After all, those natural factors seem to have burst out of thin air, no?
No. They were hundreds of millions of years in the forming.
You then have the oppurtunity to say that those natural factors are eternal just as I have the oppurtunity to say that God is also eternal who created those natural factors
No, again. This planet...which provided the environment for the conditions that led to the formation of life and the evolution of species...is not eternal, nor are the conditions themselves. Nevertheless, should anyone mistakenly claim these naturally occurring factors are "eternal", they would still have the most parsimonious argument.
Originally posted by KellyJay Since you have never seen life molded completely from
non-living material without any direction from anything before,
how do you know what is, or is not required? You don't know,
but you are more than willing to make a judgment on the
truthfulness of what you believe is true.
Kelly
Did I say anything about requirements in that post? No. So what are you talking about then?
Originally posted by whodey Whether or not you add God to the mix or add "nothingness" to the mix, you have to realize that you must take a leap of faith to accept either notion. Science cannot prove or disprove either proposition, therefore, choose your poisen.
Sure; but if adding God changes the "mix" in any other way - for example, rejecting radioactivity dating - then it's not quite so simple.
Are you familiar with the concepts of parsimony, Occam's Razor, and underdeterminism?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Sure; but if adding God changes the "mix" in any other way - for example, rejecting radioactivity dating - then it's not quite so simple.
Are you familiar with the concepts of parsimony, Occam's Razor, and underdeterminism?
Once you start to understand all the underlying assumptions of radiometric dating, it is a totally different kettle of fish.
Originally posted by twhitehead There are a number of people on this site (and around the world) who don't accept the Theory of Evolution as being a viable explanation for the development of life as we know it.
However, I am yet to hear even one of them give a viable alternative explanation. The ID folks concentrate on criticizing evolution and saying "that cant happen" or "that is imp ...[text shortened]... in every single mutation? Or do you actually accept that evolution is taking place?
Sorry for jumping in so late in this game, but...
So how do we get the enormous genetic diversity we see today? Exactly what "enormous" diversity? Biologically, there is but one classification for human beings: homo sapiens sapiens. Unless there is another classification, the biblical account of first Adam and then Noah as progenitors fits the evidence of what we see today.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Sorry for jumping in so late in this game, but...
[b]So how do we get the enormous genetic diversity we see today? Exactly what "enormous" diversity? Biologically, there is but one classification for human beings: homo sapiens sapiens. Unless there is another classification, the biblical account of first Adam and then Noah as progenitors fits the evidence of what we see today.[/b]
Genetic diversity and species definition are two seperate topics.
So here's a discussion on possible alternatives to macro evolution. (Who can argue that change takes place in living organisms?)
Well, I would like to see more research in the area of sudden alterations of living things. Obviously, there are some animals which use to live and no longer live.
I would like to see more theoretical exploration in the possibility that sudden (perhaps) cataclysmic events altered gamuts maybe. I think science should look more in the direction of what might have suddenly altered the sperm cells or embryos of extinct creatures such that new forms developed.
Sounds a little like punctuated equilibrium, I know. I think science should look in the direction of abrupt changes.
I have no question that God is ultimate Creator of life. How He did it we are free to explore. God does not forbid our researching into these things by any mandate that I can detect in the Bible.
Maybe He's amused that man can't completely put it all together. (Perish the thought !!)
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Sorry for jumping in so late in this game, but...
[b]So how do we get the enormous genetic diversity we see today? Exactly what "enormous" diversity? Biologically, there is but one classification for human beings: homo sapiens sapiens. Unless there is another classification, the biblical account of first Adam and then Noah as progenitors fits the evidence of what we see today.[/b]
Originally posted by David C [b]After all, those natural factors seem to have burst out of thin air, no?
No. They were hundreds of millions of years in the forming.
You still don't get my point I'm afraid. The matter that took hundreds of millions of years to form something had to come from somewhere hence it either burst into thin air or it is eternal. Science points to the Big Bang as the beginning of time and known matter. Therefore you must take a leap of faith beyond scientific fact to speculate as to where it all came from. There is no question it has a source, it is merely a question of what source.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung [b]Sure; but if adding God changes the "mix" in any other way - for example, rejecting radioactivity dating - then it's not quite so simple.
Who says I reject radioactive dating? Who says the Biblical account is heretical to such data? Only if you buy into the notion that a day in God's time equals a day in mans time would you assume such a notion as in the creation story in Genesis. We all know time is relative to the observer and Biblically God says a day to him as is a thousand years to us. You see, much is assumed from the Genesis account from both its opponents and from its defenders.
Stupid Christians! Harry the Hobgoblin tricked you all about god and he created life by trying to make a jam sandwich and figured it'd be cool to make life aswell...look, the evidence (taken from the only true source of truth...the Hobgobble):
Damien 12: 6 ...and thy holy hobgoblin did makest thy jam sandwich and at the same instant so did all life on earth cometh in to being in a random sort of way...
Roger 4: 4 ...and thy holy hobgoblin did sayeth that God and the bible are fallacies invented by Sally the Silly Salmon at his righteous bidding...
Originally posted by Agerg Stupid Christians! Harry the Hobgoblin tricked you all about god and he created life by trying to make a jam sandwich and figured it'd be cool to make life aswell...look, the evidence (taken from the only true source of truth...the Hobgobble):
[b]Damien 12: 6 ...and thy holy hobgoblin did makest thy jam sandwich and at the same instant so did all life o ...[text shortened]... God and the bible are fallacies invented by Sally the Silly Salmon at his righteous bidding...[/b]
Don't forget the atheist Bible.
Abiogenesis 1:1 In the beginning nothing was created and that which was not created simply always was. And that which was, simply burst out into nothingness. And that which was which burst out from an unkown force began to create life by an unknown force. Then the same unknown force that created life then began to help those life forms evolve via the same unknown force. All hail, unkown force! Praise be to your name! We will study your ways and claim to understand you, praise be to your name!!!!!! We praise you for your random thoughtlessness and indifference and overcoming statisitcal impossibilities. Praise be your name!!!! We will then die and drift back again into the oblivion of random indifference for all eternity. Praise be your name!!!!
BTW I prefer a nice juicy jam sandwich over random indifference any day. Bon appetite!