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.
Well in that case they were wrong. There is evidence that support abiogenesis, but not enough to call it a theory yet. Many of the questions of abiogenesis have been answered, but not enough of them to lift it out of the hypothetical stage yet. It is a very very strong hypothesis but it is not quite a theory.We're not talking about the theory of evolution. Someone earlier in the thread claimed that life had been created from non-living chemicals and that there was proof of it. I want to see such proof.
I can't wait to see this proof of someone having created life from chemicals. It will be worth the wait.
Of course they aren't separate. If life can't start on it's own from lifeless chemicals then evolution is just a meaningless theory.
Remember, creationists don't argue against changes, sometimes quite dramatic changes, but only against one type of creature changing into something totally different.
Are you serious? Show me the evidence (and please, not the discredited Miller-Urey stuff). I want to see someone taking some chemicals and creating something that can actually said to be alive. If you can also show how such life could then reproduce itself, I might believe your claims. If you can't, then as far as I'm concerned, it remains a fairy tale.
No, I believe because I don't see anything to convince me that the reverse is true. We all base our assumptions on our personal experiences and I've not seen any evidence whatsoever of how life could come about from lifeless chemicals and then organise itself to start reproducing before it dies out again. The workings of the living cell are so complex that man, despite his vast knowledge and intelligence, plus a working model to observe, cannot come close to making such a structure. And yet you want me to believe that chemicals, without anything to guide them, could organise all this on their own. You want me to believe that the universe just popped into existence out of nothing and then became what we see today. I'm sorry, but I don't have that much faith in what to me, seem like completely absurd notions.
The point I was trying to make is that, despite what we often hear on these forums, creation-believing scientists can do real science and can achieve just as much as their evolution-believing counterparts. Also, just because the majority believe in evolution doesn't mean that those scientists are any better or their theories are any more likely to be true. Dr Menton clearly rejects the notion of molecules to man evolution, so if it's good enough for an expert like him, then it's good enough for me too and I find his arguments much more plausible than the alternative theories. Perhaps you should watch some of his videos - "Evolution: Not a Chance" is a good place to start.
I don't think Dr Menton would agree with this. He's clearly making his arguments from the scientific standpoint as you would see if you watched any of his videos.
Like it says, "In the beginning God..." I believe it happened that way. You don't, so you've got to try to find an alternative explanation
They are also all overtly pro-embryology, pro-gravity, pro-heliocentrism and very much anti-stork theory, anti-pink graviton fairies and anti-astrology.You just hit the nail on the head. Hence, this thread is so cool!
"...overtly pro-evolution and anti-creationism"
So, how can they be non-biased?
I wonder what they are afraid of?
Could it be that if children were allowed to hear the other side of the argument, they might start to question the evolutionary indoctrination that currently takes place?
I don't think so - at least not from what I've seen of the way the eye is constructed and functions. Darwin wouldn't have had a clue about that in his time. Same goes for the working of the living cell.
Also known as "common sense."
We don't see it happening; we have no idea how it could happen: we don't even know that it has happened;
statistical probabilities against it happening are so ludicrously high
Of course they aren't separate. If life can't start on it's own from lifeless chemicals then evolution is just a meaningless theory.
Because when a claim that supports evolution also supports creation, it can't be regarded as proof of one theory over the other.
It is often stated on these forums that people who believe in creation can't be real scientists or if they are, they are failed scientists.
Yet, this man is a strong believer in creation by the Lord Jesus and totally against evolution.
A "singularity" isn't nothing. I want to know where the singularity came from.
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?