Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

6days

New member
DavisBJ said:
6days said:
However, finding things that amaze can help us partially understand, and better worship our Creator... when we accept His Word as the foundation of our beliefs. (Design of our hearts, complexity in the cell, fine tuned universe etc)

I think you are simply stating the essence of what Michael said in your own words. I agree with very little of what you said.

What you label as "our Creator" is just a mental construct that gives you some emotional crutch you rely on. "His Word" (aka the Bible) is a collection of tribal religious and creation legends from a scientifically ignorant ancient nomadic people. As for the few amazing things you enumerate, science has made great strides in understanding how they came about sans God.

Not surprised you disagree that creation / nature / science gives believers cause to worship our Creator.

As for the few amazing things I enumerated, science has made great strides in revealing evidence of a Supreme Intelligence ..of our Creator. *

It is a great time in history to be a believer.
 

DavisBJ

New member
There's something we can test: Show us something we understand about how life came to be.
Thank you for exemplifying the creationist tactic of focusing on those questions science does not have a solid understanding of. In common parlance, that is called “God of the Gaps”.

In fact, there are numerous questions in science that are lacking answers right now, just ask any Professor that has graduate students seeking a thesis subject. But more illuminating, when discussing the evidence for God, is the track record that creationists prefer to distance themselves from. Your fundamentalist predecessors of a millennia or two ago were convinced that God was the direct cause of storms, earthquakes, disease, comets, and the diversity of life.

Other than the last one I mention, I suspect even you would not dispute that science has found natural answers to the items I enumerate. I really am not much concerned when, as you demonstrate, you have to resort to finding proof of your God in something as remote as the genesis of life. If your proof of God is no more in the “here and now” than that, then I accord your proof the same as the dozens of other creation myths found across the history of religions.
 

DavisBJ

New member
The vast majority of scientists I know, when disputing an answer someone has given, know their credibility rests on elucidating why they disagree, not just saying something as vanilla-flavored as “wrong”.

In your case, however, as you have demonstrated often, it serves you well to disagree with someone, but leave it to the opponents to have to ask why you disagree.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The vast majority of scientists I know, when disputing an answer someone has given, know their credibility rests on elucidating why they disagree, not just saying something as vanilla-flavored as “wrong”.In your case, however, as you have demonstrated often, it serves you well to disagree with someone, but leave it to the opponents to have to ask why you disagree.

Evolutionists love to talk about what is popular as if it is a guide to what is right.
 
Last edited:

6days

New member
DavisBJ said:
Thank you for exemplifying the creationist tactic of focusing on those questions science does not have a solid understanding of.
Actually Stripes question is logical from what you claimed. Now, it seems you want to ignore the obvious question.

Review:
I said complexity of the cell is one of the evidences of our Creator...and a cause of worship.

You said science has made strides understanding how things came about.



If anything...science has shown how life and complexity in the cell could never arise without a Creator.


DavisBJ said:
In common parlance, that is called “God of the Gaps”.

That is the evolutionist belief... 'we don't have an answer but we know evolution did it.'

DavisBJ said:
In fact, there are numerous questions in science that are lacking answers right now, just ask any Professor that has graduate students seeking a thesis subject. But more illuminating, when discussing the evidence for God, is the track record that creationists prefer to distance themselves from. Your fundamentalist predecessors of a millennia or two ago were convinced that God was the direct cause of storms, earthquakes, disease, comets, and the diversity of life.*

Its true that people make wrong conclusions. It is also true that God's Word is inerrant.

As to wrong conclusions, I wont bother listing things, but you are well aware of science proving evolutionist conclusions wrong many many times.
 

lucaspa

Member
Evolutionists love to talk about what is popular as if it is a guide to what is right.
Stripe, First that is the pot calling the kettle "black". "Christians" do this all the time. One example of that is when they say "well, if so many people believe in God, then God must exist." As I will get back to at the end of the post, you also do this in regards to your denominational doctrine.

Second, you don't get how science works. Scientists are an independent, cantankerous lot. All you need do is go to ANY scientific meeting and listen to the arguments. Scientists argue everything until they can't argue it anymore. However, science does have the physical universe to refer to as "authority". It also has the rule that the evidence/data must be available and (approximately) the same for everyone for it to count as part of science.

So, when scientists reach a consensus it is because the physical universe leaves them no choice. This is what happened to Rev Adam Sedgwick back in 1831. Rev Sedgwick was the world's foremost geologist, head of the department at Cambridge and President for over a decade of the Royal Geological Society. He had thought there had been a world-wide flood in the past. The data would not allow the idea that such a flood accounted for all geological features (as today's YECs insist), but Rev. Sedgwick still thought that it might account for the uppermost morraines and other deposits. In 1831 Rev Sedgwick retired from the post as President of the Royal Geological Society. In his farewell address, he admitted the data completely falsified any concept of a world-wide flood. It never happened. Please note that Rev. Sedgwick did NOT give up his ministry or become an agnostic or atheist.

When people invoke a consensus among scientists, it is NOT an appeal to popularity. Instead, it is stating as a fact that a bunch of independent, stubborn people who have studied the data have all independently reached the same conclusion. Since they know more about the data than you do (because you won't go look), it behooves you to think about it.

After all, when it comes to the doctrines of your denomination, you do the same thing. You listen to the Christian theologians (those who have studied scripture and spent much time in thought and prayer) who have decided the nature of God (triune), that Jesus is His son, the meaning of Jesus' resurrection, how the church is to be organized and governed, etc. Sauce for the goose.
 

lucaspa

Member
There's something we can test: Show us something we understand about how life came to be.

As other people have pointed out, this is god-of-the-gaps theology. It is bad religion and theology. In brief, God must never be inserted between regularly occurring members of the universe. This makes God a part of the universe and Christian doctrine is very plain that God is NOT part of the universe. If you want to read more about this, I suggest the book Christian Belief in a Postmodern World by Diogenes Allen. In fact, science got the idea of no gaps from Christianity.

There is a lot that we understand how life can arise from non-life. You asked for "one thing". I'm going to give you several. You can see some summaries here:
http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak.html
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~panopus/abiotic.htm

We know the organic compounds that make up the basic building blocks of life -- amino acids, sugars, nucleotides, etc. -- can come to be by very common chemical processes:
1. RF Service, A biomolecule building block from vents. Science 281: 1936-1937, Sept. 25, 1998. Synthesis of ammonia at underwater volcanic vents. Ammonia is a necessary building block for amino acids.
2. MP Bernstein, SA Sandford, LF Allamandola, Life's far-flung raw materials. Scientific American 281: 42-49, July 1999. Astrochemists show that complex carbon compound, including amino acids, are present in interstellar clouds.
3. J. P. Amend, E. L. Shock , Energetics of Amino Acid Synthesis in Hydrothermal Ecosystems, Science 281: 1659 - 1662 ,11 Sep 1998.
4. Marshall, W. H. 1994. Hydrothermal synthesis of amino acids. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58: 2099-2106.
1. Kawamoto K, Akaboshi H. Study on the chemical evolution of low molecular weight compounds in a highly oxidized atmosphere using electical discharges.**Origins of Life and Evolution of the*Biosphere 12: 133-141, 1982.
2. http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479


Then, proteins and nucleic acids can be made spontaneously by heating them either in a dry environment (like an evaporating tidal pool), or at hydrothermal vents:
1. Imai, E., Honda, H., Hatori, K., Brack, A., Matsuno, K. (1999). Elongation of Oligopeptides in a simulated submarine hydrothermal system. Science283: 831-833.
2. http://serials.cib.unibo.it/cgi-ser...g_art=3523221&language=ITALIANO&view=articoli Synthesizing oligomers from monomeric nucleotides in simulated hydrothermal environments.

Finally, these proteins will spontaneously make living cells when water returns or they move into the cooler water outside a hydrothermal vent:
1. http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
2. http://www.realmagick.com/sidney-w-fox-microspheres/
14. http://www.springerlink.com/content/dxq91868368083p2/ pictures of one type of protocell
18. http://www.biog1105-1106.org/demos/106/unit04/3a.protobionts.html pictures of protocells

These "protocells" metabolize (catabolize and anabolize), grow, respond to stimuli (they have an action potential identical to contemporary nerve cells), and reproduce. Thus, they have all the characteristics that make up "alive".

The reactions are so simple that you can do them in your kitchen:

Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7145 and one bottle of R 7131 amino acids solutions (you need both to get all the amino acids http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/formulation/M5550for.pdf ). They will cost you about $70 plus shipping for both. Empty the bottles into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 60 more minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. They are alive. If this is too "artificial" for you, then put the solution out on a hot rock for the afternoon and let it evaporate. Then add water (rain).

Having shown you all this, have I "disproved" God? NO! What I have shown is that your argument (or "proof") for the existence of God is invalid. The existence of God does not depend on His having "poofed" the first living cell into existence. Christian belief is that God uses "secondary causes" things. For instance, God did not directly create you, did He? No, you arise from a series of secondary causes starting with formation of gametes in your parents, moving through fertilization and embryonic development, and then birth. God does not push the planets around to hold them in orbit around the sun, does He? Instead, He uses the secondary cause of gravity. What I have shown you is the secondary causes that God can create life from non-living chemicals. Please stop using the very bad theology of god-of-the-gaps as "proof". All it does is play into the hands of atheists when the gaps are filled. After all, the corollary is that if God works in the gaps, then God is absent when a gap is filled. You are not helping God or religion.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
(Barbarian asks what is the most essential thing for cellular life to exist)

Simon Baker says:

Right. Ultimately, the most essential thing. But I was going past that. What do you think is the most absolutely essential part of a cell?
 

everready

New member
(Barbarian asks what is the most essential thing for cellular life to exist)

The answer: Jesus Christ, who upholds all things by the word of his power Hebrews 1:3


everready
 

Hedshaker

New member
(Barbarian asks what is the most essential thing for cellular life to exist)

The answer: Jesus Christ, who upholds all things by the word of his power Hebrews 1:3

Wrong. Life existed on this planet long before Jesus Christ, as depicted in the Bible, appeared, if he existed at all since the HJ vs MJ evidence is rather sketchy at best.
 

6days

New member
Life comes from Life

Life comes from Life

Lucaspa said:
As other people have pointed out, this is god-of-the-gaps theology.
It is evolutionists who believe in god of the gaps... The answer to all things is 'evolution did it...sans God'.
Lucaspa said:
There is a lot that we understand how life can arise from non-life.

What we understand... and what you explain is the extreme intelligence involved in even creating the "building blocks, and the laboratory conditions". And it would seem evolutionists have a problem, in that what they can't get started, they still believe.

A living cell is an extremely complex arrangement of simple "building blocks"... Something which to date scientists have not come close to creating. Having all the right ingredients does not create life... you need a programmer.

Lucaspa said:
Please stop using the very bad theology of god-of-the-gaps as "proof". All it does is play into the hands of atheists when the gaps are filled. After all, the corollary is that if God works in the gaps, then God is absent when a gap is filled. You are not helping God or religion.
:) The jury should find you guilty of bad theology.

The Law of Biogenesis says life comes from life. You believe otherwise, inspite of the science. You are advocating others believe in your god of the gaps.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
The Law of Biogenesis says life comes from life.

So let's take a look...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

God 1, Law of Biogenesis 0.

You believe otherwise, in spite of science and scripture.
 

6days

New member
(Barbarian asks what is the most essential thing for cellular life to exist)

The answer: Jesus Christ, who upholds all things by the word of his power Hebrews 1:3


everready
Good answer!
Yes Jesus is both the Creator and sustainer of His creation.
"He existed before anything else, and he holds all creation together." Col. 1:17
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
(Barbarian asks what is the most essential thing for cellular life to exist)

The answer: Jesus Christ, who upholds all things by the word of his power Hebrews 1:3

Even more basic than water. But what is the absolute minimum structure for cellular life?
 

6days

New member
So let's take a look...
God 1, Law of Biogenesis 0.

You believe otherwise, in spite of science and scripture.
You are a fool Barbarian.
Science does not says life comes from nonlife.
And, Scripture says God created everything. Note that "God said" is in the verse you quoted. Life did not arise without Him.
 
Last edited:

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
(Law of Biogenesis promoted)

Barbarian suggests:
So let's take a look...
(God says life comes from non-life)
God 1, Law of Biogenesis 0.

You believe otherwise, in spite of science and scripture.

You are a fool Barbarian.

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.


You have my forgiveness, of course. But consider God's warning, please.

Science does not says life comes from life.

Actually, it was Pasteur's law, in which he refuted spontaneous generation. Which is different than abiogenesis, as you might know.

And, Scripture says God created everything.

I'm pleased you agree with me. I would be even more pleased if you accepted the way He did it.

Note that "God said" is in the verse you quoted. Life did not arise without Him.

Of course. Nature is His creation too. And everything that happens naturally is because of Him.
 

everready

New member
(Barbarian asks what is the most essential thing for cellular life to exist)



Even more basic than water. But what is the absolute minimum structure for cellular life?

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.


everready
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top