How did these life evolved out?

[dad]

that's because so called "creation" is not part of the natural world, therefore outside the realm of science.

So it would appear. Unless one could prove that the same nature existed in the early history of life on earth, one cannot use science to discover the wonders of creation.

 

[JackRT]

So it would appear. Unless one could prove that the same nature existed in the early history of life on earth, one cannot use science to discover the wonders of creation.

Since we cannot prove that the same nature will exist tomorrow, we can say nothing about the future. We cannot even say that the sun will come up tomorrow. There is no point to science at all, so we might as well go back to chipping flints and God help the man who finds a better way to chip flints. No point to it since it might not work tomorrow.

 

[dad]

Since we cannot prove that the same nature will exist tomorrow, we can say nothing about the future. We cannot even say that the sun will come up tomorrow.

I CAN say it will! Because the bible gives the sequence of events leading into the future. We can say one day things will be different, but it will not be tomorrow! Let's be reasonable here. Just because I ruined your little science fable thing doesn't mean we need to throw a tantrum and pretend there is no reality or no tomorrow.

There is no point to science at all, so we might as well go back to chipping flints and God help the man who finds a better way to chip flints. No point to it since it might not work tomorrow.

Ha I like that. You're learning. We should not trust science more than Scripture! Science does contribute to things. Bad and good. How could the evil Antichrist mark everyone in the forehead unless science paved the way? How could man destroy himself (except for Christ stepping in first to stop it) unless science made it possible? How could all the world see the 2 prophets in Rev 11 raise up from the dead in the streets unless there was science and TV sort of communications?

Back to the post flood stone age? Well, science would have us all there, and even more...have us all dead if He let it!

 

[loveofourlord]

Unknown. No form of life related to the life we see around us can live at the center of the earth, however. The chemistry won't work.

with that new finding of life that could be deep below black smokers and trenches, I think they estimate that the furtheset down anything could survive is like 10 km or was it miles, or the temperature is too hot.

 

[AirPo]

So it would appear. Unless one could prove that the same nature existed in the early history of life on earth, one cannot use science to discover the wonders of creation.

The so called wonders of creation are imaginary.

 

[dad]

The so called wonders of creation are imaginary.

Beyond the limited imagination of science, yes. They handicap their thinking with a belief based methodology that specializes in omitting the spiritual and God and anything almost not under their biased little noses.

 

[JackRT]

Beyond the limited imagination of science, yes.

Yes. science is limited ---- to evidence.

They handicap their thinking with a belief based methodology

Au contraire mon ami. Science is a methodology not a belief system. YOU have the belief system.

that specializes in omitting the spiritual and God and anything almost not under their biased little noses.

Actually science limits itself to only that which can be observed. That does rule out anything "supernatural". Science does not deny the supernatural, it simply cannot say anything about it.

 

[dad]

Yes. science is limited ---- to evidence.

Misusing the word doesn't help you. Evidence has nothing to do with the belief system of hell science foists onto evidences. I will not countenance any pretense that the foolish and godless and wretched belief system of fake news so called science is evidence.

Au contraire mon ami. Science is a methodology not a belief system. YOU have the belief system.

Prove the nature was the same or stop believing and using that belief in all science models of the past. There can no longer be any hiding from the truth here.

Actually science limits itself to only that which can be observed.

False, they never cease to make stuff up that no one has observed like the first life form and the big bang!

That does rule out anything "supernatural".

? How would religiously ignoring the supernatural, as science does, rule it out? It rules THEM out!

Science does not deny the supernatural, it simply cannot say anything about it.

Yet it never stops belching out the anti creation fables eh?

 

[Jimmy D]

Unless one could prove that the same nature existed in the early history of life on earth, one cannot use science to discover the wonders of creation.

All the evidence shows that the same 'nature' did exist, nothing contradicts that apart from your unusual opinion derived from your reading of a religious text.

Your opinion is dismissed as wishful thinking.

 

[dad]

All the evidence shows that the same 'nature' did exist, nothing contradicts that apart from your unusual opinion derived from your reading of a religious text.

Your opinion is dismissed as wishful thinking.

Easy to say...impossible to support. All evidence supports whatever we splatter with faith based coloring. This you do. Lurkers, grab your smocks, and maybe get out the cells and snap a photo of evidences before they spray it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Easy to say...impossible to support. All evidence supports whatever we splatter with faith based coloring. This you do. Lurkers, grab your smocks, and maybe get out the cells and snap a photo of evidences before they spray it.

Evidence supports a mysterious fantasy based past where time speeds up and slows down, the laws of physics are topsy turvey and people live for hundreds of years? Wake up and smell the coffee mate, your fantasies might have some sort of logic in your own head but in the real world they are the delusions of a fanatic.

 

[JackRT]

There is a possibility that the laws of nature might have been different in the past. However there is no evidence presently to support that possibility. Until such time as there is evidence, science will continue using what we do know and not what we don't know.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why would these animals want to evolve into this place where there is no sunlight, hot (300°C+) and crushing (~2000 atm) ?

"Want"? You think evolution is a conscious decision?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"Want"? You think evolution is a conscious decision?

Well, he does think that rocks have a consciousness, so... yeah.

 

[JackRT]

Well, he does think that rocks have a consciousness, so... yeah.

Back in the 1950's the Jesuit priest and paleontologist Pere Tielhard DeChardin wrote a book in which he attempted to reconcile evolution and theology. It is called "The Phenomenon of Man". He posits that intelligence and consciousness are tied to the complexity of the entity starting with elementary particles and on up. For example, an atom would have more consciousness than its component protons, neutrons and electrons. At the atomic and molecular level the degree of consciousness is still too small to detect. He also suggests certain critical ‘quantum jumps’ like when a very complex hydrocarbon molecule becomes a living cell. To cut to the chase, he suggests an "Omega Point" when humanity is so linked that the planet itself becomes a living organism of a higher order. The comparison is made to a beehive. The individual bees display a low order of intelligence and consciousness but when we consider that of the hive as a whole it is orders of magnitude above that of its components. The hive itself behaves as an intelligent and conscious entity. Is this the fate of humanity? Is it possible that the internet itself might be the very sort of linkage by which such a quantum leap might be facilitated? Are we approaching Tielhard's Omega Point?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Back in the 1950's the Jesuit priest and paleontologist Pere Tielhard DeChardin wrote a book in which he attempted to reconcile evolution and theology. It is called "The Phenomenon of Man". He posits that intelligence and consciousness are tied to the complexity of the entity starting with elementary particles and on up. For example, an atom would have more consciousness than its component protons, neutrons and electrons. At the atomic and molecular level the degree of consciousness is still too small to detect. He also suggests certain critical ‘quantum jumps’ like when a very complex hydrocarbon molecule becomes a living cell. To cut to the chase, he suggests an "Omega Point" when humanity is so linked that the planet itself becomes a living organism of a higher order. The comparison is made to a beehive. The individual bees display a low order of intelligence and consciousness but when we consider that of the hive as a whole it is orders of magnitude above that of its components. The hive itself behaves as an intelligent and conscious entity. Is this the fate of humanity? Is it possible that the internet itself might be the very sort of linkage by which such a quantum leap might be facilitated? Are we approaching Tielhard's Omega Point?

But a rock can't display any sort of consciousness.

 

[JackRT]

But a rock can't display any sort of consciousness.

Or at least not enough to detect.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, he does think that rocks have a consciousness, so... yeah.

No wonder the whole pet rock thing started.

 

[dad]

Evidence supports a mysterious fantasy based past where time speeds up and slows down, the laws of physics are topsy turvey and people live for hundreds of years?

The evidence shows you don't know either way. The bible supports a different past and future. Smell that coffee?

 

[juvenissun]

"Want"? You think evolution is a conscious decision?

It has to be.