Originally posted by NickstenFirst of all: Abiogenesis is one thing. Evolution is another thing. You have to read up on this, so you don't mix them both, okay?
By saying "No human has actually observed the process of how life really was created" we can make the assumption that creation could also be false, it depends where you stand and how you look at it.
From where I stand, the Bible teaches us that God created life (humans, animals, plants etc etc). It is only logical that a supernatural has created life.
...[text shortened]... s claims of how life possible could have begin by testing this in a lab.
Big difference....
"No human has actually observed the process of how life really has transformed" and therefore evolution is wrong.
and
"No human has actually observed the process of how life really was created" and therefore creation is wrong.
Two similar statements, and two similar conclusions. Either both are wrong, or both are right. On cannot bi wrong if the other is right.
By using the argument to disprove evolution, you disprove creation at the same time.
Don't refer to the bible, it isn't scientific. However, there are a lot of scientific research about evolution, if you care to read.
Originally posted by FabianFnasThey are linked together just like the chicken and the egg. 😏
First of all: Abiogenesis is one thing. Evolution is another thing. You have to read up on this, so you don't mix them both, okay?
"No human has actually observed the process of how life really has transformed" and therefore evolution is wrong.
and
"No human has actually observed the process of how life really was created" and therefore creation is w ...[text shortened]... ic. However, there are a lot of scientific research about evolution, if you care to read.
Originally posted by RJHindsThen you haven't learnt how to google yet.
They are linked together just like the chicken and the egg.
Wikipeida says about abiogenesis:
"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth originally arose."
Wikipeida says about evolution:
"Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."
The chicken is evolved from the first living cell on Earth, that's evolution. Evolution doesn't say anything about how this first cell came around, that's about abiogenesis.
Got it now?
Originally posted by FabianFnasHe knows how to Google, he just doesn't accept the results he gets. He probably has an option somewhere to filter out any non-creationist sites. He has been told many times what we mean when we use the word 'evolution' but he insists on misunderstanding us and using his own definition.
Then you haven't learnt how to google yet.
Originally posted by FabianFnasAbiogenesis is like the original creations of God. Example: the chicken.
Then you haven't learnt how to google yet.
Wikipeida says about abiogenesis:
"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth originally arose."
Wikipeida says about evolution:
"Evolution is any chang ...[text shortened]... anything about how this first cell came around, that's about abiogenesis.
Got it now?
Evolution (no such thing) is like the reproduction and adaptation that
God progammed into the original creations. Example: the egg and chicks.
GOT IT NOW?
Originally posted by RJHinds"Abiogenesis is like the original creations of God. Example: the chicken."
Abiogenesis is like the original creations of God. Example: the chicken.
Evolution (no such thing) is like the reproduction and adaptation that
God progammed into the original creations. Example: the egg and chicks.
[b]GOT IT NOW?[/b]
Okay, that's according to your religion.
"Evolution (no such thing) is like the reproduction and adaptation that
God progammed into the original creations."
When you say "no such thing", then you have misunderstood the whole concept. And you know it, because you continue to explain your view of evolution.
You really have to learn about evolution before you say you know anything about it.
But still, now you suddenly accept abiogenesis as not being a part of evolution. That's something for a starter.
But you will fall down to creationism again, I'm sure.
Originally posted by SwissGambitnot so, Christ himself quotes from the Book of Genesis stating that we were created, as
I don't think so. Only a Christian committed to a literal reading of Genesis has a problem with evolution.
does Paul, only those who have relegated the ancient text and supplanted it with pure
unadulterated materialistic dogma have a problem, how to merge the two mutually
exclusive ideologies.
Originally posted by NickstenOriginally posted by kevcvs57
but why the sudden difference in species?
When geologists say sudden they dont mean blinding light type sudden; they mean, "with the Cambrian explosion itself occurring within a 20 to 40 million year window during the lower Cambrian period." type sudden!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI vaguely remember it ... can you please provide chapter and verse?
not so, Christ himself quotes from the Book of Genesis stating that we were created, as
does Paul, only those who have relegated the ancient text and supplanted it with pure
unadulterated materialistic dogma have a problem, how to merge the two mutually
exclusive ideologies.
If I were still a Christian, I'd say God used evolution to create us. That's probably what Jesus meant.
Originally posted by SwissGambitsure, its in the context of a question about some detail of the Mosiac law and divorce,
I vaguely remember it ... can you please provide chapter and verse?
If I were still a Christian, I'd say God used evolution to create us. That's probably what Jesus meant.
but Christ quotes directly from the book of Genesis, demonstrating that he not only
believed the account but used it to teach others on the basis of its authority,
(Matthew 19:3-5) . . .And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and
saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” In reply he
said: “Did you not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them
male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother
and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?
I think if i were anything other than a JW i would be an ex Christian as well, too much hypocrisy.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThanks for that.
sure, its in the context of a question about some detail of the Mosiac law and divorce,
but Christ quotes directly from the book of Genesis, demonstrating that he not only
believed the account but used it to teach others on the basis of its authority,
(Matthew 19:3-5) . . .And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and
saying: “Is ...[text shortened]... think if i were anything other than a JW i would be an ex Christian as well, too much hypocrisy.
I guess I still don't see an issue; after all, Jesus too could read [at least parts of] Genesis figuratively rather than literally and thus avoid the conflict with evolution. I think it's perfectly valid to say that God created using evolution.
I mean, the prophecy of Daniel 9 refers to 'weeks' and this is understood to be 'weeks of years' - 7 year periods - right? The weeks are not literal weeks. It just goes to show that not all parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour doubts, the reason why you are closed minded and don't read anything which conflicts with your religious beliefs.
doubts about what? a pile of might be's, we dont really know and we cannot agree, yes
faith shattering indeed dear PK! No empiric scientific evidence! Neeeext mythology of
the materialist of you please.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd what do you know about punctuated equilibrium, you're too scared to read a book on the topic let alone lecture everyone else on the subject.
they claim it was through the process termed 'punctuated equilibrium', one of my
favourite inventions of the materialist to make his theory fit the evidence! Apparently
it was not gradual at all, but somehow, through some causation, evolution took leaps
and bounds! whole species appearing without precedent, vertebrates for example!