developed as the result of extremely long series of genetic accidents (i.e. mutations) - one after another in an endless sequence of convenient mistakes. I find this more absurd than any notion that some external force created the various species and simply placed them here - whether that external entity be God, earlier advanced human civilizations with genetic capability, or some well advanced alien race.
Also, if the theory of evolution were true, it would be necessary to find remnants of all the unsuccessful mutations and adaptations which failed to compete successfully and eventually died out. But fossil records have not detected evidence of all or even any of these many failed species and biological versions which would have to be there if the theory of natural selection were true. Fossil records do find evidence of large global catastrophes such as the Ice Age, which wiped out entire species, but this is not the same thing discussed in the incredibly drawn out processes of evolution and natural selection. The evidence is just not there. In the end, people believe these theories just as they believe any thing else which has no real basis in fact - and in this way it takes on the color of a "religion" more than "science". "Faith" is defined as "belief in things unseen or unproven by sense evidence". There is much more of this faith sort of thing in the believers of evolution and Darwinism than anything approaching valid "scientific evidence" - although they would like to think and will vehemently claim otherwise.
Where are all the missing links? The stages of evolution such as from a bird without wings to a bird with wings? Where is the bird with a small stub of a wing? Or a half-developed wing? They don't exist. This is true for every species and sub-species. The absence of these life forms puts the entire theory into severe question. So how can the ideas be accurate?
http://www.sntp.net/darwin/darwin_problem.htm
Now to be fair I linked an opposing viewpoint from wikepedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Limitations_of_the_fossil_record
The problem still remains though. While there is evidence of what appears to be complete mutations within a species there is a noticeable lack of evidence for the transitions from one form to another. What I mean to say is while we are presented with complete fossils, say Archaeopteryx, for example, what we are not presented with is the fossil of this bird transitioning into modern day birds. We have a complete life form evolving into another complete life form. Let me put it another way so I'm not misunderstood.
Let's say for example a dirt road evolved into a modern super highway. We show pictures of the dirt road and then pictures of the super highway or Interstate. How did it become an Interstate? Where are the pictures (fossils) from the in between times of it's evolution? Where are the pictures of it becoming a paved road, then a four lane highway, then having round abouts (overpasses) added to it's modern form as an Interstate?
This is the conundrum that is faced by evolution. Where are the transitional vestigal wings? We have certain birds that are flightless, like the Ostrich, Emu, and Kiwi birds, but where are the in between fossils that show them losing their flight ability? How much more likely is it that in fact there were no mutations (since there is so far no conclusive fossil evidence) and what we have fossil records are in fact complete animals within a species that never evolved, they simply shared similarities within their own species?
This is the problem I am having with the fossil record. Now I have stated in the past that I do believe in Evolution but with the apparent lack of fossil evidence when it comes to transitional mutation I am forced to re-evaluate my position.
Also some scientists have put forth the notion that it's not outside the realm of possibility that life could have been created on Earth by extra-terrestrial beings. They simply balk at the use of the term "God", but otherwise have no apparent problem with the notion.
The video below is of well known Atheist Richard Dawkins and Ben Stein.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
Also the problem exists as to why some species have evolved and other have gone unchanged since the Cretaceous Period, some 165-45 million years ago (as measured by modern science).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Fossil_record
The Theory of Evolution says that all life forms are in a constant state of evolution but the Coelacanth defies that notion. How is it possible?
One solution can be found here.
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. (PDF, 2.95MB; HTML)
Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis. Lönnig also describes a series of scientific questions that the theory of intelligent design could help elucidate, thus showing the fruitfulness of intelligent design as a guide to further scientific research.
Life is very complex even at the molecular level. Yet somehow all these mutations are convenient accidents according to evolutionists.
http://www.truths.ca/evidence-of-God.htm
So you can see my dilemma.
Awen

A peer review of Stephen Meyer's "Signature In The Cell" and the rebuttal.
Link
What is interesting to note is that in all the experiements cited and discussed the chemists or biologists were required to intervene at precise moments in their experiments to ensure their success. Yet evolutionists say these exact same processes happened by chance. Without the intervention of the scientists in their own experiments AND in a controlled environment, these experiements would have met with failure. While it's notable that they were able to create RNA strands, what is even more notable is that without removing certain elements from their experiments or following a preconceived "recipe" the scientists would have failed at their experiment, yet again this all happened by accident according to evolutionists.
You can't have it both ways. Either Intelligent Design is a fact (which is backed up by the design and intervention of the scientists in their own experiments) or it is a fraud (which could be demonstrated by the scientists throwing all the ingredients together in a test tube and watching to see what happened). By the fact that none of them even tried this solution is evidence in and of itself that they knew what the outcome would have been and the absurdity of "accidental mistakes" as proposed by Darwinian Evolutionists.
Stephen Meyer also says:
We now have a wealth of experience showing that what I call specified or functional information (especially if encoded in digital form) does not arise from purely physical or chemical antecedents. Indeed, the ribozyme engineering and pre-biotic simulation experiments that Professor Falk commends to my attention actually lend additional inductive support to this generalization. On the other hand, we do know of a cause-a type of cause-that has demonstrated the power to produce functionally-specified information. That cause is intelligence or conscious rational deliberation. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler once observed, "the creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity." And, of course, he was right. Whenever we find information-whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, written in a book or etched on a magnetic disc-and we trace it back to its source, invariably we come to mind, not merely a material process. Thus, the discovery of functionally specified, digitally encoded information along the spine of DNA, provides compelling positive evidence of the activity of a prior designing intelligence. This conclusion is not based upon what we don't know. It is based upon what we do know from our uniform experience about the cause and effect structure of the world-specifically, what we know about what does, and does not, have the power to produce large amounts of specified. information.
I especially like this last part as it concerns the problem of no longer seeking more information but being content with a certain viewpoint even if other evidence comes to light that possibly refutes it. In religion we call it Dogma.
That Professor Falk rejects this knowledge as knowledge, and the case for design based on it, reflects his own commitment to finding a solution to the origin of life problem within a strictly materialistic framework. Indeed, he and his colleagues at BioLogos have made clear that they accept the principle of methodological naturalism, the idea that scientists, to be scientists, must limit themselves to positing only materialistic explanations for all phenomena. Of course, it is their right to accept this intellectual limitation on theorizing if they wish. But it needs to be noted that the principle of methodological naturalism is an arbitrary philosophical assumption, not a principle that can be established or justified by scientific observation itself. Others of us, having long ago seen the pattern in pre-biotic simulation experiments, to say nothing of the clear testimony of thousands of years of human experience, have decided to move on. We see in the information-rich structure of life a clear indicator of intelligent activity and have begun to investigate living systems accordingly. If, by Professor Falk's definition, that makes us philosophers rather than scientists, then so be it. But I suspect that the shoe is now, instead, firmly on the other foot.
sizemik

The theory of evolution would have us believe that some long past creature developed wings so it could fly, escape enemies, and capture food. That horses developed long legs so they could run fast, and graze. That lizards lost their legs and became snakes so as to move faster in certain terrains. Or that wasps developed stingers to protect them from enemies.
No . . . the theory of Evolution would not have you believe that. If you actually want to understand what the theory of Evolution "would have you believe" . . . you need to divest your mind of this widely held and constantly promulgated fallacy. Only when you can examine the evidence without the inherent bias of this preconception will you ever begin to understand it.
Also, if the theory of evolution were true, it would be necessary to find remnants of all the unsuccessful mutations and adaptations which failed to compete successfully and eventually died out.
Again . . . no. In fact the complete opposite is true. Unsuccessful mutations do not "fall behind the rest" as you suggest and "eventually" die out. Unsuccessful mutations die out immediately and are unlikely to be repeated beyond a single generation . . . that's why they're unsuccessful. It would be mathematically extremely unlikely to find evidence in the fossil record of "unsuccessful" mutation. This is quite different from the accumulation of beneficial mutations which bring about change over time . . . a long time. Even species that compete successfully are subject to diminishing and eventual extinction, simply because of a change in environment or imbalance with predatorial competition and has nothing to do with "unsuccessful" mutation.
Where is the bird with a small stub of a wing? Or a half-developed wing? They don't exist.
Examples . . . Emu, Ostritch, Moa (extinct), Kiwi, Rhea, Elephant bird (extinct), Falkland Steamer duck, Bermuda Island flightless duck, New Caledonian Giant Megapode (extinct), Junin Grebe, Titicaca Grebe, Flightless Cormorant, Penguins (all), Cuban Flightless Crane (extinct), Red Rail (extinct), Weka, Hawaiian Rail (extinct), Adzebills (all, extinct), Takahe, Diving Puffin (extinct), Kakapo, Broad Billed parrot (extinct), DoDo (extinct), Cuban Giant Owl (extinct), Long-legged Bunting (extinct). . . . and several hundred others.
noticeable lack of evidence for the transitions from one form to another.
Awen . . . please re-read my previous post and try and comprehend what evolutionary progression does. What we have today is a snapshot in time of the evolutionary process. Millions of species have disappeared which had common ancestry. As species and genera move further away in time from a common ancester the commonality is continuously becoming more remote and eventually disappears altogether.
Trying to find commonality in the world as it exists today is like trying to prove that this . . .
Turned into this . . .
They both have commonality . . . but all that connects them cannot be simply dug out of the ground.
Nobody would expect that in the above example . . . is it reasonable to expect a full and complete expression of the evolutionary process over 4 billion years?
Awen

is it reasonable to expect a full and complete expression of the evolutionary process over 4 billion years?
Yes it is reasonable. Four billion years is a very long time. How long do scientists think a lifeform needs to evolve?
Why can the components of transitional evolution simply be dug out of the ground?
Simple. They're not there.
Also I think you may have missed my point about: "Where is the bird with a small stub of a wing? Or a half-developed wing? They don't exist."
The article on Flightless Birds on wikepedia lists some forty species of flightless birds.
What I was getting at (I'm having trouble putting my thoughts into clearly understood words) is that we have examples in our modern day of flightless birds and how their wings are constructed, yet seemingly no fossil evidence that shows previous generations with a gradual continual shortening of wings (over 4 billion years worth).
Then consider that some flightless birds (like the Emu) have powerful legs to carry themselves great distances at up to 30 mph and a nail on their toes very similar to a knife for self defense. Again though no fossil record connection. We go straight from one example of an animal with wings, less feathers, no knife like appendage to one with all these things. Something screwy is going on here.
I can go to my local junkyard and trace Buicks back to the 1930's yet in 4 Billion years we can't trace one species of bird. We have a bird with wings and then one without with no transition in between. ?????
Oh and perhaps you could be so kind as to post links backing up what you have said (as I have) because so far I seem to be just getting your opinion. While it may be good enough for you I'm somewhat skeptical of anything I cannot experience personally.
Cheers!
EntirelyPossible

Yes it is reasonable. Four billion years is a very long time. How long do scientists think a lifeform needs to evolve?
Translation: Science hard and praying is easy. I think I'll stay uneducated!
Seriously, at least learn something about the stuff you are trying to trashtalk about. At this point you are so uneducated and wrong you might as well be complaining about the lack of homerun stats in the NFL.
Why can the components of transitional evolution simply be dug out of the ground?
Because Jesus hates science and is actively removing them. Or fossilization is actually a rare event and both manmade and geologic changes often destroy what fossils there are. Pick one. But remember, Jesus hates those goddamn fossils, so choose wisely.
Also I think you may have missed my point about: "Where is the bird with a small stub of a wing? Or a half-developed wing? They don't exist."
No, in order for him to have missed a point you had to have made one. Try again. Jesus hates birds with stubs wings, use that on your next try.
What I was getting at (I'm having trouble putting my thoughts into clearly understood words) is that we have examples in our modern day of flightless birds and how their wings are constructed, yet seemingly no fossil evidence that shows previous generations with a gradual continual shortening of wings (over 4 billion years worth).
It's called read a goddamn biology book. Or turn on the Discovery channel for once. Seriously, your lack of even trying to educate yourself is now making baby Jesus sad.
Again though no fossil record connection.
See above. Baby Jesus hates ignorance.
I can go to my local junkyard and trace Buicks back to the 1930's yet in 4 Billion years we can't trace one species of bird. We have a bird with wings and then one without with no transition in between. ?????
since junked cars are not rare and fossilization is, that's not suprising. And you know where to look. Since baby Jesus has blessed you with this knowledge, can you call up the world science department and tell them where all the fossils are? I mean, you know where a junkyard is so you clearly must know where fossils are. Unless... oh no, baby Jesus didn't bless you with this knowledge? Why doesn't he love you? Why oh why has he ignored you and left you to wallow only in the shallow knowldge of how to use google maps to find a junkyard? How did you displease him?
Oh and perhaps you could be so kind as to post links backing up what you have said (as I have) because so far I seem to be just getting your opinion.
It's called read a goddamn biology book. Or turn on the Discovery channel for once. Baby Jesus hates laziness. He gave you that brain for a reason. Oh, maybe THAT'S what you are doing to displease him. The lord helps those that help themselves and aren't too lazy to turn on the discovery channel.
While it may be good enough for you I'm somewhat skeptical of anything I cannot experience personally.
Are you skeptical than man went to the moon? Or that two men went into the Marianas trench in a submarine in the 60's? Or that your parents had sex to to conceive you? Or that certain types of radiation will kill you? All of those are things you haven't personally experienced.
sizemik

Awen . . . I have made a time consuming effort to do extensive personal research and engage in tertiary studies. If my "opinion" is not good enough for you . . . so be it. I'm not going to lay out the theory of evolution for you in a series of internet links. You're sitting in front of your computer just as I am. The internet can be used to back up or destroy any number of opinions as your links prove.
Your expressions of your understanding of the evolutionary process and your expectation that there lies some magical fossil record beneath our feet like some comprehensive and complete underground museum . . . is not something I can correct with internet links. If you want to gain a fuller understanding rather than just cherry pick to support your current beliefs . . . then that is what I encourage. I would merely suggest that you open your mind to the alternatives and do some open-minded research as I have done . . . and that I believe, is kind encouragement.
Cheers.

The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.

Share this