At what order of complexity...

Originally posted by KellyJay
How much time is not an issue with me in this discussion! I can be
completely off and you can have billions of years, that does not change the
issues I have with evolution, nor does it change the issues I have with
abiogenesis either. Since it isn't the length of time that I see as an issue,
but the timings of events that must occur in the very short ti ...[text shortened]... h something
else that changes the conditions into something else is problematic in my
opinion.

Ah, chemistry again. I thought we settled this a few weeks ago. Or maybe that was all in my head. 😕

Originally posted by sonhouse
The thing theists can't or won't understand is butterflies turning color or some such is just as much a part of evolution as the turning of an Elephant into a Manatee (Which happens to be true, Manatee's are deeply related to Elephants). It is just that creationists who insist on the Earth being 6000 odd years old cannot accept million year dates for the c ...[text shortened]... e Earth really is many millions of years old you will start the process of maturing emotionally.

I am not married to the 6000 year old earth, it isn't that important to me!
I believe it is all God requires to do what He wants, billions not required, but
that does not mean that billions of years did not occur here. As I have told
you and others, those that believe in the gap theory make an argument
for billions of years, and reasons for fossils. I just don't buy into it, but think
it isn't worth much of an effort to prove it one way or the other. I see it
creating more issues than solving for me.

I do not have an issue with science, I do disagree with how some connect
the dots to make their beliefs sound acceptable, when all they have done
is suggest something is true no one can disprove one way or another and
call it science. At least from me, you will see I call what I believe faith and
don't attempt to claim anyone must accept my views as if they were
anything more.
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
Ah, chemistry again. I thought we settled this a few weeks ago. Or maybe that was all in my head. 😕

I'm not sure what you thought was settled! So I guess it was in your head.
🙂 You are not one of those people who think they just tell someone who
disagrees with them what they believe and why, and that is all the proof
required to settle things are you?
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
It is self-evident too! 😛

No, seriously, it is self-evident. Take a piece of paper and draw a line. Now, take another
piece of paper and duplicate the line, but with one, hardly noticable change. Now, take a
third piece of paper, draw a copy of the second line with yet another tiny change. Keep
doing this, say, 55000 times. Now, take the first paper and the 55000'th paper and compare
them. There you go.

Start with lines, end with lines. Now if you could show me how you can
start with lines and end up with a brick house I'd accept your views.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
We can tell what animals changed into other animals by the fossil record, for instance manatees are closely related to elephants so over millions of years they evolved to become total water creatures and we see that in the fossil record.

All you have is your anti science stance but we have 200 years of multigenerations of scientists refining the works o ...[text shortened]... sticks to them and the same to you.

That should be a lesson to you but of course it won't be.

Not for me because I am a Christian, not a Jew.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not for me because I am a Christian, not a Jew.

Of course, because you cherry pick what you want out of the bible. A decent human thing to do.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Start with lines, end with lines. Now if you could show me how you can
start with lines and end up with a brick house I'd accept your views.
Kelly

Start with life and end with life. Now, if you can show me how life turns into a galaxy I'd accept your views.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not sure what you thought was settled! So I guess it was in your head.
🙂 You are not one of those people who think they just tell someone who
disagrees with them what they believe and why, and that is all the proof
required to settle things are you?
Kelly

Your argument is essentially this. I find it hard to grasp, therefore I think I'm entitled to
label it a religious belief. Whether or not you find it hard to believe that chemicals can
interact to produce stable enough environments where the first building blocks of life can
be produced, or that all life on earth can be the product of evolution from one common cell
type, is really besides the point. Particularly the evolution theory has massive evidence
collected in its favour and none to contradict it. If you don't accept that evidence, you need
to clarify why, if you wish others to listen.

Originally posted by C Hess
Start with life and end with life. Now, if you can show me how life turns into a galaxy I'd accept your views.

Well, if you really want to play that, you do not get to start with life, you
must start with no life, get life, and have that life change into what it is
today. I'd also say if you really want to play that, you don't even know if
you can start with a universe or nothing, so if you don't really know what
you started with, how do you know how it all worked out into what we see
today?
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
Your argument is essentially this. I find it hard to grasp, therefore I think I'm entitled to
label it a religious belief. Whether or not you find it hard to believe that chemicals can
interact to produce stable enough environments where the first building blocks of life can
be produced, or that all life on earth can be the product of evolution from one ...[text shortened]... it. If you don't accept that evidence, you need
to clarify why, if you wish others to listen.

I'm not the with the belief that you can get life from non-life without any
help, direction, or purpose. That is on the one presenting the belief system
if they want it to be something more than a belief!

For my part it is all faith, I believe God did it. I cannot prove that, and there
is NO test that can support that either.

I don't find it hard to grasp, I believe it is impossible to do when it comes
to getting life from non-life, than over time having it thrive and turn into
much more complex life. I see what people say when they describe the
events they believe occurred, but as far as I'm concern that is all they are
doing, describing what they believe. They do it with such passion it is
like a religion too in my opinion!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well, if you really want to play that, you do not get to start with life, you
must start with no life, get life, and have that life change into what it is
today. I'd also say if you really want to play that, you don't even know if
you can start with a universe or nothing, so if you don't really know what
you started with, how do you know how it all worked out into what we see
today?
Kelly

I'm trying to make the point that your argument of a dog is still a dog, a butterfly is still a
butterfly, doesn't make any sense, since you can take that argument to its limit and point
out that whatever earthly form of life we talk about, it's still made up of cells, and those
cells are incredibly similar across the range.

Now you want me to explain abiogenesis, big bang and what not. I won't get into all that
unless you admit that evolution is not only plausible, but supported by overwhelming
evidence, or provide me with evidence that nature stops evolution in its tracks, only
permitting tiny changes to occur.

Originally posted by C Hess
I'm trying to make the point that your argument of a dog is still a dog, a butterfly is still a
butterfly, doesn't make any sense, since you can take that argument to its limit and point
out that whatever earthly form of life we talk about, it's still made up of cells, and those
cells are incredibly similar across the range.

Now you want me to explai ...[text shortened]... ith evidence that nature stops evolution in its tracks, only
permitting tiny changes to occur.

I'm just responding to your post, look at your claims and you'll see why
I said what I did.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not the with the belief that you can get life from non-life without any
help, direction, or purpose. That is on the one presenting the belief system
if they want it to be something more than a belief!

For my part it is all faith, I believe God did it. I cannot prove that, and there
is NO test that can support that either.

I don't find it hard t ...[text shortened]... what they believe. They do it with such passion it is
like a religion too in my opinion!
Kelly

Just wonder what you will think if and when science DOES make life from nonlife?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm just responding to your post, look at your claims and you'll see why
I said what I did.
Kelly

I don't. Here's our conversation so far:

You: Small changes lead to big changes, but not too big.
Me: There's no limit to how big the changes can be, given enough small changes.
Just look at what happens 55000 lines later, given tiny changes per line.
You: Now show me how lines can transform into something completely different, like
a brick wall, or something.
Me: Evolution is not about life turning into something completely different, like a
galaxy. Life turns into different forms of life, is what evolution is all about.
You: If you want to play that game, show me how non-life turns into life, or how a
universe comes from nothing
Me: I'm just trying to show how major changes within the domain of life is possible
through evolution, and how natural evidence support this notion, and you want me to start
talking about abiogenesis and the conditions before the big bang instead. I won't do that
until you acknowledge what I've said about evolution so far, or show me how I'm wrong
about it.
You: I'm just responding to your post, look at your claims and you'll see why I said
what I did.
Me: I honestly don't.


I hereby officially declare this conversation comedy gold. 🙄

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am saying atoms and molecules were created by God in the beginning.

Atomic and molecular theory are themselves fairly recent scientific advances. If we were having this conversation a couple thousand years ago you might be saying that the classical elements earth, air, fire and water were created by God in the beginning, and all substances are composed of some combination of up to 4 of them. Blessedly, the Bible makes no such claim either way, so you are free to accept modern atomic and molecular theory.

However, the atom has been threorized not to be a-tomic (indivisible) after all. It is theorized to be made up of elementary particles.

From Wikipedia, the elementary particles of the Standard Model include:

Six "flavors" of quarks: up, down, bottom, top, strange, and charm;
Six types of leptons: electron, electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tau, tau neutrino;
Twelve gauge bosons (force carriers): the photon of electromagnetism, the three W and Z bosons of the weak force, and the eight gluons of the strong force;
The Higgs boson.

So it is as reasonable, and perhaps moreso, to say that God started things rolling by making these particles and the laws by which they interact and combine. And unlike biological evolution theory, there does not appear to be any Biblical problem.