Elements and Evolution

[MHlovesKit]

How do you show that the periodic table disproves evolution? How do the elements show God's handiwork? what makes it so that they cant evolve? Need some opinions please...

[nebula]

Hey, MH -

One thing you need ot accept is that you can't "prove" anything to anybody. You can present what you believe is the most compelling evidence, and the other person just won't see it the way you do. I've been through and seen enough of these debates to understand this.

Between you and me, when I took my first chemistry class in high school, and we learned the periodic table, I was completely fascinated by how it was possible to categorize the elements into a chart that organized them so well!

To me, that is a no-brainer . . . "if there is a design, there is a designer."

But I have found that those who do not believe in a Creator/God just don't see it that way.

I bet in a day or two you will see plenty of evidence for this last statement in one or more responding posts.

[nebula]

For some, this "fine tuning" is evidence of design. For others like myself, I don't feel that design is the only possible explanation or even the best explanation.

What would you call "the best explanation"?

[nebula]

Ummm . . . arguing against there being a designer does not answer the question.

I was interested in hearing your explanation for how the "fine tuning" came about. Don't you have one? Please share.

[nebula]

But to address this:

The problem with design as I'm sure you are aware is the concept of infinite regress. If everything that is complex requires a designer, then a designer must have designed the previous designer who must also have had a designer ad infinitum. If we claim that there was a first designer that didn't need to have a designer, this invalidates the claim that everything must have a designer and thus invalidates the whole argument. Even if I were to accept that there was evidence for a creator I don't understand how one then makes the jump from a generic creator to a specific brand of creator.

The counter argument we have is that the God we believe in created the whole "realm" or dimension in which we live in. That being He created the natural laws that scientists have discovered.

So what you have done is argued a principle that exists within our realm and applied it to a being that belongs to another realm which operates under an entirely different set of principles.

Now if you can claim the Big Bang exists even though we don't know it's beginning or what was before it, why can you not believe in a Creator using this as an excuse?

[nebula]

I'm yet to see an explanation that is definative, as I stated already, all the explanations that I am aware of suffer from flaws.

Which brings us back to where we started, of course!

It is possible that it is pure chance,

As possible as it is for there to be a ski slope on Venus, I'm sure.

it is possible that there is some natural force that we are yet unaware of that has forced this fine tuning,

Yeah . . . I call Him God.

it is possible that this is just one of a range of universes each with differing constants and as this is perhaps the only one where life could exist it is the one where life does exist.

You can believe in these "other universes," but you can't believe in another dimension co-existing with ours . . . what we call "the spiritual realm"?

There are more possibilities than just these and I'm sure you can poke holes in all of them, I know none of them satisfy me completely so I won't even defend them.

A lack of a definative explanation doesn't however validate Judeo-Christian creation myths any more than it validates Australian aboriginal dreamtime creation myths.

I never claimed that, really.

I was simply asking you to explain yourself, and in the process explained where I am coming from. I already know I'm not going to prove anything to you.

[nebula]

But to address this:

The counter argument we have is that the God we believe in created the whole "realm" or dimension in which we live in. That being He created the natural laws that scientists have discovered.

So what you have done is argued a principle that exists within our realm and applied it to a being that belongs to another realm which operates under an entirely different set of principles.

And this need to step outside this realm to make the idea work is one of the biggest flaws with the argument. Is it a possibility? Sure. There are many possibilities. But there is no evidence,

In the previous post, you mentioned other dimensions. What if what we call "the spiritual realm" is nothing more than another dimension?

I've seen this in Sci-Fi shows, where it is discovered that there is another dimension that coincides with but is separate from our own.

Is this possibility outside your realm of possibilities?

As for any evidence . . . consider this puzzle. I have read about two experiments done scanninig people's brains with CAT scans while they were engaged in spiritual activities (i.e. praying, worshipping). In both separate tests, the scans revealed regions of the parietal lobes being activated that no one had ever seen activated before. Now why would that be?

To make this even more puzzling . . .

"The parietal lobes can be divided into two functional regions. One involves sensation and perception and the other is concerned with integrating sensory input, primarily with the visual system." (emphasis mine)[url=http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/bparieta.shtml]Source & more info

So if a person is engaged in the activity, why are portions of the Parietal lobes activated? Rather odd, don't you think?

yet proponents of the idea of design don't usually claim that this is just a possible explanation, they claim it to be the only explanation.

Could we consider ourselves Christians if we believed any less?

Now if you can claim the Big Bang exists even though we don't know it's beginning or what was before it, why can you not believe in a Creator using this as an excuse?

The term "Big Bang" has several connotations but for arguments sake lets use it but please understand that I am not specifically advocating all elements of the Big Bang theory.

Now the reason I don't believe in a Creator using this as an excuse or perhaps a tool is simply because I've not seen any evidence to suggest it. I can and do believe it is possible, but for me to believe that it is the only possibility requires evidence.

But this isn't all you are asking me to believe. In addition to believing that their was a Creator you are asking me to believe in a specific version of that Creator for which I'm also yet to see evidence for.

You are asking me to rule out all natural possibilities plus all supernatural possibilities except one based on no evidence. For me, that is too much to ask.

Again, I am not asking you to believe anything.

We are just discussing positions.

My point with the Big Bang though is thus: for the most part you are OK with the Big Bang theory even though it cannot be tested through experimentation, elements of it are unproven and perhaps even unprovable, not all of it makes sense, not all of it can be explained beyond - well, it just is - and the like.

So, why is it a problem when someone like me says I believe in a Creator God even though He cannot be tested through experimentation, elements of Him are unproven or perhaps even unprovable, not all things about Him make sense, not all concerning Him and His existance can be explained beyone - well, He just is - and the like?

[Guest Gottisttot]

To me, that is a no-brainer . . . "if there is a design, there is a designer."

How do you determine what is designed and what isn't?

[Guest]

To me, that is a no-brainer . . . "if there is a design, there is a designer."

How do you determine what is designed and what isn't?

As Science Fails To Address Origins, Purpose Or Destinations

And As Intelligent Design Fails To Point To The Designer

I Just Read The Letters From The Designer

And Believe Him

Determinations

Origins

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,

in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, Genesis 2:1-4

Purpose

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power:

for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

Destinations

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

[Guest Gottisttot]

As Science Fails To Address Origins, Purpose Or Destinations

And As Intelligent Design Fails To Point To The Designer

I Just Read The Letters From The Designer

And Believe Him

How do you know which Designer's letters to read? And since there are so many how do you know which one is the correct one?

Also Science does address origins but it has no place in addressing purpose or destiny. There is no purpose but there doesn't need to be, life is what YOU make it, not god or anyone else.