Evolution?

[johnnywong]

Barbarian observes:
I review textbooks. Do you have an example of a science textbook that says evolutionary theory is about the origin of life?

Never saw one that did.



But no science textbooks? Guess why. It's true that most scientists think life came from the earth. It's just not a settled theory at this time.

However, God says it did,which is good enough for me.

Totally agree with you. It is an un-settled theory . Our own ego just prevent us to say we don't know and continue to brainwash the youths by changing an unsettled one to a mostly agreed theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

Totally agree with you. It is an un-settled theory . Our own ego just prevent us to say we don't know and continue to brainwash the youths by changing an unsettled one to a mostly agreed theory.

Since you were unable to show us a science textbook that say abiogenesis is a fact, your conclusion seems at odds with the evidence. And even the book you cited only says that people mostly think it's true.

What's wrong with you just accepting God's word that He did it that way?

 

[Job 33:6]

Thanks. That exactly is the point .For most of the laymen , they say that Darwin's theory provide the answer to the origin of life. That is wrong. It is sad to see this all over the textbooks to poison the youths

Well, there is a difference between science text books and encyclopedias, and further a stretch between science text books and scientific publications.

 

[johnnywong]

Well, there is a difference between science text books and encyclopedias, and further a stretch between science text books and scientific publications.

Yes. You are right .But that is the laymen who be brainwashed by popular publications. .They don't look at science textbooks .That is my responsibility to make it right. I have just join the scienceforum.net to attack this false belief.

 

[johnnywong]

Since you were unable to show us a science textbook that say abiogenesis is a fact, your conclusion seems at odds with the evidence. And even the book you cited only says that people mostly think it's true.

What's wrong with you just accepting God's word that He did it that way?

But the statment that people mostly think it's true is false

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes. You are right .But that is the laymen who be brainwashed by popular publications. .They don't look at science textbooks .That is my responsibility to make it right. I have just join the scienceforum.net to attack this false belief.

God says you're wrong. According to Him, life was brought forth by the Earth. Why not just take His word on it?

 

[sfs]

How do you know what you know is true truth or just wishful thinking

By testing what I think to be true with data.

 

[sfs]

But the statment that people mostly think it's true is false

Previously you said that it was talking about most scientists, not most people. Which is it?

 

[johnnywong]

God says you're wrong. According to Him, life was brought forth by the Earth. Why not just take His word on it?

which verse in the bible say this ?

 

[johnnywong]

Previously you said that it was talking about most scientists, not most people. Which is it?

Most scientists is qouted inside the popular books , but there is any study done .
By ,statistics alone DNA is not possible happens by chance.

4 Questions.
1. What is the probability of formation of DNA from atoms random collisions ?
2. What is the second law of thermodynamics and entrophy? what is the entrophy change in the formation of DNA from atoms.
3. Why there is no fossil records of the intermediate forms as suggested in evolution?
4.Commonsense story .
Once upon a time there is Fatty acid-Tom called Fatty acid - Tommy to join together with other molecular brothers to form an insulin molecule because there is an insulin receptor waiting for us in the cell membrane ! (stranger than fiction !fairly tales! )
How can the carbon atoms know the function of insulin, Ha ! The carbon atoms may have a PhD like you!

 

[The Barbarian]

which verse in the bible say this ?

Gen. 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

 

[The Barbarian]

4 Questions.
1. What is the probability of formation of DNA from atoms random collisions ?

The probability is 1.0. All chemical reactions happen by random collisions of atoms. Learn about it here:
The Collision Theory | Introduction to Chemistry

But you're confusing evolution with the origin of life, which is something else. However as you just saw, God says the earth (and air and water) brought forth life, so we know it happened.

2. What is the second law of thermodynamics and entrophy?

Second law says entropy increases in a system unless there is an external source of energy. Entropy is a measure of how much of a system's thermal energy is unavailable to do work. Do us a favor; list the processes that are required for evolution, and show us your numbers that demonstrate that any of these processes are ruled out by any law of thermodynamics.

what is the entrophy change in the formation of DNA from atoms.

Same as the entropy change when a plant grows from a seed, or a hurricane forms in the Atlantic. It decreases because there is energy coming into the system.

3. Why there is no fossil records of the intermediate forms as suggested in evolution?

YE creationist (and scientist) Kurt Wise lists over a dozen series of transitional forms predicted by scientists, and says it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like to see that?

4.Commonsense story .

Doesn't make any kind of sense, much less common sense. Could you rephrase it and make sure it's what science actually says?

 

[johnnywong]

The probability is 1.0. All chemical reactions happen by random collisions of atoms. Learn about it here:
The Collision Theory | Introduction to Chemistry

But you're confusing evolution with the origin of life, which is something else. However as you just saw, God says the earth (and air and water) brought forth life, so we know it happened.



Second law says entropy increases in a system unless there is an external source of energy. Entropy is a measure of how much of a system's thermal energy is unavailable to do work. Do us a favor; list the processes that are required for evolution, and show us your numbers that demonstrate that any of these processes are ruled out by any law of thermodynamics.



Same as the entropy change when a plant grows from a seed, or a hurricane forms in the Atlantic. It decreases because there is energy coming into the system.



YE creationist (and scientist) Kurt Wise lists over a dozen series of transitional forms predicted by scientists, and says it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like to see that?



Doesn't make any kind of sense, much less common sense. Could you rephrase it and make sure it's what science actually says?

Please see this thread
the self replicating watch argument

 

[The Barbarian]

Please see this thread
the self replicating watch argument

Ah, you're talking of human-made artifacts. Yes, most of them are not self-organizing. As you learned, nature is mostly self-organizing, while most designed objects are not.

And as you now see, Paley used a human artifact to make his case, precisely because if he had used a natural object like a plant or a hurricane, his argument would be seen as absurd.

 

[stevevw]

You're missing the point. Evolution basically says that animal populations change over time. That's it. Period. It doesn't need to invoke God in order to state that any more than you need to invoke God as part of a geometric proof or why the sky is blue.

Evolution is used as a good way to explain how everything happened naturally ie belief in God is a result of evolutionary thinking rather than there actually being a God.

 

[stevevw]

I don't know why we are disagreeing every scientist evolutionist ever said there is no need for God with evolution... unless you believe God did it through evolution but that means God did it somehow, not like evolutionists say anyway.

If evolutionary theory and science go to great lengths to explain how life evolved through naturalistic methods then they are not going to introduce any supernatural events. That's is the logic of evolution and science, it is materialistic in nature. What it comes down to is at some point whether that the very first universal common ancestor or the creation of several main kinds or a series of creations for believers in God there has to be a supernatural event at some point.

For materialistic evolution, it goes back to how life first occurred on earth. This is where it gets tricky as there is no way to verify things and for them, something had to cause this. Some say life came to earth from somewhere else to get around this problem. Others just don't know and many separate this from evolution itself. But as we discover more it gets a little harder to explain life through naturalistic terms.

In fact, if you look below the surface of the many explanations of how evolution occurred there are many gaps that cannot be explained. It is easy to use an eye patch to explain how an eye first began but it gets near impossible to explain how millions of nerves and neurons happened to give the eye such precision. Assuming the first simple step is evidence for the rest does not follow and that's the explanatory problem.

On the other side of the coin you could argue that there was a high degree of complexity in life very early on and too early for evolution to account for. This would support some intervention beyond the capacity of a naturalistic process. But this is also hard to explain through science. Hence God. So I think the issue for believers comes down to when did God step in.

 

[The Barbarian]

If evolutionary theory and science go to great lengths to explain how life evolved through naturalistic methods then they are not going to introduce any supernatural events.

A few scientists do. Behe, for example, acknowledges the fact of evolution, but thinks God has to step in every now and then to make it work.

That's is the logic of evolution and science, it is materialistic in nature.

Not quite. It's like saying plumbing is materialistic in nature. Science and plumbing don't deny God; they just don't need to bring theology into the things they do. They are methodologically naturalistic, not ontologically naturalistic.

What it comes down to is at some point whether that the very first universal common ancestor or the creation of several main kinds or a series of creations for believers in God there has to be a supernatural event at some point.

Science merely notes that the Earth produced the first living things. So does God. But of course, evolution is indifferent to how life began. If you want to believe (as Darwin did) that God just created the first living things, it makes no difference to evolutionary theory.

For materialistic evolution, it goes back to how life first occurred on earth.

No. That's a common superstition among creationists. Evolutionary theory is completely indifferent to the way life began.

In fact, if you look below the surface of the many explanations of how evolution occurred there are many gaps that cannot be explained. It is easy to use an eye patch to explain how an eye first began but it gets near impossible to explain how millions of nerves and neurons happened to give the eye such precision.

Since all variations from a simple pigmented spot, to a complex focusing eye, can be found in nature, there's no problem for science. However, it's once more a huge problem for creationism, which cannot explain why there are all sorts of intermediate stages. Would you like to learn more about those transitional forms?

Instead of going through all these implausible beliefs, why not just accept the way God did it, and leave it at that?

 

[sfs]

What it comes down to is at some point whether that the very first universal common ancestor or the creation of several main kinds or a series of creations for believers in God there has to be a supernatural event at some point.

Why? Why does belief in God require that God intervened miraculously in the history of life?

 

[stevevw]

Why? Why does belief in God require that God intervened miraculously in the history of life?

Because God is a creator God which is a foundational part of belief in God and existence does not come from nothing.

 

[stevevw]

A few scientists do. Behe, for example, acknowledges the fact of evolution, but thinks God has to step in every now and then to make it work.

The scientists do but the science itself does not. Behe stating that there are some events during the evolution of life that were supernatural is no different to someone stating that God did it once supernaturally.

Not quite. It's like saying plumbing is materialistic in nature. Science and plumbing don't deny God; they just don't need to bring theology into the things they do. They are methodologically naturalistic, not ontologically naturalistic.

That's why I said by nature as in materialism or spiritualism. Science cannot have an opinion but its method does not work with the supernatural. It deals with material/physical causes. Whereas belief in God includes believing in spirituality, something beyond the material that defies the scientific method.

Science merely notes that the Earth produced the first living things. So does God. But of course, evolution is indifferent to how life began. If you want to believe (as Darwin did) that God just created the first living things, it makes no difference to evolutionary theory.

I did not know Darwin believed this. But despite evolution being indifferent to how life began it does make a difference. Because it means that if God created the first ingredients for life or the first life itself then the instructions were already there. In fact, if people say for example chemical evolution led to life I would say there was something that led to chemical evolution and so on and so on right back to a beginning. In the greater scheme of things there had to be a beginning and that beginning had to come from something. So in some ways, there had to be some creative force behind life. Even if you say that the mechanism of evolution itself is a created thing. So really it is the laws, instructions etc that give something its ability to be.

No. That's a common superstition among creationists. Evolutionary theory is completely indifferent to the way life began.

Doesn't evolution include chemical evolution? I don't mean evolution as a theory but as a process like the evolution of a car or the evolution of music.

Since all variations from a simple pigmented spot, to a complex focusing eye, can be found in nature, there's no problem for science.

but that would be making assumptions and not supporting the way science works.

However, it's once more a huge problem for creationism, which cannot explain why there are all sorts of intermediate stages.

I guess it comes back to the instructions rather than the feature itself. The feature needs the instruction and maybe God created the instructions and that has always been there. Software that allows the ability to produce different artwork has to have instructions/programs behind it. Just like life with developmental programs. The programs give the ability to produce variations and they don't come from something that was not there. In that sense, it is not so much evolution but utilizing existing programs to produce different outcomes.

Would you like to learn more about those transitional forms?

I know about these but give me an example.

Instead of going through all these implausible beliefs, why not just accept the way God did it, and leave it at that?

Because that would be accepting something on faith and asumption still.