Evolution is a Fact

[Sanguis]

From which living being did we evolve from so that we can know our ancient family........is it possible to say that, because there is an evolution principle saying that all living things have a common ancestor, that we were all just some kind of soup, with no brain, no emotions, no procreation by sex, no enemy, no ambition, no love, no society, no way to understand that it should become flora which are so amazing cause it produces the air we need to survive and the source of food for most animals, etc.......?

I cannot understand how anyone can believe that nature evolved out of some brainless soup in very very complex living systems! It is therefore that I admire the faith of an atheist!

I highly recommend watching this series: YouTube - potholer54's Channel

And doing some y'know... research on the things that you don't understand?

Abiogenesis/macro evolution is a theory and it will stay a theory forever, but what it does is to let people think they are animals and blinds them to the inheritances they are suppose to receive from God!

The question is, which theory do I want to chose, are my ancestors evolved originally from soup or have we always been humans created in God's image?

I chose the latter theory!

The former is a scientific theory, the latter is bronze age mythology.

By saying that evolution will remain a theory forever, you're actually saying it's the best explanation we'll ever have.

A scientific theory is more than just a guess, it's an explanation for a collection of facts, that has survived science's scrutiny for years. You don't know how science works, you clearly have no idea how the things you're describing actually work.

Do some proper research. Read up on what these things actually are. Not what propaganda machines, like answersingenesis, or your pastor, you'll never learn anything that way.

 

[AV1611VET]

Therefore, since MS-DOS and Windows are so different they should have been programmed by a different designer. But they weren't. They were both designed by Bill Gates. Logic fails.

Excuse me --- I thought the conversation was about a "spell checker"?

Who telephoned in MS-DOS vs Windows, all of a sudden?

Next thing you know, we'll be discussing Wang WP vs Lotus 1-2-3.

 

[Loudmouth]

From which living being did we evolve from . . .

Our parents.

is it possible to say that, because there is an evolution principle saying that all living things have a common ancestor, that we were all just some kind of soup, with no brain, no emotions, no procreation by sex, no enemy, no ambition, no love, no society, no way to understand that it should become flora which are so amazing cause it produces the air we need to survive and the source of food for most animals, etc.......?

If one of your cousins gets cancer does this mean you also have cancer? If one of your cousins is born with 6 fingers does this mean that you too have 6 fingers?

I cannot understand how anyone can believe that nature evolved out of some brainless soup in very very complex living systems!

If I say that I can't believe that the Earth is round does it become flat? Reality does not conform to what we want or do not want to believe.

It is therefore that I admire the faith of an atheist!

We have evidence, no need for faith.

Abiogenesis/macro evolution is a theory and it will stay a theory forever,

Theory is as high as it gets in science, but thanks for admitting that evolution is the best explanation we have for biodiversity and it will always remain so.

but what it does is to let people think they are animals and blinds them to the inheritances they are suppose to receive from God!

What do you think we are, fungus? Of course we are animals. We are organisms that ingest food and respond to stimuli. That makes us animals.

The question is, which theory do I want to chose,

The one with evidence to back it up? That's what a sane person would do.

I chose the latter theory!

Creationism isn't a theory. Try again.

 

[BananaSlug]

From which living being did we evolve from so that we can know our ancient family........is it possible to say that, because there is an evolution principle saying that all living things have a common ancestor,that we were all just some kind of soup, with no brain, no emotions, no procreation by sex, no enemy, no ambition, no love, no society, no way to understand that it should become flora which are so amazing cause it produces the air we need to survive and the source of food for most animals, etc.......?

I would say that all life on earth is related, which I find very cool.

I cannot understand how anyone can believe that nature evolved out of some brainless soup in very very complex living systems! It is therefore that I admire the faith of an atheist!

Well we all come from brainless, emotionless, loveless single cells. Every day humans grow from single cells to fully formed humans.

Here you go. Every single human on this planet developed from a single-celled egg. I have trillion of cells in my body; neurons, leucocytes, bone cells, epithelial, etc. Those trillions of cells had their start from this single cell. I find it funny that creationists cannot believe the thought of humanity evolving from a single celled protist yet it still happens every day.

Abiogenesis/macro evolution is a theory and it will stay a theory forever,

Abiogenesis is still just a well supported hypothesis. It has not made it to theory... yet. As for evolution, I hope it will remain a theory for a very, very, very long time (as far as the evidence goes it will never go away)!

but what it does is to let people think they are animals and blinds them to the inheritances they are suppose to receive from God!

Even if I didn't accept evolution, by all practical definitions I am an animal. Are humans mammals? If we are then we are animals. Are humans vertebrates? If we are then we are animals. If you want to argue that humans are not animals, then we need to make a brand new definition for "animal".

The question is, which theory do I want to chose, are my ancestors evolved originally from soup or have we always been humans created in God's image?

So here is a question. Are chimpanzees and gorillas partially created in God's image? They share an awful lot of similarities to us. If our body shape= the image of God, then chimpanzees and other apes are partially in the image of God.

I know what I post will never change your mind, but suffer the lurkers.

 

[thywaydotca]

How so?

By pointing out how stupid the question was?

If you can tell me what car Aragorn drove, or if you can tell me what graphics card Hercules had, or where Romeo kept his lightsaber, then I'll look into telling you if angels evolved, and died, and left behind fossils.

I would assume being a long time ago that Hercules used a Hercules Graphic Card connected to a monochrome monitor!

Seriously though, I find that scientists involved in the area of evolution especially are working with a form of eisegesis instead of exegesis. I don't think science is a bad thing it is how it like everything else becomes corrupted by persons. I believe it is hard to extract accurate data and/or understanding that data when you are certain that you already know the end result. I think science needs to be open to the possibility that everything was created so that the facts aren't twisted in to the mould of evolution.

This is not a criticism inclusive of all scientists nor is it exclusive to the rest of humanity.

James

 

[MoonLancer]

I have a question. Are there any studies related to the connection of life evolving form single celled organisms and new life growing from single a single cell?

 

[MoonLancer]

I think science needs to be open to the possibility that everything was created so that the facts aren't twisted in to the mould of evolution.

I think scientests ARE open to that possibility, however the evidence that for it is not present or doesn't exist. Creationists seem to try everything BUT present evidence for their case. Its because at the moment they have none. evolution on the other hand has TONS of evidence. Thats why science is focusing on it.

 

[BananaSlug]

I have a question. Are there any studies related to the connection of life evolving form single celled organisms and new life growing from single a single cell?

I'm not sure. Common sense tells me that if it is possible for a single cell to become a human in ~9 months, 3.5 billion years should have been a piece of cake.

 

[sfs]

Seriously though, I find that scientists involved in the area of evolution especially are working with a form of eisegesis instead of exegesis.

Do you read a lot of the scientific literature on evolution? In other words, is your opinion founded on knowledge of how scientists actually work?

I don't think science is a bad thing it is how it like everything else becomes corrupted by persons. I believe it is hard to extract accurate data and/or understanding that data when you are certain that you already know the end result.

If we already knew the end result, we'd quit our jobs and find something more interesting to do. The whole point of science, and the reason scientists do it, is that we're trying to find out things we don't already know.

I think science needs to be open to the possibility that everything was created so that the facts aren't twisted in to the mould of evolution.

Which facts do you think are being twisted?

 

[thywaydotca]

Therefore, since MS-DOS and Windows are so different they should have been programmed by a different designer. But they weren't. They were both designed by Bill Gates. Logic fails.

First thing Bill Gates is not a programmer, he hires them.

Second thing MS-DOS was purchased by Microsoft, they did not create it.

Third thing is that Windows was actually built upon the MS-DOS platform so it was essentially an upgrade until the more recent versions.

Now if you really want to get in depth are we looking at similarity in coding or the external interface?

My point was just because a bird and a dinosaur has similar coding or features does not mean that one turned in to the other. They may be similar simply because they were created by the same being and He chose to make them similar.

James

 

[BananaSlug]

The question is why would an omnipotent being create anything with similar coding? He is omnipotent. For humans we use similar programs because it is easier for use to make, an omnipotent being has no such drawbacks.
So God made birds and crocodiles share similar DNA why?

 

[MoonLancer]

I'm not sure. Common sense tells me that if it is possible for a single cell to become a human in ~9 months, 3.5 billion years should have been a piece of cake.

yeah, i was just wondering if there was a study to see if the reason we as individuals start as a cell and grow up from there is because we evolved from single cells, or if its unrelated and just a coincidence.

ether way it shows life can start out as a single cell and over the course of 9 months or millions of years, can eventually become human.

 

[MoonLancer]

The question is why would an omnipotent being create anything with similar coding? He is omnipotent. For humans we use similar programs because it is easier for use to make, an omnipotent being has no such drawbacks.
So God made birds and crocodiles share similar DNA why?

good point. On top that why would he place fossils in rock which date at a very old age and through varies methodologies appear to have a common ancestor which existed long ago.

 

[plindboe]

From which living being did we evolve from so that we can know our ancient family

We didn't evolve from any living being.

........is it possible to say that, because there is an evolution principle saying that all living things have a common ancestor, that we were all just some kind of soup, with no brain, no emotions, no procreation by sex, no enemy, no ambition, no love, no society, no way to understand that it should become flora which are so amazing cause it produces the air we need to survive and the source of food for most animals, etc.......?

Funny, coming from a person convinced we used to be dust.

That said, no, common descent doesn't imply abiogenesis. There are many christians who thinks that God formed the first early life forms with the capacity to evolve. In other words, they accept common descent but reject abiogenesis.

I cannot understand how anyone can believe that nature evolved out of some brainless soup in very very complex living systems! It is therefore that I admire the faith of an atheist!

I advice against making assumptions based on a lack of understanding. Perhaps you should look into what the arguments and evidence are. You don't appear to have done that at all.

Abiogenesis/macro evolution is a theory and it will stay a theory forever

That statement is probably the best compliment you can possibly give to evolution. And no, abiogenesis isn't a theory. It's a study composed of various competing hypotheses, facts and models. It will take alot of work before it can be called a scientific theory.

but what it does is to let people think they are animals and blinds them to the inheritances they are suppose to receive from God!

If that were true the millions of christian evolutionists in the world wouldn't exist.

We are animals whether you accept evolution or not. Even if you believe God created us from dust, he still created us with traits that all other animals share. We're eukaryotic, multicellular, heterotrophic, we have mitochondria, Golgi apparatuses, 80S ribosomes, 3 RNA polymerases, endoplasmic reticula, a cytoskeleton, we go through a blastula stage during embryonic development, we're freely motile, at least in one life stage.

If you disagree that we're animals, tell me of a trait that all the other animals share, but which we don't have.

The question is, which theory do I want to chose, are my ancestors evolved originally from soup or have we always been humans created in God's image?

I chose the latter theory!

Neither are theories. That said, I choose neither. While several abiogenesis hypotheses looks promising, I'll wait until the verdict is in.

Peter

 

[Hawk007]

I would say that all life on earth is related, which I find very cool.



Well we all come from brainless, emotionless, loveless single cells. Every day humans grow from single cells to fully formed humans.

Here you go. Every single human on this planet developed from a single-celled egg. I have trillion of cells in my body; neurons, leucocytes, bone cells, epithelial, etc. Those trillions of cells had their start from this single cell. I find it funny that creationists cannot believe the thought of humanity evolving from a single celled protist yet it still happens every day.




Abiogenesis is still just a well supported hypothesis. It has not made it to theory... yet. As for evolution, I hope it will remain a theory for a very, very, very long time (as far as the evidence goes it will never go away)!




Even if I didn't accept evolution, by all practical definitions I am an animal. Are humans mammals? If we are then we are animals. Are humans vertebrates? If we are then we are animals. If you want to argue that humans are not animals, then we need to make a brand new definition for "animal".



So here is a question. Are chimpanzees and gorillas partially created in God's image? They share an awful lot of similarities to us. If our body shape= the image of God, then chimpanzees and other apes are partially in the image of God.

I know what I post will never change your mind, but suffer the lurkers.

Hi,
Thanks, I enjoy your views....the fact that we are made of cells, does not mean if we throw a couple of cells in nature, think that they are going to produce a human or even survive for that matter.......if your view is correct, we should at least find some living creatures which are on their transgression phase, I am not referring to viruses or bacteria....

If you are referring to DNA or RNA which basically tells the cell what to produce, I would really want to know where or how does nature produce such a phenomenon? Then I would like to know how it is possible for it to work outside lab situations if they are still struggling to produce life in labs as far as I know......

You could see us as animals, we are mammals, but we have a difference.....our minds, even though not the biggest brain in the animal kingdom, is a mystery.....we do not live by instinct but by making thoughtful decisions all the time and can decide to do something that we know are wrong....

Most humans think about death and have a desire to find the truth and whether you believe it or not there are an inner voice, which I believe is not in animals. The animal in us we refer to the carnal self, the flesh, it only cares for itself, does not have compassion for other animals or even it's own sort.....you do see it very often, friends will step on each other to empower themselves financially, status, etc.
We do not have to have the nature of animals, but for us to have the nature of true(unconditional) love we need to "kill" the carnal self.....well, this is why people have a desire to live a spiritual life and why people enter the realm of God or paganism, etc.

"Are chimpanzees and gorillas partially created in God's image?" No, they look a lot more than other animals than humans. They are covered with hear, do not walk straight up and have vicious teeth to mention a view visual differences. I do believe God made designs and some animals would come close to their design, having two arms and two legs, etc.

The reason why you will not be able to change my mind is because you do not know my King and that He is very real in my life!

Be more blessed my good friend!

 

[Freodin]

I cannot understand how anyone can believe that nature evolved out of some brainless soup in very very complex living systems! It is therefore that I admire the faith of an atheist!

I guess that is because you don´t know the mechanisms involved... both that of Evolution as well as that of Creation.

The naturalistic view of "life" is based on the laws of nature. Things react. Complex things react in complex ways. Things can get more complex by the natural mechanisms of reproduction, change and selection.

This is a possible explanation for the evolution of complex lifeforms. It is at least an explainable and testable mechanism.

On the other hand, the creationists have it easy. Regardless of how strange, against human experience, possible observations, unverifiable, untestable... God can do it. Do what? No matter, anything!

 

[plindboe]

If I as a computer programmer wrote an application for the purpose of word processing but I made two versions. One version had a spell check and the other one did not. Would this mean that because the programming was mostly alike that the version with the spell check evolved from the basic version? Or is it that they look alike because they were programmed by the same being?

Programs don't reproduce. They don't mutate. They're not subject to sexual or natural selection. They haven't been observed evolving. They don't have traits that fall in a nested hierarchy. There's no theory of program evolution that has survived 150 years of intense scrutiny. etc.

Peter

 

[TheOutsider]

Programs don't reproduce. They don't mutate. They're not subject to sexual or natural selection. They haven't been observed evolving. They don't have traits that fall in a nested hierarchy. There's no theory of program evolution that has survived 150 years of intense scrutiny. etc.

Peter

Cellular automaton sorta fall into this category though (except that they aren't stand alone programs and haven't been around for 150 years). They can be used to visual represent natural selection and how complexity can come from very simple rules.

This leads me to another subject. I think one of the major problems with Creationists (and all Fundamentalists) is that their brains honestly can't handle dynamic thinking. They only understand deterministic systems. When you start working with more than two variables their brains start to shut down.

 

[Loudmouth]

First thing Bill Gates is not a programmer, he hires them.

He was the designer.

Third thing is that Windows was actually built upon the MS-DOS platform so it was essentially an upgrade until the more recent versions.

But they are different designs, hence different designers, right? But they weren't. Both designed by Bill Gates.

Or you can answer this. Once a programmer writes their first program must all of their subsequent programs be alterations of that first program?

My point was just because a bird and a dinosaur has similar coding or features does not mean that one turned in to the other.

You and your siblings (or extended family if you don't have siblings) do have similar DNA, and it is due to common ancestry. Or are you saying that you and your siblings were all separately poofed into being?

They may be similar simply because they were created by the same being and He chose to make them similar.

Or the Creator could have chosen to make them different, from the ground up, right? Also, what is stopping the Creator of mammals and birds from making a bird with three middle ear bones or a bat with feathers? Why don't we see violations of the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution? Surely a Creator is capable of designing such species, is He not?

 

[Loudmouth]

The question is why would an omnipotent being create anything with similar coding? He is omnipotent. For humans we use similar programs because it is easier for use to make, an omnipotent being has no such drawbacks.
So God made birds and crocodiles share similar DNA why?

Exactly. Humans reuse designs because we are limited in both time and resources. A designer who is both omnipotent and omniscient and who lives outside of both time and space would no such limitations. Using different tRNA's and codons for every single species would have been just as easy as reusing them.

Or as George Romane put it:

"If we reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent from a common ancestry, we can only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous pains to make him in the image of the ape. This, I say, is a matter of undeniable fact -- supposing the creation theory true -- and as a matter of fact, therefore, it calls for explanation. Why should God have thus conditioned man as an elaborate copy of the ape, when we know from the rest of creation how endless are His resources in the invention of types?"​

George J. Romanes, 1882​