Adam and Eve as a Myth

[ImmortalFlame]

They keyword is "reinterpreted". Evidence is not ignored, but explained in a different way.

That's even worse. Twisting facts to support an unscientific agenda does tremendous harm to the advancement of science. What matters in science is that an interpretation of the facts has evidence to support it. Interpretions that do not are cast aside in favour of those that do. This the way science works - not every interpretion can be correct, and it is up to the scientific method to sort the ideas that are right from those that are wrong.

I have facts - I can interpret them acc to the Darwinian paradigm, or the biblical paradigm. In my experience, which is mostly in molecular biology, a lot of facts need to be mutilated and beaten before they will fit into the Darwinian paradigm.

For example, this fact: Dinosaur soft tissue and protein--even more confirmation!

This has already been explained and doesn't conflict with evolutionary biology in any way:

Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

I suggest you use better sources than creationist websites for your information.

I have no idea how they fit this into the Darwinian paradigm, but I think they just ignore it! The Darwinian paradigm at any rate is not up for falsification: Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote

Evolution is incredibly easy to falsify. Simply find the fossils of contemporary species alongside the fossils of their supposed evolutionary ancestors, or demonstrate that DNA is unique to each species and cannot mutate above a certain point.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What is really a joke with me is spontaneous generation / origin of life without design.

Firstly, "spontaneous generation" was a specific idea that originated in the middle ages that life spontaneously appeared where it gathered. For example, they believed that if a cow's body was left to rot flies would "spontaneously generate" around the cow. They did not yet know that flies were drawn to the carcass, laid their eggs in it, and would be born there.

Secondly, this has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology. What you are trying to adress is the subject of abiogensis, which is a separate branch of biological inquiry that is still in it's infancy.

Would you like to explain to me how life arose in an environment with DNA and RNA destroying UV light (no ozone layer) before DNA repair mechanisms had had a chance to evolve?

Ask a molecular biologist. Also, UV light still exists today and yet doesn't prevent DNA replication.

ID doesn't say anything about a designer.

Um, yes it does. It even says it in the title.

It says that ID is the only plausible hypothesis of how life came to be.

Which it isn't, since there's no scientific evidence of ID whatsoever.

I still maintain that it doesn't matter if a scientist is religious and conducts his scientist accordingly.

I agree, which is why the vast majority of religious scientists accept evolution theory.

Creation is to christianity what evolution is to atheism.

That's utterly false. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, and not all Christians are creationists. There are many Christian scientists who see no conflict between their religious beliefs and the fact of evolution being the explanation for modern biodiversity.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Or at least appears that way while being critiqued by uneducated city people who have no idea what they were talking about.

Except I am educated, and know what I'm talking about

 

[gnostic]

What is really a joke with me is spontaneous generation / origin of life without design.

OH, NO! :no:

NOT ANOTHER ONE!

You're one of those creationists who like to criticize evolution, without understanding what he or she is arguing about.

Let's get this through your head, because I'm not going to say it again in another reply or future threads.

Evolution IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!

This is a major stumbling block that many (Christian) creationists have. No matter how you tell them, they don't understand this simple fact: Evolution is not about the origin of first life; it never was.

Evolution is about changes in life, over n-number of successive generations, due to environmental changes. It is about life (or population of life) adapting to changes, in their genetic or molecular level - in order to survive.

Evolution is about BIODIVERSITY.

This mean that evolution, especially with Darwin's Natural Selection, is about the Origin of Species.

So it is about life that already exist.

Evolution is not about the creation or formation of the first life. If you seriously want to about scientific theory about the "Origin Of Life", then you read up and learn about ABIOGENESIS!

Evolution does not equal to ABIOGENESIS. You should understand the differences these 2 different fields in biology. The Origin of Species is not the same thing as the Origin of Life, and that's where many of the creationists have failed to understand...or worse, refuses to understand and refuses to learn.

I can't be clearer than that...or simpler than that. Get your facts straight about what you really want to discuss or debate about. Otherwise, you just another one of those clueless creationists, who don't understand evolution.

ID doesn't say anything about a designer.

Of course it does. The Designer is the whole purpose to Intelligent Design. Where the hell have you being?

ID is not creationsism, ID allows the possibility of aliens planting life on earth. This idea I believe is actually becoming increasingly fasionable in the scientific community.

Are you seriously that ignorant about Intelligent Design or the not-so-hidden-agenda of the Discovery Institute?

All these ID advocates are actually creationists. They are using ID to push aside evolution and return Americans back to accepting creationism. Since ID IS NOTHING MORE THAN PSEUDOSCIENCE (hence, not real science), these advocates tried to use PR, media, churches, courtrooms and politicians to push ID into science classrooms across America. All their motives and agenda have exposed by the Wedge Strategy.

Read up on Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy.

And no it is not. Intelligent Design is not fashionable in the scientific community. It is only fashionable among creationist parents, teachers, and politicians who want Intelligent Design as if Intelligent Design was real science...which is clearly not.

Intelligent Design failed to meet all the requirements of Falsifiability, Scientific Method and the peer review, so their hypothesis or proposition to Intelligent Design should have been long discarded, when Intelligent Design have been thoroughly refuted. But the advocates refused to let it go. That's the sign that these advocates are not scientists.

 

[siweLSC]

That's even worse. Twisting facts to support an unscientific agenda does tremendous harm to the advancement of science. What matters in science is that an interpretation of the facts has evidence to support it. Interpretions that do not are cast aside in favour of those that do. This the way science works - not every interpretion can be correct, and it is up to the scientific method to sort the ideas that are right from those that are wrong.

This has already been explained and doesn't conflict with evolutionary biology in any way:

Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

I suggest you use better sources than creationist websites for your information.

Evolution is incredibly easy to falsify. Simply find the fossils of contemporary species alongside the fossils of their supposed evolutionary ancestors, or demonstrate that DNA is unique to each species and cannot mutate above a certain point.

I read all four pages of your link. The logic goes "The rocks are 65 million years old. Therefore, this bone is 65 million years old."
It did absolutely nothing to address the claim in the creationist article that no soft tissue cannot, repeat, cannot, last 65 million years. The above linked article just ignored that, and instead of questioning the age of the rocks, questioned our knowledge of decay. In other words, geologists are right, not matter if it contradicts what we know about soft tissue decay.
Please do not just throw long articles at me for me to read if they don't contain what you say they do.
Would you say that finding a dinosaur fossil with a fossil of a moder creature would falsify evolution? what about proof that a dinosaur fossil is very young, like, probably within the last 100,000 years?

 

[siweLSC]

OH, NO! :no:

NOT ANOTHER ONE!

You're one of those creationists who like to criticize evolution, without understanding what he or she is arguing about.

Let's get this through your head, because I'm not going to say it again in another reply or future threads.

Evolution IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!

This is a major stumbling block that many (Christian) creationists have. No matter how you tell them, they don't understand this simple fact: Evolution is not about the origin of first life; it never was.

Evolution is about changes in life, over n-number of successive generations, due to environmental changes. It is about life (or population of life) adapting to changes, in their genetic or molecular level - in order to survive.

Evolution is about BIODIVERSITY.

This mean that evolution, especially with Darwin's Natural Selection, is about the Origin of Species.

So it is about life that already exist.

Evolution is not about the creation or formation of the first life. If you seriously want to about scientific theory about the "Origin Of Life", then you read up and learn about ABIOGENESIS!

The origin of life was covered in my first year lecture on evolution. It is part of evolutionary theory in that evolutionary theory cannot work without it.
Evolution cannot work without a living organism to work with in the first place, and I contend we can't get a living organism in the first place without a designer.

Aboiogenesis is a joke.

Evolution does not equal to ABIOGENESIS. You should understand the differences these 2 different fields in biology. The Origin of Species is not the same thing as the Origin of Life, and that's where many of the creationists have failed to understand...or worse, refuses to understand and refuses to learn.

I can't be clearer than that...or simpler than that. Get your facts straight about what you really want to discuss or debate about. Otherwise, you just another one of those clueless creationists, who don't understand evolution.

Evolution cannot work without abiogenesis. period. Unless of course, we have a designer to create life, but that would ID

Of course it does. The Designer is the whole purpose to Intelligent Design. Where the hell have you being?

sorry, I really worded it really badly. What I mean is that ID says that evolution is not sufficient to explain what we see. so there must be a designer.
This is distinct from the creationist teaching that is more like "there is a designer, the God of the bible."
You can be ID and totally materialistic, ie, aliens created life. Basically, if I say abiogenesis is a joke, then all I have left is ID. ID people are people who primarily say that evolution doesn't work, whereas creationists are people who primarily say "there is a God".
There is a subtle difference. ID people are forever trying to actively distance themselves from creationists.

Are you seriously that ignorant about Intelligent Design or the not-so-hidden-agenda of the Discovery Institute?

All these ID advocates are actually creationists. They are using ID to push aside evolution and return Americans back to accepting creationism. Since ID IS NOTHING MORE THAN PSEUDOSCIENCE (hence, not real science), these advocates tried to use PR, media, churches, courtrooms and politicians to push ID into science classrooms across America. All their motives and agenda have exposed by the Wedge Strategy.

Read up on Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy.

And no it is not. Intelligent Design is not fashionable in the scientific community. It is only fashionable among creationist parents, teachers, and politicians who want Intelligent Design as if Intelligent Design was real science...which is clearly not.

Yet, by simply proving abiogenesis is a joke, I can bring your whole materialistic designerless worldview crashing down on your head. What could possibly be religious about scientifically proving abiogenesis is a joke?
Creationism is a religious and scientific position, ID is a science only position, that leaves the door open for religion and God.

Intelligent Design failed to meet all the requirements of Falsifiability, Scientific Method and the peer review, so their hypothesis or proposition to Intelligent Design should have been long discarded, when Intelligent Design have been thoroughly refuted. But the advocates refused to let it go. That's the sign that these advocates are not scientists.

Prove abiogenesis then. A designerless worldview cannot work without it.

 

[siweLSC]

Firstly, "spontaneous generation" was a specific idea that originated in the middle ages that life spontaneously appeared where it gathered. For example, they believed that if a cow's body was left to rot flies would "spontaneously generate" around the cow. They did not yet know that flies were drawn to the carcass, laid their eggs in it, and would be born there.

Secondly, this has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology. What you are trying to adress is the subject of abiogensis, which is a separate branch of biological inquiry that is still in it's infancy.


Ask a molecular biologist. Also, UV light still exists today and yet doesn't prevent DNA replication.


Um, yes it does. It even says it in the title.

I just worded it really badly. see my above post.

Which it isn't, since there's no scientific evidence of ID whatsoever.


I agree, which is why the vast majority of religious scientists accept evolution theory.


That's utterly false. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, and not all Christians are creationists.

Then you should inform Dawkins, who said:
"Darwin made it possible to be an intuectually fulfilled athiest."

There is as much conflict of interest in having an athiest scientist as having a religious scientist.

here are many Christian scientists who see no conflict between their religious beliefs and the fact of evolution being the explanation for modern biodiversity.

They only do that by leaving their brains at the church door. The grand theory of evolution contradicts key parts of genesis. I agree with Dawkins on this topic, who says that theistic evolutionists are deluded.

Christianity doesn't work with evolution any more than atheism works with creationism.

 

[David M]

Were you implying Behe is religious? As far as I can make out from a quick reading of that wiki article, he doesn't believe in any specific God, he doesn't even speculate on whether life was designed by God or aliens, and his only reason for accepting ID is that evolutionary theory doesn't fit the facts. That is not religion.

Your "quick reading" obviously skipped the end of the second paragraph which clearly states that he is a Roman Catholic.

He has been quoted as saying that he thinks evolution is "guided by God" (Michael Behe(2000): "Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism", letter to Science magazine, 7 july 2000)

Then you should inform Dawkins, who said:
"Darwin made it possible to be an intuectually fulfilled athiest."

And?

ToE provides an explanation for the diversity of life that removes a requirement for God to exist. That is all.

We also have an explanation for many diseases that removes the requirement of demonic possession, that does not make Germ Theory an atheistic theory.

 

[David M]

It did absolutely nothing to address the claim in the creationist article that no soft tissue cannot, repeat, cannot, last 65 million years.

The scientist who made those discoveries (a Christian) refutes that article and has complained about her work being misrepresented by creationists.

And the claim that tissues cannot be preserved for 65 million years is garbage, there are insects preserved in amber that are nearly 4 times as old. The conditions that happen during fossilisation would tend to destroy any soft tissues not already decayed but there is nothing that says that they could survive that long under the right conditions.

 

[siweLSC]

The scientist who made those discoveries (a Christian) refutes that article and has complained about her work being misrepresented by creationists.

And the claim that tissues cannot be preserved for 65 million years is garbage, there are insects preserved in amber that are nearly 4 times as old. The conditions that happen during fossilisation would tend to destroy any soft tissues not already decayed but there is nothing that says that they could survive that long under the right conditions.

Can you show me where they refuted that idea? I must have missed it.
Insects have an exoskeleton, which is pretty hard and resistant to decay.

The christian who made that discovery, is for all scientific purposes, is an athiest. She says that we don't need to have any facts to know that God exists, we just have faith. Blind factless faith. She has a dual personality, on the one hand she believes God exists, yet she has no problem with a scientific worldview contradicts so much of what God is supposed to have said in the bible.

 

[siweLSC]

Your "quick reading" obviously skipped the end of the second paragraph which clearly states that he is a Roman Catholic.

He has been quoted as saying that he thinks evolution is "guided by God" (Michael Behe(2000): "Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism", letter to Science magazine, 7 july 2000)

And?

ToE provides an explanation for the diversity of life that removes a requirement for God to exist. That is all.

We also have an explanation for many diseases that removes the requirement of demonic possession, that does not make Germ Theory an atheistic theory.

Yet germ theory is completely compatible with Christianity while evolution is not.
I have demonstrated here that I know very little about Michael Behe. :rainbow1:

But people here have been repeating mantra fassion that ID = biblical creationism. But now it turns out that Behe is actually an evolutionist? (albeit evolution guided by God). Please explain!

 

[gnostic]

The origin of life was covered in my first year lecture on evolution.

Wow! First year of lecture on evolution, then that would make you an expert on evolution.

Get this straight, it is wrong for any lecture in 1st year or more advanced lecture to say that evolution is about the origin of life. It is not. It never was.

Like I said before, evolution is about changes, adapting or biodiversity. The Origin of Life is irrelevant because evolution only deal with life that already exist. PERIOD!

And FYI, don't say Darwinism, Darwin Evolution or Darwinian paradigm. If you must call Darwin's theory on evolution, say Natural Selection. Natural Selection is still a valid theory today, but it is one evolutionary mechanism. The evolutionary mechanisms are:

1. Natural Selection
2. Biased Mutation
3. Genetic Drift
4. Genetic Hitchhiking
5. Gene Flow

Despite the new theories, Darwin's Natural Selection (NS) has not been refuted nor debunked. These other mechanisms actually complement with NS.

Natural Selection also referred to the Survival of Fittest. This Survival of Fittest don't necessarily mean that a creature has to be the strongest, fastest or smartest in order to survive. Changes in their genetic makeup can help. So the Survival of Fittest actually mean be able to adapt to the changes, in order to give them the mean to survive.

One of my favorite example is the tortoise.

The tortoise is a very slow moving land creature, and there are many natural predators out there in the wild, yet it survive to this day. But the most amazing things about the tortoises are those found in the islands of Galápagos. I have already written about them, here in this thread. So instead of repeating myself, I will quote myself:

I have written it before in other threads, about Galápagos Islands. One of the places that Darwin had visited during his voyage on the HMS Beagle in 1830s.

He noticed that many creature from one island is different. One of my favorite examples are the tortoises living on those islands.

In some islands, the tortoises have dome shell, and have short neck and legs. They lived in the humid highland with low-lying vegetation, which they can easily feed on.

But on other islands with drier conditions and sparser vegetation, their food sources are higher up so it would be impossible for most dome shape tortoises to survive in this condition. And it is on these island, where the giant tortoise have different shell, known as saddleback shells. The shape allow longer neck which they crane up. Also the saddleback-type tortoises have longer legs than their dome-type cousins.



And those islands are not really far apart, so it is amazing how you would find diversity of species or subspecies, separated by different climatic and territorial differences.

The Galápagos tortoises are just one of the animals (but not the only one) that allowed Darwin to formulate his theory on Natural Selection.

This is only part of my post. For the full reply, read post 229.

Due to different climates, different environments and different availability of food sources, the tortoises must change in order to survive.

They are different subspecies, but all the tortoises on these islands have a common ancestry. That's what evolution teaches. Not this Origin of (1st) Life.

Aboiogenesis is a joke.

The only joke is you.

Like ImmortalFlame said to you (I've emphasize in bold and red):

Secondly, this has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology. What you are trying to adress is the subject of abiogensis, which is a separate branch of biological inquiry that is still in it's infancy.

Abiogenesis is still in it's infancy.

And despite it's infancy, Abiogenesis is more grounded in science, more so than Intelligent Design and Creationism. Because neither Intelligent Design nor Creationism are falsifiable (and therefore, not scientific), and absolutely no evidences for either Designer or Creator, and that's commonality of Designer and Creator.

 

[gnostic]

I have demonstrated here that I know very little about Michael Behe. :rainbow1:

And that's the only thing I agree with you, so far.

But people here have been repeating mantra fassion that ID = biblical creationism. But now it turns out that Behe is actually an evolutionist? (albeit evolution guided by God). Please explain!

He has accepted (at the start) and abandoned evolution (when he got involved with Discovery Institute and the Intelligent Design). Don't know if he is evolutionist or not. If he is, then he would theistic evolutionist.

 

[gnostic]

Then you should inform Dawkins, who said:
"Darwin made it possible to be an intuectually fulfilled athiest."

There is as much conflict of interest in having an athiest scientist as having a religious scientist.

Must repeat this creationist's propaganda.

FYI, Darwin was never an atheist. He was a theist.

And what does science have to do with atheists or atheism?

Science have nothing to do with religion or atheism.

Anyone (with brains) can learn or teach science. It is just a matter of not letting presupposition and preconception about god and belief to cloud what you can observe. Science is to investigate and understand the natural world (as well as artificial or man-made world, like computers, automobiles, bridge building, etc), all without the need for god, proven or disproven by evidences found or through observation.

Man. You do have to do a lot of mental gymnastic, to fit reality into your belief in this god.

 

[siweLSC]

Wow! First year of lecture on evolution, then that would make you an expert on evolution.

I wasn't claiming to be an expert on evolution, I was saying that the lectuerer (who btw, has a PhD, and IS an expert on evolution) thought that abiogenesis was so relevant to evolution that she included it in the evolution lecture

Get this straight, it is wrong for any lecture in 1st year or more advanced lecture to say that evolution is about the origin of life. It is not. It never was.

It is not that I am saying I don't understand it so it must be false, I am saying that abiogenesis is totally contradictory to some of the other things they were teaching us

Like I said before, evolution is about changes, adapting or biodiversity. The Origin of Life is irrelevant because evolution only deal with life that already exist. PERIOD!

And FYI, don't say Darwinism, Darwin Evolution or Darwinian paradigm. If you must call Darwin's theory on evolution, say Natural Selection. Natural Selection is still a valid theory today, but it is one evolutionary mechanism. The evolutionary mechanisms are:

1. Natural Selection
2. Biased Mutation
3. Genetic Drift
4. Genetic Hitchhiking
5. Gene Flow

Despite the new theories, Darwin's Natural Selection (NS) has not been refuted nor debunked. These other mechanisms actually complement with NS.

Natural Selection also referred to the Survival of Fittest. This Survival of Fittest don't necessarily mean that a creature has to be the strongest, fastest or smartest in order to survive. Changes in their genetic makeup can help. So the Survival of Fittest actually mean be able to adapt to the changes, in order to give them the mean to survive.

One of my favorite example is the tortoise.

The tortoise is a very slow moving land creature, and there are many natural predators out there in the wild, yet it survive to this day. But the most amazing things about the tortoises are those found in the islands of Galápagos. I have already written about them, here in this thread. So instead of repeating myself, I will quote myself:



This is only part of my post. For the full reply, read post 229.

Due to different climates, different environments and different availability of food sources, the tortoises must change in order to survive.

They are different subspecies, but all the tortoises on these islands have a common ancestry. That's what evolution teaches. Not this Origin of (1st) Life.



The only joke is you.

Like ImmortalFlame said to you (I've emphasize in bold and red):

Abiogenesis is still in it's infancy.

And despite it's infancy, Abiogenesis is more grounded in science, more so than Intelligent Design and Creationism. Because neither Intelligent Design nor Creationism are falsifiable (and therefore, not scientific), and absolutely no evidences for either Designer or Creator, and that's commonality of Designer and Creator.

Most of this thread is one big misunderstanding on what Creationists actually believe. I do believe in natural selection. I won't say any more, I am going to start a new thread on the topic soon, so I won't bother repeating myself.

Why did my PhD lectuerer include abiogenesis in the evolution lecture if it has nothing to do with evolution?

 

[gnostic]

Why did my PhD lectuerer include abiogenesis in the evolution lecture if it has nothing to do with evolution?

I wouldn't know because I was there. Evolution and abiogenesis are 2 different fields in biology. Abiogenesis is still pretty new.

There are some evidences to support abiogenesis but not much. Perhaps in 15-30 years from now, there would be a lot more to know about abiogenesis, with more evidences to support it.

And beside that, I really don't know much about it myself.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then you should inform Dawkins, who said:
"Darwin made it possible to be an intuectually fulfilled athiest."

Wow, you found one quote from one person who uses the word "evolution" and "atheist" in the same sentence. Surely, they must be the same thing.

Dawkins was talking about how evolution provided a satisfactory explanation for the complexity of life without requiring a design. That's all he meant.

There is as much conflict of interest in having an athiest scientist as having a religious scientist.

There's no "conflict of interest" for either if they are good scientists.

They only do that by leaving their brains at the church door. The grand theory of evolution contradicts key parts of genesis. I agree with Dawkins on this topic, who says that theistic evolutionists are deluded.

Christianity doesn't work with evolution any more than atheism works with creationism.

Well, thousands of credential scientists, theists and Church leaders disagree. Some people's beliefs are not as easily shaken as yours are.

 

[gnostic]

They only do that by leaving their brains at the church door. The grand theory of evolution contradicts key parts of genesis. I agree with Dawkins on this topic, who says that theistic evolutionists are deluded.

Christianity doesn't work with evolution any more than atheism works with creationism.

Then everything in science contradict the Bible, not just evolution.

Biology, physics, chemistry, health, meteorology, gravity, earth science, astronomy, etc.

According to Job, God was said to be one to bring earthquake, thunder and lightning, clouds, winds and rain, etc. It is nothing more than superstitions. Today, we understand all these are natural phenomenons, that can be explained and understood through science...and in all of which, none of them required this God.

People used to think disease and insanity were caused by evil spirits, eg King Saul supposedly became paranoid because the evil spirit that God set upon him.

The whole point is that god is irrelevant in understanding how the world work. Science allowed us to move beyond the ancient superstitions.

 

[javajo]

based on what

your flood date is all wrong, by generation the bible places it at 4200 years. so who is wrong you or the bible.

From the above chart (from: Biblical Old Testament Chronology, can the genealogical conflicts be resolved?, a site I do not agree with everything on), there is flexibility on the date.

these civilizations had writing back to 5000 years without a break

The Flood was before those civilizations, although there was writing before the flood as in the ten patriarchs or kings who lived before the flood which many cultures mention.

history states man is 200,000 years old and not up for debate

Oh, its definitely up for debate.

Could you name even five non-religious biologists alive today who have "major" problems with the Theory of Evolution? Let's make it easier. Can you name even one living non-religious biologist who has "major" problems with the Theory of Evolution? Could you reference even one article published in peer-reviewed biological journal, authored by a non-religious biologist living today, indicating these "major" problems?

Here's a couple of their quotes:

Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information—hardly the simple ‘globules of plasm’ envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.”

Dr. Michael Denton (a non-Christian molecular biologist) said, “Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology . . . It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.”

Since this has gone so off the Adam and Eve topic into the age of the earth, the theory of evolution, the flood, etc. I'm just gonna say, Darwin did not have a very strong microscope, around 100x I think, and when he saw a cell it looked like a blob with a membrane and some fluid like substance inside and perhaps a nucleus. Now we know one cell is immensely complex and for one to just happen by chance is impossible. That's because they didn't.

 

[Agnostic75]

Since this has gone so off the Adam and Eve topic into the age of the earth, the theory of evolution, the flood, etc. I'm just gonna say, Darwin did not have a very strong microscope, around 100x I think, and when he saw a cell it looked like a blob with a membrane and some fluid like substance inside and perhaps a nucleus. Now we know one cell is immensely complex and for one to just happen by chance is impossible. That's because they didn't.

Evolution does not have anything whatsoever to do with cells happening by chance. Consider the following from the Encyclopedia Britannica Online:

Evolution

theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accepted naturalistic or theistic evolution. That obviously includes the vast majority of Christian experts.

Since Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," he quite obviously did not believe that life on earth originally happened by chance, only that current lifeforms come from preexisting lifeforms. Today, the vast majority of experts around the world, including the vast majority of Christian experts, believe that he was right.