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

[Jimmy D]

Translation...I can't refute it.

I'll have a go.

The process presented above is to sophisticated and complicated to have arrived by a process containing random chance and natural selection.

The process presented above is not too sophisticated or complicated to have arrived by a process containing random chance and natural selection.

 

[Waterwerx]

How's the pizza up there?

Since evolution can be clearly shown to have occurred, and since, according to you, you "have about the same chance of flushing [your]self down an accommodating commode inside Area 51 without any security clearance and ending up on Pluto inside of an elephant while eating a pizza" , I do so hope you like plutonian pizza.

Clearly shown? By whom and what science? The "theory of evolution" nonsense? Sorry, but complex organisms do not evolve from nothing by themselves, regardless of how much time you allow. Species adapt but do not "evolve" into an entirely new species. By your reasoning, the city of New York that we see today could build itself without any human action, and that's just child's play compared to the complexity of all life on earth and the systems that support it. Please go!

 

[Jimmy D]

Clearly shown? By whom and what science? The "theory of evolution" nonsense? Sorry, but complex organisms do not evolve from nothing by themselves, regardless of how much time you allow. Species adapt but do not "evolve" into an entirely new species. By your reasoning, the city of New York that we see today could build itself without any human action, and that's just child's play compared to the complexity of all life on earth and the systems that support it. Please go!

That'll learn him!

 

[J Cord]

As one person put it, the chances of life evolving on its own are like covering the state of Texas two feet deep in silver dollars, then picking a specific one at random.

What a great analogy! With billions of years to work with, we would expect to find that one coin, it would just take a very long time, which is exactly what science is telling us happened.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Clearly shown? By whom and what science? The "theory of evolution" nonsense? Sorry, but complex organisms do not evolve from nothing by themselves, regardless of how much time you allow. Species adapt but do not "evolve" into an entirely new species. By your reasoning, the city of New York that we see today could build itself without any human action, and that's just child's play compared to the complexity of all life on earth and the systems that support it. Please go!

Actually they do, your denial does not refute the science.

The evidence is piling up as we speak and has been for a long time.

Go into any public park and you can see the power of evolution yourself. They can be found sniffing each other and often barking.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

So you seem to be dropping the concept that life is too complicated for God (or "nature's god) to have created by means of evolution, as per the thread title.

You could have just said that: the Bible, as interpreted by many, says it wasn't by evolution. If that is your reason, fine, say so. But please don't pretend you have a scientific objection where it is strictly a matter of your theology.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

What? Started by a bunch of teenage hoodlums?

Sorry to joke about the typo, but I couldn't resist.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Clearly shown? By whom and what science?

DNA & genetics, comparative anatomy, fossil record, embryology, experiments in the lab and observations in nature.

Sorry, but complex organisms do not evolve from nothing by themselves, regardless of how much time you allow

What do you mean "From nothing by themselves"?

Species adapt but do not "evolve" into an entirely new species.

Evolution takes place in populations, not individuals. If there was a population of brown furred bears and a random genetic mutation is seen in some of the offspring that gives them white fur in a snowy environment, which bears in this population have a better chance of survival?

By your reasoning, the city of New York that we see today could build itself without any human action, and that's just child's play compared to the complexity of all life on earth and the systems that support it. Please go!

Buildings aren't living systems and they don't fall into a nested hierarchy like life does...

 

[sfs]

Creationist have no problem with speciation.

Really?

 

[Waterwerx]

Actually they do, your denial does not refute the science.

The evidence is piling up as we speak and has been for a long time.

Go into any public park and you can see the power of evolution yourself. They can be found sniffing each other and often barking.

So is the trash in garbage dumps.
Dogs are not evolving. Do you even understand the definition of evolving? Maybe dogs will "evolve" and lose their legs like snakes did, too. I suppose you also believe Genesis was being symbolic where it says God created them as man and woman and that it could have meant they were less intelligent poo-slinging apes that evolved into humans.

Your lack of evidence is very telling.

 

[-57]

No, you need to change your view of the creation story.

Now you're asking me to deny what the bible actually says?

 

[-57]

Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

Humans have lots of genetic variation that occurs in 10% of the population. They have ten times as many variants that occur in 1% of the population, and ~100 times as many that occur in 0.1% of the population. I don't care if the mutations are good, bad or purple: I want to know how they got into the population at those frequencies if we started as a single couple less than 10,000 years ago.

So far you haven't demonstrated they they could not or did not.

 

[-57]

I'll have a go.



The process presented above is not too sophisticated or complicated to have arrived by a process containing random chance and natural selection.

Then you should have no problem explaining how the process evolved.

 

[-57]

So you seem to be dropping the concept that life is too complicated for God (or "nature's god) to have created by means of evolution, as per the thread title.

You could have just said that: the Bible, as interpreted by many, says it wasn't by evolution. If that is your reason, fine, say so. But please don't pretend you have a scientific objection where it is strictly a matter of your theology.

If you have been reading my post you would have understood my belief in what the bible says...as well as understood my scientific objection to evolutionism.

 

[-57]

Really?

Let me repeat myself....creationist have no problem with speciation.

 

[RickG]

Now you're asking me to deny what the bible actually says?

Most Christians are not literalist. It has nothing to do with denying the bible. And frankly, I'm not concerned with your or any bodys interpretation, rather the use of misrepresented science in the "creation science" literature is what I find deplorable .

 

[-57]

Most Christians are not literalist. I has nothing to do with denying the bible. And frankly, I'm not concerned with your or any bodys interpretation, rather the use of misrepresented science in the "creation science" literature is what I find deplorable .

I'm truly sorry that the account of Genesis tells us God created in six day...as well as the ten commandments...and that you believe those verses have been misinterpreted when filtered through your science.
I'm also sorry that the bible tells us that a dead savior had the ability to rise from the grave on day 3...despite what your science tells us.

 

[-57]

LOL

You can ignore post 3 all you want.

 

[RickG]

I'm truly sorry that the account of Genesis tells us God created in six day...as well as the ten commandments...and that you believe those verses have been misinterpreted when filtered through your science.
I'm also sorry that the bible tells us that a dead savior had the ability to rise from the grave on day 3...despite what your science tells us.

I see I had a typo in the post you quoted. In the second sentence it started with "I". It should have been "It". I have now edited that post and fixed the typo. Do you still fell the same way?

 

[RickG]

You can ignore post 3 all you want.

It presents no empirical evidence, just opinion.