Signature in the cell

[lucaspa]

God's statement (Ge 1:1). God said he created. Believe him (Jn 3:12).

Only God can make something ex nihilo (out of nothing). Learn about making wine and suspending the First Law of Thermodynamics.

The First Law does not have to be suspended. The Laws of Thermodynamics only apply within the universe. They don't apply to getting a universe to begin with.

Now, while I personally believe God created the universe, you don't have the data to say that "only God" can make something ex nihilo. In looking for a cause for the universe, there are 2 possible candidates for making the universe ex nihilo: the laws of the universe and quantum fluctuations.

In the first (also called Logical and Mathematical Necessity) the laws that describe the universe have the power to call the universe into being. In the second, quantum fluctuations are uncaused, and the universe is still, technically, nothing. As it turns out, the net energy of the unverse = 0.

Evolution: Nothing + time + chance = everything.

That is NOT evolution. First, "evolution" refers to biological evolution. That is restricted to the origin of the diversity of living things. Second, science in general does not say "nothing + time + chance = everything. The processes in physics and chemistry are not "chance". Gravity is not chance, it is a purely attractive force. So getting stars and planets is not "chance", but the deterministic result of the action of gravity. Getting elements are also not chance, but depend upon the deterministic processes of physics. Life is not chance, but is due to the deterministic processes of chemistry.

What you have done is make a strawman and then say "it's not real". Of course it is not real. It's a strawman!

Why I reject the theory of evolution:

1. For logical reasons

Those would be?

a. Well-trained scientists do not believe

You can always find a few crackpots who reject any idea. There were phlogiston chemists who went to their grave not "believing" in oxygen combustion. There are flat earthers. So this is not a logical reason.

b. Not founded on observation

c. Wholly unsupported by facts

That is just false. I suggest you go to PubMed and do a search on "evolution". Then start reading articles; they have the observations and "facts". Or you could read Origin of Species. Darwin included lots of observations and facts. Here is one set of observations on part of natural selection: more individuals are born than survive to reproduce:
"With plants there is a vast destruction of seeds, but, from some observations which I have made, it appears that the seedlings suffer most from germinating in ground already thickly stocked with other plants. Seedlings, also, are destroyed in vast numbers by various enemies; for instance, on a piece of ground three feet long and two wide, dug and cleared, and where there could be no choking from other plants, I marked all the seedlings of our native weeds as they came up, and out of 357 no less than 295 were destroyed, chiefly by slugs and insects." Origin of the Species 6th Edition, pg 54

Do you know what the 9th Commandment is? Or do you regularly engage in such self-deception? If so, it's a wonder God can ever get thru to you.

2. Evolutionists do not have answers for:

a. The origin of life

This isn't part of evolution. Darwin made that clear in Origin:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

It appears that you have confused evolution with atheism.

BTW, there are answers for the origin of life. We have seen life arise from non-living chemicals:
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html We can discuss it more if you want.

b. Fixity of the species

They aren't fixed. I have only part of the literature, but I have references to over 100 papers showing the evolution of new species from existing ones both in the lab and in the wild.

c. The fossil record

The fossil record absolutely supports evolution and falsifies creationism. In fact, in the fossil record for us -- H. sapiens -- we have transitional individuals linking us back thru 2 intermediate species to an obvious non-human species A. australopithecus. The fossil record is God shouting "I did it by evolution!"

d. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

There is no question to answer. There is only a misrepresentation of the Second Law by deceiving professional creationists (who actually know better).

e. Certain properties that exist which have nothing to do with "survival of the fittest"

Such as human male nipples? Not a problem for evolution. A problem for hyperselectionists like Dawkins used to be, but then hyperselectionism has been falsified.

[quote]2. Moral reasons

a. People are an accident

b. The depraved have believed ['quote]
Neither of these have anything to do with the accuracy of evolution, but reflect your own personal theological and moral problems.

So what if a particular species -- H. sapiens -- is not an inevitable product of evolution? There are at least 2 ways to go here:
1. Why would God care what the eventual physical form of a sapient species able to communicate with Him was? God isn't physical anyway! So why would He care about a particular physical form? All God has to do is set natural selection in motion and eventually natural selection is going to produce a sapient species capable of understanding God communicating with it.
2. There are at least 2 ways that God can influence evolution to get a particular species and be undetectable by science. So perhaps God did tinker with His creative process to get H. sapiens. Feel better now?

3. Theological reasons

a. No first parents

b. No paradise

c. No fall

c. Atonement collapses

Ah yes, the old creationist argument "Jesus is not needed". Serpentdove, whose sins did Jesus die for? Wasn't it your sins? Didn't Jesus also die for my sins? We sin. And we sin because we sin. Jesus is still needed.

"When a scientists says he believes the Bible--that doesn't give me anymore more faith in the Bible that gives me more faith in the scientist." ~ Adrian Rogers

Notice what Rogers is concerned with here: the Bible. He doesn't care about whether a scientist believes in God, or whether a scientist believes in Jesus, but whether a scientists believes in the Bible. Just what does Rogers worship and what is most important to him: the Bible or God?

Looks to me like Rogers is another one of those false idol worshippers. And you follow him? Right off the cliff of false idol worship? Step back, Serpentdove, before it is too late.

[Stuu]

Actually the only claim you can make that can be substantiated about this is that no one else has given an explanation that you find as equally satisfactory.

I think I can reasonably appeal to the definition of the word explanation.

There is no other explanation in existence.

Stuart

[Lighthouse]

I think I can reasonably appeal to the definition of the word explanation.

There is no other explanation in existence.

Stuart

Liar.

[Stuu]

Liar.

Thank you for your concession.

Although you have a strange way of saying that you don't have an alternative as an explanation.

I'll take "liar" as a term of endearment, coming from you.

Stuart

[Lighthouse]

I'll take "liar" as a term of endearment, coming from you.

You should. If I didn't love you I'd let you live in delusion.

[The Barbarian]

I'll take "liar" as a term of endearment, coming from you.

You should. My first memorable experience with Lighthouse was when he faked a quote on me in the shoutbox. Pastor Kevin berated me for it until he realized Lighthouse just made it up.

[Stuu]

I fully concede the evidence says the earth is only about 5000 years old.

Stripe used to do that to me too!

Stuart

[The Barbarian]

Apparently, their religion doesn't object to lying if it's for a "good cause."