Primodial Soup

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
napajohn said:
<snip>

Geez Gladiatrix sounds like Science is denying evolution as a fact..(actually fantasy and imagination would be a better choice)..Remember your side is claiming fact..yet these people of which you are using as source are at best in a stage of extreme cautionary hope..hope that somehow something out there can prove that life may have evolved as speculated by evolution..if anything its showing me that maybe evolution is not really the Fact that
proponents claim and reputable scientists are leading the way to validate the holes of this so called theory.

napajohn, you're clutching at straws. Science has never had and probably will never have all the answers to all the mysteries of the universe. So what? There was a time when airplanes didn't exist. There was a time when electricity couldn't be harnessed by people. There was a time when the quantum realm hadn't been discovered. Yet, does that mean that such things are automatically impossible?

Just because we don't know specifically how RNA formed in a pre-biotic world, doesn't mean we'll never know or that such an event is impossible.

Furthermore, you have set yourself up for a very shaky theology. If we don't know how something specifically occurred, does this mean God is automatically directly responsible?

You seem to be betting your God against the gaps in science. But the danger is that if those gaps disappear, you'll lose your God. Is that what you want?
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
ObbiQuiet said:
Some people just havn't expanded their worldviews enough to realize that beliefs aren't black and white, all or nothing.

Unfortunately, such an approach the Bible is appealing since it's the easiest. How many times have I see a Biblical literalist claim, "the Bible says, therefore it's true, case closed."... No thought required there...
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Big Jase said:
did you know that acrhological findings proved that methan was not formed at the time that evoloutionest belive that this existed... and also did you know that lightning cannot exist because it needs methane...
Lightning does not require methane. It's an electrical discharge, not a flame. I have not seen any indication that the early atmosphere would not have methane. Methane is produced by volcanoes. Today, most of the methane is produced by decay of plants (swamp gas) and animal farts.

However, amino acids can be produced in an atmosphere of only carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Big Jase said:
You have to clear that statement up .... christians beleive in evolution but they don't beleive in evolution in creating us as we are today..u know what i'm saying...they don't beleive in evolution as the big bang and then atoms and stuff.....
Theistic evolutionists (Christians who accept evolution) do indeed accept the Big Bang and then atoms and them life from chemistry and then the diversity of life by evolution. So yes, they do accept in evolution creating our physical bodies as they are today.

Most (but not all) theistic evolutionists also believe in a soul that is injected directly by God into each individual.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
napajohn said:
.evolution is a naturalistic approach to explaining creation without the need for a God.
No, it's not. This is from Origin of the Species. Tell us how Darwin says there is no need for a god:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.


What Phantom is saying is that you can accept evoution and not be an atheist. Funny thing for an atheist to say, wouldn't you say? After all, by your logic, Phantom should be telling you that evolution shows that God is not necessary. Instead, we have a Christian -- you -- telling us that!

The irony meter is pegging again!

What Phantom is telling you is a paraphrase of what St. Augustine of Hippo said in 400 AD. Saying ridiculous things about science -- which is what you are doing, Napa -- drives people away from Christianity. Christians are supposed to rebuke such "incompetent expounders of scripture". Consider yourself rebuked, Napa.

Isn't it ironic that Phantom knows more about Christian traditions than you do, Napa?

because of the lack of the transition fossil record..what no bones of a semi-mammal/dolphin
Oh, no. There are transitional species of semi-land animal and aquatic animal. In fact, you don't even need the fossil record to find those. Look at seals.

Besides we know that all precambrian rock suggests oxidation meaning the presence of oxygen...but they won't tell you that in your biology class..makes the Miller experiment kinda look stupid.
Nope. It turns out that this is another creationist misrepresentation. If there were oxygen present, it was only about 0.1% (compared to the 20% today). That is still a reducing atmosphere.

BTW, in another thread I showed how Wells overlooked more recent experiments by Miller that make statements like these look very stupid.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
ForeRunner said:
That is entirely possible considering that thre is no historical coraborating evidence outside the Gospels, which were written by Christians. He very well could be the Lao-Tzu of Christianity.
There are references to Jesus outside the gospels. See the book Jesus Outside the Gospels by R. Joseph Hoffman, 1984. There are quite a few references in the Midrash. Josephus mentions Jesus twice.

There is little doubt that a man named Yeshu ben Joseph lived and preached in first century Palestine. What is in contention is the relation of that person to God.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
"Creation and evolution, between them exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things.Organisms either appeared on earth fully developed or they did not.If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification.If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence".. Futuyama Science on Trial 1983 p 197

Continuing the quote:

omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a redwood tree in one step. If species were created out of nothing in their present form, they will bear within them no evidence of a former history; if they are the result of historical development, any evidence of history is evidence of evolution.
If species are the products of creation, what should we expect to see? According to the creationists, "The First Cause of all things must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, moral, spiritual, volitional, truthful, loving, living Being!"(1) That is, the nature of the Creator is inferred from the creation. But this argument from design is a two-edged sword. Gerard Manley Hopkins may find that "the world is charged with the grandeur of God,", but Shakespeare can just as well say in King Lear that "as flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport." ....
The case for evolution then has two sides: positive evidence -- that evolution has occurred; and negative evidence -- that the natural world does not conform to our expectation of what an omnipotent, omniscient, truthful Creator would have created."

Futuyma then goes on to list examples of useless remnants, bad design, and similarities and differences where we would least expect a Creator to supply them. Actually, I should go back to review this chapter because it contains a lot more than the 3 standard examples I use for refuting the Argument from Design (and which have never been answered here anyway :) )
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Big Jase

Just A Dude "Big Jase"
Dec 16, 2003
58
1
37
Brisbane, Australia
✟7,720.00
Faith
Christian
worship4ever said:
Micro-evolution and Marco-evolution. Micro-evolution is a species adapting but not changing outside its own species, for example, the different breed of dogs. There all still dogs, just different types of them. Marco-evolution is all species evolving from the same ancestor, this is commonly referred to as ‘classic evolution’ because this type of evolution is what most people relate to when talking about evolution. The bible very clearly states that animals vary within their species. In Genesis, or all throughout the bible, it commonly refers to animals "after their kind." In the Genesis account of creation after each animal is stated God states "after their kind" implying that species have differences, but always WITHIN the species, never outside. God said that He created male and female and the great sea creatures and made the animals, but "AFTER THEIR KIND". When Noah put all the animals on the ark God commanded him to put "one of very kind." The bible fully acknowledges micro-evolution (adapting within species) but NEVER acknowledges marco-evolution as all animals from a single particle or cell. Micro-evolution is confirmed biblically, and that’s the one type of evolution we can tract, and study, because its observable and testable. Marco-evolution (everything evolving from a common ancestor) is NOT confirmed biblically and its not observable or testable. This is why it’s still called the "Theory" of evolution. One last thought: Many people find it difficult to believe that all of man came from two people. Well, it takes much more faith to believe that EVERYTHING we see today is a result of random mutation from one single cell. Everything from jellyfish to lions to honeybees to centipedes, to bears to zebras. From every type of tree to bateria to virus' to algae, ect from a ONE thing. EVERYTHING. There’s a fossil out that is named Archaeopteryx, it is a fossil with both reptile and bird features. This is shown has the best evidence of evolution. But lets look. It has wings of a bird, it has a feathered tail of a bird, but also jaws with teeth, not a beak. The fossil seems to have both bird and reptile. In the 11th chapter of Leviticus it describes a list of clean or unclean animals, some versions say pure and impure animals. In Lev 11:18 they are describing birds, the name 'tinshemet' is used. Yet 12 verses later they are talking about reptiles, and again, the name 'tinshemet' is used again. This is the only place in the bible that calls something by BOTH species. It's odd that in the fossil record there is ONE fossil that is classified as both a bird and reptile, and in the bible, we find the exact same thing.

this is what i'm trying to say...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

armed2010

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2003
3,331
136
36
California
✟4,182.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
lol i know, this is completely unexpected to me also. My parents got their room a DVD player, and I really wanted one too, so they got me one, and when they tried to hook it up we realised both our tv's couldnt use them, so we went out and got identicle 20 inch tv's that could use DVD players :D
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums