Let's go over this again, shall we, about chances--

[YoursTrue]

Do you agree with the following: "Molecules-to-man evolution can be defined as the natural process that has produced the present-day life forms from matter, energy, chance, genetic modifications and natural selection, and changing environments over vast periods of time."?
Further, that the "random combining of basic elements with energy but without outside intelligence is the mechanism by which the first simplest cell is said to have been formed."
Yes, no? Maybe?

 

[F1fan]

Let's we ordinary folk just read what experts in biology report, and not try to form uneducated opinions like some religious folk because of religion.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Do you agree with the following: "Molecules-to-man evolution can be defined as the natural process that has produced the present-day life forms from matter, energy, chance, genetic modifications and natural selection, and changing environments over vast periods of time."?
Further, that the "random combining of basic elements with energy but without outside intelligence is the mechanism by which the first simplest cell is said to have been formed."
Yes, no? Maybe?

I have no doubt the science is correct and that would've actually happened if in fact that time actually existed. I just don't believe existence has always been around and always will. That's why I believe the end/ beginning of existence falls/rises with the death/birth of a certain unknown living man who essentially secures eternity.
God (infinite space) was so vast and abstract it needed an anchor, which is man, to face reality. No one cheats death, not even God!

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no doubt the science is correct and that would've actually happened if in fact that time actually existed. I just don't believe existence has always been around and always will. That's why I believe the end/ beginning of existence falls/rises with the death/birth of a certain unknown living man who essentially secures eternity.
God (infinite space) was so fast and abstract it needed an anchor, which is man, to face reality. No one cheats death, not even God!

Ah, if only I understood what you are saying. Meantime, my finite body is telling me I need to go to sleep. My body tells me there is something out there greater than myself. And this something is described as a person that is way beyond my understanding, as God explained in the Bible, who cares for me and about me. Who gives me the conscious contemplative hope to live. But that's where I stop, because while it seems like a conundrum, only God can give you this hope.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Let's we ordinary folk just read what experts in biology report, and not try to form uneducated opinions like some religious folk because of religion.

or highly educated wisdom like some spiritual folk because of spirit.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I certainly didn't need a designer to put all those cords behind my TV into knots!

 

[We Never Know]

I certainly didn't need a designer to put all those cords behind my TV into knots!

Yet a designer made them. Without the designer, there would be no knotted cords.

 

[F1fan]

or highly educated wisdom like some spiritual folk because of spirit.

I thought you went to bed already.

 

[exchemist]

Do you agree with the following: "Molecules-to-man evolution can be defined as the natural process that has produced the present-day life forms from matter, energy, chance, genetic modifications and natural selection, and changing environments over vast periods of time."?
Further, that the "random combining of basic elements with energy but without outside intelligence is the mechanism by which the first simplest cell is said to have been formed."
Yes, no? Maybe?

Your first statement looks sensible to me, but the second one is rubbish. Creationists persist in inserting the word random where it does not belong. Elements do not combine randomly. There is a science, called chemistry, that provides exhaustive detail on what elements combine, how they do so and under what conditions. There is nothing random about it at all.

 

[We Never Know]

Your first statement looks sensible to me, but the second one is rubbish. Creationists persist in inserting the word random where it does not belong. Elements do not combine randomly. There is a science, called chemistry, that provides exhaustive detail on what elements combine, how they do so and under what conditions. There is nothing random about it at all.

Are you saying with everthing that exists that random had no play in it?

 

[exchemist]

Are you saying with everthing that exists that random had no play in it?

No, of course not. But it is a stupid mischaracterisation to suggest that somehow it is all random, like that idiotic “tornado in a junkyard” non-analogy.

When you study science, you learn that randomness plays a fundamental role in how nature works, but you also learn that there is also fundamental order, which determines what outcomes result from that randomness.

The creationist, on the other hand - who is almost invariably stupefyingly ignorant of science - uses “random” as a word suggesting there is NO order behind what happens in nature, generally as a pretext for ridiculing science.

 

[We Never Know]

No, of course not. But it is a stupid mischaracterisation to suggest that somehow it is all random, like that idiotic “tornado in a junkyard” non-analogy.

It may have all started out random and eventually fell into place after the tornado passed.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Do you agree with the following: "Molecules-to-man evolution can be defined as the natural process that has produced the present-day life forms from matter, energy, chance, genetic modifications and natural selection, and changing environments over vast periods of time."?
Further, that the "random combining of basic elements with energy but without outside intelligence is the mechanism by which the first simplest cell is said to have been formed."
Yes, no? Maybe?

That is certainly what the vast amounts of evidence suggests, and there is zero evidence to suggest that some outside intelligence was involved.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you agree with the following: "Molecules-to-man evolution can be defined as the natural process that has produced the present-day life forms from matter, energy, chance, genetic modifications and natural selection, and changing environments over vast periods of time."?
Further, that the "random combining of basic elements with energy but without outside intelligence is the mechanism by which the first simplest cell is said to have been formed."
Yes, no? Maybe?

Generally yes to both statements. Details can be discussed. It is not all that random. There are rules about what can combine with what.

 

[Brian2]

Let's we ordinary folk just read what experts in biology report, and not try to form uneducated opinions like some religious folk because of religion.

Why is it that experts in biology should know how life began and where life came from and what caused life and more than someone with an uneducated opinion?
I imagine that an expert in biology has been educated to believe a certain thing about the beginnings of life but how did the teachers learn these things?

 

[Brian2]

Generally yes to both statements. Details can be discussed. It is not all that random. There are rules about what can combine with what.

Do you agree with that because you do not believe in an outside intelligence or is there any other reason?

 

[Brian2]

That is certainly what the vast amounts of evidence suggests, and there is zero evidence to suggest that some outside intelligence was involved.

What evidence would suggest that no outside intelligence was needed, or is that just the naturalistic presupposition of science?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you agree with that because you do not believe in an outside intelligence or is there any other reason?

Yes, there is no outside intelligence.

What evidence would suggest that no outside intelligence was needed, or is that just the naturalistic presupposition of science?

Each step of evolution has corroborative evidence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What evidence would suggest that no outside intelligence was needed, or is that just the naturalistic presupposition of science?

Because the explanations provided by science require no outside intelligence. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that any outside intelligence is involved. IF any such evidence existed then scientists would jump at the chance to study it and try to determine the source of this outside intelligence. But without any such evidence there is nothing for the scientific method to study.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, there is no outside intelligence.Each step of evolution has corroborative evidence.

What we are talking about is really abiogenesis. Is there evidence that no intelligence was needed for the beginnings of life or is that just a presumption of yours and of science?
If there is evidence, do you know what that evidence is?