Originally posted by twhiteheadI do find evolution improbable at least the whole "Soup thing getting struck by lighting" I don't think life can come from non-life so to speak. Like inorganic some how became organic. I think probability is a major reason why I do believe in a creator. The probability of everything being just right for life. I was reading on what you mentioned about the transitional species and I agree this is a flaw in the creation argument because it's a misunderstanding of the issue in the first place. I would parrot that to people not even knowing what the H*ll I was talking about 🙂 LOL
The most common error in this regard is the belief in punctuated species on a large scale. In reality every species, is always a transitional species between its past and its future. All life, is always in a state of chance.
[b]I just don't believe this all happened by accident I have to believe in a creator "God" for my sanity.
Would you say the ...[text shortened]... u believe God created it and guided it for other reasons, then I have no argument with that.[/b]
Manny
Originally posted by RJHindsTrue it give us spiritual truth for sure but the bible is not a science book. I admit I'm just at a point in my life were I'm question things. I'm not going just believe something because some preacher tells me it's so.
True. We, including scientist, don't know the full truth.
Even the Book of Truth, the Holy Bible, does not give us
all the truth, but only what we need. Jesus said the Holy Spirit
would guide us to all truth, as I remember. I did not look up
the reference, but I'm sure it is in the Holy Bible.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71Yes, and don't believe the Pope is infallible.
True it give us spiritual truth for sure but the bible is not a science book. I admit I'm just at a point in my life were I'm question things. I'm not going just believe something because some preacher tells me it's so.
Manny
Originally posted by galveston75No problem.
Well excuse me for that error. It was late and not able to sleep because of nerve problems in my legs and the medication I take for that is a very strong dopamine formulation for Parkinson's disease .
I'll try to do better for you next time. How's that?
Now back to my fox example, do you agree the scenario i have presented will lead to a new kind? If not why not?
Originally posted by menace71“...I just don't believe this all happened by accident ...”
I'm realizing that evolution is it's classic sense just does not seem to fit the data we see. However Creationist do use erroneous arguments like that of the fossil record. I've been guilty of this even. Example the transitional species issue. First point fossilization take a special set of conditions so if there are / were transitional species in the fossi ...[text shortened]... nce or physics. There are a lot of theories but a big part of science is known.
Manny
what exactly are you referring by the word “this” in the above? -I only ask because if what you are referencing by “this” is simply “evolution” then evolution didn't happen by accident but was an inevitable process once life started.
Originally posted by menace71Well that's clearly because you simply don't know much about it. But then you aren't really in a position to judge whether it is probable since you don't know enough to make that call.
I do find evolution improbable at least the whole "Soup thing getting struck by lighting"
I don't think life can come from non-life so to speak.
Do you mean its totally impossible even when carried out by humans, or you think it is improbable in 'the wild'?
I believe humans have created life from non-life before.
Like inorganic some how became organic.
What do you mean by organic and inorganic? I believe what are known as 'organic compounds' exist in nature even without life - I believe they have been found on asteroids and on moons.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOnce life started the inevitable process was "reproduction" and not
“...I just don't believe this all happened by accident ...”
what exactly are you referring by the word “this” in the above? -I only ask because if what you are referencing by “this” is simply “evolution” then evolution didn't happen by accident but was an inevitable process once life started.
"evolution".
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI just can't accept that "This" meaning everything in the universe happened by chance or accident and that would include that lighting or what have you struck a pool of soup and then brought life into existence which eventually over eons became us.
“...I just don't believe this all happened by accident ...”
what exactly are you referring by the word “this” in the above? -I only ask because if what you are referencing by “this” is simply “evolution” then evolution didn't happen by accident but was an inevitable process once life started.
Which begs the question what started life?
Manny
Originally posted by menace71It is strange how we start talking about some biblical topic,
I just can't accept that "This" meaning everything in the universe happened by chance or accident and that would include that lighting or what have you struck a pool of soup and then brought life into existence which eventually over eons became us.
Which begs the question what started life?
Manny
then it turns in to evolution. Why is this? Do you have a
theory? According to the Holy Bible the Great Flood happened
regardless of the evidence.
Originally posted by menace71Well man to this day has not been able to start life. We are able to reproduce but no one can explain how the process actually starts a life.
I just can't accept that "This" meaning everything in the universe happened by chance or accident and that would include that lighting or what have you struck a pool of soup and then brought life into existence which eventually over eons became us.
Which begs the question what started life?
Manny
Even something as simple as a seed can lay dormant for years but then comes to life and grow under the right conditions, and that can't be explained.
So the obvious conclusion is it would have to be from an outside source.....God.
Originally posted by galveston75Yes he has. (though that may depend on what you meant by that statement, but man has successfully taken non living matter and created living matter).
Well man to this day has not been able to start life.
We are able to reproduce but no one can explain how the process actually starts a life.
Are you talking about how the process of meiosis works? If so, then I think we know quite a lot about it.
Even something as simple as a seed can lay dormant for years but then comes to life and grow under the right conditions, and that can't be explained.
Yes it can.
So the obvious conclusion is it would have to be from an outside source.....God.
Is he also responsible for all the Maths you didn't understand a school? What is obvious, is that assigning to God everything you don't understand will ultimately result in your God getting smaller and more useless the more you learn. That might explain many theists aversion to education.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf this is what your refering to here are A couple quotes I found on this subject:
Yes he has. (though that may depend on what you meant by that statement, but man has successfully taken non living matter and created living matter).
[b]We are able to reproduce but no one can explain how the process actually starts a life.
Are you talking about how the process of meiosis works? If so, then I think we know quite a lot about it.
r and more useless the more you learn. That might explain many theists aversion to education.[/b]
"The fact is, they have NOT created a living cell from non-living matter. This is NOT "Artificial life" even though poorly educated journalist insist on calling it that.
If you read down the story (past the hype) you will see the following
"They started with a species of bacteria called Mycoplasma capricolum and, by replacing its genome with one they wrote themselves, turned it into a customized variant of a second existing species, called Mycoplasma mycoides, they reported."
"To assemble the strips of DNA, the researchers said they took advantage of the natural capacities of yeast and other bacteria to meld genes and chromosomes in order to stitch those short sequences into ever-longer fragments until they had assembled the complete genome, as the entire set of an organism's genetic instructions is called.
They transplanted that master set of genes into an emptied cell, where it converted the cell into a different species."
What they have done is taken an existing, living cell, and "reprogrammed" it by putting in new, synthetic, DNA. That's about as far from making a new cell as if a "script kiddie" infected my laptop with a virus and then claimed he had created a new computer!
This is a big accomplishment, but it is NOT "creating a new cell from non-living matter". It is re-programing an pre-existing living organism. A big deal, but NOT "creating life"."
"But this isn't really a new life form, says Jim Collins, a synthetic biologist at Boston University. "Its genome is a stitched-together copy of the DNA of an organism that exists in nature."
Collins says Venter has created something remarkable, but it's not creating life.
"We don't know enough biology to create or synthesize life," says Collins. "I think we're far removed from understanding how [you would] build a truly artificial genome from scratch."
This is not man creating life. Do some research please.
and actually MoBombmed- this disproves the entire foundation of evolution.
here's a little evolution b...s for you;
According to evolution 1st came RNA, 2nd came DNA, and 3rd came the Cell. Hmmmmmmmm? But doesn't RNA need DNA to do Anything!? And doesn't DNA need a Cell to do Anything!? So where did this wondrous machine called the CELL come from?
Evolution is exactly backwards of the way the real world works."
Originally posted by galveston75Mr G, i see you haven't answered my questions with regard to my fox experiment. Do you accpet that my scenario would produce a new kind? If not why not?
If this is what your refering to here are A couple quotes I found on this subject:
"The fact is, they have NOT created a living cell from non-living matter. This is NOT "Artificial life" even though poorly educated journalist insist on calling it that.
If you read down the story (past the hype) you will see the following
"They started with a s ...[text shortened]... volution is exactly backwards of the way the real world works."
Originally posted by galveston75Well that depends on how you define life. The term has grey edges and that leaves any claims about it rather shaky.
This is a big accomplishment, but it is NOT "creating a new cell from non-living matter". It is re-programing an pre-existing living organism. A big deal, but NOT "creating life".
For example, is a cell with its nucleus removed 'alive' or 'dead' or somewhere in between?
So you admit scientists have successfully made a new nucleus. So what you dispute is the cell wall and other structures in the cell? If we add those one by one, will we have made life? Or is each of those structures 'living'?
here's a little evolution b...s for you;
According to evolution 1st came RNA, 2nd came DNA, and 3rd came the Cell.
Not necessarily. It depends what you mean by 'the cell'.
Hmmmmmmmm? But doesn't RNA need DNA to do Anything!?
No.
And doesn't DNA need a Cell to do Anything!?
Again, it depends what you mean by 'the cell'.
So where did this wondrous machine called the CELL come from?
Evolution is exactly backwards of the way the real world works."
Well, explain the way the real world works and how evolution is 'backwards'. Merely stating it makes no sense here.
Originally posted by Proper KnobMy dear knobster. YOU need to reread this info again and read the fine print. Until you can show absolute evidence on this stuff we have nothing to talk about. When words like " we suggest, supposed, maybe, we think", etc, are not there and the proof is then we can discuss this more.
Mr G, i see you haven't answered my questions with regard to my fox experiment. Do you accpet that my scenario would produce a new kind? If not why not?
You guys read these things and get all excited but don't pay attention to those little killer words that makes it all crash and burn...........