If evolution is true- create life

[mindlight]

If macroevolution is true then ultimately scientists with enough knowledge should be able to duplicate its processes.

Indeed scientists have created amino acids (not life but very complex) in laboratories. But why have they never be able to make the jump to life e.g. a living cell.

I think a major argument against macroevolution as an hypothesis is that it remains an unproven theory despite its claim to be scientific.

With the new levels of processing power and even the ability to perform robotic experiments the amount of experimentation coudl be increased in this area to eliminate the various possibilities. BUt I would guess that even with the application of advanced technology that essential jump to life will still not be obtained. Indeed the numbers of possible combinations of conditions are so great it is unlikely that human level intelligence would ever be able to duplicate the conditions.

Until that moment macroevolution must be regarded as only one theory among many, accepted by its various schools of believers, on blind faith.

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0728_Evolutionary_Improba.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3507.asp

 

[random_guy]

If macroevolution is true then ultimately scientists with enough knowledge should be able to duplicate its processes.

Indeed scientists have created amino acids (not life but very complex) in laboratories. But why have they never be able to make the jump to life e.g. a living cell.

I think a major argument against macroevolution as an hypothesis is that it remains an unproven theory despite its claim to be scientific.

With the new levels of processing power and even the ability to perform robotic experiments the amount of experimentation coudl be increased in this area to eliminate the various possibilities. BUt I would guess that even with the application of advanced technology that essential jump to life will still not be obtained. Indeed the numbers of possible combinations of conditions are so great it is unlikely that human level intelligence would ever be able to duplicate the conditions.

Until that moment macroevolution must be regarded as only one theory among many, accepted by its various schools of believers, on blind faith.

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0728_Evolutionary_Improba.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3507.asp

Ignoring all the scientific errors in this post, let's have some fun to point out at the logical error.

If babies are made from proteins and other organic molecules, we should be able to create one from scratch. Since we can't, it proves that we're not made of proteins. Teach "Sugar, spice and everything nice" Theory!

Since we know how stars are formed, but we can't create it in a lab, this proves that Star Genesis is wrong. Teach "Holes in the Canvas of the Sky" Theory!

 

[Jig]

I know how the stars were made....God spoke.

If a vessel ready for life did randomly create from nothing, how would it know to reproduce too?

 

[random_guy]

I know how the stars were made....God spoke.

If a vessel ready for life did randomly create from nothing, how would it know to reproduce too?

There you go. A perfect model to teach students from now on. Who needs Hubble Telescope to examine dust clouds and nebulas when everything boils down to Goddidit!

Let's just teach that!

 

[shernren]

http://www.christianforums.com/t2174841-science-rules-and-the-hand-of-god.html
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19032441&postcount=14

This thread was about how evolution, although it has its flaws and gaps, is still better than any alternative. Perhaps you could read and comment?

 

[ebia]

If macroevolution is true then ultimately scientists with enough knowledge should be able to duplicate its processes.

"If supernovas really happen, then you should be able to duplicate one in your bedroom".

 

[vossler]

There you go. A perfect model to teach students from now on. Who needs Hubble Telescope to examine dust clouds and nebulas when everything boils down to Goddidit!

Let's just teach that!

If He didn't do it then who did??? Are we now to the point that Christians are even denying God's role?

 

[The Lady Kate]

If He didn't do it then who did??? Are we now to the point that Christians are even denying God's role?

Aren't you the least bit curious as to how He did it?

If not, why then must you so actively discourage others from asking?

 

[KerrMetric]

If macroevolution is true then ultimately scientists with enough knowledge should be able to duplicate its processes.

Indeed scientists have created amino acids (not life but very complex) in laboratories. But why have they never be able to make the jump to life e.g. a living cell.

I think a major argument against macroevolution as an hypothesis is that it remains an unproven theory despite its claim to be scientific.

With the new levels of processing power and even the ability to perform robotic experiments the amount of experimentation coudl be increased in this area to eliminate the various possibilities. BUt I would guess that even with the application of advanced technology that essential jump to life will still not be obtained. Indeed the numbers of possible combinations of conditions are so great it is unlikely that human level intelligence would ever be able to duplicate the conditions.

Until that moment macroevolution must be regarded as only one theory among many, accepted by its various schools of believers, on blind faith.

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0728_Evolutionary_Improba.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3507.asp

Why, for the billionth time, do people still equate abiogenesis with evolution. This has become such a common occurrence and the subsequent pointing out they are not the same that I can only conclude that such linking is the telling of a lie.

 

[Critias]

If macroevolution is true then ultimately scientists with enough knowledge should be able to duplicate its processes.

Indeed scientists have created amino acids (not life but very complex) in laboratories. But why have they never be able to make the jump to life e.g. a living cell.

I think a major argument against macroevolution as an hypothesis is that it remains an unproven theory despite its claim to be scientific.

With the new levels of processing power and even the ability to perform robotic experiments the amount of experimentation coudl be increased in this area to eliminate the various possibilities. BUt I would guess that even with the application of advanced technology that essential jump to life will still not be obtained. Indeed the numbers of possible combinations of conditions are so great it is unlikely that human level intelligence would ever be able to duplicate the conditions.

Until that moment macroevolution must be regarded as only one theory among many, accepted by its various schools of believers, on blind faith.

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0728_Evolutionary_Improba.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3507.asp

Interesting.

I would have to say that in order to show that macroevolution is true, it must be observed within nature without human involvement. Thus far, all we have seen are laboratory experiments where conditions are controlled by the scientists to get the results that they desire.

Laboratory experiments are not proof that it happens within nature itself, where conditions are not controlled. That ought to be something YECs keep in mind because many of the so called breakthroughs have been in labs with controlled environments.

To me it seems the same as me going into a room, where i have all the parts I need, good lighting, tools, and I build a laptop. When I am finished, I go and tell the world that it is possible that a laptop can be built on its own, in nature. That is how ridiculous it sounds to me.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

If He didn't do it then who did??? Are we now to the point that Christians are even denying God's role?

God is the primary cause. However, God often uses intermediary secondary causes. The response Goddidit is not a proper answer to the question of what are the secondary causes of an event.

 

[random_guy]

If He didn't do it then who did??? Are we now to the point that Christians are even denying God's role?

If God didn't cause 9-11, then who did??? Are we now to the point that Christians are even denying God's role?

Hint, there's a big difference in who and how.

 

[random_guy]

Interesting.

I would have to say that in order to show that macroevolution is true, it must be observed within nature without human involvement. Thus far, all we have seen are laboratory experiments where conditions are controlled by the scientists to get the results that they desire.

Laboratory experiments are not proof that it happens within nature itself, where conditions are not controlled. That ought to be something YECs keep in mind because many of the so called breakthroughs have been in labs with controlled environments.

To me it seems the same as me going into a room, where i have all the parts I need, good lighting, tools, and I build a laptop. When I am finished, I go and tell the world that it is possible that a laptop can be built on its own, in nature. That is how ridiculous it sounds to me.

Funny, by the same analogy, 99% of chemistry has no scientific backing because scientists control the experiments to observe what happens.

This entire thread has been a bundle of fun.

 

[Critias]

Funny, by the same analogy, 99% of chemistry has no scientific backing because scientists control the experiments to observe what happens.

This entire thread has been a bundle of fun.

What evolutionists are stating is that what they do in the laboratory under specific conditions is the same as it happening in nature under no specific conditions.

Surely, you being intelligent understand the difference.

 

[random_guy]

What evolutionists are stating is that what they do in the laboratory under specific conditions is the same as it happening in nature under no specific conditions.

Surely, you being intelligent understand the difference.

So all biology experiments (such as measuring a squid axion potential) have no applications to real life since squid axions don't exist by themselves?

 

[Critias]

So all biology experiments (such as measuring a squid axion potential) have no applications to real life since squid axions don't exist by themselves?

Well either you don't want to understand or you just want to be argumentative. I made the point I wanted to make.

 

[random_guy]

Well either you don't want to understand or you just want to be argumentative. I made the point I wanted to make.

Well you argue that experiments in labs on evolution are evidence of nothing since they're controlled by scientists. By the same reasoning, the [size=-1]Hodgkin-Huxley equations for space-clamped squid axon are evidence of nothing since they had to isolate the axon, run a silver wire down the axon, and give controlled voltages into the axon.

I don't see why controlled experiments in the lab doesn't account as evidence, according to you. If you ever read a scientific paper, you'll notice that they state their methods, their assumptions, control variables, etc. A lot can be gleaned from experiments.
[/size]

 

[Critias]

Well you argue that experiments in labs on evolution are evidence of nothing since they're controlled by scientists. By the same reasoning, the [size=-1]Hodgkin-Huxley equations for space-clamped squid axon are evidence of nothing since they had to isolate the axon, run a silver wire down the axon, and give controlled voltages into the axon.

I don't see why controlled experiments in the lab doesn't account as evidence, according to you. If you ever read a scientific paper, you'll notice that they state their methods, their assumptions, control variables, etc. A lot can be gleaned from experiments.
[/size]

1. I was arguing nothing, but rather making a statment. If you don't agree, that's fine by me.

2. Just because experiments are carried out in a controlled environment and they are successful doesn't mean the exact observation within the laboratory are also seen in an uncontrolled environment like nature. There is a reason why the labs are a controlled environment, to get the desired results.

3. I never stated that all lab experiments are not true. That is your strawman you created.

4. If you cannot see a difference between a controlled environment and an uncontrolled environment then you might want check into it.

5. Your statement: "[size=-1]If you ever read a scientific paper..." is written in a way of assuming I have not. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it does give the connotation of such. In such cases where you don't know the other person, it is best not to assume that you do know them and what they have or have not done.
[/size]

 

[Jig]

Aren't you the least bit curious as to how He did it?

Sure...I'll find out when I ask Him.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Sure...I'll find out when I ask Him.

And if He says that He did it by setting certain natural processes in motion, how would you react?