Jump to content

Strong evidence that everything was created by an intelligent designer: God.


Recommended Posts

There is an interesting article which gives strong evidence why we had to have a Creator God who designed and created everything.  At the time of Darwin's theory of evolution in about 1859, little or nothing was known about one of the most basic life forms, the cell.  All living things are made up of cells.  At that time it was thought to be not much more than a blob and not much thought was given to it.  Since then, science has led to immense discoveries about the living cell and how it operates.  It turns out to be extremely complex.  Embedded in this article are several short video clips of around a minute or so each showing how complex the operations of a cell are and how unlikely such a complex system could just come about by evolution or without a designer.

"Note that this whole system (DNA, RNA and fully functional enzyme machinery) must be present in any living cell. To get enzymes you need RNA, to get RNA you need DNA, to get DNA you need enzymes … get the picture? No one has any idea how such a sophisticated set of nanomachines could have made themselves without intelligent design. This had to be designed by a super-intelligence. This is one characteristic of the Creator of all described in the Bible: omniscient / all knowing."

Created or evolved - creation.com

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2021 at 7:22 PM, blackbird said:

There is an interesting article which gives strong evidence why we had to have a Creator God who designed and created everything.

On the atomic or quantum scale most natural systems are behaviorally simplistic. Atomically the universe operates in a narrow band of stability.   

"This had to be designed by a super-intelligence." - One would require fundamental proof in order to support such an immediate conclusion. 

If design is the intended proof, one would have to supply detailed evidence of specifically how the designer created the design.

As a result, complexity does not equate or automatically fall to a designer conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Winston said:

On the atomic or quantum scale most natural systems are behaviorally simplistic. Atomically the universe operates in a narrow band of stability.   

"This had to be designed by a super-intelligence." - One would require fundamental proof in order to support such an immediate conclusion. 

If design is the intended proof, one would have to supply detailed evidence of specifically how the designer created the design.

As a result, complexity does not equate or automatically fall to a designer conclusion.

It is logical to believe sub atomic particles such as protons, electrons, neutrons, energy and all the physical laws that govern their motion or action could not just have appeared out of empty space by themselves.  It is a matter of reason, logical deduction of the fact that something meaningful like the basic building blocks of the universe don't just appear out of nothing without an intelligent designer or Creator, who we call God.  How God did that we don't know and he hasn't chosen to reveal that to us.  It appears that it was simply a supernatural event.  We are used to having everything that happens explained to us in a logical fashion that we as humans can understand.  But God is not the same as a human being.  He is infinite in power, knowledge, and is a spirit.  So this is not something that can be explained in earthly terms like a chemical reaction or how something is built.  It has to be accept on faith that it was a supernatural event beyond human comprehension.  We should also bear in mind that God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), omni present, and eternal.  In other words he always existed and always will.  He is above and separate from the created universe.  I don't know any other way to describe it.  There is no scientific explanation for how he created the universe.  The sub atomic particles could not have created themselves or designed themselves.  They have no intelligence to be able to do that.  So it is reasonable to believe they were designed by something outside of themselves who we call God.   I know some say who created God.  But that is missing the point that God did not need to be created because he always existed.  We tend to think of things as being finite or having a beginning and an ending.  But that does not apply to God because he always was.

"one would require fundamental proof in order to support such an immediate conclusion".   The fatal flaw in that statement is the fact that we are mere mortals, who were created by an omnipotent Creator or God and God has not chosen to provide a kind of scientific "proof" other than the evidence that exists in the creation before our eyes already.  God owes us nothing and expects us to worship him as the God who created us and provides everything we have including the air we breath.  Therefore when one says they require "proof" of his existence and work, are they not questioning God who created them?  He has already stated in his written revelation, the Bible, that he created everything.  God is not a man and does not need anything from man.  It is man who depends on God for everything.  It is a matter of understanding perspective and our place in the universe or creation.  We are mere specks in a universe, but God ( who is a triune God made of Father, Son and Holy Ghost), has been most gracious in that he created man in his own image.  That is not a physical image, but with certain similarities. 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

  It is a matter of reason, logical deduction of the fact that something meaningful like the basic building blocks of the universe don't just appear out of nothing without an intelligent designer or Creator, 

"one would require fundamental proof in order to support such an immediate conclusion".   The fatal flaw in that statement is the fact that we are mere mortals, who were created by an omnipotent Creator or God and God has not 

"logical deduction of the fact that something meaningful like the basic building blocks of the universe don't just appear out of nothing without an intelligent designer" - Again you would need proof of the designer and how the designer created these basic building blocks, in order to make a solid argument. 

"The fatal flaw in that statement is the fact that we are mere mortals, who were created by an omnipotent Creator or God and God has not chosen to provide a kind of scientific "proof" other than the evidence that exists in the creation before our eyes already" - For the third time you need to provide evidence of creation, specifically the "how". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Winston said:

"logical deduction of the fact that something meaningful like the basic building blocks of the universe don't just appear out of nothing without an intelligent designer" - Again you would need proof of the designer and how the designer created these basic building blocks, in order to make a solid argument. 

"The fatal flaw in that statement is the fact that we are mere mortals, who were created by an omnipotent Creator or God and God has not chosen to provide a kind of scientific "proof" other than the evidence that exists in the creation before our eyes already" - For the third time you need to provide evidence of creation, specifically the "how". 

The "how" of a supernatural event cannot be shown or demonstrated.  The finished product or result of it is evident all around us.   

Perhaps at least admit you don't know the answer and are willing to consider God as the answer.  Then you need to open the King James Bible and read the beginning of Genesis that describes how God created everything.  Nobody on earth can show you "how" God created everything because it was supernatural.  The fact that he did create it is all around us.  

"1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 

3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. {the light from…: Heb. between the light and between the darkness} 5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. {And the evening…: Heb. And the evening was, and the morning was etc.} 

6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. {firmament: Heb. expansion} 7  And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8  And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."  Genesis 1:1-3 KJB

"1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. {substance: or, ground, or, confidence} 2  For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3  Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."  Hebrews 11:1-3 KJB

"6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. "  Hebrews 11:6 KJB

God has chosen the method of faith.  He has given man free will, the evidence of creation, and his written revelation to tell us about himself, what he did, and what he expects of us in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

The "how" of a supernatural event cannot be shown or demonstrated.  The finished product or result of it is evident all around us.   

 

If you can not quantitatively show or demonstrate the creation "how" of the "finished product" you can not state the finished product is a result of that creation. Quantitative analysis or methodology of design is required to prove design. By your understanding, such an event cannot be shown or demonstrated, thus it is not provable and has no reliable evidence.  

"Strong evidence that everything was created by an intelligent designer: God." - this was your title, no evidence is provided. Complexity does not equate to design. Design is not automatically assumed as the answer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Winston said:

If you can not quantitatively show or demonstrate the creation "how" of the "finished product" you can not state the finished product is a result of that creation. Quantitative analysis or methodology of design is required to prove design. By your understanding, such an event cannot be shown or demonstrated, thus it is not provable and has no reliable evidence.  

"Strong evidence that everything was created by an intelligent designer: God." - this was your title, no evidence is provided. Complexity does not equate to design. Design is not automatically assumed as the answer.  

Read this article.  It gives a lot of evidence why the creation view is far more credible than evolution.

Created or evolved - creation.com

One of the discoveries is shown in a 1 minute 10 second video clip.  It is the Kinesin linear motor which is in a cell.  That is something that could never have come about by evolution or random chance processes.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Winston said:

If you can not quantitatively show or demonstrate the creation "how" of the "finished product" you can not state the finished product is a result of that creation. Quantitative analysis or methodology of design is required to prove design. By your understanding, such an event cannot be shown or demonstrated, thus it is not provable and has no reliable evidence.  

"Strong evidence that everything was created by an intelligent designer: God." - this was your title, no evidence is provided. Complexity does not equate to design. Design is not automatically assumed as the answer.  

Quote    

Perhaps in no other area of modern biology is the challenge posed by the extreme complexity and ingenuity of biological adaptations more apparent than in the fascinating new molecular world of the cell … . To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.

Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy … .

It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.13

For natural selection (differential reproduction) to start, there must be at least one self-reproducing entity. But as shown above, the production of even the simplest cell is beyond the reach of undirected chemical reactions. So it’s not surprising that Teaching about Evolution omits any discussion of the origin of life, as can easily be seen from the index. However, this is part of the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (molecules to man),14 and is often called ‘chemical evolution.’ Indeed, the origin of the first self-reproducing system is recognized by many scientists as an unsolved problem for evolution, and thus evidence for a Creator.15 The chemical hurdles that non-living matter must overcome to form life are insurmountable, as shown by many creationist writers.   Unquote

Refuting Evolution chapter 9: Is the design explanation legitimate? - creation.com

This is the problem for proponents of the theory of evolution and why they avoid the question of how life began.  The hurdles to overcome to form life are too great.  The most basic life forms so immensely complex.  Biology scientists are finding out just how immensely complex the basic life forms are.  To think these complex organisms could just happen by random chance processes is really a hurdle they cannot cross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

Read this article.  It gives a lot of evidence why the creation view is far more credible than evolution.

Created or evolved - creation.com

 

It gives no evidence. It suggests that the world is complex, thus creation must be the answer. Which is a conclusion without basis. The article would have to supply detailed evidence of specifically how the designer created the design. Complexity does not equate or automatically fall to a designer conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, blackbird said:

Quote    

Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy … .

 

The quote often cites "random process" as a process for biological development, this indicates a lack of understanding of the biochemical development process.  Understanding of interatomic and intermolecular behavior is required in order to simplify biological systems. A lack of understanding and knowledge of biochemical mechanisms is by no means a reason to present an unfounded conclusion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Winston said:

The quote often cites "random process" as a process for biological development, this indicates a lack of understanding of the biochemical development process.  Understanding of interatomic and intermolecular behavior is required in order to simplify biological systems. A lack of understanding and knowledge of biochemical mechanisms is by no means a reason to present an unfounded conclusion. 

 

Quote

Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new information.8 Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins; God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.

One can observe great variation in a kind, and see the results of natural selection. For instance, dingoes, wolves, and coyotes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the wolf/dog kind.

But no new information was produced—these varieties have resulted from rearrangement, and sorting out, of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with new information that previously did not exist!

Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon.

Can mutations produce new information?

Actually, it is now clear that the answer is no! Dr Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his recent book:

‘In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, [i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution] particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased … But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information.9  unquote

Is there really a God? How would you answer? - creation.com

This is relative because it says that natural selection can not produce new species.  Different kinds of dogs for instance have developed over time by natural selection, but not different kinds of species.  So creationists do believe in natural selection up to the point that different kinds have developed within a particular species.  To develop a new species, new information is required.  Natural selection apparently does not produce new information that would create a new species.  The only way new information exists is by an intelligent designer who placed that information in a species to begin with.  Evolution apparently does not create new information that is necessary to create a new species.  Also it says mutations do not increase information and therefore do not create a new species either.  This really makes the theory of evolution more doubtful.

All this information is demonstrating is one of the problems with the theory of evolution.  By a process of elimination, one must come to the conclusion that life did not evolve from one species to another, but must have been created by an intelligent designer.  Genesis does say "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."  Gen. 1:21 KJV  "after their kind" may refer to species.

"Mutations do not work as a mechanism to fuel the evolutionary process."

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

Quote

Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new information.8 Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins; God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.

 

Complexity does not equate or automatically fall to a designer conclusion.

You have yet to provide evidence to support your claim, keep in mind Blackbird you are the one making an incredible claim that a designer exists, please provide proof of design, detailed evidence of specifically how the designer created the design.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2021 at 7:24 PM, Winston said:

Complexity does not equate or automatically fall to a designer conclusion.

You have yet to provide evidence to support your claim, keep in mind Blackbird you are the one making an incredible claim that a designer exists, please provide proof of design, detailed evidence of specifically how the designer created the design.

 

From seeing your short comments that dismiss out of hand detailed explanations and articles, it seems you do not bother to read what is posted.  Without reading and considering information, how are you able to make a rational judgment?  You always come back with the same one-liner argument that I must provide proof of design.

A simple principle of science and rationality is "In the beginning … what? Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”, but why think that’s true? First, nothing comes into being without a cause, a basic principle of science and rationality.  Everything we see that started to be has some sort of cause. But we also know that the universe itself had a beginning. The laws of thermodynamics powerfully imply that the universe had a beginning. And an infinite regress of secondary causes can’t even exist, because it can be shown mathematically that this would lead to absurdities! But that means the universe itself had a cause. But what could cause the universe? The universe is all of space-time-matter reality, so the cause can’t be bound by those things. And it must be powerful to cause the universe! The simplest solution is an eternal, non-material, uncaused cause. But how to get a temporal effect from an eternal cause? That cause must have freely chosen to create, so it must be a personal cause. So the simplest cause for the universe is a single, powerful, personal, eternal, immaterial, uncaused cause—it sounds a lot like God!"

"Why think God exists? Skeptics often demand that theists need to conclusively prove that God is there before either of us can believe He is there. But just because I may not be able to convince a skeptic that God exists doesn’t mean I cannot know God exists. God can reveal Himself to people in numerous ways, some of which don’t involve arguments."

This article is a philosophical argument for why God exists.  If you read it carefully and actually understand what it says, that might be useful to the debate.  That doesn't mean you have to agree with everything or anything.  But in order to have a useful discussion, one must at least have a certain degree of understanding of the other person's point of view.  If all you can do is claim you must have proof of design or proof that a designer exists and don't understand the view of your opponent, you are losing the debate because the subject is far more complex and involved than that. 

You do not address the points in the information I gave you.  In a formal debate, you would lose a lot of points because you don't address the arguments raised by your opponent.  You are trying to boil it down to a simple phrase which is not how a complex universe or God works.

Arguments for God - creation.com

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

From seeing your short comments that dismiss out of hand detailed explanations and articles, it seems you do not bother to read what is posted.  Without reading and considering information, how are you able to make a rational judgment?  You always come back with the same one-liner argument that I must provide proof of design.

 

I do read what is posted, I have read these articles before. My judgment is based on the sudden jump to a unfounded conclusion. The articles are refuting some scientific claim. This is great, we should always question scientific claims using other quantitative measures. Some of the scientific discoveries could be wrong, but if the science is wrong the only conclusion that can be made is "the scientific conclusion is wrong" nothing more nothing less. 

My issue with the articles and your claim is that science being wrong does not equate to "there must be a god". 

If you want to present an argument that there is a god, you would require proof of a god, specifically how designs are created.

 

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

 First, nothing comes into being without a cause, a basic principle of science and rationality.  Everything we see that started to be has some sort of cause. But we also know that the universe itself had a beginning. The laws of thermodynamics powerfully imply that the universe had a beginning. And an infinite regress of secondary causes can’t even exist, because it can be shown mathematically that this would lead to absurdities! But that means the universe itself had a cause. But what could cause the universe? The universe is all of space-time-matter reality, so the cause can’t be bound by those things. And it must be powerful to cause the universe! The simplest solution is an eternal, non-material, uncaused cause. But how to get a temporal effect from an eternal cause? That cause must have freely chosen to create, so it must be a personal cause. So the simplest cause for the universe is a single, powerful, personal, eternal, immaterial, uncaused cause—it sounds a lot like God!

" First, nothing comes into being without a cause, a basic principle of science and rationality.  Everything we see that started to be has some sort of cause." - I am not sure how you define a cause? 

"That cause must have freely chosen to create, so it must be a personal cause."- Personal, ie a person? How did you discover or conclude with evidence that it is a "personal cause"? What indications did you observe that the universe is some personal cause? 

So the simplest cause for the universe is a single, powerful, personal, eternal, immaterial, uncaused cause—it sounds a lot like God!" -You define this as god, I would define this as a a binary option, either there is matter or there is not matter, in the physics sense. If there is not matter, nothing exists, if there is matter something exists, obviously we have something over nothing. Why? I have no clue, maybe there is zero meaning behind it, it could just be binary. 

 

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

"Why think God exists? Skeptics often demand that theists need to conclusively prove that God is there before either of us can believe He is there. But just because I may not be able to convince a skeptic that God exists doesn’t mean I cannot know God exists. God can reveal Himself to people in numerous ways, some of which don’t involve arguments."

You are most welcome to believe there is a god, but for the scientific community, evidence must be provided to make such a claim. Hence why I ask for quantitative evidence. 

 

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

This article is a philosophical argument for why God exists.  If you read it carefully and actually understand what it says, that might be useful to the debate.  That doesn't mean you have to agree with everything or anything.  But in order to have a useful discussion, one must at least have a certain degree of understanding of the other person's point of view.  If all you can do is claim you must have proof of design or proof that a designer exists and don't understand the view of your opponent, you are losing the debate because the subject is far more complex and involved than that. 

I can go through the article examples, but they are not quantitative evidence. They do not explain how the universe was created. The arguments are based on the assumption there must be a god in order for something (morality) to exist. They would have to provide evidence on the process god used to instill morality, observing the result is not a premise for an argument. For every example, the how has to be answered by evidence, not by assumption.   

The premise of these arguments hinge on the idea of proving A idea wrong means B idea is correct. However, proving idea A wrong does not mean idea B is more correct or absolutely correct, it just means A idea is wrong. Even if one could prove all science to be wrong, this would have zero value to proving there is a god, only that the science is wrong. 

Does god have to provide quantitative evidence in order for existence to be concluded? If not, then I can claim I am god.  

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

You do not address the points in the information I gave you.  In a formal debate, you would lose a lot of points because you don't address the arguments raised by your opponent.  You are trying to boil it down to a simple phrase which is not how a complex universe or God works.

 I responded to your first post. I was pointing out how the "evidence" the world is complex therefore there must be a god, which is absolutely not evidence of a god. I am stating that your first post has an incorrect conclusion, hence we are still stuck on the first post premise. 

If you would rather, provide the best evidence for a god.

"You are trying to boil it down to a simple phrase which is not how a complex universe or God works." - Apparently you know how "god" works, give me an example of something simple god has completed and provide detailed evidence of how this completion took place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2021 at 2:54 PM, Winston said:

 What indications did you observe that the universe is some personal cause? 

The Bible answers that question as to what the personal cause is.

The Bible makes it clear there is only one God.  It also makes it clear that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that God is a triune God or trinity made of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  It also teaches and among Bible believers it is almost universally accepted that God is a personal God and that believers can know him through his Son.  So the Bible teaches in Genesis that God created the universe and created man.  This all means that there is a purpose for why God created man. 

Not believing in God leaves a big problem.  The problem is it leaves a vacuum or no explanation of why we exist or why the universe exists.  Without God behind it, then one must assume that everything is just a cosmic accident.  That provides no explanation for why or how the universe came into existence or where it came from.  The atheistic view also has no answer for the meaning of good and evil and accountability for the evil in the world. 

The Bible teaching of God and man answers the question of the meaning of life and why we are here.  It also teaches us that mankind fell from a good relationship with God when Adam and Eve rebelled against God.  As our first parents, when they rebelled, the relationship with God was broken and man became separated from God and all their descendants thus inherited a corrupt, fallen nature.  So God in his mercy, sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to die on a cross and thereby atone for man's sins.  He made Jesus the Savior for all those who believe in him and accept him as their Savior and believe he died and atoned for their sins.  All of that answers the question of why God created the universe and man.  God created it for his pleasure.  Without God there really is no explanation for anything.  

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2021 at 11:11 PM, blackbird said:

The Bible answers that question

With all due respect,  the Bible answers no questions unless you read it with the presupposition that it is already true. Fictional text(my opinion) written by scribes based on the oral traditions of first century illiterate bronze age fisherman and farmers (scholarly consensus) is nomore reliable then the iliad or huckleberry fin in their ability to provide truth

Please don't get me wrong, I support your right to believe in whatever you may choose to,  but the idea that your faith in a book can answer scientific queries by those outside your faith is laughable,  or do you believe in Allah, Xenu, Brahman or Ahura Mazda as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 1:39 PM, SkyHigh said:

With all due respect,  the Bible answers no questions unless you read it with the presupposition that it is already true. Fictional text(my opinion) written by scribes based on the oral traditions of first century illiterate bronze age fisherman and farmers (scholarly consensus) is nomore reliable then the iliad or huckleberry fin in their ability to provide truth

Please don't get me wrong, I support your right to believe in whatever you may choose to,  but the idea that your faith in a book can answer scientific queries by those outside your faith is laughable,  or do you believe in Allah, Xenu, Brahman or Ahura Mazda as well?

I answered a similar question on the other thread but will repeat it here because it looks unanswered here.

Yes, I am convinced the KJV is 100% accurate and men were inspired by God to write it.  The difference between the Bible and other alleged Holy books of other religions is significant.  Other books like the Quran and the Book of Mormon show they are not from God for a number of reasons.  For one reason those two were each written by one author and the claims in them are not backed up by anything credible.  There is an in-depth article about this at this website:

The Bible vs. other Holy Books | Biblical Science Institute

The authority of the King James Bible and why it should be believed is explained in numerous articles available via a search engine.  Just enter authority of Bible or is the Bible authoritative or Did the Bible come from God and you should find endless articles going into that.  The answer is in the Bible itself, it's nature and information.  When compared with other so-called Holy books from other religions, the comparisons are stark and if one has some knowledge of the Bible, one begins to see how other religion's claims fall short.  One account in the gospels is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.  He was seen after the resurrection by numerous people.  As a result of what they saw and believed, the apostles put their lives on the line and some were martyred.  One doesn't put his life on the line for a lie or falsehood.  This link goes into what is known about how the Apostles died.

Which Of The Apostles Were Martyred? (whatchristianswanttoknow.com)

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 1:39 PM, SkyHigh said:

  but the idea that your faith in a book can answer scientific queries by those outside your faith is laughable.

I never said my faith can answer scientific queries to everyone's satisfaction.  I only try to explain as a layman that even from a scientific point of view, a universe without God as the Creator does not make sense.  I went into that in some depth with the replies addressed to Winston. You will also find a link above to an article on the website creation.com that speaks to the subject in some depth.  There are also thousands of related articles and videos available via creation.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2021 at 4:43 AM, blackbird said:

I never said my faith can answer scientific queries to everyone's satisfaction.  I only try to explain as a layman that even from a scientific point of view, a universe without God as the Creator does not make sense.  I went into that in some depth with the replies addressed to Winston. You will also find a link above to an article on the website creation.com that speaks to the subject in some depth.  There are also thousands of related articles and videos available via creation.com

Funny that you ignored the main premise of my post and yet confirmed what I said at the same time. Unless you presuppose the Bible is true, there is zero truth in it and referencing a site like creation.com that goes against EVERY scientific consensus does nothing but prove this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Funny that you ignored the main premise of my post and yet confirmed what I said at the same time. Unless you presuppose the Bible is true, there is zero truth in it and referencing a site like creation.com that goes against EVERY scientific consensus does nothing but prove this

 

I apologize for not answering your post properly.  The message on this link does really answer why the Bible is true.  It is 41 minutes long but well worth it.  Give it a try and see what you think.

Why Should I Believe the Bible? - Pastor Jeff Schreve - Bing video

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

I apologize for not answering your post properly.  The message on this link does really answer why the Bible is true.  It is 41 minutes long but well worth it.  Give it a try and see what you think.

Why Should I Believe the Bible? - Pastor Jeff Schreve - Bing video

 

I gave it a look but honestly couldn't sit through 40 minutes of presuppositional apologetics,  particularly since I could find examples of the exact same thing from Muslims, Hindus,  Buddhists etc... My point was, and still remains that virtually any world view can be justified if you already believe it and any book that suggests the cosmos are only six thousand years old has no credibility outside those who who choose to deny scientific evidence 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I gave it a look but honestly couldn't sit through 40 minutes of presuppositional apologetics,  particularly since I could find examples of the exact same thing from Muslims, Hindus,  Buddhists etc... My point was, and still remains that virtually any world view can be justified if you already believe it and any book that suggests the cosmos are only six thousand years old has no credibility outside those who who choose to deny scientific evidence 

Well that is entirely your choice not to watch it.  The strongest evidence that the Bible was inspired by God and is true is in the middle or toward the end.  Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists don't have the same thing at all.  Look at this video link:

The Bible vs. other Holy Books | Biblical Science Institute

Once again, for you to understand  this issue you must watch it and understand what it is saying.  The book for Islam is the Quran or Koran.  This was written by one man, who claimed an angel spoke to him.  The video link deals with the Quran and the book of Mormon, another faked Bible.  There is nothing to support any credibility of those books and much against them.  The video explains why. There are many articles, videos, and debates on youtube on the subject.  There are excellent debates between Christian leaders and Islamic leaders on youtube, which you may find enlightening.

The video I gave you, "Why Should I believe the Bible" by Jeff Shreve is still one of the clearest explanations I have seen.  I would urge you to take that in.  Most people likely have never seen an explanation like that or that clear.  So you have a huge advantage in having the opportunity to see that.   It includes an explanation of incredible prophecies written hundreds of years before they came to pass and how they were fulfilled.  That had to be the work of God.  The mathematical chances of the future being told like that and it being fulfilled are next to impossible unless they originated from God. 

The Bible is a collection of 66 books written by 40 different authors over 1,500 years.  Yet it all fits together bringing the message of salvation to mankind.  There is no other book like it and it cannot be classified as just a book.  It did not originate by man.  It is God breathed through man.  I use only the King James Version (1611) because it is the only Bible based on the Received Text.  Modern versions are based on some corrupt manuscripts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

 My point was, and still remains that virtually any world view can be justified if you already believe it and any book that suggests the cosmos are only six thousand years old has no credibility outside those who who choose to deny scientific evidence 

I have answered that at length to Winston on above posts on or around Nov. 18 to 23rd.  With links to the creation.com website article.  There are many scientists who believe in creation rather than evolution for a number of reasons.  Evolution has been debunked in a number of ways.  Creation.com goes into a lot of that.  There are thousands of articles and videos on the subject.  God created the various species of creatures.  There is no evidence that they evolved from one species to another.  For instance a dog did not evolve from a fish.  A bird did not evolve from an animal.  The genetic codes in creatures has to have been placed their by an infinitely powerful designer Creator we call God.  The information in the codes did not evolve.  It is believed by many scientists information cannot create itself.  There are mutations that cause various kinds of animals within a species, but that does not require new information.  For example various kinds of dogs could have developed from an earlier canine. That is not evolution.  It could be a result of mutations and adaptability.  Evolution is just a theory, it is not science.  Science is proven facts and is repeatable by experiment.  Evolution has never been proven and in fact has been debunked by many scientists.  It is just someone's speculation of where everything came from but is full of holes and problems.  That is not science.  It is more of a cult.  As I explained above the basic cell has been found to be extremely complex and required a Creator to create and place the various components with the information and machinery within it for to operate and multiply.  How a cell operates requires complex information systems beyond man's computer systems. There is an article on creation.com that goes into that.

Here is a picture of e-coli's electric apparatus to give an idea of complexity of it.

It comes from an article on the e-coli motor at:

E. Coli’s optimal design electric motors - creation.com

"Did you know that the ‘simple’ bacterium, E. coli, swims through our gut using sophisticated, nanoscale, electric motors? Each of these motors spins a whip-like flagellum at the super-high speed of up to 22,800 revolutions per minute (some bacteria reach 102,000 rpm!1). The spinning flagellum acts as a propeller. E. coli’s motor is about 45 nm (nanometres, billionths of a metre) wide—2,000 could be lined up across the width of a human hair! Evolutionists have called it a “remarkable nanomachine”,2 “a sophisticated rotary motor”,3 and “an example of elegance in molecular engineering.”4"

 

e-colis-electric-motor-and-electrical-system.jpg

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I have answered that at length to Winston on above posts on or around Nov. 18 to 23rd.  With links to the creation.com website article. 

Creation.com assume that because complexity exists there must be a creator, at that creator is biblical, thus god. By that logic, complexity exists, there must have been a creator, I am that creator, thus I am god.  

 

Again I ask, tell me exactly how God changes or places the genetic code in detail? Or at least how God works with micro or nanostructures/molecules/atoms/electrons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Winston said:

 

Creation.com assume that because complexity exists there must be a creator, at that creator is biblical, thus god. By that logic, complexity exists, there must have been a creator, I am that creator, thus I am god.  

 

Again I ask, tell me exactly how God changes or places the genetic code in detail? Or at least how God works with micro or nanostructures/molecules/atoms/electrons.

God doesn't tell us how he placed the genetic code and other information and machinery in a cell.  There are some things we have to assume by reason or logic.  That is, that God created everything by an act of divine (supernatural) power. It is a serious mistake to think God needs to give us an explanation of how he created everything.  After all God is God and we are mere mortal creatures created by God.  He doesn't owe us anything.  It is us who depend on him.  Evolutionists and Creationists hold to two contrary world views and both start with their own assumptions. 

So if you start with the assumption that there is no God, and demand that God's existence be proven by some kind of outward sign or miracle, you are creating an impossible barrier to cross.  That is the evolutionist's or atheist's world view.  The evidence for God is widespread in his creation's beauty and complexity.  Add to that the revelation of his word with the supernatural record of it foretelling future events in history, is pretty strong evidence of his existence.

" 24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."  Genesis 1:24, 25 KJV

Here is a link that examines one aspect of the origin of life.

Origin of life: the polymerization problem - creation.com

" the problem for evolutionists is even worse, because life requires not just any polymers, but highly specified ones.

Since the equilibrium concentration of polymers is so low, their thermodynamic tendency is to break down in water, not to be built up. The long ages postulated by evolutionists simply make the problem worse, because there is more time for water’s destructive effects to occur. High temperatures, as many researchers advocate, would accelerate the breakdown. "  from the article Origin of life: the polymerization problem

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D, F.M., is a very knowledgeable writer on the subject and has a number of book, and many articles.  One book of which is called "By Design".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...