Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

Miracles are belief in the supernatural, like believing in magic.

There are no evidence to support such miracles, certainly not a complete human being be created from soil (Genesis 2), or water turning into wine (John 2).

These types of miracles, completely unrealistic and unnatural, and it would only be possible if you actually believe in any supernatural.

There are many different types of rocks, but the earliest rocks would have been made of molten silicate that cool down and hardened into igneous rocks. These rocks can over time, break down piece by wind, rain (water) and acidity of the air or water, pieces or as minerals, known as deposits of sediments (the weathering process), that over time, being buried under tonnes of more sediment, the pressures and heat would harden these sediments into sedimentary rocks.

There are no miracles in how rocks form, if you can understand how igneous rocks form or how sedimentary rocks form.

No rocks were ever form from "nothing". That you think that's what science say, then you are being ignorant.

How the planet, like the Earth would form, would be more complex, and take longer for me to explain, but one for certain, it didn't come from "nothing".

The question is why you bring up "nothing" in your post? Why do you assume rock have to form from a miracle?

The Bible or any other religious scriptures cannot teach you anything in science, and these so-called miracles that you believe in, would be no better than any creation myth or any fairytale.

If you have learn anything about geology before in school or at university level, then that's what you would need to read up, instead of being mired in Genesis myth.

Btw, the "evidence of nothing" is oxymoron.

Evidence is something that can be observed or detected, something that can be measured, or to learn about it physical properties.

Nothing cannot be evidence, as nothing require there be no observation at all, nor can it be measured.

Nothing is the complete opposite of evidence. Hence, it is oxymoron, like a married bachelor.

You really are absurd. Evidence of nothing?!!! LOL What other new absurdity will you think of next? Clearly you weren't thinking rationally.

If I read about a miracle, that's one thing. I have not seen what I might read about for myself. But the term miracle is not always defined as something supernatural. Nevertheless , words can be misleading. Plus scientists themselves do not really know how life began on this earth or anywhere else. They can try to figure but so far have not been able to go beyond test tube experimentation and imagination in their query to figure how life might have begun on the earth. They still don't know. Supernatural, miracle or not.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not an answer. That is just a quote to an article that you did not understand. Articles that you did not understand do not help you.

Bye for now...you clearly aren't willing to believe and understand as well as admit what the science is saying. Have a nice day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Description is evidence.

Can be evidence. One needs a rational argument that it supports. And we do not have those here far too often.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bye for now...you clearly aren't willing to believe and understand as well as admit what the science is saying. Have a nice day.

That is not true at all. As I just said to Dan to even have evidence one has to have a rational argument first. If you could present one then you might have something. Unfortunately your failures tend to be fractal in nature.

 

[Dimi95]

That is an example of a "personal testimony" and it literally says "they believe it is a miracle".

Correct

No proper research done. No attempts at all at properly documenting it. No attempts at all at investigating.

Correct , but when you open a coffin that is 5y in the ground you expect to see something else , or in this case , a body in really bad condition.That is what you and me will expect , as any other normal human being.

At the moment when he was buried there were many people there and also his physician, so most probably directly asking the source will be the best for answer.

We see from the article that they also expected(as we would expect in this case) and were prepared to see all the awfull things they were told about the body that was going to be transfered after 5y in the ground.

So when i look the expactations , i can also assume that they never planned any investigation in the first place , since they never expected any miracle.

After noticing it , there comes a bigger problem when one tries to do a study , because the Church does not allow such things and everybody knows that.And even if the church allowed it , nobody untill now has shown any desire to ask the families for that.And that's only if the Church allows it , and that is pretty hard based on the things i know.It doesn't matter if it is true or not , Church does not allow such things.

Maybe someone did some things , but it is hard since we have never found any evidence to say that.In some cases you see clearly that nobody did nothing.
Historians cosult these things with coleages in other fields of Science.
Untill now , there have been many plausible explenations about many things , but we lack the evidence to even say something for or against these things when miracles come up.

As i said the point of all this is that these things somehow happen in religious surroundings , and are happening tooo often and they don't stop.
We cannot simply say "We don't know" or "They are true" or "They are fraud' or it is just a circumstance.
We tell what we know and that's it.

These are certain things happening to certain people in certain places with certain objects(sometimes yes , sometimes not) and that is a fact , and not a matter of opinion.

And most of all, no methodology whatsoever to confirm any "miraculous" or "supernatural" things.

I hope in good faith that you will understand the point that i was trying to make with the given answer.

Instead, only the bare claim "they believe it is a miracle" based on nothing more then "we expected something else".

Everybody expects to see something else , not just us.

As usual, confirmation bias coupled with an argument from ignorance. "we don't know why we didn't see what we expected to see, therefor miracle".

Actually this is the second time that you are doing the incredulity and instead of just wait a second and hold your breath and understand what i am trying to explain here , you are just making fallacies relevant in such form of discussions.

It does not matter , i enjoyed talking with you and i am glad that you pointed on some technical mistakes that i did because i was sloapy.
As one member said here , we are not trying to sell you a sermon of Christianity , we just want to talk about different fields of Science and share knowledge with you guys.

That's all , thank you.

 

[Jimmy]

It tells you that someone doesn't want to play a meaningless game to reinforce the unspecified belief of someone who has no apparent argument. It seems your belief can only be sustained by beating on the beliefs of others and trying to marginalize them. Is that really a loving expression of Christianity? Is that sincere belief? Too many seem to think that is. I find that sad.

But that seems to be what you are telling me. And I have personally experienced that very thing on this forum from others. I certainly can see why others that appear to operate that exact same way would agree with you.

I believe that Christ taught love of God, others, oneself and even of the world we live with. But the message I am getting doesn't seem to have much love in it. Rather it seems to be about inflating the personal and petty ego of those that have to employ such tactics. In good Christian conscience, I couldn't council anyone to take that path or take what I see as abuse from others that are on it themselves. But experience tells me it won't stop. Doesn't mean I am compelled to feed into it.

You have made your position clear to me. I don't know of anything else there is for us to discuss. You have a wonderful day.

I’m not Christian. Thanks for not sharing.

 

[Jimmy]

It tells you that someone doesn't want to play a meaningless game to reinforce the unspecified belief of someone who has no apparent argument. It seems your belief can only be sustained by beating on the beliefs of others and trying to marginalize them. Is that really a loving expression of Christianity? Is that sincere belief? Too many seem to think that is. I find that sad.

But that seems to be what you are telling me. And I have personally experienced that very thing on this forum from others. I certainly can see why others that appear to operate that exact same way would agree with you.

I believe that Christ taught love of God, others, oneself and even of the world we live with. But the message I am getting doesn't seem to have much love in it. Rather it seems to be about inflating the personal and petty ego of those that have to employ such tactics. In good Christian conscience, I couldn't council anyone to take that path or take what I see as abuse from others that are on it themselves. But experience tells me it won't stop. Doesn't mean I am compelled to feed into it.

You have made your position clear to me. I don't know of anything else there is for us to discuss. You have a wonderful day.

Not tryin to be difficult. Just sayin all of existence is a wondrous miracle.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not true at all. As I just said to Dan to even have evidence one has to have a rational argument first. If you could present one then you might have something. Unfortunately your failures tend to be fractal in nature.

Scientists proclaim that no human knows how life began. And articles show that the miller urey experiment is associated by with abiogenesis. Argue away...

 

[gnostic]

Scientists proclaim that no human knows how life began. And articles show that the miller urey experiment is associated by with abiogenesis. Argue away...

Abiogenesis is still active hypothesis, still being researched.

The focus is on the “how”, not the “why”.

Miller-Urey experiment on the origin of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, which have many functions, as it is required for reproduction to occur or to produce energy to sustain growth and sustaining life. Joan Oró’s experiment have managed to produce adenine, a nucleobase molecule, one of 4 molecules required for a nucleotide in RNA or DNA.

Meteorites, like Murchison & Allende, have many types of organic molecules & compounds, show that these can survive in space.

The question is why, you would these researches should halt, because they don’t agree with your religious belief or agenda?

 

[Jimmy]

Abiogenesis is still active hypothesis, still being researched.

The focus is on the “how”, not the “why”.

Miller-Urey experiment on the origin of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, which have many functions, as it is required for reproduction to occur or to produce energy to sustain growth and sustaining life. Joan Oró’s experiment have managed to produce adenine, a nucleobase molecule, one of 4 molecules required for a nucleotide in RNA or DNA.

Meteorites, like Murchison & Allende, have many types of organic molecules & compounds, show that these can survive in space.

The question is why, you would these researches should halt, because they don’t agree with your religious belief or agenda?

I googled points against AbioGenesis and this popped up

 

[YoursTrue]

Abiogenesis is still active hypothesis, still being researched.

Do you really think scientists will find the answer? How can they possibly emulate the early beginnings of the earth?

The focus is on the “how”, not the “why”.

Miller-Urey experiment on the origin of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, which have many functions, as it is required for reproduction to occur or to produce energy to sustain growth and sustaining life. Joan Oró’s experiment have managed to produce adenine, a nucleobase molecule, one of 4 molecules required for a nucleotide in RNA or DNA.

Meteorites, like Murchison & Allende, have many types of organic molecules & compounds, show that these can survive in space.

The question is why, you would these researches should halt, because they don’t agree with your religious belief or agenda?

Not saying they should halt. (I don't control scientists, I have my own problems.) But I wonder what might be a useful reason other than man's curiosity to think they could reproduce it.

 

[gnostic]

View attachment 97695
I googled points against AbioGenesis and this popped up

so basically, you are saying that scientists shouldn’t seek answer, shouldn’t have understanding of nature, that we should be as ignorant as people in the past, still believing in primitive superstitions and in magic?

Like believing in that dust magically transformed into a fully grown human, like in Genesis, or human created from clay like in the Qur’an?

You want us to be backward, ignorant, superstitious, as the people wrote these silly nonsensical and unrealistic woo?

The problem with anti-science people, like the creationists, is that science must have ALL THE ANSWERS, so if scientists don’t know everything, then we should adopt religion that claimed “God did it”.

What they shouldn’t do, is they shouldn’t stop learning, shouldn’t stop discovering, even when they don’t have all the answers.

Science, is accumulative knowledge, we learn more, and if science is wrong, then we seek alternative answers, to correct what were incorrect.

While Abiogenesis still have some works to do, it is still steps in the right direction, and not going back to the stupidity of “God did it” superstitions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 97695
I googled points against AbioGenesis and this popped up

If you Google extremely silly questions you will get an extremely silly answer.

An honest person would have Googled "What is the scientific evidence for abiogenesis". That is a rather unbiased question. . . . Nope, even that does not work. The internet appears to be fifty years out of date. A search actually said that the Miller Urey experiment was the chief evidence and that is nowhere near the truth. This on the other hand is a very informative article. Read it and feel free to ask me questions about it:

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know - PMC

The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Pogo]

Scientists proclaim that no human knows how life began. And articles show that the miller urey experiment is associated by with abiogenesis. Argue away...

What is to argue with? Your total misunderstanding of science? Two things can be true at the same time. ex. We have nails and the house is not yet built.

 

[Pogo]

View attachment 97695
I googled points against AbioGenesis and this popped up

Yup, you found the list of creationist stupid complaints. Artificial intelligence doesn't actually mean it is intelligent, it just repeats the most common answers it finds. Heck it isn't even smart enough to recognize that the correct term is hypothesis in the first sentence and doesn't get any better from there.

 

[gnostic]

Yup, you found the list of creationist stupid complaints. Artificial intelligence doesn't actually mean it is intelligent, it just repeats the most common answers it finds. Heck it isn't even smart enough to recognize that the correct term is hypothesis in the first sentence and doesn't get any better from there.

It just absolutely funny & horrifying at the same time, just how creationists often used the entropy & Thermodynamics arguments, all without actually understanding the subject they are using.

They just loved misusing science, that you don’t need to supply them with hammer and nail, as they will always smashed their own thumbs.

 

[LuisDantas]

A few suggestions. Thanks to ChatGPT.

For creationists who may be open to learning more about biology and evolution, there are free courses that approach these topics in a scientific context, while maintaining a respectful and objective tone. Here are a few recommendations:

1. **"Evolution for Educators" (Coursera)**
Aimed at teachers but suitable for anyone, this course explains the principles of evolution. It is designed to help learners grasp evolutionary theory while respecting diverse viewpoints. Coursera allows free access to the course content, although certification requires payment.

Evolution: A Course for Educators

Offered by American Museum of Natural History. How are all of the species living on Earth today related? How does understanding evolutionary ... Enroll for free.

www.coursera.org

2. **"Understanding Evolution" (UC Berkeley)**
This free, self-paced course from Berkeley offers a clear, science-based introduction to evolutionary biology. The course explains basic concepts like natural selection and genetic variation, which can help bridge understanding for those with differing viewpoints.

Evolution 101

evolution.berkeley.edu

3. **"Biology: The Science of Life" (OpenLearn by The Open University)**
This free course offers an overview of biological concepts, including evolution, in a way that's approachable for those who may not fully accept evolutionary theory. It is also respectful of different belief systems and presents scientific evidence clearly.

4. **"The Nature of Science" (edX)**
This course delves into the scientific method and how scientists approach questions of origins, including evolutionary biology. It provides a broad perspective on how science interacts with other worldviews.

These courses offer a balanced and non-confrontational way to explore evolutionary science, which may be helpful for those coming from a creationist background.

Unfortunately, I failed to find useful links for the last two.

 

[YoursTrue]

Humans have always being born, not created from the ground.

That's humans being created from soil like clay or silt, as implied by Genesis creation myth, was adapted from much older Babylonian-Assyrian religion or that of Egyptian religion. The Genesis as texts, didn't exist prior to the 6th century BCE, where as those of Egyptian and Mesopotamian predated Genesis by 2000 years.

But it doesn't matter when the Genesis creation originated, it is scientifically and naturalistically WRONG.

Silicon-based mineral, cannot turn into carbon-based biological compounds, like proteins, lipids or nucleic acids (eg RNA or DNA) that formed important parts of every living cells. You simply don't understand science, not the biology, and certainly not the chemistry.

It is possible everything comes from the "ground."

 

[YoursTrue]

A few suggestions. Thanks to ChatGPT.

For creationists who may be open to learning more about biology and evolution, there are free courses that approach these topics in a scientific context, while maintaining a respectful and objective tone. Here are a few recommendations:

1. **"Evolution for Educators" (Coursera)**
Aimed at teachers but suitable for anyone, this course explains the principles of evolution. It is designed to help learners grasp evolutionary theory while respecting diverse viewpoints. Coursera allows free access to the course content, although certification requires payment.

Evolution: A Course for Educators

Offered by American Museum of Natural History. How are all of the species living on Earth today related? How does understanding evolutionary ... Enroll for free.

www.coursera.org

2. **"Understanding Evolution" (UC Berkeley)**
This free, self-paced course from Berkeley offers a clear, science-based introduction to evolutionary biology. The course explains basic concepts like natural selection and genetic variation, which can help bridge understanding for those with differing viewpoints.

Evolution 101

evolution.berkeley.edu

3. **"Biology: The Science of Life" (OpenLearn by The Open University)**
This free course offers an overview of biological concepts, including evolution, in a way that's approachable for those who may not fully accept evolutionary theory. It is also respectful of different belief systems and presents scientific evidence clearly.

4. **"The Nature of Science" (edX)**
This course delves into the scientific method and how scientists approach questions of origins, including evolutionary biology. It provides a broad perspective on how science interacts with other worldviews.

These courses offer a balanced and non-confrontational way to explore evolutionary science, which may be helpful for those coming from a creationist background.

Unfortunately, I failed to find useful links for the last two.

Unless I must such as taking necessary courses for school, I will only look at a website explaining evolution if I can ask questions of the person directing me to the website about what the website says regarding evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Jimmy From what I have learned from this particular website is that there are those who profess to believe in God but will not say why.