How does evolution explain the complexity of protein synthesis or DNA replication? Can evolution work knowing that these incredibly complex mechanisms exist?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?
- Thread starter Neogaia777
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Correct, life has the "appearance of design". Please note the word "appearance". That means it only seems like it was designed. If you look at life more closely it was clearly the product of evolution. Talk to a biologist. They may be able to help you.
And no, DNA is not a language in the sense that you are using the word. You just performed an equivocation fallacy.
Yes, we can prove our case. But no, I won't. Not at this hour of the night.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Actually you are asking questions that are more in the realm of abiogenesis. And it is far too late to get into this more difficult subject. What you just did was the logical error of moving the goal posts. When someone does this I will usually not discuss the topic until they admit that evolution occurred. Understanding how life itself works is a subject that biologists are just beginning to understand. What you don't seem to understand is that we don't need to know how life started exactly to know that it evolved.
Upvote
0
Where is your evidence?
It is certainly a set of instructions which allows the cell to perform all of it's functions, and instructions are always written in some kind of language.
Upvote
0
I'm curious, you admit that life appears designed, but how does not not indicate design? We admit that everything beautiful and complex that we have made (art, technology, etc) is designed, but heavens forbid we ourselves were! I guess I should just wait for that evidence you all have.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
The evidence for evolution is everywhere. The most obvious to beginners is the fossil record. The fossil record can only be explained by using the theory of evolution. Then there are the many independent nested hierarchies observable in nature. Again, these can only be explained by the theory of evolution. It is too late and I am too tired, but here is a link to a Christian group of scientists that accept reality:
http://biologos.org/
No, DNA just causes a series of chemical reactions. People put the meaning into it. It does not have an inherent meaning. Once again you are trying to commit an equivocation error.
Upvote
0
Well, abiogenesis is quite the problem without God, isn't it? I suppose if you want to prove there is no designer needed for life, then that of all places should be where you start.
Upvote
0
Yes, says the scientists who refuse to believe the global flood. Where did all of these fossils come from? Don't bones need to be covered quickly to fossilize? Is evolution really the only viable model of interpretation, or is that simply your bias?
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Because when one looks closely at life one sees only bad design that is overcome with what are basically kludges. The recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe goes all the way down to its heart and circles around and goes back up to its larynx which is just past its mouth. The original setup made sense in our fish ancestors, and once a "design" is set it is almost impossible to rewire it. As a result life is stuck with inefficiencies that could have been actually designed in a far superior way.
Upvote
0
How do simple chemical reactions cause cells to make proteins and replicate as needed by the rest of the body? How do cells communicate without a language?
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, it is merely complex. We first need to understand how life itself works before we can understand how it occurred on its own. And we are barely beginning to do that. Meanwhile more and more questions about abiogenesis keep getting answered. There are not enough answers to take it out of the realm of the hypothetical, but scientists are getting rather close.
Upvote
0
Pulling from Dawkins I see. Can you prove that the way this giraffe's nerve loops around the heart is somehow a bad design? What is a good design, in your view?
Upvote
0
And it doesn't take too much explaining to see that the earth looks flat. Until you provide the evidence of viewing it from space!
No and no. DNA is not language and language is not intelligence.
Again you attempt to shift the burden. I do not have to prove that we are not designed. You are making the claim that we are, so you must provide the evidence.
And if you wish to view the evidence in favour of evolution, I suggest that you enrol in a basic, free online course. The volume of evidence is too massive to present it in a discussion forum!
Upvote
0
Well, things like the human retina are clearly inferior in layout to other examples, like the octopus' retina.
Upvote
0
You are just explaining it with more evidence that cells communicate in some form or fashion.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
You use such poor language at times. No one is "refusing" to believe in the flood. The evidence clearly tells us that there never was a worldwide flood. The first geologists were actually Christians looking for evidence of the flood. They found that the evidence said "No".
And yes, evolution is the only model that has not been thoroughly refuted. Today's scientists put their work through the process of "peer review" that is where experts in the field submit their ideas for publication. Not all mistakes are removed, but articles that are obviously wrong are sent back for correction. Writing an article that passes peer review is a relatively low hurdle, and creationists cannot get over that hurdle.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
