And the experts seem to favour one side in an overwhelming majority.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
Why do you think all these people whose job it is to know, believe in evolution?
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.
And the experts seem to favour one side in an overwhelming majority.I am not talking about my interpretation but the experts interpretations. In case you havnt noticed I am not just talking about myself. Maybe we should give it a rest now as it seems to be some misunderstandings going on. We can come back to it later or move onto something else as it seems to be going over the same ground.
The majority of scientists do believe in evolution. But you have to clarify what you mean by evolution. Even Christians believe in a form of evolution. No one can deny that creatures will change over time to adapt to their environments. We have seen how dogs can produce many shapes and sizes from the original wolf type. But all this is a limited form of evolution (micro evolution) that is within the existing genetics of an animal or organism. The tests done by scientists have verified this.And the experts seem to favour one side in an overwhelming majority.
The Evolution that is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they see that there was no creator.But you have to clarify what you mean by evolution.
You seem to be assuming that the only way in which a complex process can unfold is if that process was planned by an intelligent agent. Yet we know that natural processes are capable of producing complex systems without the guidance of a supervisory intelligence. A snowflake is a good example of this. We can explain the natural processes that lead to the formation of snow flakes without invoking the existence of specific snow-flake designers. This shows that complexity doesn't necessarily imply design. If we encounter a complex system that we do not fully understand, it would be premature, reckless even, to infer that the system must have been designed. There needs to be specific evidence of design.All biological systems demonstrate plan and purpose. A plan is typically a list of processes foreseen, that if taken using timing and resources, intends to achieve some objective. It can also be a predetermined strategy or any set of intended actions through which one achieves their goal. Purpose is an objective toward which one strives, or for which something is devised or exists. A planned purpose precludes intent. Inanimate matter has no inherent ability to intend or plan such purpose.
You seem to be assuming that the only way in which a complex process can unfold is if that process was planned by an intelligent agent. Yet we know that natural processes are capable of producing complex systems without the guidance of a supervisory intelligence. A snowflake is a good example of this. We can explain the natural processes that lead to the formation of snow flakes without invoking the existence of specific snow-flake designers. This shows that complexity doesn't necessarily imply design. If we encounter a complex system that we do not fully understand, it would be premature, reckless even, to infer that the system must have been designed. There needs to be specific evidence of design.
How did science determine which direction they were travelling?
Evolutionists use to say that most of our genomes was junk DNA. This was to highlight that design was mostly simple and therefore can be explained through a chance and random process that comes mostly from an error in the copying of what is already working to make better and more complex life. But now scientists are finding a lot more function in the so called junk DNA and many evolutionists have resisted the evidence along the way. This is the same more many aspects of life and slowly but surely we are beginning to see the great complexity yet orchestrated design in things from even simple organisms to the finely tuned universe that is designed for life.
Natural selection does and can work with intelligent design. Its the capacity that its given that is in dispute. Creatures have the ability to adapt and change to conditions they encounter in their environments. But those changes come mostly if not completely from a genetic ability that is already there. This is where the so called junk DNA may come in. Maybe there is a lot more capacity for creatures to draw on their existing genetics to change and switch on and off genes or recombine their existing genetics to bring about those changes. But those creature primarily remain as they are but have a great capacity for variation. They dont turn into other creatures and all living things didn't come from a common ancestor.
In fact evidence shows that there were many lines for where all creatures come from and that the genetic capacity was there from a very early point in the scheme of things. Too early for that complexity to have evolved from a gradual process that has very rare beneficial mutation for the amount that would be needed to just make small changes where several mutational changes are needed at the same time.
What do you mean. I am talking about evolution. Most people who believe in evolution say that existence and how we got here has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution has enough problems explaining its theory let alone explaining how life can come from non life.The Evolution
The Evolution that is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they see that there was no creator.
Does that answer your question?
Now tell us what you believe in with some evidence.
Again a lack of knowledge or willful blindness?What do you mean. I am talking about evolution. Most people who believe in evolution say that existence and how we got here has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution has enough problems explaining its theory let alone explaining how life can come from non life.
But I am talking about how people see evolution differently. That needs to be clarified as to what you mean by evolution. Do you believe in the traditional Darwinian version of evolution or do you think there is more to it. Do you think that creatures can be influenced by other things besides random mutations and natural selection to change such as HGT. Do you think that Darwinian evolution needs a rethink or that there is not enough evidence for it.
Your not jumping on the band wagon as well are you with this lack of knowledge thing. Gee anyone would think that I'm the only one on here that doesn't do any research.Again a lack of knowledge or willful blindness?
"Evolution has enough problems explaining its theory let alone explaining how life can come from non life."
There never was a time of non life on Earth. Go do some research and see why you're wrong.
The Earth was never a place of non-life. No life in the form of species, yes. And that's now what started the first life forms. The mass was what's left in the middle, the molten core and from that mass even today the beginnings of life can form.Your not jumping on the band wagon as well are you with this lack of knowledge thing. Gee anyone would think that I'm the only one on here that doesn't do any research.
It certainly isn't willful blindness as I have my eyes and ears wide open to learn. You have to remember that the links I am posting are not my words or work but those of qualified experts in their fields. I cant help it if they dont agree with what some say. That is just what the evidence is pointing to and has been in recent times. Some just have to catch up and let go of their old beliefs.
As far as there never being a time where there was non life on earth I would have to ask what planet are you living on. The earth never had any life on it even according to the evolutionists and atheists a little over 3.8 billion years ago. Before then it was a geologically violent place with volcanic activity and bombardment from meteorites.
I don't follow your logic; if, as you say (highlighted), the first life forms started on Earth (necessarily after it had cooled sufficiently for liquid water to exist on it), then the Earth was logically a place of non-life prior to that.The Earth was never a place of non-life. No life in the form of species, yes. And that's now what started the first life forms. The mass was what's left in the middle, the molten core and from that mass even today the beginnings of life can form.
Your definition of life is too small. There were chemicals and from chemicals and water we can now produce life.I don't follow your logic; if, as you say (highlighted), the first life forms started on Earth (necessarily after it had cooled sufficiently for liquid water to exist on it), then the Earth was logically a place of non-life prior to that.
Also, species is a problematic (meaningless) categorization when dealing with simple microorganisms, especially the earliest replicators.
I'm using the standard biological definition of life; it's a process. A bunch of organic chemicals out of solution is no more life than a bag of transistors and wires is a computer; they are inanimate. There was no liquid water on the early Earth to support life; Earth is about 4.5 billion years old; it took half a billion years before it could support life. There clearly was the potential for life, but that's not life. Nature took half a billion years to do it, and we can't yet produce life from raw chemicals (although Craig Venter has got fairly close with 'Synthia' which has a synthetic genome).Your definition of life is too small. There were chemicals and from chemicals and water we can now produce life.
I know, I have no argument with that.To go from single cell simple microorganisms, to double cell, to the next step, then the next. Was a slow process. It's proven.
An alternative to what? I'm just telling you that the early Earth had no life. It took a long time for abiogenesis to be possible. There was no life on Earth until that had occurred. Simples.You can only refuse to believe, you can't show an alternative. So until science finds your alternative. Most of us will stick with the evidence we have.
I would have thought the evidence was pointing the other way around. If a natural process can somehow create living things out of the rocks and earth and chemicals that make up the universe then surely we would have evidence of other life forms somewhere. They have found other planets in a similar position to earth one only 1500 light years away. We know that bacteria can live in the most hostile environments that are poisonous to humans. So the excuse that elsewhere in the universe is unsuitable doesn't apply for living things like bacteria let alone the many other possible strange lifeforms that could have evolved somewhere out there.If evolution was a planned process. The planning wasn't very good.
The argument against intelligent design is in the billions of planets that have no life, so no purpose. The mass extinctions, natural disasters, epidemics, etc.
No one plans to build something that has so many flaws.
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?