Math, who has more faith than evolutionist?

[jasonwill2]

OK, well, since he isn't reading this...
Next time he makes a thread, let's go in and pretend to agree, just to mess with his head.

i like this idea!~

 

[crocusj]

I could cite a documentary about dragons and still be more accurate than Expelled.

Your analogy fails because buildings are not inherently self-replicating.

I live in a terrace. I'm with rusra02 on this one.

 

[rusra02]

The ToE doesn't deal with how life began, so why would we expect it to answer that question? The subject you're speaking of is called abiogenesis. The ToE still stands, no matter how the first life-form appeared, even if it was God, or aliens creating it.

No human has created gravity from scratch either. I do believe humanity will be able to create life, but it will probably take a while. Abiogenesis is a complicated subject that has yet to be studied enough.

I, and a majority of all biologists, agree that life would indeed exist even without a God. Evolution well explains why we have huge variety of life forms.


They would no longer be using scientific method, but they're allowed to have the opinions and still work in science. As long as they aren't biased and dishonest in their research. Many, if not a majority, of all scientists believe in God.

Building are built by man and we know this. There is nothing about animals that suggests design, and they're self-replicating (as mentioned by Gjallarhorn), which buildings are not. I don't look at the sun and say "oh, someone must have built that thing".

I am well aware of "abiogenesis", the parking place for evolution's unanswered question of where life came from. "Nothing about animals that suggests design?"
Really? The whole field of Biomimetics is simply studying the design features of living things, and then copying these. Many of man's inventions are copied from such living things. Scientists steal God's designs and then claim he didn't have the "patent" on what is stolen. (As you claim, "many...scientists believe in God." Do they believe God just exists but doesn't do anything or create anything?) I am reminded of Romans 1:18-23.
You don't look at the sun and say "Someone must have built that thing?" Really? The sun just happened? Are you sure you're not being blinded by the false light of man-made theories?

 

[Krok]

I am well aware of "abiogenesis", the parking place for evolution's unanswered question of where life came from. ....

Rusra02, why do you always have to tell untruths? You know that untruths don't really make you endearing to people who value the truth?

 

[idav]

I am well aware of "abiogenesis", the parking place for evolution's unanswered question of where life came from.

Chemical evolution is a different field than biological evolution. Do you complain in an orchestra when the winds don't know how to play brass?

 

[mycorrhiza]

I am well aware of "abiogenesis", the parking place for evolution's unanswered question of where life came from. "Nothing about animals that suggests design?"
Really? The whole field of Biomimetics is simply studying the design features of living things, and then copying these. Many of man's inventions are copied from such living things. Scientists steal God's designs and then claim he didn't have the "patent" on what is stolen. (As you claim, "many...scientists believe in God." Do they believe God just exists but doesn't do anything or create anything?) I am reminded of Romans 1:18-23.
You don't look at the sun and say "Someone must have built that thing?" Really? The sun just happened? Are you sure you're not being blinded by the false light of man-made theories?

You don't need to explain the whole Universe to study it's living parts. Evolution does not depend on whether or not the first life-form was created. It simply deals with the "progress" and diversity that the evolution of this organism resulted in. Evolution doesn't stand or fall on the first living being on Earth being created or not as it has very little to do with the subject.

That we mimic naturally occurring patterns in our designs does in no way imply that the original patterns were designed.

They do believe in God. The characteristics of which are quite individual. Some scientists believe that God guided evolution, or at least oversaw it. Many of the religious scientists believe that God created the first life form, or designed the Universe so that life would occur. Ain't that more impressive, than snapping once's fingers to create everything as is?

The sun didn't just happen. It was a logical process following the laws of the Universe. Things don't "just happen" in science. If they just did, there could be no explanation for them. Science studies not just "what", but also "why".

 

[rusra02]

Rusra02, why do you always have to tell untruths? You know that untruths don't really make you endearing to people who value the truth?

I believe that speaking the truth doesn't endear one to people who do not value the truth. Those who search for truth will find it, despite the efforts of those who hate the truth. As the often quoted words of Jesus Christ affirm: "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)

​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe that speaking the truth doesn't endear one to people who do not value the truth. Those who search for truth will find it, despite the efforts of those who hate the truth. As the often quoted words of Jesus Christ affirm: "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)

​

Do you think that we were unable to speak intelligently about the motion of the planets until we learned how the solar system is created? Would someone have been justified in saying "yes, Galileo, I see that your observations contradict the Ptolemaic model, but until you tell me how the universe came to be, I'm justified in believing it anyhow?"

Do you have to explain where God came from before we take creationism seriously?

If the answers to these questions are "no", then why do you insist on this double standard for evolution?

 

[fantome profane]

I believe that speaking the truth doesn't endear one to people who do not value the truth.

So this is why you lie!? To endear yourself to your creationist friends?!

 

[rusra02]

So this is why you lie!? To endear yourself to your creationist friends?!

What did I say that you claim is a lie?

 

[idav]

I believe that speaking the truth doesn't endear one to people who do not value the truth. Those who search for truth will find it, despite the efforts of those who hate the truth. As the often quoted words of Jesus Christ affirm: "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)

​

People like the truth. Most the people who like truth don't like people mistaking mythology for literal truth. The truth does set you free but at the same time the truth isn't always what we want to hear.

 

[rusra02]

Do you think that we were unable to speak intelligently about the motion of the planets until we learned how the solar system is created? Would someone have been justified in saying "yes, Galileo, I see that your observations contradict the Ptolemaic model, but until you tell me how the universe came to be, I'm justified in believing it anyhow?"

Do you have to explain where God came from before we take creationism seriously?

If the answers to these questions are "no", then why do you insist on this double standard for evolution?

The bedrock upon which the ToE rests is that life evolved from a single-cell entity. The question of how life started seems very pertinent to me. The Bible explains where life comes from. (Psalm 36:9) It also explains that God had no beginning nor will ever have an end. According to the New Century Version of the Bible: "You have always been and you will always be." (Psalm 90:2) So dodging the question of how life began by calling it abiogenesis is simply an admission that evolution has no credible foundation. Not a double standard at all, in my opinion.

​

​

 

[idav]

The bedrock upon which the ToE rests is that life evolved from a single-cell entity. The question of how life started seems very pertinent to me. The Bible explains where life comes from. (Psalm 36:9) It also explains that God had no beginning nor will ever have an end. According to the New Century Version of the Bible: "You have always been and you will always be." (Psalm 90:2) So dodging the question of how life began by calling it abiogenesis is simply an admission that evolution has no credible foundation. Not a double standard at all, in my opinion.

​

​

It is a different type of science. Biological evolution has to do with reproduction of already living entities. There is a theory using chemical evolution that proposes that life arose through chemical evolution, non-life to life. The bible doesn't explain how life arose it just says god did it, well how did he do it.

 

[dust1n]

The bedrock upon which the ToE rests is that life evolved from a single-cell entity.

Test Tube Yeast Evolve Multicellularity: Scientific American

Next...

 

[rusra02]

It is a different type of science. Biological evolution has to do with reproduction of already living entities. There is a theory using chemical evolution that proposes that life arose through chemical evolution, non-life to life. The bible doesn't explain how life arose it just says god did it, well how did he do it.

Psalm 104:24 states: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions." We should not expect the Bible to give step-by-step descriptions of how God created living things. The Bible is not a biology textbook.
Further, It would be like explaining advanced algebra to a 2 year old. Nor is it necessary that we be given complete knowledge. As Ecclesiastes 3:11 says: "Mankind may never find out the work that the true God has made from the start to the finish."

​

​

 

[idav]

Psalm 104:24 states: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions." We should not expect the Bible to give step-by-step descriptions of how God created living things. The Bible is not a biology textbook.
Further, It would be like explaining advanced algebra to a 2 year old. Nor is it necessary that we be given complete knowledge. As Ecclesiastes 3:11 says: "Mankind may never find out the work that the true God has made from the start to the finish."

​

​

I don't expect the bible to be a science book just like I don't expect all the science to be experts on each others fields. Scientists have gone a long way in explaining things that should be impossible to know despite our childlike mindsets. It is easy to believe evolution because seeing is believing and as far as we can tell fully formed animals don't just pop out of nowhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The bedrock upon which the ToE rests is that life evolved from a single-cell entity. The question of how life started seems very pertinent to me.

Can you not see how this is a red herring? It's like saying we can't talk about nutrition without talking about agriculture. The theory of evolution describes how life will grow and vary once it exists. It doesn't describe how it comes into existence in the first place.

The Bible explains where life comes from. (Psalm 36:9)

"For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light."

This explains nothing.

It also explains that God had no beginning nor will ever have an end. According to the New Century Version of the Bible: "You have always been and you will always be." (Psalm 90:2) So dodging the question of how life began by calling it abiogenesis is simply an admission that evolution has no credible foundation. Not a double standard at all, in my opinion.

"By dodging the question of how food is grown by calling it agriculture is simply an admission that the science of nutrition has no credible foundation."

Does this statement make sense to you? If it doesn't, then you ARE engaging in a double standard.

You said that you were concerned with truth. The truth is not contradictory. Your position is contradictory; therefore we can conclude that it is not true.

 

[tumbleweed41]

... The Bible is not a biology textbook....

Exactly

 

[painted wolf]

Psalm 104:24 states: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions." We should not expect the Bible to give step-by-step descriptions of how God created living things. The Bible is not a biology textbook*.
Further, It would be like explaining advanced algebra to a 2 year old. Nor is it necessary that we be given complete knowledge. As Ecclesiastes 3:11 says: "Mankind may never find out the work that the true God has made from the start to the finish."

Then please stop pretending that it is.

wa:do

*emphasis mine

 

[camanintx]

The bedrock upon which the ToE rests is that life evolved from a single-cell entity. The question of how life started seems very pertinent to me.

And the bedrock upon which creationism rests is that God created life so why don't you prove God exists first.

The Bible explains where life comes from. (Psalm 36:9) It also explains that God had no beginning nor will ever have an end. According to the New Century Version of the Bible: "You have always been and you will always be." (Psalm 90:2) So dodging the question of how life began by calling it abiogenesis is simply an admission that evolution has no credible foundation. Not a double standard at all, in my opinion.

According to the Bible, seeded plants and fruits came before animals when we know that just the opposite occurred. Not a very credible foundation.