Originally posted by RJHindsyou don't get to "believe" it or not. you either understand it or you don't. the facts remain true regardless of your belief.
I don't believe it is common sense to believe the theory of evolution. It was not even a common belief until recently. Is the belief that DNA just created itself common sense? Is the belief that computer programs just create themselves also common sense?
we understand it just fine. some more than others but still we have enough knowledge on the subject to see it is valid science.
"Is the belief that computer programs just create themselves also common sense?"
no. because we know they are not. we have proof. it is also a stupid analogy because evolution doesn't explain the origin of life and it never claimed otherwise.
"Is the belief that DNA just created itself common sense?"
no it's not common sense. because it didn't create itself. it came into existence from simpler elements. because physics.
Originally posted by ZahlanziNeither is it common sense to believe that life just creates itself. Biological evolution isn't even possible unless we have life first. And there is only one plausible theory for the creation of life because, as you said, evolutionists don't have one.
you don't get to "believe" it or not. you either understand it or you don't. the facts remain true regardless of your belief.
we understand it just fine. some more than others but still we have enough knowledge on the subject to see it is valid science.
"Is the belief that computer programs just create themselves also common sense?"
no. because ...[text shortened]... because it didn't create itself. it came into existence from simpler elements. because physics.
1 edit
To my joy I find this thread has been moved from Science to Spiritual. Thank you moderators! 🙂
Creationism is just a hypothesis to try to explain the contradictions between the genesis and observations from the nature.
Like if you see something in real life that contradicts the genesis part of the bible, then what you see is wrong, and the bible is right. Solution? Redefine the terms used.
Evolution? No, micro-adaptations.
Talking snakes? Yes, because they were demons, today however they are without sin because they don't talk.
Dinosaurs? Well, dragons living even today, as lizards and alligators. Even people ride on them.
Particle/wave-duality of the photon? Scientists don't know, creationists know (if it says so in the bible).
And so on...
I see creationism as part of their religion. Science doesn't have to be redefined.
Originally posted by FabianFnasAnd the world is 6000 years old and they only took BABY dinosaurs on the Ark and Jews fed Egyptians the 6 day creation tale and the flood was real, because we have the Grand Canyon in the US and the moon got cooled down because it was flooded with water.
To my joy I find this thread has been moved from Science to Spiritual. Thank you moderators! 🙂
Creationism is just a hypothesis to try to explain the contradictions between the genesis and observations from the nature.
Like if you see something in real life that contradicts the genesis part of the bible, then what you see is wrong, and the bible is r ...[text shortened]... d so on...
I see creationism as part of their religion. Science doesn't have to be redefined.
Originally posted by RJHindsThere was a quite common belief up until the early modern period that mice and other small pests were created through abiogenesis, this went back to the early Greek Philosophers. The theories have been abandoned in the mean time, but you can read about them if you type "Spontaneous generation" into Wikipedia's search tool. Consequently I dispute your claim that it is against common sense.
Neither is it common sense to believe that life just creates itself. Biological evolution isn't even possible unless we have life first. And there is only one plausible theory for the creation of life because, as you said, evolutionists don't have one.
I agree that biological evolution is impossible without life. This is because bios means life, and therefore the sentence is a tautology. However what is not ruled out is metabiological evolution, here I am using metabiological (a word I just made up) to mean the study of proto-life. So I don't think your claim that evolution requires life first holds water on those grounds.
Further viruses are not alive. They are regarded as non-living as they have no independent metabolism. However there is little doubt that, at least micro-evolution (which many creationists accept exists), does act on them. So I have a counter example to you claim that evolution requires life to act on.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou should know by now that I always refer to the general "Theory of Evolution" when I use the term evolution. I do not refer to the changed and made up definitons to save face as evolutionist go along and discover they were wrong.
There was a quite common belief up until the early modern period that mice and other small pests were created through abiogenesis, this went back to the early Greek Philosophers. The theories have been abandoned in the mean time, but you can read about them if you type "Spontaneous generation" into Wikipedia's search tool. Consequently I dispute your c ...[text shortened]... s act on them. So I have a counter example to you claim that evolution requires life to act on.
"Spontaneous generation" was proven to be wrong when the evolutionists were forming their plan to take God out of nature. However, many of those that toot evolution still look to abiogenesis instead of God as a way to explain the creation of life.
Darwin's goal was to explain the origin of the species from one common ancestor, but he failed and the whole theory is falling apart piece by piece.
http://www.ukapologetics.net/1HARTWING.html
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, but my point was that spontaneous generation is not contrary to common sense, or at least was not before the modern era - they started doubting it long before Darwin. Neither is abiogenesis, which is more modest in what it attempts to claim can come about by natural (rather than divine) processes.
You should know by now that I always refer to the general "Theory of Evolution" when I use the term evolution. I do not refer to the changed and made up definitons to save face as evolutionist go along and discover they were wrong.
"Spontaneous generation" was proven to be wrong when the evolutionists were forming their plan to take God out of nature. H ...[text shortened]... the whole theory is falling apart piece by piece.
http://www.ukapologetics.net/1HARTWING.html
I'm afraid you are deluded if you think that the theory of evolution is falling apart at the seams. It is becoming more complete as time passes. Your language is interesting though:
However, many of those that toot evolution still look to abiogenesis instead of God as a way to explain the creation of life.The way you expressed this makes it sound as if evolution is the older theory, and that Divine creation is the newer one. But, at least as far as Darwin's theory goes, it is of course the other way round.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtApparently you don't understand common English very well. But, of course, creation by God is the only theory that makes common sense.
Yes, but my point was that spontaneous generation is not contrary to common sense, or at least was not before the modern era - they started doubting it long before Darwin. Neither is abiogenesis, which is more modest in what it attempts to claim can come about by natural (rather than divine) processes.
I'm afraid you are deluded if you think that the ...[text shortened]... e newer one. But, at least as far as Darwin's theory goes, it is of course the other way round.
Originally posted by RJHinds
Apparently you don't understand common English very well. But, of course, creation by God is the only theory that makes common sense.
Apparently you don't understand common English very well.Just for that I'm going to point out every grammatical and spelling error you make in these forums until I get bored of doing it. I am very patient and don't get bored quickly.