Subject: Explanations
I read some of your articles and I am going to have to respectfully disagree. I noticed on your argument for evolution you, like most evolutions who praise and worship Darwin, started from the time that animals were swimming in the oceans. To make a real and valid argument you need to go to the beginning and start from the BEGINNING, from the FIRST cell. Where did that come from? Did it just pop into the ocean? So far I have yet to see science explain that one.
First, I will say that it seems that you seem to feel that you have a grasp on many science fields. I am not sure of your qualifications but I have done my research myself. I have studied several years of Chemistry as well as working in the chemical industry for approximately 15 years. Also, I have read books by Stephen Hawking and others, I believe Cosmos. I am also very close to the medical field as I have Hydrocephalus and Epilepsy and have 3 aunts that are LVNs so I read a lot of medical books also. You see I do study a lot!
Anyway, you have missed a few critical points. The first is a critical scientific principal and that is that nothing can be created and nothing can be destroyed, it can only change forms. For example, when a star explodes it does not just disappear, its energy is released by the explosion to cool off in space and so on. Things only change.
My explanation, which I know you have heard but I will put a more scientific look on it, is the fact because things CANNOT be created and CANNOT be destroyed only 1 being has the power to defy the laws of this universe and that is God! And to another of your arguments that God could not be in two places at once I say baloney. God is an entity that can move forward and reverse in time and because of this can be in 1,000,000 places at the same time or talk to Moses then talk to me. It is funny to that humans believe that there is nothing beyond us yet we are constantly discovering new things. What are you denying that is there that will be discovered tomorrow or next year or next century? In the 1500's what did they believe existed in science? In the 1600's what did they believe existed in science? In the 1700's what did they believe existed in science? What about the 1800's or the 1900's? Do you believe it will all end there? If you do you are vain.
Well, I am through. I know I did not change your opinion but MAYBE you will think about the approach to science.
Ralph has studied science? Not very well. First, he doesn't realize that the natural laws which constrain events around us now did not also act as constraints on the origin of the universe... because they didn't exist! Second, he doesn't realize that evolution is about the development of life, not the origin of life. Third, and perhaps worse of all, he holds up this "god" as a scientific explanation for life and the universe without either offering scientific evidence in support of it or even presenting his idea as a scientific theory that can be evaluated and tested. He just makes a jumble of assertions about how powerful this god is without even defining what he means.
Hey, Ralph, studying chemistry and a bit of medicine doesn't mean that you know diddly squat about biology or physics. Time to go back to school! Now, you know that you won't see Ralph show up in this site's forum or indeed any forum where he would be confronted with scientists who challenge and question his assertions. He's an armchair creationist, more interested in firing off pot shots via email than in a substantive discussion that might cause him to change his mind about his religion
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
No comments:
Post a Comment