Evolution - A Weak Argument for the Anti-Supernatural?

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Good lord, I didn't know that "nothing" was created by God...

I appreciate your play on words.

From nothing this world comes, and to nothing shall it return.

This world is "something for nothing".

It is much adieu about nothing.

A mountain out of a mole hill.

It is literally meaningless.

Meaningless, it cannot be understood.

Unable to be understood, it cannot be known by God.

God did not create it, no matter how much Shoeshineboy insists that he did.

It remains nothing.

As far as God is concerned, it does not exist.

It can only be loved for what it is not. It is not the truth, nor real except to it's believers.

Jesus
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Good lord, I didn't know that "nothing" was created by God...

Think of it this way: God is everything. He gives everything to his Creation. So his Creation is also everything.

Beyond everything is...???

Nothing.

This world is Everything attempting to have everything and also nothing.

Talk about greedy!

The rest is history...the story of how nothing has been valued in every way possible.

To have nothing, or to value nothing, it must come at the cost of everything.

So to get nothing, one must sacrifice everything.

This sets a trap:

Now, in order to get everything back, those who have sacrificed everything think they must sacrifice something of great value. But they have nothing. So they look for something of pretended value [ie. blood] from which they can get something for nothing.

Rather, I ask that you sacrifice nothing in order to get everything back.

As long as you try to sacrifice value-added nothingness, you will get nowhere.

Nothingness will remain in your experience until all the value you've given it is withdrawn.

Having withdrawn value from it, you sacrifice nothing to have everything back.

Nothingness, invested with value and meaning, makes the world what it is.

This is how you can be worldly "rich", and yet still poor.

To "sell everything and give to the poor" means to withdraw the value you have placed upon nothingness so that you have something to give to those who still invest in nothing.

Jesus
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Good lord, I didn't know that "nothing" was created by God...

In other words...

In reality, having and being are the same thing.

So, what has everything, is everything.

If everything wants nothing too, then everything must somehow become nothing.

The rest is history...the story of everything as anything...anything but everything.

Anything is: man, male, female, bird, beast, tree, rock...anything!

None of these things are everything.

Add them all up and all you get is energy, which is nothing.

Give nothing a body and you have nobody.

Now nobody has to do something to become somebody.

And so it goes...nothing comparing itself to nothing in order to seem like something.

Such is the world.

Jesus
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Before I say anything, let me state that I am a Christian that believes that evolution is responsible for a great deal of life on this earth.

Or could it be that a Super Intellect created life, then used evolution to progress life through the hominds per a Simon Conway-Morris scenario and then, indeed, created an Adam from one of the end products??


Because everything in time happened simultaneously, evolution is a smoke screen...a deception.

If you will notice, everything in the world is designed to look like it came from something else...in the world.

The world is like a theme park. The theme is: The world causes you. You do not cause the world.

This is in fact a reversal of cause and effect, which is the effect of denying that the Father is our Father.

Instead, we have a "dad", and we call ourselves "Johnson", or "Olefson". We think of ourselves as the "son of man".

The world is an ingenious way to deny Fatherhood to our Father, and take it upon ourselves to be our own creator.

That is why I said, "call no man father".

Man is made by the maker of this world which was made by...YOU!

"You" are the prodigal Son. You are the cause of this world because there is only one Son of God.

Time decieves you.
Evolution decieves you.
Birth decieves you.
Death decieves you.
Genesis decieves you.

You underestimate the extent of the devil's deceptive realm.

The devil is always trying to make it look like God made the world.

This serves to validate it's thought system, and decieves you into making it your God.

By limiting your idea of "the universe" to time, and form, you underestimate the power of the true God, and the power of his Son. So you don't know who you are, or who your Father is.



Jesus
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Well, in the case of the universe, you have random processes constrained by the parametric physical constants at the birth of the universe. So I'm not sure why you debated all of that, because you have Constrained Randomness if you will.

And you can use whatever words you want if you don't like "self-organize" for some reason. Just don't avoid the issue with useless trash talking: the universe began as a singularity and then solid structures coalesced and eventually planets (after 3rd supernovae), etc.

The point is that the coefficients such as the electromagnetic force, stong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and about forty others all were birthed at the singularity within very tight ranges tuned perfectly for creating this accretion that made life possible.

Do you really think that by piling up words that you have no clue of, you can appear intelligent? Actually it makes you look foolish.

1. Planets are formed "after 3rd supernovae?" Who taught you that? Ask for you tuition back!
2. The electromagnetic, strong and weak forces, along with gravity, are the four known forces in physics. They are not "coefficients." And there are not "about forty others."
3. Singularities, by definition, are singular, ie, they are points. So if somethings were "birthed at the singularity" then there is no "very tight ranges" to speak of.
4. "Accretions" (whatever you mean by it) don't need tuning. Around every big gravitational field there are accretion discs. See the rings around Saturn. Somehow I don't see the Saturn rings sustaining life.

Wherever you got your education, go back and ask for your money back. You've been badly conned.
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:


1. Planets are formed "after 3rd supernovae?" Who taught you that? Ask for you tuition back!

Sorry, but it's true: rocky planets as we know them are formed after a 3rd supernovae event. That's how heavy elements are built up in our universe.
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:


2. The electromagnetic, strong and weak forces, along with gravity, are the four known forces in physics. They are not "coefficients." And there are not "about forty others."

I hate to tell you but you've finally met a Christian who really loves science. I'm not perfect and make some mistakes but this time I'm right. Paul Davies, a skeptic, is the one who first began finding some of these. Since then other astronomers have added to the list.

Notice that these are just the astrophysical constants. There are many more similar constraints on our solar system.

Anyway, here is a list of about 30 for your perusal that I have actually posted on et before. But, believe it or not, there are now more than 40. And keep in mind that all of these are in a tight range or bandwidth:


strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly|
if smaller: stars would be so cool that nuclear fusion would not ignite, thus no heavy element production
electromagnetic force constant
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
entropy level of the universe
if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming
velocity of light
if larger: stars would be too luminous
if smaller: stars would not be luminous enough
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation for a long enough time
if smaller: the sun’s orbit would be too radically disturbed,
galaxy cluster type
if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit
if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized
fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
if larger than 0.06: matter is unstable in large magnetic fields
decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
mass excess of the neutron over the proton
if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life
if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life; liquid water would be too inferior of solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
supernovae eruptions
if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient flourine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient flourine production
if too late: flourine made too late for incorporation in protoplanet
ratio of the mass of exotic matter to ordinary matter
if smaller: galaxies would not form
if larger: universe would collapse before solar type stars can form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if smaller: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist and life would be impossible
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist and life would be impossible
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars will not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies will be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies will not form; universe expands too rapidly
if larger: galaxies will be too dense; black holes will dominate; universe collapses too quickly
size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain essential life chemistry reactions will not function properly
if larger: certain essential life chemistry reactions will not function properly
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small; certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great; certain life-essential elements would be unstable
cosmological constant
if too large: universe will expand too quickly for solar type stars too form
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:


3. Singularities, by definition, are singular, ie, they are points. So if somethings were "birthed at the singularity" then there is no "very tight ranges" to speak of.

You're avoiding my point: the universe was birthed with certain constants and these were tuned within very tight ranges for life. That is why scientists with materialist leanings are desperately searching for excuses for multiple universes.
 
Quote from I am...:

Because everything in time happened simultaneously, evolution is a smoke screen...a deception.

.......................................


By limiting your idea of "the universe" to time, and form, you underestimate the power of the true God, and the power of his Son. So you don't know who you are, or who your Father is.



Jesus

Sorry but you're too cosmic for me. If you want to discuss I'll be glad to, but not where you just ramble off gnostic, New Age philosophy and jargon...This is like talking to JohnnyK again...
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:


4. "Accretions" (whatever you mean by it) don't need tuning. Around every big gravitational field there are accretion discs. See the rings around Saturn. Somehow I don't see the Saturn rings sustaining life.


You're missing the point here. The galaxies and later planets could never have coalesced if any of these physical constants had been tweaked slightly. Look at the top example above:

If the strong nuclear force constant was tweaked just slightly the entire universe would be hydrogen and life would be impossible.
 
Back
Top