Why I believe God Created Life.

[Leftimies]

I do not believe scientists will ever be able to create life from non-living matter.
If they do, would it not prove an intelligent mind is needed to create such life?
Bill Gates of Microsoft fame is reported to have said:"“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
Any computer program requires an intelligent mind. How much more so the programming of life itself requires an intelligent Designer or Programmer. I believe it is as Psalm 100:3 states:"Know that Jehovah is God. He is the one who made us, and we belong to him."

Mmm, I do recall someone saying that the chance of a Boeing 747 assembling itself when the parts are thrown around in factory by a hurricane is greater than life event taking place. Sounds a bit atrocious and a stretch for me, but who knows? It was an expert making that metaphor.

 

[starless]

The terrible illnesses mankind suffers began when Adam rebelled against his Creator. Cut off from the Source of life, Adam could pass on to his offspring only the defective mind and body he now possessed.

Not really. All life on Earth, including viruses and bacteria had already existed since Day 5, according to your book, right?
Then how did HIV come about? The virus can only affect human organisms and humans were designed on the next day? Was Adam created HIV positive?

And to what end had God designed HIV, Ebola and the parasitic worms in the first place? He must have programmed the worms to burrow through children's eyes before the Fall and before humans were even created.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Mmm, I do recall someone saying that the chance of a Boeing 747 assembling itself when the parts are thrown around in factory by a hurricane is greater than life event taking place. Sounds a bit atrocious and a stretch for me, but who knows? It was an expert making that metaphor.

As is typical with such statements, this one is purposefully misrepresenting the analogy. Pieces of metal that make up a plane have no ability to bind together to create anything. It is not what pieces of metal can do. One can tornado all you want and all you will ever have is crunched up metal.

The building blocks of life do have the ability to bind together, and do lots of other interesting things as well. This in and of itself does not prove it was how living organisms developed. Only that it is possible it could have happened this way.

You have to be careful with creationist metaphors, as they usually are attempting to pull the wool over your eyes with false analogies like the 747 one.

 

[Scimitar]

I put a strawberry and an apple together...

...nothing happened.

I'm suing Darwin

 

[Leftimies]

As is typical with such statements, this one is purposefully misrepresenting the analogy. Pieces of metal that make up a plane have no ability to bind together to create anything. It is not what pieces of metal can do. One can tornado all you want and all you will ever have is crunched up metal.

The building blocks of life do have the ability to bind together, and do lots of other interesting things as well. This in and of itself does not prove it was how living organisms developed. Only that it is possible it could have happened this way.

You have to be careful with creationist metaphors, as they usually are attempting to pull the wool over your eyes with false analogies like the 747 one.

Yeah I take it with a pinch of salt, as I said it sounds atrocious to me. Furthermore, I think it was originally the likelihood of "life emergence event + sustained progressive evolution + coming of sentient, intelligent life" that was likened to 747 assembly, not emergence of life alone.

Today we know that even dust and plasma when merged in space can form phenomena which, while inorganic, most closely resembles what we know as life. So given that such formations are not exclusive to organic materials, the likelihood of life in space is probably rather high.

 

[work in progress]

I do not believe, as you stated, that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. The Bible does not say that it was created 6,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago. It simply says " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) Science has confirmed the universe had a beginning.

Nor does the Bible teach us to believe without evidence. Real faith is defined in the Scriptures as "the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration [or, convincing evidence] of realities that are not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) Thus, true faith is based on evidence, I believe, not on credulity and ignorance. Much of what is claimed as science is, IMO, blindly accepted without question by many simply based on unsubstantiated theory and conjecture. All the while, these people accuse others of doing what they themselves practice.

At best, you are making the case for Old Earth creationism...which, if you are going to insist on individual creation events and no common ancestor of life on Earth, leaves you with tearing up all of the genetic DNA research that shows how the genomes of each animal today correlates with their branching off from common origins.

Francis Collins (who somehow resolves his religious beliefs with science) has stated that:'there would be conclusive evidence for evolution by natural selection even if no fossil had ever been discovered,' because of these genomic relationships of living creatures today.

On other subjects mentioned elsewhere, if you demand treating Biblical stories like The Flood, and gathering all of the animals into an Ark, you have to ignore&twist science into knots, to come up with a story treating the universal flood as history.

 

[Scimitar]

Sorry work in progress, but Science is still a young pup.

You are the one claiming neo darwinist theories as absolute truth.

Takes faith doesnt it?

 

[Bunyip]

Sorry work in progress, but Science is still a young pup.

You are the one claiming neo darwinist theories as absolute truth.

Takes faith doesnt it?

You seem pretty confused. Scientific theories are explanations - not 'absolute truths', and they are dranw entirely from the evidence and so accepting the demands no faith whatsoever.

 

[Sir Doom]

You seem pretty confused. Scientific theories are explanations - not 'absolute truths', and they are dranw entirely from the evidence and so accepting the demands no faith whatsoever.

Aside from the obvious, right? Faith in the senses, cognitive reasoning, things like that?

 

[Bunyip]

Aside from the obvious, right? Faith in the senses, cognitive reasoning, things like that?

No, in the context of religion 'faith' means belief without evidence.

 

[Sir Doom]

No, in the context of religion 'faith' means belief without evidence.

I see, so it is faith, just not the dirty dirty theistic faith that you are so scared to be compared with?

 

[Bunyip]

I see, so it is faith, just not the dirty dirty theistic faith that you are so scared to be compared with?

I can only imagine that you are trying to invent some sort of pretext for an argument, but can't think of anything remotely clever to say.

Look up the definitions of faith in a dictionary, the definition for 'faith' in the context of religion is the sort of faith that is not needed to accept scientific theories.

 

[Scimitar]

You seem pretty confused. Scientific theories are explanations - not 'absolute truths', and they are dranw entirely from the evidence and so accepting the demands no faith whatsoever.

I'm not confused. Your layman interpretation of "theory" is confusing somewhat though

Let me spell it out for you me lad.

There is absolutely no undisputable proof that ToE is for real, or that this universe was the causation ad infinitum.

Evolutionists, neo Darwinists all conjecture that thru the very little information they have amassed thru scientific enquiry - that they somehow have enough evidence to make it a belief... that itself is NOT scientific.

A true scientist, staves off making a belief for something until it has proven itself.

Circumstantial evidence is not Undisputed evidence.

The scientific inquiry yeilded results in relation to The Big Bang Theory which does not conflict with the Quran - the Quran mentions it over 1435 years ago, and today we are like "what? that old book?"

That old book, is a book given by God, to us human beings - a book of signs.

Another lame argument I hear from evolutionists is that the Quran is not a scientific book - duh. Ofcourse it isn't - its a book of guidance, from God to humanity. In it, God reveals things to us in a language that was fit for its time - miraculously, that language still survives today. So the message is timeless in context. Further - and you must understand this - the study of science in 600AD Arabia was non existent - so scientific terms would be alien to Arabs of that time frame, and thus God Almighty explains creation in a way that is fit for those who are to receive it... I mean what good would the word(s) such as DeoxyriboNucleic Acid be in the Quran to a people who have no idea of what it means for at least another thousand years???? ????? This is why the question itself is so dumb, I have to do loads of these for those who ask them.

Bottom line is, it takes faith to believe in neo darwinism, or evolution, or whatever it is you believe. Coz nothing has been proven, and it won't be - until its too late for most of us.

Your conviction forms the basis of your faith, your faith rests on at least some logic which is borrowed from your conviction - which also harbours a bias btw... this is the same for us all. I;m no different, neither is Mr T, nor the atheist who is quietly reading this thread.

Scimitar

 

[Sir Doom]

I can only imagine that you are trying to invent some sort of pretext for an argument, but can't think of anything remotely clever to say.

What I'm doing is exploring your unreasonable aversion to using certain words in reference to science. Its fascinating, this phobia you have.

Look up the definitions of faith in a dictionary, the definition for 'faith' in the context of religion is the sort of faith that is not needed to accept scientific theories.

So this, and your previous comment both elude to there being another definition of faith that isn't in reference to religion. Is there? And if so, is it correctly applied to science in the way that I applied it? If not, why not?

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not confused. Your layman interpretation of "theory" is confusing somewhat though

Let me spell it out for you me lad.

The confusion is on your part I'm afraid. I am well aware of the meaning of 'theory' in the context of science. It is an explanation of the facts.

There is absolutely no undisputable proof that ToE is for real, or that this universe was the causation ad infinitum.

False, there is absolutely indisputable proof that the ToE is for real. It is a real scientific theory, the evidence that it is a real scientific theory is abundant and indisputable.

You then seem to either confuse cosmology for biology, or simply depart on a tangent by adding the phrase; 'or that this universe was the causation ad infinitum.'

Well the origin of the universe has no connection to evolution, other than that your comment about the universe is illegible.

Evolutionists, neo Darwinists all conjecture that thru the very little information they have amassed thru scientific enquiry - that they somehow have enough evidence to make it a belief... that itself is NOT scientific.

You are mistaken, the ToE is entirely drawn from evidence of which there is a staggeringly vast body. You again repeat the same misconceptionof belief, theories are not beliefs.

The ToE is drawn from a vast body of information and evidence, not very little.

A true scientist, staves off making a belief for something until it has proven itself.

Once again you are confused. Theories are not beliefs, and they are never proven.

Circumstantial evidence is not Undisputed evidence.

So what? Theories are never proven, they are not proofs.

The scientific inquiry yeilded results in relation to The Big Bang Theory which does not conflict with the Quran - the Quran mentions it over 1435 years ago, and today we are like "what? that old book?"

That old book, is a book given by God, to us human beings - a book of signs.

No, the Quran makes no mentionwhatsoever of the big bang theory, just some very, very vague and poetic phrases that bear a passing similarity.

Another lame argument I hear from evolutionists is that the Quran is not a scientific book - duh. Ofcourse it isn't - its a book of guidance, from God to humanity. In it, God reveals things to us in a language that was fit for its time - miraculously, that language still survives today. So the message is timeless in context. Further - and you must understand this - the study of science in 600AD Arabia was non existent - so scientific terms would be alien to Arabs of that time frame, and thus God Almighty explains creation in a way that is fit for those who are to receive it... I mean what good word the word(s) such as DeoxyriboNucleic Acid in the Quran to a people who have no idea of what it means for at least another thousand years???? ????? This is why the question itself is so dumb, I have to do loads of these for those who ask them.

You are straying far off topic.

Bottom line is, it takes faith to believe in neo darwinism, or evolution, or whatever it is you believe. Coz nothing has been proven, and it won't be - until its too late for most of us.

Scimitar

No, not at all. Accepting the findings of science demands zero faith - science is evidential.
Theories are explanations, not proofs.

 

[Bunyip]

What I'm doing is exploring your unreasonable aversion to using certain words in reference to science. Its fascinating, this phobia you have.



So this, and your previous comment both elude to there being another definition of faith that isn't in reference to religion. Is there? And if so, is it correctly applied to science in the way that I applied it? If not, why not?

Not interested.

 

[Scimitar]

Accepting the findings of science demands zero faith - science is evidential.
Theories are explanations, not proofs.

After all that Bunny, you made my point for me?

If you believe in evolution - while its a theory - and not proven, takes faith. Your sicentific "evidences" are open to "interpretation" and "conjecture theorising" so there you would trip yourself up with the "No faith" part.

So again, you would be wrong.

Split hairs again please this game of cat chase dog tail - dog chase cat tail is kinda fun.

As for your claims about Quran not mentioning the creation of the universe - are you rrealllyyyyy sooooo ignorant?

Want me to copy paste the ayaat (verses) complete with Exegetes for non Arab speaking peoples? You'd think twice before disputing with me again. Just giving you a chance here to reconcile your stance and motives,

best

 

[Bunyip]

After all that Bunny, you made my point for me?

If you believe in evolution - while its a theory - and not proven, takes faith. Your sicentific "evidences" are open to "interpretation" and "conjecture theorising" so there you would trip yourself up with the "No faith" part.

You seem to be having grave difficulty with the terms here.

Evolution is not theory, it is a fact.

The ToE explains the fact of evolution.

Evolution is an observable fact, no faith is required in order to accept a fact as a fact.

The ToE is how the facts are explained. Not a proof, theories are never proven.

Split hairs again please this game of cat chase dog tail - dog chase cat tail is kinda fun.

As for your claims about Quran not mentioning the creation of the universe - are you rrealllyyyyy sooooo ignorant?

No offence my friend, but I have read the Quran many times - whilst you are calling me ignorant in an exchange throughout which you clearly do not know what the basic concepts mean.

Want me to copy paste the ayaat (verses) complete with Exegetes for non Arab speaking peoples? You'd think twice before disputing with me again. Just giving you a chance here to reconcile your stance and motives,

best

Sure, I am familiar with those verses. As I said, they are vague, poetic and require a great deal of imagination to cantilever into some sort of semblance ofthe big bang. There is no remarkable scientific knowledge in the Quran. As you say - it is not a science book.

 

[Sir Doom]

Not interested.

Well, that's too bad ain't it?

I suppose I'll just wrap it up then. People have faith in science due to their reliance on fallible senses and a fallible ability to interpret those senses. Science is built on a few basic principles that MUST be taken on faith, as well. The predictability of the universe, the adherence to natural laws, etc.

I completely and utterly reject your definition of faith, as there is no person on this planet that exhibits faith in that way about anything at all. Not religious faith. Not faith in your fellow humans. Not faith in science. None of these things lacks evidence. Therefore none of these types of faith fit the definition you've given. There is no faith of that kind anywhere in this entire world.

 

[Scimitar]

You seem to be having grave difficulty with the terms here.

Evolution is not theory, it is a fact.

The Fact of Evolution - tried googling it - all that came up was "The Theory of Evolution"... even the abbrev. is ToE, not FoE.

try again.

It is not a fact - it only explains some evidences which are "circumstantial" and not "undisputed".... heck, the debates are still hot topics in the Oxford Union - tell me - where do you get off claiming that evolution is a fact, when even the professors (whose job it is to profess these truths) cannot make such a claim themselves?????

Seriously, your mind is twisting itself.