Question about evolution

[Freodin]

GraftMeIn, I don´t want to sound harsh, but you don´t seem to have even the most basic understanding of chemistry.

"Water" is not an element - it is a compound, made from hydrogen and oxygen. It does not have to be formed by divine command - the four basic forces are enough for it. These four forces - weak and strong nuclear force, gravity and electro-magnetic force - are responsible for the running of the universe.

I agree, we don´t know why and where these forces came from, nor where the primary matter/energy came from. It could come from God.

But a direct involvement of God in the creation of our planet or humans is not necessary.

 

[Shai-Hulud]

I asked that question because seebs stated there wasn't any water on the earth for a long time

The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life has existed for about 3.5 billion years. Is it possible that there was no water at first? When the earth was still almost liquid, and far too hot to have liquid water? Maybe that's what seebs meant.

seebs said the earth was mostly made of metals, so how does life come from metal, without water? and where did the water come from if there wasn't any hydrogen or oxygen?

Mostly made of metals. How does that state life came from metal? How does it state there was no hydrogen and oxygen?

So now should we discount the fact that every living thing needs water to survive, and the fact that God created it first because it was needed in order to create life?

If he's omnipotent he didn't need water to create life and your point is irrelevant.

Should we also discount these facts?
70 to 80 percent of the earths surface is covered with water, and that new studies by scientists are showing that there may be even more water than that under it's surface.

Where are you going with that? I never said it wasn't. And I have no idea why these facts should be a problem.

Shai-Hulud

 

[Shai-Hulud]

On Io, one of Jupiter's moons, it's completely water.

I think you mean Europa. Io is the vulcanic one.

Shai-Hulud

 

[GraftMeIn]

Originally posted by blader


There's water on Mars too. On Io, one of Jupiter's moons, it's completely water.

You're line of argument seems to be using the old "look at how everything is precisely designed to support our life, it can't be just a coincidence." Actually, if evolution is true, then all the things we see around us are evidence for, not against. You're using the argument that the environment was designed for us. Evolution says that we evolved to survive in our environment.

A good way to look at the flaw in your argument is to say "Since the odds of ordering a deck of playing cards in a certain order is 52 factorial, it must be impossible to shuffle a deck of cards."

then why can't anyone tell me what the very first thing that life evolved from was, and how it came into existence?

Seems to me the Bible can give me an answer for it, but science cannot.

 

[GraftMeIn]

Originally posted by Freodin
GraftMeIn, I don´t want to sound harsh, but you don´t seem to have even the most basic understanding of chemistry.

"Water" is not an element - it is a compound, made from hydrogen and oxygen. It does not have to be formed by divine command - the four basic forces are enough for it. These four forces - weak and strong nuclear force, gravity and electro-magnetic force - are responsible for the running of the universe.

I agree, we don´t know why and where these forces came from, nor where the primary matter/energy came from. It could come from God.

But a direct involvement of God in the creation of our planet or humans is not necessary.

So in other words God could have created these four forces, but not life? and You don't think he could have created these forces in order to create life?

 

[Shai-Hulud]

then why can't anyone tell me what the very first thing that life evolved from was, and how it came into existence?

Because we don't know. And if we did know we wouldn't be here telling you, we'd be collecting our Nobel prize.

Seems to me the Bible can give me an answer for it, but science cannot.

The only problem there is that it's the wrong answer! And saying "God did it" doesn't explain anything.

Shai-Hulud

 

[GraftMeIn]

Originally posted by Shai-Hulud

Because we don't know. And if we did know we wouldn't be here telling you, we'd be collecting our Nobel prize.


The only problem there is that it's the wrong answer! And saying "God did it" doesn't explain anything.

Shai-Hulud

but science doesn't explain it all either, so how does claiming God created life make it a wrong answer?

 

[Freodin]

Originally posted by GraftMeIn


So in other words God could have created these four forces, but not life? and You don't think he could have created these forces in order to create life?

No, I did not say that.

I said that the basic foundations of the universe - matter, energy, and the forces that keep them going - might have been originated from God, but that his direct involvment is not NECESSARY.

He could have created life, he could have created humans, he could have created a mature earth, he even could have created a mature universe just last Thursday - but all these things are not observable.

What do you think keeps human life - in fact all life - running since the supposed creation? Do you think it is God, that makes your heart beat, your blood flow, your nerves send electical signals, your digestive system get energy from organic matter?

Or do you think that he set up a set of rules, by which our universe runs?

 

[Shai-Hulud]

but science doesn't explain it all either, so how does claiming God created life make it a wrong answer?

Science does explain how we got from primitive lifeforms to the diversity we have now. We know that happened. The bible tells us they were created the way they are now. If you want to claim that god just created the first lifeform be my guest. But your god of the gaps will have to move when scientists discover how abiogenesis could have worked.

Shai-Hulud

 

[blader]

Originally posted by GraftMeIn


but science doesn't explain it all either, so how does claiming God created life make it a wrong answer?

It's not wrong, but just meaningless. It's like saying "God created everything as it was 5 seconds ago." No one can prove it wrong, but it's also a meaningless claim because of it.

Sure, religion "explains" a lot of things, but there's no way to prove or disprove the things to say. (Just like the above example.) Religion says Thor makes lightning strike, but that doesn't tell us anything more about lightning.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by GraftMeIn


So in other words God could have created these four forces, but not life? and You don't think he could have created these forces in order to create life?

See my above reply. It could be God, but it could also be an invisible pink unicorn. Just because stuff exists doesn't constitute proof or disproof for the Christian God, or any god of any religion. If you'll notice, no one on this thread said it's impossible for God to have created all this, but it's something that can not be proved or disproved, just like the statement "God created everything as is 5 seconds ago." It's not "wrong," but it's meaningless to claim.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by GraftMeIn


then why can't anyone tell me what the very first thing that life evolved from was, and how it came into existence?

No one even know what life IS. What is life? How do you define life? What do you think is the first life? Self replicating RNA, viruses, or the first cell? When you're asking questions like that, you have to know what you're asking first.

Seems to me the Bible can give me an answer for it, but science cannot.

*shrug* There's at least a couple of hundred of origin myths in the world, all which "give answers" to their believers. Everything from Tiamat to Shiva to Pan Gu to Allah and yes even "God," is credited with the beginning of life. Like I said, an easy explanation like "God created us from clay" sounds nice and great, but it explains nothing.

 

[GraftMeIn]

Originally posted by Shai-Hulud


Science does explain how we got from primitive lifeforms to the diversity we have now. We know that happened. The bible tells us they were created the way they are now. If you want to claim that god just created the first lifeform be my guest. But your god of the gaps will have to move when scientists discover how abiogenesis could have worked.

Shai-Hulud

I realy don't think God left any gaps, If he did then life would not exist as it does today.

I realy doubt God is going to move over for anyone, not even a scientist, When God returns the scientists will be made out to fools.

 

 

[GraftMeIn]

Originally posted by blader


No one even know what life IS. What is life? How do you define life? What do you think is the first life? Self replicating RNA, viruses, or the first cell? When you're asking questions like that, you have to know what you're asking first.

I do know what I'm asking, and that's where did life begin, but science can't give me an answer for that. My Bible however does.

*shrug* There's at least a couple of hundred of origin myths in the world, all which "give answers" to their believers. Everything from Tiamat to Shiva to Pan Gu to Allah and yes even "God," is credited with the beginning of life. Like I said, an easy explanation like "God created us from clay" sounds nice and great, but it explains nothing.

It explains alot to me, Did you know that scientist have linked our DNA all the way back to dirt? the dust of the ground the very same thing that the bible tells us we were created from.

 

[Shai-Hulud]

I realy don't think God left any gaps

You're not telling me you don't know what 'god of the gaps' means are you?

I realy doubt God is going to move over for anyone

The god explaination has moved. It has moved for lightning, floods, diseases and human origins. It will move for the origion of life and it will move for the origin of the universe.

My Bible however does.

Querplunkanite. That also answers the question. Don't you care that it's the WRONG answer?

Did you know that scientist have linked our DNA all the way back to dirt?

And your source on that is? Last time I checked I didn't find any Deoxyribonucleic Acid in dirt. Unless there was already life in it.

Shai-Hulud

 

[blader]

Originally posted by GraftMeIn



I do know what I'm asking, and that's where did life begin, but science can't give me an answer for that. My Bible however does.

Then tell me, what is life? What is it that distinguishes life from non life?

It explains alot to me, Did you know that scientist have linked our DNA all the way back to dirt? the dust of the ground the very same thing that the bible tells us we were created from.

Yes, I agree that it "explains" a lot. It explains as much as the statement: "God created every as it is 5 seconds ago." It explains as much as the statement: "A giant turtle with purple spots laid an egg and created us all."

Maybe you'd like to read the Qu'ran and the Baghada Vita as well from the Muslim and Hindu religions. They "explain" a lot about the world too. But, very much like a literal interpretation of the Bible, they're all wrong answers.

Uh... can you provide a reference for the DNA factoid? I would like to read it for myself. The composition of "dust" varies greatly from area to area. But no where (as the above poster mentioned) does pure "dust" consist of deoxyribonucleic acid. Me thinks you should go to some better Creationist propaganda sites. Such as AIG.

If you are talking about atoms, then of course our DNA is linked back to dirt. EVERYTHING is made from atoms. So...

 

[GraftMeIn]

I'm still looking for an answer about life surviving without water. Can you name one form of life, plant, or animal, that can survive without it?

and why discount so quickly what the Bible says about water being created first, knowing that water is an essential ingredient to life on earth. I'm speaking about the bible and the one God who created all things, not the ones that others think licked the moon or whatever.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by GraftMeIn
I'm still looking for an answer about life surviving without water. Can you name one form of life, plant, or animal, that can survive without it?

I can't, but I don't know that this means others can't. It doesn't strike me as relevant at all, though. I do seem to recall that some of the bacteria which live in rocks have very unusual metabolisms.

and why discount so quickly what the Bible says about water being created first, knowing that water is an essential ingredient to life on earth. I'm speaking about the bible and the one God who created all things, not the ones that others think licked the moon or whatever.

The point is, those theories are every bit as good at explaining where we came from as yours is. They answer all the same questions, and they are just as well supported by the available evidence. The people who believe those theories would say "I'm talking about the god who gave birth to the other gods who created all things, not that Christian myth", and they make their case just as well as you're making yours right now. You haven't shown any *evidence*.

The other thing is, the Bible wasn't always interpreted as meaning that God "created water first"; it was, if memory serves, long believed to mean that water had always existed, and God created light, and land. These people believed the world consisted of a bit of land surrounded by water; water seemed infinite to them.

The Bible still isn't a science textbook.

 

[chickenman]

life needs water, but plants need light - according to the bible, god created the plants before he created light - so he got the order right when he created water, but he obviously didn't know his plant biology too well

 

[Jerry Smith]

<grin> No, He created light first, chickenman --- He created the sun later on, and plants after the sun. Maybe creationists think that this accounts for the evolution of the second photosynthetic cycle - it was an adaptation to the different spectrum of light that came from the sun as came from cosmic background radiation or whatever before...