Why I believe God Created Life.

[rusra02]

The two glaring misconceptions there just jeed to be cleared up to totally demolish your argument;

1. Evolution does not attampt to explain the origins of life.
2. Evolution and abiogenesis are not random chance processes anyway.

1. That is because it cannot explain the origin of life, IMO. It is a theory floating in air, with no foundation.

2. OK, so to what do these theories attribute all the complex molecular machines, the amazing design patterns evident in living creatures, and the millions of plant and animal species that fill the earth? To what?

 

[rusra02]

I think organic life is much more complex than the microscope reveals. Chaos does not give birth to order, generally. A random dead entropic universe wouldn't make precise complex structures.

Exactly.

 

[dannerz]

Also if jesus wanted people healed why didn't he teach them about sanitation and medical sciences? Teach a man to fish, compared to giving a man a fish.

 

[rusra02]

Also if jesus wanted people healed why didn't he teach them about sanitation and medical sciences? Teach a man to fish, compared to giving a man a fish.

Actually, the Law of Moses was far ahead of it's time in teaching God's people sanitation practices, such as frequent washing (Exodus 19:10), disposal of human waste (Deuteronomy 23:13), and quarantine of infectious disease (Leviticus 13). Jesus practiced these Laws. His teachings, however, focused on God's promise of everlasting life, and how to attain it. (John 6:27, 17:3) Thus, the benefits of Christ teachings bring permanent health and life, IMO, not simply a little longer life before death claims us. (John 3:16)

 

[metis]

Jesus appears to have spent significantly more time teaching about how we should help the poor and downtrodden than about heaven.

 

[Parsimony]

1. That is because it cannot explain the origin of life, IMO. It is a theory floating in air, with no foundation.

The theory of evolution doesn't have to explain the origins of life anymore than the theory of gravity does. Life did come into existence somehow. That much is not up for debate. Once life exists, evolution can act on it. Let's look at the general creationist claim:

"Evolution depends on the existence of life. Therefore, evolution must explain the origin of life in order to be a valid theory."

Reduced to its general form, it goes:

"X depends on the existence of Y. Therefore, X must explain the origin of Y in order to be a valid theory."

Apply this to other fields and it becomes apparent how flawed this reasoning is:

"Gravity depends on the existence of space-time. Therefore, gravity must explain the origin of space-time in order to be a valid theory."
"Electromagnetism depends on the existence of electric charge. Therefore, electromagnetism must explain the origin of electric charge in order to be a valid theory."
"Aerodynamics depends on the existence of air. Therefore, aerodynamics must explain the origin of air in order to be a valid theory."
"Germ theory depends on the existence of germs. Therefore, germ theory must explain the origin of germs in order to be a valid theory."

 

[Ouroboros]

...
"Gravity depends on the existence of space-time. Therefore, gravity must explain the origin of space-time in order to be a valid theory."
...

And Rusra02 must explain every detail about how English language came about and where it came from and know every grammatical rule and spelling of every word, or what he's saying is all wrong.

 

[viole]

Anyone can read my posts in this topic and see that evidence has been presented that indicates a Source of surpassing intelligence and power created life, and that life did not arise by an endless series of happy accidents. Such evidence has convinced scientists that life could not arise or develop by undirected natural forces, as it has millions of others. These are facts you should know, Outhouse. So, IMO,your claim that this "thread has been a prime example of avoiding reason and knowledge" really applies to those who deny the evidence for an intelligent Designer; evidence found in all living things.

Well, the scientists might have missed the memo since they are actively looking for a naturalistic explanation of life's start.

For what concerns your argument from an endless series of happy accidents: what makes you think they are happy? Arbitrarily calling them "happy" begs the question by putting life and ourselves on an unwarranted pedestal.

I am observing a piece of dirt. The chain of events that caused that piece of dirt to appear with that form and shape in front of me is mind boggling. It could be that the Universe is fine tuned for that particular piece of dirt. Change slightly the constants of nature, and all the events that led to that piece of dirt, and we should realize that it must be the product of a supreme intelligence that loves dirt.

Oh, but maybe these are not "happy" coincidences. But how do you know? Maybe for the dirt loving creator they would be absolutely happy, and that is why He created them instead of waiting for their happy occurrence. For Him life might be just a useless side effect that arose from setting the parameters of the Universe to guarantee the genesis of dirt.

So, how do you decide that "happy" is a valid qualifier for our existence and not for dirt without begging the question or being anthropocentric?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Many Jews did accept Jesus as the Messiah in the first century. The many miracles Jesus performed and the wisdom of his teaching convinced them that Jesus is the true Messiah. As to why the majority of mankind, including Jews, do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, it is not for lack of evidence, IMO. Some persons have not had the opportunity to examine the evidence for themselves. Others reject the evidence because of fear of what others will say or do, because the truth is unpopular. (John 9:22) Many of the religious leaders in Jesus day were eyewitnesses to Jesus miracles, but refused to accept him because of their selfish concern for their own position. As Jesus told Nicodemus: “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. For God did not send his Son into the world for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him. Whoever exercises faith in him is not to be judged. Whoever does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. Now this is the basis for judgment: that the light has come into the world, but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. *For whoever practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, so that his works may not be reproved. *But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that his works may be made manifest as having been done in harmony with God.”

Yeah, but aren't you worried by the statistical distribution? We should expect a uniform distribution of people who are not concerned by their selfish motivations.

For some reason people born in Alabama are mainly Christian while people born in Israel or Japan are not. Are Japanese more selfish than southerners? Do you think that race and culture drive selfishness or isn't that maybe more probable that we inherit the beliefs of our culture without asking questions?

Why am I so good in guessing the religion of someone's parents or culture when I only know the religion she belongs to. Am I psychic?

The rest of your post are self fulfilling prophecies. It is obvious that if I start a new religion I will make sure to write in the holy book that whomever does not buy it prefers darkness. The same with the prophecy that believers of that particular brand of God will be mocked and scoffed: write absurdities and the prophecy will be surely fulfilled, hopefully

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

You ask good, thoughtful questions. As to Jehovah's reasons for choosing Israel, Jehovah explains at Deuteronomy 7:7-9: “It was not because you were the most numerous of all the peoples that Jehovah showed affection for you and chose you, for you were the smallest of all the peoples. *Rather, it was because of Jehovah’s love for you and because he kept the oath that he had sworn to your forefathers that Jehovah brought you out with a mighty hand, to redeem you from the house of slavery, from the power of Phar′aoh king of Egypt. *You well know that Jehovah your God is the true God, the faithful God, keeping his covenant and loyal love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments." In selecting one nation, I believe Jehovah purposed to demonstrate his qualities and dealings to all mankind, and to fulfill his promise to Abraham to bless all nations: " And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves." (Genesis 22:18)

Yes, but you just use as proof only the book that has been written by the same elected people. I hope you indulge me if I do not find it convincing.

If I wrote a holy book I would probably make sure that the main subject loves me and my people. And justifies my indiscriminate killing of the competition, including women, children and pets.

Don't you think there is a more rational explanation? I mean, we are talking of the creator of the whole Universe, the galaxies, life, earth, quantum mechanics, snow, the Ebola virus, etc. Etc. Why was He so obsessed with a middle eastern tribe?

Do you have independent evidence outside the authors of the Bible (jews)?

Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

The theory of evolution doesn't have to explain the origins of life anymore than the theory of gravity does. Life did come into existence somehow. That much is not up for debate. Once life exists, evolution can act on it. Let's look at the general creationist claim:

"Evolution depends on the existence of life. Therefore, evolution must explain the origin of life in order to be a valid theory."

Reduced to its general form, it goes:

"X depends on the existence of Y. Therefore, X must explain the origin of Y in order to be a valid theory."

Apply this to other fields and it becomes apparent how flawed this reasoning is:

"Gravity depends on the existence of space-time. Therefore, gravity must explain the origin of space-time in order to be a valid theory."
"Electromagnetism depends on the existence of electric charge. Therefore, electromagnetism must explain the origin of electric charge in order to be a valid theory."
"Aerodynamics depends on the existence of air. Therefore, aerodynamics must explain the origin of air in order to be a valid theory."
"Germ theory depends on the existence of germs. Therefore, germ theory must explain the origin of germs in order to be a valid theory."

I don't agree, obviously. The ToE claims that all life came from a single celled organism. I think the relevance of the beginning of supposed evolution is entirely relevant. Gravity, aerodynamics, and Germs can be demonstrably proven. Macroevolution has not and cannot be proven.

 

[rusra02]

Yeah, but aren't you worried by the statistical distribution? We should expect a uniform distribution of people who are not concerned by their selfish motivations.

For some reason people born in Alabama are mainly Christian while people born in Israel or Japan are not. Are Japanese more selfish than southerners? Do you think that race and culture drive selfishness or isn't that maybe more probable that we inherit the beliefs of our culture without asking questions?

Why am I so good in guessing the religion of someone's parents or culture when I only know the religion she belongs to. Am I psychic?

The rest of your post are self fulfilling prophecies. It is obvious that if I start a new religion I will make sure to write in the holy book that whomever does not buy it prefers darkness. The same with the prophecy that believers of that particular brand of God will be mocked and scoffed: write absurdities and the prophecy will be surely fulfilled, hopefully

Ciao

- viole

Again, I like your logical thinking. You did fail to add a qualifier to the folks in Alabama; "professed". And there are large numbers of people in Japan and even Israel that are true Christians, I believe. One feature of true Christianity is that it would create a worldwide brotherhood united in peace, love, and the pure worship that Christ taught his followers. (Revelation 7:9,10) The identifying marks of true Christians mark them unmistakeably, in my opinion. (John 13:34,35) as mentioned in previous posts, there are numerous Bible prophecies that have been fulfilled, marking the Bible as a unique book.

 

[metis]

The ToE claims that all life came from a single celled organism.

There are myriads of various hypotheses, theorems, and axioms in the ToE, and the concept of all life springing from a single-celled organism is just a hypothesis.

I think the relevance of the beginning of supposed evolution is entirely relevant. Gravity, aerodynamics, and Germs can be demonstrably proven.

There is at least as much evidence for the ToE as there is for any of the others. "Germs" evolve, for example.

Macroevolution has not and cannot be proven.

We generally don't use the word "proven" as that seemingly implies that the door is shut on the possibility of any future evidence, some of which may force us to reconsider some of the details. But the evidence for what you call "macroevolution" is so vast that no serious scientist can doubt it. However, there's a small number of scientists that use their religious beliefs as a set of blinders, which is the antithesis of what serious scientists do.

Do you believe in God? "Proof", please. Do you believe Jesus is the literal "son of God"? "Proof" please. Since you insist on "proof", then please provide your "proof" for that which you say is true.

We have the fossil record; we have the results of some of the genome testing; we have seen the formation of new species; we have common sense that tells us that all material objects change over time. What do you have?

 

[Parsimony]

I don't agree, obviously. The ToE claims that all life came from a single celled organism. I think the relevance of the beginning of supposed evolution is entirely relevant.

You're absolutely right. The beginning of evolution is relevant to the theory of evolution, not what came before evolution. Examine your own statement more closely. You say that the theory of evolution claims that all life came from a single cell. This is more or less correct (though it may also have come from a family of cells). Take note of what is not required: an explanation for where that cell came from. All that is necessary is for that cell to actually exist. If God created that first cell divinely, then evolution can act on it equally well as it could if it arose via abiogenesis. Your beef here is with naturalism and/or abiogenesis, not evolution (since, as I just pointed out, evolution can still work if life had a divine origin). Your argument does not discount theistic evolution.

Gravity, aerodynamics, and Germs can be demonstrably proven. Macroevolution has not and cannot be proven.

You're still missing the point. If those three theories get a free pass on having to explain the origin of their subjects, then evolution should not be held to any different standard than they are. Gravity is considered valid despite not explaining where space-time came from. Same situation with the others. Also, if micro-evolution doesn't have to explain where life came from in order to be valid, then neither does macro-evolution. To say that macro-evolution must explain where the first cell came from is just as much of a fallacy as saying that micro-evolution must explain where the dog kind came from.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't agree, obviously. The ToE claims that all life came from a single celled organism. I think the relevance of the beginning of supposed evolution is entirely relevant. Gravity, aerodynamics, and Germs can be demonstrably proven. Macroevolution has not and cannot be proven.

I'm honestly amazed that you wpuld think so. Macro-evolution was first observed more than a century ago, it has been categorically proven since your grandfathers time.
If you google 'observed instances of speciation' you will find references to enough examples of macro-evolution to keep you busy reading for months.

Macro-evolution has been directly observed in the fossil record, in the field and in the laboratory. Speciation is in fact a commonplace event.

 

[rusra02]

There are myriads of various hypotheses, theorems, and axioms in the ToE, and the concept of all life springing from a single-celled organism is just a hypothesis.



There is at least as much evidence for the ToE as there is for any of the others. "Germs" evolve, for example.



We generally don't use the word "proven" as that seemingly implies that the door is shut on the possibility of any future evidence, some of which may force us to reconsider some of the details. But the evidence for what you call "macroevolution" is so vast that no serious scientist can doubt it. However, there's a small number of scientists that use their religious beliefs as a set of blinders, which is the antithesis of what serious scientists do.

Do you believe in God? "Proof", please. Do you believe Jesus is the literal "son of God"? "Proof" please. Since you insist on "proof", then please provide your "proof" for that which you say is true.

We have the fossil record; we have the results of some of the genome testing; we have seen the formation of new species; we have common sense that tells us that all material objects change over time. What do you have?

I believe it is the evolutionists whose world view blinds them to any explanation for life other than macroevolution. I also believe it is blind credulity and fear of career consequences that move many scientists to reject alternatives to the ToE, at least publicly. The relatively few scientists with the courage to express scientific evidence contrary to ToE orthodoxy are routinely attacked and vilified, as in your post. Such unscientific conduct has been documented, and can be investigated with a simple internet search.
The fossil record does not support macroevolution, as you should know. Calling any change "evolution" is misleading, IMO. For example, the often cited changes in finches beak size or shape doesn't make the finch anything new. They are still and will forever remain finches.
As to proof for God, here it is: "What may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. *For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:19,20) The things made testify that they are the results of intelligent design. Intelligence and creativity does not exist apart from mind. And a mind do not exist without a person. That, in fact, is the subject of this thread, why I believe God created life.

 

[rusra02]

I'm honestly amazed that you wpuld think so. Macro-evolution was first observed more than a century ago, it has been categorically proven since your grandfathers time.
If you google 'observed instances of speciation' you will find references to enough examples of macro-evolution to keep you busy reading for months.

Macro-evolution has been directly observed in the fossil record, in the field and in the laboratory. Speciation is in fact a commonplace event.

For macroevolution to be true, entirely new creatures, different from their predecessors, must be produced. Calling a finch with a bigger beak a new "species" doesn't make the bird anything other than a finch. This quote from The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking sums it nicely. I think:"“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.” That is what the fossil record really shows.

 

[rusra02]

You're absolutely right. The beginning of evolution is relevant to the theory of evolution, not what came before evolution. Examine your own statement more closely. You say that the theory of evolution claims that all life came from a single cell. This is more or less correct (though it may also have come from a family of cells). Take note of what is not required: an explanation for where that cell came from. All that is necessary is for that cell to actually exist. If God created that first cell divinely, then evolution can act on it equally well as it could if it arose via abiogenesis. Your beef here is with naturalism and/or abiogenesis, not evolution (since, as I just pointed out, evolution can still work if life had a divine origin). Your argument does not discount theistic evolution.


You're still missing the point. If those three theories get a free pass on having to explain the origin of their subjects, then evolution should not be held to any different standard than they are. Gravity is considered valid despite not explaining where space-time came from. Same situation with the others. Also, if micro-evolution doesn't have to explain where life came from in order to be valid, then neither does macro-evolution. To say that macro-evolution must explain where the first cell came from is just as much of a fallacy as saying that micro-evolution must explain where the dog kind came from.

So, do you claim that the transition from non-living molecules to living cell is not evolution? And the ability to produce variety within the dog kind, for example, certainly does make the question of the dogs origin relevant, at least to me, and I suspect, to many others.

 

[metis]

I believe it is the evolutionists whose world view blinds them to any explanation for life other than macroevolution. I also believe it is blind credulity and fear of career consequences that move many scientists to reject alternatives to the ToE, at least publicly.

Absolutely false. As scientists, we very often disagree with each other and typically voice our opinions in opposition. Buy a copy of Scientific American and look near the beginning at the correspondence part for just one example.

The relatively few scientists with the courage to express scientific evidence contrary to ToE orthodoxy are routinely attacked and vilified, as in your post. Such unscientific conduct has been documented, and can be investigated with a simple internet search.

I have long checked this out as I have studied and worked in the scientific field dealing with evolution for over 50 years now. Yes, we often do disagree with each other on various items, but to call that "attacked and vilified" is silly, unless someone takes any disagreement as being "attacked and vilified". We can often be rather direct with each other, but there's at least some decorum that goes with it.

The fossil record does not support macroevolution, as you should know.

Absolutely and totally false. The above would only be true if we were clueless about genetics, but we ain't.

Calling any change "evolution" is misleading,

Not really. All material items seem to change over time, and genes are material items. Even if we knew nothing about the fossil record and how genetics works, common sense should tell one that evolution of species is probable.

As to proof for God, here it is: "What may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. *For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:19,20)

The above is opinion-- not proof.

The things made testify that they are the results of intelligent design. Intelligence and creativity does not exist apart from mind. And a mind do not exist without a person.

All material items have a design of one type or another, such as we see with snowflakes. Do you honestly believe God patterned each individual snowflake, especially since no two are exactly alike?

That, in fact, is the subject of this thread, why I believe God created life.

I don't have a single problem with you or anyone else believing that God created life, and I think that this very much could be a possibility. I am not an atheist. But I do know there's been an evolutionary process that includes what you call "macro-evolution", so it's really not a matter of speculation at all.

As you might remember, I grew up in a fundamentalist church that taught against evolution, but as i began to study it in high school and then my undergrad and graduate work, it became absolutely clear without any shadow of doubt that I was not being told the truth at that church, so I left it. If a church/synagogue/mosque doesn't deal with reality in this area, which other areas might they also be distorting?

Just remember: all material things seem to change over time, and genes are material things.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Evolution claims life arose from a series of chance events. The Bible says life came from God. This quote regarding a "simple" prokaryotic cell, or a cell without a nucleus, demonstrates the impossibility of life arising from chance, IMO. (Quote from The Origins of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking published by Jehovah's witnesses)

"What does the evidence reveal? Advances in microbiology have made it possible to peer into the awe-inspiring interior of the simplest living prokaryotic cells known. Evolutionary scientists theorize that the first living cells must have looked something like these cells.

If the theory of evolution is true, it should offer a plausible explanation of how the first “simple” cell formed by chance. On the other hand, if life was created, there should be evidence of ingenious design even in the smallest of creatures. Why not take a tour of a prokaryotic cell? As you do so, ask yourself whether such a cell could arise by chance.

THE CELL’S PROTECTIVE WALL

To tour a prokaryotic cell, you would have to shrink to a size that is hundreds of times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Keeping you out of the cell is a tough, flexible membrane that acts like a brick and mortar wall surrounding a factory. It would take some 10,000 layers of this membrane to equal the thickness of a sheet of paper. But the membrane of a cell is much more sophisticated than the brick wall. In what ways?

Like the wall surrounding a factory, the membrane of a cell shields the contents from a potentially hostile environment. However, the membrane is not solid; it allows the cell to “breathe,” permitting small molecules, such as oxygen, to pass in or out. But the membrane blocks more complex, potentially damaging molecules from entering without the cell’s permission. The membrane also prevents useful molecules from leaving the cell. How does the membrane manage such feats?

Think again of a factory. It might have security guards who monitor the products that enter and leave through the doorways in the factory wall. Similarly, the cell membrane has special protein molecules embedded in it that act like the doors and the security guards.

Some of these proteins (1) have a hole through the middle of them that allows only specific types of molecules in and out of the cell. Other proteins are open on one side of the cell membrane (2) and closed on the other. They have a docking site (3) shaped to fit a specific substance. When that substance docks, the other end of the protein opens and releases the cargo through the membrane (4). All this activity is happening on the surface of even the simplest of cells."

That is just the beginning of the complexity encountered in so-called simple cells.

Although there are mutations by "blind chance", evolutionists would say that natural selection is not blind chance because it works on certain factors which take the "chance" out of it, if you like. Having said that, they would also say that it is totally non directed, and indifferent, which in itself sounds like something which comes about through blind chance. Of course one might counter that by saying that whatever arises to make evolution work, such as NS, it stills comes about through blind chance if there is no intelligence involved, which is the basic idea of evolution. If we see everything as Consciousness (as modern day science theory is saying) then this is not a problem, as we would expect to see everything evolve and develop as this is what consciousness does. It would entail that within everything is an innate ability to search for its own Self, and know it when it finds it.