RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Mazzy]

In response to the subject matter... At least creationists have physics on their side. For me it is a lesser leap of faith to believe a higher intelligence was able to use a proven theory to create, energy can form matter in an instant, than to believe that non living matter could become organised into a complex factory of reproduction by trial and error.

If evolutionists are able to leave proof of its base, abiogenesis, out of its theory, then likewise creationists should not have to prove the existence of God as a base.

The more we explore the genome even in single celled life forms and learn about its complexities, the less likely it is that life could arise without a designer.

[RickD]

Mazzy,

Why are abiogenesis, and a creator mutually exclusive?

[Mazzy]

Mazzy,

Why are abiogenesis, and a creator mutually exclusive?

I am not sure I understand your question. In answer, I'd say because all the evidence available to date strongly suggests chemical reactions cannot produce a living organism there must be a designer/creator. Hence theistic naturalists do not adhere to some of the assumptions proposed in theory.

[RickD]

Mazzy,

Why are abiogenesis, and a creator mutually exclusive?

I am not sure I understand your question. In answer, I'd say because all the evidence available to date strongly suggests chemical reactions cannot produce a living organism there must be a designer/creator. Hence theistic naturalists do not adhere to some of the assumptions proposed in theory.

I also don't know of any evidence that life can or has come from non-life. But let's just say that someone could prove that the way life began on earth was from chemicals. Would that mean that God couldn't have set it up to happen that way?

[Mazzy]

Mazzy,

Why are abiogenesis, and a creator mutually exclusive?

I am not sure I understand your question. In answer, I'd say because all the evidence available to date strongly suggests chemical reactions cannot produce a living organism there must be a designer/creator. Hence theistic naturalists do not adhere to some of the assumptions proposed in theory.

I also don't know of any evidence that life can or has come from non-life. But let's just say that someone could prove that the way life began on earth was from chemicals. Would that mean that God couldn't have set it up to happen that way?

No, not at all. Even if a species was produced in a lab out of a few amino acids and chemicals, that would not prove God didn't plan it that way. After all, God is not 'magic'. God is the greatest scientist. Science can show how God created.... Peering into the complexity of the genome and how it works is peering into Gods design and trying to understand it.

[RickD]

Mazzy,

Why are abiogenesis, and a creator mutually exclusive?

I am not sure I understand your question. In answer, I'd say because all the evidence available to date strongly suggests chemical reactions cannot produce a living organism there must be a designer/creator. Hence theistic naturalists do not adhere to some of the assumptions proposed in theory.

I also don't know of any evidence that life can or has come from non-life. But let's just say that someone could prove that the way life began on earth was from chemicals. Would that mean that God couldn't have set it up to happen that way?

No, not at all. Even if a species was produced in a lab out of a few amino acids and chemicals, that would not prove God didn't plan it that way. After all, God is not 'magic'. God is the greatest scientist. Science can show how God created.... Peering into the complexity of the genome and how it works is peering into Gods design and trying to understand it.

Ok. Then is it safe to assume that when you said "trial and error" here:

In response to the subject matter... At least creationists have physics on their side. For me it is a lesser leap of faith to believe a higher intelligence was able to use a proven theory to create, energy can form matter in an instant, than to believe that non living matter could become organised into a complex factory of reproduction by trial and error.

You were referring to abiogenesis in a purely natural way, without God?

[crochet1949]

crochet wrote:
If there's one thing I'm NOT it's a car mechanic -- but I've driven a variety of cars since I was 16. I know enough About cars to know they didn't evolve.

Crochet,

I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but the automobile has evolved.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science ... evolution/

I think we need to understand what evolution(biological) is not. It's not a scientific theory on how life began. It's not a scientific theory on how life got us to the point we are now, without God.

It's a theory, based on the interpretation of evidence, that tries to show how life on earth has changed, from its beginning, until now.

Whether the theory of evolution is true or not, it doesn't address how life began. At least that's what biological evolution adherents keep saying.

Conflating "evolution", with "no God", does nobody any good when trying to see how the theory of evolution stands on its own.

Now to me, I'd like to know if there is one specific theory of evolution, that is outlined somewhere, and that scientists who believe in evolution, agree upon?

Or, are there differing views on what is actually meant by biological evolution?

Sorry for breaking into another part of a discussion -- the car Has developed, but not by chance -- People developed the car and manufacturers produced them. Car parts did NOT come together by some force in nature and over hundreds of thousands of years and Gradually become all the various kinds of cars we have today. The car -- has been Developed by People. And the People who developed those cars was created by the Ultimate Designer.

[RickD]

crochet wrote:
If there's one thing I'm NOT it's a car mechanic -- but I've driven a variety of cars since I was 16. I know enough About cars to know they didn't evolve.

Crochet,

I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but the automobile has evolved.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science ... evolution/

I think we need to understand what evolution(biological) is not. It's not a scientific theory on how life began. It's not a scientific theory on how life got us to the point we are now, without God.

It's a theory, based on the interpretation of evidence, that tries to show how life on earth has changed, from its beginning, until now.

Whether the theory of evolution is true or not, it doesn't address how life began. At least that's what biological evolution adherents keep saying.

Conflating "evolution", with "no God", does nobody any good when trying to see how the theory of evolution stands on its own.

Now to me, I'd like to know if there is one specific theory of evolution, that is outlined somewhere, and that scientists who believe in evolution, agree upon?

Or, are there differing views on what is actually meant by biological evolution?

Sorry for breaking into another part of a discussion -- the car Has developed, but not by chance -- People developed the car and manufacturers produced them. Car parts did NOT come together by some force in nature and over hundreds of thousands of years and Gradually become all the various kinds of cars we have today. The car -- has been Developed by People. And the People who developed those cars was created by the Ultimate Designer.

I agree. I was trying to show you that evolution doesn't rule out God, in the same way that the automobile has evolved.

We can disagree with things about evolution. But if we're being honest, we can't conflate evolution and atheism.

It's just an argument I see a lot on creation sites, both YEC and OEC.

[Mazzy]

Mazzy,

Why are abiogenesis, and a creator mutually exclusive?

I am not sure I understand your question. In answer, I'd say because all the evidence available to date strongly suggests chemical reactions cannot produce a living organism there must be a designer/creator. Hence theistic naturalists do not adhere to some of the assumptions proposed in theory.

I also don't know of any evidence that life can or has come from non-life. But let's just say that someone could prove that the way life began on earth was from chemicals. Would that mean that God couldn't have set it up to happen that way?

No, not at all. Even if a species was produced in a lab out of a few amino acids and chemicals, that would not prove God didn't plan it that way. After all, God is not 'magic'. God is the greatest scientist. Science can show how God created.... Peering into the complexity of the genome and how it works is peering into Gods design and trying to understand it.

Ok. Then is it safe to assume that when you said "trial and error" here:

In response to the subject matter... At least creationists have physics on their side. For me it is a lesser leap of faith to believe a higher intelligence was able to use a proven theory to create, energy can form matter in an instant, than to believe that non living matter could become organised into a complex factory of reproduction by trial and error.

You were referring to abiogenesis in a purely natural way, without God?

Those that do not think God was involved at all, talk about trial and error until the evolutionary process stumbles on something that works, at least for a while. It is much the same thinking around chemical reactions forming a life form.

[crochet1949]

crochet wrote:
If there's one thing I'm NOT it's a car mechanic -- but I've driven a variety of cars since I was 16. I know enough About cars to know they didn't evolve.

Crochet,

I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but the automobile has evolved.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science ... evolution/

I think we need to understand what evolution(biological) is not. It's not a scientific theory on how life began. It's not a scientific theory on how life got us to the point we are now, without God.

It's a theory, based on the interpretation of evidence, that tries to show how life on earth has changed, from its beginning, until now.

Whether the theory of evolution is true or not, it doesn't address how life began. At least that's what biological evolution adherents keep saying.

Conflating "evolution", with "no God", does nobody any good when trying to see how the theory of evolution stands on its own.

Now to me, I'd like to know if there is one specific theory of evolution, that is outlined somewhere, and that scientists who believe in evolution, agree upon?

Or, are there differing views on what is actually meant by biological evolution?

Good points, tho if I may, asking all scientidts to agree is asking a bit much.

Historians agree there was Roman Empire. And that something happened to it.

Whether any two historians agree on all the details is another matter.

The lack of complete agreement on details is a sideshow.

Why is it important to you?

Part of my point about evolution IS " asking all scientists to agree is asking a bit much'. In regards to biological evolution or Any aspect of evolution. There are so many varying views pertaining to it -- Why do people give it so much absolute 'authority'.

[Mazzy]

crochet wrote:
If there's one thing I'm NOT it's a car mechanic -- but I've driven a variety of cars since I was 16. I know enough About cars to know they didn't evolve.

Crochet,

I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but the automobile has evolved.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science ... evolution/

I think we need to understand what evolution(biological) is not. It's not a scientific theory on how life began. It's not a scientific theory on how life got us to the point we are now, without God.

It's a theory, based on the interpretation of evidence, that tries to show how life on earth has changed, from its beginning, until now.

Whether the theory of evolution is true or not, it doesn't address how life began. At least that's what biological evolution adherents keep saying.

Conflating "evolution", with "no God", does nobody any good when trying to see how the theory of evolution stands on its own.

Now to me, I'd like to know if there is one specific theory of evolution, that is outlined somewhere, and that scientists who believe in evolution, agree upon?

Or, are there differing views on what is actually meant by biological evolution?

Sorry for breaking into another part of a discussion -- the car Has developed, but not by chance -- People developed the car and manufacturers produced them. Car parts did NOT come together by some force in nature and over hundreds of thousands of years and Gradually become all the various kinds of cars we have today. The car -- has been Developed by People. And the People who developed those cars was created by the Ultimate Designer.

I agree. I was trying to show you that evolution doesn't rule out God, in the same way that the automobile has evolved.

We can disagree with things about evolution. But if we're being honest, we can't conflate evolution and atheism.

It's just an argument I see a lot on creation sites, both YEC and OEC.

I have acknowledged theistic evolutionists and there are plenty of varieties.

Given the advances in science, the inability to create life in the lab under controlled conditions where any environment can be reconstructed, is evidence for Gods hand, I feel. To argue, the process behind abiogenesis may be found one day is a futile response. The fact that has been observed and cannot be denied to date, is the genome is extremely complex and we have not been able to recreate it in a lab, despite all the advances. That is a good support for God creating the first living and reproducing life form and not using chemical reactions....

There is not even one aspect of the genome that can survive outside a host without degradation long enough to evolve into anything. This goes for dna, rna and proteins. That is a 'fact' observed and demonstrated in science. I doubt that fact will ever be overturned.

The same goes for the argument for life elsewhere in the universe must be according to stats ie earth and life on it is not special. That concept is based on the Copernican principle, which is philosophy. We have evidence of water in our solar system, past and present eg Mars. We have observed other planets and moons in our solar system. The fact remains no life has been found, let alone intelligent life that can make sense of the universe. That does not prove anything for or against Gods' existence. However, being 'special' is a mighty convincing 'support' for a God. That's why Copernicus came up with a philosophy that is gospel to many scientists.

[Audie]

crochet wrote:
If there's one thing I'm NOT it's a car mechanic -- but I've driven a variety of cars since I was 16. I know enough About cars to know they didn't evolve.

Crochet,

I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but the automobile has evolved.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science ... evolution/

I think we need to understand what evolution(biological) is not. It's not a scientific theory on how life began. It's not a scientific theory on how life got us to the point we are now, without God.

It's a theory, based on the interpretation of evidence, that tries to show how life on earth has changed, from its beginning, until now.

Whether the theory of evolution is true or not, it doesn't address how life began. At least that's what biological evolution adherents keep saying.

Conflating "evolution", with "no God", does nobody any good when trying to see how the theory of evolution stands on its own.

Now to me, I'd like to know if there is one specific theory of evolution, that is outlined somewhere, and that scientists who believe in evolution, agree upon?

Or, are there differing views on what is actually meant by biological evolution?

Good points, tho if I may, asking all scientidts to agree is asking a bit much.

Historians agree there was Roman Empire. And that something happened to it.

Whether any two historians agree on all the details is another matter.

The lack of complete agreement on details is a sideshow.

Why is it important to you?

Part of my point about evolution IS " asking all scientists to agree is asking a bit much'. In regards to biological evolution or Any aspect of evolution. There are so many varying views pertaining to it -- Why do people give it so much absolute 'authority'.

Why do you give absolute authority to an old book about whivh no two people agree?

Did you see what I said about historians disagreeing on details of the roman empire?

They are not disagreeing on whether there was a roman empire.

AND- Please. Sciencd does not ever do " Absolute authority". Never. It is a complete absurd
concept to apply to science.

Belief in the existence of revealed knowledge and absolute authority was becoming outmoded
and unworkable (see 'Reformation") by the 18th century.

It lingers on, twitching like a shameful electrified corpse, in some religious circles.

It has nothing to do with scientific thinking.

That clarified-I hope- maybe your question comes to:

"If scientists dont agree on every one of the millions of details in that or any other theory, why do
scientists think it is valid and useful?"

Is that what you'd like to know.

[Mazzy]

crochet wrote:
If there's one thing I'm NOT it's a car mechanic -- but I've driven a variety of cars since I was 16. I know enough About cars to know they didn't evolve.

Crochet,

I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but the automobile has evolved.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science ... evolution/

I think we need to understand what evolution(biological) is not. It's not a scientific theory on how life began. It's not a scientific theory on how life got us to the point we are now, without God.

It's a theory, based on the interpretation of evidence, that tries to show how life on earth has changed, from its beginning, until now.

Whether the theory of evolution is true or not, it doesn't address how life began. At least that's what biological evolution adherents keep saying.

Conflating "evolution", with "no God", does nobody any good when trying to see how the theory of evolution stands on its own.

Now to me, I'd like to know if there is one specific theory of evolution, that is outlined somewhere, and that scientists who believe in evolution, agree upon?

Or, are there differing views on what is actually meant by biological evolution?

Good points, tho if I may, asking all scientists to agree is asking a bit much.

Historians agree there was Roman Empire. And that something happened to it.

Whether any two historians agree on all the details is another matter.

The lack of complete agreement on details is a sideshow.

Why is it important to you?

Part of my point about evolution IS " asking all scientists to agree is asking a bit much'. In regards to biological evolution or Any aspect of evolution. There are so many varying views pertaining to it -- Why do people give it so much absolute 'authority'.

Why do you give absolute authority to an old book about which no two people agree?

It looks like you agree, there are serious problems with TOE.

That doesn't prove evolution didn't happen. It does prove TOE remains a theoretical perspective.....The theory of evolution is itself evolving.....

[crochet1949]

Audie
Because that 'old book' happens to be God's Word -- it tells mankind How this world came into being. And some of us Do believe that 'the evening and the morning' were the 1st day through Saturday - is what was really meant. God IS the all-powerful Being who is very capable Of doing exactly what His Word says He did.
Disagreeing on details isn't that unusual -- combining details Does give a more complete picture Of. Have two people standing on one side of a car and two on the Other side and tell what they see. They will observe different things and putting their descriptions together get a complete picture of the car. Thus the Roman Empire.
And Yes -- people Do stand Firm on what science says -- Especially when it comes to evolution.
Absolute authority Does exist. John 14:6 Jesus Christ is telling everyone "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father But By Me."
Okay -- your next to last question would be the valid one To answer. "If scientists Don't agree......"

[crochet1949]

Mazzy

Yes, I'd agree that TOE Does remain a theoretical perspective. A theory NOT a Fact.
Mankind Has developed from one huge group of people with a common language and nationality TO separate groups with different languages. And it happened at the Tower of Babel -- and as people groups gravitated to groups that spoke the same language -- different cultures Did develop. But they were all people. Nothing was changing from any Other 'thing' into being Human.