Is this how life emerged from stuff that was anything but alive? (Page 2): Are you saying creation is myth if it involves a religion? The religious believe in creation, atheists...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

That's another fallacy... br br Presuming that b... (show quote)

Are you saying creation is myth if it involves a religion?

The religious believe in creation, atheists believe in evolution, and they are "not at odds"?
Are you kidding?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1 Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.

2 The universe began to exist.

3 Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.

If so, what caused the universe to exist?

Do you believe a Creator (God) exists?

If so, is there only one? Or, are there a number of Creators to choose from?

A number of religions are based on creation stories, and they do have names or titles for their creators, some involve more than one. In a number of these stories, the manner in which creation took place is truly bizarre.
The Hindu, Aborigine, Babylonian and the Chinese creation stories are especially so.

There are only three monotheistic religions, all of which arise from one source. Two of them recognize and worship the same God - Yahweh. The other has a different name for God.

If the universe was created by an infinite, eternal, divine being, there can only be one.

How do I know the Bible is not just mythology?
That the Bible originated in the mind of God makes it not only unique among all books, it is unique among all the treasures on earth. President Abraham Lincoln appropriately referred to the Bible as “the best gift God has given to man.” Indeed it is. It reveals God’s eternal plan of redeeming the fallen human race. Yet even though billions of copies of it have been distributed throughout the world, many continue to question its truth. Is the Bible a book of mythology, or is it the true, inspired Word of God? This question is of the greatest importance to every person, whether they know it or not.

Many religious texts claim to convey a divine message. The Bible, however, stands alone in that God left absolutely no room for doubt as to whether or not this is His written Word. If anyone undertakes an honest effort to examine the facts, he will find the Bible most assuredly has God’s signature all through it. The very same mouth that spoke all of creation into existence also gave us the Bible.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has a historical framework. Its characters are real people living in verifiable locations during historical events. The Bible mentions Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib, Cyrus, Herod, Felix, Pilate, and many other historical figures. Its history coincides with that of many nations, including the Egyptian, Hittite, Persian, Babylonian, and Roman empires. The events of the Bible take place in geographical areas such as Canaan, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and others. All this certifiable detail refutes the idea that the Bible is mere mythology.

Unlike mythology, the Bible has many confirmations in sciences such as biology, geology, astronomy, and archaeology. The field of biblical archaeology has absolutely exploded in the last century and a half, during which time hundreds of thousands of artifacts have been discovered. Just one example: at one time, skeptics used the Bible’s references to the Hittite civilization as “proof” that the Bible was a myth. There was never any such people as the “Hittites,” according to the science of the day. However, in 1876, the first of a series of discoveries was made, and now the existence of the ancient Hittite civilization is well documented. Archaeology continues to bolster the Bible’s historicity. As Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

Unlike mythology, the Bible is written as history. Luke wrote his Gospel as “an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us . . . just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.” Luke claims that he had “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” and so wrote “an orderly account . . . so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (see Luke 1:1-4). Did Luke include miracles in his account? Yes, many of them. But they were miracles verified by eyewitnesses. Two thousand years later, a skeptic might call Luke’s account a “myth,” but the burden of proof rests with the skeptic. The account itself is a carefully investigated historical document.

Unlike mythology, the Bible contains an astounding number of fulfilled prophecies. Myths do not bother with prophecy, but fully one third of the Bible is prophecy. The Bible contains over 1,800 predictions concerning more than 700 separate subjects found in over 8,300 verses. The Old Testament contains more than 300 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ alone, many with amazing specificity. Numerous prophecies have already been fulfilled, and they have come to pass precisely as foretold. The mathematical odds of someone making this number of predictions and having every one of them come to pass are light-years beyond the realm of human possibility. These miraculous prophecies could only be accomplished with the supernatural guidance of Him who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10).

Unlike mythology, the Bible has transformed a countless number of lives. Yet many people allow the views of others—who have never seriously studied the Bible—to shape their own opinions. Each of us needs study it for ourselves. Put it to the test. Live by the Bible’s precepts and experience for yourself the dynamic and transforming power of this amazing Book. Apply its teachings on forgiveness and see how it can mend a broken relationship. Apply its principles of stewardship and watch your financial situation improve. Apply its teaching on faith and feel a calming presence in your heart even as you navigate through a difficult trial in your life. The Bible works. There is a reason Christians in various countries around the world risk their lives daily to expose others to the life-giving truth of this remarkable Book.

Ultimately, many who reject God and His revealed Word do so because of pride. They are so invested in their personal beliefs that they refuse to honestly weigh the evidence. To accept the Bible as true would require them to think seriously about God and their responsibility to Him. To accept the Bible as true might require a change of lifestyle. As Erwin Lutzer stated, “The truth is, few people have an open mind, especially about matters of religion. . . . Thus, perverted doctrines and prejudices are easily perpetuated from one generation to another.”

Millions die every year having bet their eternal souls that the Bible is not true, hoping against hope that it is nothing but a book of mythology, and that God does not exist. It is a risky gamble, and the stakes are very high. We urge everyone to read the Bible with an open mind; let it speak for itself, and may you find that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17).

MYTH: THE BIBLE IS UNRELIABLE AND NOT TO BE TRUSTED
Is the Bible a trustworthy document? Are the Scriptures true as written? Or are they full of myths that may have symbolic value but little if any basis in fact? People have mm been questioning the biblical record almost from its beginnings. Peter, for instance, encountered skepticism as he presented the gospel in the first century His claims about Jesus were nothing but cleverly devised fables, some said—a charge he vehemently denied (2 Pet. 1:16). Today the Bible’s credibility and authority are still attacked. Yet how many of its critics have carefully studied its teaching? How many have even looked at the story of how it came to be written?

A careful reader will recognize that the Bible is not so much a single book as a library of 66 books. It contains a variety of literary genres: history, poetry narrative, exposition, parable, and “apocalyptic” (see Rev. 10:1-10). Its many authors wrote during a period of some two thousand years using three languages—Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Probably all but one were Jews.

Remarkably, the writers tell one unified story:

They offer the same understanding of God throughout. He is one God, Creator, Savior, and Judge. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and eternal. His character is holy, good, loving, and just.

They offer the same understanding of human nature. People are made in God’s image and are capable of great good. Yet they are also sinful and capable of great wickedness. The great need of humanity is to be reconciled to God and to each other.

They offer a common understanding of Jesus Christ. He is the Son of God. He became a real human being in order to show the world the God it could not otherwise perceive. Something deeply significant happened as a result of His death on the Cross, making it possible for God and humanity to be reconciled.

They offer the same hope. God will accomplish His purposes for His creation.

Aside from the internal evidence that Scripture is what it claims to be—the very words of God—is a growing body of external evidence that supports its reliability as a document. For example, scholars have found many contemporary sources that parallel the Scriptural record. For instance, Jesus is mentioned by two Roman writers of the first century, Tacitus (Annals 15.44) and Pliny the Younger (Letters 19.96), as well as by some Jewish writings of that period, including Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3) and the Mishnah, a collection of traditions under compilation in Jesus’ day

Another body of research that proves invaluable for biblical studies is archaeology. Countless discoveries have helped to verify the text of Scripture, most notably the Dead Sea Scrolls. Likewise, digs throughout the Mediterranean have supported biblical references to various places and people and the events of which they were a part thousands of years ago.

The more one examines the evidence, the more one becomes convinced that the Bible is not a cleverly devised tale. It has the ring of authenticity. But in that case, readers ought to pay attention to its message. That is the ultimate issue. As Mark Twain aptly put it, "it is not the things in the Bible that people can’t understand that prove troublesome, but the things they can understand." Even if people are convinced that the Bible is true from cover to cover, will they heed its message?

Why is Christianity unique among all religions?

skyrider

Blade_Runner wrote:

Are you familiar with the Atheist creation story?

The General Theory of Evolution (GTE) is the atheists’ creation story. As with the Bible, it begins with creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing)—and in the atheists’ view there really was nothing (and certainly no God) to act as first cause. The big bang, they say, produced the universe all by itself. Then, billions of years later we’re told, the first life formed spontaneously in some chemical soup and, without any help, evolved into all the plants and animals found on Earth today—including us.

Contrary to impressions given by the media, never before has there been so much evidence challenging this story. Such are the problems secular cosmologists have in trying to make their big bang models work, they end up making desperate appeals to the most unscientific notions imaginable. For example, in December 2014, top cosmologist Lee Smolin published a book suggesting that the only way to solve the big bang’s many scientific problems is to argue that the laws of physics were different in the past. So, when the facts don’t fit their creation story, secular scientists must turn to alternative ‘scientific laws’ drawn from their imaginations.

Similarly, leading origin of life researchers, such as Paul Davies and Stuart Kauffman, readily admit that no observed natural processes can produce life from non-life. Unperturbed, however, they do the same as the secular cosmologists—they take a gigantic leap of blind faith and believe that the required natural processes existed anyway and, for some reason, we just haven’t yet discovered them. Richards Dawkins is adamant that, once first life formed, Darwin’s theory can explain how this could have evolved into people. But why then are leading biologists such as James Shapiro and Stuart Newman quietly looking for alternative theories?

Faith masquerading as science

All this demonstrates a commitment not to science, but to a worldview that excludes God from one’s thinking, i.e. to philosophical naturalism—the doctrine that everything, including the origins of the universe and life, can be explained entirely by natural processes. It’s an ideology which is neither scientific (arising from blind faith rather than observations) nor necessary for scientific progress, as CMI has pointed out many times before. For example, Philip Skell, formerly Professor of Chemistry at Pennsylvania State University, commented:

When the facts don’t fit their creation story, secular scientists must turn to alternative ‘scientific laws’ drawn from their imaginations.

I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

The magnitude of the problems with the GTE are hidden from the general public, with popular science programmes almost always peddling the secular view as fact. At the same time, creation scientists are never given a realistic opportunity to present an alternative view. In universities, even non-creationists who dare to inform students of problems with Darwin’s theory can find themselves out of a job. In UK state-funded schools, Government regulations now prohibit the presentation of Intelligent Design or Creation as views which are supported by evidence.

The antidote—promoting true science

All this makes our youngsters very vulnerable. ‘Scientific’ explanations for the GTE can appear very convincing when only the evidence supporting this view is presented. In Proverbs 18:17, we read, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” How much more so when nobody with contrary evidence is allowed to speak? Evolutionary beliefs are maintained by censorship—and with great effect.

Christians, however, are not without resources to counter this secular onslaught. Our website (creation.com) has over 9,000 articles demonstrating the clear superiority of the biblical worldview over and against that of the secularists. Moreover, month by month more evidence challenging evolutionary beliefs is uncovered and Creation magazine puts this directly into subscribers’ hands, enabling us to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).
by Dominic Statham

Are you familiar with the Atheist creation story? ... (show quote)

This is an excellent post , Blade. Thanks for posting it.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

skyrider wrote:

Actually, for many, the claim that a bolt of lightening caused the "ooze particles" to assemble and replicate
for establishing the beginning of evolving life forms is their belief and their claim. My belief is that even if we were to assume that the particles were there, that there has not been enough time in the existence of the planet for that
to mathematically happen.

But that's not the claim that Blade was making...

Your math is off...

The assumption is that I only occurs in one location... It occurs in millions upon millions.... Lowers the odds significantly...

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Blade_Runner wrote:

Are you saying creation is myth if it involves a r... (show quote)

No... I believe life was created by a higher power...

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

skyrider wrote:

This is an excellent post , Blade. Thanks for posting it.

He has quite a few

rumitoid

Jlw wrote:

I think that you are still primordial ooze

Hmm, maybe.

rumitoid

skyrider wrote:

If the "primordial goo" was left to itse... (show quote)

Intelligent Design also proposes that the eye developed in stages. Huh?

rumitoid

Blade_Runner wrote:

The reason it is a mystery is because life did not crawl out of the primordial ooze.

The notion that complex life forms and consciousness and self-awareness "evolved" out of inanimate matter is utter foolishness.

How do you know? Prove it!

rumitoid

Blade_Runner wrote:

Are you familiar with the Atheist creation story?

The General Theory of Evolution (GTE) is the atheists’ creation story. As with the Bible, it begins with creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing)—and in the atheists’ view there really was nothing (and certainly no God) to act as first cause. The big bang, they say, produced the universe all by itself. Then, billions of years later we’re told, the first life formed spontaneously in some chemical soup and, without any help, evolved into all the plants and animals found on Earth today—including us.

Contrary to impressions given by the media, never before has there been so much evidence challenging this story. Such are the problems secular cosmologists have in trying to make their big bang models work, they end up making desperate appeals to the most unscientific notions imaginable. For example, in December 2014, top cosmologist Lee Smolin published a book suggesting that the only way to solve the big bang’s many scientific problems is to argue that the laws of physics were different in the past. So, when the facts don’t fit their creation story, secular scientists must turn to alternative ‘scientific laws’ drawn from their imaginations.

Similarly, leading origin of life researchers, such as Paul Davies and Stuart Kauffman, readily admit that no observed natural processes can produce life from non-life. Unperturbed, however, they do the same as the secular cosmologists—they take a gigantic leap of blind faith and believe that the required natural processes existed anyway and, for some reason, we just haven’t yet discovered them. Richards Dawkins is adamant that, once first life formed, Darwin’s theory can explain how this could have evolved into people. But why then are leading biologists such as James Shapiro and Stuart Newman quietly looking for alternative theories?

Faith masquerading as science

All this demonstrates a commitment not to science, but to a worldview that excludes God from one’s thinking, i.e. to philosophical naturalism—the doctrine that everything, including the origins of the universe and life, can be explained entirely by natural processes. It’s an ideology which is neither scientific (arising from blind faith rather than observations) nor necessary for scientific progress, as CMI has pointed out many times before. For example, Philip Skell, formerly Professor of Chemistry at Pennsylvania State University, commented:

When the facts don’t fit their creation story, secular scientists must turn to alternative ‘scientific laws’ drawn from their imaginations.

I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

The magnitude of the problems with the GTE are hidden from the general public, with popular science programmes almost always peddling the secular view as fact. At the same time, creation scientists are never given a realistic opportunity to present an alternative view. In universities, even non-creationists who dare to inform students of problems with Darwin’s theory can find themselves out of a job. In UK state-funded schools, Government regulations now prohibit the presentation of Intelligent Design or Creation as views which are supported by evidence.

The antidote—promoting true science

All this makes our youngsters very vulnerable. ‘Scientific’ explanations for the GTE can appear very convincing when only the evidence supporting this view is presented. In Proverbs 18:17, we read, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” How much more so when nobody with contrary evidence is allowed to speak? Evolutionary beliefs are maintained by censorship—and with great effect.

Christians, however, are not without resources to counter this secular onslaught. Our website (creation.com) has over 9,000 articles demonstrating the clear superiority of the biblical worldview over and against that of the secularists. Moreover, month by month more evidence challenging evolutionary beliefs is uncovered and Creation magazine puts this directly into subscribers’ hands, enabling us to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).
by Dominic Statham

Are you familiar with the Atheist creation story? ... (show quote)

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.

rumitoid

Blade_Runner wrote:

"Creationists can't find a single piece of ev... (show quote)

Did you read the article, Blade?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

rumitoid wrote:

Did you read the article, Blade?

No...

rumitoid

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

That's another fallacy... br br Presuming that b... (show quote)

Well articulated.

rumitoid

skyrider wrote:

Actually, for many, the claim that a bolt of lightening caused the "ooze particles" to assemble and replicate
for establishing the beginning of evolving life forms is their belief and their claim. My belief is that even if we were to assume that the particles were there, that there has not been enough time in the existence of the planet for that
to mathematically happen.

Read the article.

skyrider

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

But that's not the claim that Blade was making...

Your math is off...

The assumption is that I only occurs in one location... It occurs in millions upon millions.... Lowers the odds significantly...

Ah Canuk, but from only the precise sequence does life begin. As with any mutational evolvement, changes, invariably degrade the possibility of successful function down to the state of no function at all.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

skyrider wrote:

Ah Canuk, but from only the precise sequence does life begin. As with any mutational evolvement, changes, invariably degrade the possibility of successful function down to the state of no function at all.

Shake a million scramble bags and some of what comes out makes sense...

Shake a billion and some great sayings are created...

Do it every second for a few billion years and it begins to look like a higher power is putting the tiles together as they come out...