Just Accidental?

[Hockeycowboy]

Just as good, I suppose. There are hardly any JWs in India and I have not come across any.

There are hardly any JWs in India and I have not come across any.

Yes, there aren't very many of us, compared to the population, currently over 1.2 billion.
But we're growing! In 2010, there were 31,556 Jehovah's Witnesses in India, preaching. In 2014, there were 39,355!
Our ratio to your growing population, went from 1 in 35,085 (2010), to 1 in 30,603 (2014)!

If you'd like more info, check us out at www.jw.org

Take care.

 

[Deeje]

When you said and I quote: "I have said numerous times that I am not a creationist." You believe in a Creator and that living organisms were created but you are not a creationist?

I am not a YEC.....I have said it many times.

Believing in creation does not necessarily make you a creationist.

LOL have you ever taken biology classes?

Yes, and evolution was even mentioned a few times funnily enough. What makes you think biology supports evolution?
I believe it supports creation, personally. The more I studied, the more I realized that chance plays no part in the amazing design and interaction of the complex biological components seen in all living things.

Biological evolution says nothing about where life came from it only describes how it evolved. Hence the name (biological) evolution. Abiogenesis is the theory of how atoms and molecules assembled into more and more complicated structures until the structures got the properties we require them to have in order to call them living. Do you know the difference between chemical evolution and biological evolution?Then how can you possibly say "I have said numerous times that I am not a creationist" and say that creation is the product of an Intelligent Designer?

If you have read what I said you would know.

Abiogenesis is a touchy subject with many evolutionists. They are quick to detach themselves from any mention of how life began......I wonder why?
Could it be because any mention of a Creator makes them nervous?

Since science cannot create life, it just waves it away as if how life evolved is more important than how it began. I would think blind Freddy could see that how life originated is way more important than how it changed over time. That is a bit like saying "it doesn't matter who built the ship...look how wonderfully they redecorated the cabins and rearranged the deck chairs". Seriously! Isn't the architect as important as the structure?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No. I am not. The bi-lipid membranes spontaneously assemble into their spherical membranous shapes once they are in water because that is their most inherently stable energy condition. No different from a river running downhill.
They act like soap bubbles do in water.

That is very interesting. And I'm sorry for misapplying your previous statement....saying they "can be" created, is not the same as saying it "needs to be" created. My bad.

Although, for the bilayer to have function, it must surround a living cell, the origin of which, to me anyways, must have been created. There's simply too much cooperative information within and between cells to have arisen by undirected chance, in my book!

 

[ArtieE]

I am not a YEC.....I have said it many times.

Believing in creation does not necessarily make you a creationist.

ROTFL. Here you are talking about the Creator but you say you are not a creationist.

Abiogenesis is a touchy subject with many evolutionists. They are quick to detach themselves from any mention of how life began......I wonder why?
Could it be because any mention of a Creator makes them nervous?

And here you go again. You say you are not a creationist yet you talk about a Creator. Don't you even understand how stupid that sounds? Just look up creationism in Wikipedia.

Whether life was created or not doesn't matter to evolution. Evolution works the same way anyway no matter how life originated.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, there aren't very many of us, compared to the population, currently over 1.2 billion.
But we're growing! In 2010, there were 31,556 Jehovah's Witnesses preaching. In 2014, there were 39,355!
Our ratio to your growing population, went from 1 in 35,085 (2010), to 1 in 30,603 (2014)!

If you'd like more info, check us out at www.jw.org

Take care.

Are you a creationist? Deeje says she's a JW but not a creationist. Is that possible? Look up creationism in Wikipedia.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Are you a creationist? Deeje says she's a JW but not a creationist. Is that possible? Look up creationism in Wikipedia.

It depends on which definition you use. I think most Creationists believe the Creative days were literal. We do not.

When you closely consider the context of Genesis 1:1 thru 2:22, especially the 6th day....too much was going on (Adam naming the animals, Adam 'continuing' without a mate, then Eve created), for it to be literally 24 hrs.; every day was said to have an end, but not the 7th (in Hebrews 4, Paul stated God's rest was still going on!).

So YEC's? No. But believing Jehovah is our Creator? Definitely!

 

[ArtieE]

It depends on which definition you use. I think most Creationists believe the Creative days were literal. We do not.

When you closely consider the context of Genesis 1:1-2:22, especially the 6th day....too much was going on (Adam naming the animals, Adam 'continuing' without a mate, then Eve created), for it to be literally 24 hrs.; every day was said to have an end, but not the 7th (in Hebrews 4, Paul stated God's rest was still going on!).

So YEC's? No. But believing Jehovah is our Creator? Definitely!

I see. So you are per definition creationists just not Young Earth creationists. That makes sense.

 

[Deeje]

Actually they were developed through evolution of sensory cells that have been honed over the years of allele changes. But I doubt you accept that.

You are correct, because you have no proof that there ever was "evolution of sensory cells". That is supposed by science, not proven or even provable. There is more chance of the eyes being created than there is that they just morphed into existence by chance mutations. Where are all those fossils with half developed eyes? There must be trillions of them since vision is important to most species.

Something as complex as eyesight is no accident. The brain plays as much a part in vision as the individual components of the eye. So the brain accidentally figured out how to interpret what the eyes see, inverts the image and then make sense of it.....really?

But can you at least accept the fact that your senses are not perfectly designed? They are flawed at best. We can only sense a minute number of things that actually exist int he universe. Ultraviolet light? Infared light? radiation? Nah. Can we see the very very very very small? No. Can we accurately see the very very far away? No. We have had to build instruments to do this for us. If you believe god endowed us with senses then we have already surpassed god in that.

I can see that every creature has the vision it needs.....don't you see that too? Do we see like eagles? No! because we don't need that kind of vision. Can we see microscopic creatures? No! because we don't need to see them. It would probably give us the creeps if we saw how many lifeforms are living on our bodies....
and sleeping with us in our beds.

Humans have been given creative abilities, superior intellect and a thirst for knowledge, so the Creator has endowed us with the mental and physical skills to explore our world in as much detail as we want. That is hardly a flaw.

But they are easily tricked. They don't pick up enough information. They give us just enough to scavenge for food not to decipher the mysteries of the cosmos.

They give us enough information for the life we were designed to live. We don't have sonar like bats or dolphins, but we have the intelligence to develop sonar and use it to our advantage. We don't have far sighted eagle eyes, but we have the skills to develop microscopes and telescopes to view either the infinitesimal or the gargantuan and study life and the universe in greater depth. How amazing is that?!

But your evidence for god is that it "looks like we were created"? Funny.

Well, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, has a bill and webbed feet....
there is a great likelihood that it isn't a dinosaur.

Can you find a different source to her than creationiowiki? Something actually legitimate?

Creationwiki was quoting a legitimate source....unless you think that Mary Leakey and Fred Hoyle are not "legitimate" scientists?

There are more than likely dozens of species that we have never discovered because they do not have remains to discover. We have found skulls and ample evidence of the ones listed above. We have a nearly complete skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis. We have many incomplete skeletons but we have many good sources as well.

And "more than likely" is a scientific term is it? Unless these 'bits' of evidence were "interpreted" as ancestors of man, we would all assume that they were either some species of apes or human...not something in between the two. Science has to "suggest" that it "could have" or even "might have" happened, but it can't say for sure.

They most likely are our cousins rather than direct ancestors but this doesn't sway the point in the slightest. They shared a more recent common ancestor with us. Specifically ancestors that gained new and specifically human traits.

"Most likely" is another scientific term is it?

"They shared a common ancestor"? That is pure supposition, not scientific fact. A suggestion is not a fact.

You realize that they didn't come up with H Habilis, H Rudolfensis and H erectus with just a single Jawbone correct? It was the first of several fossils.

How many whole skeletons do we have then? And what can you really tell from a jawbone or a tooth? Its all made up because there is no real way to tell. Educated guessing is not science.....its pretending to be.

To a creationist's viewpoint so long as the answer is god the rest doesn't matter. This is evidenced by the fact you have everything from YEC to theistic evolutionists. There is a creationist viewpoint for each and every branch of Christianity if not more. What this generally means is that they are making things up to suit their personal beliefs.

But of course science would never do that....

Scientists would never argue about evolution.....would they?

Also for it to "make sense" you need EVIDENCE. What is a single shred of evidence of creationism?

Design!...tons of it that could never in many millions of years produce what science "suggests".

Not necessarily on the genetic level. The largest difference is in gestation period womb shape. But either way it makes no difference to the point being said. What is the evidence that god designed it that way?

When you have many complex components that make up a single piece of technology, what are the odds that these components could individually design themselves and then assemble themselves in the correct sequence, on their own with no direction whatsoever? There is your evidence. If science can use deduction, why can't we?
Complexity has to be designed. There is nothing but complexity in the living world. Reproduction is just one of those complex systems....each tailored to its own species.

Probably pretty crazy. I hope its amazing. I doubt its a god. If it is a god I am 100% it was not the god of Abraham.

Who or what do you think God is? The God of Abraham is the Creator......Moses said so. I believe him.He described creation in an accurate scientific manner to the level of his audience.

And that makes your position somehow better? What is the evidence of intelligent direction?

You do realize that this has been my position all along......I have no more real scientifically provable evidence than you do.
My Creator is not provable by mere human methods. He is beyond science's ability to quantify. He created science.

Why does prayer not yield results? Where has god ever taken a hand in directing anything ever?

Wow...you have never experienced an answered prayer?....I am so sorry.....I have experienced too many to count.
In order for prayers to be answered, you need to have a realistic view of them. For some, the answer is NO!

For others the answer comes from a very unexpected source or in an unexpected way. But the first prerequisite is a relationship with one who is "the hearer of prayer". Those who see him as some kind of 'celestial waiter', where they click their fingers and he makes magic happen to answer their every whim, will be sorely disappointed. He is a good parent, never overindulging his children, always teaching them to be self sufficient. Helping them to negotiate the trials of this life. The trials do not come from him.

Do you realize if we were debating why it rains you would be claiming that your god makes it rain and that my position is simply made up of an unintelligent mr nobody?

Precipitation is another amazing provision. There is not a drop of water within earth's atmosphere that hasn't always been here. It is constantly recycled. The earth is almost completely covered by water, yet most of it is not drinkable. In order for living things to survive on this saltwater planet, evaporation has to take place and form clouds which then have to be able to draw up and hold vast amounts of water. This water has been transformed into fresh drinkable water and dumped over the land masses, creating rivers and lakes so that living things can survive. Just a fluke of nature?

What about water's ability to exist in three forms...vapor, fluid and ice? Water is miraculous stuff and most people just take it for granted.

What if there was no salt in the oceans? What if water froze like all other liquids? What would happen? Just accidental?

And that you are scoffing the actual truth while clinging to the continually wrong and fallacious argument that claiming intelligence is required makes your argument somehow more valid?

Am I? I don't think I am, but you are free to disagree.

 

[ArtieE]

Deeje, are you actually saying that water is so amazing that it has to have been made by a god?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Deeje: "That's easy.....the double standard, like evolution, is all in your own mind. I am an unplanned life, but the process that produced me is not....get it? Life is not an accident.....it didn't just "poof" into existence by some fluke, millions of years ago."
-----------—-----------


I do not see the straw man. Where did she say that evolution was the fluke? She did not.

But atheists ultimately do believe, no matter what you call it, that something came from nothing.....that the profound truth, "ex nihilo, nihil fit" is false.

No they don't. Atheists just don't believe in god(s). They can (and do) believe in any number of other things.

The "something from nothing" or "poof" position is held by those who believe some intelligent being created the universe from nothing.

 

[savagewind]

.

The "something from nothing" or "poof" position is held by those who believe some intelligent being created the universe from nothing.

I do not think so. God created with bits of God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When you have many complex components that make up a single piece of technology, what are the odds that these components could individually design themselves and then assemble themselves in the correct sequence, on their own with no direction whatsoever? There is your evidence. If science can use deduction, why can't we?
Complexity has to be designed. There is nothing but complexity in the living world. Reproduction is just one of those complex systems....each tailored to its own species.

You've painted yourself into a corner again. If complexity has to be designed, and the god you believe in is complex, then god must also be designed. That is where that line of logic leads you. Again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not think so. God created with bits of God.

What does that mean?

 

[savagewind]

What does that mean?

Everything in the universe was caused by bits of the universe coming together nicely.
Everything in the universe was caused by a part of The God. GOD is the stuff of the universe.
Some people think that is what God is. I think God is the stuff of the universe AND the maker of the universe and most of the things in it. (I think God did not make stupid, but I think it is allowed because it is funny.)
One day it probably won't be funny.

 

[sayak83]

That is very interesting. And I'm sorry for misapplying your previous statement....saying they "can be" created, is not the same as saying it "needs to be" created. My bad.

Although, for the bilayer to have function, it must surround a living cell, the origin of which, to me anyways, must have been created. There's simply too much cooperative information within and between cells to have arisen by undirected chance, in my book!

No. They only need to surround other organic molecules created by the same set of chemical reactions that occur naturally under early earth conditions. Some of these organic molecules are RNA and amino acids, the molecules of life. There is a reason why life works with a specific set of 20 amino acids, a few lipids and 5 bases of RNA and DNA. Because these are the only ones that can be created by natural processes in early earth.

Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

I am an organic chemist , so I can vouch for this set of research papers directly. If you want to know something in more detail let me know. Chemistry is something that usually happens spontaneously given the right conditions. The problem is , for a small molecule, earth is a truly gigantic place with a dizzying variety of conditions. The key is understanding which earth-like condition was it that spontaneously generated the chemistry of life.

And what happens when these membranes do trap these small fragments of RNA and amino acids? They start live, very very poorly, but live nonetheless. Again researchers have seen it happen.

Szostak Lab: Research

 

[Big_TJ]

Rubbish! Genesis 2:4 uses the same word to describe a summation of the whole creative process....
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (ASV)

Deeje

I think you massively missed the point; you are really a true JW . The point is this: Whenever you use the word "day" and it is preceded by a number, the "day" is [almost] always literal. I stand corrected if you can show me in scriptures OR IN ANY OTHER WRITINGS where it would be appropriate to interpret "day" [or any Noun, perhaps] as non-literal when it is preceded by a number. This mere fact, along with the fact that the bible did speak about the "morning" and "evening" relating to each "day" is more than enough evidence that the writer(s) of Genesis meant to convey a message of literal days in the creation. One question I always asked persons who interpret the "day" in Genesis as non-literal and had never gotten a good answer is this: IF the writer(s) of Genesis had wanted to convey a literal meaning for "day" in Genesis, what would be the best way to do so? Because my thinking would be that referring to the evening and the morning would be the clearest way to show its literal meaning; perhaps you can correct me here with what a better way would have been.
Thanks!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Everything in the universe was caused by bits of the universe coming together nicely.
Everything in the universe was caused by a part of The God. GOD is the stuff of the universe.
Some people think that is what God is. I think God is the stuff of the universe AND the maker of the universe and most of the things in it. (I think God did not make stupid, but I think it is allowed because it is funny.)
One day it probably won't be funny.

Are you a pantheist?

 

[savagewind]

Are you a pantheist?

I think if I have to look it up it means I am not that.

I am not. It is the belief that God is not other than the universe. I believe God exists before any physical universe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think if I have to look it up it means I am not that.

I am not. It is the belief that God is not other than the universe. I believe God exists before any physical universe.

Maybe you're a panentheist then? (I don't really know either - I had to look both of them up )

 

[savagewind]

Maybe you're a panentheist then? (I don't really know either - I had to look both of them up )

Something like that. I believe God is intelligent so I don't quite qualify for panentheism because it is saying God does interpenetrate, but I think maybe God CAN do that, but doesn't always.