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

[AV1611VET]

So components of the soil just popped up out of the ground and started forming a zebra? And since soil is low in carbon and oxygen, but the zebra is mostly carbon and oxygen, did air molecules rush in and work into position? And millions of times the necessary atoms rushed together to form the proteins and other molecules of the first zebra? And then--clear!--the heartbeat is started and the zebra jumps up and starts running about?

That must have been a sight to see! I would have loved to sit there and watch it.

Did you go to Sunday school, Merle?

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh no, it is not true that every Christian agrees that life came about in the way that you interpret Genesis.

Many, many Christians think it came about by evolution.

I didn't say that, did I?

I only used the first four words of the Bible.

 

[SteveB28]

Scientist have show they are not in the same place....all you are doing is...cut and paste.

Oh really?

Well, if what you are claiming is true and you haven't dishonestly made it up, you should be able to quote those 'scientists' in giving their findings that the retroviral insertions are not identically located.

Off you go.....,

 

[loveofourlord]

Scientist have show they are not in the same place....all you are doing is...cut and paste.

Okay provide evidence for this, and show it's not just genetic drift and such.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The ATP connected to the Kinesin!
The Kinesin connected to the microtubule!
Oh hear the word of the Lord!

And so on for billions of molecules until we get a full zebra? I don't think so.

Sorry, read up on the fossil record. There have been animals around for hundreds of millions of years. Life began simple. As time progressed there was one line that looked more and more like reptiles, and a line off that looking more and more like mammals, and a line off that looking more and more like a zebra. And are we to think that all those intermediates, for millions of years, were made from scratch by connecting a toe bone to a heel bone to a foot bone to a leg bone, etc. every time a new species appeared? I don't think so.

 

[AV1611VET]

As time progressed there was one line that looked more and more like reptiles, and a line off that looking more and more like mammals, and a line off that looking more and more like a zebra.

Ya ... I'm familiar with the rhetoric.

That's why I say evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

My snowman challenge thread shows how two things can be made of the exact same material ... not just one looking more like the other ... but from exactly the same material, yet one not being related to the other at all.

In other words, it shows a common designer, not a common ancestor.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ya ... I'm familiar with the rhetoric.

That's why I say evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

My snowman challenge thread shows how two things can be made of the exact same material ... not just one looking more like the other ... but from exactly the same material, yet one not being related to the other at all.

In other words, it shows a common designer, not a common ancestor.

Your snowmen don't have nested heirarchies, don't have convergence of independent phylogenies, don't have a fossil record of transitional forms, don't have clear common ancestors, don't have vestiges or atavisms, etc. There is plenty of lines of evidence that do not apply to your snowmen, but apply to life.

 

[-57]

And zebras popping into existence, fully formed, with all the motor proteins and everything in place is possible? Why exactly is it that you think your preferred process for making the first zebra is possible, and mine is not?

And no, saying God did it is not the answer. A God who could create a zebra out of nothing could create a zebra through evolution. If you think God created the first zebra out of nothing instead of through evolution, then one would think you would have a reason for saying your view has more scientific credibility than mine. Strangely, after 640 posts, you have not made the slightest effort to explain why zebras popping into existence fully formed is a more scientifically valid explanation of the first motor proteins of the first zebra, as opposed to evolution.

"And no, saying God did it is not the answer.".....and that would be incorrect.

God did do it. God in the account presented in Genesis clearly says He didn't youse the process called...EVOLUTIONISM.

Got it?

 

[-57]

Wrong. I have repeatedly referred to a link with 29 major reasons for believing in macro evolution. You have simply ignored that link, and pretended I didn't mention it. Would you like me to provide the link again for your benefit?

Ignored you? NOPE...REFUTED you ...yes.

 

[Hieronymus]

And no, saying God did it is not the answer.

And why not then?

A God who could create a zebra out of nothing could create a zebra through evolution.

Sigh..
There is no God in evolution, it's a naturalistic / atheistic model.
A model that can not even explain what we observe in reality.

 

[Hieronymus]

It works on paper though, and that's good enough for them.

No, even on paper it doesn't account for what we observe in real life.

 

[-57]

Oh really?

Well, if what you are claiming is true and you haven't dishonestly made it up, you should be able to quote those 'scientists' in giving their findings that the retroviral insertions are not identically located.

Off you go.....,

Tell me...what good would quoting the scientist do? Your ears are already deaf.

 

[-57]

Okay provide evidence for this, and show it's not just genetic drift and such.

I already have in a previous post with several links.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It works on paper though, and that's good enough for them.

It is amazing that there are people that are brilliant with books but they can not even tie their shoe. They use to make comedy movies about absent minded professors that live their life in a world of books and could not function in the real world with the rest of us.

 

[MasonP]

Sigh..
There is no God in evolution, it's a naturalistic / atheistic model.

Atheistic model? Millions of Christians accept evolution as being a fact simply because it is.

A model that can not even explain what we observe in reality.

But you think a God can? saying a God did it explains what? less than nothing.

 

[bhsmte]

Wait a min. I just had a talk with my son about this. I was looking at his Calculus book and it looks a lot like the Physics that I learned in college. So they had to explain to me what Newton was doing and just what the association is between Calculus and Physics. Just like people today are trying to explain the association between Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Creationism.

????????????????????????????

One more time:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-and-the-church-part-2#sthash.IrHxbgiJ.dpuf

 

[Hieronymus]

Atheistic model? Millions of Christians accept evolution as being a fact simply because it is.

Yes, atheistic model.

Where is the hand of God in the ToE?
It's not there.
And make sure to read the whole topic, because the complexity of living nature is simply not explained by dead unconscious processes.

So either you totally underestimate or deny the complexity and interdependency within living nature as a whole and within the average living cell in particular,
or you have been blinded by popular so called science.
Maybe both.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, atheistic model.

Where is the hand of God in the ToE?

Where did you study metaphysics??? The hand of God is in everything.

 

[Hieronymus]

Where did you study metaphysics??? The hand of God is in everything.

How many times do i have to remind you that God is absent in the ToE ???

 

[Speedwell]

How many times do i have to remind you that God is absent in the ToE ???

How many times do I have to remind you that the ToE simply does not address the metaphysical question of divine providence? No scientific theory does.
You've just got your knickers in a twist because science does not validate your interpretation of scripture so you can't use science to browbeat non-YECs with your religion.