Evolution deniers: How can you scoff at the idea of an uncreated microbe but accept an uncreated intelligence?

Question

Some people still deny evolution - they cannot accept the idea that even the simplest microbe could exist unless it was created... but then with breathtaking illogicality, they argue that something infinitely more amazing - an intelligent entity capable of designing and creating an entire universe - *can* just exist without being created.

How can people hold such bizarre and mutually contradictory ideas?

BTW this is for Jeanne :-)

Jeanne: That was it??? Pathetic! :-)

Answer 1

Holding contradictions close to their hearts is a cornerstone of christianity. They are at best insane and at worst willfully ignorant.

Poor Jeanne - she doesn't understand science or her own religion. A christian who can't even walk their own talk is a pathetic creature indeed. John 11:35 - Jesus wept.

Answer 2

Easy, when you look at the complexities of the universe, the worlds and even a single cell. it is obvious that there had to be a creator. To say the the world evolved from a big bang theory is like saying that the dictionary is the result of an explosion at a printing press.
To say that a creator did not make you and that you evolved from some muck, makes your life no more valuable than the muck you say we came from.
I choose to believe that someone loved me so much as to create me and give me a purpose, see if we are here by accident, then our lives, and loves are accidents and there is no purpose in trying to improve our lives.
To not believe the idea of an uncreated microbe but accept an uncreated intelligence is not contradictory. Ususally when someone asks a question like this they already have a preconceived idea as to the answer they want. But maybe you are open..
I offer you a challenge-------for one week talk to GOD openly, and honestly about this and I'll bet He answers it for you.

Answer 3

I don't exactly deny evolution, but I wanted to point out something because I do believe that God created life just as He said He did. God created the life that man has now broken down to a common microbe. God said, when asked who He was or who Moses should say had sent Him, "I am that I am". Nowhere does God say He was not created. He does say that He has always been. It's not a logical comparison to say that an "evolution denier" is contradictory in belief. God, as the intelligence you refer to is taken on faith. He is that He is. That is the core belief of the Christian and Muslim alike. The common microbe is not uncreated. It is, I believe, created by God. The assertion of the Christian community and many previously uncommited science advocates is that this common thread to life is, in fact, evidence of God. Not all believe that our God is the God that created it; but nearly all see it as the work of a superior being, a God. God, as the entity commonly held as THE creative intelligence, thus created the life-giving microbe. Your questions appears to confuse the two as separate phenomena. They are directly related. There would have been no common microbe were there no God, who IS intelligent design author. In the end, it is by faith in God that we believe as more and more evidence comes to light. My question to you would be; how can you deny God and accept a microbe's evidence without intelligent creation of that microbe? I don't advocate that science and faith form a union; but I do believe that as the evidence points to intelligent design, we accept the possiblity with as much ease as we accept that which does not point to intelligent design. Otherwise, our theories and hypothesis become skewed from the outset... as they had used to do. We have discovered so much more of life's mysteries now we can open our minds to the possibility that there is, in fact, intelligent design.

Answer 4

SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:

(Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method )

1. OBSERVATION -steps of evolution have never been observed (Stebbins )

In the fossil recordwe view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.(Gould )

2. EXPERIMENTATION -The processes would exceed the lifetime of any

human experimenter (Dobzhansky )

3. REPRODUCTION impossible to reproduce in the laboratory. (Dobshansky )

4. FALSIFICATION -cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science. (Ehrlich )



RESEARCH PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:

1. ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )

2. DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )

3. STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton )

4. GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss )

5. DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe ).


(DNA REPAIR: The genome is reproduced very faithfully and there are enzymes

which repair the DNA, where errors have been made or when the DNA is

damaged. - D.H.R. Barton, Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University,

Nobel Prize for Chemistry )


(CHANGE WITHIN GENETIC BOUNDARIES: Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution,

the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as

incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt )


(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change

in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things

are the most complex functioning systems in the universe.Science has now

quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an

animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.The genetic difference between human and

his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a

gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random

changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.

Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 )

Answer 5

Have you noticed that some doctors have the same problem? Notice; They peak into a microscope, and identify thousands of types of single cell life. Yet, with the same microscope, in the same lab, they observe the fertilized human egg, and declare it lifeless...how intelligent is that? And, where's the heart?

Answer 6

That argument did no longer make sense to me. you initiate with the assertion that intelligence has to have been created, then bypass directly to argue that it basically certainly arose with the aid of billions of years of evolution. possibly i'm basically no longer smart adequate to get your logic or this is too early for me to think of approximately it. "Intelligence can in basic terms be the manufactured from an unintelligent organic technique, i.e. evolution" does not even make logical sense no longer to show have a shred of medical information helping it. basically FYI (i understand you will no longer agree besides), in case you instructed me that each and every thing I see around me at one factor did no longer exist and at a single think approximately time it basically popped into existence without explainable beginning place, i does no longer have confidence you (and that i do no longer). a minimum of I honestly have the witness of billions of human beings over hundreds of years that God exists and what I see in the universe is very consistent with my God thought. i honestly do no longer see the comparable consistency in the "as quickly as upon a time nature basically sprung into being with all its order, complexity, and curiously smart layout yet a thoroughly unintelligent reason" fairy tale. have confidence what you like, yet do no longer attempt to declare some better intelligence and information of the universe and check out to tension those extremely illogical arguments on the rest people who % to think of for ourselves.

Answer 7

You got to be kidding me right? You do know that’s junk science don't you? Academia has brainwashed the culture and the empty students into believing man is a primitive creature and the dinosaurs lived ages before him. This is the result of pseudo science and theories of evolution being taught as near fact in schools. If it was proven then it would be called the law of evolution wouldn’t it smart guy?

Answer 8

One is substance that begs an answer, the other is an answer that begs substance.

I choose the easier to believe. The revelation message that doesn't require irrational preconceptions.

Answer 9

They cannot accept the finite existence of consciousness, in a universe composed of matter and energy that exists infinitely.

Answer 10

icarus62 ....
you have the same problem ...
you are saying that someone like einestein or say the designers of computers are uncreated ... these intelligent people are uncreated ....
do you understand .....