Faith and belief - The Almighty God revealed through his grandness

quote:

---

Whether you want to deny it nevertheless I showed God's love for humanity, but I also explained what it means to die never reaching the point of accepting God, and how God interposed just on time to safe the human race.

---

No, you did not show any such thing.Even if you assume that the "problem" is real you have not explained why it exists or why God could not manage a better solution.Indeed it is implicit in your argument that God is incapable of preventing the problem, incapable of providing a good solution and incapable of managing even the poor solution you claim that he has provided without undergoing extreme pain and suffering.That sounds somewhat less than "almighty".

quote:

---

1. life does not arise from non living matter
2. laws require a law maker
3. the law of cause of effect means something must have been the cause

---

Argument 1 says that creationism is false and that life is eternal.
Since you disagree with the first part and we both disagree with the second it looks as if that isn't any good.Argument 2 makes the mistake of confusing natural laws (descriptive) with the legal system (prescriptive law). Natural laws are simply regularities of behaviour. Since any law-maker or any law-making must rest on such regularities (how else can they operate ?) it would seem that your argument has it reversed. "Law"-makers require already-existing "laws".Argument 3 is simply wrong. There is no "law of cause and effect" and if there were we cannot say that it applies to the universe. This is because there may be no time prior to the existence of the universe and it is very hard to see how cause and effect could apply without time.

quote:

---

PaulK, what you fail to understand is that God has the power to bring forth life at will

---

No, what YOU fail to understand is that none of this is in Peg's argument. We have never observed God creating life, so if our observation is taken as the limit of what is possible we must rule that out too. If it is not then Peg's argument fails to rule out life coming from non-life and we must look to other arguments.

quote:

---

IF we reason that god is the creator of everything that exist including laws, than in fact the natural laws also have a lawmaker.

---

This does not address my point. There must be regularities that do not require a law-maker - because regularities are a precondition for law-makers and law-making.

quote:

---

And as far as cause and effect is concerned, these principles are a part of our daily experience, and that is how it goes, we have never seen an effect without a cause.

---

Because something that does not hava a cause is not an effect. But it is certainly not clear that all things have a sufficient cause. And, unless you insist on an infinite regress there must be at least one cause that is not an effect. Can you show that the universe is an effect ? If not, the argument fails.

quote:

---

no, argument 1 says that life does not arise from non living matter. this is a fact and there is no way around it. It does not mean that life is eternal at all...it means what it says...that life does not originate alone. All life on this planet come's from pre existing life. This is observable in nature every day.

---

Creationism involves many cases of life coming from non-living matter - if it does not happen then creationism is false (and of course we have NEVER seen any examples of the divine creation of new species). And if life does not come from non-living matter then life must be eternal. Your response is self-contradictory and therefore false.

quote:

---

One of the definitions of law given in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary is “the observed regularity of nature.”

---

ONE of the definitions. And one that should not be confused with the laws that we create to regulate our societies. Which is exactly what your argument does.

quote:

---

Scientists today attribute the earth’s position in space primarily to the interaction of the law of gravity and the law of centrifugal force. So, there is no confusion... laws exist on paper and intangibly. Nature is regulated by these laws and laws dont just appear, they are devised.

---

Another self-contradiction. Natural laws are only "devised" in the sense that scientists produce them as DESCRIPTIONS of reality. That is obviously not what you meant.No, the confusion is very real and you cannot escape it, as shown by your failure to address my point.

quote:

---

the law of cause and effect applies to everything. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This includes the universe...big bang?

---

Again you do not address my point. You do not deal with the problem of causation without time, nor do you even try to show that the universe is an effect. (And Newton's Third Law is NOT "the law of cause and effect").

quote:

---

I dont know where you get the idea that life must have been eternal

---

Because if life only comes FROM life there cannot be any time when there is no life. Unless there isn't any life anywhere. It necessarily follows from your argument.

quote:

---

Of course i didnt mean scientists devised them... scientists merely describe the effect of natural laws...they certainly cannot change them nor alter them.

---

That's the only way in which we know that natural laws are devised.

quote:

---

Natural laws are evidence of a supreme being who put these laws in place.

---

I've already given good reasons why they are not. You've given no reasons why they are.

quote:

---

an eternal being IS without time

---

An assertion that does not address the issue.

quote:

---

and the universe is an effect because it is material, as opposed to God who is spirit.

---

SImply making bizarre assertions to support points may work in creationist circles, but not in discussions with people who care about the truth.

quote:

---

yes ok, you're right

​

if God didnt make life on earth, then it must have always been here.

---

Wrong. Your own argument rules out God making life on earth. We've never seen God make life, and the Biblivcal description has all sorts of life coming from non-living matter which you insist is impossible.

quote:

---

However we know that it hasnt always been here as Rahvin pointed out

---

Which shows that your argument is wrong.

quote:

---

That can only lead us to Abiogenesis... which cannot be proved, cannot be replicated, cannot be observed and therefore there is no evidence for it.

​

i love circular arguments.

---

Not in this case. All you're doing is parroting a naive argument which relies on a clear double standard.You need to think more and place far less trust in the people who feed you these arguments. They aren't interested in the truth (although they may well be interested in suppressing it).

quote:

---

The same thing applies at science. Evolutionist and creationist share the same body of evidences; the difference is how they approach that evidence.

---

Except for those parts that the creationists refuse to acknowledge.What you miss out is that evolutionists agree with scientific investigation of the universe while the creationists seek to force everything to fit their existing beliefs.

quote:

---

Let me give an example. An evolution fossilist unearths a strange skeleton and says huh, look it a missing link, whereas a creationist would simply conclude, huh, look it’s a new creature. Which position is more logical, a transition between two individuals or an animal that resembles features present in the two animals because the same God made them all.

---

In the case of a general anatomical intermediate - which is the only one where the scientist would be strongly making the claim that it was a transitional - then obviously the scientist's view would be more rational. The creationist may howl that it is just another coincidence and try to sweep it under the carpet - but there are just too many to account for in that way. (Of course creationists try to deny the existence of transitional fossils - it is a prime example of how creationists refuse to even acknowledge the evidence).

With the exception of Kurt Wise most creationists deny the existence of transitional fossils.That's the example I gave.

quote:

---

Creationist do not ignore any evidence they just interpret it differently from the Evolutionist who also interpret the same evidence differently.

---

That's the creationist propaganda line. And it's a lie.

quote:

---

Again you are trying to claim that your interpretation of the evidence is the right one, bear in mind there are many things in the world that resemble each other but similarity isn't enought to conclude that a set of things had a common ancestor, they may have been the products of the same inventor.

---

Because of the pattern of similarities in time (and space, too). Evolution explains the pattern we see - it was that knowledge that let scientists find the famous tiktaalik fossil.Creationism, on the other hand can only offer "God just did it that way" but cannot offer any reason why God would just happen to produce the sort of pattern that would be expected if evolution were true. (Which is why creationists try to deny the existence of the evidence).By this very fact the evidence DOES favour evolution - it explains the pattern in a way that creationism does not.

quote:

---

And for your information no true missing link has been found so far from the time the first search for them kick-started.

---

Thanks for proving my point. Creationists deny that the evidence even exists.

quote:

---

And any fossil presented as a missing link is surrounded by great speculation and contention.

---

That's false.

quote:

---

and if missing links did exist why did paleontologists often resort to forgeries

---

They don't. Can you name even five examples of "missing links" shown to be forged by paleontologists ?

quote:

---

and as far as the evidence thing is concerned there is no propaganda you would like to think so because it would mean that evolution is just and interpretion amongst many, and not the so-called paramount theory to explain life.

---

The fact that you happen to fall for creationist propaganda does not make it any less untrue.

quote:

---

The universe and all its content is evidence to something that happened a long time ago, creatinonist explore the universe just like evolutionist do, we have the same evidence to work with, its the interpretaion that differ and actually matters.

---

Which is why creationists have to resort to untruths and falsehoods so often.

quote:

---

O, with delight, lets start with the 1. Piltdown Hoax, not only was the Piltdown skull itself fraudulent but the entire mammalian fauna of the gravels had been planted and the human artefacts manufactured. The main suspect to date is, Charles Dawson. And yet it somehow fooled for 40 years the world's top experts. I wonder how this happened

---

Perhaps you can provide some reference for the entire mammalian fauna being faked - it's the first time I've heard that claim. However as you admit that the perpetrator is unknown we cannot say if a palaentologist did it or not.

quote:

---

2. Nebraska Man - On receiving a tooth [found in Nebraska] from a Mr. Harold Cook, H. F. Osborn (head of the American Museum of Natural History) declared it had characteristics which were a mixture of human, chimpanzee and pithecanthropus. He named it Hesperopithecus haroldcookii (Harold Cook's Evening Ape). It was discovered to be a fraud in 1953, it turned out to be the tooth of an exstinct pig.

---

This is not a fake, and the correct identification was found well before 1953.

quote:

---

3. A skull, found in Spain and promoted as the oldest example of [man] in Eurasia, was later identified as that of a young donkey [This was in 1984].

---

I note that you provide no evidence of forgery in this case. (And if it is the one I am thinking of it is a small skull fragment, not a full skull !).

quote:

---

4. In 1983 an American anthropologist tried to pass off a dolphin's rib as the collarbone of a prehistoric man.

---

I note that you present no evidence of forgery.

quote:

---

5. A report from the Los Angeles Times recently had the byline, "Once Hailed as a Missing Link, Forgery is Found to be Mosaic of Fossils from Microraptor and a Bird"

---

It is known that this forgery wa not created by paleontologists.I asked for five examples, and you have come up with not one definite case.

quote:

---

O don't be that naive this were examples that world experts in the field were too naive enough to fall for

---

All I'm asking you to do is to support your claim - which was that there were numerous examples of transitional fossils faked by paleontologists. It's not "naivety" to point out that you fiailed to meet my challenge.Or did you mean that it was naive to expect you to reply honestly ? Sorry, but you don't get to rewrite my challenge to suit your answer.