Why I believe God Created Life.

[rusra02]

Except he was a Deist, not a creationist. His belief about God is that he/she/it brought about the universe and abandoned it, and set the laws of science and nature into place (Which includes the Big Bang, and biological evolution.) Not in any intervening deity that created the Earth in some sort of 6 day period.

Point is, he believed that God created life because he believed the evidence was overwhelming. And it is.

 

[Mycroft]

Ah, the never-ending refrain from the evolution propaganda machine: If it doesn't support the ToE, call it names, and hope no one (gasp) reads it and finds out the truth.

The only thoery that article supports is the theory that IQ tests should be mandatory before being allowed to post anything on the Internet.

 

[starless]

If you recheck my post, I said the ToME is unproven.

I will completely ignore the fact that a theory by definition CANNOT be simply "proven" or "unproven." A scientific theory is the comprehensive explanation of natural phenomena, consisting of a large body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

In any case, please, elaborate on how scientists can be right about the shape of the Earth, but completely wrong about evolution, when they've arrived at both conclusions using the same scientific method?

Do you think scientists get arbitrarily some facts wrong?

Which of the following scientific theories are also "unproven" then:

-The Atomic Theory
-The Theory of Matter and Energy
-The Germ Theory
-The Theory of Plate Tectonics
-The Big Bang Theory
-The Theory of Quantum Mechanics
-The Photon Theory of Light Energy and its speed of light
-The Electromagnetic Theory
-Nuclear Theory
-The Theory of Thermodynamics
-Molecular Orbital Theory
-Theory of Relativity

 

[Ouroboros]

Please, elaborate on how scientists can be right about the shape of the Earth, but completely wrong about evolution, when they've arrived at both conclusions using the same scientific method?

Do you think scientists get arbitrarily some facts wrong?

Which of the following scientific theories are also "unproven" then:

-The Atomic Theory
-The Theory of Matter and Energy
-The Germ Theory
-The Theory of Plate Tectonics
-The Big Bang Theory
-The Theory of Quantum Mechanics
-The Photon Theory of Light Energy and its speed of light
-The Electromagnetic Theory
-Nuclear Theory
-The Theory of Thermodynamics
-Molecular Orbital Theory
-Theory of Relativity

or Number Theory... which is also called Arithmetics.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

.
In any case, please, elaborate on how scientists can be right about the shape of the Earth, but completely wrong about evolution, when they've arrived at both conclusions using the same scientific method?

Because then they would be questioning religious authority, which is wrong... because the religious authority said so.

 

[The Adept]

An infinite number of monkeys sitting in front of typewriters will eventually, over billions of years, result in the phrase 'Jehovah is a myth'.

Happen stance.

Theoretically the atoms could align in the required structures by the most amazing coincidence ever to occur...say over a billion or so years?

 

[viole]

The empirical evidence answers no. Here is a quote showing why from Lönnig's paper entitled "Mutation breeding, evolution, and the law of recurrent variation":
"Additionally, the observation that none of the different methods of mutagenesis − from delicate experiments looking for optimal mutation frequencies in plant breeding to the most massive mutation inductions − have ever changed the fact of selection limits (detected for all the plant and animal species so far investigated), is in agreement with the facts just mentioned as well as with the saturation curves shown above (43).
One of the best contemporary population geneticists, Daniel L. Hartl, has summed up the question of selection limits as follows (32):
“Progress under artificial selection cannot go on forever, of course. As noted earlier, the population will eventually reach a selection limit, or plateau, after which it will no longer respond to selection. ...However, many experimental populations that have reached a selection limit readily respond to reverse selection.”
And some years later Hartl und Jones have emphasized this empirical fact again (33):
“Population improvement by means of artificial selection cannot continue indefinitely. A population may respond to selection until its mean is many standard deviations different from the mean of the original population, but eventually the population reaches a selection limit at which successive generations show no further improvement.”

But this "empirical" evidence cannot be used. The reasons are

1) the number of generations involved is small
2) the environment has not been changed considerably during large spans of time

After all, if I put some germs in a jar, it would be silly to expect that some of them evolve to become bigger than the jar, no matter how long I wait. The number of solutions is limited by the constancy of the surrounding environment. We can observe that with sharks which did not change a lot since several millions of years.

But suppose that I slowly change the environment to open up space for alternative solutions. New predators, new climate, new colors, new everything, very slowly.

What prevents my algorithm from slow adaptation to the new environment? And if the environment is eventually completely different from the starting one, what prevents the new organisms from becoming much different than the starting ones?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

An infinite number of monkeys sitting in front of typewriters will eventually, over billions of years, result in the phrase 'Jehovah is a myth'.

An infinite number of monkeys would most likely produce the phrase in an instant. Infinite encompasses a totality of all possibilities.

Interesting thing. At position 12567009 in Pi, there are the codes 71 111 100, which are the decimal ascii codes for "God". 12567009 is divisible with 3, something with trinity? And also with 7, something about holy number or heaven??

 

[rusra02]

I will completely ignore the fact that a theory by definition CANNOT be simply "proven" or "unproven." A scientific theory is the comprehensive explanation of natural phenomena, consisting of a large body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

In any case, please, elaborate on how scientists can be right about the shape of the Earth, but completely wrong about evolution, when they've arrived at both conclusions using the same scientific method?

Do you think scientists get arbitrarily some facts wrong?

Which of the following scientific theories are also "unproven" then:

-The Atomic Theory
-The Theory of Matter and Energy
-The Germ Theory
-The Theory of Plate Tectonics
-The Big Bang Theory
-The Theory of Quantum Mechanics
-The Photon Theory of Light Energy and its speed of light
-The Electromagnetic Theory
-Nuclear Theory
-The Theory of Thermodynamics
-Molecular Orbital Theory
-Theory of Relativity

"In any case, please, elaborate on how scientists can be right about the shape of the Earth, but completely wrong about evolution, when they've arrived at both conclusions using the same scientific method? "
Please define the scientific method you refer to. Scientists can by direct observation know the earth is spherical. Explain how scientists have observed macro-evolution or proven it experimentally.

 

[rusra02]

An infinite number of monkeys sitting in front of typewriters will eventually, over billions of years, result in the phrase 'Jehovah is a myth'.

Happen stance.

Theoretically the atoms could align in the required structures by the most amazing coincidence ever to occur...say over a billion or so years?

Perhaps. But who made the monkeys? And the typewriters?

 

[rusra02]

But this "empirical" evidence cannot be used. The reasons are

1) the number of generations involved is small
2) the environment has not been changed considerably during large spans of time

After all, if I put some germs in a jar, it would be silly to expect that some of them evolve to become bigger than the jar, no matter how long I wait. The number of solutions is limited by the constancy of the surrounding environment. We can observe that with sharks which did not change a lot since several millions of years.

But suppose that I slowly change the environment to open up space for alternative solutions. New predators, new climate, new colors, new everything, very slowly.

What prevents my algorithm from slow adaptation to the new environment? And if the environment is eventually completely different from the starting one, what prevents the new organisms from becoming much different than the starting ones?

Ciao

- viole

The experimental evidence says that is just wishful thinking, not science.

 

[metis]

The experimental evidence says that is just wishful thinking, not science.

If God is "Truth", and I would suggest that this is something you should be able to accept, then to deny the truth of there being an evolutionary process means that you really do not accept "Truth", therefore you have created a different "god" out of your unwillingness to accept reality.

For one to accept Truth, they must accept what is, not what some have programmed you to believe. I would suggest you find a different church, one that not only teaches about Jesus and his legacy, but also one that accepts Truth without asking their congregants to put blinders on.

Evolution not only has been well established as scientific fact, it actually just plain old common sense: everything changes over time, and this includes genetic material-- just ask the geneticists. When one denies this basic reality, it tells me that they've been brainwashed by those who have an agenda to keep their congregants ignorant so they can be led by the nose.

I was one of those who were led as such.

 

[starless]

"In any case, please, elaborate on how scientists can be right about the shape of the Earth, but completely wrong about evolution, when they've arrived at both conclusions using the same scientific method? "
Please define the scientific method you refer to. Scientists can by direct observation know the earth is spherical. Explain how scientists have observed macro-evolution or proven it experimentally.

As far as science is concerned, the Theory of Evolution is AS "PROVEN" as any of the theories I listed above. Forget about particular experiments and particular observations, I am telling you how modern science works.

It is logically impossible ONLY ONE of these theories to be "UNPROVEN." Either they are all "proven" or they are all "unproven." This is due to the nature of the scientific method and how science works.

Do you understand?

 

[starless]

If you cannot or do not want to understand this, please refrain from using the words "science" of "scientific" in your replies.

 

[rusra02]

As far as science is concerned, the Theory of Evolution is AS "PROVEN" as any of the theories I listed above. Forget about particular experiments and particular observations, I am telling you how modern science works.

It is logically impossible ONLY ONE of these theories to be "UNPROVEN." Either they are all "proven" or they are all "unproven." This is due to the nature of the scientific method and how science works.

Do you understand?

I understand men have seen the earth from space (direct observation) and proved the earth is spherical. I have seen no such proof for the ToME.

 

[rusra02]

If God is "Truth", and I would suggest that this is something you should be able to accept, then to deny the truth of there being an evolutionary process means that you really do not accept "Truth", therefore you have created a different "god" out of your unwillingness to accept reality.

For one to accept Truth, they must accept what is, not what some have programmed you to believe. I would suggest you find a different church, one that not only teaches about Jesus and his legacy, but also one that accepts Truth without asking their congregants to put blinders on.

Evolution not only has been well established as scientific fact, it actually just plain old common sense: everything changes over time, and this includes genetic material-- just ask the geneticists. When one denies this basic reality, it tells me that they've been brainwashed by those who have an agenda to keep their congregants ignorant so they can be led by the nose.

I was one of those who were led as such.

Actually, the fossil record doesn't support evolution. “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.”
And genetic material does change but only within limits, as previous posts in this thread show. IMO, the ToME is a theory built on shifting sands of speculation and a world view that denies plain evidence that life could not have arisen by chance, much less morphed (evolved) into the millions of different creatures that call earth home. I believe it is just as Psalm 104:24 says:"How many your works are, O Jehovah! You have made all of them in wisdom. The earth is full of what you have made."
I am also convinced that the true God, Jehovah, will settle this question forever, when the time arrives when he will do as he promises at Ezekiel 38:23:" And I will certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah."

 

[idav]

Actually, the fossil record doesn't support evolution. “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.”
And genetic material does change but only within limits, as previous posts in this thread show. IMO, the ToME is a theory built on shifting sands of speculation and a world view that denies plain evidence that life could not have arisen by chance, much less morphed (evolved) into the millions of different creatures that call earth home. I believe it is just as Psalm 104:24 says:"How many your works are, O Jehovah! You have made all of them in wisdom. The earth is full of what you have made."
I am also convinced that the true God, Jehovah, will settle this question forever, when the time arrives when he will do as he promises at Ezekiel 38:23:" And I will certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah."

Even to grant that it is a jerky record, what we don't find if far more telling. We don't find fossils jumping the timelines. Even one human fossil jumping the timeline would be enough to say "well at least humans were modified" but no we do not find it. People cannot deny that life is a remarkable thing with or without god. We well know what JW's are convinced of but this planet simply is not young enough to support any spontaneous generation of millions of various species. Everything we find supports an old earth, an even old solar system, and much older universe scenarios.

Nothing about the age of the universe or the age of the earth will make god any less remarkable. In fact I find it more remarkable that it has been around for so long, outside of our piddly perceptions. Humans want so much to be the center of it all, as if life arose as soon as humans were able to record history. That might seem likely from our very limited scope of perception but with everything being far more old and beyond humans makes the creation of God that much more than we will ever be.

 

[starless]

I understand men have seen the earth from space (direct observation) and proved the earth is spherical.

The Earth was proven beyond doubt to be spherical long before anyone could observe it.

I have seen no such proof for the ToME.

Well, that is entirely your fault.

 

[Mycroft]

The Earth was proven beyond doubt to be spherical long before anyone could observe it.



Well, that is entirely your fault.

You can't reason with him. You can't reason with someone who does not wish to be reasoned with. Even if you supplied him with proof, he would supply a spindoctored counter-argument in which he doesn't have to accept that proof. You have to understand that he doesn't want to believe anything other than his own point of view but conversely wants you to believe his point of view.

 

[metis]

Actually, the fossil record doesn't support evolution. “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.”

But that's what the ToE actually has well established. We well know that it's not a nice evenly-flowing change. Evolution isn't very pretty, and is typically very uneven from species to species and from one location to another.

The reality is that what you actually have done with the above is to offer an opinion that what has been confirmed for many decades but which you still deny.

And genetic material does change but only within limits, as previous posts in this thread show.

Only within a given species and at a given time. We know through overwhelming evidence that genetic change never ceases, and after a while these changes build up. This is no secret, and it has been shown through genetic testing that this is what happens.

And not only has genetic testing proven the above to be true, so has the fossil record along with the genome testing. It's not a matter that we hypothesize that this has been happening-- we know that it's been happening.

The questions that you should be asking yourself is just exactly how did God made our universe and what the implications are? For some reason you see science as being the antithesis of believing in God, but the reality is that there's simply no reason to separate the two. Instead of paying attention to what the research clearly shows, you prefer to read and regurgitate false information that's been passed on to you by people who are simply not telling you the truth, or you are misreading correct information like you did above.

The unfortunate reality is that you and way too many others have been brainwashed into believing falsehoods, and the only way out of that box is to do some serious reading from modern-day research scientists themselves. And then I would recommend reading Christian theologians who actually are willing to accept Truth by understanding that science, including the ToE, in no way goes against Truth.

You know, if I got a toothache, I go to a dentist, not a lawyer or a bricklayer. If you want real science, you have to go and read what real scientists are saying that specialize in that field. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, and if you're not willing to take the chance of being enlightened, then you simply will continue to believe in falsehood instead of Truth.

Shalom and have a great weekend.