Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Science declares plainly - there is no reason for our existence.
I have no problem with the Big Bang - it happened as far as I
can tell. And if it didn't happen then something of that nature
happened (emerged from a singularity etc..) And I am sure
there were processes going on behind the Big Bang - maybe
an infinite regression of steps, who knows.

But why? And how? Those two questions lie outside of
science. Science cannot, will not, answer them for this
reason. Don't put all your faith in science - like anything else
it has its limitations.

Where does it claim that? Please provide quotes and links. You appear to be misunderstanding sources at best.

 

[YoursTrue]

Certainly there ARE issues with science, ie the seven days.
I hold that these are likely to be theological language and symbolism.

"without form and void" for instance is pretty hard to understand. This
account has been passed down orally for a long time, and then put into
various written forms with lots of redaction (ie life is on land first, but
then the writer gives list of land animals - as if it was all at the same
time.)
But the earth, if you could have floated upon it, WAS without form and
void, meaning it was featureless, there being no landform.

If a person has a mound of clay that he has not put in any shape, it can be properly understood to be formless and void (of any creativity).

 

[PruePhillip]

If a person has a mound of clay that he has not put in any shape, it can be properly understood to be formless and void (of any creativity).

No, it says the EARTH was without form and void --- before any life.
So, scene 1 of the bible is a world that is dark, wet and sterile. There
is no land. I think this is the "without form" bit.

 

[PruePhillip]

Where does it claim that? Please provide quotes and links. You appear to be misunderstanding sources at best.

Uh, sources for what?
ANY scientist worth his or her salt will tell you there is no reason for us being here.
That's axiomatic to science. Natural processes have reasons but their reasons
involve OTHER natural processes. The FIRST EVENT had no process driving it.
It's "reason" had to with a creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uh, sources for what?
ANY scientist worth his or her salt will tell you there is no reason for us being here.
That's axiomatic to science. Natural processes have reasons but their reasons
involve OTHER natural processes. The FIRST EVENT had no process driving it.
It's "reason" had to with a creator.

If that is true then finding quotes and links should be no problem at all. To me it looks as if you did not understand what was said. That is why I asked for links.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it says the EARTH was without form and void --- before any life.
So, scene 1 of the bible is a world that is dark, wet and sterile. There
is no land. I think this is the "without form" bit.

So you are saying that Genesis was wrong. I am so glad we got that settled. And you keep forgetting, the early Earth was rather dry.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it says the EARTH was without form and void --- before any life.
So, scene 1 of the bible is a world that is dark, wet and sterile. There
is no land. I think this is the "without form" bit.

Yes, formless and void before life, that is correct. We probably look at it (the words and meanings) differently. I'm not sure what you mean when you say there was no land. Other planets like Mars have land, don't they?

 

[Tiberius]

and life came from the land (likely fresh water, or clay)

Gotta love it when "land" is interpreted as "Fresh water."

 

[YoursTrue]

Uh, sources for what?
ANY scientist worth his or her salt will tell you there is no reason for us being here.
That's axiomatic to science. Natural processes have reasons but their reasons
involve OTHER natural processes. The FIRST EVENT had no process driving it.
It's "reason" had to with a creator.

That is why I said blind chance for evolutionary changes, no purpose. Just happened, according to the prevailing theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it says the EARTH was without form and void --- before any life.
So, scene 1 of the bible is a world that is dark, wet and sterile. There
is no land. I think this is the "without form" bit.

The earth was there when it says that earth (like a lump of clay, in illustration) was there before the artist began working on it. I'm not sure why you seem to object to that point. Perhaps you mean something other than land with green grass, trees, oceans, etc. The moon has land. But it can be considered desolate, formless (yes, there apparently are hills and valleys), void of growing life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is why I said blind chance for evolutionary changes, no purpose. Just happened.

Why do you think that "purpose" is important? Lakes freeze, well in Minnesota they did when I grew up in the winter. There was no "purpose" to it. It rains, it snows, it hails, all to no "purpose".

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that "purpose" is important? Lakes freeze, well in Minnesota they did when I grew up in the winter. There was no "purpose" to it. It rains, it snows, it hails, all to no "purpose".

So then, what is the purpose of life in general? Not your life personally or anyone else's life, we know people can decide what is the purpose of their personal lives, but life in general. Is there any? Some people (don't know if they believe in God or not), like doing good things for others, maybe even something as small as smiling at someone they may meet in a store, because it makes them feel good. But as far as scientific analysis goes, what would you say is the purpose of life, as said to be by evolution? Is there any?
Remember my comment about the difference in animal life (apes, ants, antelopes, etc.) and human life. Humans pray, they usually don't want to die. Is that evolved into their psyche? I know you don't believe the Bible, but it is clear that Eve did not believe that she would die when she listened to the serpent (later described as the Devil) when he told her she would not die. He deceived her. Adam knew he would die, he ate the fruit anyway. But the real question is: if we humans evolved as a species or kind, how come so many don't want to die? Is that part of evolution, too?

 

[PruePhillip]

The earth was there when it says that earth (like a lump of clay, in illustration) was there before the artist began working on it. I'm not sure why you seem to object to that point. Perhaps you mean something other than land with green grass, trees, oceans, etc. The moon has land. But it can be considered desolate, formless (yes, there apparently are hills and valleys), void of growing life.

Getting mixed up here. The earth has been through many stages, including fire and ice.
But Genesis just gives you that one of the dark oceans. If you have been on that sterile
ocean, just paddling around, you would have a hard time figuring out where you were
because there was no landmark, and due to the dense cloud deck, no sun, moon or
starts to navigate.

 

[PruePhillip]

That is why I said blind chance for evolutionary changes, no purpose. Just happened, according to the prevailing theory.

Yes, science is about causes and reason for things. The First Big Act was done
without purpose and without reason. Come on, you believe that?

 

[PruePhillip]

Gotta love it when "land" is interpreted as "Fresh water."

Charles Darwin spoke of the "little warm pond" creating life.
Little warm ponds don't exist in the ocean - well, maybe they
do 'cos I do SCUBA and you get these warm patches of
water sometimes. But I digress. Ponds are on land. And
if it's not a pond then it's in the clay itself.

 

[PruePhillip]

So you are saying that Genesis was wrong. I am so glad we got that settled. And you keep forgetting, the early Earth was rather dry.

There were many stages in the early proto-earth. Genesis give you just one.
No fire or ice, no meteoric bombardment or rubble piles etc..
I presume when it says in verse 1 that God created the earth that most of
this was a part of this creation. And now verse 2 gives you a picture of what
the early earth was like, at one major point that people could understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There were many stages in the early proto-earth. Genesis give you just one.
No fire or ice, no meteoric bombardment or rubble piles etc..
I presume when it says in verse 1 that God created the earth that most of
this was a part of this creation. And now verse 2 gives you a picture of what
the early earth was like, at one major point that people could understand.

And back to cherry picking when shown to be wrong. Sorry, you do not get to only pick the hits and ignore the misses.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Yes, at one time both camels and llamas had a common ancestor, but the population was split, and each diverged over thousands of generations. The changes between generations are tiny. Only over many generations does a clear divergence occur. Like the divergence of French, Italian and Romanian from the original Latin population. At no point do parents and children speak different languages.
Therefore, to claim that the crossing of a Lama and Camel proves evolution, is as good as telling me crossing a horse and Donkey to get a mule or hinney is evidence of the internal combustion engine proving evolution.

I don't get your point. What does a machine have to do with evolution? You do realize that evolution is driven by reproduction with variation? Machines don't reproduce with variation.
Question: What's your take on ring species?
You clearly don't understand the mechanisms of evolution -- yet you have a strong opinion on the subject.

Selective breeding has produced different species, and, in nature, we have observed homogenous populations diverging into new species within living memory.
Are you not aware of this?[/QUOTE]
OK, so we have a camel and a lama crossing.
Where is evolution?
say crossing a camel and lama and getting a sheep.
They also must have had a common ancestor.
Have you ever crossed a caucasian with a gorilla?
You know they also had a common ancestor.

 

[SA Huguenot]

When the laws of nature make 2 H atoms bind with an O atom to form H2O, then this doesn't seem to need any commanding. Instead, it just happens as a result of physical properties and circumstances.

Here is your error.
You start off with "Make 2H atoms and bind them with an O atom!

Good!
I dare you to make 2 H atoms!

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so we have a camel and a lama crossing.
Where is evolution?
say crossing a camel and lama and getting a sheep.
They also must have had a common ancestor.
Have you ever crossed a caucasian with a gorilla?
You know they also had a common ancestor.

I am sorry but as I pointed out earlier you do not even have a high school, in fact not even a middle school, level of scientific literacy, at least when evolution is involved.

Why not try to learn first? I you did that you might find out why over 99% of biologists accept the theory of evolution.