***[Moderator Note] Pahu is no longer a member of Think Atheist.  If you would like to add your thoughts to this thread, that is your prerogative; however, the original poster is not able to respond.[/Moderator Note]***

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:


1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.


Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.


The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.


[color=blue][i]“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes”[/color][/i] [[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]


Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.


Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.


The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.


If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, [i]“Evidence that Demands a Verdict”[/i] by Josh McDowell.


[[url=http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000005147#] From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” [/url]]


Views: 5725

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

They just 'redefine' the term 'God' to mean 'An uncaused cause' 


Yeah , we all understand that to be an absurd argument , but they don't ... 

No need to address that if causality as we know it was created.

"The the things that are were created from that which does not appear" (sic)

Number 4 is where you fail.  Please provide evidence of this statement.  Thanks.  


Oh and I would quibble about point 3 as well ... please define 'Universe' and while you're at it , please define 'began to exist' and 'existence' 


Also please define 'Nothing'.  


Even after doing all that ...  please erase your further points and include a 'we don't know , so instead of using God of the Gaps , let's continue researching and not jumping to ridiculous conclusions' for point 5. Then just end at point 5 and go live your life because the rest of your points are quite irrational.  





Numbers 3 and 4 can not be proven. I'm sure you know that a lack of an answer does not automatically make your assumption correct.
Do you have any questions, Pahu ?
Do you have any questions, Pahu ?
  1. ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
  2. DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
  3. HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
  4. VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
  5. ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
  6. PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
  7. DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
  8. MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
  9. HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

10.     EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

and where did you copy and paste this from? at least have the decency to NOT plagerize!!



11.  Why do creationists almost invariably parade the fact that they do not understand evolution well enough to criticize it competently?  That is, your massive ignorance about evolution is not evidence for Creation.


12.  Why do creationists almost invariably repeat creationist lies and misinformation without showing any indication of having made the slightest effort to check these things for themselves? 

Why is it Creationists always live in the 70s? Miller Urey was the 1st attempt at creating early earth. NOT the last and certainly NOT the best. 


Why not look at the work doen by John Sutherland more recently where RNA was synthesized in a lab by not only creating a early earth atmosphere, but also allowing for evaporation and rain fall. Creating clusters of RNA molecules called Rhibonucleotides.




As for the faked Embryo drawings, this is technically not true. Only slightly exaggerated but still VERY similar. Not that I believe you actually would, but this is a video showing a talk by a Biologist who specializes in developmental biology.




The rest are ridiculous and deserve no response.

I think this guy got these questions from the book The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel and or Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells and Jody F. Sjogren. In that case, you can find rebuttals of the books here:









Why have you changed the topic to this without addressing the responses to your main post?



As stated elsewhere....that experiment is not the only one of its kind...the experiment is probably repeated everytime the details of early earth become clearer.



Don't know. Perhaps someone with a biology degree can explain this?



I fail to see the circularity of this. Please restate your question to make it clearer what/where the circularity it.



Again, don't know. Biology degree person, kgo answer this.



You do realise that fossils are really quite rare? I suspect that these ancestors you speak of did exist and just weren't fossilised. Having not actually studied this creature, I do not know which birds, if any, are descended from it and I suspect you don't either.



Good question. Which biologists know that the photos are staged? If they have published, peer reviewed work documenting this then the question has validity.



What do you mean by "no net evolution occurred"? During the drought, the finches beak shape was a selection pressure. A certain beak shape was selected more often than other beak shapes. After the drought, the old style beak was more beneficial than the new one and so they eventually changed back. I would say that plenty of evolution occurred, the finches adapted to their environment, and then when the environment changed, they adapted back the other way.



The answer lies in your question. The new wings came from a random mutation... in the wild, the mutants would not reach breeding age and the mutation would not be passed on to the next generation. In the lab, we can hand feed the mutant and keep it alive... i.e. it's inability to fly is no longer a selection pressure.



Artists drawings are not used to justify any claims. Artists drawings are there to assist in understanding the scientific theories which are trying to be conveyed to the audience.

I don't know what idiotic fossil "experts" you have been talking to, but I have NEVER heard an argument saying that experts don't agree on our ancestors. I suspect you have been drinking the kool-aid from the creationists.



What claims are based on misrepresentations of which facts? Give at least one example and don't link to another web site to do it... I took the time to type out my own words, I expect the same of you.

Another deluded theist arrives with the assumption that his arguments are actually evidence. Deja Vu. I am tempted to take you up on the bad science in the post but that would be a waste of time.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service