Something from Nothing

[Freodin]

As I was trying to say, I specialize in remodeling and renovation. I take something that is old and broken down and make something new and in some cases different out of it. I suppose you could say I have a "origin" but I started out with something that was disfunctional and I make it into something functional.

Recently I have been working more and more with scrap wood, so that maybe more along the line of what you are refering to here in your post.

What you start with and what you end with is irrelevant - the relevant point is that you now have something different.

So where did this new, different thing come from? It has to have an origin, doesn´t it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution always starts with something.

Yes, it starts with the first organism capable of evolving.

Then though small changes they say it "evolves" into something else. I fail to see how a variation of something can be considered a origin.

Darwin wrote "Orign of Species", not "Origin of Life". Species is, by definition, a descriptor of variation. As soon as life varied evolution was off and running.

Only creation really attempts to explain the origin or the beginning.

Science attempts this too, through the theories of Abiogenesis (origin of life) and the Big Bang (origin of the universe). Evolution is a theory within science.

Evolution tends to only deal with the various changes that takes place over time.

And the Germ Theory of Disease only deals with various infectious diseases and not the origin of life. Where is the problem? Both are theories within science and both explain a subset of all the evidence known.

 

[JohnR7]

Yes, it starts with the first organism capable of evolving.

Oh, so evolution starts with a organism. By the time you have an organism the game is almost over and it's time to go home. So where did the organism come from?

 

[Mallon]

Oh, so evolution starts with a organism. By the time you have an organism the game is almost over and it's time to go home.

No. Because in time, that organism diversifies into the millions of species seen on Earth today. This is what the theory of evolution attempts to explain.

So where did the organism come from?

For the 4,945,932nd time, the theory of evolution cannot and does not attempt to answer this quesiton.

 

[malignantpoodle]

Evolution does point out something though in regards to the origin of life, if by accident at least; the Christian explanation for how life came about it wrong. Evolution shows that small changes occur over a long period of time and the bible basically has us to believe that life as we know it was put on the earth all at once as a final draft at that.

So, for those on this thread that are attempting to debate evolution by discussing the origin of life, you need to take your fight against how evolution does disagree with how life ended up.

 

[Becky153]

Evolution does point out something though in regards to the origin of life, if by accident at least; the Christian explanation for how life came about it wrong. Evolution shows that small changes occur over a long period of time and the bible basically has us to believe that life as we know it was put on the earth all at once as a final draft at that.

So, for those on this thread that are attempting to debate evolution by discussing the origin of life, you need to take your fight against how evolution does disagree with how life ended up.

It disagrees by this (and don't show me skeletons of seperate humans and seperate apes): have they ever found that ape-human creature? I don't think that they have...so that's a start. And if it's an accident--why haven't we noticed a small change by now?

 

[TheInstant]

It disagrees by this (and don't show me skeletons of seperate humans and seperate apes): have they ever found that ape-human creature? I don't think that they have...so that's a start. And if it's an accident--why haven't we noticed a small change by now?

What do you mean by ape-human?

 

[Becky153]

I don't know the scientific name, but it looks like this ape-creature with long arms...it's a drawn pic.

 

[JohnR7]

What you start with and what you end with is irrelevant - the relevant point is that you now have something different.

It is different from when I first saw the job. But a lot of jobs are just repairs to restore things back to the way they were. So when I leave my main objective is to make it look like I was never there.

Mankind is in a fallen state right now and God is in the process of restoring the human race. That is one of the reasons I have problems with evolutionary theory is that it takes non what is really going on, into consideration.

It is like a blind man trying to figure it out as best as he can.

 

[MarkT]

Yup, but the theory doesn't claim to explain anythign it can't. Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin. Seeing as it is a science and not a religion, there isn't anything wrong with the theory explaining only what it claims to and not everything else.

In this case, what is it explaining exactly. Science is supposed to explain natural phenomena. It isn't supposed to create the phenomena.

There's nothing in the fossil record that indicates any phenomenal changes took place. What we see is the sudden appearance of fully formed living creatures and the gradual appearance of their species. That's evidence for creation.

But if you take it as a science then you have to assume this change. The logic is, 'only evolution can account for evolution'. My question is, What evolution?

 

[Asimov]

I don't know the scientific name, but it looks like this ape-creature with long arms...it's a drawn pic.

Um...humans are apes. We've found plenty of ancestors of humans.

 

[notto]

What we see is the sudden appearance of fully formed living creatures and the gradual appearance of their species.

When did the sudden appearance of mammals take place and where is the evidence for this in the fossil record.

What evidence do you have that supports your claim of this sudden appearance of fully formed living creatures. If it is the Cambrian explosion, you are barking up the wrong tree. What do you use to support your claim?

 

[LittleNipper]

Um...humans are apes. We've found plenty of ancestors of humans.

No, your ancestors were found. None of my ancestors were ever apes.

 

[OdwinOddball]

No, your ancestors were found. None of my ancestors were ever apes.

Pretty much the best summation of the real reasons Creationists are against evolution. You can't bear the thought that you aren't a special singular creation of your diety. The idea that you are no different than any other creature on this planet disgusts you.

What is so awfull about being an animal no different than anything else? None is saying you can't keep a soul this way. No one is saying you have to throw out the concept of a creator god who made all of it happen this way. What we are saying is that to trust implicity in the accuracy of a 2000 year old book versus the collected knowledge of humanity to the exclusion of any and all progress is arrogant beyond measure.

You presume that your complete failure to understand even the most basic concepts of the topic somehow invalidates them. Because you CAN understand the Bible, but not science, that makes science wrong. I don't understand the science that allows a doctor to replace a patients failing heart, but I don't assume it must not happen because of this. why is it so hard to admit you might be wrong? What gives you the gaul to think your lack of education means you are right and 99% of the worlds scientists are wrong?

 

[Jet Black]

No, your ancestors were found. None of my ancestors were ever apes.

all your ancestors were apes. you are an ape.

 

[LittleNipper]

Pretty much the best summation of the real reasons Creationists are against evolution. You can't bear the thought that you aren't a special singular creation of your diety. The idea that you are no different than any other creature on this planet disgusts you.

What is so awfull about being an animal no different than anything else? None is saying you can't keep a soul this way. No one is saying you have to throw out the concept of a creator god who made all of it happen this way. What we are saying is that to trust implicity in the accuracy of a 2000 year old book versus the collected knowledge of humanity to the exclusion of any and all progress is arrogant beyond measure.

You presume that your complete failure to understand even the most basic concepts of the topic somehow invalidates them. Because you CAN understand the Bible, but not science, that makes science wrong. I don't understand the science that allows a doctor to replace a patients failing heart, but I don't assume it must not happen because of this. why is it so hard to admit you might be wrong? What gives you the gaul to think your lack of education means you are right and 99% of the worlds scientists are wrong?

You already believe that the Bible is nothing but 4000 years of human beliefs and knowledge. If human knowledge is so prone to mistakes, why should I accept more human knowledge, interpretations and mistakes as any different or better? Obviously, I do not consider the Bible to be the knowledge of men but the Revelation of GOD. GOD make fools of the those who believe THEMSELVES to be wise.

 

[LittleNipper]

all your ancestors were apes. you are an ape.

Don't monkey with me lady!

 

[h2whoa]

Jet is a guy.

 

[Hydra009]

You already believe that the Bible is nothing but 4000 years of human beliefs and knowledge. If human knowledge is so prone to mistakes, why should I accept more human knowledge, interpretations and mistakes as any different or better? Obviously, I do not consider the Bible to be the knowledge of men but the Revelation of GOD.

Well, obviously, human knowledge which has been refined by new data and constantly tested for accuracy is better than a collection of mythological tales created in the absense of knowledge.

But enough of this silly science VS God fallacy. They aren't mutually exclusive. The problem only occurs when one makes claims about the natural world which have been falsified through science and then attributes these claims to God. Otherwise, they coexist quite harmoniously.

GOD make fools of the those who believe THEMSELVES to be wise.

You have no idea.

 

[Asimov]

No, your ancestors were found. None of my ancestors were ever apes.

Then you're not a human, or even a primate. Since the only other non-simian species who exhibit something close to human like intelligence is a dolphin....