A little wisdom from an old man

We know the answer to my question. There is a single reason, or cause of causes, for all matter and souls in the universe. We also know that single reason for our existence was made of extremely ordered light or energy.
Basically I agree, I don't know if you have it all nailed, but I'm not going argue here.
What we cannot prove is if that reason for our existence, “in whom we live, move, and have our being” was intelligent. But based on all the evidence in our universe complexity is associated with intelligence. Therefore, it is plausible that the single reason for our existence was an intelligent entity, a moral being.

Therefore the cause of all causes in the universe was arguably the one intelligent thing who created or designed all things in existence.
Another thing experience has taught us is not to rely too much on our intuitions when finding out the truth of the universe, that your association of complexity and intelligence seems based on.
 
The selection is the better survival chances of the creature with an advantageous mutation. That's all that's meant by the word. They live longer and so are more likely to reproduce passing on said mutation.

Have you ever observed this occurring? In other words do you have empirical evidence?
 
Basically I agree, I don't know if you have it all nailed, but I'm not going argue here.

Another thing experience has taught us is not to rely too much on our intuitions when finding out the truth of the universe,

that your association of complexity and intelligence seems based on.
the association of complexity and intelligence is not based on intuition but on observed evidence. just observe how as biologic life becomes more complex from unicellular to multicellular humans the intelligence rises in proportion. Therefore, if that remains true then the most complex “body” known to man should also be intelligent. What is more complex than the single ”body” producing the universe we live in? Plausibly, a moral, intelligent being.

For the Christian perspective:
”Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.” (1 cor 12:27)

It is all about perspective. Just as time and space are relative depending upon perspective so is our relation to the absolute Good God dependent upon perspective with regards to his Son. The moral consciousness rising in humans is the rising Son of God. And we will receive our perfect “body” at the beginning of a new heaven and earth.
 
Last edited:
Have you ever observed this occurring? In other words do you have empirical evidence?
This has been observed directly in experiments with fruit flies, where they reach a point of diversity so that one group can no longer breed with another.

However, indirect observation comes from...
  • Anatomy. Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).
  • Molecular biology. DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. …
  • Biogeography. …
  • Fossils. …
  • Direct observation
… and many other scientific areas. This is all based on empirical observation, and they all point to the same conclusion that evolution is real.
 
the association of complexity and intelligence is not based on intuition but on observed evidence. just observe how as biologic life becomes more complex from unicellular to multicellular humans the intelligence rises in proportion. Therefore, if that remains true then the most complex “body” known to man should also be intelligent. What is more complex than the single ”body” producing the universe we live in? Plausibly, a moral, intelligent being.
We just don't know enough for a definite conclusion.

It's also plausible the universe is natural. There was once lots of supernatural explanations for things, such as lightening, but the more we discover the more we find the supernatural replaced by natural explanations. It's never been the other way round.
 
Yes, it's a very basic description. So what?
When you dive deeper and peel back the onion layers...evolutionism can't really be explained.

People, our school children and taught (force fed) this coloring book version and believe it to be proven fact when it hasn't.
 
This has been observed directly in experiments with fruit flies, where they reach a point of diversity so that one group can no longer breed with another.

And did they observe a new and completely different species of fruit fly carry on and reproduce, while the original species went extinct?
 
We just don't know enough for a definite conclusion. It's also plausible the universe is natural.
You are right: you do not know for certain and I cannot prove it. But it is plausible from what we do know. And we know more now than we did two thousand years ago. Which begs the question, How did they know the universe came from a single source of extremely ordered light or energy? Lucky guess? Spiritual insight? You may never know but you can believe. Believe that honor, reason, wisdom, and virtues rise above mere existence. To reason is human’s ultimate purpose in the cosmos. To bring order to existence itself.

”For you are all children of light, children of the day.” (1 thess 5:5)

“Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.“(Eph 5:17)

”“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)
 
Last edited:
When you dive deeper and peel back the onion layers...evolutionism can't really be explained.
Ok, but why are you telling me this, some random non expert on an internet backwater? If you have something here, why aren't you taking it to academia where it would really count? If you can show evolution false, you will get yourself a Nobel prize.
People, our school children and taught (force fed) this coloring book version and believe it to be proven fact when it hasn't.
Of course the basic version isn't going to prove anything, but the body of evidence as a whole does.
 
For example, if a random mutation gives 5% better vision
You prove my point....you made up numbers...5%...simply assuming it made vision better.

You provided no "science" as to what actually needs to happen. Basically you're still coloring.
 
Ok, but why are you telling me this, some random non expert on an internet backwater? If you have something here, why aren't you taking it to academia where it would really count? If you can show evolution false, you will get yourself a Nobel prize.

Oh, I get it....unless I'm a nobel prize winner what I say means nothing.
Of course the basic version isn't going to prove anything, but the body of evidence as a whole does.
Body of evidence? You can't produce the body of evidence...know why? Because you have been fed evo-ism and by faith believe it to be true.
 
You are right: you do not know for certain and I cannot prove it. But it is plausible from what we do know. And we know more now than we did two thousand years ago. Which begs the question, How did they know the universe came from a single source of extremely ordered light or energy? Lucky guess? Spiritual insight? You may never know but you can believe. Believe that honor, reason, wisdom, and virtues rise above mere existence. To reason is human’s ultimate purpose in the cosmos. To bring order to existence itself.
"extremely ordered light or energy"...Whatsisface would say that's the Big bang. But when one really thinks about it how did they fit all the stars in the universe + all the planets and everything else in space into a "singularity" volume the size of plancks constant? Secondly, where did the singularity come from? Did it create itself from complete nothingness?
 
And did they observe a new and completely different species of fruit fly carry on and reproduce, while the original species went extinct?
Not quite, however yes, except the original species didn't go extinct. But that's what would be expected under evolution. There can be divergence into two different species, or one group changes and the other remains the same, but neither group has to go extinct.

Divergence can be caused by geographical distancing. See Darwin's Finches for an example. Found here.

This isn't an example of changing species, but of how geographical differences, therefore immediate environmental differences, can cause divergence to start.
 
The mistake Lewis and Lennox makes then is to think evolution is unguided and totally random. It isn't.

Also, taking their argument to it's logical conclusion, they can't have any reason to trust their thoughts If not trusting thoughts is on the table as a possibility. You can never know if your thoughts are trustworthy or not as atheism could be true and so all thoughts are untrustworthy.
Do you believe natural selection is guided and is not random? Why?
I liked almost all of Lenox's points.
 
Oh, I get it....unless I'm a nobel prize winner what I say means nothing.
No, I didn't say that. You're getting defensive. I said that if you could show evolution wrong then you would get a Nobel prize.
Body of evidence? You can't produce the body of evidence...know why? Because you have been fed evo-ism and by faith believe it to be true.
Have you tried taking your arguments/evidences to an expert in the subject? Wouldn't that be the best thing to do instead of talking to, well, me, who isn't an expert? (There may be people here with far more expertise than me in this subject).
 
"extremely ordered light or energy"...Whatsisface would say that's the Big bang. But when one really thinks about it how did they fit all the stars in the universe + all the planets and everything else in space into a "singularity" volume the size of plancks constant? Secondly, where did the singularity come from? Did it create itself from complete nothingness?
I advise that before we theorize what came before the singularity, let us all agree, theist and atheist alike, that there was a single thing “in the beginning” made of light or energy. Find common ground then work from the beginning rather than what commonly happens: starting 13.7 billion years later from evolution and ignoring what cause of causes (the single thing, the big elephant in the room) —caused evolution to happen.
 
Last edited:
No, I didn't say that. You're getting defensive. I said that if you could show evolution wrong then you would get a Nobel prize.
I have shown YOU where evo-ism is wrong. Time after time....and your best response is...the experts have proven it to be true.

You don't seem to have the ability to defend your faith.

Do you see and understand the complexity of life...a complexity more sophisticated than what a random selected mutation could produce?
Have you tried taking your arguments/evidences to an expert in the subject? Wouldn't that be the best thing to do instead of talking to, well, me, who isn't an expert? (There may be people here with far more expertise than me in this subject).
Yes, been there done that. It does appear that the only reason you believe in evo-ism is because you have benn told it is true...and also need it to deny God.
 
Do you believe natural selection is guided and is not random? Why?
Ok. There are two fundamental elements to evolution, mutation which is random, and natural selection which isn't. An example of natural selection is the colour of polar bear coats. There will be random changes in the genes that give the coat it's colour, but the bears with the best camouflage will have more of a chance to survive and pass on this advantageous gene than those with poor. This part of evolution isn't random.
I liked almost all of Lenox's points.
I think Lennox is a good speaker, but a lot of his points are naïve. His argument about natural random processes can't produce creatures capable of trustworthy reason is wrong from the get go, as evolution isn't random as I've been saying. He should know this, but apparently he doesn't. There are other objections as well.
 
Back
Top