Skip to content

What good is a One-Eyed Dino?

If evolution was really true, we would have dug up fossils of all sorts of ancient animals who would have started out with only 1 eye, and then later mutated themselves a 2nd eye! We would find fossils of 1-eyed T-rexes, 1-eyed giant beavers, 1-eyed giant kangaroos, etc. — but we don’t! Bilateral organs, like eyes prove that evolution is a LIE — because if mutation and evolution were really true, then it only makes sense that any given life form would just mutate only 1 of any given organ, like an eye at first, and then later it would mutate the 2nd one! The Cy Kitty is just a reminder that mutating any organ, in any way, is going to be harmful to the life of the animal, yet evolutionists rely upon literally millions of mutations to have formed all life — and it’s impossible!

John Adolfi


  1. JoeP on April 9, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    A few things are wrong with your logic:
    1. Bilateral symmetry evolved long before life came out of the oceans, and so did eyes. Fish and their predecessors were the first ones to ‘pioneer’ this new path, and so if there are any fossils then they would not be in dinosaurs.
    2. The possibility of any given animal being fossilized is very, very remote. It has been said that the fossil record is incomplete, but that is an understatement. Fossils are extremely hard to make and thus the few that have occurred are not all going to be overflowing with mutations and rare types of animals. Even getting fossils of a dinosaur that lived for a million years is difficult, and there are many such species that have never been found.
    3. Part of the reason that most mutations are harmful is that DNA is so complex that most changes result in a problem created, not a problem solved Some schools of thought argue that evolution occurs only in times of stress, and thus any mutations we find nowadays are going to be negative. Especially in humans, the coding is so complex and interrelated that it is impossible to say how one change can affect the organism. However, I would like to point out a modern example of evolution:
    It has also been argued that the sickle cell trait in humans is a beneficial genetic mutation. It does cause health problems, but that is offset by the protection it bestows against malaria. This trait is widespread in Africa, where there is also a high incidence of malaria.

  2. Kurtopoly on April 9, 2006 at 5:54 pm

    I agree that a common ancestor in the chordata phylum could not have developed two eyes then evolved or mutated, because that would be as impossible as creatonism.

    Why do starfish have millions of photo sensitve receptors on their skin under this line of thought?

  3. hecubus on April 9, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    What about Opabinia? That guy had 5 eyes.

  4. T Ludovic on April 10, 2006 at 1:42 am

    Hmmm… I must say that what was written concerning a paucity of one-eyed dinosaurs as proof against evolution is disturbing. Perhaps the fact that the arsehead who wrote it can still pass his genes on might be an argument against selective forces, though.

    Darwin had several friends in the clergy that approved of his work. Surely it is reasonable that, after the creation, organisms were ‘bestowed’ with this ability to modify over time by their benevolent overlord? In a world of constant change (eg volcanos, fluctuating oxygen and temperature distributions etc), would it not make sense to give them this ability?

    I don’t see how the ideas of evolution and creation by a benevolent god are always read as mutually exclusive.

    One last thing concerning the ‘proof’ fossils give us. If we didn’t evolve, we must have been around for the whole time animals have been on Earth, with Adam and Eve at the start, right? In that case, why are there no humans in the fossil record until the last million years or so? Why are there such very few modern animals in the fossil record 100 million years ago?

    A last point. With all modern humans coming from Adam and Eve, and with mutations being ONLY ‘negative’, why haven’t we all descended to slovenly apes after millenia of constant inbreeding? Now THAT would be fun to see.

  5. JimSDA on April 10, 2006 at 7:29 pm

    I posted my comment about 1-eyes mutating into 2-eyes to make you guys really THINK about the entire evolutionary process!

    You all need to go back to the very beginning of how you envision Life beginning, and then really think seriously of how each and every single little step must be created and incorporated into the “thing” that is becoming a living Life Form — and Creationists have been pointing out for years now that each and every one of these “evolutionary steps” is DEATH to the organism, and IMPOSSIBLE to happen! A half-formed organ is NOTHING to a Life Form, and then there would be the need of “more time” for the rest of the Life Form’s body to adapt to the newly developing organ that is “mutating” by “blind chance” …

    OOPS! The Life Form just DIED!


    Life is COMPLEX, and there is no way that a pond of slime zapped by lightning is going to organize protein molecules or link the 50-400 required amino acids or form DNA proteins, nor will “mutations” of chemicals self-organize anything that can be someday called “Life”!


    The human brain contains over 10,000,000,000 cells, each arranged to function instantly — yet evolutionists think that “chance evolution” made our brains!


    Homer Simpson would be proud of you guys!

    In my book I also playfully show a “Steg-O-Meba” thinking its great thoughts of how it will someday grow real huge and become a real Steg-0-Saurus (and maybe even have an eye or two, whatever that is) — but the Bible addresses this type of thing as being totally impossible:

    Jesus said in Matthew 6:27 that NONE of us can add even one cubit to our stature by wishing it to be so, but evolutionists teach that all Life has the ability to “add” anything and everything to themselves!

    Hmmmmm — so do the evolutionists credit microbes with being smarter than Albert Eintein and able to come up with all sorts of absolutely brilliant new manifestations or new organs and super-complex chemically cooperative interconnected systems? Or do evolutionists say that “blind chance” is the guiding force of evolution via (gasp) mutation??

    Guys, Intelligent Design is the ONLY intelligent way that Life happened — and “blind chance evolution by mutation” is just downright Homer Simpson logic!

    It’s DUMB! It’s ILLOGICAL!

    It’s an insult to science to say that “blind chance” is what made all of Life — because science itself clearly proves that it NEVER could have happened that way!

    Check out my website,

  6. JimSDA on April 11, 2006 at 11:18 am

    There is a joke told where some scientists tell God that they can create Life in the laboratory, and God says, “Show me!” The scientist says, “First we take some dirt…” and God interupts him and says, “No, you have to make your own dirt!”

    The scientific argument ends right there, because there is NO WAY that science can explain how the Universe came into existence “all by itself” — which is why a lot of people nowadays reluctantly admit that God “started” it all, but then He used evolution to make Life…

    And the whole problem now is to explain the complexity of Life — oh yes, we see truly amazing things happen within the cell and all around us, and it all seems to be running “by itself” — but did it all START FROM SCRATCH all by itself? That’s where the entire concept of evolution by chance mutation falls flat on its face in its very first “one small step for amino acids, one giant leap for protozoa”!

    In every culture that ever lived on this planet, all of them tried to imagine “God” or “gods” — because mankind always KNEW that there was “something” out there that was responsible for making Life, etc.! And now, as we enter the 21st Century, we can see which version of that “God” is the most logical one to believe in: The God of the Bible!

    People go into hospitals with illnesses that our doctors/scientists say is terminal, yet there are numerous examples of people being healed who prayed to God!

    There are thousands of testimonies of believing people who have had some kind of supernatural exerience in their lives wherein they KNOW that God exists — but if evolutionists don’t pay attention to these stories, then evolutionists won’t know about them, but they ARE happening out there quite often in the real world of real people!

    A lady at a church I went to in Florida told of how she was going to step off a curb to cross a busy street, and in the middle of stepping forward she was spun around so she was facing back onto the sidewalk and she just missed getting hit by a bus! Her guardian angel turned her around! Can we “test this” in the lab? No — but it was a REAL event! That person now KNOWS that God is real, no matter what tests are performed in whatever lab.

    Tumors have vanished, people have been healed and protected in numerous ways, and all of these events tell us that the God of the Bible is REAL! Lots of people have had miracles happen to them regarding their finances where they desperately needed a certain amount of money, and a check appears right on time in their mailbox!

    Will God ever be proven in the laboratory?

    Probably not —

    But I promise you that evolution can and will be DISPROVEN in the laboratory for any honest-hearted person who wants to actually see the Truth of the evidence!

  7. JimSDA on April 12, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    SEATTLE, February 22, 2006 ( – Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

    The statement reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

    The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.

    Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS’s “Evolution” series. At the time it was claimed that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.”

    See the full list here:

  8. JimSDA on April 14, 2006 at 9:41 am

    Andrea, those 514 PhDs are the HONEST scientists who are brave enough to step forward and tell the world that “evolution” is a flawed belief system, and in time there will be thousands more who join the list! Back when this list was first posted I think it only featured “100 scientists,” and see how it has grown — and it will continue to grow!

    You wrote, “we all know where dirt comes from” — OH, REALLY?

    Let’s see — if you lived in a total vacuum of space where there was NO MATTER, and NO ATOMS, and NO “DIRT” MOLECULES — please tell me how you would create the dirt!

    That’s what God told the scientists they had to do, create EVERYTHING that formed Life — and it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to do this!

    Sure, mankind will ultimately find lots of “answers” to things — we’ve done amazingly well so far with the advances in scientific knowledge — but the one big discovery that man is going to finally make is that mankind is going to ultimately FIND GOD, the God who put the entire Universe together! That is going to be mankind’s ultimate scientific discovery!

    And then we will put together a new version of a “science class,” and it will deal with studying the awesome creative abilities of the God who created all the matter in the Universe, and all the Life in the Universe, and who organized all the Science within the Universe!

    But, as the Bible tells us, only the redeemed who believe in and obey God here and now in this world will be the ones who get to take these “advanced” science classes!

    And it’s your choice as to whether you will sign up for this class, or not — because it’s an “elective” class, the most important class you could ever sign up for . . .

  9. Cy C. Lops on April 17, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    One time many years ago I was about to kill myself. I had the gun in my mouth when all of a sudden I saw a flying blue baboon with bat wings wearing a beret and a monocle. It calmly removed the gun from my mouth and began speaking to me from its puffy red behind. It told me it had a purpose for me in life. Since then I have been a changed man. Can you test this? Of course not. But I know it happened and I know that this baboon is what created the universe and everything in it, including life. It told me that it leaves fake clues that could be interpreted as signs of evolution, but these are just to test us and to see who is truly faithful.

  10. JimSDA on April 24, 2006 at 9:05 pm

    Now, now, Cy — lying is not a good thing — but feel free to start up your own new religion if you want to!

  11. Cy C. Lops on April 26, 2006 at 10:00 am

    You caught me. 🙂 But I was merely trying to point out in a (hopefully) humorous way that the “guardian angel helping someone out” argument doesn’t really prove anything.

  12. JimSDA on April 27, 2006 at 5:48 pm

    Cy, all the stories of angels intervening in the lives of peoplePROVES THAT SOMETHING IS GOING ON, and if people are going to be honest searchers for the Truth, THEY WILL INVESTIGATE ALL POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS!

    It’s like I’ve said before, would you trust a scientist who only uses 75% of the Periodic Table?? Or trust a NASA scientist who only tried to get the Space Shuttle 80% off the ground??

    I DON’T TRUST people who say that they are searching for the Truth regarding the origin of Life who don’t also pay attention to the possible conclusion that God is a part of the equation!

  13. Cy C. Lops on April 28, 2006 at 10:45 am

    I disagree. There is no direct evidence of angels intervening in lives. If you were born and raised Hindu and something “miraculous” happened you might attribute it to Shiva or Vishnu. What you attribute so-called miraculous events to is simply a result of your beliefs. Thus the argument falls apart: I believe in god x, something happens and I attribute it to god x because those are my beliefs, thus god x is real so I believe even more in god x.

    In all fairness, organic chemists only use a very small portion of the periodic table. 🙂

    It is entirely possible that god is part of the origin of life equation, but that cannot be studied scientifically.

  14. JimSDA on April 29, 2006 at 12:07 pm

    That is VERY short-sighted of you to say that God will never be able to be studied scientifically!

    HOW DO YOU KNOW what will or won’t show up in all these fields of science 10 or 20 years from now??

    The people of the 19th century never knew about cell phones, VCRs, televison, etc.!! YET WE HAVE THEM!


    Come on, Cy, use your brain and THINK about what you are writing!

    Lots of PhDs are already saying that they have found enough scienfic evidence for God, and there will be LOTS MORE evidence showing up!

  15. six_ways on April 30, 2006 at 9:34 am

    Jim, I don’t get it. How many times have I shown you that god cannot be proven by its very definition? I can tell you exactly what will not show up and be studied scientifically in the next 100 years: Things which cannot be studied scientifically. A group of things which involves god. I’m getting a bit tired of saying it, but if you’re going to try and use scientific arguments, you can’t ignore everyone else’s scientific arguments.

    We are not talking about what will turn up in the future. We are talking about the definition of science. It doesn’t matter what turns up in the future, the idea of a god is never going to be scientifically provable because it inherently isn’t.

    I’m going to try to show you this again, in a different way from before.

    1)Science is based on maths, which is based upon logic.

    2)God, if it were to be represented in a mathematical form, would have to be represented as something omnipotent.

    3)The way you would represent something all-powerful in a mathematical sense would have to be a number which not CAN be any number, but in fact IS EVERY NUMBER all at once. Literally every single number.

    4) Furthermore this number must be able to do absolutely anything to other numbers in an equation, so that it is an infinitely powerful operator.

    5) Thus, ANY equation with this ‘god’ number in becomes completely, 110%, absolutely useless, unsolvable, unmathematical and paradoxical.

    Logic CANNOT operate upon such a number. And what kind of logic can possibly arrive at such a number? Such a number mathematically cannot exist and thus no logical or mathematical process can arrive at this answer.

    Thus it impossible to logically conclude that god exists.

    Furthermore, since logic is based upon evidence, this also means that there cannot, by definition, be any evidence that points in any way towards the existence of a god.

    Evidence becomes a meaningless concept when searching for a god. So whatever turns up in the next 100 years, NONE of it by definition can point towards the existence of a god.

    So either believe in a god, or don’t. There is no ‘evidence’ either way, so stop trying to confuse the issue.

    And Jim, if you’re going to reply, please for once address this. Because so far you’ve ignored my posts of this nature.

  16. John Adolfi on April 30, 2006 at 9:40 am

    So Six Ways what you are saying is that you don’t believe in God. Is that what I’m ultimately hearing?

  17. six_ways on April 30, 2006 at 9:48 am

    Well, obviously I don’t, but that’s not the point of what I’m saying here.

    What I’m saying is you can believe what you want, but it’s entirely fallacious and not a little hypocritical to try and prove god’s existence via science.

  18. John Adolfi on April 30, 2006 at 9:55 am

    If evolutionary science cannot be falsified, then it too is a religion or a philosophy, do we agree there?

  19. six_ways on April 30, 2006 at 10:33 am

    Absolutely we do, but I’ve never said that evolution cannot be falsified. I am merely stating that your efforts to falsify evolution:

    1) Do not prove creationism to be correct

    2) Do not prove the existence of god

    3) And are largely so far based upon a prior belief in the existence of god, and those efforts that are, are not valid in the argument for disproval of evolution. Furthermore many are based on a flawed understanding of the theory of evolution, such as the ‘One Eyed Dino’ comments that this thread is based upon.

  20. John Adolfi on April 30, 2006 at 10:45 am

    Well I’m glad we can agree. Meanwhile you do understand that in the U.S. atheistic evolution happens to have the loudest voice, deepest pockets with control of most of the schools and court systems? Do you think this is because evolution is the closest to any “truth” that can be ascertained currently? If it is then don’t you find it rather curious that only 4-9% of Americans agree with this position?

  21. JimSDA on April 30, 2006 at 10:55 am

    Six_Ways, I will address your math challenge — but in a way I already have, over there on Topic Thread #18 where I’ve talked about people having literally trillions of cells comprising their bodies, yet we all walk around just thinking we are only “one” person!

    So, in a way, THAT is a mathematical proof that God exists and He created us! If we really “evolved,” then it is illogical for any of us to be walking around thinking that we were just “one” person! I explained why on that thread.

    I will give you another story of “math” —

    The “zero” was not invented until the year 870AD by a mathematician in India — up until that time a “place-holder dot” was used instead of a zero — and when the use of the “zero” spread throughout the world, certain peoples had some problems dealing with it!

    It was bizarre and odd and really weird that if you put a zero AFTER a number it increased it 10 fold — but if you put the zero BEFORE the number, it did nothing!

    Lots of people were slightly freaked out about this!

    Now, let’s compare the zero being created to your insistant idea that “no proof of God will ever be able to be studied scientifically” —

    The whole world of man had a time when the zero didn’t exist — not a single human being on the planet who lived before 870AD could have guessed that this “mathematical” thing would ever show up — BUT IT DID!


    If you really wish to use “math” to define the possibitity of God being studied scientifically, THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN SET THE ODDS AT ZERO!

    The “zero” itself is proof that it can happen!!

  22. six_ways on April 30, 2006 at 11:13 am

    Jim, once again, I tell you it doesn’t matter what is discovered or invented in the future. The case of the number 0 does not prove your point at all.

    Zero was still a number, and still part of the rules, it just had not been expressed as a discrete object.

    I am talking about LOGIC. Logic without any symbols, without any numbers, without anything. I am simply talking about the pure abstract rules of logic. I am talking about the DEFINITION of logic.

    There is no logical way, or indeed need, to arrive at an answer that means everything, nothing, and everything in between all at once. I’m telling you for a fact. This is not something that is up for debate – as I have repeatedly said, I am talking about how we define logic. What I have said is implicit in the definition of logic.

    Also I would like to say that your ‘proof’ in the other thread is in no way such a proof. There is nothing mathematical in it and it is based upon, as I have said in the other thread, a misunderstanding.

  23. six_ways on April 30, 2006 at 11:23 am

    Look, let me put this another way.

    The ‘invention’ of zero did not change any rules. It merely encapsulated some of the (at that time) more obscure rules in a more useable symbol.

    Anyone can make up a new symbol, or a new operator, or anything. I could quite easily make a new operator in one symbol that multiplies two numbers together then subtracts the sum of the difference between each original number and the multiplied number. I have not altered any of the rules.

    In fact, in inventing this operator I have done more than make a symbol. There are many, many parameters of this new operator that I am not free to choose. By the laws of mathematics, it will have various behaviours under different conditions.

    For instance, is it commutative? Does it behave the same way when used with negative numbers? Is it associative? Are numbers produced by it ‘real’ or ‘complex’? There is no way that I can tell this operator how to work once I have invented it; it simply plays by the rules.

  24. JimSDA on April 30, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    Your definition of “logic” is from Cloud Nine!!

    Get as insistant as you want about your “pure abstract rules of logic,” get as deluded as you wish over “knowing” that God will never be studied scientifically, and go ahead and pat yourself on the back as hard as you can, but you are NEVER going to be right!

    God created numbers, and you are abusing the privilege of using them!

    You wrote: “I tell you it doesn’t matter what is discovered or invented in the future.”

    Are you nuts???

    It sure DOES matter!

    You are not using your mind properly, you are far too intent on negating anything that indicates that there is a God — so your logical processes are basically destroying your hope of reaching a properly logical conclusion!

    Take another look at this list of 500+ PhDs who have used their minds and their logic to understand that science already proves that God is real and God can be deduced from current scientific observation and study:

  25. TwoD on April 30, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    JimSDA: You might want to study the work of all those scientists you talk about before making statements like these:

    Quote 1
    “Let’s see — if you lived in a total vacuum of space where there was NO MATTER, and NO ATOMS, and NO “DIRT” MOLECULES — please tell me how you would create the dirt!”

    Space is by no definition empty, every heard of the sub-atomic world out there?

    Quote 2
    “That’s what God told the scientists they had to do, create EVERYTHING that formed Life — and it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to do this!”

    Of course it’s impossible for a man to create it, since it would require the entire energy available in the universe to create a universe as complex as the one we’re living in.

    Quote 3
    “Come on, Cy, use your brain and THINK about what you are writing!”

    I’d suggest that you do your physics homework, it might be a bit more enlightening than bible studies…

    I’m not in any way saying that you’re not entitled to your beliefs, but you should really study the “other side” before attempting to have any detailed knowledge about it.

  26. six_ways on April 30, 2006 at 7:48 pm

    My definition of logic is from the dictionary.

    Frankly Jim, all you have done on this issue is say I am wrong. Not once have you given clear, well-thought-out opposition using logic or anything else.

    I don’t want to get offensive here, but put up or shut up. If you’re just going to blankly tell me I’m wrong whatever I say, don’t even bother.

    And since when did those PhDs say that they also believed in god? I have no problem with them being in opposition to evolution; if no-one was ever in disagreement with anyone else science would go nowhere.

    But your ill-informed points of view are not valid opposition. You incessantly bash all those who oppose you on this site without ever giving resonable evidence. Your latest post just sums up as being ‘You’re wrong whatever you say, I don’t care, shut up’.

  27. JimSDA on May 1, 2006 at 8:50 pm

    TwoD challenged my description of “space” before the Big Bang and/or before Creation and he wrote: “Space is by no definition empty, every heard of the sub-atomic world out there?”

    I was describing a TOTAL absence of anything existing! Please re-read my post — I wasn’t talking about today’s “normal” space! Of course there are all sorts of particals and light waves and things out there in the “emptiness” of today’s space! I was talking about how it was BEFORE any of those particles or things were created, OK?

    God’s challenge to the scientists to “make their own dirt” meant that they had to also CREATE the particles that form the dirt, and they would have to do it out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

    Understand now?

  28. JimSDA on May 1, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    Six_Ways, you’re a total space case as far as I can tell — you and I are living in completely different worlds with completely different world views!

    Webster’s defines “logic” as: “A science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration”!

    You wrote, “I am simply talking about the pure abstract rules of logic…”



    “Abstract” is defined in Webster’s as: “Disassociated from any specific instance”!!!

    As I said before, your mind is not working properly, and it’s “abstract” use of logic is truly DISASSOCIATED from reality!

  29. six_ways on May 2, 2006 at 7:00 am

    You continue to prove your ignorance. Your definition of abstract is exactly the same one I would use.

    Disassociated from any specific instance means GENERAL RULES WHICH APPLY TO ANY INSTANCE, NOT NO INSTANCE. That’s why the word SPECIFIC is there. Without the word specific you would be right.

    Again, I say until you know what you are talking about, which it is obvious to anyone who understands science you do not, go somewhere else.

    As for me being a space case, in 10 years I’m going to be designing technologies which further the human race, and you’ll be drawing cartoons. So let’s let everyone else decide who’s better qualified to talk about science and logic, eh?

  30. six_ways on May 2, 2006 at 7:03 am

    Take an example. An abstract rule of maths is that 3+4=7. In the real world, on its own, this means absolutely nothing. It has been applied to no specific instance.

    However, it still dictates how real situations work. If I have 3 apples and I add them to your 4 apples, how many do I have?

    That’s pretty much the most simple example I can think of of abstract rules of logic applying to the real world.

  31. Cy C. Lops on May 2, 2006 at 3:10 pm

    Let’s forget the rules of logic. The simple fact remains that god BY DEFINITION is outside of physical experience. God, if it exists, is outside the physical tangible universe. You might say “I see God in the beauty of a flower” or something like that, but you are only seeing the flower and you associate that with the concept of god. If god were physical then it would be limited by the laws of physics, which I think you would agree, is hardly a god. Science, BY DEFINITION, attempts to explain things in the physical universe by using physical evidence. How then can science study something like god?

  32. TwoD on May 3, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    *Cy C Lops, A very convenient definition for something one can’t explain…

    A god itself might not be possible to study, but the things affected by a god would be measurable by science since it would happen in the physical universe. And if there’s a physical action, there’s always the reaction. Hence, you’d be able to indirectly observe and measure every action of a god in the physical universe (if you’d find one). Then you could compare the results with the probablility of the same thing happening due to natural processes. If no difference is found, the god you’re studying might as well be probablility/chance playing tricks on you, or you’ve found a god which no longer interacts with its creation.

    What do you think we should use to study a god?
    Religion, which is by definition: “the service and worship of God or the supernatural” – Webster? Sounds biased to me, since it assumes the existance of what we’re trying to find.
    The whole point of science is to be as objective as possible.

    *JimSDA, I understood you the first time. I don’t know what was before space, neither do you. There might have been the “nothing” you described, or there might have been something else. All the energy in the current universe must have come from somewhere, I think we both agree on that. You believe a consious “something” created the universe out of void, which to me is pure nonsense. Science has so far told us that matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed just like that. We can make particles collide at enormous energy levels, closing in on those calculated for the time around the big bang, but nothing suggests that there’s some form of intelligence needed in making matter from energy or the other way around. You would ask me where that energy came from in the first place, just like I ask where your god came from. My reply will be the same as yours, since you seemed to think of it as valid: it is eternal.

    I could point you to a couple of scientific articles/books which would try to explain different variations of the scientific view of the creation of the universe, if you’re interested in doing some reading before claming you have a “better” solution. Might also have a few on the subject “logic and reasoning”.

    All you know about what happened in the beginning (estimated by me based on your previous statements) comes from a book which is no different from any other book. It has a historical value, as do all religious texts, but not of the magnitude its contents suggests.
    Accepting something just because someone says it is that way, without them providing any verifiable background information, sounds stupid to me. Do you believe everything you read on the internet too?

    My reason to not believe in a godlike power creating the universe is simple: It’s a long story told by a lot of people.

    Hmm, long post, late hour… think I got it all in there but I’m not sure…

  33. Cy C. Lops on May 4, 2006 at 11:41 am

    I see what you’re saying, but I would argue that we could just as easily attribute anything that a god does in the universe to some as yet undiscovered natural law. Sure, we can postulate that god causes some action in the universe, but we can never prove that because god is unobservable. My whole point is that a field which studies the tangible can never study the intangible. Frankly, I don’t think god can be studied because it would be it would be something we couldn’t comprehend. It would be like trying to imagine what color x-rays are. As you said, god is “something one can’t explain.”

  34. JimSDA on May 5, 2006 at 9:34 am

    Creationists have already addressed the proof of God existing and still being “outside” the Universe — it’s told in the story of a person walking through the woods and suddenly seeing a beautiful painting of a woman in a frame hanging on a tree truck — you automatically know that someone painted it! The “painter” exists!

    And that is how simple it is to prove that God exists — the whole world around us is full of beautifully designed things, and those of us who are spiritually discerning can see as these things as being the handiwork of a Creator!

    Pure and simple!

  35. JimSDA on May 5, 2006 at 9:50 am

    OK, Six_Ways, I finally understand your use of “specific” —

    “Disassociated from any specific instance means GENERAL RULES WHICH APPLY TO ANY INSTANCE, NOT NO INSTANCE. That’s why the word SPECIFIC is there. Without the word specific you would be right.”

    OK, but you have to admit that it is in a sentence where it’s deifinition can affect the term in MORE THAN JUST ONE WAY!

    That is often the problem with the shortcomings of an imperfect language — we try to communicate as best we can, but sometimes the words just get in our way!

    Oh, and by the way, the Bible says that God confounded the languages back there at the Tower of Babel, so even English is a “confounded” and imperfect language!

    My counsel to you is to better communicate your pet terms, you should not assume that all the people here automatically understand you.

    You’re gearing up to do some good work in 10 years — (“in 10 years I’m going to be designing technologies which further the human race, and you’ll be drawing cartoons”) — well, good! Being productive in your field is a good thing!

    Of course, you’re assuming that the world is STILL HERE and the Lord hasn’t come to END IT ALL like He’s told us in the Bible that He plans to do, which may happen within the next 10 years!

    My comics and cartoons will be helping people get to heaven and eternal life — your work sounds like you’ll just be helping people get down the block better — sorry, but between the life goals that affect the most people in a really important way, I think my work is the more important field.

    We’ll test it — get back with me in 2016 (if the world’s still here), and we’ll compare life accomplishments!

  36. Cy C. Lops on May 5, 2006 at 11:01 am

    The flaw in the analogy is that the painter is “inside” the universe, i.e. he/she is a tangible, physical being.

    Just out of curiosity, I thought that by “confounded” the Tower of Babel story meant that god made it so that everyone was speaking different languages. Not that I don’t agree with you that English and all languages are imperfect.

  37. six_ways on May 5, 2006 at 3:38 pm

    The other flaw in the analogy is that by the same logic, I could look at your god and say that since it is such a complex entity, it must have been created. And so on, and so on. Which you no doubt would contest heavily.

  38. JimSDA on May 6, 2006 at 9:19 am

    Cy, the historical evidence shows that when the language (everyone spoke the same language at the Tower of Babel) was confounded, different languages were created that split the peoples into the major groups and cultures — everyone who could basically understand Chinese went off as a group, etc., etc. — it didn’t mean that every single person spoke something different, of if they did they managed to get together with the type of language that they could most closely understand. And in regard to the “painter” of the painting, there is no rule that God cannot enter His created Universe! After all, if He made it, He could make it so that while He exists “separate” of it He could also enter it and interact with it! And that is why people who believe in God also definitely plan on on day SEEING HIM — because He *IS* where we can see him!

    Hmmmm — should I take the chance here and let you know exactly “where” God is right now?…

    You probably won’t appreciate hearing this, but I’ll tell you anyway —

    The Seventh-day Adventist Church was co-founded by a lady named Ellen White, and in the course of her life she had around 2,000 visions that verified the Bible, and one of the things was that she told us where heaven is located, and that is obviously where God also is — and she said that this is where the 2nd Coming will be coming from, and from a “scientific” point of view it makes perfect sense!

    There are 3 heavens mentioned in the Bible — the 1st heaven is the atmosphere of our planet. The 2nd heaven is where the stars are located — and the 3rd heaven is where God is! (2Corinthians 12:2 talks about a man caught up to the 3rd heaven) —

    Heaven is located in the Orion Nebula!

    Take a good look at it — the Orion Nebula has a tremendous amount of bright light glowing out from it that is shining our from around the corner, as if we are being “shielded” from its direct exposure, and the Bible clearly tells us that “God is light” and the angels can glow brightly, and the 2nd Coming of Jesus all the wicked with be struck down by “the brightness of His coming”! And there is the Orion Nebula with all this extremely bright light shining out from it —

    There is no other place that qualifies as being the location of where God is and the angels live and where heaven is!

    Most Christians just think some nebulous “oh-He’s-just-out-there-somewhere” kind of location of God and heaven, but we have been told differently, we know where God really is — and even the scientific evidence indicates that it very well may be there!

    And on the day of the 2nd Coming all mankind will merely take an “eye test” to see if we are right! We will see this small bright formation heading at the earth from the Orion Nebula, and then everyone will know . . .

  39. TwoD on May 6, 2006 at 3:13 pm

    Here’s some info about the Orion Nebula:
    Doesn’t look like the place for a god though, whichever science one applies.

    If no other place qualifies, as you say, it will be very interesting to see what will be discovered in this nebula in the future.

  40. six_ways on May 6, 2006 at 11:04 pm

    You say it makes scientific sense:

    It does not, because for it to make sense you must already believe that the Bible is telling the truth, which is an entirely unscientific premise.

  41. Cy C. Lops on May 8, 2006 at 11:39 am

    Tower of Babel: I had the same concept you just explained in my mind, but for some reason I explained it incorrectly. Anyway, thanks for description.

    Orion Nebula: If heaven and god where there, wouldn’t that mean that god is a physical being? Perhaps I’m just not understanding you. But if I am understanding correctly, that would mean that god would not only have to have been created, but would be limited by the laws of physics. Unless you mean that god exists outside of the universe but co-exists in the physical universe in the Orion Nebula. But this would imply the existence of a 4th heaven outside of the physical universe where the non-physical god is. Also, I’m not sure if the SDAs believe in a soul, but if you do, and the soul goes to a heaven in the Orion Nebula, wouldn’t this mean that the soul is something physical as well?