PSA_speaking of monkeys, etc.

[Grizz]

https://www.breitbart.com/news/not-enou ... are-study/
.
the simple corollary to this math finding is that it guarantees that no evolution of one "kind" becoming a different "kind" is even remotely possible. it's a wrap. there is not enough time if every atom were a universe, it still couldn't happen.
.

083654_002.jpeg

.

“It’s not even like one in a million,” study co-author Stephen Woodcock of the University of Technology Sydney told New Scientist.

“If every atom in the universe was a universe in itself, it still wouldn’t happen.”

same same with the "theory of evolution" >>> it is a lie.

just ask a monkey - - -

†

[AmBraCol]

The interesting thing here is how people allow their minds to be manipulated. Recently I read various "history of" books regarding "The Stone Age", "The Bronze Age" and "The Iron Age", all written from a humanistic/evolutionist view point. Proponents of that world view never seem to take into account evidence against their world view, such as the complexity of the oldest known written languages. The evolutionary theory has "humanoids" evolving from grunting cave dwellers to suave, debonair and eloquent modern day urbanites. Strange how the evidence points the other direction. The decay of today's language is obvious, for those who pay attention. Judging from the way folks "text", it won't be long until we've allowed society to sink to the level of communication that has (erroneously) been attributed to "early hominids". We were created with incredible capacity to reason and resolve problems. We did not climb down from trees and lose our fur and tails like many who reject the Creator claim.

[JBowen]

God tells Adam that " I created you from the earth". No monkeys involved. Period!

JBowen

[rossim92]

God tells Adam that " I created you from the earth". No monkeys involved. Period!

JBowen

+1

[Gobblerforge]

Are you saying all of science is wrong because of what someone wrote 2000 years ago? Religious folks are funny.

[Ray]

Are you saying all of science is wrong because of what someone wrote 2000 years ago? Religious folks are funny.

I cannot speak for grizz or anyone else but yes, I am allowed to believe implicitly in any ancient writings that I choose and disbelieve any so-called science, past or recent.

I take much umbrage at the tendency for atheists to respect musselmen & their quran, and hindus & t brahmic vedas and folk who follow the tenets of the buddha siddhartha gautama and treat those faiths as somehow enlightened & sophisticated but consider the long accepted and acknowledged source (Bible) of progression & western civilization as simple and superstitious.

Think about the facts that we live where we are and how we do because of those "funny religious folk" and the CREATOR who they served.

[AmBraCol]

Are you saying all of science is wrong because of what someone wrote 2000 years ago? Religious folks are funny.

No, I'm saying that "all science" is not truly all science. Picking and choosing evidence that only supports your view and throwing out the evidence that disproves it is not true science. "religious folks" are the ones who placed the foundations of "modern science" in the first place. The Biblical principle that God is a God of order lead them to seek the basis for the order one sees in the universe around us. There are so many things that the THEORY of evolution (it is indeed a THEORY and NOT "fact") can not account for. Even Darwin said (pardon the paraphrase) "If it can be shown that any organ can not come into existence by gradual, incremental changes, then my theory is invalid" (words to that effect anyway). The eye is one such organ. Our ability to not bleed to death from a tiny cut is another bit of evidence. And there is much, much more. There are no more rabid zealots in defense of their religion than committed atheists seeking to protect "the settled science" that supposedly upholds their ideas. That is true religious fanaticism.

[Gobblerforge]

I just see nothing to show a higher power and huge amounts ov evidence to show we are evolved and still evolving.

[Grizz]

I just see nothing to show a higher power and huge amounts ov evidence to show we are evolved and still evolving.

I get that a lot. What evidence are you referring to? If you show me yours, I'll show you mine - - -

seriously, what evidence persuades you of your point of view?

[Ray]

The following is a most excellent artistic endeavour by a gentleman who, so-called science says shared 96+% dna sequences (whatever that means) with apes.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lDBNGuODN ... aHltbnM%3D

If thoughts of that comparison don't either make you angry or sad or else chuckle out loud then I don't know what will.....

Likewise, this gentleman can growl in the baritone/bass territory not unlike the way the mythical prehistoric pre-humans were thought to.....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nj08mR8PD ... bGJ1bXM%3D

[Gobblerforge]

Grizz. I am not going to try to explain anything. All the evidence is out there and those that don't have faith use it. I tried for years to believe but every time religion was shown to be wrong the argument got weaker and weaker. Paul takes science facts and claims them for religion with no evidence of a god. That's delusional. I have heard religious folks claim the most ridiculous things without any evidence. It is too easy to say God did it. Science doesn't cherry pick evidence, religion does. Science requires support and testing. Even understanding the word "theory" is a problem here. The bottom line is that there is no god or supreme being. We are the end result of millions and millions of years of nature and the results of evolution benefitting survival.

[Scott Tschirhart]

Grizz. I am not going to try to explain anything. All the evidence is out there and those that don't have faith use it. I tried for years to believe but every time religion was shown to be wrong the argument got weaker and weaker. Paul takes science facts and claims them for religion with no evidence of a god. That's delusional. I have heard religious folks claim the most ridiculous things without any evidence. It is too easy to say God did it. Science doesn't cherry pick evidence, religion does. Science requires support and testing. Even understanding the word "theory" is a problem here. The bottom line is that there is no god or supreme being. We are the end result of millions and millions of years of nature and the results of evolution benefitting survival.

You are certainly entitled to your point of view. I won’t try to dissuade you. But for me and mine, we believe in God. I’m unapologetically a Christ follower, though I have my failures and flaws.

[AmBraCol]

Grizz. I am not going to try to explain anything. All the evidence is out there and those that don't have faith use it. I tried for years to believe but every time religion was shown to be wrong the argument got weaker and weaker. Paul takes science facts and claims them for religion with no evidence of a god. That's delusional. I have heard religious folks claim the most ridiculous things without any evidence. It is too easy to say God did it. Science doesn't cherry pick evidence, religion does. Science requires support and testing. Even understanding the word "theory" is a problem here. The bottom line is that there is no god or supreme being. We are the end result of millions and millions of years of nature and the results of evolution benefitting survival.

Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and Frank Turek are former atheists who took a multi-discipline look at the available evidence - and are no longer atheists. I'm not talking about just one discipline, but rather looking at the evidence in archaeology, geology, zoology, history, etc. When the evidence for a Creator is given the same level of scrutiny as that against a creator, the evidence in favor is overwhelming and the evidence against is negligible. Josh was essentially told "put up or shut up", or rather "prove it via honest analysis of the evidence", and he was unable to take an honest look at the evidence and maintain his former atheistic stance. Lee Strobel and Frank Turek did the same more recently. They weighed the available evidence honestly and changed their point of view.

Delusional is the one who can see the multidiscipline evidence for the existence of a Creator and say "That's not enough. It can't be true." Here are a few of the books available on the subject. All these authors started out as atheists, but HONESTLY considered the evidence and changed their point of view. I realize folks can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, but the spiritual power of changed lives is even further evidence that shows there's more out there than meets the eye. What caused 12 men to change from craven cowards to putting their lives on the line and turning the world upside down with a radically different world view? The undeniable (to those who honestly consider the available evidence) fact that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross and yet rose from the death, confirming His claims and sealing His promises. The evidence is there, for those willing to honestly consider it.

Evidence that Demands a Verdict

The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict

The Case For A Creator

The Case For Christ

Is God Real?

I Don't Have Faith Enough To Be An Atheist

Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case

Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

[Gobblerforge]

Paul, I get it. There was a time in my life when I would have tried to agree with you but it always seemed to boil down to simple faith. I don't have it. Every time the book or someone tried to convince me, it required faith because the facts were not there. I do not wish to change others minds and I wish everyone a happy life. I love these threads and most times when someone makes a god loving statement I don't react. Sometimes I do. Peace.

[Scott Tschirhart]

Faith is an interesting thing.

We have faith in our parents.

We have faith in our spouses.

We have faith in our friends and co-workers.

Sometimes that faith is misplaced and we are disappointed and discouraged.

Faith isn’t easy.

[Grizz]

Grizz. I am not going to try to explain anything. All the evidence is out there and those that don't have faith use it. I tried for years to believe but every time religion was shown to be wrong the argument got weaker and weaker. Paul takes science facts and claims them for religion with no evidence of a god. That's delusional. I have heard religious folks claim the most ridiculous things without any evidence. It is too easy to say God did it. Science doesn't cherry pick evidence, religion does. Science requires support and testing. Even understanding the word "theory" is a problem here. The bottom line is that there is no god or supreme being. We are the end result of millions and millions of years of nature and the results of evolution benefitting survival.

Let's talk about this, OK? I highlighted your point above. With respect, in order for you to know this you would have to be omniscient, an attribute of the very God you deny. In order for omniscience to exist, God must exist.
There is a corollary that we can't prove a negative. But I still want you to persuade me with explainable evidence.

does this make sense?

kind regards
grizz

[Gobblerforge]

Sure. It would have been more correct for me to say that in every attempt for me to see evidence for a god I was not convinced. For me to say there is no god is obvious an opinion and can not be proven. No man can convince me there is one though.

[AmBraCol]

I understand. The pressure from the world around us to believe anything except the existence of a Creator is vast. I think the title of Frank Turek's book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" sums up things nicely, however. People don't realize how much ignorance and faith it takes to believe in atheism. It is promoted as "reason", but ignores or down plays the overwhelming evidence in favor of a Creator. If one really digs into the multiple scientific disciplines the evidence is there. And the "solid underpinnings of atheism" are found to be hollow presuppositions backed by a rejection of the premise of a Creator because of.... (fill in the blank as each person's reasons are different).

Normally I bypass these posts as rarely will anyone be convinced through a random forum post. But I couldn't (or didn't - sometimes I can be quite weak) pass by the idea that "people of faith" have no evidence to back up their belief and "only the purely rational atheist" uses reason. In my experience there is no "purely rational atheist" but rather people who try to hold evidence for the veracity of the existence of a Creator to a different standard than they hold the supposed evidence for the lack thereof.

So, for my part, no ill feelings. And I hope that perhaps this post may give some a bit more information to cogitate on than the average person will usually come by. Not all who believe in the God of the Bible are ignorant chumps. Many of us have examined the evidence and come to the realization that Saul of Tarsus was right when he wrote "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Just as David wrote in the Psalms "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." And modern science properly examined yields the same conclusion.

"Person of faith"? Yes. But not enough faith to be an atheist.

[Grizz]

Sure. It would have been more correct for me to say that in every attempt for me to see evidence for a god I was not convinced. For me to say there is no god is obvious an opinion and can not be proven. No man can convince me there is one though.

Been there, done that. God's Holy Spirit convinced me, when I was running away as fast as I could.

I'm curious if you read fiction? What do you like to read?

And, is there any other body of knowledge or inquiry that you also reject?

[Gobblerforge]

Been there, done that. God's Holy Spirit convinced me, when I was running away as fast as I could.

I'm curious if you read fiction? What do you like to read?

And, is there any other body of knowledge or inquiry that you also reject?
[/quote]

No I don't read fiction. Actually, I don't read for pleasure. All my life I have had a very difficult time retaining anything I read. If I am trying to memorize a part from a harley manual or something I have to read it over and over to put it all in my head. Don't get me wrong. I can read very well and aloud but not retain it. Give me a picture or better yet a video and I got it. As for rejecting a body of knowledge, That's a tough one. I see it more as choosing to follow the trail of evidence over faith.

[Grizz]

Been there, done that. God's Holy Spirit convinced me, when I was running away as fast as I could.

I'm curious if you read fiction? What do you like to read?

And, is there any other body of knowledge or inquiry that you also reject?

No I don't read fiction. Actually, I don't read for pleasure. All my life I have had a very difficult time retaining anything I read. If I am trying to memorize a part from a harley manual or something I have to read it over and over to put it all in my head. Don't get me wrong. I can read very well and aloud but not retain it. Give me a picture or better yet a video and I got it. As for rejecting a body of knowledge, That's a tough one. I see it more as choosing to follow the trail of evidence over faith.
[/quote]
.
.
Thanks very much for responding. I get what you are saying. I use technical manuals for working on trucks and bikes and boat engines, etc. I have difficulty with certain things. Strings of numbers, like a telephone number, i might have to look at 3 times to dial it correctly. I transpose numbers. I have a credit card I have used for 10 years and i still don't recall the numbers correctly. But I built a flathead harley 45 from parts i scrounged from newspaper ads. Engine, frame, forks, tanks, wheels, etc collected until i had a kit bike. And assembled all the pieces with no manual, no internet, nothing but my hands teaching me to do it. I guess i am mechanically inclined.

My question about what you like to read is about reading fiction, the ability to "suspend disbelief" is what makes it possible to see yourself in the scenes and the context of the story. The Winds of War comes to mind, historical fiction based on historical facts lets me "get" to some extent what my family was going through, and what their peers were going through. Something i wouldn't know about otherwise.

The shop manuals are important. I took a detroit 71 series shop manual to a youth group meeting, showed the kids the photos and the step by step instructions and told them that with that book and a few very simple and common tools they could completely disassemble and reassemble that detroit engine.

Then i showed them some generic manuals with lots of pictures and explanations for working on cars, and asked them which manual they would use to work on a Jimmy engine. They agreed that the manual written by the makers of the engine is the one to use.

Then i told them that the Bible is exactly the same thing. The maker of the universe and everything in it gave us the shop manual so that we could know who the maker is, and what he wants us to know. This is the proposition of scripture, that the one who created everything is revealing things we cannot know or understand without this revelation.

This owners manual not only tells us about God, who he is, and what he has done, and what he will do in the future. BUT, it also provides the proof of the evidence so that we can examine what has happened and what will happen as evidence that can be tested. Faith is fact based in exactly the way that the detroit manual is fact based, and can be tested the way any objective proposition can be tested.

This evidence is tested and proved, it is supplied in the book. It is reasonable and understandable. It is given to us because we don't know what we don't know.

I'm glad to 'splain it if you are interested or curious. It's a simple proposition, and not difficult to understand.

i respect your position because i've been there. thanks for listening.

regards,
grizz