It's ironic that you would tout the brilliance of the human mind as something inexplicable by evolution while at the same time insisting that we not use it to elucidate our origins.
Upvote
0
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 ironic that you would tout the brilliance of the human mind as something inexplicable by evolution while at the same time insisting that we not use it to elucidate our origins.That is what I am saying. Every "evolutionary creationist" is deliberately blind on the"evolution" of intelligence, because there is no evidence for it. That is why they think they are apes.
He's also the new director of the National Institutes of Health.There are those like Francis Collins. He is a Christian and one of the leading geneticists in the world. He was the Director of the Human Genome project. Apparently he could think well enough to successfully guide the mapping of the entire human genome but not when it comes to his application of evolution in his career? I don't buy it
And plants don’t eat other life forms so they must not be able to survive either. Oh wait. Plant food is minerals and water found it dirt. Well, there were minerals and water... so... ta da!
We don’t have to know exactly what it was made up of. Why should we have to be able to describe it molecule by molecule for it to have existed? We don’t.
An asexual one, common to most single-celled organisms do today.
This sentence makes no sense. Sorry.
Single life is self-replicating chemicals, wherever the first organism arose there must have been those chemicals. Therefore, anything it needed to reproduce and sustain itself would be there.
What does this matter to its existence? Describe to me the soldier ranked 297th out of the 300 spartans at Thermopylae. Can’t? Guess he never existed then.
Same ones that act on you and me: thermodynamics, chemistry, physics, etc. And they are called ‘blind’ because they are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. They are not anthropomorphable into things with goals, there are none!
Metherion
For myself, why not? All evoluton is, is a window into how God creates.I was just wondering how a Bible believing person becomes a Theistic Evolutionist...Is Theistic Evolution even Biblical? If so, where in Scripture does one derive it from?
Not true. Mainly because Creationist do not have any evidence what so ever. Everything for them is based upon "faith", not evidence.LOL, People do not know that we all have the "same" evidence. It is just how we presuppositions are different according to our worldviews.
But this organism gave life to "animals" it needs to get it's source from surviving from some place. So, where did this organism get its source of energy and explain how you know this to be fact?
Well, if the organism first derived from water, where did the land come from and these minerals you speak of? One cannot survive for MILLIONS of years off of nothing but water molecules of minerals, if so show documentation of organisms surviving off of water molecules instead of making "assumptions."
How did this single cellular organism switch from a single to a multiple one over the course of millions of years by surviving of an undefined environment?
Where is documentation of this organism reproducing asexually that can be observable?
"Whenever" = You do not know?
"Chemicals" = Which chemicals? (Without assuming what you think are the chemicals.)
"Reproduction" = How did it reproduce? What did it reproduce into? When did it reproduce?
"Sustained" = Sustained by what? What is the force guiding upon it? (Without assuming that it is a self-sustained organism because you "assumed" it was without knowing it to be true.)
You have "assumed" it was a self-replicating organism without "knowing" it to be true so how can this be reliable?
Because in Hebrews, it says God sustains us and the universe.
Get as snarky as you like
It doesnt change the fact that the evidence does not support a 6 thousand year old earth
It's ironic that you would tout the brilliance of the human mind as something inexplicable by evolution while at the same time insisting that we not use it to elucidate our origins.
Hands up an TEs who do not realise we are more intelligent than other apes.
Not true. Mainly because Creationist do not have any evidence what so ever. Everything for them is based upon "faith", not evidence.
.
Exactly where it arose? I do not know. But there are micro-organisms that survive without eating things on just minerals and chemicals and heat found in their surroundings, without eating other creatures. Thermo-philic bacteria in undersea geothermal vents are one example.But this organism gave life to "animals" it needs to get it's source from surviving from some place. So, where did this organism get its source of energy and explain how you know this to be fact?
Well, if the organism first derived from water, where did the land come from and these minerals you speak of?
Go back to my example of thermophilic deep sea bacteria, they life off of nothing but water molecules and minerals. Along with the geothermal energy thats all a microorganism needs.One cannot survive for MILLIONS of years off of nothing but water molecules of minerals
How did this single cellular organism switch from a single to a multiple one over the course of millions of years by surviving of an undefined environment?
This, and a lot of other stuff, is characterized under lokis wager. Pretty much, saying that if we cant describe EXACTLY PERFECTLY WITHOUT ANY UNCERTAINTY OR ERROR 100% something it either cannot be talked about or must be wrong. For the rest of the response to this post, I will periodically call this.Where is documentation of this organism reproducing asexually that can be observable?
Note; Sorry. I meant, "be" not "me."
Oh, why should we be able to describe it molecule by molecule? Because we are so "intelligent" in this day and age to say we came from these ape-like creatures BILLIONS of years ago and there composition. Why not this single celled organism? What kind of theory would it be for it to not even describe by definition the make-up of its components, how it reproduced, how it survived, and the etc?
Well, first off, I said wherever. Secondly , lokis wager. I dont need to know the exact square millimeter of space relative to the planets core when a chemical reaction we would finally go from calling non-life to life happened. Nor does it matter."Whenever" = You do not know?
Lokis wager. Furthermore, lets see, DNA, carbon, sugars, phosphates, etc etc etc."Chemicals" = Which chemicals? (Without assuming what you think are the chemicals.)
Asexually, as do most single celled organisms. Into more copies of itself with mutations. Before it died."Reproduction" = How did it reproduce? What did it reproduce into? When did it reproduce?
"Sustained" = Sustained by what? What is the force guiding upon it? (Without assuming that it is a self-sustained organism because you "assumed" it was without knowing it to be true.)
Digestible chemicals. Thats what all vitamins, carbohydrates, sugars, proteins, etc. are. Tho I imagine single-celled organisms have different dietary needs than you or I. Go ask the bacteria that eat nylon and see what they say.By your words, Chemicals = the organisms life is sustained.
I dont get what you mean with the cannot be rationalized. However, go ask the single celled organisms alive today what they need to sustain themselves and reproduce. Hint: itll be what can be digested and metabolized into what makes them up.Which chemicals can sustain a water organism that is single celled within an undefined environment that cannot be rationalized?
Strawman showing a profound misunderstanding of evolution.How did this "single-celled" organism create a Heart? Lungs? Blood? Muscles?
Bilayers spontaneously self-assemble under the right conditions.The outer protection devices?
I cant parse your meaning here. Especially with the inner and outer self stuff.Whenever it is made up of just "undefined chemicals" of the inner and outer self of this undefined reproductive organism?
If it is an organism, it can reproduce. Period.You have "assumed" it was a self-replicating organism without "knowing" it to be true so how can this be reliable?
OH HO and special pleading rears its ugly head. So, you can NOT accept that a first organism existed if science can not detail every molecule that made it up. RNA/DNA, some sort of lipid bilayer, other self-replicating polymers most likely made it up. But without a blow by blow description you refuse to accept it. Why then do you net reject other things?The point that 300 of them existed is enough. We know that they were humans, we know the compositions of human beings.
Really? Okay then.We know the history of our bodies
Myself and the other TEs I know of do NOT take kindly to being called non-Christian over man-made doctrine secondary to whether or not Jesus died on the cross for our sins. I also know it is against the rules of this forum. Im also pretty sure such pride is a sin warned about IN the Bible.and for the "Christian" we know where we came from. But as for the Theistic Evolutionist and Atheistic evolutionists they do not.
Knowing every single thing about the first organism is not necessary to biology. Sorry. Maybe once youve learned all the ins and outs of the biology and can point out why it is, then well listen. Until then, science will worry about questions that actually ARE critical, instead of combinations of special pleading and lokis wager.Because they still cannot account for the answers of the questions stated that are critical to a reliable theory, in which has not been answered for over a 100 years.
Please explain exactly WHAT about the following have the qualities of plans, goals, being able to formulate such, or anything else you need to show them to be not blind:See only to you and only you + other evolutionists have it answered as a "blind" force.
So you are not subject to thermodynamics, chemistry, or physics? Do tell.I & other Christians do not have a 'blind' force acting upon us.
Yes. I know. I believe the Bible too you know. Telling me and other TEs that we do not is really old, really pointless, shows your head is so far up your butt you can see straight, and against the rules of this forum AS WELL AS the spirit of one brotherhood in Christ. But, the fact that God made and sustains the universe does NOT mean that the:Because in Hebrews, it says God sustains us and the universe.
Personally I am fascinated by the origin of human intelligence, comparisons of chimp and gorilla intelligence with ours, the beginnings of research into genetic differences behind brain development. What would seem like wilful blindness to me is insisting our brains could not possible have developed from apes when we can see the increase in hominid cranial capacity over the past 3 or 4 million years as hominid skulls gradually become like modern human.You know, but you do not ask why. That is the blindness I am talking about.
Personally I am fascinated by the origin of human intelligence, comparisons of chimp and gorilla intelligence with ours, the beginnings of research into genetic differences behind brain development. What would seem like wilful blindness to me is insisting our brains could not possible have developed from apes when we can see the increase in hominid cranial capacity over the past 3 or 4 million years as hominid skulls gradually become like modern human.
Way to go Juv, dismiss all the fossil evidence as 'antiques' and try to conflate scientific research into evolutionary history with the hope we have in Christ. That is what blindness is, making up excuses not to face reality.So you hold a piece of antique quality evidence as the ultimate light of hope?
By wisdom do you mean ordinary human wisdom which comes from experience and understanding for the world around us, or godly wisdom from above which is a gift from God? Ordinary human wisdom is probably a combination of the multiple genes that influence intelligence combined with experience and decision making. Don't know about you, but I doubt anybody will come up with a single gene for wisdom.I am expecting geneticists discover the gene of wisdom one day, just like they are searching for the gene of longevity today.
Squeak*Can you imagine when a mouse starts to think?
I never said that.
Your origin is not my origin.
juvenissun said:I never said that.
Your origin is not my origin.
The Lady Kate said:Do you think one can alter their origin with simple stubbornness?
Or is it vanity?
Way to go Juv, dismiss all the fossil evidence as 'antiques' and try to conflate scientific research into evolutionary history with the hope we have in Christ. That is what blindness is, making up excuses not to face reality.
By wisdom do you mean ordinary human wisdom which comes from experience and understanding for the world around us, or godly wisdom from above which is a gift from God? Ordinary human wisdom is probably a combination of the multiple genes that influence intelligence combined with experience and decision making. Don't know about you, but I doubt anybody will come up with a single gene for wisdom.
And rocks don't eat anything so we can't tell anything about a T Rex's diet from its vicious looking teeth? So Creationists claim T Rex was a herbivore that ate water mellons. And you were talking about deliberate blindness? Are you seriously trying to tell me that because that because fossils are not alive and cannot talk to us, we cannot get any indication of a species' intelligence from the size of its brain, or that if you have two very similar species like homo habilis and homo erectus where the biggest difference between them is cranial capacity that we have no reason to think that the one with the larger brain may be more intelligent? Is there any reason not to think that an australopithicus with a cranial capacity only slightly larger than an chimp whose skull look more like a chimp than a human, even if it walked upright, probably had a very similar level of intelligent to a chimp? Or if the is no relationship between brain size and intelligence could australopithicus have been as intelligent as you and me? And if we look at the series of hominid fossils from Australopithecus and homo habilis through homo ergaster the various erectus to homo sapiens, each with gradually more human appearance and gradually increasing cranial capacity, and gradually more sophisticate tools, do you seriously think that there is no relationship between cranial capacity and intelligence, or are the hominid with the larger brain probably more intelligent than the smaller ones?I don't think it exists.
Fossils are remains and are dumb. One can never find any intelligence by looking at fossils.
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?