Creationism vs. science

Give it up, Raithere!

Shes wacko, she will never be convinced because she doesn't have the concept of evidence that we do. Just LET IT BE.
 
Originally posted by Frencheneesz
Give it up, Raithere!

Shes wacko, she will never be convinced because she doesn't have the concept of evidence that we do. Just LET IT BE.

I can understand your anxiety. Because your belief system (EOTS), upon close inspection, is being revealed as misleading and full of holes (to say the least), you seek to defend, first through word juggelery, then violence (of some kind), then ignorance.
It is no different to any of the current dogmatic religous movements.
I regard EOTS a faith, belief, because there is no scientific evidence that supports the fact of humans physically evolving from another species. I can see similarities within certain species, that could cause that belief, therefore giving rise to scientific reasearch, and can understand that, under the right conditions, scientists can produce organic material, but as far as producing life, they are nowhere near, to do this would go a long way in the evolutionists theory.
My question is, why is this being taught as "fact."
I have read the links given to me by Raithere, but cannot see how they show direct proof of EOTS. Maybe he should point them out, because if there was convincing evidence, I would have to alter my stance, and most definately would.

It is a pity to put a stop to this conversation, because there is so much more to go into, plus, we never touched on creation.
Oh well, so be it. :)

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
I confess I am a bit fed up with Creationists who havent bothered to investigate evidence of evolution themselves but instead ask others to serve it on a silver platter or them. If you dont wanna know, fine, but if you want to know, get those books and read them, it'll take you a few months, but it will enlighten you.

So you want to talk creation. Please, what are the arguments for that? There are differnet schools, ranging from literal Genesis, to Intelligent Design and micro evolution. Which do you belong to?

Hans

Edited to compensate for the fact that my keyboard doesnt seem to be where my fingers think it is.
 
I confess I am a bit fed up with Creationists who havent bothered to investigate evidence of evolution themselves but instead ask others to serve it on a silver platter or them.

Welcome to the club, MRC_Hans:D
I joined it some 4 months ago
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Yes, of course I believe in creation, my evidence…………. life comes from life.


But you have no evidence for your beliefs. All the evidence you have is that all present material, biochemical life comes from earlier material, biochemical life. You then take a leap over a tremendous gaping lack of evidence and insist that material, biochemical life comes from some unproven hypothetical thing called spirit. Again, where is your proof... so far, all your evidence indicates is that there should be an unending chain of biological life.

I don’t enjoy it……well, just a bit, but there is no alternative theory other than evolution.

Thank you for admitting it. There is, in fact, no other credible theory than evolution.

Why, as soon as you ask someone for evidence of life coming from non-life, do they point to Stanley Millers experiment?

Because, this experiment resolved an extremely important question. We know what cells are made of but how could these components evolve naturally?

Yeah right! In an interview with Miller, an author by the name of John Horgan reported that after Miller completed his 1953 experiment, he...

I wasn't talking about what Millers quest in life was. I was stating what the specific goal of this specific experiment was. Once again, it was quite successful. What other ideas Miller had and what his opinions were is irrelevant. He could have believed in giant, talking, toads from outer space it wouldn't invalidate the experiment.

Maybe so, but what is “life.”

Life is difficult to define... or at least the more we know the more we find that the division between life and non-life is somewhat gradual. For instance; viruses and prions are not generally considered to be alive, yet they share many of the properties we ascribe to life. Here are some interesting definitions:

http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/wa/HWCDA/file?fileid=157826&flt=CAB

There are thousands of square miles of formations all over the world in which the order of the layers contradicts the theory of evolution

I'm quite sure you're wrong but if you insist why don't you bring up a few specific examples.

Please rephrase the question.

Why do we find Trilobites earlier in the Geologic column than Dinosaurs? Why are certain life forms contained only within certain strata or earlier and then never again? What processed caused this ordering. Please note that the ordering that we take today as evidence of Evolution was quite apparent and confusing to Geologists long before Darwin was ever born. They just didn't know why. So the argument that it was faked in order to support the "lie" of Evolution is rather soundly refuted.

So you posited circularly polarized light as the separating agent.

If you're making a cake and all you have so far is batter in a pan do you throw it out because it isn't a fully finished cake yet? Same thing here.

Subjective experience does not require physical evidence. If I experience something, then why would I need proof.

Read carefully because this is critically important for you to understand: Because you might be wrong, or mistaken, or delusional, or someone might be lying to you or tricking you!

Yes it does.

Then why do you believe in religion? Surely, you know there are a few (cough, cough) religious concepts that have been discredited. Such as the story of Genesis.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Frencheneesz
Give it up, Raithere!

Shes wacko, she will never be convinced because she doesn't have the concept of evidence that we do. Just LET IT BE.


Naw... this is fun.

I always wanted the opportunity to speak to someone from another planet and Jan definetly qualifies.

~Raithere:
 
Hmm, out-of context Gould quotes, no distinction between abiogenesis/E and citing overthrusts and folded strata as evidence the geo column is a fraud. Wait for it. Waaaait for it. Here comes a .... 2nd law of thermodynamics argument. And BTW evolutionists are commies, don't cha know?
 
I'm sure this has already been stated (this is an argument regarding Creationism vs. Evolution):

Creationism makes empirical predictions when combined with widely accepted hypotheses.

These predictions are false.

Therefore, while Creationism is a scientific theory, it is a poor one.

Why teach poor, unjustified scientific theories in school?

Why believe unjustified theories?

I do not believe in a god. Since god exists only as a widely unconfirmed hypothesis based on faith, god does not exist. Or perhaps god existed until I stopped believing in god - a slaying of sorts.
 
I'm sure this has already been stated (this is an argument regarding Creationism vs. Evolution):

intelligence makes empirical facts when combined with widely accepted hypotheses.

These facts are true.

Therefore, while Creationism is a scientific fact, Chance is a poor scientific theory, in fact it's a false claim.

Why teach poor, unjustified proofless scientific theories in school?

Why believe unjustified theories?

I do not believe in atheism and its proofless claim. Since "chance" or "super luck" exists only as a widely unconfirmed hypothesis based on faith and PURE SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEF, god does exist.
 
Muzzleman:

As I have said numerous times before, shut the fuck up!

"I'm sure this has already been stated "

NO, noone has said this because it is complete crap.

"I do not believe in atheism and its proofless claim."

YOUR SOFA KING STUPID!!! Atheism is NOT a claim. Atheism just says there is no evidence of god. MOST of "god's children" will agree with that statement. Never the less, they go on beliving. You on the otherhand delude yourself into thinking "intelligence" is some sort of proof.

I HAVE asked you to tell me why "intelligence must be created by intelligence", as you say, and YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED ME. I think this is becuase you can't think of any good reason why.
 
Jan,

You have been here for many months now and I would have thought you would have learnt some of the basics of science. You don’t appear to have read, or perhaps have been unable to understand, the numerous links that many of us have posted that explains what evolution is and what it is not.

Don’t worry about evolution, it is only a theory, and a poor one at that.
Evolution is fact, it is the processes that cause evolution that are theory. Some of these theories are very well understood and are often used in a factual context, others are still being developed and tested.

Evolution Happens – it cannot be doubted by anyone who properly understands the issues.

Evolution is not anti-religious. The Catholic church and other religious institutions fully endorse evolution since the facts of evolution are unavoidable.

Follow this link to some easy to understand explanations.

http://www.evolutionhappens.net/

You simply appear foolish when you continue ignore these basic truths.

Cris
 
Originally posted by Frencheneesz

I HAVE asked you to tell me why "intelligence must be created by intelligence", as you say, and YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED ME. I think this is becuase you can't think of any good reason why.

I have answered this about a billion times (figure of speech). The proof that intelligence DOES create intelligence is that our intelligence have created lower intlligence such as computer that has its own judgment in a field of playing chess, it is ordered, complex, it responds and reacts. Though such intelligence is LOWER than our intelligence, NEVERTHELESS IT IS STILL INTELLIGENCE now matter how you view it. NOW YOU IN THE OTHER HAND HAVE NO PROOF OF "SUPER DUPER CONTINOUS LUCK" IN OTHER WORDS, WHICH U PREFER TO CALL "RANDOM CHANCE". GOT IT?
 
Originally posted by muscleman
I have answered this about a billion times (figure of speech). The proof that intelligence DOES create intelligence is that our intelligence have created lower intlligence such as computer that has its own judgment in a field of playing chess, it is ordered, complex, it responds and reacts. Though such intelligence is LOWER than our intelligence, NEVERTHELESS IT IS STILL INTELLIGENCE now matter how you view it. NOW YOU IN THE OTHER HAND HAVE NO PROOF OF "SUPER DUPER CONTINOUS LUCK" IN OTHER WORDS, WHICH U PREFER TO CALL "RANDOM CHANCE". GOT IT?

computers don't have intelligence, they have a set of rules on which they determin action
 
it is a FACT that things does evolve, from the human brain, to technologies, to even the church, to plant growth, size, etc. if you call that "evolution" then evoolution is a fact. HOWEVER, things evolve BUT THE CAUSE OF THINGS EVOLVING HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION OF ITS EXISTENCE, PERIOD. SO WHAT IF THE FRESH NEWLY MADE ENGINE OF MY CAR BECAME STAINED, RED, FRAGILE BECAUSE IT EVOLVED IN MANY YEARS BECAUSE OF GRAVITY, WEATHER, ETC. THAT DOESNT MEAN THAT WEATHER AND GRAVITY CREATED MY CAR ENGINE. I DO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION AND CREATION, NOT ONE CONTRADICTS TO ANOTHER, IT ONLY CONTRADICTS WHEN IGNORANT PEOPLE, ATHEIST AND SO CALLED CHRISTIANS ALIKE TAKE THE BOOK OF GENESIS LITERALLY, HAVING ADAM AND EVE AS THE FIRST LITERAL HUMAN SPECIES IN A PHYSICAL SENSE, AND LITERALLY BELIEVING THAT THEY WERE PUNISHED BY GOD BECAUSE THEY ATE APPLE (LOL), WHEN GENESIS IS A VERY SYMBOLIC THEOLOGY. SUCH IGNORANT CHRISTIANS AND ATHEIST ALIKE NEED TO GET THEIR HEAD STRAIGHT, WHATS NEXT? TAKING BOOK OF REVELATION LITERALLY TOO? AS A ROMAN CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN, FROM DAY ONE THE POPE NEVER DISAGREED WITH EVOLUTION, IT IS TAUGHT IN CHRISTIAN COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITIES, AS A TRUE CHRISTIAN U SHOULDNT CONTRADICT FACTS WITH TRUTH (JESUS). BY THE WAY, 99% OF UNIVERSITIES ARE FOUNDED BY CHRISTIANS (HARVARD, PRINCETON, STANFORD, ETC.), AND ALL PRESIDENTS HERE GRAD FROM UNIVERSITIES, LEARNED ALL ABOUT THE BIG BANG AND EVOLUTION AND ARE BELIEVERS OF GOD, THATS A FACT, A HARD FACT. ATHEIST CLAIM THEY ARE SO SMART WHEN THEY GET THEIR EDUCATION FROM US, STUPID. IN A SENSE WE ARE THEIR DADDY.


HAVING FAITH DOESNT MEAN "BELIEVING IN WHAT CANNOT BE PROVEN" YOU IGNORANT KIDS NEED TO GET YUR VOCAB STRAIGHTEN OUT, FAITH SIMPLY MEANS "LOYALTY AND TRUST" EVEN IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND. EVERYONE WHO HAVE NO IDEA HOW COMPUTER WORKS BUT TRUST THAT IT WILL SEND MESSAGES WORLDWIDE DOES PUT FAITH IN COMPUTERS,, BUT IT DOESNT MEAN COOMPUTERS ARE MYTH, IT JUST MEANS YOU HAVE FAITH THAT IT WILL WORK EVEN IF U DONT UNDERSTAND HOW IT WILL WORK.
 
muscleman, you seem to have alot of personal issues deal with it then come back for a normal discussion. Typing in caps is not a fact btw.
 
Muscleman,

I must repeat again that which others have already stated but which you have yet to grasp.

Your claim for intelligence as the creating force of the universe as opposed to chance contains a major flaw.

Your argument is that something as seemingly complex and ordered as life could not arise through chance and must have been created by an intelligence.

But if that is true then you must answer the question of where did the intelligence come from since intelligence is clearly the most ordered and complex thing we can imagine. And by YOUR OWN WORDS something complex cannot arise by chance.

You are then forced to answer that the intelligence was created by a higher intelligence. This in turn requires that an even higher intelligence created that, etc. etc. That becomes an impossible infinite series since there can never be a point at which an originating intelligence could occur and in which case nothing could ever have begun and therefore the universe cannot exist.

The ONLY solution is that at some point there was something that existed in a very simple state from which more complex and ordered entities could combine and arise. It then follows that these very simple fundamental entities must have always existed otherwise the universe could never have come into existence. I.e. the universe must be infinite, (has no beginning) and therefore a creator does not exist.

But life and more complex entities did not arise by chance. Nature is in no way random. (And as stated by Einstein) It works in an orderly fashion, and the ultimate reason for that is rooted in a single atom; electron motions due to fixed opposite magnetic charges of energy.

The attractive and repulsive forces of atoms inevitably result in more complex molecules, which in turn attract or repel other molecules. The inevitable result is apparent complexity. Life had no choice but to appear given the appropriate environment, time, and the completely natural attractive forces of primary elements.

Not only is a supernatural force unnecessary, it is also impossible as an originating influence, since it would require an impossible infinite series of higher intelligences to create it.

Cris
 
Last edited:
Cris, I appreciate such info u sent which contains no lies, unlike Frencheneez and many other atheist.

Chance indeed has no proof and is proven a lie currently speaking, but if intelligence (which is proven) created the world who created such intelligence? in other words "if God created the world who created God?" the most common questions atheist will ask, in fact when I was 6 years old, laying in the bed before falling asleep, I asked that same question, but ill give it to you here and I hope you will cherish this hard facts. Read on...




It’s proven through observation, study and demonstration that intelligence is the cause of detailed biological and technological effect. But how can we find the answer of the cause of God, who is neither biological nor technological, but is Spirit? I know everything on earth requires cause as observed and studied, but nobody ever mentioned “spirit” which is inaccessible, out of what we labeled as law of nature; if this was the case can we even say it requires cause? How so if no observation & study can be done to it? Therefore not one evidence can support the claim that it requires cause.
It was written that God said, “I am who am”, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. God has no beginning and have no ending. Meaning God has no cause, nothing created Him but He always is. But atheist might think the bible is wrong and that God is lying there, for the sake of the argument lets give atheist a chance, lets just pretend that God lied and that something must have created Him for nothing is caused without reason and that God must have intelligent cause for it violates the principle of causality (even though such principle only applies to what we observed and studied such as biology and technology, not the inaccessible “spirit” but for the sake of the argument even if we don’t know, lets just lie and say “Spirit requires cause”). So what created God who is Spirit? Read on to find the answer…
Bob, a computer-engineer scientist engineered a 7-inch artificially intelligent robot, capable of judgment & learning independently. He also engineered a city made out of iron as big as a football stadium. The scientist can see the robot 200 feet above, but it can’t see him for its vision is limited to 20 feet. Years past, all the robot learned is machine stadium & self. The robot was skeptic & said, “Did someone engineered me or was I engineered by Luck (accident, chance, etc.)?” The scientist in hearing these spoke to the robot’s computer chip brain through a walkie-talkie & said “Mr. Bob engineered you my friend”, robot replied, “Well if Bob engineered me, who engineered Bob?” the scientist replied “Bob cannot be engineered. You don’t understand”, the robot then said, “Through my observation & study (science) Bob is either engineered or he doesn’t exist” Bob being aware of robot’s limited intellect said, “Bob is, he is who is. Bob cannot be engineered, Bob’s kingdom is not in your world.”
You see we believe only in existence of the tangible physical world. Through human observation & study, we are able to use the big bang theory, how life evolved, etc. This is human Biological understanding. The Big Bang, atom transformed into a cell, etc. whatever the theory is, that’s our understanding, God is beyond human understanding. We as a tangible physicality cannot relate to the spirit world, therefore we don’t understand God who is Spirit. That’s right you heard me, we cannot understand what we don’t relate to. Even if the creator of the robot revealed himself to the creation, the robot may hear it, but will not be able to relate to it. A robot brought out in the machine world was never exposed to the biological world, despite hearing it the robot will never relate to it, therefore the Robot will never understand it, that goes for the painting as well.
God revealed Himself to us to fit accordingly to our weak and transitory understanding. God is spirit. God is the Word became flesh, through the Word all came to be, & without the word nothing came to be (in other words through intelligence life existed), He is the light of the world, as everything existed through light, He is Word incarnate. Yahweh, Jehovah, Abba, etc. Can we understand God’s existence? Do we understand all this? Do we understand spirit? Were in the world of tangible physicality, we can never relate to Spirit, the existence of God; as a machine can never relate to the biological world.

So who created God the creator?

What kind of answer do u want? Physical products? Electrons protons/neutrons, amino acids, etc? Biological? Remember, God is Spirit- John. Spirit created tangible Physicality, God created the world. Why do u want physical understanding as an answer to the spirit? Should I give worldly understanding as an answer to the creator of the world? How can the worldly products create God who created the product of the world? Alligator caused alligator bite marks. The foot caused footsteps. Engineers caused engineering, atheist caused atheism, designers caused designs, artist caused art, and Life giver caused life...

Can the existence of effect be used to explain the existence of the cause? How can you use the existence of a footprint (a mark on soil) as an explanation of the foot’s existence…nevertheless the body that holds the foot? How can you use a dog bite mark as an explanation of the dog’s creation? How can you use a creation as an explanation for the creator? I can state many analogies (maybe hundreds) that prove it’s impossible to use the creation as an explanation for its creator. For example, the existence and engineering creation of APPLE Mac computer cannot be used to explain the existence and biological creation of Bill Gates. Can you give one analogy that proves a creation can b used to explain its creator? Not at all!

What do I know about the creation of Spirit? Nothing! Is He a carbon monoxide? Hydrogen? These are both products of the world. I know God exist, but I don’t know how He exists.

Final answer is I cannot understand my creator. God may have a cause, but do I know what and how? Who can understand the mystery of God? Perhaps we may never find the answer to that question…Just because something can’t be explained, does it mean it’s a myth? So because u cannot explain what the black hole is, therefore black hole is a myth right? Or because u cannot explain how to cure cancer therefore cancer is a myth? I cannot explain homosexuals, so they r myth right? Is it visual? Because I cannot see oxygen therefore oxygen is a myth? Because I cannot see gas therefore gas is a myth? Because I cannot see gravity therefore gravity is a myth? I cannot see atom therefore atom is a myth? Because I cannot see what’s behind my wall, whatever is behind my wall is a myth? Because I cannot see 23 miles away from my city, therefore whatever is there is a myth? Is it taste & odor? Because I cannot see, feel, taste, smell the odorless tasteless poisonous gas, therefore it’s a myth? Because I cannot taste & smell the date rape drug, therefore it’s a myth? Because I cannot see, feel, taste, or smell your thoughts, therefore thoughts r myth? Because I cannot physically taste, or smell, or see your emotions, therefore emotions are myth? Because I have not seen, tasted, smelled, felt King Henry, Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare, etc. therefore they r myth? So if you’re a dog, color blind, u would think color is a myth, but does the failure of your senses change facts? Is it about your 5 senses? I thought it’s about factual reality? If the 9 yrs old child have no idea how his father came into this world, does it mean his father is a myth? Do u feel me? I cannot explain child molesters, homosexuals, cancers, black hole, etc. & I cannot see or smell & taste atom, King Henry, Gas, Gravity, etc. & I don’t claim to understand God. But I know through solid logic factual evidence they all exist, Period.
My personal belief is that nothing created God for he is the creator and the beginning of all. God is existence and to exist comes from Him. You don’t even know where electrons and atoms come from, why then do you ask where God comes from? Think about it… I may have no scientific proof to believe that God is the truth, but neither does the atheist for claiming He is a liar, most atheist people I encountered lied so many times, because of that I have no reason to put faith and believe in both the immoral lawless atheism and atheists people.
If there is one question left that is yet to be answered, then that will be who’s the true God. Is it the Christian God? Is God a Toothfairy? Is God a former Jupiter residence? Is there more than one god, the Hindu gods? And I am working right now to answer this simple question.
 
Muscleman:

"The proof that intelligence DOES create intelligence is that our intelligence "

I don't doubt that intelligence can create ANYTHING (which includes other intelligence, if you can't figure). BUT the question was not "when does intelligence create intelligence", but it WAS "why MUST intelligence create intelligence" or in other words "Why CAN't intelligence arise from a different way than from intelligence?". So then, my question still stands.

Bachus:
"computers don't have intelligence"
Computers are intelligent, humans are just much more complicated (intelligent as well). Humans have much more capacity for interpretting input, not to mention humans have much more input than a computer has.


Muscleman:

"Cris, I appreciate such info u sent which contains no lies, unlike Frencheneez and many other atheist. "

God damnit, I have said everything Cris has said before. I don't believe in change, But I tried to clarify what others MEAN by "chance". When someone says "chance" or "luck" or "random" it refers to our inability to measure and predict. 1000 years ago, it seemed random what traits humans get from their parents, now we know about how it works, but we still cannot predict it with precision. Therefore, we call it "chance" or "random", because we cannot predict it.
Many people do "believe" in chance, but you'll have to argue with them about that. We could say that it was "by chance" that Cris worded his response in a way that you could understand. Of course no "chance" was involved, but I sure couldn't have predicted it.

"Chance indeed has no proof and is proven a lie currently speaking"

Stop using "lie". That is wrong. A lie means that someone is telling you somthing that they don't believe. A lie implys hypocracy. When most of us talk on this forum, we say what we believe. It may be wrong, but it is in no way some sort of conspiracy against you.

"So who created God the creator? "

I have full appreciation for the fact that you do not know what came before god. Yet, if you think about it, god cannot exist with your idea of life. If intelligence HAS TO be created by other intellignce than there HAS TO be an infinite number of intelligences that created eachother.

In science, we do not know what came before the universe, but we do not use a model that contradicts itself. We do not say that a universe must be created by a universe.
 
Explanation of FAITH

Muscleman,

Please leave your caps lock off. All caps is painful to read and doesn’t add any weight to an argument if it is all caps.

HAVING FAITH DOESNT MEAN "BELIEVING IN WHAT CANNOT BE PROVEN" YOU IGNORANT KIDS NEED TO GET YUR VOCAB STRAIGHTEN OUT, FAITH SIMPLY MEANS "LOYALTY AND TRUST"
Please read your dictionary, or rather a variety of dictionaries. There are numerous definitions for the word ‘faith’. One of which does mean loyalty and trust. But in a religious context it also means belief without evidence or proof.

From Webster –

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions.

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust.

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.

Arguments about FAITH and REASON have been in progress for thousands of years. When debating arguments concerning the basis for religion FAITH always means belief without proof. A believer who is convinced of the existence of a god might also use the term to mean trust and loyalty, but that is a different context. Religionists quite often confuse the distinction between the different usages of the term, much as you have done here.

If there was any proof for the existence of gods or the supernatural then the term faith would be unnecessary, with proof one would KNOW. And you cannot claim to know something without facts. And KNOWlegde is entirely based on facts.

Notice that religions are often referred to as faith based institutions, as opposed to knowledge based. I hope you understand the important difference.

It is impossible for you to KNOW if a god exists since there are no facts.

Cris
 
Originally posted by Frencheneesz
Muscleman:

"The proof that intelligence DOES create intelligence is that our intelligence "

I don't doubt that intelligence can create ANYTHING (which includes other intelligence, if you can't figure). BUT the question was not "when does intelligence create intelligence", but it WAS "why MUST intelligence create intelligence" or in other words "Why CAN't intelligence arise from a different way than from intelligence?". So then, my question still stands.



I have full appreciation for the fact that you do not know what came before god. Yet, if you think about it, god cannot exist with your idea of life. If intelligence HAS TO be created by other intellignce than there HAS TO be an infinite number of intelligences that created eachother.



Intelligence CANNOT arise from "chance" or "luck" because it has no proof and cannot be proven, currently speaking. I only accept claims which can be proven. (U can bring up the heaven, devils, angels, thing if u want and I'll deal with that too). And intelligence is PROVEN by science for its capability, including computer chess intelligence which has its own judgment and reaction in a field of playing chess.

We are talking about the CAPABILITIES of intelligence AND ITS EFFECT on matters AND PROOF of its claim, NOW INTELLIGENCE IS PROVEN, WHETHER ITS CREATED BY INFINITE NUMBERS OF INTELIGENCE OR NOT, NEVERTHELESS IT'S PROVEN. NOW, GOD SAID "I AM WHO AM" MEANING "I AM THE EXISTENCE",I challenge any known scientist in the world or any atheist to explain WHERE ATOMS, ELECTRONS, PROTONS, AND NEUTRONS COME FROM, SINCE THEY HAVE NO ANSWER AND WILL SAY "IT ALWAYS EXISTED" THEN WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH U DEALING WITH GOD WHO IS INFINITE? NOW IF YOU SAY "SO IS THE UNIVERSE" AND SO BE IT, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS THAT NATURE, WITH ITS ORDERED COMPLEXITY CANNOT BE PROVEN TO CAME ABOUT THROUGH "CHANCE" OR "LUCK" WHY? BECAUSE OUR OBSERVATION AND STUDY TELLS US "LUCK" IS ABSURD, MEANWHILE "INTELLIGENCE" IS VERY MUCH EVIDENT IN THE FIELD OF ORDERED AND COMPLEX EXISTENCE, I HOPE U GOT IT? DO U? or are we going to go in circles again?
 
Back
Top