"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[Jimmy D]

I'll ask again.....

I think we all have shown the facts are in support of special creation.
It's about explanatory power, probability and even possibility.

What explanatory power, 'special creation' explains nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

... 'special creation' explains nothing.

As it should.

It's called creatio ex nihilo, or "creation from nothing."

 

[RickG]

As it should.

It's called creatio ex nihilo, or "creation from nothing."

Or maybe God is a product of the Big Bang?

 

[AV1611VET]

Or maybe God is a product of the Big Bang?

Why not?

Everything else is, isn't it?

 

[RickG]

Why not?

Everything else is, isn't it?

Prove it wrong

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Educate? You mean brainwash.

No, I meant education. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[doubtingmerle]

They feel obliged to marry God with naturalism.
I don't and i wonder why anyone would.I do not agree with them.

Why would anyone adopt theistic evolution? Because, there are many reasons to believe evolution is true. Hence, if you are a theist, theistic evolution makes sense. Just like theistic round-earthism is a good position for a theist to take on the shape of the earth.

There is no evidence for natural causes doing that by themselves.

You added "by themselves" in there. This thread is not about whether they did it "by themselves". The claim that started this thread is that evolution cannot create certain aspects of life. That seems to indicate God himself wouldn't be able to do it by evolution. Why not? If you think God can do it ex nihlo (or however you think he did it) why would it be impossible for him to do it by evolution?

If your only claim is to say that God somehow needed to be involved, that is not the same as proving that God could not possibly have decided to use evolution.

Why are you asking that question again?

Because you won't tell us how you think God created. You have said theistic evolutionists, who believe God created through evolution are wrong, but you have not given us a process that you think is more likely true, and you haven't explained why you think it is more likely that God used the unknown process you suggest rather than using evolution.

The only thing that is revealed by God is Genesis and some references in Scripture.

Genesis is subject to many interpretations. Some people find evolution in Genesis.

If your only reason to objecting to theistic evolution is the Bible, then why bother with this thread? This thread was based on the premise that there is some evidence that makes it too complicated for God to use evolution as his process of creation. Fine, show us the evidence that it is too complicated for God to make motor proteins by evolution, but it is not too complicated for God to do it some other way. We are well into this thread, and nobody has made an attempt to do that.

The point you seem not to adress is that natural processes just don't have the explanatory power.

The point you seem not to address is that you have not even suggested a process that you think has better explanatory power.

Evolution has explanatory power. For instance, it explains the whale series I posted earlier. Do you have a view that better explains the whale series?

You expect miracles form natural processes and God didn't do a thing, because evolution models and beliefs have no God in them.

Nature does not produce miracles, but it does amazing things, yes. For instance, a single fertilized cell develops into an adult human millions of times. That is amazing.

So why, as a theist, would you subscribe to atheistic ideas?
Because they're loud?

I'm not a theist, but why would I expect a theist to adopt the view of evolution? Here, let me give you 29 reasons: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ .

And no, "because evolutionists are loud" is not one of those 29 reasons.

 

[-57]

"Common sense"... is not a pathway to truth. "Common sense" can only build on what you ALREADY know. Not on what you don't know or don't understand.

"common sense" doesn't inform you that you'll get hurt if you put your hand in the fire, if you don't know what fire is.

And expecting your statement to be accepted "unless they can be shown to be wrong", is a blatant shift of the burden of proof.

Apparently you don't have common sense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Apparently you don't have common sense.

Maybe you should elaborate, because I don't see the value or merrit in this one-liner.

What part of the post you quoted here, don't you agree with and why?

 

[-57]

Maybe you should elaborate, because I don't see the value or merrit in this one-liner.

What part of the post you quoted here, don't you agree with and why?

How did it evolve through a process of random chance?

 

[sfs]

As it should.

It's called creatio ex nihilo, or "creation from nothing."

Why does creation from nothing mean that it shouldn't explain anything? For example, the creation of humans from nothing (or from dust) as a single pair a few thousand years ago would be a great explanation for why humans have strikingly low genetic diversity and a shortage of low frequency genetic variants -- because that (especially the second one) is what we would expect to see if recent special creation were true. The problem is, of course, that we don't see those things.

 

[-57]

Why does creation from nothing mean that it shouldn't explain anything? For example, the creation of humans from nothing (or from dust) as a single pair a few thousand years ago would be a great explanation for why humans have strikingly low genetic diversity and a shortage of low frequency genetic variants -- because that (especially the second one) is what we would expect to see if recent special creation were true. The problem is, of course, that we don't see those things.

What are you comparing humans against?

 

[-57]

Or maybe God is a product of the Big Bang?

Are you saying the BB created itself from nothing?

 

[RickG]

Are you saying the BB created itself from nothing?

Absolutely not.

 

[-57]

If your only reason to objecting to theistic evolution is the Bible, then why bother with this thread? This thread was based on the premise that there is some evidence that makes it too complicated for God to use evolution as his process of creation. Fine, show us the evidence that it is too complicated for God to make motor proteins by evolution, but it is not too complicated for God to do it some other way. We are well into this thread, and nobody has made an attempt to do that.

Sure, God could have created any way He wanted to...He's God....but the God of the bible tells us He didn't use evolutionism to create humans.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Sure, God could have created any way He wanted to...He's God....but the God of the bible tells us He didn't use evolutionism to create humans.

Then the only logical conclusion is that the bible is wrong.

 

[-57]

Absolutely not.

Were you saying the BB created God?

 

[RickG]

Sure, God could have created any way He wanted to...He's God....but the God of the bible tells us He didn't use evolutionism to create humans.

However, the physical evidence provided shows that not to be so. Perhaps those deciding what is and is not scripture chose wrong.

 

[-57]

Then the only logical conclusion is that the bible is wrong.

Perhaps you should review post 3. It clearly shows your logical conclusion is incorrect.

 

[RickG]

Were you saying the BB created God?

No, I said God could possibly be a product of the Big Gang, as everything in the universe is.