McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
DNA is too complex to evolve from primordial soup. Life from Life...or Not?
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!
DNA is too complex to evolve from primordial soup. Life from Life...or Not?
Oh really? And you have evidence to back this claim?The issue with evolution is explaining the origin of the first life. Life didn't generate spontaneously from nonliving chemicals.
Brace yourself for a buttload (real measurement) of creationist propaganda.Oh really? And you have evidence to back this claim?
A video of an ignorant fool is not evidence.Abiogenesis is macro evolution. DNA is too complex to have evolved from primordial soup.
I know. A Frank Turek vidoe of all things. He is just a small step above Ray Comfort.Brace yourself for a buttload (real measurement) of creationist propaganda.
Then why would anyone think the theory of evolution was more a problem for the existence of God than germ theory, quantum theory, or tectonic plate theory?
That's what I was hoping to learn when I posted the OP.
The theory of evolution doesn't quite say that. It says that if abiogenesis occurred in more than one form, no other such form survived to leave evidence; and without that evidence we have no basis to suppose there was more than one form.the Theory of Evolution is [in that case] wrong, because it says there were no more than just one common ancestors for all life, they are very precise when it comes to determining the number of universal common ancestors.
ok, let me put it that way: the Theory of Evolution rules out that God created one living being that still has progeny today, in seperate creation.The theory of evolution doesn't quite say that. It says that if abiogenesis occurred in more than one form, no other such form survived to leave evidence;
No, Evolution isn’t about the origin of first life.The issue with evolution is explaining the origin of the first life. Life didn't generate spontaneously from nonliving chemicals.
Also from your quote "...Life only comes from life. This was the law established by the Author of Life, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life—Jesus Christ..."DNA is too complex to evolve from primordial soup. Life from Life...or Not?
Small changes within a species can exist. But you cant go from one kind of being to another kind of being. Microevolution can happen-macro evolution can never happen.
Abiogenesis is macro evolution. DNA is too complex to have evolved from primordial soup.
DNA is too complex to evolve from primordial soup. Life from Life...or Not?
Basic genetics tells us that there never were only two people. Besides that any reasonable Christian does not take the Adam and Eve myth literally since it paints God as being incompetent and evil.ok, let me put it that way: the Theory of Evolution rules out that God created one living being that still has progeny today, in seperate creation.
Meaning that the ToE rules out that there was a second ancestor made by God that is still relevant today for DNA.
I would like to understand from members how they would think or believe that the existence of God negates Darwinian evolution. Does it?
Depends on what we assume about this God.
Evolutionary theory is predicated on the idea that evolution is an unguided process. If it were guided by a God, then a significant amount of evolutionary theory would be wrong.
There is evidence that at one time there was no life - and now there is. So it arose somehow. That is what is meant by the term abiogenesis.The issue with evolution is explaining the origin of the first life. Life didn't generate spontaneously from nonliving chemicals.
I am a reasonable Christian taking the Adam and Eve story literally.Besides that any reasonable Christian does not take the Adam and Eve myth literally
except that it doesn't.it paints God as being incompetent and evil
God might have recreated people after the flood then.Basic genetics tells us that there never were only two people.
ok, let me put it that way: the Theory of Evolution rules out that God created one living being that still has progeny today, in seperate creation.
Meaning that the ToE rules out that there was a second ancestor made by God that is still relevant today for DNA.
Anyone with an ounce of scientific training will dismiss a scam like homeopathy. Atheism is neither here nor there.Yes, it is indeed a bit like Lamarckism. Lamarck however failed to give a logical explanation for how the changes came about on a deeper level (too little was known about genetics) and Darwin could not yet imagine that the will of an animal or plant could effect the attraction of certain viruses that could alter the genome either. Nor can the present scientific community for that matter.
So both Lamarckism and Darwinism were based on too little, but Lamarck was on the right track.
Atheist will never admit that power of mind or consciousness has any direct influence on matter or indeed on life (except indirectly through the use of muscle power or life style). They also deny the effects of homeopathy for similar reasons.
But life is not just a special level or organic chemistry, it hovers between pure consciousness and the expressed world of matter. The theory of evolution and medicine will only make greater progress if they start to fathom this part of reality much more than they are able to do now.
One cannot be a "reasonable Christian" and take the Adam and Eve story literally. One has to believe in a lying God and that does not seem to reasonable to me. The same applies to the Noah's Ark myth. Again, simple genetics tells us that there were never only 8 people either, and especially not a mere few thousand years ago. What I call "The Lesson of the Cheetah" tells us that.I am a reasonable Christian taking the Adam and Eve story literally.
except that it doesn't.
God might have recreated people after the flood then.
(BTW for Christian theology, as I see it, it only matters that all people have somehow a connection to Adam, because it says they all are made sinners in the wake of Adam's sin, see Romans 5:18-19. In my opinion, Adam somehow passed that sin on, be it through progeny or some other mechanism. In my opinion, it can't be ruled out that perhaps that sin is passed on to people that aren't even relatives, according to the Bible)
I see what you mean that later interventions would be possible. What I refer to is the astonishing evidence of gradual change which looks exactly like cruel experimentation as well as the obvious weaknesses and throwbacks causing extinctions as well as suffering. The full tree of species represents millions of years of suffering and death which overall is good for us, since we exist. Overall its in our favor but doesn't look like a pleasant process. Rather to me it speaks of the physical world as separate from spiritual. It doesn't rule out miracles, but it is incompatible to me with planning a perfected species. In William Blakes poem The Tyger he asks "...did he who made the lamb make thee?" Its chilling to consider someone would have created the world like ours with so much suffering on purpose. I don't mean occasionally there is a problem. I mean that the path through the tree to our species is full of agony, fear, murder etc. There are reasons that I can't connect this with a God called 'Love' by NT authors. Millions of species exist, and they clearly fit into a tree of life; and that tree has required quintillions of painful lives and deaths on its way to making humans. Here at the apex of time we stand. All of that death just for us? It is too horrible. A wise man cares for his animals. Would a merciful God, more merciful than a man, plan such a terrible path or cruel experimentation? I can't think that.