Originally posted by amannionDo you think that Darwin's idea of Origin of Species should have nothing to say about the origin of the first species?
Speculation and wishful thinking?
That's rich coming from you.
No matter how much you might like it or want ti to be true, there is no link - I'll say it again in capitals since everyone seems to like that for emphasis - NO LINK between evolution and the origin of life.
To suggest otherwise is like suggesting a link between the theory of continental dr ...[text shortened]... ist - but the possibility exists - which takes me back to my original question in Post #1.
Oparin, Miller, Urey, Fox, Abelson, Wald, Sagan and others were proposing origin of life theories. I think they are all supportive of Evolution.
Doesn't their attempting to address the origins problem infer that origin of life is a part of Evolutionary theory?
Originally posted by jaywillHitler was a Christian and also a proponent of gassing Jews. Doesn't this show that being a Christian gives one a natural predisposition to gassing Jews?
Do you think that Darwin's idea of [b]Origin of Species should have nothing to say about the origin of the first species?
Oparin, Miller, Urey, Fox, Abelson, Wald, Sagan and others were proposing origin of life theories. I think they are all supportive of Evolution.
Doesn't their attempting to address the origins problem infer that origin of life is a part of Evolutionary theory?[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou are contradicting yourself.
It doesn't. The agreement between experimental results and understanding does that.
If the agreement between experimental results and understanding is used to determine whether a faulty premise was used in your experiment, then it means that your understanding of Chemistry is used as the absolute point of reference, since that is used to evaluate the experimental results.
Originally posted by scottishinnzTypical phony would be expert on science.
I have never backed away from this discussion.
Typical lying creationist.
I mean to say that Evolutionists have backed off of including Origin of life as being a part of Evolution Theory.
And if you say "Origin of life has nothing to do with Evolution" or something similiar then I would include you too.
You may want to talk about origin of life. But I suspect you want to keep the theory of Evolution isolated from that problem.
Originally posted by jaywillI've still not seen anyone produce any documentation that says that evolutionists ever claimed that Origin Of Life was part of Evolution. Can you please provide evidence for this claim of a 'backing off' that you keep making?
Typical phony would be expert on science.
I mean to say that Evolutionists have backed off of including Origin of life as being a part of Evolution Theory.
And if you say "Origin of life has nothing to do with Evolution" or something similiar then I would include you too.
You may want to talk about origin of life. But I suspect you want to keep the theory of Evolution isolated from that problem.
--- Penguin
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by PenguinI am still waiting for you to explain to me why the Stanley Miller experiment was hailed as a major breakthrough in Evolutionary Science.
I've still not seen anyone produce any documentation that says that evolutionists ever claimed that Origin Of Life was part of Evolution. Can you please provide evidence for this claim of a 'backing off' that you keep making?
--- Penguin
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou can read what I believe from me or ask specific questions, what
It's just standard Christian doctorine. Please, tell me what you disagree with! Is God not omnipotent? Omnipresent? Omniscienct? Omnibenevolent? Does he not, according to standard Christian doctorine, make every soul unique?
is standard Christian doctrine in your mind may not be in mine. At
lease give me the benifit of stating my beliefs and I'll give you a
chance to state yours.
I can say yes to your questions and statements, but still not mean the
same thing when I say it as you do, when you say it.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinThe Miller-Urey primordial experiment is germane to TOE. Otherwise, the whole thing (despite other internal flaws) is one big dangling participle.
I've still not seen anyone produce any documentation that says that evolutionists ever claimed that Origin Of Life was part of Evolution. Can you please provide evidence for this claim of a 'backing off' that you keep making?
--- Penguin
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't think it is germane(sp?) to the TOE at all. All the TOE says is what will happen given a starting point of self replicating structures, random replication errors, limited resources and time. It doesn't care how those self replicationg structures came about. Maybe God did it, maybe the Cosmic Teapot flew past and spilt some cosmic tea, maybe the conditions just happened to be right for their spontaneous creation from a chemical soup, may God made those conditions in the first place. It really doesn't matter either way to the accuracy or not of the theory.
The Miller-Urey primordial experiment is germane to TOE. Otherwise, the whole thing (despite other internal flaws) is one big dangling participle.
With regard to the Miller-Urey experiment, I have seen the term 'chemical evolution' in the pages I've looked at but no reference to who coined it or what it means. I shall have to dig deeper...
--- Penguin
Originally posted by scottishinnzOkay, Scott, try this on for size:
Okay, Genesis one. it gets the order of creation wrong when it stipulates land plants were created before the sun. This is obviously wrong according to science, but I've shown why it can be explained as a story.
I. "AND GOD SAID, "LET THERE BE LIGHT."
A. In verse one we read, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I understand that to mean our universe.
B. In verse 2 we read that the earth was without form and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep.
1. Out here in the corner of the Milky Way Galaxy was a formless mass, covered with ice shrouded in darkness. It was called earth.
2. It is possible that the cloud cover around the earth was so thick that no light could penetrate through it.
C. It would also appear that the Sun and the stars were not actually created on the fourth day of creation, but that is when they became visible, on earth, the cloud cover was removed sufficiently to allow them to be seen.
1. If in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, it must have been that the stars and sun were created then.
2. The Hebrew word for create in verse one is Bara, something out of nothing.
D. We know that God can create darkness.
1. The interesting plague of darkness that God brought upon the Egyptians.
2. We are told that the darkness could be felt.
3. Yet at the same time there was light in the dwellings of the children of Israel.
4. When Jesus was crucified, darkness covered the land from noon to three in the afternoon.
5. Have you ever experienced total darkness?
a. When I was a young boy the family went through the Oregon caves.
b. That was a darkness that you could feel.
II. THE INTERESTING NATURE OF LIGHT.
A. Light possesses both physical and spiritual characteristics.
1. The intensity of light can be measured.
2. The speed of light can be measured.
3. Light is divided into various phenomena, from the gamma rays to radio rays. We speak of black light. The ultra violet, and infrared.
A. God divided the light from the darkness.
1. Light can be divided. It is divided on the spectroscope.
2. The light emitted from elements heated to incandescence always finds its way to its special spot on the spectroscope.
3. Light can be twisted and bent.
a. If you have a solid plastic tube, you and bend it into different shapes and angles and hold a flashlight at one end of the tube, the light will follow the bends and come out the other end of the tube.
4. Light can pass through substance as hard as a rock and come out the other side unimpaired.
5. Light can be bent. Mirrors.
III. IT IS INTERESTING THAT IN THE NEW JERUSALEM, THERE WILL BE NO NEED FOR THE LIGHT OF THE SUN, FOR THE GLORY OF GOD WILL LIGHTEN IT, AND THE LAMB [IS] THE LIGHT THEREOF.
A. Both God the Father and Jesus are referred to as light.
1JO 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1. We read in John's gospel:
JOH 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
JOH 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
JOH 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
JOH 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
JOH 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
JOH 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
JOH 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.
JOH 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe.
JOH 1:8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.
JOH 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
B. When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about the necessity of being born again. Nicodemus questioned Jesus as to how a person could be born again. In answer to that question Jesus said,
JOH 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
JOH 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
JOH 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
JOH 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
JOH 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
JOH 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
C. It is interesting to me that the final destiny of those who refuse to believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, because they preferred the darkness over the light because of their evil deeds is to be cast into what Jesus called, "Outer darkness."
MAT 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
MAT 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
IV. THERE ARE THREE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE THAT TAKE US BACK TO THE BEGINNING.
A. Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
B. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things were made by Him.
C. 1Jo. 1:1 That which was from the beginning.
D. I find it very fascinating that in the end man's final destiny will be either in darkness or light.
1. To those who love darkness, is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.
2. To those who love the light, the city of God that has not the need of the Sun to lighten it, for the Father and the Son will be the light of it.
1JO 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1JO 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us😉
1JO 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1JO 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
1JO 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1JO 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1JO 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Originally posted by PenguinThat TOE required a further mechanism by which to eliminate special creation from the equation is self-evident. Supposedly providing such an opportunity, the self-genesis is germane (sp!) to TOE's very existence.
I don't think it is germane(sp?) to the TOE at all. All the TOE says is what will happen given a starting point of self replicating structures, random replication errors, limited resources and time. It doesn't care how those self replicationg structures came about. Maybe God did it, maybe the Cosmic Teapot flew past and spilt some cosmic tea, maybe the condi ...[text shortened]... reference to who coined it or what it means. I shall have to dig deeper...
--- Penguin