The creator did it.

[ecco]

So the listen to professors, intellectuals with PhD's who give this kind of answer;
Life's Great Mystery: What, Exactly, Is Life?
"We don't have a very good definition of life," said researcher Christopher Voigt of the University of California, San Francisco, who works on synthetic biology. "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at what point we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, it just becomes way too murky." So therefore, you'll get answers from his fans that mirror his thoughts like the rainbow of colors above. Now Chris Voigt is a really smart guy! But when you have lost your absolute standard concerning this subject of life, you'll get goofy answers like this...........Life's Great Mystery: What, Exactly, Is Life? "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at what point we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, it just becomes way too murky." That's it? And we are criticized by those who say "Creationists tend to be afraid to take that step, which is why there is no evidence for their claims, there is only hand waving at best." You see, this is what I'm talking about, this makes no sense whatsoever!

Scientific view: Things are very complex. Life is not black or white. Knowledge requires effort.

Religious view: Simpliticism -> GodDidIt

 

[Rapture Era]

please ask them again.

So are you telling you cant read the questions in red I asked in post # 338? Or is that you cannot answer without "quote" function?

 

[ecco]

They say they want evidence and when you give it to them, ...

Evidence for ID: Every flower is evidence of God's greatness.

Yawn...

 

[Rapture Era]

If you deny the sciences and believe a book of myths you are denying reality. What you should be asking is how scientists know what they know.

The difference is, I know where science can go and where it cant go. The scientific "method" should be what true science should adhere to. When you start making claims that the scientific method cannot corroborate, you have now stepped outside of science and you are now dabbling in philosophy not science.
You also make a false statement that the Bible is a book of myths. This further shows your intellectual dishonesty. As I mentioned to "He has Risen". You are not interested in carrying on a meaningful dialog about these things, you just want to throw out accusations you know nothing about. Thats fine, your purpose is obvious.

 

[Rapture Era]

Evidence for ID: Every flower is evidence of God's greatness.

Yawn...

And you making these comments further cements your purpose as well. Just unbelievable!

 

[Rapture Era]

The same offer goes to you. I will clearly answer any properly asked question. If you screw up a bit I will stop try to answer it, with a slight correction. There is no reliable evidence for your beliefs. There are mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution.

What are the "mountains" of evidence? Remember, you must start at how the supposed common ancestor came about before you can go forward. Also, by using the scientific method, where, or by whom did the information come from to advance any cellular organism upward into viable life and reproduction?
These are properly asked and logical questions. How do you respond?

 

[Polymath257]

What are the "mountains" of evidence? Remember, you must start at how the supposed common ancestor came about before you can go forward.

Why is that required? We did not need to know how planets formed before investigating the dynamics of their orbits. We did not need to know how stars are formed to investigate their properties. So why would we need to know what the first life was like to understand how later life changed over time?

Also, by using the scientific method, where, or by whom did the information come from to advance any cellular organism upward into viable life and reproduction?

Again, irrelevant to evolution, which is how life changes over time.

These are properly asked and logical questions. How do you respond?

Abiogenesis is an interesting field of investigation, but isn't required to investigate evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The difference is, I know where science can go and where it cant go. The scientific "method" should be what true science should adhere to. When you start making claims that the scientific method cannot corroborate, you have now stepped outside of science and you are now dabbling in philosophy not science.
You also make a false statement that the Bible is a book of myths. This further shows your intellectual dishonesty. As I mentioned to "He has Risen". You are not interested in carrying on a meaningful dialog about these things, you just want to throw out accusations you know nothing about. Thats fine, your purpose is obvious.

Sorry, you clearly do not "know" that. What you have is belief based upon ignorance and religion. And yes, like it or not the Bible is a book of myths. We know that Genesis is extremely mythical. No Adam and Eve, no magic flood, no Tower of Babel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are the "mountains" of evidence? Remember, you must start at how the supposed common ancestor came about before you can go forward. Also, by using the scientific method, where, or by whom did the information come from to advance any cellular organism upward into viable life and reproduction?
These are properly asked and logical questions. How do you respond?

I can see that you do not understand the concept of evidence. That is common among creationists. Scientist are human too and they also have had a tendency to say "that's not evidence" when they saw something that they did not like or agree with. To get rid of this prejudice a clear definition of what evidence is has been developed. Scientific evidence is simple an observation that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis.

And no, as @Polymath257 explained your questions are not properly asked. You made an incorrect assumption and based your question about that. We do not need to have an example of the common ancestor to have evidence for it.

 

[Rapture Era]

Why is that required? We did not need to know how planets formed before investigating the dynamics of their orbits. We did not need to know how stars are formed to investigate their properties. So why would we need to know what the first life was like to understand how later life changed over time?
Again, irrelevant to evolution, which is how life changes over time.
Abiogenesis is an interesting field of investigation, but isn't required to investigate evolution.

This is exactly my point! It would seem rational and logical to want to know if life began in an evolutionary manner and investigate it scientifically to understand with any confidence that what you are believing is actually true that's why!
Like I've said before, if evolution is true, we should find evidence of it's inception in the pre-Cambrian and the Cambrian fossil fields all over the globe. Are we finding this evidence? NO!
What are we finding? Evidence of mature body types fully formed just as you would expect from a one day event of supernatural creation! This isn't difficult
But how would we even know about a supernatural creation if the creator did not choose to tell us? Answer: We wouldn't! So the question is: Did he? Yes he did, and that is the Genesis account. That is how he chose to tell us, where we came from, what our purpose is and what our destiny is. As I listen to all of you anti-theists, you all sound exactly like what Dennis Prager and Ravi Zacharias describes. Take a look, it's only 10min. Fast forward on the video time line to 39.15 to 49.15.

 

[Rapture Era]

Sorry, you clearly do not "know" that. What you have is belief based upon ignorance and religion. And yes, like it or not the Bible is a book of myths. We know that Genesis is extremely mythical. No Adam and Eve, no magic flood, no Tower of Babel.

And you know this as fact how?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you know this as fact how?

Because concepts can be tested. Tell me, does your version of God tell lies?

 

[Remté]

You can blame someone, but why would you? But I never understood how people say they "conclude" there is a creator. It's not a logical thing. Is it? What did the creator do?

 

[ecco]

I heard it put this way "If evolution has happened, it is a very great miracle by which only God can do."

Where did you hear that, at a meeting of BioLogos?

I hope science keeps an open mind to other theories such as ID.

Science has an open mind toward everything. It is more than willing to examine every new idea. For example, it looked at Behe's Irreducible Complexity and found there is nothing irreducible in the flagellum or the human eye. But you cannot expect science, or any group of rational people, to look at the same Creationist proposals over and over and over. That's not having an open mind, that would be an example of lunacy.

 

[ecco]

And you making these comments further cements your purpose as well. Just unbelievable!

Just what do you believe my purpose is?

 

[Polymath257]

This is exactly my point! It would seem rational and logical to want to know if life began in an evolutionary manner and investigate it scientifically to understand with any confidence that what you are believing is actually true that's why!
Like I've said before, if evolution is true, we should find evidence of it's inception in the pre-Cambrian and the Cambrian fossil fields all over the globe. Are we finding this evidence? NO!
What are we finding? Evidence of mature body types fully formed just as you would expect from a one day event of supernatural creation! This isn't difficult

What do you mean by 'mature body types'? We *do* expect such to be found in Pre-cambrian fossils because we expect ''mature body types' to be selected for survival.

But, what we also expect (and actually see) is *primitive* body types and body types that are *different* than modern ones.

We know a fair amount about pre-Cambrian fauna and there is a large variety of forms that subsequently went extinct. This is precisely what we expect to see given evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just what do you believe my purpose is?

Some day you might learn:

 

[Polymath257]

This is exactly my point! It would seem rational and logical to want to know if life began in an evolutionary manner and investigate it scientifically to understand with any confidence that what you are believing is actually true that's why!
Like I've said before, if evolution is true, we should find evidence of it's inception in the pre-Cambrian and the Cambrian fossil fields all over the globe. Are we finding this evidence? NO!
What are we finding? Evidence of mature body types fully formed just as you would expect from a one day event of supernatural creation! This isn't difficult
But how would we even know about a supernatural creation if the creator did not choose to tell us? Answer: We wouldn't! So the question is: Did he? Yes he did, and that is the Genesis account. That is how he chose to tell us, where we came from, what our purpose is and what our destiny is. As I listen to all of you anti-theists, you all sound exactly like what Dennis Prager and Ravi Zacharias describes. Take a look, it's only 10min. Fast forward on the video time line to 39.15 to 49.15.

Well, that was a waste of 10 minutes. Full of the standard misrepresentations, appeals to false authorities, and simply false statements that I have come to expect from certain groups of promoters of religious doctrines.

let me ask you this: do earthworms have a 'mature body type'? How about planaria? how about clams? Sponges? Jellyfish?

What we actually see int he fossil record is *simpler*, but fully functional 'body types' that increase in complexity over time. For example, we don't see any vertebrates in pre-Cambrian rocks. We don't see any actual fish. We *do* see various types of bilaterally symmetric, but relatively simple body types. And, as we go back further, the types of bodies we see get simpler.

But, again, this is NOT when abiogenesis is supposed to have occurred. The late pre-Cambrian was about 750 million years ago and the first life was closer to 3.8 billion years ago. That is a difference of over 3 billion years! That's four times as much time as the duration since the pre-Cambrian!

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is exactly my point! It would seem rational and logical to want to know if life began in an evolutionary manner and investigate it scientifically to understand with any confidence that what you are believing is actually true that's why!

The origins of the universe are a different field of study from evolution. You don't demand answers about cosmology from people who study germ theory, do you? Same thing here.

Like I've said before, if evolution is true, we should find evidence of it's inception in the pre-Cambrian and the Cambrian fossil fields all over the globe. Are we finding this evidence? NO!
What are we finding? Evidence of mature body types fully formed just as you would expect from a one day event of supernatural creation! This isn't difficult

That's actually not what we find. That's just an old creationist canard that for some reason you guys try to rehash over and over again.

And of course we find "fully formed" creatures. People who understand evolution don't expect to find anything else.

But how would we even know about a supernatural creation if the creator did not choose to tell us? Answer: We wouldn't! So the question is: Did he? Yes he did, and that is the Genesis account. That is how he chose to tell us, where we came from, what our purpose is and what our destiny is. As I listen to all of you anti-theists, you all sound exactly like what Dennis Prager and Ravi Zacharias describes. Take a look, it's only 10min. Fast forward on the video time line to 39.15 to 49.15.

Okay, so there's the claim. Where is the evidence?

 

[He has Risen!]

And you know this as fact how?

Wow Rapture man they are really coming out in force against what you posted. I am a YEC as well, I also believe the bible to be without error in regards to the originals. But I also believe the copies of the bible we have today are trustworthy copies of the original. As far as the YEC view we seem to share, I would say that they have avoided your initial inquiry as to biogenesis (Conceptually, biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction. That is, life does not spontaneously arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation...taken from GOOGLE) and my request for them to show what laws of science show how information can be increased, not rearranged as they try to show...sounds like a Lawrence Krauss redefinition of nothing. Entropy is science, and that is what is observable.

from GOOGLE
1. Physics
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

• 2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.