Abiogenesis and Evolution

[As I was saying]

Well that's just not true.

Is it? Then provide the evidence that we/I descended from an amoeba.

 

[As I was saying]

No, see the problem here is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of biology. This is a misunderstanding that could be rectified by a google search.

Is that so? If that is the case so do evolutionists as that is what they told me.

 

[crjmurray]

Is that so? If that is the case so do evolutionists as that is what they told me.

Again, that's not true. No one told you that. You read that on some silly website. You didn't read that in a scientific paper anywhere.

 

[029b10]

No, see the problem here is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of biology. This is a misunderstanding that could be rectified by a google search.

To have a fundamental understanding of any science you have to know the principles upon which the science is based, evolutionary biology says anything can happened, i.e. random genetic mutations, that can rewrite that fundamental knowledge. While of course, mutations can occur as evident by the fact they do within a species, but they don't rewrite the rules and make a new species.

You probably think that man's ability to speak just evolved, if you start with the premise that noboby could talk, then it couldn't have evolved because the ability to speak, or rather communicate with language requires on extensive exposure to hearing the spoken Word in order to develop. Once this critical period of development is lost, the ability to of a child to speak is lost permanently for the remainder of their life times. So the ability to speak doesn't evolve upwards, it descends remember.

 

[029b10]

There is nothing at all to suggest we all had a common ancestor..

What about the CREATOR?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

There is nothing at all to suggest we all had a common ancestor.

Except of course there is. How else do you explain the argument from functional redundancy of ubiquitous genes?

If your response is 'God did it', could you then also provide some strong objective evidence that there is actually a God.

To have a fundamental understanding of any science you have to know the principles upon which the science is based, evolutionary biology says anything can happened, i.e. random genetic mutations, that can rewrite that fundamental knowledge. While of course, mutations can occur as evident by the fact they do within a species, but they don't rewrite the rules and make a new species.

Except that evolutionary biology does not say that 'anything' can happen. The processes of natural selection and survival of the fittest make it practically impossible for a whole lot of things to happen. E.g. a species of elephants without mouths to allow them to eat (nor any alternative way of obtaining nutrition) cannot develop as they will not be able to survive to breed and create later generations.

Parallel evolution shows how constrained evolution is by the need to fit the environment.

That's right, mutations alone don't create new species, speciation is much more complicated than that.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The question is moot as all the life and species we see today did not evolve through natural processes from the first created life. The bible makes it very clear that God created every thing after its own kind. There is nothing at all to suggest we all had a common ancestor. Humans were created humans. Cats were created cats. Dogs were created dogs. Lizards were created lizards and so on ad infinitum. The common ancestor bit is a creation of man who wants to keep God out of the equation so that they can claim they don't need God because they have it all worked out.

The bible does not suggest that a little blob of amoeba appeared out of the blue and became a fish which became a lizard which became a bird which became a dinosaur which became a monkey which became a human being which became a......In addition there is no evidence whatsoever that is what happened as far as the idea of evolution claims. Well, did claim but I am aware that evolution is a shifting sand that makes itself up as it goes along.

Not so long ago, evolution was all about a monkey becoming a human. Now I am told by evolutionists that evolution is all about adaptation so monkeys don't become humans anymore. They grow long fur to adapt to their cold environment. That being the case, it means that God created Adam and Eve and since that day we have men and women creating male and female. Not once is their any record of a man and a woman creating anything other than a male or a female or a monkey producing a human.

I realise that how humans lived and operated changed over time as they developed their ability to make and create things and their concept of community but at the end of the day men were and are men and women were and are women and monkeys were and are monkeys and ne'er the twain shall meet. The fact that monkeys have 98% of the characteristics of humans means nothing other than that is how God created them. Why shouldn't God create an animal that has 98% of the characteristics of humans? After all, he is God so he can do what he likes.

Well said. The same idea applies to the supposed Big Bang by naturalistic processes. I'm currently reading a book called "Dismantling the Big Bang" and it's clear that the theory of the Big Bang is full of assumptions based on nothing but faith, which would amount to nothing less than miracles if they really happened. Since it is highly likely therefore that God created the universe, it also makes sense to me to attribute the creation of life to Him and not some highly-speculative process that statistical probability alone clearly rules out by incredible, mind-blowing orders of magnitude.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Well said. The same idea applies to the supposed Big Bang by naturalistic processes. I'm currently reading a book called "Dismantling the Big Bang" and it's clear that the theory of the Big Bang is full of assumptions based on nothing but faith, which would amount to nothing less than miracles if they really happened. Since it is highly likely therefore that God created the universe, it also makes sense to me to attribute the creation of life to Him and not some highly-speculative process that statistical probability alone clearly rules out by incredible, mind-blowing orders of magnitude.

Can you describe one of those assumptions that is based on nothing but faith?

 

[As I was saying]

Again, that's not true. No one told you that. You read that on some silly website. You didn't read that in a scientific paper anywhere.

Another talent of atheists. ESP. How do you know that no one told me that? How do you know that I read it on a silly website? By the way that would be difficult as I usually don't read atheist websites.

I read in the Bible that the Holy Spirit leads you into all truth. You obviously read that scientific papers lead you into all truth even when the truth is a hoax like the Piltdown Man.

 

[As I was saying]

Well said. The same idea applies to the supposed Big Bang by naturalistic processes. I'm currently reading a book called "Dismantling the Big Bang" and it's clear that the theory of the Big Bang is full of assumptions based on nothing but faith, which would amount to nothing less than miracles if they really happened. Since it is highly likely therefore that God created the universe, it also makes sense to me to attribute the creation of life to Him and not some highly-speculative process that statistical probability alone clearly rules out by incredible, mind-blowing orders of magnitude.

Ha ha. So true. After reading the various claims of atheists, darwiniists and evolutionists, the mind boggles at the level of faith they exercise to believe the mumbo jumbo they put out. They are on the level of sorcerers and mediums in their claims and their nonsense.

 

[As I was saying]

Except of course there is. How else do you explain the argument from functional redundancy of ubiquitous genes? If your response is 'God did it', could you then also provide some strong objective evidence that there is actually a God.

I don't explain the argument from functional redundancy of ubiquitous genes for the simple reason that a single happening is not the be all and end all of life. it is nothing more than a "gotcha" statement to try and justify your weird take on things.

Perhaps you would like to tell me how life began? If you are an atheist that believes in evolution that should be an easy question to answer.

Judging by your last question you are just another lazy atheist who refuses to do your own homework. There is so much evidence out there that the mind boggles. The only ones who do not see it are those that don't want to see it like the head atheist honcho here in Australia. He wrote an article in which he said miracles do not happen, which I happened to read. I sent him details of miracles that have happened. You know time, place, people involved, their phone number etc. Did he follow up on it all? Not on your life. He was happy in his ignorance and lies.

A few weeks ago we were told of young man who had been bashed in a fight and had hit his head on the ground and suffered brain damage. The hospital's prognosis was that he would be a vegetable for the rest of his life. God spoke to me and told me to go and pray for him. I went and took two of my Christian bothers with me. The hospital and the young man's parents welcomed our offer of prayer. We prayed and laid hands on him and put a prayer cloth under his pillow to continue the healing process. Our last report from the hospital is that he has regained consciousness is sitting up and talking.

That is objective evidence but I don't expect you to acknowledge the fact as you don't want evidence you want an argument.

A few weeks ago some of our young people went to Africa with one of our evangelists who specialises in healing. The young people got involved in the prayer for healing. Here is one story a young man told us at the meeting on Sunday. A man came forward and held out his hand. His fingers of one hand were all pointing back at him. They had been like that since birth. He lifted the man's hand up and as he prayed, the fingers unfurled and went out straight as normal.

That is objective evidence but I don't expect you to acknowledge it as you don't want evidence you want an argument.

Another young lady who had been deaf from birth was presented to a young lady in the team for prayer. She prayed for her and she heard for the first time.

That is objective evidence but I don't expect you to acknowledge it as you don't want evidence you want an argument. As I said there is plenty of evidence out there but cynicism and self righteousness prevents you from seeing any of it. If it doesn't fit in with your gospel according to scientific papers you are all at sea and unable to face reality.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't explain the argument from functional redundancy of ubiquitous genes for the simple reason that a single happening is not the be all and end all of life. it is nothing more than a "gotcha" statement to try and justify your weird take on things.

Perhaps you would like to tell me how life began? If you are an atheist that believes in evolution that should be an easy question to answer.

Judging by your last question you are just another lazy atheist who refuses to do your own homework. There is so much evidence out there that the mind boggles. The only ones who do not see it are those that don't want to see it like the head atheist honcho here in Australia. He wrote an article in which he said miracles do not happen, which I happened to read. I sent him details of miracles that have happened. You know time, place, people involved, their phone number etc. Did he follow up on it all? Not on your life. He was happy in his ignorance and lies.

A few weeks ago we were told of young man who had been bashed in a fight and had hit his head on the ground and suffered brain damage. The hospital's prognosis was that he would be a vegetable for the rest of his life. God spoke to me and told me to go and pray for him. I went and took two of my Christian bothers with me. The hospital and the young man's parents welcomed our offer of prayer. We prayed and laid hands on him and put a prayer cloth under his pillow to continue the healing process. Our last report from the hospital is that he has regained consciousness is sitting up and talking.

That is objective evidence but I don't expect you to acknowledge the fact as you don't want evidence you want an argument.

A few weeks ago some of our young people went to Africa with one of our evangelists who specialises in healing. The young people got involved in the prayer for healing. Here is one story a young man told us at the meeting on Sunday. A man came forward and held out his hand. His fingers of one hand were all pointing back at him. They had been like that since birth. He lifted the man's hand up and as he prayed, the fingers unfurled and went out straight as normal.

That is objective evidence but I don't expect you to acknowledge it as you don't want evidence you want an argument.

Another young lady who had been deaf from birth was presented to a young lady in the team for prayer. She prayed for her and she heard for the first time.

That is objective evidence but I don't expect you to acknowledge it as you don't want evidence you want an argument. As I said there is plenty of evidence out there but cynicism and self righteousness prevents you from seeing any of it. If it doesn't fit in with your gospel according to scientific papers you are all at sea and unable to face reality.

Stories are not evidence.

Ha ha. So true. After reading the various claims of atheists, darwiniists and evolutionists, the mind boggles at the level of faith they exercise to believe the mumbo jumbo they put out.

What about the Christian 'Evolutionists'?

Another talent of atheists. ESP. How do you know that no one told me that? How do you know that I read it on a silly website? By the way that would be difficult as I usually don't read atheist websites.

So who told you?

 

[Loudmouth]

The question is moot as all the life and species we see today did not evolve through natural processes from the first created life.

That isn't the topic of this thread. There are plenty of other threads that discuss the evidence for evolution. I strongly encourage people to check out my thread that deals with some of the genetic evidence for common ancestry. Please check it out and discuss the evidence.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-evidence-for-human-evolution.7840464/

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Can you describe one of those assumptions that is based on nothing but faith?

Well it's hard to know where to begin as the book is stuffed full of descriptions about the problems that scientists have been and are continuing to have about how to come up with a coherent theory for the origin of the universe, without involving a deity. Even though it is only semi-technical, I must admit that much of it seems like sci-fi to me. Without going into detail about such things as Cosmological Constants and Horizon Problems, it seems clear that known physical laws were not in operation at the very beginning, so any model used to describe what happened at that stage must be purely speculative. Given that the search for the truth means that the seeker is probably wrong much more frequently than they are right, I don't have any faith that those who adhere to that idea for the origin of the universe have got it right and instead, I prefer to put my faith in the God of the Bible.

 

[justlookinla]

common ancestry.

Common building blocks.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Ha ha. So true. After reading the various claims of atheists, darwiniists and evolutionists, the mind boggles at the level of faith they exercise to believe the mumbo jumbo they put out. They are on the level of sorcerers and mediums in their claims and their nonsense.

They would still believe their fairy story, even if the chances of it being true was only 1 in 10 to the power of infinity, rather that the more manageable probabilities of 1 in 10 to the power of several thousands. Just remember, they have to rule out any possibility of a deity being involved for, as one evolutionist once wrote, "we cannot allow a divine foot in the door" (and I don't care whether they call that a quote mine or whatever, it means what it says, just as the Bible does when it tells us that "In the beginning, God created...").

 

[Loudmouth]

Common building blocks.

Phylogeny.

 

[justlookinla]

Phylogeny.

Alleged.

 

[Loudmouth]

Alleged.

Observed.

 

[justlookinla]

Observed.

Constructed.