The faith of the evolutionist...

[LizzieSpinelli]

Hm, wow, been quite a while since I came back to check on things. (*scowl* My internet connection... could shove nails into it, rip it into pieces, stuff it into a blender, then submerge it in radio active soup, you know?) Anyways. I'll place the faith of the evolutionist in a nutshell.

"Assume any primorial soup you wish, with all the organic chemicals you specify- including enzymes, nucleic acids, sugars, or whatever you like, as long as they are not living. The mixture must be sterile, of course, to prevent bacterial contamination. Assume also any kind of atmosphere you wish, including any compounds known to be present anywhere in the solar system. Then assume any kind of energy source you wish- electrical sparks, heat, ultraviolet light, or any known form of energy. Now show, either analytically or experimentally, that a truly living organism will arise out of this set of materials." - Dr. Larry Butler

Answer me this, then perhaps I'll reconsider the theory of evolution. I'll let all know that I had been raised to believe that God created the universe, then once I saw the big picture of "Evolution" in schools and on the Discovery Channel, I didn't know what to believe. So instead of sitting around confused like the rest of the kids I know, I decided to do my research, not only looking up things about creationism, but also understanding the components of evolution. From said research, I can reasonably say "there is NO proof that the universe just decided to explode into existance, and I'm not about to trust a supposed ape to tell me it did." (One of my many personal phrases.)

 

[Melethiel]

Hm, wow, been quite a while since I came back to check on things. (*scowl* My internet connection... could shove nails into it, rip it into pieces, stuff it into a blender, then submerge it in radio active soup, you know?) Anyways. I'll place the faith of the evolutionist in a nutshell.

"Assume any primorial soup you wish, with all the organic chemicals you specify- including enzymes, nucleic acids, sugars, or whatever you like, as long as they are not living. The mixture must be sterile, of course, to prevent bacterial contamination. Assume also any kind of atmosphere you wish, including any compounds known to be present anywhere in the solar system. Then assume any kind of energy source you wish- electrical sparks, heat, ultraviolet light, or any known form of energy. Now show, either analytically or experimentally, that a truly living organism will arise out of this set of materials." - Dr. Larry Butler

Answer me this, then perhaps I'll reconsider the theory of evolution. I'll let all know that I had been raised to believe that God created the universe, then once I saw the big picture of "Evolution" in schools and on the Discovery Channel, I didn't know what to believe. So instead of sitting around confused like the rest of the kids I know, I decided to do my research, not only looking up things about creationism, but also understanding the components of evolution. From said research, I can reasonably say "there is NO proof that the universe just decided to explode into existance, and I'm not about to trust a supposed ape to tell me it did." (One of my many personal phrases.)

Evolution lesson #1: It requires an a priori assumption that life already exists. That stuff about the primordial soup is abiogenesis, not evolution, and is a completely different field of study.
Evolution lesson #2: The Big Bang theory doesn't have anything to do with evolution either. But, ironically, when the Big Bang theory was first proposed, many atheists didn't like it because it was too compatible with Christianity.
Evolution lesson #3: The ToE and Christianity are not mutually contradictory. Witness the large number of Christians on this forum who accept the ToE.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Answer me this, then perhaps I'll reconsider the theory of evolution. I'll let all know that I had been raised to believe that God created the universe, then once I saw the big picture of "Evolution" in schools and on the Discovery Channel, I didn't know what to believe. So instead of sitting around confused like the rest of the kids I know, I decided to do my research, not only looking up things about creationism, but also understanding the components of evolution. From said research, I can reasonably say "there is NO proof that the universe just decided to explode into existance, and I'm not about to trust a supposed ape to tell me it did." (One of my many personal phrases.)

You say you did your research, but I have my significant doubts if you think the theory of evolution has anything to do with your caricature of the Big Bang theory.

 

[Skaloop]

Anyways. I'll place the faith of the evolutionist in a nutshell.

[...]

"Now show, either analytically or experimentally, that a truly living organism will arise out of this set of materials." - Dr. Larry Butler

So the faith of the evolutionist is something that is not evolution? Even if you were more accurate and called it the faith of the abiogenesists, Dr. Butler's challenge is not what abiogenesis proposes.

From said research, I can reasonably say "there is NO proof that the universe just decided to explode into existance, and I'm not about to trust a supposed ape to tell me it did." (One of my many personal phrases.)

Well, the first part is kinda right, in that nobody thinks that the universe "just decided" to "explode" into existence. The universe has never decided anything.

The second part is silly; everything any person has ever told you that you have trusted was told to you by an ape.

 

[gluadys]

Hm, wow, been quite a while since I came back to check on things. (*scowl* My internet connection... could shove nails into it, rip it into pieces, stuff it into a blender, then submerge it in radio active soup, you know?) Anyways. I'll place the faith of the evolutionist in a nutshell.

"Assume any primorial soup you wish, with all the organic chemicals you specify- including enzymes, nucleic acids, sugars, or whatever you like, as long as they are not living. The mixture must be sterile, of course, to prevent bacterial contamination. Assume also any kind of atmosphere you wish, including any compounds known to be present anywhere in the solar system. Then assume any kind of energy source you wish- electrical sparks, heat, ultraviolet light, or any known form of energy. Now show, either analytically or experimentally, that a truly living organism will arise out of this set of materials." - Dr. Larry Butler

1. This is not evolution. It is apparently supposed to be a description of abiogenesis.

2. It is not a good description of abiogenesis either. It seems to be a description of the Urey-Miller experiment which did not (and was not expected to) produce a living organism. What it produced was amino acids, an important component of living organisms.

I decided to do my research, not only looking up things about creationism, but also understanding the components of evolution.

Then you need to do a good deal more research because it is evident that you do not yet understand the components of evolution.


Ask questions. There are a lot of people here who can help sort out your confusion about evolution.

 

[RecentConvert]

Answer me this, then perhaps I'll reconsider the theory of evolution. I'll let all know that I had been raised to believe that God created the universe, then once I saw the big picture of "Evolution" in schools and on the Discovery Channel, I didn't know what to believe. So instead of sitting around confused like the rest of the kids I know, I decided to do my research, not only looking up things about creationism, but also understanding the components of evolution. From said research, I can reasonably say "there is NO proof that the universe just decided to explode into existance, and I'm not about to trust a supposed ape to tell me it did." (One of my many personal phrases.)

The emphasis is mine.

To give you a idea of how little sense you make and how incapable you are of forming a reasonable argument or even a coherent point, let me point the following out to you. Pray tell, what question were we supposed to answer that would make you "reconsider the theory of evolution?" Your openeing sentence asked us to answer a question but then nowhere in your paragraph do you actually pose one. What's up with that?

Am I to assume that you'll continue to believe what you want to believe regardless of reality?

Ironically, you close your post by claiming that you're "not about to trust a supposed ape to tell" you that the Big Bang happened (although we're supposed to be talking about Evolution) yet that is exactly what you're doing when it comes to theology since the only thing you know about God is what other men tell you...

 

[busterdog]

Originally Posted by LizzieSpinelli

Answer me this, then perhaps I'll reconsider the theory of evolution. I'll let all know that I had been raised to believe that God created the universe, then once I saw the big picture of "Evolution" in schools and on the Discovery Channel, I didn't know what to believe. So instead of sitting around confused like the rest of the kids I know, I decided to do my research, not only looking up things about creationism, but also understanding the components of evolution. From said research, I can reasonably say "there is NO proof that the universe just decided to explode into existance, and I'm not about to trust a supposed ape to tell me it did." (One of my many personal phrases.)
​

The emphasis is mine.

To give you a idea of how little sense you make and how incapable you are of forming a reasonable argument or even a coherent point, let me point the following out to you. Pray tell, what question were we supposed to answer that would make you "reconsider the theory of evolution?" Your openeing sentence asked us to answer a question but then nowhere in your paragraph do you actually pose one. What's up with that?

Am I to assume that you'll continue to believe what you want to believe regardless of reality?

Ironically, you close your post by claiming that you're "not about to trust a supposed ape to tell" you that the Big Bang happened (although we're supposed to be talking about Evolution) yet that is exactly what you're doing when it comes to theology since the only thing you know about God is what other men tell you...

Ironically, you say the post makes no sense. Obviously, the device of irony needs a false pretext, which you supplied.

Now lets think about things that go together and those things that don't. How about Ken Ham and the Inquisition? How about Ben Stein and Luddites? How about needles/haystacks and Big Bang? How about abiogenesis and Big Brown (a horse) running second to Tiger Woods (not feline) in the US Open? Gee, I bet you and I think quite differently very unlikely juxtapositions. But, that means inability to "make a coherent point" has more to do with you being rude than anything else. Certainly good sense isn't what your post is about. Trying starting a "snideness" forum.

 

[hatsoff]

Answer me this, then perhaps I'll reconsider the theory of evolution. I'll let all know that I had been raised to believe that God created the universe, then once I saw the big picture of "Evolution" in schools and on the Discovery Channel, I didn't know what to believe. So instead of sitting around confused like the rest of the kids I know, I decided to do my research, not only looking up things about creationism, but also understanding the components of evolution. From said research, I can reasonably say "there is NO proof that the universe just decided to explode into existance, and I'm not about to trust a supposed ape to tell me it did." (One of my many personal phrases.)

I don't know what kind of research you did, but I can tell you that I have never, ever, EVER seen a young-earth creationist website, article, video, etc., which accurately represented biological evolution. Not once. And most of them aren't even close.

I know that you probably have a hard time believing this, but it is true. And the reason I mention it is because those creationist research materials you looked over almost certainly gave you a totally false impression of what evolution actually is. So, if you decided that evolution as presented by creationists was false, then you were quite correct to do so! The problem is, evolution as presented by creationists often bears little resemblance to evolution as theorized by scientists.

In answer to your question, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. They are completely separate fields. Abiogenesis (the initial formation of simple single-celled organisms on earth) is at least somewhat connected to evolution, but the big bang isn't related at all. With that in mind, why is it that you demand to be convinced of the big bang before you will accept evolution?

 

[USincognito]

I have some new health issues that have taken up much of my time, I was just diagnosed as a diabetic, and am trying to get all that carb, sugar, calorie stuff clear in my head.

I came here tonight to see if I had some post I needed to respond to and to say I am sorry I hadn't been able to get to some of the post to me yet. If it is a problem that I am not able to look and study all the links as quickly as you would like I'm sorry.

I see a nutritionist early in the morning and I am hoping to have some time after that to go over the links and the post I need to respond to, with hopes to answer as many as I can.

I fully understand and am sorry to read that. Seems like every woman on my mom's side of the family has developed Type II at some point. I hope, when you get the time, you can get back to those posts at your liesure.