|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If complexity requires design, where did the Deity come from? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4212 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Also anything invented by man had a beginning, such as titanium. When, pray tell, did man invent titanium? Titanium is a natural, non radioactive chemical element found as the major costituent of the mineral rutile. For that matter when did man actually "invent" any chemical element? There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
the same is true with evolution, with many different theories, sometimes conflicting, What are these conflicting viewpoints?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4798 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: So because I choose not to use the format you would like, you see me as unacceptable? This could possibly explain why you don't accept other views and opinions on other subjects. Difference is not wrong, but to put a big smile on your face, this reply was just for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4798 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"When, pray tell, did man invent titanium?"
In 1932, by William Kroll. Patent # 2,205,854
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4798 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"What are these conflicting viewpoints?"
Archeopteryx is younger than fully formed bird fossils (150 myo), and is only considered transitional. Great debate among evolutionary scientists over whether archeopteryx was the beginning of bird lines or if previous fossil evidence was properly dated. There are other examples, but this is irrelevant to this forum. Make a new thread, and I will gladly post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9146 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Titanium was not invented in 1932. It is a naturally occurring element.
quote:Source Mr. Kroll invented a way to process titanium, he did not invent titanium. You do not even have the correct year for his patent.
Kroll Patent Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9146 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
So because I choose not to use the format you would like, you see me as unacceptable?
When did I say anything about unacceptable? It just shows your being an ass.
This could possibly explain why you don't accept other views and opinions on other subjects.
I accept different views and opinions that are evidenced. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
Archeopteryx is younger than fully formed bird fossils (150 myo) You're talking about protoavis.... Protoavis is not a bird
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
That's not what you implied when you wrote
the same is true with evolution, with many different theories, sometimes conflicting, Your point
Archeopteryx is younger than fully formed bird fossils (150 myo), and is only considered transitional. Great debate among evolutionary scientists over whether archeopteryx was the beginning of bird lines or if previous fossil evidence was properly dated. Is untrue. So, you have not substantiated your point that there are conflicting theories of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 783 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Physiologically, everything must have a beginning. The 2nd law of thermodynamics illustrates principles of decay. The law of abiogenesis says life cannot come from non-life.
Nonetheless, the Bible at least does not claim a God who is of physiological basis or subject to the laws of a material plane. Rather:
quote: I.e. while physical beings cannot come from an eternal physical being, it is possible a being from another plane may not be bound by such temporal limitations, either in terms of power, self-existence, or longevity. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 783 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
This concept is illustrated Biblically.
quote: With a physical beginning, you're left to constantly wonder, 'but where did that come from'? Physical things require a beginning and an end. They are of necessity temporal, fleeting, and subject to the laws of time. Nothing of true value is to be found in the purely material, thus it is ironic that one would bind oneself to believing in only that which is subject to such laws. You decide for yourself you will never find anything of true value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4964 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
Jzyehoshua says: This concept is illustrated Biblically. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only way in which the above passage illustrates the concept [where a deity comes from] is by suggesting it is in the imagination. I don't see how that makes it in any way real, valuable or eternal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 783 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
It illustrates that anything physical is temporary while the unseen is eternal. As this pertains to a potential Creator:
quote: Therefore, God is not temporary as the physical is. He is described as 'eternal, immortal, invisible', a 'Spirit' and thus not subject to the same laws of physics which require a material beginning. To my knowledge, the laws of science have yet to fully investigate the realm of spirit, what makes a person a person, or is responsible for morality. In dealing only with the physically testable and observable is neglected much of what's most important. Love, honor, justice - as Romans 1:20 stated, even the most hardened atheists would recognize those acting in violation of such concepts are doing something 'wrong', whether they want to admit it or not. These concepts are not subject to the material realm or physically observable, we can't prove when they began or from what, yet are there all the same. I stand by my point. A spiritual realm, and the concepts and beings which are part of it may not be subject to the same limitations which require a beginning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4964 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined:
|
Therefore, God is not temporary as the physical is. He is described as 'eternal, immortal, invisible', a 'Spirit' and thus not subject to the same laws of physics which require a material beginning. Simply quoting something someone once wrote, does not in any way add weight to your argument. It doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god, let alone any evidence for it being eternal.
To my knowledge, the laws of science have yet to fully investigate the realm of spirit, what makes a person a person, or is responsible for morality. In dealing only with the physically testable and observable is neglected much of what's most important. "the realm of spirit" - what is that? "what makes a person a person" - how about a body and a mind? "morality" - there have been studies on this (and I'll try and find some references). It is also a subject we've discussed quite a lot here.
Love, honor, justice - as Romans 1:20 stated, even the most hardened atheists would recognize those acting in violation of such concepts are doing something 'wrong' I entirely agree. But it is very simply explained by the fact that we have evolved to follow behaviour that is beneficial to us (as have all other species). When we feel something is "wrong" it is an automatic emotional response to something we recognise as generally being harmful. If we were to feel good about things that were harmful to us, we would be attracted to doing harmful things, and would soon become extinct. The fact that we understand why things are wrong, and more importantly have an emotional response to things that are right and wrong, which drives our behaviour, is logically compatible with a characteristic that has evolved. It is not logically compatible with "right" and "wrong" being a purely arbitrary notion that has been thrown at us by some other entity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9146 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
The law of abiogenesis says life cannot come from non-life. There is no such scientific law. If you want to present evidence of such a thing please go ahead. Also, what does the 2nd law of thermo have to do with this discussion. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024