Does creation exclude evolution?

This major dilemma is related to the problem of evolution and how complex living things could come about being and is really the only personal dilemma I have left regarding the entire 'picture of reality' as presented by this book and also the Thiaoouba Prophecy book.

You said, and this logically makes sense, that if the human is more complex than a house and the chances of a house making itself are practicaly zero, then the chances of a human being making itself are even less (infact they are zero, practically speaking).

My problem and many other people's also, is that the components/constituent materials of a house are clearly NON-LIVING, this makes it CERTAIN that the house could not make itself.

rafal

Then take a few steps back and begin with an ATOM, not the house. (All material things, living or not, are composed of atoms, aren't they? Hence atoms had to exist BEFORE any living forms). A house example was chosen for children to give them a chance to grasp the concept.

Can an atom make itself? So far generations of highly intelligent people keep smashing atoms and they still cannot figure out how atoms are made. What would you say to a child who keeps smashing toys and insists that toys make themselves?

If atoms could indeed make themselves, with some intelligence, we should be able to "help" them make themselves. If you know about anyone being able to do it - please let me know. To begin with I would like to make some gold.

Evolution: Who said that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive? The Universe seems by Design. Evolution (of consciousness) is actually its very PURPOSE of existence... Have you read the evolution chapter in The Freedom of Choice?

Tom

well, I see your point on the atoms. I admit it's true that when the evolutionists talk about 'the early blocks of life formed themselves', they must really be talking about atoms attaching to each other to form these earliest 'life forms' - and this then means that they are not giving us an explanation for how the atoms formed themselves.

It looks like they assume the atoms 'must've' already been there, but they don't want to give any 'intelligence' the attribute of 'designing the atom' - they say the formation of the atom was accidental/part of nature. (is that the right way to put it?)

But given all this logic, how do you then go about proving that the atom was designed? People seem to need physical proof. Does this actually further support your sentence in FoC that intelect develops only for each individual within this individual (no one else can make a person get knowledge other then themselves)? If that's the case, then it will be a LONG time before enough people start comprehending the same logic in order for the society as a whole to come to some sort of collective agreement.

rafal

Proof and Understanding can ONLY arise in individual consciousness. If intellect is unwilling and/or unable to understand or unwilling and/or unable to admit and consider the evidence - no proof is actually possible.

You are correct, a LONG time has already passed (at least @8000 years from disappearance of Atlantis) and people still have a long time to go in examining paradigms set out by the establishment. I am just trying to tease them to THINK.

Tom