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.
It's not supposed to. The origin of life is a different idea called abiogenesis. Saying evolution doesn't explain the origin of life is like saying the germ theory of disease doesn't explain how clouds stay in midair... so what?
The reason is also not the first OR the second law of thermodynamics. Those are gross misapplications to try and use them against the ToE. And the first would be applicable (but still misused) against the origin of the UNIVERSE, not of life.
Metherion
if I ever found evidence that absolutely all evidence pointing towards evolution was found to be a hoax I would stop believing it. As it stands though, I stick by evolution, it makes sense when I think about it and apply it to what I know and observe about nature, and I trust in the far greater expertise of brilliant, Christian scientists who believe in the theory because there is simply no reason scientifically not to.
Ah, but now you have to explain and define kinds,
show that there were created 'kinds' instead of the accepted common descent
go find out all the evidence that largely Christian geologists have found since as early as the 1830s (note: before Darwin published his theory) that convinced them there was no Biblical Flood, as well as everything since then, and show THAT wrong too.
After all, your replacement idea can't stand if it flat out contradicts geology (since it includes the Noachian Flood, if I am inferring correctly).
And it's really nice to be called atheistic and anti-God too, for accepting the TOE. It really feels good and isn't insulting, belittling, demeaning, or hurtful at all. (take knife, cut sarcasm).
I take from your statement that we should go by what the bible tells us literally? If my assumptions are correct, then how should we reconcile the differing accounts of creation between Genesis 1 and 2?
This is a common misconception. But to get the full idea behind your statement, do you refer to Genesis 1.1-2, or chapters 1 and 2?
It says that God molded man from the earth. When you mold pottery, does it not start from a lump yet is molded slowly through all of the in-between forms until it is a work of art? Why could this not be the same image of God's loving and careful creation?
Certain passages of scripture are literal, and certain passages are figurative, and we need discernment in order to figure out which is which. When God said He created the earth in 6 days, that was literal, not figurative...which He (and Jesus) reiterated over and again in many passages. The creation of organisms was also literal, not figurative.
I would have no problem believing TOE if it was how God created life on this planet...IF that is the way He wanted to do it, but the undoctored evidence of nature demonstrates this to be false.
It makes no sense for it to be a separate account, why? Because an account was given on the previous page, why would the writer want to confuse his audience? The second account is a summation in order to provide the context for the following passages concerning the fall of man.
The reason is also not the first OR the second law of thermodynamics. Those are gross misapplications to try and use them against the ToE.
@ thephilosophizer
From allaboutscience.org-
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.
Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.
According to the second LAW of thermodynamics, if something only deteriorates over time, then the THEORY of evolution is not only impossible but ridiculous. The first LAW also nullifies the big bang THEORY and thus we can throw out the baby with the bath water. Furthermore, the lack of fossil evidence of one species changing into another is yet undiscovered (because it doesn't exist) so until something other than sketches show up in a museum, you must go back to the drawing board, or accept the evidence right in front of your face: Genesis is accurate, reliable, and true.

Really? So what about, say, the horses pictured in all the biology textbooks? The fossil history of whales (that includes that rather well known ambelocetus natons)?THERE IS NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE CHANGE OF ONE SPECIES INTO ANOTHER.
Micro-evolution, yes. Macro-evolution no.
10% is a HUGE HUGE HUGE DIFFERENCE
guess it's also true that there are different kinds of lies also, like the lie of omission for example vs. the lie of commission. Evolution promotes both kinds of lies upon careful examination, doesn't it?
And your evidence that those are kinds, and there is nothing before them, or relating them together is what...?thought I did...the first original form of a group of organism (elephant, dog, whatever).
Then please humor me and repeat WHICH genetic demonstrations?As I said earlier, genetic demonstrates the fallacy of common descent, and no matter how many may accept it does not in any way, shape, or form prove it to be correct.
Wow, what a broad brush! Any geologist who doesn’t subscribe to ‘flood geology’ isn’t even Christian? And ‘evolutionary geology’? There’s no such thing. Evolution is biology. Geology is... geology. There is no evolutionary geology.Christian? Christian perhaps in name only, for most Christian geologists today demonstrate adequate evidence for flood geology...evidence that is much more convincing than standard evolutionary textbook geology. Flood geology also explains more satisfactorily certain formations than TOE geology, as well as ALL other formations that TOE geology cannot explain. It is wrong, not because I say so, but because the facts of nature demonstrate it so (minus all the unwarranted and illegitimate assumptions TOE places upon those facts).

And you made it quite clear that the only reason (according to your statement) that evolution is around is because of ATHEIST scientists, which means it is an atheist science, and everyone who accepts it would therefore be one, right? Especially with your previous statement about geologists stretching all the way back to the 1830s ish.I didn't call anyone on this forum an atheistic person or anti-God. When I made that statement, I directed it (as my post readily shows) to the atheistic scientists of the Synthesis...which does not include anyone still living as far as I know. Ernst Mayr died a few years ago, and I could be wrong, but to my knowledge he was the last "big name" of the Synthesis that is still alive. I am sure there are probably more, but if there is, I am sure they are not on this board today.
If you mean the energy/matter involved in say, copying DNA (needing more DNA and using energy to put them together and all) then yes, of course.Not so, for the Second Law applies to all forms of energy/matter, including that inherent to genetics.
1) Assertion.Just as noise in information systems demonstrate the Second Law in those systems, so mutations are the effect of the Second Law in genetics. DNA is an information system, and true mutations (random chance copy errors) are the result of the Second Law.
and true mutations (random chance copy errors) are the result of the Second Law.
as I am sure you are aware, it is far more than probable that the accounts were written far apart and by separate authors, as many of the early stories of the bible did not just appear together in the form we have them, but were rather put together by an editor or editors much later, like the books from deuteronomy through II Kings were likely put together by one priestly source in a defined volume during the exile in Babylon. So it would actually make less sense for a separate author to write a summary, especially seeing as the second account is thought to be much older than the first. The wikipedia page on the subject has some great information to look at.
I thought I did...the first original form of a group of organism (elephant, dog, whatever).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?