Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[KerrMetric]

Actually, the estimated age of the earth, according to evolutionary scientists has gone from an approximate 100 milllion at the turn of the century, to 500 million in the 1920's to 2 billion in 60's to the current estimate of 4.5 billion.

Interestingly enough, the age of the universe has been dropping. 30 years ago it was believed that the universe was 30 billion years old. Now they think it is 8 - 10 billion. In a strange twist, while their observations inform them of this, they also observe the oldest stars in the universe to be 16 billion years old.

I'm not sure we can say there "is no doubt" to their conclusions. At least I can't at this point.

Peace.

Completely and utterly wrong.

 

[japhy]

within the dust of this earth contains all the elements of everything on the face of this earth, the lack of H2o would make biological life impossible, yet the lack of the elements within the dust also, would make biological life impossible, to define what that means to a specific, is beyond the information given to us to precisely determine, so....does that mean it's not true?

I really can't understand what your question is.

If you're asking if I'm being self-contradictory by saying at one point "life came from primordial ooze" and at the other point "humans can't possibly be made of dirt/clay/slime", then my answer is: no, I'm not being contradictory. To come from something and to be made from something are two entirely different concepts. We're not ooze anymore, we're far more complex, but we have our origins in the uni-cellular, in the ooze. (I really wish there were a better euphemism for it, but "primordial ooze" or "... soup" is the one I hear the most.)

Let me reiterate, though, that I don't believe amino acids just happened to connect in the right way that led to unicellular life -- I believe it was God's plan to happen.

 

[withreason]

I really can't understand what your question is.

If you're asking if I'm being self-contradictory by saying at one point "life came from primordial ooze" and at the other point "humans can't possibly be made of dirt/clay/slime", then my answer is: no, I'm not being contradictory. To come from something and to be made from something are two entirely different concepts. We're not ooze anymore, we're far more complex, but we have our origins in the uni-cellular, in the ooze. (I really wish there were a better euphemism for it, but "primordial ooze" or "... soup" is the one I hear the most.)

Let me reiterate, though, that I don't believe amino acids just happened to connect in the right way that led to unicellular life -- I believe it was God's plan to happen.

I’m sorry, I missed you on that, I thought you were asking ….was it the dust, or the ooze?
Whatever the medium God chose the elements or obviously in the Dust, Dirt, Earth…however one chooses to define…yet, the primordial ooze as explained by Darwinian Evolution is out of the question for me, I cannot accept their theory of” Micro evolution” accidental creation by random mutation that produced all the variety of species, that is unbelievable. God stated to have created each species of animal.
I cannot agree with “Circular reasoning” I believe that Geology refutes this, I do not accept carbon 14 dating as a reliable method of dating beyond 5000 years.
To accept the primordial soup, you need to accept all the above as well, have you studied any of the work of Louis Pasteur? I think it is worth the investment of time!

 

[KerrMetric]

I do not accept carbon 14 dating as a reliable method of dating beyond 5000 years.

I wonder why your demarcation is at 5000 years? Could it be that this is just below the magic 6000 years?

 

[japhy]

I’m sorry, I missed you on that, I thought you were asking ….was it the dust, or the ooze?
Whatever the medium God chose the elements or obviously in the Dust, Dirt, Earth…however one chooses to define…yet, the primordial ooze as explained by Darwinian Evolution is out of the question for me, I cannot accept their theory of” Micro evolution” accidental creation by random mutation that produced all the variety of species, that is unbelievable. God stated to have created each species of animal.
I cannot agree with “Circular reasoning” I believe that Geology refutes this, I do not accept carbon 14 dating as a reliable method of dating beyond 5000 years.
To accept the primordial soup, you need to accept all the above as well, have you studied any of the work of Louis Pasteur? I think it is worth the investment of time!

But I don't believe it was "accidental creation" or "random mutation", I believe it was a specific course of events started by God. If God created the universe, then He created all its scientific elements as well: things like cells and DNA, and even its laws. If He created its laws, wouldn't it make sense that His will can be accomplished through those laws? That is, why couldn't life be a naturally-occurring phenomenon?

It's the difference between saying "God makes the Earth spin" and "God makes the Earth to spin". The Earth spins because of the laws of physics that exist in the universe, not because God is exerting an infitesimal amount of His energy to cause it to spin. God doesn't "make it rain", He "makes it to rain": our atmosphere and environment are conducive to precipitation.

I don't believe that God set up the laws of the universe, wound up some crank, and then let the universe unfold while He sat back and watched. Certainly God has intervened in the course of existence (most notably in His incarnation among us). But I do believe that God is a scientist, and the universe is His creation that operates according to His principles. I suspect that life is the product (not the by-product, but the product) of the universe and its laws, and our life is precisely what God created everything for.

Why He created such an enormous universe, I don't know, and I doubt I'll ever know in my lifetime. It boggles my mind why there are billions of galaxies if we're the only one God "cares about". See, I don't believe God does something without a reason for it, and I don't believe He ever produces anything without a purpose for it. Thus, there must be a purpose to the entirety of the universe, not just Earth.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

posted by withreason:
To accept the primordial soup, you need to accept all the above as well, have you studied any of the work of Louis Pasteur? I think it is worth the investment of time!

which works in particular have you read that you recommend? afai can see looking at his list of works at the library, most is only in French.
the only works i see(in English) are a study in fermentation and a collection of letters.

thanks for the recommendation. i just need a bit more to go on. most people don't read much of the historical works(of science) so when i run across someone knowledgable(as you are) on a first hand basis("I think it is worth the investment of time") with them, i'd like to follow up. and at least scan them in the library.
tia

 

[KerrMetric]

I wonder why Pasteur was brought up - methinks someone thinks Pasteur's work and abiogenesis has a connection. It doesn't.

 

[withreason]

To accept the primordial soup, you need to accept all the above as well, have you studied any of the work of Louis Pasteur? I think it is worth the investment of time!

which works in particular have you read that you recommend? afai can see looking at his list of works at the library, most is only in French.
the only works i see are a study in fermentation and a collection of letters.

thanks for the recommendation. i just need a bit more to go on. most people don't read much of the historical works so when i run across someone knowledgable on a first hand basis with them, i'd like to follow up.

within his fermentation expieraments there were some discoveries concerning spontanious generation.
pasteur proved that spontanious generation is impossible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_spontaneous_generation

 

[KerrMetric]

within his fermentation expieraments there were some discoveries concerning spontanious generation.
pasteur proved that spontanious generation is impossible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_spontaneous_generation

LOL LOL.

My prior post was on the money. I knew someone was bringing Pasteur up as an answer to abiogeneis research. This is so funny. There is basically no connection to be had. I think someone pushing Pasteur's work needs to read it more carefully. Man, this board is so funny at times.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

within his fermentation expieraments there were some discoveries concerning spontanious generation.
pasteur proved that spontanious generation is impossible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_spontaneous_generation

i am aware of his work. what i am not aware of is where to start in the original literature written by him. the only book that i can find close to the topic is:
Location Science-Engineering Library
Call # 589.236 P29e tF2
Author Pasteur, Louis, 1822-1895.
Title Studies on fermentation. The diseases of beer, their causes, and the means of preventing them

is this the one that you read then? which book are you recommending with: "I think it is worth the investment of time!"
i can google websites, what i can not do is determine the quality of a book without scanning or reading it, that is why i need to rely on recommendations such as yours.

 

[withreason]

I wonder why Pasteur was brought up - methinks someone thinks Pasteur's work and abiogenesis has a connection. It doesn't.

and you express yourself as usuall.
abiogenesis, and spontanious generation are not of your understanding I see, along with Behe..

 

[rmwilliamsll]

and you express yourself as usuall.
abiogenesis, and spontanious generation are not of your understanding I see, along with Behe..

rather than derail this thread, i started another thread so you can share your research into spontaneous generation by Pasteur. thanks.

 

[KerrMetric]

and you express yourself as usuall.
abiogenesis, and spontanious generation are not of your understanding I see, along with Behe..

I know that only people without scientific understanding put them together. Plus I do have a graduate degree in the life sciences though my PhD is in theoretical physics. And my wife has a PhD molecular biology and she thinks your linkng of them is bizarre as well. In fact, I've yet to see what scientific area you have expertise in.

 

[withreason]

and you express yourself as usuall.
abiogenesis, and spontanious generation are not of your understanding I see, along with Behe..

again...it is like you to make such a reply, when anyone interested in finding all the information that is available to broaden ones understanding, people like you are present with remarks like that.
of course, evolutionists claim his work to be out dated, but one still needs to review his work to gain understanding of it.
again....it is always the same...with you...

 

[KerrMetric]

of course, evolutionists claim his work to be out dated,

It's not just outdated it is fundamentally not what you seem to want to equate it to.

Do you know what Pasteur did and do you know what it showed? It seems not.

 

[grimbly]

I’m sorry, I missed you on that, I thought you were asking ….was it the dust, or the ooze?
Whatever the medium God chose the elements or obviously in the Dust, Dirt, Earth…however one chooses to define…yet, the primordial ooze as explained by Darwinian Evolution is out of the question for me, I cannot accept their theory of” Micro evolution” accidental creation by random mutation that produced all the variety of species, that is unbelievable. God stated to have created each species of animal.
I cannot agree with “Circular reasoning” I believe that Geology refutes this, I do not accept carbon 14 dating as a reliable method of dating beyond 5000 years.
To accept the primordial soup, you need to accept all the above as well, have you studied any of the work of Louis Pasteur? I think it is worth the investment of time!

I see while I was away digging that you guys jumped onto abiogenesis...Boy you guys are quick..

However, with regards to the part of your quote in purple, I couldn't dig up the original Lake Suigestu paper bbut I did find these: Linky
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html
http://www.calpal.de/calpal/files/article2000_1.pdf
http://www.calpal.de/calpal/files/article2000_2.pdf

These guys seem to think that C14 dates greater than 5000 years have some validity. Why should I believe you and not them. What do you know that they don't?

Thank you

 

[Assyrian]

There is a nice quote from him in wikiquote

The universe is asymmetric and I am persuaded that life, as it is known to us, is a direct result of the asymmetry of the universe or of its indirect consequences. The universe is asymmetric.
Works Vol. 1 (1 June 1874) Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences

In other words, he thought the origin of life, abiogenesis, was probably the result of right and left handed molecules like tartaric acid which he studied.
Molecules like amino acids...

He realised species evolved though he did not take to Darwin's new ideas, and he believed the world was millions of years old.

Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114_22.html

Whatever the medium God chose the elements or obviously in the Dust, Dirt, Earth…however one chooses to define…yet, the primordial ooze as explained by Darwinian Evolution is out of the question for me, I cannot accept their theory of” Micro evolution” accidental creation by random mutation that produced all the variety of species, that is unbelievable. God stated to have created each species of animal.

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds..."
Apparently God did not have the same problem you seem to have. He was quite happy to create the different species by commanding the earth to produce them all.

 

[withreason]

I know that only people without scientific understanding put them together. Plus I do have a graduate degree in the life sciences though my PhD is in theoretical physics. And my wife has a PhD molecular biology and she thinks your linkng of them is bizarre as well. In fact, I've yet to see what scientific area you have expertise in.

for someone claiming such academic advancement, why do you degrees to such a state of ridicule, why dont you advertise your knowledge to clarify data and facts, instead of useless badgering??

 

[KerrMetric]

for someone claiming such academic advancement, why do you degrees to such a state of ridicule, why dont you advertise your knowledge to clarify data and facts, instead of useless badgering??

Why don't you ask other posters around here. I have made literally hundreds of posts where I do go into scientific detail - but on this board the often wilt since the creationists avoid technical discussion like the plague. As long as they can waffle with language and vagueness they are happy - try to pin them down on science and they get nervous.
I'm just puzzled by your claims here and there of understanding but I've yet to see such a post.

 

[withreason]

Why don't you ask other posters around here. I have made literally hundreds of posts where I do go into scientific detail - but on this board the often wilt since the creationists avoid technical discussion like the plague. As long as they can waffle with language and vagueness they are happy - try to pin them down on science and they get nervous.
I'm just puzzled by your claims here and there of understanding but I've yet to see such a post.

did you not say something to me about "spell check"
anyhow....Forgive me! I do apologize for lacking in understanding, and requesting the replies that I have requested in this thread.
I have a habit of relying on the content of what I read to decide it's merit. forgive me if this faith based forum does not like to read posts from a Man with an awkward understanding of your proffesional expertise in the subject of my post's.
Of course, trying to grasp the enormity of the requirnments of faith to gain salvation, must be exhausted by scientific protocol...please forgive me..