What if it was created by God to evolve?

[shunyadragon]

No, I demonstrated that it was not.

I think he indicates the Book of Urantia is a revealed source. and is not claim it was a scientific source.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don’t find the the theory that life invented itself to be rational. Materialists claims are as silly as Ken Hams teachings.

I've never heard of this theory. Where is it published?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think he indicates the Book of Urantia is a revealed source. and is not claim it was a scientific source.

He treats it as if it was one. That is the problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t find the the theory that life invented itself to be rational. Materialists claims are as silly as Ken Hams teachings.

That is only because you know nothing of the science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You take yourself too seriously!

No, that would be you. Just own up to your error and people will let it go.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don’t find the the theory that life invented itself to be rational. Materialists claims are as silly as Ken Hams teachings.

Materialism and Atheism are philosophical claims and have nothing to do with science.

 

[F1fan]

EVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUES OF LIFE​

65:6.1 It is impossible accurately to determine, simultaneously, the exact location and the velocity of a moving object; any attempt at measurement of either inevitably involves change in the other. The same sort of a paradox confronts mortal man when he undertakes the chemical analysis of protoplasm. The chemist can elucidate the chemistry of dead protoplasm, but he cannot discern either the physical organization or the dynamic performance of living protoplasm. Ever will the scientist come nearer and nearer the secrets of life, but never will he find them and for no other reason than that he must kill protoplasm in order to analyze it. Dead protoplasm weighs the same as living protoplasm, but it is not the same.

65:6.2 There is original endowment of adaptation in living things and beings. In every living plant or animal cell, in every living organism—material or spiritual—there is an insatiable craving for the attainment of ever-increasing perfection of environmental adjustment, organismal adaptation, and augmented life realization. These interminable efforts of all living things evidence the existence within them of an innate striving for perfection.

65:6.3 The most important step in plant evolution was the development of chlorophyll-making ability, and the second greatest advance was the evolution of the spore into the complex seed. The spore is most efficient as a reproductive agent, but it lacks the potentials of variety and versatility inherent in the seed.


"65:6.4 One of the most serviceable and complex episodes in the evolution of the higher types of animals consisted in the development of the ability of the iron in the circulating blood cells to perform in the double role of oxygen carrier and carbon dioxide remover. And this performance of the red blood cells illustrates how evolving organisms are able to adapt their functions to varying or changing environment. The higher animals, including man, oxygenate their tissues by the action of the iron of the red blood cells, which carries oxygen to the living cells and just as efficiently removes the carbon dioxide. But other metals can be made to serve the same purpose. The cuttlefish employs copper for this function, and the sea squirt utilizes vanadium." UB 1955 IMOP

Why would anyone rely on the Urantia Book when there are science books that are authoritative?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hey, how are you & yours, IANS?

Integrated design? What's that?

Well, for how Antony Flew saw it, I don’t know.

But I think it may be how 2 or more parts, themselves complex, work together forming a unit. Like the cell. That’s how I see it, anyways.

I don't see anything in reality that requires an intelligent designer except some of the design of intelligent animals. That beaver dam couldn't form naturally. It's irreducibly complex, like a the 747 that never appears following a junkyard tornado. Nature couldn't have done it unconsciously.

But isn’t the cell, with all its parts, vastly more complex?
Why would something less complex need a builder, but something that is orders of magnitude more complex, not?

And as far as irreducible goes… how did the one thing that makes proteins, DNA, originate from proteins? They’re necessary for DNA to form.

IOW, you can’t make DNA without proteins, and you can’t make proteins without DNA.
A very real chicken-and-the-egg dilemma.

To claim it happened naturally, without a Mind to build it… do you think that requires faith?

Best wishes to you, my cousin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey, how are you & yours, IANS?


Well, for how Antony Flew saw it, I don’t know.

Anthony Flew never denied evolution. He never became a Christian. He accepted the fact of evolution. I do not know why you keep referring to him.

But I think it may be how 2 or more parts, themselves complex, work together forming a unit. Like the cell. That’s how I see it, anyways.


But isn’t the cell, with all its parts, vastly more complex?
Why would something less complex need a builder, but something that is orders of magnitude more complex, not?

Modern cells are complex. They have had over 3 billion years of evolution. Why would you think that the first cells were complex?

And as far as irreducible goes… how did the one thing that makes proteins, DNA, originate from proteins? They’re necessary for DNA to form.

IOW, you can’t make DNA without proteins, and you can’t make proteins without DNA.
A very real chicken-and-the-egg dilemma.

To claim it happened naturally, without a Mind to build it… do you think that requires faith?

Best wishes to you, my cousin.

Citation needed. From my understanding DNA would have originally formed from RNA and RNA can be self forming . You are once again conflating modern conditions with prebiotic or early life conditions.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Would you prefer they lie and claim they have proof but you can only see it if you believe? Then they went knocking on your door at an inconvenient time and threatened you with missing out on paradise earth v 2.0 if you don't agree with them? Maybe they could stand on street corners harassing passers by? Would that be a better use of human time and resources?

First off, there’s no “v 2.0”; the first one, never happened. Only a Garden. (“Paradise earth v 2.0”, that is funny!) But it’s coming. “Thy Will be done on Earth,” you know.

Second, we don’t knock on doors and ‘threaten’ people! Grief!
If we did that, we wouldn’t be growing as fast as we are.
We try to “adorn” Divine teaching.. make it “attractive.” Titus 2:10

Jesus said it this way: “And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”

What we teach about Jehovah’s Kingdom,from the Bible, is good news!
The best!

And we’re only doing, what Jesus commanded His followers to do. Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 5:42.

Have a good day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First off, there’s no “v 2.0”; the first one, never happened. Only a Garden. (“Paradise earth v 2.0”, that is funny!) But it’s coming. “Thy Will be done on Earth,” you know.

Second, we don’t knock on doors and ‘threaten’ people! Grief!
If we did that, we wouldn’t be growing as fast as we are.
We try to “adorn” Divine teaching.. make it “attractive.” Titus 2:10

Jesus said it this way: “And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”

What we teach about Jehovah’s Kingdom,from the Bible, is good news!
The best!

And we’re only doing, what Jesus commanded His followers to do. Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 5:42.

Have a good day.

I have seen many JW's threaten. They claim if you do not share their silly beliefs that you will go to hell. Okay, that is a very idle threat, but a threat nonetheless.

And you should study your Bible a bit more Genesis 2 is not Genesis one with more details. There are real differences.

 

[Colt]

Materialism and Atheism are philosophical claims and have nothing to do with science.

Science has nothing to do with revelation and religion.

 

[Colt]

I've never heard of this theory. Where is it published?

It began with the theory of “spontaneous generation” among scientific minds and evolved into abiogenesis which is effectively Genesis among Atheist scientists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Physics and chemistry (which come from God) don't have forethought and create! Thats an absurd claim from the Atheist religion!

1. there is no such thing as "atheist religion". Just like there is no such thing as a "married bachelor"

2. i'm not aware of anyone ever claiming that physics and chemistry have "forethought" or anything of the sort.

So congratulations on the fallacious combo points. You managed to include 2 different strawmen into a 20-word statement.

Ther spark of life comes from the spirit.

Evidence for this claim required.

If one could have observed and analyzed the primitive life forms that became a Human hundreds of millions of years later, there would not have been anything that would demonstrate conclusively that it would evolve the way it did.

Off course there wouldn't. Why would you think otherwise?
Setting up yet another strawman?

Therefore the potential was supreme over the actual was at the beginning.

I recognize english words, but the way they are arranged they don't seem to make up for an intelligeble sentence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s always been obvious to me that life isn’t an accident.

So what? Do you think that your personal uneducated unqualified opinions carry any weight?

My religious beliefs explain that ....<snip>

Right. Your "religious beliefs".
Why would science care about those?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Consciousness, the presence of the spirit of God, love, morality, values, primitive life forms progressing onward, upward to will conscious man, these are just some of the truths that make up “obvious”.

1. not all of those are "facts"
2. your conclusion doesn't follow at all

And you can’t support your claims or belief that life invented itself.

Why would he need to support claims he's not making?
You might want to stop arguing strawmen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We don’t need to support our statements of faith.

Because you don't care about being rationally justified in your beliefs.
If you don't care about supporting your claims, then we don't care about the contents of those claims.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Thanks for playing.

“It’s always been obvious to me that life isn’t an accident. The so called evidence that materialists provide could just as well be an observation of the processes that created and propels life.”

You haven't corrected anything, you have only stated your Atheist faith.

Projection.

Again: you have just acknowledged that you don't care about being rationally justified in your beliefs. You don't care about meeting your burden of proof.
You are content with just making claims without evidence.

That means we get to reject them at face value.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don’t find the the theory that life invented itself to be rational.

There is no such theory.
That's just another strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science has nothing to do with revelation and religion.

Stop the presses!

@Colt actually got something right for a change.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It began with the theory of “spontaneous generation” among scientific minds and evolved into abiogenesis which is effectively Genesis among Atheist scientists.

Neither of those ideas say what you claimed they say.