Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[ecco]

If you say that, your are either outright lying or you are ignorant of the scientific advances of the past 100. Probably both.

• The structure of DNA and RNA.
• The structure of protein chains.
• The structure of the atom.

All of which brings us closer to understanding the essence of abiogenesis.

Please see post #1207 above. They are not even close because no scientist will ever create life. They will just keep hitting the same wall. Life is not an accident.

No scientist will ever create Mount Everest. No scientist will ever create the Hawaiian Islands. You seem to confuse creating with understanding. Science understands how Mount Everest came to be. Scientists understand how man evolved from lower life forms. Science will understand how simple molecules transition into complex chains eventually forming what we refer to as living creatures.

Life is not an accident, life is an inevitability. Is it an accident that hydrogen and oxygen atoms form water molecules?

Tell me how you are any different? You accept what science tells you without any real proof that what they suggest is even possible. You are so sure......and yet, so am I. You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, but don't tell me science has the answers when it is clear that they haven't even scratched the surface in their excursions into abiogenesis.

How many times must people explain to you that science does not deal in "proofs" - science deals in evidence. If you cannot understand the principles of science, it is obvious why you cannot understand the findings of science.

But it really makes no difference. You are still in the dark ages regarding ToE. You will never accept anything that conflicts with your Creo beliefs.

As for the structure of DNA and RNA and the structure of protein chains......

Since the blueprint for building a protein is stored in the nucleus of the cell and the actual site for building proteins is outside the nucleus, help is needed to get the coded blueprint from the nucleus to the “building site.” RNA (ribonucleic acid) molecules provide this help. RNA molecules are chemically similar to those of DNA, and several forms of RNA are needed to do the job. Take a closer look at these extremely complex processes for making our vital proteins with the help of RNA.

Science knows what an incredibly complex process the formation of protein is. How long does it take for a chain of 20 amino acids to form? About one second! And this process goes on constantly in our body cells, from our head to our foot and everywhere in between.

While other factors too numerous to mention are involved, the teamwork needed to produce and maintain life is awe-inspiring. And the term “teamwork” hardly describes the precise interaction required to produce a protein molecule, since a protein needs information from DNA molecules, and DNA needs several forms of specialized RNA molecules. Nor can we ignore the various enzymes, each performing a distinct and vital role. As our body makes new cells, which happens billions of times a day and without our conscious guidance, it requires copies of all three components—DNA, RNA, and protein. You can see why the magazine New Scientist comments: “Take away any one of the three and life grinds to a halt.” Or take this a step further. Without a complete and functioning team, life could not have come about.

(Excerpts Teamwork for Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY)

That's a nice long cut and paste of a JW opinion piece. I doubt you understand any of it, just as you didn't understand the content of your previous cut and paste post. The only difference is that now you are cutting and pasting from what you consider to be a known, trusted source. The same trusted source that has failed, repeatedly, predicting Armageddon.

How come you don't ask the JW Leadership for proofs?

 

[Deeje]

Like my cousin’s biology textbook I borrowed back in 2003-04. When I first joined a forum, I did not know what evolution about, and I did not understand the debates between the two sides (science and creation). So i relied on textbook for my knowledge on evolution, but it certainly don’t make me a biology student, let alone expert.

It doesn’t make me “evolutionist”, the label you like using. I am no more an evolutionist than I am a bible-ist.

So you have no science degree? You just relied on science textbooks to tell you the story? How do you know that the story they told you is true? You can't see the hand of an Intelligent Designer in creation.......yet I see it very clearly. There is a clear divide between those who accept that macro-evolution is based on real evidence, and those who see that evidence as only unsubstantiated conjecture. The fence sitters will have to decide where they stand because, whoever is not for God will be deemed to be against him.

But what you are trying to deflect with your total lack of honesty, by generalising everyone who accept evolution, not only as being “evolutionists”, but everyone as “atheists”, even those who are Christians and Jews.

I don't believe that evolutionists can claim to be honest if they teach that suggestions are facts.

If you accept evolution, you are an evolutionist...if you promote and support the theory, how could you call yourself anything else?
I never said all evolutionists were atheists. I said that you can't have a foot in both camps because that is simply compromise. Rationalisation is what humans do to hang onto beliefs that are open to question. You don't think scientists do that too?

You have this conspiracy theorist’s mentality that anyone who disagree with you, are evolutionists, and “atheists”, including Christians and Jews.

Actually, I am exposing one of the greatest conspiracy theories there ever was. There is only one reason for life appearing on this earth and the Bible teaches that there is a very powerful con artist at the bottom of atheistic evolution's strong promotion......but science is no further forward in establishing how life arose by "natural" means in the first place, let alone how a single celled organism could morph into all manner of living things on earth.

The "mountains of evidence" are in reality "molehills of suggestion" when you analyse what they say. Scientists do not handle questioning their pet theory very well....they are inclined to lose their cool and start questioning their opponent's intelligence....I question theirs.....unashamedly. Attack is a very poor form of defence IMO.

Shouldn't suggestions that we are related to fruit flies and bananas be hard to state with a straight face?

 

[gnostic]

So you have no science degree? You just relied on science textbooks to tell you the story?

I do have two bachelor degrees in applied science, but the courses (Civil Engineering in 1986 and Computer Science in 1999) I did, focus more on maths and physics, not on biology (although one of materials for building can be wood, so maybe a tiny fraction on biology was covered).

In both courses, I understand the needs to test any evidence, not just in the lab, doing experiments, but out in the fields. So part of physics, is like performing experiments, is using evidences objectively.

Anyway I know what evidences are, and I still remember my physics subjects, even though I don’t consider myself to be a physicist or scientist.

If you cannot test, detect or measure the evidences, then it is not real, and you cannot test, detect or measure God or the Intelligent Designer.

I don’t count my Year 9 high school science, as being a “biology student”. From Year 10 to 12, I focused on physics, chemistry and maths, but I don’t count what I did in high school.

Now I have told you my side.

Do you have any science background?

What did you or what are doing for living that related to science of any kind? And I am not talking about high school biology, it doesn’t count.

 

[gnostic]

How do you know that the story they told you is true? You can't see the hand of an Intelligent Designer in creation.......yet I see it very clearly.

How do you the bible, especially Genesis, to be true?

You don’t require evidences to believe in Creation and Flood, and all other miracles. All it required is faith.

But since 2000, I began questioning the bible, and it had nothing to do with science or biology or evolution.

It had to do with me re-reading the bible with fresh eyes, and understanding the differences between myths and historical facts. But what started my road to agnosticism, was not science, but skepticism on the so-called signs and prophecies of Jesus in the Old Testament (eg Matthew 1:22-23 cf Isaiah 7:14-17).

Once I started questioning that sign, I began to question other signs, prophecies, and eventually to Genesis creation, like can serpent talk?

And in Numbers we have a donkey that can talk too.

Talking animals do exist in many ancient literature, and these are myths.

In Babylonian epic of Etana, we have talking snake and eagle.

In Aesop’s Fables, we have full of parable-like narratives of animals that can talk and behave like humans.

So how is Genesis serpent, no different from other talking animal of ancient literature and ancient religions? Why are these considered myths by Christians, and yet Genesis episode in Eden isn’t?

Sure we can believe snake and donkey can talk, if we believe in Harry Potter or Francis or Mr Ed.

 

[gnostic]

There is a clear divide between those who accept that macro-evolution is based on real evidence, and those who see that evidence as only unsubstantiated conjecture. The fence sitters will have to decide where they stand because, whoever is not for God will be deemed to be against him.

Here, you are using fear.

Superstition is based on ignorance and fear. Believing in some mythological being set out to punish people is what superstition is.

But what does god have to do with people finding factual answers as to why species change?

 

[Deeje]

As has been noted before:

You have this conspiracy theorist’s mentality

the line in bold is, like, totally diagnostic.
Chemtrails too? Vaccines cause autism?

It seems to me that a lot of people are waking up as to what is really going on in this world behind the scenes.
People can be lulled into a false sense of security and tend to put their trust in the wrong people. Propaganda works for a while but then it dawns on people that things are not getting any better...in fact, they seem to always be getting worse. They start to look for answers and now, with simple internet searches, all sorts of possibilities can open up. Eyes are being opened like never before. We are now better informed than we have ever been. Its the sources of our information that make the difference. We can weigh up what sounds reasonable, from what is too far fetched....that is why we have an intellectual capacity.....hopefully it means that our decisions are well informed ones.

Orthodox medicine has been focused on very expensive drug related treatments for disease for decades with little in the way of advancement towards cures for anything, especially with regard to the treatment of cancer. This epidemic in our western world is largely related to a poorly operating immune system. What creates this problem? A bad diet, deficient in raw foods, essential fiber, vitamins and minerals, and constant exposure to many artificial additives in highly processed foods that are basically devoid of any real nutritional value. Add to that the toxic chemicals used in the growing of our food and in our environment, the carefully managed phobia about germs making pharma companies rich but resulting in a flood of allergic children with poorly developed immune systems....and you have a recipe for what we have now. Don't you think its time to wake up?

Drugs are designed to treat symptoms, not to cure disease. 'Symptom Management' is the optimal goal in medicine because it means that the present system can ensure that doctors and drug companies have customers for life. Big pharma needs doctors to prescribe their drugs so they carefully educate these doctors to see pharmacology as medicine.
But thankfully, some doctors are waking up and realizing that they are being used as nothing more than 'pimps' for big pharma. They have reached a point where they can't offer excuses to their patients any more. How can science know so much but still do so little? The answer is control. There are powerful forces at work in this world that most people have no idea about how they do business at the expense of patients. I believe the lid on this corruption is slowly being lifted....just as God said it would be before he brought it to its finish. He has served notice, just as he did in Noah's day....but at least we now have the means to reach a world-wide audience because "the end" will be another global event. (Matthew 24:14)

Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen but in among them are genuine ones that are swept under the carpet by those who trust the status quo to be trustworthy. I don't believe a world controlled by the devil can ever be trustworthy. (1 John 5:19) But that is just my opinion.

 

[cladking]

How many times must people explain to you that science does not deal in "proofs" - science deals in evidence. If you cannot understand the principles of science, it is obvious why you cannot understand the findings of science.

No. Science "deals" in experiment and no experiment has ever shown that most change in species is gradual or the result of "unfit" or "maladaptive" individuals.

Science is not about "evidence" and that's where "evolution" went wrong.

You have enough holes in this theory to let in an entire host of God or Gods.

 

[gnostic]

It seems to me that a lot of people are waking up as to what is really going on in this world behind the scenes.
People can be lulled into a false sense of security and tend to put their trust in the wrong people. Propaganda works for a while but then it dawns on people that things are not getting any better...in fact, they seem to always be getting worse. They start to look for answers and now, with simple internet searches, all sorts of possibilities can open up. Eyes are being opened like never before. We are now better informed than we have ever been. Its the sources of our information that make the difference. We can weigh up what sounds reasonable, from what is too far fetched....that is why we have an intellectual capacity.....hopefully it means that our decisions are well informed ones.

Orthodox medicine has been focused on very expensive drug related treatments for disease for decades with little in the way of advancement towards cures for anything, especially with regard to the treatment of cancer. This epidemic in our western world is largely related to a poorly operating immune system. What creates this problem? A bad diet, deficient in raw foods, essential fiber, vitamins and minerals, and constant exposure to many artificial additives in highly processed foods that are basically devoid of any real nutritional value. Add to that the toxic chemicals used in the growing of our food and in our environment, the carefully managed phobia about germs making pharma companies rich but resulting in a flood of allergic children with poorly developed immune systems....and you have a recipe for what we have now. Don't you think its time to wake up?

Drugs are designed to treat symptoms, not to cure disease. 'Symptom Management' is the optimal goal in medicine because it means that the present system can ensure that doctors and drug companies have customers for life. Big pharma needs doctors to prescribe their drugs so they carefully educate these doctors to see pharmacology as medicine.
But thankfully, some doctors are waking up and realizing that they are being used as nothing more than 'pimps' for big pharma. They have reached a point where they can't offer excuses to their patients any more. How can science know so much but still do so little? The answer is control. There are powerful forces at work in this world that most people have no idea about how they do business at the expense of patients. I believe the lid on this corruption is slowly being lifted....just as God said it would be before he brought it to its finish. He has served notice, just as he did in Noah's day....but at least we now have the means to reach a world-wide audience because "the end" will be another global event. (Matthew 24:14)

Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen but in among them are genuine ones that are swept under the carpet by those who trust the status quo to be trustworthy. I don't believe a world controlled by the devil can ever be trustworthy. (1 John 5:19) But that is just my opinion.

Do you believe in faith healing, like in the gospels with Jesus?

Have you seen actually working, healing just by touch of one's hand or by words, like "Sin no more" and people are cured of their diseases?

You talk about how little science have done for man, so what have the JW done for the people with incurable diseases? Did they cure them, and not just the symptoms? Or do they force people not to get treated by doctors or specialists?

As Jesus claimed to his disciples, anyone who believe and follow him, should have the power to heal people.

You have the Holy Spirit, don't you? Shouldn't you have the power to heal anyone?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Science "deals" in experiment and no experiment has ever shown that most change in species is gradual or the result of "unfit" or "maladaptive" individuals.

Science is not about "evidence" and that's where "evolution" went wrong.

You have enough holes in this theory to let in an entire host of God or Gods.

Where are these supposed holes in the theory of evolution? And you clearly have no understanding of the concept of evidence. Let's make a deal. You support your claim about "holes" and I will support my claim about evidence.

 

[gnostic]

No. Science "deals" in experiment and no experiment has ever shown that most change in species is gradual or the result of "unfit" or "maladaptive" individuals.

Science is not about "evidence" and that's where "evolution" went wrong.

You have enough holes in this theory to let in an entire host of God or Gods.

Experiment is just one mean of finding evidence, in a controlled environment, in the lab.

But not every scientific evidences can be done in the lab experiments. Some required to go out in the fields.

No, cladking. The only person is wrong about this, is you. You have a very narrow definition of what science can do.

Astronomers may be confined to observatory, but they used optical telescopes and radio telescope to study the planets, stars, galaxies. You cannot bring the star or planet into a laboratory to perform experiments.

Evidences, whether it be found outside of the lab or inside the lab as experiments, evidences are observation taken, to detect or observe, to measure, to quantify and to test.

 

[Deeje]

The progress from single to multi cellular is even easier to trace in plants than animals.

I can't imagine why...? This "progress from singular to multi-cellular" life is not addressing the more important question of where the singular cell came from.....? Which is the more important question in your estimation?

IF there is such a thing as an actually curious creo who
would like to understand the science it is not that hard to understand.

Is there any interest in understanding?

I understand perfectly...I just don't swallow it. Its "not that hard to understand" if you ignore all the more important questions. Like where did "life" originate? How does complexity in the form of a code that every organism follows to create an individual creature that is a copy of itself or its parents, need no programmer, since the code for any 'program' we use, of necessity needs a programmer.
What makes the cells follow their own code? How does a cell know how to make a foot or a finger? A nose or a leg?

How do all living things know that they must mate with their own "kind"?
How is there an ocean filled with millions of different varieties of fish who do not interbreed? Who programmed them to seek out only their own species for reproduction?

Recent research into stem cell therapy is revealing a monumental truth that has been hidden for decades.....these cells can repair human tissue better than anything else. Imagine if the big boys in the medical establishment allowed this knowledge and research to be widely available and affordable? No more joint replacements, stroke damage repaired quickly and easily. Accident victims being able to recover lost physical and mental abilities....remember Christopher Reeve was hanging out for that? He didn't get to even try it.

The scope for stem cell threapy is endless.....but out of reach for the average person. Locked away and hardly spoken about. And what is available is horribly expensive. Why? More money in orthodox treatments.

Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: 'Is curing patients a sustainable business model?'

I see the pro-forma and phony question "Do you have a proven mechanism by which amoebas can be transformed into creatures the size of a multi-story building? I would like to see that evidence."
That somehow does not look like sincere interest in understanding.

Why phony?
1-a person who is interested would not ask in a forum.
They might have even taken bio 101.

2- "Proven". Nothing in science is ever "proven".
So the q is seriously ignorant, and of course, tossing
"proven" in is a way to make sure nobody can give a qualifying answer.

3. last, "amoeba". Is that said in ignorance, or is it deliberate?

1- A person who is interested may have already done enough research outside of a forum in order to ask these questions in one....ever think of that?

2- If nothing in science is proven then nothing is provable. So why is it taught and presented as such to students, all of whom seem to believe that it is irrefutable fact? Ask the science students if they are taught that this is assumption and suggestions that they are being taught as truth? If its an unprovable theory, then say so....otherwise it is totally dishonest to teach it as fact when you can't prove it.

3- Technically not an amoeba but suffice it to say, it gets the illustration across.

Here is one reasonable explanation for why abiogenesis is still not any further advanced....

"The modern definition of abiogenesis, however, is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals, rather than the old Aristotelian concept of abiogenesis, which postulated the formation of fully-formed complex organisms by spontaneous generation. It becomes, then, the search for some kind of molecule (along the lines of RNA or DNA) that is simple enough that it can be made by physical processes on the young Earth, yet complicated enough that it can take charge of making more of itself, which is probably what most people would recognize as constituting “life”.

The first living things on Earth, single-celled micro-organisms or microbes lacking a cell nucleus or cell membrane known as prokaryotes, seem to have first appeared on Earth almost four billion years ago, just a few hundred million years after the formation of the Earth itself. By far the longest portion of the history of life on Earth, therefore, has involved the biochemical evolution of these single-celled micro-organisms, bacteria and archaea: we can find individual fossilized microbes in rocks 3.4 billion years old, yet we can only conclusively identify multi-celled fossils in rocks younger than 1 billion years.

It is presumed that, over a few hundred million years of evolution, pre-biotic molecules evolved into self-replicating molecules by natural selction. While some aspects of the subject are well understood, others remain clouded in mystery and are the source of much contention among scientists. Although much progress has been made, there is still no single definitive theory.

Life, for all its complexity, is woven out of just 30 or so different molecules, constructed from some of the most abundant elements in the universe: oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus. However, no one has yet succeeded in synthesizing a “protocell” using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (something which has been made much of by religious creationists and anti-evolutionists), although recent work work, such as that of Jack Szostak at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, may be about to change that."

Conclusion: The evidence seems to suggest that all life on Earth has developed from a single organism back in the mists of time, and perhaps even from one single common ancestral cell. Current thought suggest that the “last universal common ancestor” (the hypothetical latest living organism from which all organisms now living on Earth descend, or, in other words, the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth) is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago. However, the actual mechanism for its origination is still far from clear.
The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe

Shall we hold our breath waiting whilst scientists keep running down a track that always has a dead end?

 

[Deeje]

Here, you are using fear.

Superstition is based on ignorance and fear. Believing in some mythological being set out to punish people is what superstition is.

Would you know the difference between superstition and fact unless you had reason to find out the difference?
You have to choose who and what to believe.

If I was a good Christian sitting on my front porch reading my Bible, but knowing that you were traveling along a road that runs by my house that was washed out in a storm the night before, and around a blind corner there is a huge drop in to a deep ravine. If I went down onto the road and waved my arms and tried to tell you the road was out, but you just thought I was some kind of fear mongering kook, who would you blame if you drove into that ravine? Is there a difference between fear mongering and a genuine warning? Do emergency services personnel warn people of an impending disaster because they are fear mongers?

But what does god have to do with people finding factual answers as to why species change?

God gave us the intellectual capacity to acquire knowledge and to accumulate it, and build on it. How long has it taken the human race to develop enough knowledge to get to where they are now? Most of our knowledge has been gained in the last 100 years. Is it just a co-incidence that man has developed the means to wipe out all living things on the planet, just in those last 100 years?

Do you believe in faith healing, like in the gospels with Jesus?

Have you seen actually working, healing just by touch of one's hand or by words, like "Sin no more" and people are cured of their diseases?

I do believe that God has the ability to cure diseases and disabilities just as easily as Jesus did in the first century because the accounts of him doing so were recorded by eye witnesses. But they were performed only whilst Jesus and the apostles were still alive....they were a demonstration of what was to be achieved under the rulership of God's Kingdom in the future. We do not expect to see them today. Those practiced today are nothing like the cures performed by Jesus. They are either fake or a result of the placebo effect.

You talk about how little science have done for man, so what have the JW done for the people with incurable diseases? Did they cure them, and not just the symptoms? Or do they force people not to get treated by doctors or specialists?

I didn't say science had done little for man...what I said was for every good thing they have accomplished, there are probably more things that harm us. Toxic chemicals produced by scientists are killing us, flooding the earth and the sea....not to mention nuclear weapons.

We don't have to heal people physically...Jesus will do that when he returns, but we can help them to heal spiritually so that they have something to look forward to in the future. People in this world need hope of something better to come....our 'todays' are filled with so many problems, so at least there is a light at the end of that long dark tunnel.

As Jesus claimed to his disciples, anyone who believe and follow him, should have the power to heal people.

Which applied back then. All who were Jesus' disciples back in the first century, had only to use Jesus' name to facilitate a cure or to expel a demon spirit...or even to raise the dead. But the power was only ever used on unbelievers or in the presence of unbelievers to convince them of Jesus' role as Messiah.

You have the Holy Spirit, don't you? Shouldn't you have the power to heal anyone?

No, but the holy spirit is a guide in my life, always pointing me in the right direction. At no time when I have followed the Bible's advice was I ever disappointed in the outcome. That is the power of the holy spirit....it gives conviction, not uncertainty. God's promises for the future are backed up by his guarantee that they cannot fail. (Isaiah 55:1) Everything he has foretold so far has come true. We believe that we are well into "the time of the end" and only a few things remain to be seen. There is a reason why the world is heading in the direction it is...against all expectation as people grab hold of more and more "freedom" they will abuse it to the point where God will tolerate it no further. This is my firm conviction. (Matthew 24:36-39)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Deeje and @ecco:

And really, if scientists ever did create life, it would only be evidence that life needs an intelligent source to create it.

Plus, I’d be very interested in it’s ability to procreate.

 

[Deeje]

Every time a living thing reproduces, it grows from an inert collection of chemicals, to cells, to a collection of cells, to a full body. This is observed literally every time something reproduces.

Were you not aware of this?

how amazing!....An "inert collection of chemicals"...what an interesting way to describe the fact that these cells are produced by a living body that actually has to interact with the cells produce in another living body so that these cells can meet through the process of mating (for sexual reproduction) and form into a living being. Those cells, once joined, can then divide and produce all the body parts of whatever creature is programmed into the DNA of those cells. This is observed every time something reproduces....

To my way of thinking, its the process that leads to the production of the cells that is more important, because without them, there can be no mating, no joining...no dividing....no life.

Life didn't just materialize out of thin air.

 

[gnostic]

I do believe that God has the ability to cure diseases and disabilities just as easily as Jesus did in the first century because the accounts of him doing so were recorded by eye witnesses. But they were performed only whilst Jesus and the apostles were still alive....they were a demonstration of what was to be achieved under the rulership of God's Kingdom in the future.

Then basically you are relying on the hearsay of some disciples based on anonymous gospel authors, and you have no ways to certify and verify what they say about Jesus are true...other than faith, not evidences???

 

[gnostic]

God gave us the intellectual capacity to acquire knowledge and to accumulate it, and build on it. How long has it taken the human race to develop enough knowledge to get to where they are now? Most of our knowledge has been gained in the last 100 years. Is it just a co-incidence that man has developed the means to wipe out all living things on the planet, just in those last 100 years?

I didn't say science had done little for man...what I said was for every good thing they have accomplished, there are probably more things that harm us. Toxic chemicals produced by scientists are killing us, flooding the earth and the sea....not to mention nuclear weapons.

what does that have to do with evolution?

Evolution, whether it be mutation, genetic drift or natural selection, it is about genetics, passing inheritance genes and DNA. It explains biological changes, not the origin of life and not technology to make weapons.

It has absolutely nothing to do with making weapons and mass destruction of life.

You say it isn't about superstition and scare mongering, and yet that exactly what you are doing here.

 

[Deeje]

Then basically you are relying on the hearsay of some disciples based on anonymous gospel authors, and you have no ways to certify and verify what they say about Jesus are true...other than faith, not evidences???

You don't seem to realize that "evidence" in the scientific world is not proof....it is conjecture....it is presumed...it is suggested, but never proven. It requires faith to believe in something you cannot prove. To stand up and state that you require "evidence" for a Creator when you have it all around you....and then to state that you accept what science presents but which requires an equal amount of faith

...is illogical...isn't it?

 

[Deeje]

Evolution, whether it be mutation, genetic drift or natural selection, it is about genetics, passing inheritance genes and DNA. It explains biological changes, not the origin of life and not technology to make weapons.

"Evolution, whether it be mutation, genetic drift or natural selection, it is about genetics, passing inheritance genes and DNA. It explains biological changes".....yes it does but all science has to go on is adaptation...it is the only thing that has ever been observed.....the rest is suggested as a possibility with no way to verify or validate any of it. You have faith in something science cannot prove. Is my faith less valid than yours? I can see the Creator's handiwork with my own eyes....why can't you?

It has absolutely nothing to do with making weapons and mass destruction of life.

You seem to want to put science on some kind of pedestal.....the higher the pedestal the harder the fall.
Science is not the 'be all and end all' of everything....just sayin....it is as flawed as the men who write it.

You say it isn't about superstition and scare mongering, and yet that exactly what you are doing here.

Am I making you anxious? Is there some part of you that is afraid that the Bible is correct? If so, investigate it for yourself. See how it is a book about who we are, how we got here and what the past can tell us about the future.
I don't believe that you can pick up a Bible and just read it without the guidance of God's spirit. Have you ever asked him to guide you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

how amazing!....An "inert collection of chemicals"...what an interesting way to describe the fact that these cells are produced by a living body that actually has to interact with the cells produce in another living body so that these cells can meet through the process of mating (for sexual reproduction) and form into a living being. Those cells, once joined, can then divide and produce all the body parts of whatever creature is programmed into the DNA of those cells. This is observed every time something reproduces....

Were you unaware that everything the body produces, including sperm and ovum, are made by the body out of inert chemicals?

To my way of thinking, its the process that leads to the production of the cells that is more important, because without them, there can be no mating, no joining...no dividing....no life.

Life didn't just materialize out of thin air.

So you admit that it is possible for a full-sized organism to grow out of just a couple of cells over the course of a single lifetime. So why do you act with such incredulity at the idea of it happening over millions of years and countless generations?

 

[gnostic]

You seem to want to put science on some kind of pedestal.....the higher the pedestal the harder the fall.

I am not a biologist, and I am not putting any science on the pedestal, Deeje.

Far from it. I have only tried to understand any science, and only accept science that have solid evidences to back up.

For instance, I am not an astrophysicist, I have accepted the Big Bang theory, only on the basis that are some evidences that back up the theory, more so than any other physical cosmology.

I have not accepted other Cyclical Model (also known as Oscillating model or the Big Bounce, which is a series of Big Crunch and Big Bang), and I have not accepted the Multiverse model (there are couple of versions), because they are purely theoretically, MEANING both of them rely on PROOFs (complex equations), and not on testable empirical evidences.

Both Multiverse and Cyclical models are in the cosmology fields of theoretical physics.

Theoretical physics are only proposed solutions, that haven't been thoroughly tested and don't meet the requirements of Scientific Method.

May be they can never be tested, if that's the case, then they will be debunked or discarded, or worse still become pseudoscience rubbish like Intelligent Design.

A proposed solution are not accepted in Peer Review, so Cyclical Model and the Multiverse, may mathematical solutions, but there are no observable and verifiable evidences.

If I was to put science, then why haven't I elevated these two cosmologies, or Superstring theory or M-Theory?

I haven't because the lack of evidences. There are lots of proofs, but verifiable evidences.

So what you are saying putting science on pedestal is nothing more than straw man. Seriously, is that the best you can do?

As to Intelligent Design.

First off, Intelligent Design not only failed to meet the requirement of Scientific Method by formulating a testable hypothesis (HENCE, no verifiable evidences), it doesn't even the requirements of theoretical biology or theoretical cosmology (HENCE, no proofs).

There are no empirical or experimental solution to ID (because no evidences). And there are no mathematical solutions to the Intelligent Design.

Second, Intelligent Design is a religion (Creationism) masquerading as science. You can call the being God or Creator, or you can it the Designer; I see no different between them.

Science required empirical evidences, but you cannot detect the Designer, you cannot measure the Designer, and you can't test the Designer's existence.

There are no proof to the Designer as well. Can you formulate mathematical equations that prove the Designer?

No one have, not even disgraced biochemist Michael Behe, who wrote the pseudoscience Irreducible Complexity (IC). All Behe was able to do, is to deduce that life is too complex, therefore it required a Designer. That's not science; that is just useless philosophy that use circular reasoning.