Why I believe God Created Life.

[Mycroft]

The quotes are sourced in the publication cited, and it is available online.

I have a question. Have you actually read Darwin's main title 'On the Origin of Species'?

 

[Scimitar]

proteins, isomers and peptide bonds... the mathematical fallacy of ToE

[youtube]aP8zn91FXuQ[/youtube]

to think, to try and wrap my head around the illogical faith proponents of ToE place in such a theory is beyond my field of comprehension, and I place it into the loony bin.

 

[Parsimony]

Fact: DNA is packaged within the chromosomes in a manner so efficient that it has been called a “feat of engineering.”

Question: How could such order and organization arise by undirected chance events?

Natural selection is not "undirected". You do realize that, right?

 

[shawn001]

I do not think it pointless to examine the evidence for how and why we live. To the contrary, I consider these questions to be of paramount importance.

Then why do you know so little about it all. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC FACT and a working scientific theory.

ALL OF BIOLOGY IS BASED ON IT!!!

In 150 years of and its only gained more evidence.

The Human DNA genenome proves a comment decent from bacteria and viruses. You might also want to find better resources then the JW website and articles from 1999.

I know you didn't look at the entire Smithsonian human orgins program and the information there.

"I consider these questions to be of paramount importance"

If you do why don't you learn about it and the earth?

 

[Parsimony]

rusra02, how old do you believe the Earth to be and why?

 

[Ouroboros]

proteins, isomers and peptide bonds... the mathematical fallacy of ToE

Without even watching the videos, I know they must be wrong.

Many experiments have shown that building blocks for life can be formed naturally. Not only that, but amino acids have been found in space, of more kinds than we have here on Earth.

to think, to try and wrap my head around the illogical faith proponents of ToE place in such a theory is beyond my field of comprehension, and I place it into the loony bin.

I disagree.

I took classes in biological anthropology and we went over the evidence. The evidence is very clear cut and in much larger amount than the religious claims. To me, evolution is as real as gravity, but also, I see Nature as God. The totality of all that exists is the power beyond ourselves. We're not in the position to question how life arose. We only need to study and observe it and learn how Nature does it.

Sorry, but "You know nothing, Jon Snow."

 

[Parsimony]

Without even watching the videos, I know they must be wrong.

Many experiments have shown that building blocks for life can be formed naturally. Not only that, but amino acids have been found in space, of more kinds than we have here on Earth.

The video was basically a calculation of the probability of a protein 150 amino acids in length forming randomly. Of course, nowhere does evolution posit that such a fully-formed protein popped out of a prebiotic soup, so the basic assumptions are wrong from the beginning. Also, it's just a stab at abiogenesis. Life did come into existence somehow. Whether it was via abiogenesis or via divine intervention doesn't change that fact. Since life does exist then evolution can act on it.

 

[Scimitar]

Without even watching the videos, I know they must be wrong.

Many experiments have shown that building blocks for life can be formed naturally.

Prove it.

 

[Scimitar]

I have a question. Have you actually read Darwin's main title 'On the Origin of Species'?

Yes, I have. It has vast undertones of racism and imperial breeding being the best of natural selection etc... and that the white race is the superior race - these undertones make this book subjectively racist and a work of loose fiction posing as science... even darwin himself said that the theory was unlikely in his opinion, near the end of the book.

 

[McBell]

Yes, I have. It has vast undertones of racism and imperial breeding being the best of natural selection etc... and that the white race is the superior race - these undertones make this book subjectively racist and a work of loose fiction posing as science... even darwin himself said that the theory was unlikely in his opinion, near the end of the book.

So, you read Darwin's book and this is all you got from it?

Wow.

 

[Scimitar]

those are the points that stick out most. let me re-iterate

1) darwin thought his own theory was nonsensical and highly unlikely
2) he was a racist bigot

dare to prove me wrong?

 

[McBell]

those are the points that stick out most. let me re-iterate

1) darwin thought his own theory was nonsensical and highly unlikely
2) he was a racist bigot

dare to prove me wrong?

So, you read Darwin's book and this is all you got from it?

Wow.

 

[LuisDantas]

You realize Darwin could hardly avoid the finding out of evolution if he wanted to, I hope.

 

[Ouroboros]

The video was basically a calculation of the probability of a protein 150 amino acids in length forming randomly. Of course, nowhere does evolution posit that such a fully-formed protein popped out of a prebiotic soup, so the basic assumptions are wrong from the beginning. Also, it's just a stab at abiogenesis. Life did come into existence somehow. Whether it was via abiogenesis or via divine intervention doesn't change that fact. Since life does exist then evolution can act on it.

Exactly.

The theory of evolution is about how life changes. Even if proteins were created by some god, we do know that biological evolution is true.

 

[Ouroboros]

Prove it.

Search and you will find.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, I have. It has vast undertones of racism and imperial breeding being the best of natural selection etc... and that the white race is the superior race - these undertones make this book subjectively racist and a work of loose fiction posing as science... even darwin himself said that the theory was unlikely in his opinion, near the end of the book.

Uhm...

I don't recall he ever suggested that the white race is superior. Do you have the reference to that?

His book contained his findings and evidence for evolution so it was not fiction.

He didn't say his theory was unlikely either. Do you have a quote about that? Is that the one about the eye? He explained how it worked and how it could have evolved. It was a comment like this: "I know how it might seem implausible, but ..." That's not a statement that means that I think it is implausible but rather that it would be easily taken as implausible by the reader.

 

[Ouroboros]

So, you read Darwin's book and this is all you got from it?

Wow.

I'm not sure which version that was in...

I must've missed the part of superiority of the white race.

 

[Ouroboros]

those are the points that stick out most. let me re-iterate

1) darwin thought his own theory was nonsensical and highly unlikely
2) he was a racist bigot

dare to prove me wrong?

Oh, I know. You're referring to the "Descent of Man" not "Origin of Species."

Origin of species talks about evolution in general and is the first book. That one goes through the evidence for evolution as such better. Descent of man, well, he was before his time and probably wasn't great on being politically correct.

Evolution has been proven over and over again. The fossil record is extensive. There are hundreds of thousands of fossils. There is all the geological data. The physics behind dating. Genetics showing mutations. Observed and documented mutated virus, bacteria, humans, animals, plants, ... And even computer systems developed based on evolutionary theory. There are products even (like an highly efficient antenna) developed by the same principles. There's no question about it, evolution is real.

It's easier to accept that God used evolution to create life than to try to fight against the obvious facts. To me, it sounds like a struggle of faith. Why can't God have used evolution? Is it only because a 2,500 year old story written by a sheep herder must be true while 200 years of science by millions of scientists isn't? Why?

(Sorry, strike the "sheep herder" thing. I just got to know in another forum that's inappropriate to call the authors of the holy books "iron age sheep herders." So let's call them something else. Maybe "iron age religious elite" is better?)

A question that I've had for quite some time is, how did Moses (if we assume he was the author to Genesis) receive the information? How did he get the knowledge how the world was created? I might start another thread to get that answered. I'm curious.

 

[Scimitar]

Evolution has not been proven - there is absolutely no real evidence - only theory.

So puhleaze - don't wax nonsense.

If it was a fact - it would be called the fact of Evolution - so why is it still a theory? because it remains unproven - DUH

As for you thnking I am a proponent of the 24hour day of creation theory lol, no I'm not. The context provide clear evidence that the YOM in genesis refers to extended periods of time akin to an age - and not a day.

Let's not forget that in Genesis, God created the 2 lights (the sun and moon) which would have set the 24 hour clock - so how long were the first three days? and was the fourth day only 24 hours? NO. It was only 24 hours on earth... Look, I'm serious about study, I've put in the time, and i've done the research, and understood it contextually - yet what I find here is that people are ready to ask questions to people they dont know on the web - and when the answers are given, the questioner wants an argument from the point of authority? Hypocritical here isn't it?

So next time you reply to my post, be aware that I am aware.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Evolution has not been proven - there is absolutely no real evidence - only theory.

So puhleaze - don't wax nonsense.

If it was a fact - it would be called the fact of Evolution - so why is it still a theory? because it remains unproven - DUH

As for you thnking I am a proponent of the 24hour day of creation theory lol, no I'm not. The context provide clear evidence that the YOM in genesis refers to extended periods of time akin to an age - and not a day.

Let's not forget that in Genesis, God created the 2 lights (the sun and moon) which would have set the 24 hour clock - so how long were the first three days? and was the fourth day only 24 hours? NO. It was only 24 hours on earth... Look, I'm serious about study, I've put in the time, and i've done the research, and understood it contextually - yet what I find here is that people are ready to ask questions to people they dont know on the web - and when the answers are given, the questioner wants an argument from the point of authority? Hypocritical here isn't it?

So next time you reply to my post, be aware that I am aware.

Evolution has been proven which is why it is a theory. In science a theory is a construct that is based from evidence. What you are referring to is a hypothesis. What you said earlier is actually entirely disingenuous and nonintellectual considering that the evidence for evolution is DNA.

If you deny evolution you deny DNA and the building blocks for life along with almost all medicine. The Evolutionary Theory remains a theory because it is the highest standard for a fact. No evidence points anywhere else but towards evolution. How do you think we share the same genes with Chimpanzees and 98% at that. We are also capable of tracing parent genes to determine common descent.

You essentially do not understand science, evolution nor what factual information actually is.