Where did the laws of nature come from?

[stevevw]

I find your argument quite weak. First, it assumes that you, a lay person, know far more about it than all these scientists. Secondly, the fact that animals resemble one another is not explained away by saying they are all from the same environment, as many aren't. Also, animals from the same environment may not resemble one another at all, as they may not be directly related.

I could use that same logic by saying you are assuming that (1) I am a lay person and (2) its my argument. I have studied this topic for quite some time and am studying a related subject in Physiological psychology. I also do a lot of research and base what I post of the work of experts who are professionals in their fields. So in that sense my argument isn't so weak after all.

I was speaking more in a general sense that many animals have similar features such as aquatic creatures have gills and land creatures have lungs according to the environment they occupy. This can be broken down a little more such as desert creatures or plants have certain similarities ect. Its interesting that all complex creatures have eyes for example and yet many are distantly related. That means that each line of decent must have independently evolved eyes over and over again which is unusual for a process that is blind and unguided to find the exact same path right down to molecular similarities over and over again. That seems to speak more about a common design more then anything else.

If it was just about nutting out the best option for survivalist then why not evolve 4 eye with a couple in the rear of the head to keep an eye on predators that may try to sneak up on them. When you say animals that occupy the same environment are different what are you referring to. There are also many creatures that are very distantly related that have many similarities and even look the same like the dolphin and the shark for example. So who know what we can interpret from observation only. Thats why we need to go beyond that and use other ways to see whats happening.

 

[Hoghead1]

I could use that same logic by saying you are assuming that (1) I am a lay person and (2) its my argument. I have studied this topic for quite some time and am studying a related subject in Physiological psychology. I also do a lot of research and base what I post of the work of experts who are professionals in their fields. So in that sense my argument isn't so weak after all.

I was speaking more in a general sense that many animals have similar features such as aquatic creatures have gills and land creatures have lungs according to the environment they occupy. This can be broken down a little more such as desert creatures or plants have certain similarities ect. Its interesting that all complex creatures have eyes for example and yet many are distantly related. That means that each line of decent must have independently evolved eyes over and over again which is unusual for a process that is blind and unguided to find the exact same path right down to molecular similarities over and over again. That seems to speak more about a common design more then anything else.

If it was just about nutting out the best option for survivalist then why not evolve 4 eye with a couple in the rear of the head to keep an eye on predators that may try to sneak up on them. When you say animals that occupy the same environment are different what are you referring to. There are also many creatures that are very distantly related that have many similarities and even look the same like the dolphin and the shark for example. So who know what we can interpret from observation only. Thats why we need to go beyond that and use other ways to see whats happening.

I don't care how much you have studied the topic, you are still a lay person. Also, I have yet to see what qualified professionals you claim you are working from. And please, don't tell me they are in creation-science. My appoint is that the real scientists do not agree with your account as to why animals are similar.
Also, you say, above, that all complex creatures have eyes and are distantly related. Then you aid each line must have evolved independently . That makes no sense, as you already said they were related.
What did I mean when I said very different organisms can occupy the same environment? I meant, for example, I am sitting here, typing, while a fly is buzzing around. I and the fly are very different, yet we are sharing the same environment. That invalidates your whole argument that animals in the same environment look alike simply because they all live in the same environment.

Why not four eyes? C'mon. Because that would require a bigger brain to handle the additional visual input.

 

[KCfromNC]

I could use that same logic by saying you are assuming that (1) I am a lay person and (2) its my argument.

With a lack of a CV, all we have to judge you on is the content of your posts. That many people are coming to the same conclusion should be of interest to you.

I was speaking more in a general sense

If your ideas can't handle the specifics of reality it is time to reconsider. The approach of having to ignore real examples and still pretending to fit the "general sense" isn't particularly convincing. Make the claims vague enough and no one will be able to counter them with actual evidence, yes, but that isn't a good thing.

This can be broken down a little more such as desert creatures or plants have certain similarities ect.

Yeah, tortoises, ospreys and kangaroos have lots of similarities. Certainly way more similarities than to their non-desert dwelling reptile, bird and marsupial relatives.

Is this really the best you can do?

That seems to speak more about a common design more then anything else.

No, it speaks to a particular inefficient type of designer - one which had to recreate things in various different broken ways over and over. But since you're keeping which designer you favor a secret we'll never know if it has anything to do with the actual designer you have faith in.

If it was just about nutting out the best option for survivalist then why not evolve 4 eye with a couple in the rear of the head to keep an eye on predators that may try to sneak up on them.

Sounds like an argument that your alleged designer is dumber than you are. Almost as if it were an unintelligent non-directed natural process or something...

There are also many creatures that are very distantly related that have many similarities and even look the same like the dolphin and the shark for example. So who know what we can interpret from observation only. Thats why we need to go beyond that and use other ways to see whats happening.

Since we can observe that dolphins and sharks are different we need to go beyond observation to see things like that? You're going to have to show your work here.

 

[stevevw]

I don't care how much you have studied the topic, you are still a lay person.

So if I'm understanding you correctly you are saying unless you have a degree in biology you can comment on this topic. Yet as KCfromNC has just stated there are many who disagree with me and none have been questioned in their credentials of whether they are scientists and experts for what they say. So it seems if you support evolution then you can be a lay person and everything you say is accepted as being correct. But if your not then your subjected to the highest scrutiny and have to be an expert scientist. A little bias I think.

Also, I have yet to see what qualified professionals you claim you are working from. And please, don't tell me they are in creation-science. My appoint is that the real scientists do not agree with your account as to why animals are similar.

Whats this thing you have with creationists. You seem to keep mentioning them for some reason like if anyone disagrees with what the theory of evolution says then they must be a creationists. Thats assuming a lot.
I have posted several links to scientist who have no affiliation to religion at all not that that means that if they were that their evidence is automatically invalidated. Once again that would be assuming a lot.

Also, you say, above, that all complex creatures have eyes and are distantly related. Then you aid each line must have evolved independently. That makes no sense, as you already said they were related.[/quote] I stated that they were distantly related. If eyes were the end result of an unguided process and it happened many times over then something in that process indicates that its not an unguided process and there is a degree of design there. Something like an eye is pretty hard to evolve over and over again let alone once. If the info for complex eyes were in the common ancestor of all those distantly related creatures that independently evolved through their own branches on the tree of life then the genetic info for complex design was there very early in the scheme of things. If thats the case then that also hints at design as there would be enough time for a process like evolution to have done it.

I thought you believed in a creator God who set the design of life in motion. even if you believe in evolution then God would have been the designer of that as well and knew that it would be a suitable process to sustain life on earth. The conditions for evolution would have been preset in the beginning.

What did I mean when I said very different organisms can occupy the same environment? I meant, for example, I am sitting here, typing, while a fly is buzzing around. I and the fly are very different, yet we are sharing the same environment. That invalidates your whole argument that animals in the same environment look alike simply because they all live in the same environment.

Thats where you are taking things. I was talking about general things like eyes. Thats enough to establish what I was talking about. Even so I am not sure you can compare the fly and a human in that way. A fly also occupies many environments that humans dont like garbage bins which would make a human sick. But flies thrive in that environment so I have just countered you argument. I dont think its as simple as you make out. But basically humans occupy land and for our size we have a lot in common with other land animals. If its like for like and we occupy the exact same environment with other creatures then I would say we have more similarities. It stands to reason because those exact same environments require similar features to occupy them. In fact in some ways you are going against what evolution supports by saying that it doesn't work that way. Doesn't evolution say that animals adapt to their environments. IE a land animal will eventually evolve fins instead on limbs and visa versa.

Why not four eyes? C'mon. Because that would require a bigger brain to handle the additional visual input.

I could subject you to the same scrutiny as you are doing to me and say you maybe a lay person commenting on the ability of brains and eyes and cant really be qualified to do so. See once you start setting criteria for what people can and cant comment on then you have to apply it to everyone. Somehow I dont think this site is only full of scientists. I though evolution was able to do just about anything. If its made brains and eyes then why not a couple of extra in the back of the head. Afterall the fly has 100s and its brain in nowhere near as complex as humans. I would imagine it wouldn't take to much more evolution. The mechanisms for eyes are already there. All it has to do is rout existing material and info to the rear of the head. Gee if it can create eyes from scratch it can surely add a couple more.

 

[VirOptimus]

So if I'm understanding you correctly you are saying unless you have a degree in biology you can comment on this topic. -snip-.

Of course you can, but we will not take you seriously.

Especially as you arent honest in where you are coming from. The only reason you debate this topic is because it clashes with your religious belief. If you interpretation of your belief allowed ToE you wouldnt try to disprove it.

Just be honest.

 

[Loudmouth]

What transitions, the point is you are showing a feature here and there that happens to be similar in another creature.

How else do you determine if a fossil is transitional? What in the world do you use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not?

All creatures on earth have similarities and some are more similar to each other then others. Thats because all life is made from the same stuff because they all live in the same environment and need the same stuff.

Then why do whales have more DNA in common with humans than the fish they share their environment with? Why do whales have more in common with a bat than they do a tuna? Your claims don't match up to reality.

Also, your scenario does not predict a nested hierarchy, which is what we observe.

But just because we have similarities doesn't mean all life evolved from a universal common ancestor.

I started a thread on this very topic. It isn't just similarities that evidence common ancestry.

IT IS NESTED HIERARCHIES THAT EVIDENCE EVOLUTION!!!!!

You have been told this over and over and over, and here you are making the same mistakes again. WHY?

I have already explained this. The respiratory system is completely different and the processes needed to change it from dino to bird would kill the animal.

Empty assertions.

The platypus has a mixture of many creatures does that mean it came from those many creatures.

Which features are those?

 

[Hoghead1]

So if I'm understanding you correctly you are saying unless you have a degree in biology you can comment on this topic. Yet as KCfromNC has just stated there are many who disagree with me and none have been questioned in their credentials of whether they are scientists and experts for what they say. So it seems if you support evolution then you can be a lay person and everything you say is accepted as being correct. But if your not then your subjected to the highest scrutiny and have to be an expert scientist. A little bias I think.

Whats this thing you have with creationists. You seem to keep mentioning them for some reason like if anyone disagrees with what the theory of evolution says then they must be a creationists. Thats assuming a lot.
I have posted several links to scientist who have no affiliation to religion at all not that that means that if they were that their evidence is automatically invalidated. Once again that would be assuming a lot.

Also, you say, above, that all complex creatures have eyes and are distantly related. Then you aid each line must have evolved independently. That makes no sense, as you already said they were related.

I stated that they were distantly related. If eyes were the end result of an unguided process and it happened many times over then something in that process indicates that its not an unguided process and there is a degree of design there. Something like an eye is pretty hard to evolve over and over again let alone once. If the info for complex eyes were in the common ancestor of all those distantly related creatures that independently evolved through their own branches on the tree of life then the genetic info for complex design was there very early in the scheme of things. If thats the case then that also hints at design as there would be enough time for a process like evolution to have done it.

I thought you believed in a creator God who set the design of life in motion. even if you believe in evolution then God would have been the designer of that as well and knew that it would be a suitable process to sustain life on earth. The conditions for evolution would have been preset in the beginning.

Thats where you are taking things. I was talking about general things like eyes. Thats enough to establish what I was talking about. Even so I am not sure you can compare the fly and a human in that way. A fly also occupies many environments that humans dont like garbage bins which would make a human sick. But flies thrive in that environment so I have just countered you argument. I dont think its as simple as you make out. But basically humans occupy land and for our size we have a lot in common with other land animals. If its like for like and we occupy the exact same environment with other creatures then I would say we have more similarities. It stands to reason because those exact same environments require similar features to occupy them. In fact in some ways you are going against what evolution supports by saying that it doesn't work that way. Doesn't evolution say that animals adapt to their environments. IE a land animal will eventually evolve fins instead on limbs and visa versa.

I could subject you to the same scrutiny as you are doing to me and say you maybe a lay person commenting on the ability of brains and eyes and cant really be qualified to do so. See once you start setting criteria for what people can and cant comment on then you have to apply it to everyone. Somehow I dont think this site is only full of scientists. I though evolution was able to do just about anything. If its made brains and eyes then why not a couple of extra in the back of the head. Afterall the fly has 100s and its brain in nowhere near as complex as humans. I would imagine it wouldn't take to much more evolution. The mechanisms for eyes are already there. All it has to do is rout existing material and info to the rear of the head. Gee if it can create eyes from scratch it can surely add a couple more.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say lay persons shouldn't comment here. I said that it appears unduly arrogant for lay persons to claim that science is all wrong and that they know more about it than the scientists do. That is exactly what you and others are doing here.
I carefully studied to the creation-science literature and I respect it for whit it is: inflammatory rhetoric, bad science, and even worse theology.
I am not a lay person here.

 

[Ophiolite]

Whats this thing you have with creationists. You seem to keep mentioning them for some reason like if anyone disagrees with what the theory of evolution says then they must be a creationists. Thats assuming a lot.
I have posted several links to scientist who have no affiliation to religion at all not that that means that if they were that their evidence is automatically invalidated. Once again that would be assuming a lot.

It is a long thread and I have not checked every post. However, I cannot find any links to scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution. I have found instances where you post links to scientists who disagree with specific conclusions of particular aspects of evolution in detail, but nothing wherein they disagree with the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Could you point me to the relevant links please.

 

[KCfromNC]

So if I'm understanding you correctly you are saying unless you have a degree in biology you can comment on this topic. Yet as KCfromNC has just stated there are many who disagree with me and none have been questioned in their credentials of whether they are scientists and experts for what they say.

There's a bit of irony why. The people who disagee with you are the people who you yourself are citing as experts. Of course you're free to say those people you're quoting don't know what they're talking about but I can imagine you wouldn't want to do that.

So it seems if you support evolution then you can be a lay person and everything you say is accepted as being correct. But if your not then your subjected to the highest scrutiny and have to be an expert scientist.

Substitute "the impossibility of perpetual motion machines" for "evolution" and you'll understand why.

A little bias I think.

Reality is biased against certain opinions.

Whats this thing you have with creationists. You seem to keep mentioning them for some reason like if anyone disagrees with what the theory of evolution says then they must be a creationists.

You've admitted that you support ID and that your ideas are religious and don't pass normal muster for scientific evidence. It is hardly a stretch to conclude "closet creationist".

Also, you say, above, that all complex creatures have eyes and are distantly related. Then you aid each line must have evolved independently. That makes no sense, as you already said they were related.

Sure it does. It just means that the last common ancestor between them didn't have eyes.

If eyes were the end result of an unguided process and it happened many times over then something in that process indicates that its not an unguided process and there is a degree of design there.

But no hint of intelligent design, so it really doesn't mean much for your case.

If the info for complex eyes were in the common ancestor of all those distantly related creatures that independently evolved through their own branches on the tree of life then the genetic info for complex design was there very early in the scheme of things. If thats the case then that also hints at design as there would be enough time for a process like evolution to have done it.

Everyone count the number of "if"s needed in this paragraph to make ID seem even remotely possible

Thats where you are taking things. I was talking about general things like eyes.

I can understand why you'd want to ignore actual details from reality to make your case but that doesn't exactly seem like a convincing approach.

 

[KCfromNC]

It is a long thread and I have not checked every post. However, I cannot find any links to scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution. I have found instances where you post links to scientists who disagree with specific conclusions of particular aspects of evolution in detail, but nothing wherein they disagree with the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Could you point me to the relevant links please.

Ask him to post the interview where his example non-religious scientist said that his pet theory of ID was a complete scientific failure. That was a particularly impressive bit of selective blindness towards what is actually in the references he provides.

 

[KCfromNC]

Then why do whales have more DNA in common with humans than the fish they share their environment with? Why do whales have more in common with a bat than they do a tuna? Your claims don't match up to reality.

This also brings up a good point - if the idea that the DNA for all traits existed in some primitive ancestor is right, why are there major differences in DNA in the first place? You'd think the DNA would be like 99.99% the same with different bits switched on and off depending on the environment. That's totally different than what we see, of course.

But I guess the point here isn't a consistent theory, it is just raising enough doubt to make the cognitive dissonance quiet down.

 

[stevevw]

Of course you can, but we will not take you seriously.

Especially as you arent honest in where you are coming from. The only reason you debate this topic is because it clashes with your religious belief. If you interpretation of your belief allowed ToE you wouldnt try to disprove it.

Just be honest.

And what qualifies you to come to this conclusion, a hunch, a personal opinion which could be tainted with all sorts of personal experiences and influences. What is it based on. How do I know you are being influenced by your own views as well. What makes you think I am basing my views purely on what I believe. That is rather presumptuous and is almost relegating me down to not being capable of taking that into consideration and knowing the difference. That is also assuming you know my experience of a lifetime and what has allowed me to come to that conclusion. What I find ironic is if a person persist long enough to question the accepted views of Darwin's theory sooner or later the attacks start on the person and the sources which says a lot about the person doing the attacking. Its a flimsy basis for any argument. Come back to me with some testable support for what you say rather then questioning my integrity. You tell me what you are basing your views on. But dont just tell me because that means nothing and is just your personal opinion. prove this to me with some support.

 

[stevevw]

It is a long thread and I have not checked every post. However, I cannot find any links to scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution. I have found instances where you post links to scientists who disagree with specific conclusions of particular aspects of evolution in detail, but nothing wherein they disagree with the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Could you point me to the relevant links please.

Well you found exactly what I have been intending to show. Others have jumped to the conclusion that I am totally against evolution. I have said several times that I like most other people acknowledge there is a certain level or type of evolution happening. What most of the links I have supplied have said is its the type and level of evolution that is in question. So its about quantity in that we have evidence for a certain level of evolution and no one denies that. Its the quality in mutations are an error in what is already good and if anything rather than mutations creating fitter and more functional life they make things less fit and functional. So you have just confirmed exactly what I am saying thank you.

 

[stevevw]

No, you haven't been honest at all. Why a designer? And not many designers? And why a who and not a group of 'who's? And why not a 'who' called nature?

I have stated that there is no sense in talking about a particular designer and have mentioned aliens or God could be the designer. So its logical that gods or an alien race can fit into that example. You are only supporting what I have already said. As far as nature being the creator that is something you will have to prove. People can give nature more creative ability then it has. I didn't think a blind and unguided process could design anything considering that design needs some direction and intent.

 

[stevevw]

I have addressed this paper many, many, many times. Why do you ignore it?

In that paper, they mutated a beta-lactamase gene. How did they determine that the protein had no function? They tested it against ONE substrate. Just one. There are literally billions of possible substrates, yet they only looked at a single substrate.

How can you claim that a protein has no function when you only test it against one substrate?

And I have relied to it. The test was to do with proteins being able to make functional folds by manipulating single molecules at a time to see if they could handle the changes. It didn't matter whether there was one substrate. One would be better so that they could focus the tests and results. It was about the steps to make a change in a protein from its existing function into a new functional protein shape that was not previously there. They found it would take at least 6 mutations to make a simple functional change in the protein and that this was well beyond what evolution through mutations could do. Here is another test he did along similar lines.

The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds
Douglas D. Axe

Abstract

Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This potential problem-the sampling problem-was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. The huge advances since that time call for a careful reassessment of the issue they raised. Focusing specifically on the origin of new protein folds, I argue here that the sampling problem remains. The difficulty stems from the fact that new protein functions, when analyzed at the level of new beneficial phenotypes, typically require multiple new protein folds, which in turn require long stretches of new protein sequence. Two conceivable ways for this not to pose an insurmountable barrier to Darwinian searches exist. One is that protein function might generally be largely indifferent to protein sequence. The other is that relatively simple manipulations of existing genes, such as shuffling of genetic modules, might be able to produce the necessary new folds. I argue that these ideas now stand at odds both with known principles of protein structure and with direct experimental evidence. If this is correct, the sampling problem is here to stay, and we should be looking well outside the Darwinian framework for an adequate explanation of fold origins.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_Against_a_Darwinian_Origin_of_Protein_Folds

This paper supports what I have been saying about protein folds needing to be within very narrow parameters to be functional for life. That there is a massive space of possible folds that can be created and that darwinian evolution that works on a blind process of random mutations will either not be able to find these few proteins in the time that even the earth has been in existence or that it will be forever dealing with sick and malfunctioning examples which should then show evidence for this in life for which we dont see. Life is pretty well precisely made and functional even way back in the early history of existence.

The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law.
However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds-advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics." The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction. We argue that this is a major discovery which has many important implications regarding the origin of proteins, the origin of life and the fundamental nature of organic form.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419661

 

[stevevw]

You would have to use a different definition than what people actually use in order for theistic evolution to be creationism.

Theistic evolution has always interested me. The point with it though is that God is still behind things. I think some try to have the best of both worlds because there are some problems for reconciling theistic evolution to the bible. But even so God would have had to have known about the process of evolution and intended it to be exactly what it was. A mechanism for life to adjust and survive in the material world. But its still a quality that God has created even if some want to pretend its not. I can never understand how they can say that God somehow dropped the ingredients in a pond and walked away to forever have nothing to do with life. I guess it depends what you want to call design. Its still design whether you create all life as it is or create the magic ingredients to make life. Either way it takes something beyond naturalistic processes to do and therefore shows that life could not have made it self in any amount of time without God. I think thats the important thing when it comes to theistic evolution even though some forget this and get all caught up in Darwinism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Theistic evolution has always interested me. The point with it though is that God is still behind things. I think some try to have the best of both worlds because there are some problems for reconciling theistic evolution to the bible. But even so God would have had to have known about the process of evolution and intended it to be exactly what it was. A mechanism for life to adjust and survive in the material world. But its still a quality that God has created even if some want to pretend its not. I can never understand how they can say that God somehow dropped the ingredients in a pond and walked away to forever have nothing to do with life. I guess it depends what you want to call design. Its still design whether you create all life as it is or create the magic ingredients to make life. Either way it takes something beyond naturalistic processes to do and therefore shows that life could not have made it self in any amount of time without God. I think thats the important thing when it comes to theistic evolution even though some forget this and get all caught up in Darwinism.

As Darwin described it . . .

It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."

— Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)​

I don't even see why you need to put the "theistic" at the front of it. It is just evolution along with the other pieces of nature. It is just gravity, just chemistry, just geology, and just thermodynamics. I would think that Christians also believe that God is as involved in these other processes, but no one seems to think it is necessary to put the "theistic" tag in front of them. Why?

 

[Loudmouth]

And I have relied to it. The test was to do with proteins being able to make functional folds by manipulating single molecules at a time to see if they could handle the changes. It didn't matter whether there was one substrate.

How can you claim a protein has no function when you only test it against one substrate out of billions of possible substrates?

It was about the steps to make a change in a protein from its existing function into a new functional protein shape that was not previously there.

That would require testing against more than one substrate, which wasn't done.

They found it would take at least 6 mutations to make a simple functional change in the protein and that this was well beyond what evolution through mutations could do.

You can't make such a claim when you only test the protein against one substrate. How do they know that one of those changes does not produce activity against different substrates?

It is a simple question, and you keep ignoring it (as does Douglas Axe).

 

[Ophiolite]

Well you found exactly what I have been intending to show. Others have jumped to the conclusion that I am totally against evolution. I have said several times that I like most other people acknowledge there is a certain level or type of evolution happening. What most of the links I have supplied have said is its the type and level of evolution that is in question. So its about quantity in that we have evidence for a certain level of evolution and no one denies that. Its the quality in mutations are an error in what is already good and if anything rather than mutations creating fitter and more functional life they make things less fit and functional. So you have just confirmed exactly what I am saying thank you.

Sorry Steve, that simply does not cut it. I do not see any instances in which the scientists you have linked to "disagree with the theory of evolution". You imply that you are accepting mico-evolution, but disputing macro-evolution. Two options face us:

1. I have correctly understood your implication. In that case please identify which links dispute macro-evolution.

2. There is some other level or type of evolution that is under dispute. In that case please tell me what this other level or type is and identify which links address this. Remember that they have to "disagree with the theory of evolution", not just dispute some detail.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...I can never understand how they can say that God somehow dropped the ingredients in a pond and walked away to forever have nothing to do with life.

You don't need to understand if you have faith

But seriously, if God was omniscient, He'd know exactly what would happen to those ingredients - eventually life would emerge, and man himself would evolve. So why not?

Equally, those ingredients (organic molecules, water, etc.) are ubiquitous, both in space and on Earth, so it would be just as reasonable to suppose that He knew life would happen if He made the universe with those ingredients everywhere so they could fall into some suitable pond somewhere and start reacting. We also know that these ingredients are created from simpler elements by natural processes, so it would be just as reasonable to suppose that He made a universe out of simpler elements, knowing they would eventually produce life. There's also good evidence that the simpler elements are made from hydrogen and helium in stars, and that hydrogen and helium condensed out of a rapidly cooling and expanding plasma, etc.: the 'big bang'. It's a big job, but no problem for an omnipotent God. He knew life would eventually happen if He started a big bang like ours.

So why not let's say, for now, that God was behind the big bang and after that everything unfolded just as He predicted? Cosmic entertainment!

But what about the Bible, which disagrees with all that? Well, He would have known that would happen too - perhaps He actually interfered to get it written - but consider who it was written for, and it's intent; if the intent was to spawn a great religion, it's certainly achieved that, but it's clearly a book of it's time - once we could explore and begin to understand the great universe and its workings that He'd initiated, some of the book was no longer necessary - we could read the history of God's creation directly from its physical reality instead, and there would be no conflict between religion and science, and the Bible