Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It is. Much, if not most of it, is based on guesswork, not evidence, because what is considered by scientists as evidence does not definitely verify the theory. But if you say so, and scientists say so, that's what counts for you.
That you said 'left us LIKE chimps' is not making sense. But if you say it does make sense -- ok. That's what you say. Bye for now, take care.
You know perfectly well the difference between guesswork and evidence. You just don't like the evidence, so you try to ignore it in order to pretend it is guesswork.
If you want absolute proof, you will never get it. But there can be enough evidence that we have proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
While I know there is a controversy about "kinds," I (1) do not believe evolution has really solved the problem/mystery of supposed evolved organisms from -- let's say -- fish to humans. They may conjecture in line with the proposed theory, but that's about it. Because there is nothing to show that this type of evolution happened as proposed in realtime. Only suppositions based on a pre-set formula. But really, from my observations of the theory plus evidence scientists think fit, it does not add up. Or show for certain anything. Thanks though for conversation. I appreciate it.
Sorry, but I don't agree. Many people have been wrongly convicted or put to death because the juries were either were prejudiced or convinced that the evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt.
Being an atheist takes no time or energy at all. Being a humanist does, but not being an atheist.
Critical thinkers have no reason to believe that. That's for people willing to believe by faith to worry about. Such dogma has no power over skeptics:
I wouldn't go to any holy book for answers about how the world evolved or how it works presently. The Bible is just the guesses of unsophisticated ancient people who didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun goes at night.
Exactly? You don't even have a hypothesis much less a putative mechanism. All you have is an insufficiently evidenced belief that explains no more than saying "Norman did it" rather than "God did it."
Why should that matter to you? What you believe instead is insufficiently evidenced.
You must remember that I am neither a biologist nor a chemist, and am therefore not qualified to discuss biological and chemical matters. However, I do know that many organic compounds, some of which are of biological interest, have been found in interstellar molecular clouds, comets and meteorites. Impacts by comets and carbonaceous asteroids would have delivered these organic compounds to the planets (including the Earth) during their formation. These compounds may have been the 'entities', i.e. the basic organic material, that the first life developed from. This is an area of active research, and you should be able to find out something about it online or in books.
The Miller-Urey experiment showed that amino acids, which are the 'building blocks' of proteins, can be produced from inorganic compounds. The precise circumstances of the experiment are not important, since, as I have already explained, biologically interesting organic compounds have been found in interstellar clouds, comets and meteorites. These organic compounds were produced by chemical reactions in interstellar clouds and gas and dust discs surrounding young stars; they were certainly not produced by living organisms,
The Cambrian Explosion occurred about 520 million years ago, more than 3000 million years after the origin of life on Earth.
There is strong evidence that the universe is expanding from a state of very high temperature and very high density that existed about 13.8 billion years ago. The recession of the galaxies (discovered by Edwin Hubble nearly 100 years ago), the cosmic abundances of the light elements (deuterium helium-3, helium-4 and lithium), and the cosmic microwave background radiation (the redshifted radiation from the 'Big Bang fireball') are the most familiar evidences.
And you know or believe these dates because why?
I am not in a position to say how the universe began except that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," as described in Genesis, but this I can say, that the idea put forth that the little itty bitty matter (evidently not 'mass') was so teeny tiny and then exploded by natural means is not something I can believe can be determined by any scientist or science. And then to say it just happened to be there -- etc. and etc. I'll have to look into the said expanse of the universe.
You can answer that yourself. You know how he knows that. And you know why you don't. He's trained in critical thinking and is educated in many of the sciences, one of which is his profession. That's true of several participants in this thread with whom you've disagreed, some self-described Christians.
@YoursTrue
You are right that our wiring is different. I believe that the Torah is true. You do not. I believe the testimony about Jesus in the scriptures is also true. Obviously you do not and neither do many others. I do not believe that just because a person has a high IQ means he knows what he is talking about.
none of this matters if it turns out I am right and you are wrong and that is the fundamental point you cannot sidestep.
And we are back to the false dichotomy. But what caught my attention was the claim of evidence outside of the Bible. Outside of the Bible I only tend to see refutation. I have no idea where you are getting your confirmation from.
as i have said to you before...your ignorance is your problem here.
Please, every time it comes to a "balanced viewpoint" you have been on the short end. You totally fail when it comes to defending your beliefs in the myths of Genesis. I do not know if we brought up the ten year difference between the years of birth in the nativity myths or not. But I have never seen any Christian use a historical source to try to argue against it. They only have Christian apologists (also known as liars for Jesus) that make "historical" claims that cannot be found in history.
Where did you come up with "evolved from chimps?"
But we do have self replicating molecules, and proto-bionts.Its true .. I was hypothesizing ... but it is "educated hypothesizing"
In this particular system .. the system is producing ribonucleotides -rather than the molecule repoducing itself Adenine - Cytosine Guanine Uracil (ACGU) who then go on to form various combinations and linkages with other molecules. Now .. these molecules are not replicating themselves.. but the system is replicating them .. which is the same thing as a molecule replicating itself for the purposes of evolution. ... and it is evolution that I will be arguing. The molecules produced in this system .. many multiples of the same and other molecules .. thens then go on to form then tocombine and form linkages with other molecules
So you have this replicating effect going on .. in various ways .. presumably in various places . at the same time . doing this little experiment.. making all kinds of new combinations and permutations .. some of these structures getting bigger and becoming more complex - some degrading and breaking down.
Then one day .. these molecules encounter a membrane .. which also form naturally .. now you have a degree of selecticity across a barrier .. allowing for stabilization of these bigger more molecules .. and selectivity accross the membrane producing different effects .. different membranes producing different effects.
At some point the nucleotides start to line up along the membrane - attracted to the surface and forming a weak molecular attraction . .. the nucleotides then line up along these attracting sites on the membrane .. some membrane attracting a certain ordering of the nucleotides .. which are then linked to each other .. at certain times you will have chains of these things break off from the membrane .. the bonds between the nucleotides stronger than the weak attraction to the surface .. the membrane will then make another chain perhaps one that is the same as previous .. creating a kind of copying machine
Now --- we have not arrived at self replicating molecule -- but getting damn close. I would argue 2 thigns from this point 1) it is a certainty that these ribonucleotides -- at some point are going to glom onto a surface .. in some kind of pattern .. random and messed up .. but still creating other molecules which are composed of a mixture of these ribonucleoties. -- having them line up on a selective membrane .. in a semi similar way and be washed off the membrane by tidal action or some other phenominon is not much of a stretch from there.
2) I would argue that this is a form of evolution ... molecules getting more complex .. and this process repeated over and over ...
One thing that I can't yet fathom is how life went from asexual to sexual -- that one I can't figure .. nothing I can even think about it makes any sense .. can't come up with even a hypothesis that passes the giggle test.
