Jump to content

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


blackbird

Recommended Posts

What other nation than Israel has existed since about 3,500 years ago, was called by God to occupy the land, was dispersed by the Romans 2,000 years ago to various other countries, maintained their ethnicity, religion, and culture, and returned to their land 1900 years later in 1948 to proclaim the State of Israel in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy?   No other nation.  More evidence of the authenticity of the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

What other nation than Israel has existed since about 3,500 years ago, was called by God to occupy the land, was dispersed by the Romans 2,000 years ago to various other countries, maintained their ethnicity, religion, and culture, and returned to their land 1900 years later in 1948 to proclaim the State of Israel in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy?   No other nation.  More evidence of the authenticity of the Bible.

"God" never gave land to anyone.  Ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2022 at 6:30 PM, blackbird said:

Accusing me of not being honest is a very poor argument.   You know very well I have told you I believe that it took an intelligent designer to create the complex universe we live in.  I gave you many examples of the complexity of it which I believe is evidence of an intelligent designer.  But your argument is that I must provide proof of how a complex part of the universe or a complex life form such as a cell was created by God.  I explained to you God did not tell us how he created the universe.  He only told us he did create it in the book of Genesis.  So there is absolutely nothing dishonest about my saying that.  It is just a simple fact which you refuse to accept as a reasonable belief. 

It is you who demand some kind of scientific proof that God created everything.  All I have is the evidence of the created universe which the Bible points out should be sufficient.  If you don't accept that it is entirely your choice.  You have been taught and cling to the idea that nothing should be accepted unless it fits into some kind of "scientific methodology".  There are things in life that do not fit into the paradigm of mainstream science, things such as good versus evil, love, feelings, and what humans consider as morals.  The question of why the universe even exists or why mankind exists does not fit into any science paradigm.  You cannot fit a lot of things into the science paradigm.  You want to fit how God created everything into some kind of scientific methodology or you reject the claim that God created everything.  That is not how God has chosen to operate.  Belief in creationism is based on faith in the written revelation and a rational belief that a complex result had to have intelligence behind it.

"All I have is the evidence of the created universe which the Bible points out should be sufficient.  If you don't accept that it is entirely your choice."

Thanks.  No.  I do not accept your circular argument and/or "evidence".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/15/2021 at 10:22 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.  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

Complexity of the cell is one out of millions proof that there is a designer to all these. Everything that is billions upon billions of things are so precisely fine-tuned and balanced on knife edge so that this planet which is smaller than the grain of sand in a beach compared to universe to support life.  Can can Darwin define life itself. No scientist has been able to explain what life is and where it comes from. Not to mention the origin of Universe most scientists explain it as a singularity coming out of nothing. In fact they claim everything came out of nothing which in my little 3 pounds brain cannot understand.  Nothing comes out of nothing. They all agree it has a beginning so whatever has a beginning must also have a designer.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Complexity of the cell is one out of millions proof that there is a designer to all these.

Are you assuming design through a guess or do you have knowledge that it was designed?

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

Complexity does not equate to a designer unless proven otherwise. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Winston said:

Are you assuming design through a guess or do you have knowledge that it was designed?

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

Complexity does not equate to a designer unless proven otherwise. 

 

You want to understand all that and a universe the size of 14 billion light years with a hundred billion galaxies in it and each galaxy having a hundred billion stars most larger than our sun in your 3 pounds brain??!!!!!

Even if complexity does not require a designer everything else that exist and is functional does so why mot the universe and planet earth which has been designed to be at the very right distance from the sun, at the very right size, having the very right atmosphere, having the very right moon (and planet Jupiter being at the very size and location to protect earth from comets and asteroids) , having the very right gravitational force to hold its atmosphere and sustain life, having the very right degree of tilt, having the very right magnetic field around it to protect life on it from sun's toxic rays....and I can list a thousand other very right things and that is just for earth which in comparison to the universe is the size of a cell to planet earth.

And never mind the earth or universe do you want me to talk about the very right things about a human body?. The billions of neuro cells or vision cells or the complexities of organs or immune system .or.................

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

You want to understand all that and a universe the size of 14 billion light years with a hundred billion galaxies in it and each galaxy having a hundred billion stars most larger than our sun in your 3 pounds brain??!!!!!

Or just at least an explanation on how an electron is designed and created would be nice? Work our way up from there.

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

ven if complexity does not require a designer everything else that exist and is functional does so

A grain of sand or a snowflake is quite complex but are there examples of how it is designed?

I would say a grain of sand or a snowflake is not designed, we could show that mathematically the shape and surface is directly affected by the physics within our environment.

The Earth is not perfect for anything other than matter, most of the earth is not habitable, only 47% of the Earth is habitable, it’s not perfect for humans at all. 

Could the Earth be slightly different? Yes, could it be majorly different no. But either way it is not evidence of design. It is evidence that the Earth can only be this way, maybe with slight variations.

It is an illusion to look at the Earth from the perspective that it perfectly "fits" the system. Instead the Earth exists in this exact way due to the system, not that the system fits the Earth. The system only allows for the Earth to exist in a specific manner, we would not expect the Earth to exist outside the laws of the system. 

 

Edited by Winston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Winston said:

 we would not expect the Earth to exist outside the laws of the system. 

Exactly.  Who was the intelligent designer who created the laws of the system?

This is the fundamental question that secular humanist scientists have not been able to answer.

Read this article at creation.com

"Quantum leap of faith

by Alexander Williams

World-famous physicist, author and evolutionist Paul Davies has for many years now been producing popular science books that probe beyond the bare facts of cosmology and seek an understanding of what lies behind the marvellous workings of the universe. In his recent book about the origin of life1 he found it necessary to use the word ‘miracle’ to explain it. His miracle however was not that of a sovereign personal Creator, but of a clever universe that somehow is able to do the impossible. In a recent article in New Scientist,2 Davies proposes a new solution to the problem of the origin of life—a quantum computer.

Paul Davies.

He acknowledges at the outset that, despite the continuing claims of Nobel Prize winning evolutionists, the known laws of physics, chemistry and biology do not explain the origin of life. The theory of chemical evolution that stemmed from Miller and Urey’s 1953 production of amino acids from an electric discharge in a mixture of oxygen-free gases ‘did not stand up to scrutiny’. While the Miller-Urey work has shown that ‘amino acids are written into the laws of nature, large and highly specialised molecules such as proteins are certainly not. … Throwing energy at amino acids will not create delicate chain molecules, just as putting dynamite under a pile of bricks won’t make a house’.

He goes on: ‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …’.

In a materialist world (one without any supernatural Creator), the only world that Davies recognises, there are only two possibilities — chance and determinism. Determinism is the idea that there is ‘an in-built bias — even a conspiracy — in nature to create life’. But Davies points out that there is no evidence of such bias in the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. He rules out chance, because the odds against the chance formation of the complex organisation of life ‘are breathtakingly huge’.

He therefore turns his attention to the nature of information. He acknowledges that ‘biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and chemistry … (and it) cannot come into existence spontaneously. … There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.’ So he proposes that ‘there might be some sort of principle that could explain how information can be garnered from the environment and accumulated in macromolecules.’ He considers ‘molecular Darwinism’ as a possible mechanism, the idea that natural selection could occur at the molecular level, but he then dismisses it because natural selection only works on living self-reproducing systems. And he also acknowledges the important point that imperfect molecular machinery would scramble information.

How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …

His vote goes to the recently discovered and little understood realm of quantum computing. A quantum computer can theoretically produce all possible solutions to a problem simultaneously. In practice, it would be ‘exponentially faster than classical systems’ at processing information.

His argument is as follows. ‘The riddle of biogenesis is essentially computational in nature — discovering a very special type of molecular system from among a vast decision tree of chemical alternatives, most branches of which represent biological duds.’ That is, if there were a soup of molecular building blocks that could assemble themselves into macromolecules, a quantum computer could quickly calculate which ones would be biologically useful, and in what role and configuration. He does not say how this might happen, and ends the article at this point.

I wonder if indeed he will pursue the idea. Quantum computing, not even properly achieved yet in practice, would represent the pinnacle of current human technological achievement; to invoke this principle as the driving force behind the origin of life is an implicit admission that it requires intelligence to produce information. This is a conclusion that he is no doubt aware of, but to invoke intelligence to explain the origin of life means facing up to the fact that there is a Creator.

In summary, Davies has not contributed anything new to the origin-of-life debate. Refreshingly, he does acknowledge that chemical evolution provides no explanation at all, a position well established by creationists.3 And he does focus on the primary role of information, but on this subject creationists most decidedly hold the high ground.4 His latest attempt seems to be nothing more than grasping at a straw that might just hold the case together for evolution. It is therefore a tacit acknowledgment that otherwise, the evolutionary cupboard is bare. "

The reality is there is no rational explanation for the creation of the universe and life apart from an intelligent designer or Creator, who we call God.  There never will be because it is one of those things that science cannot explain.  There is no need to ask or demand that an explanation for how God created everything be made because God has not chosen to reveal that to his creatures.  But the obvious complexity of the universe and the fact of it's existence should be enough to convince anyone that God is the Creator.  The Bible tells us in Romans ch1 that the reason many cannot see that or are unwilling to admit God is the Creator is because they are blinded by sin.  We are all born with a sinful, fallen nature and unless God opens our eyes, we cannot see the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Exactly.  Who was the intelligent designer who created the laws of the system?

Again your assuming a designer with no evidence. 

If you demand scientific evidence for the natural creation of the universe, then you must also provide scientific evidence of the creation of the universe by a designer.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence 

Simplified - If you demand scientific evidence for the natural creation of the universe, I demand scientific evidence for the creation of the universe by a designer. 

If you can not agree to the above statement, then I am wasting my time. As soon as the rules of evidence only apply to my position but not yours, then discussion is not an honest discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Winston said:

Again your assuming a designer with no evidence. 

If you demand scientific evidence for the natural creation of the universe, then you must also provide scientific evidence of the creation of the universe by a designer.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence 

Simplified - If you demand scientific evidence for the natural creation of the universe, I demand scientific evidence for the creation of the universe by a designer. 

If you can not agree to the above statement, then I am wasting my time. As soon as the rules of evidence only apply to my position but not yours, then discussion is not an honest discussion.

I have said repeatedly that the miraculous or supernatural acts of God cannot be explained according to scientific "rules of evidence".  I have clearly said this before; therefore there is nothing dishonest about what I said.  The problem is you don't accept the explanation and accuse me of being dishonest.  I have told you what I honestly believe;  so how can that be "dishonest"? 

I remind you what the above article says:

"The reality is there is no rational explanation for the creation of the universe and life apart from an intelligent designer or Creator, who we call God.  There never will be because it is one of those things that science cannot explain. " 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I have said repeatedly that the miraculous or supernatural acts of God cannot be explained according to scientific "rules of evidence". 

1. That is fine, we don't need to use scientific evidence.  But then how does an individual verify that a God exists outside of pure assumptions or guessing

2. The dishonesty comes from expecting scientific evidence for science but not expecting scientific evidence for a God, reread what I wrote.  I never accused you of holding dishonest beliefs, I accused you of making a dishonest discussion, very different things. You can not have a discussion if your expectations of evidence for one position is different than the other position. 

3. "The reality is there is no rational explanation for the creation of the universe"- This is 100% correct, we do not know exactly. That is it, you can not say anything after this statement, unless you have strong verifiable evidence. You don't just get to assume a creator, because we may not have an answer.

4. " life apart from an intelligent designer or Creator, who we call God." - This is a claim of knowledge, meaning it requires evidence to support that claim, where is this verifiable evidence? Again they can not just assuming a creator out of convenience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2022 at 4:16 PM, blackbird said:

I have said repeatedly that the miraculous or supernatural acts of God cannot be explained…

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. - C. Hitchens 

What do you think of that quote?  If it’s fair to say you can assert something without evidence, can’t I just assert something else?  Or simply wave away your assertions?

Edited by TreeBeard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. - C. Hitchens 

What do you think of that quote?  If it’s fair to say you can assert something without evidence, can’t I just assert something else?  Or simply wave away your assertions?

quote 

Hitchens originally described himself as a democratic socialist,[27] and he was a member of various socialist organisations throughout his life, including the International Socialists.[28] Hitchens eventually stopped describing himself as a socialist, but he continued to identify as a Marxist, supporting Marx's materialist conception of history.[29] Hitchens was very critical of aspects of American foreign policy, such as American involvement in war crimes in Vietnam, Chile and East Timor. However, he also supported the United States in the Kosovo War, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War and other military interventions.

Hitchens described himself as an anti-theist, who saw all religions as false, harmful and authoritarian.[30  unquote

- wikipedia

"1  <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2  The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3  They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. {filthy: Heb. stinking} "  Psalm 14:1-3 KJV

Belief in God boils down to faith in something you cannot see.   You believe in gravity which you cannot see.  God is a spirit, not a material part of the universe.  Genesis tells us he created the universe and created man/woman.  This makes sense because the evidence of the creation is all around us.  It is a very complex universe that required an intelligent designer who is God.

Sure, you can assert whatever suits your fancy, but it might not mean anything.  The truth of God is supported by the evidence of the creation. The written revelation, the Bible, further describes God and his working with man and what his specific plans and purpose is.  The Bible further is a record of the supernatural acts of God down through history.  God is a supernatural being and his acts are supernatural, such as the creation of the universe.  One disregards his written revelation at his own peril and eternal destiny.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a little booklet that explains Karl Marx was a Satanist.  Marxism is a Satanic ideology.  It denies the God who created the universe and exalts materialism.  All that matters in Marxism is the material world or materialism.  That is why Lenin, Mao, and other Communists were so easily able to kill around 100 million people in the 20th century to impose their ideology.  So of course the whole thing was Satanic and under the control of Satan.  Marxism is Satanic.  So anyone who claims to be a Marxist should be flagged with a red flag of warning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I have a little booklet that explains Karl Marx was a Satanist.  Marxism is a Satanic ideology.  It denies the God who created the universe and exalts materialism.  All that matters in Marxism is the material world or materialism.  That is why Lenin, Mao, and other Communists were so easily able to kill around 100 million people in the 20th century to impose their ideology.  So of course the whole thing was Satanic and under the control of Satan.  Marxism is Satanic.  So anyone who claims to be a Marxist should be flagged with a red flag of warning.

Can you explain the actual link between Marxism and satanism?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Are you saying that the scientific evidence for gravity and a god are on par?

Blackbird has no idea how one can verify God. Blackbird is merely suggesting that one can either believe in a god or not, it is purely based on the individual's feelings, no scientific evidence or verifiable "spiritual" evidence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Can you explain the actual link between Marxism and satanism?

Well, that might take some extensive work to explain it properly.  I was fortunate to obtain this booklet decades ago.  It was originally copyrighted in 1976 which means it is almost 50 years old.  It is a small booklet called "Was Karl Marx a Satanist?" by Richard Wurmbrand.

But just going by some initial thoughts off the top of my head, I would say Satanism is a cult of following Satan rather than following Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.  The link between Marxism and Satanism is that Marxism is built on the ideology that there is no God that we are accountable to and that Marxism follows a materialistic ideology instead.  Now to understand this you have to understand that Satan is a fallen angel who was at one time Lucifer, a very beautiful angel who ministered to God in heaven in eternity past.  This is described in a couple books of the Old Testament.  Lucifer wanted to become like God and take over.  So he rebelled against God and was kicked out of heaven.  He took a third of the angels with him.  His name became Satan.  If you Google this, you can find more details and the verse in the Bible that describe this.

Marxism and it's direct offspring, Communism, are purely humanist ideologies that reject the God the Bible and embrace materialism and demand that everyone worship the state and it's Communist leaders.  It also exalts, in theory at least, the idea that the collective is supreme and the individual has no rights and no dignity as someone made in the image of God.  In actuality it works out that the people must worship the Communist leaders and obey them no matter what.

Getting back to the book written by Richard Wurmbrand, there is an interesting website describing Pastor Wurmbrand.

quote

Last night, my husband and I watched an incredible movie about the life of Pastor Richard Wurmbrand, a faithful Romanian Christian who spent 14 years in a Romanian Communist prison. The movie was taken from the book “Tortured for Christ” written by Pastor Wurmbrand. He was tortured beyond imagination. Many pastors and priests were tortured for Christ in Romania, after the Russian invasion.

Communism Will NOT Tolerate Christianity

I encourage the reader to watch “Tortured for Christ.” The Remnant of believers in America have not known such horrific cruelty.  But I do believe that if our Constitutional Republic is ever overthrown, and Communism takes its place, then true believers will be subjected to torture and told to renounce their faith in Christ.

The late Reverend Richard Wurmbrand spent 14 years as a prisoner of the Communist government in Romania , where he was persecuted for his faith in Jesus Christ. His experience led him to spend further years researching Karl Marx and the Communist doctrines he developed.

While Communism portrays itself as a noble endeavor for the good of mankind, and claims an Atheistic view, Wurmbrand exposes its true roots, revealing that Karl Marx and the fathers of the modern Communist/Socialist movements were inspired by the powers of darkness.

“Marx & Satan”

From cidibillings,.org

“Was Marx a Satanist?”

This book was written by Richard Wurmbrand, a faithful Romanian Christian who spent eight years in a Communist prison for sharing the Gospel and refusing to deny his Lord. His best known book is Tortured for Christ, his testimony of God’s triumph in the midst of Communist persecution.

First, some background information about the uncompromising faithfulness of Pastor Wurmbrand from Voice of the Martyrs:

“Two months after the Communist ‘People’s Republic of Romania’ was established, Pastor Richard Wurmbrand was arrested. Labeled ‘Prisoner Number 1,’ he was locked in a solitary cell, where he endured horrendous torture at the hands of the brutal secret police. More than eight years later, ‘a doctor masquerading as a Communist Party member discovered Richard alive.’ Released in 1956, he ‘resumed his work with the ‘underground’ churches….He was re-arrested in 1959 through the conspiracy of an associate, and sentenced to 25 years… accused of preaching ideas contrary to Communist doctrine.”

“In 1967, Richard and Sabrina Wurmbrand founded a ministry that would serve the persecuted church. Its name was eventually changed to Voice of the Martyrs. By the mid-1980s, it was reaching out to “80 restricted nations with offices in 30 countries around the world.” His book, Tortured for Christ, became a source of encouragement among the persecuted throughout the Soviet system.”  To read further go to:

Was Karl Marx a SATANIST? – Absolute Truth from the Word of God (grandmageri422.me)

Communism does not tolerate Christianity or freedom of religion.

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Winston said:

Blackbird has no idea how one can verify God. Blackbird is merely suggesting that one can either believe in a god or not, it is purely based on the individual's feelings, no scientific evidence or verifiable "spiritual" evidence.  

“Look at the trees” argument?

Which is why I was confused when @blackbird mentioned gravity.  As if we don’t have scientific evidence that gravity is real?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

“Look at the trees” argument?

Which is why I was confused when @blackbird mentioned gravity.  As if we don’t have scientific evidence that gravity is real?

Maybe the reference to gravity was a poor analogy.  Yes there is evidence that something we call gravity exists.  But we could also say the complexity of the universe and the fact it exists also is strong evidence of the fact of an intelligent designer we call God.  There are countless articles and videos on this topic at creation.com

The link to Richard Wurmbrand also has an audio youtube message.  He also pointed out that a third of the world is under Marxism or Communism, which is likely still true today.  So it is an important subject.

Was Karl Marx a SATANIST? – Absolute Truth from the Word of God (grandmageri422.me)

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Winston said:

Blackbird has no idea how one can verify God. Blackbird is merely suggesting that one can either believe in a god or not, it is purely based on the individual's feelings, no scientific evidence or verifiable "spiritual" evidence.  

The evidence of God is everywhere;  you just don't believe it.  Every effect has to have a cause.  Hence a complex universe had to have a cause who we can call an intelligent designer or God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

“Look at the trees” argument?

Which is why I was confused when @blackbird mentioned gravity.  As if we don’t have scientific evidence that gravity is real?

Exactly. 

Blackbird and I have had several hours of discussion that lead to us conclude there is no evidence. But after a few days, Blackbird will post the same arguments over and over as if nothing happened.   

Please view here for more context. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Communism Will NOT Tolerate Christianity

Do you think communism tolerates Buddhism?

Quote

The link between Marxism and Satanism is that Marxism is built on the ideologythat there is no God that we are accountable to and that Marxismfollows a materialistic ideology instead.

Are there other ideologies that are similarly based?  Maybe secular humanism?  Is that satanic as well?

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.

×
×
  • Create New...