How do you explain design without a designer?

Originally posted by Darfius
If you die without accepting Christ you go to hell. But since you know this now, why not accept Him now?

It is amazing how such an obvious mind control tactic has swayed so many. There's a bit of brilliance in the threat of hell -- what better fear to prey on than the fear of the unknown?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
It is amazing how such an obvious mind control tactic has swayed so many. There's a bit of brilliance in the threat of hell -- what better fear to prey on than the fear of the unknown?

All Christians I know accepted Christ out of love, not out of fear. Hell is just an unpleasant fact we accept, not a fear that keeps us in check.

Originally posted by Darfius
I never said God forgave people in hell. I said I wasn't sure if they were burned forever. It is of course a place of torment, but I'm not sure about fire, I think fire is figurative. I think the eternal isolation from God is the torture.

So then are you saying that god does not forgive those people in hell ? (the passage from Luke seems to indicate that)

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
So then are you saying that god does not forgive those people in hell ? (the passage from Luke seems to indicate that)

No, because it is too late for them to seek His forgiveness through the acceptance of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by Darfius
No, because it is too late for them to seek His forgiveness through the acceptance of Jesus Christ.

Then are you say that god will not forgive them because it is too late, or can not forgive them because it is too late ?

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
Then are you say that god will not forgive them because it is too late, or can not forgive them because it is too late ?

Will and can not. He won't because they knew the consequences and He can't because that would not be justice, and that is one of His attributes.

Originally posted by Darfius
Will and can not. He won't because they knew the consequences and He can't because that would not be justice, and that is one of His attributes.

I think Darfius means "Will not and can not".
When one accepts God, one must accept the wholeness of God.
One must accept His Love as well as His Justice.

Originally posted by Darfius
Will and can not. He won't because they knew the consequences and He can't because that would not be justice, and that is one of His attributes.

Come now Darfius , except your bull god EL, and help him hide in the darkness like Moses did.

Originally posted by Darfius
All Christians I know accepted Christ out of love, not out of fear. Hell is just an unpleasant fact we accept, not a fear that keeps us in check.

There is more unpleasantness lying in wait. Tell me, who is it who sends people to hell?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yes, in that case I agree. But not in all cases... In your example you said that it is scientific to presume that you had an ancestor living in the time of Jesus eventhough you have not seen him. Yes this I agree with to be scientific "l ...[text shortened]... is what we observe happening today and in all of recorded history?

Why would it be scientific to conclude that your ancestor living a few million years back was was a baboon if you have not observed baboons "evolvong" into humans at present and in all of recorded history? Why would it not be scientific to conclude that humans have always been humans as that is what we observe happening today and in all of recorded history?

First of all, the TOE does not claim humans evolved from baboons.

Let's look at this scientifically. No one knows where humans came from. All we can do is make educated guesses based on evidence.

At least since Darwin's The Evolution of Species was published, some people have hypothesized that humans evolved from some other animal. The Jews have for a really, really long time have had a different hypothesis: that written in Genesis. Others have had other hypotheses.

Well, what did these hypotheses predict? Some Christians felt the world would end in the year 1000. The Church claimed the Earth was the center of the universe. Christianity predicted animals would not change over time via evolution. Those who felt the TOE was correct predicted that fossils with some features similar to a modern animal but not quite the same would be found, and these fossils could be placed in some sort of logical order of change from one form to another.

Since that time, the predictions of the evolutionists were shown to be correct again and again. Fossils with some similarities to apes and some similarities to humans were found showing a definite trend in progression. This progression corresponded closely with various methods of dating such as looking at the layer of rock the fossils are found in and radioactive dating (which itself corresponds with dating methods like tree ring dating and the studies of atomic physicists).

When scientists learned to analyze DNA, the differences in DNA between humans and chimpanzees and other animals were approximately what one would expect based on the TOE. Differences in the molecules the body uses also mirror these trends.

Time and again, the evidence that came up overwhelmingly supported the TOE's predictions.

Now, it does make sense to assume humans have been pretty much the same for all of recorded history, both becase the records suggest this and because the time span in question is too short for major evolutionary changes. Again, the predictions of the TOE are correct. One can only observe dramatic changes like those from ape to human if the species is carefully observed for millions of years.

The sciences of geology and astronomy agree with the TOE that the age of the universe is at least millions of years based on their own scientifically rigorous analysis.

This is why the TOE is accepted by science.

Originally posted by Darfius
If you die without accepting Christ you go to hell. But since you know this now, why not accept Him now?

We don't know this now. We know you think so, or that you want us to think so. That's all. Why do you think we'll assume you know what you're talking about?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Why would it be scientific to conclude that your ancestor living a few million years back was was a baboon if you have not observed baboons "evolvong" into humans at present and in all of recorded history? Why would it not be sc ...[text shortened]... rigorous analysis.

This is why the TOE is accepted by science.

Let me start with this. Similarity is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation).

It is believed that there is about 97% similarity between the human and the chimp DNA. But it is suggested to be 96%. That sure sounds good, but...

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

Then let me share something with you about fossils and radio active dating...

Arriving at a "date" depends upon a chain of assumptions, each link in the chain being an assumption. The validity of the calculated date can be no stronger than the weakest link (weakest assumption) used in the calculation. What are some of the assumptions made by most Evolutionists in using these systems?


ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists generally assume the material being measured had no original "daughter" element(s) in it, or they assume the amount can be accurately estimated. For example, they may assume that all of the lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium.
PROBLEM: One can almost never know with absolute certainty how much radioactive or daughter substance was present at the start.


ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists have also tended to assume that the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved.
PROBLEM: The age estimate can be thrown off considerably, if the radioactive element or the daughter element is leached in or leached out of the sample. There are evidences that this could be a significant problem. Simple things such as groundwater movement can carry radioactive material or the daughter element into or out of rock. Rocks must be carefully tested to determine what outside factors might have changed their content.


ASSUMPTION: They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant.
PROBLEM: How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet Evolutionists are boldly making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change. If the decay rates have ever been higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly "date" as being old rocks

Originally posted by AThousandYoung

Time and again, the evidence that came up overwhelmingly supported the TOE's predictions.

Wow! That is some claim you make! Would you mind backing up the statement? Nah... don't worry let me let me just use one of af the many examples of "evidence" found to support evolutionary theory. Let's see...

"What is claimed to be one of the most sensational fossil discoveries involving human origins was made by Tim D. White (University of California, Berkeley), Gem Suwa (University of Tokyo), and Berhane Asfaw (Ethiopian Ministry of Culture), Known first as Australopithecus ramidus and later changed to Ardipithecus ramidus, these fossils were found in sedimentary Pliocene deposits at Aramis, Middle Awash, northern Ethiopia between December 1992 and December 1993.

The fossil discovery is made up of associated and isolated adult teeth, a child's mandible fragment, two partial cranial bases, and seven fragments from a left arm. These 17 fragments were found in association with other primate and vertebrate fossils, Radioisotopic dating, geochemical analysis, and biochronological considerations are said to suggest a date of 4.4 million years ago. (In late December 1994 a mandible and partial postcranial skeleton were found of what is thought to be the same type of individual. Details of this discovery have yet to be published.)


Evolutionists have been unstinting in their praise of the discovery of A. ramidus. However, there is reason, to challenge their claims and to suggest that the fossils actually represent a form of pygmy chimpanzee. It is significant that, according to evolutionists, no fossils of chimpanzee have ever been found. Some have suggested that fossil chimpanzees and other primates actually have been found but they were interpreted as human ancestors rather than as fossil primates.

A contrast is seen between the report of A. ramidus in Nature and the reports of this discovery In the popular media. One senses a note of caution in the heading of the Nature article: 'The antiquity and primitive morphology of A. ramidus suggests that it represents a long-sought potential root species for the Hominidae' The popular press has not reflected that caution. Colin Groves (Australian National University) said in The Canberra Times: '. . . the missing link is no longer missing'. Time magazine writes: 'Bones from the Ethiopian desert prove that human ancestors walked the earth 4.4 million years ago' Newsweek states: 'Ramidus confirms once and for all that the common ancestor lived just a little more than 4.4 million years ago.'

Henry Gee, a senior editor of Nature, presents a problem which is both practical and philosophical and which no one else, to my knowledge, has addressed. Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that human evolution is true, when we get close to the branching point of the human line from the chimpanzee line, how can one tell if a particular fossil individual is a true hominid or just a chimpanzee with a bit of genetic variation?

Speaking as an evolutionist, Gee is honest enough to admit that there is a problem in identifying whether A. ramidus is on the human line (a hominid) or on some other line: '... with creatures as primitive as A. ramidus it will be almost impossible to tell the difference.'

Using the discovery of A. ramidus as proof of evolution is a classic illustration of begging the question. A. ramidus does not prove evolution. In fact, one must assume the truth of evolution in order for A. ramidus to have any significance in human ancestry. If evolution is not true, A. ramidus becomes merely a fossilized chimpanzee - which, in, the light of the evidence, is the more logical way to interpret it."

And by the way, would you mind giving me any example of what you belive to be "concrete evidence" for the TOE. I'm certain it will be shaky at best. :-)

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Giving the source that you copied from is very important; you should have done it in the same post you pasted the copied material.

However, this source has zero support for the claim that

[b]Today, most scientists are convinced that life could never have come into being without some form of highly intelligent designer.

Totally unsupporte ...[text shortened]... s are easy to make. For example, I am fifty feet tall. Since I said it, it must be true right?[/b]

Nope, I guess the answer is that he can't back up his claim.
No surprise there then.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Let me start with this. Similarity is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation).

It is believed that there is about 97% similarity between the human and the chimp DNA. But it is suggested to be 96%. That sure sounds good, but...

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? ...[text shortened]... en higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly "date" as being old rocks

Is this your own post this time, or did you plagiarize again?