If evolution doesn't explain creation, why do anti-Christians insist on inserting it

[code1211]

Let me show you why people on your side agree with my side. From the other thread.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

He also fully believed in evolution, no matter what else he believed.

I believe in adaptations as well but not to the point of Macro-evolution.

I believe that every family was created by God and given the ability to limited change through adaptations.

But we also know by darwins finches that the ones being weeded out by natural selection when the drought was over made a strong return. That is not evolution that is merely adapting.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but that's what evolution is.

 

[code1211]

First honest answer I have seen from your side since evolutionist usually avoid the origins question since they have no explanation for the question.

There are various explanations. None are certain. All are possible given the natural laws around them.

As understanding advances, more and more is understood. Lightning was a non-explainable in the very recent past. Viruses were only isolated as recently as the 50's.

Superstition is useful as a societal sharing of fear, but contributes nothing to understanding.

To prevent the spread of disease, is it better to wash your hands or to say "God bless you"?

Not claiming that there is no God. Just wondering what his spokespeople are smoking.

Really and anyone who believe them need to have their head examined but let's let a real scientist give his view on the issue.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

The guy you're hanging your hat on thinks that life on earth was transplanted by a civilization from a different planet. He was an atheist and would turn over in his grave to have you invoking him to support Creationism.

Various quotes from Crick:


Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
— Francis Crick
What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138.
Science quotes on: | Biologist (12) | Design (25) | Evolution (299)


Finally one should add that in spite of the great complexity of protein synthesis and in spite of the considerable technical difficulties in synthesizing polynucleotides with defined sequences it is not unreasonable to hope that all these points will be clarified in the near future, and that the genetic code will be completely established on a sound experimental basis within a few years.
— Francis Crick
'On the Genetic Code', Nobel Lecture, 11 December 1962. In Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962 (1964), 808.
Science quotes on: | DNA (43) | Molecular Biology (15) | Protein (23)


It is one of the striking generalizations of biochemistry—which surprisingly is hardly ever mentioned in the biochemical text-books—that the twenty amino acids and the four bases, are, with minor reservations, the same throughout Nature. As far as I am aware the presently accepted set of twenty amino acids was first drawn up by Watson and myself in the summer of 1953 in response to a letter of Gamow's.
— Francis Crick
'On the Genetic Code', Nobel Lecture, 11 December 1962. In Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962 (1964), 811.
Science quotes on: | Amino Acid (8) | George Gamow (7) | James Dewey Watson (16)


Origin of Man: 7) Directed panspermia

<snip>

He then concluded this about life beginning by evolution:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... 51

Well, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book Life Itself. This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. 52 [emphasis mine]

<snip>

 

[Dr.Drock]

There are various explanations. None are certain. All are possible given the natural laws around them.

As understanding advances, more and more is understood. Lightning was a non-explainable in the very recent past. Viruses were only isolated as recently as the 50's.

Superstition is useful as a societal sharing of fear, but contributes nothing to understanding.

To prevent the spread of disease, is it better to wash your hands or to say "God bless you"?

Not claiming that there is no God. Just wondering what his spokespeople are smoking.

Really and anyone who believe them need to have their head examined but let's let a real scientist give his view on the issue.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

The guy you're hanging your hat on thinks that life on earth was transplanted by a civilization from a different planet. He was an atheist and would turn over in his grave to have you invoking him to support Creationism.

Various quotes from Crick:


Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
— Francis Crick
What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138.
Science quotes on: | Biologist (12) | Design (25) | Evolution (299)


Finally one should add that in spite of the great complexity of protein synthesis and in spite of the considerable technical difficulties in synthesizing polynucleotides with defined sequences it is not unreasonable to hope that all these points will be clarified in the near future, and that the genetic code will be completely established on a sound experimental basis within a few years.
— Francis Crick
'On the Genetic Code', Nobel Lecture, 11 December 1962. In Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962 (1964), 808.
Science quotes on: | DNA (43) | Molecular Biology (15) | Protein (23)


It is one of the striking generalizations of biochemistry—which surprisingly is hardly ever mentioned in the biochemical text-books—that the twenty amino acids and the four bases, are, with minor reservations, the same throughout Nature. As far as I am aware the presently accepted set of twenty amino acids was first drawn up by Watson and myself in the summer of 1953 in response to a letter of Gamow's.
— Francis Crick
'On the Genetic Code', Nobel Lecture, 11 December 1962. In Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962 (1964), 811.
Science quotes on: | Amino Acid (8) | George Gamow (7) | James Dewey Watson (16)


Origin of Man: 7) Directed panspermia

<snip>

He then concluded this about life beginning by evolution:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... 51

Well, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book Life Itself. This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. 52 [emphasis mine]

<snip>

You never really know what YWC is arguing.

It's not a stupid tactic though, he gets proven wrong thread after thread, then he changes his position. He just never changes his position to anything that lines up with scientific facts, that would make him an anti-christian in his mind.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He also fully believed in evolution, no matter what else he believed.

I believe in adaptations as well but not to the point of Macro-evolution.

I believe that every family was created by God and given the ability to limited change through adaptations.

But we also know by darwins finches that the ones being weeded out by natural selection when the drought was over made a strong return. That is not evolution that is merely adapting.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but that's what evolution is.

There is zero evidence that adaptations has ever caused macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There are various explanations. None are certain. All are possible given the natural laws around them.

As understanding advances, more and more is understood. Lightning was a non-explainable in the very recent past. Viruses were only isolated as recently as the 50's.

Superstition is useful as a societal sharing of fear, but contributes nothing to understanding.

To prevent the spread of disease, is it better to wash your hands or to say "God bless you"?

Not claiming that there is no God. Just wondering what his spokespeople are smoking.

Really and anyone who believe them need to have their head examined but let's let a real scientist give his view on the issue.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

The guy you're hanging your hat on thinks that life on earth was transplanted by a civilization from a different planet. He was an atheist and would turn over in his grave to have you invoking him to support Creationism.

Various quotes from Crick:


Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
&#8212; Francis Crick
What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138.
Science quotes on: | Biologist (12) | Design (25) | Evolution (299)


Finally one should add that in spite of the great complexity of protein synthesis and in spite of the considerable technical difficulties in synthesizing polynucleotides with defined sequences it is not unreasonable to hope that all these points will be clarified in the near future, and that the genetic code will be completely established on a sound experimental basis within a few years.
&#8212; Francis Crick
'On the Genetic Code', Nobel Lecture, 11 December 1962. In Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962 (1964), 808.
Science quotes on: | DNA (43) | Molecular Biology (15) | Protein (23)


It is one of the striking generalizations of biochemistry&#8212;which surprisingly is hardly ever mentioned in the biochemical text-books&#8212;that the twenty amino acids and the four bases, are, with minor reservations, the same throughout Nature. As far as I am aware the presently accepted set of twenty amino acids was first drawn up by Watson and myself in the summer of 1953 in response to a letter of Gamow's.
&#8212; Francis Crick
'On the Genetic Code', Nobel Lecture, 11 December 1962. In Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962 (1964), 811.
Science quotes on: | Amino Acid (8) | George Gamow (7) | James Dewey Watson (16)


Origin of Man: 7) Directed panspermia

<snip>

He then concluded this about life beginning by evolution:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... 51

Well, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book Life Itself. This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. 52 [emphasis mine]

<snip>

I'm not hanging my hat on one guy there are many on your side that reject theories within the theory. Yes I said earlier that he probably is a believer in the alien theory. But I believe as well as he and many on your side agree that there is no way life could have come from non-life. Nor intelligence could come from a non-intelligent natural process through random chance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Really and anyone who believe them need to have their head examined but let's let a real scientist give his view on the issue.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

The guy you're hanging your hat on thinks that life on earth was transplanted by a civilization from a different planet. He was an atheist and would turn over in his grave to have you invoking him to support Creationism.

Various quotes from Crick:


Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
— Francis Crick
What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138.
Science quotes on: | Biologist (12) | Design (25) | Evolution (299)


Finally one should add that in spite of the great complexity of protein synthesis and in spite of the considerable technical difficulties in synthesizing polynucleotides with defined sequences it is not unreasonable to hope that all these points will be clarified in the near future, and that the genetic code will be completely established on a sound experimental basis within a few years.
— Francis Crick
'On the Genetic Code', Nobel Lecture, 11 December 1962. In Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962 (1964), 808.
Science quotes on: | DNA (43) | Molecular Biology (15) | Protein (23)


It is one of the striking generalizations of biochemistry—which surprisingly is hardly ever mentioned in the biochemical text-books—that the twenty amino acids and the four bases, are, with minor reservations, the same throughout Nature. As far as I am aware the presently accepted set of twenty amino acids was first drawn up by Watson and myself in the summer of 1953 in response to a letter of Gamow's.
— Francis Crick
'On the Genetic Code', Nobel Lecture, 11 December 1962. In Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962 (1964), 811.
Science quotes on: | Amino Acid (8) | George Gamow (7) | James Dewey Watson (16)


Origin of Man: 7) Directed panspermia

<snip>

He then concluded this about life beginning by evolution:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... 51

Well, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book Life Itself. This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. 52 [emphasis mine]

<snip>

You never really know what YWC is arguing.

It's not a stupid tactic though, he gets proven wrong thread after thread, then he changes his position. He just never changes his position to anything that lines up with scientific facts, that would make him an anti-christian in his mind.

oh boy your idea of someone being proven wrong is different then mine. I have never changed my position there are some things I'm more flexible on because I don't know for sure.

 

[LOki]

Do you realize there is actual evidence supporting a young earth ?

And all of it is also fully consistent with with the evidence of an old Earth. The problem superstitious YECs like Youwerecreated cannot surmount is that valid logic applied to ALL the verifiable evidence does not support any young Earth theory.

Let me show you why people on your side agree with my side. From the other thread.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

I'm pretty sure you are misrepresenting Francis Crick's actual belief, ... but even if you aren't, SO WHAT? Francis Crick still accepted the validity of the Theory of Evolution:

Of course it is not true that mankind is evolving at the moment only by natural selection. Ever since man was able to communicate and form societies, another form of evolution has been taking place-social evolution, which is very much faster and in many ways more effective. Nevertheless, much in our nature has evolved under the pressure of natural selection alone, and these pressures still exist today.

And he found very little validity in the alternative you present:

The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas."

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.
(Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

It looks like he didn't express that he thought it was "just not possible," and it also looks like you're still full of shit.

How about that?

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

It seems his actual answer was that his position "... should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that [life] could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and i will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.

Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

 

[editec]

The premise that folks who believe in the theory of evolution are "ANTI-christian" is rather paranoid.

 

[code1211]

Really and anyone who believe them need to have their head examined but let's let a real scientist give his view on the issue.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

The guy you're hanging your hat on thinks that life on earth was transplanted by a civilization from a different planet. He was an atheist and would turn over in his grave to have you invoking him to support Creationism.

Various quotes from Crick:


Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
— Francis Crick
What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138.
Science quotes on: | Biologist (12) | Design (25) | Evolution (299)


Finally one should add that in spite of the great complexity of protein synthesis and in spite of the considerable technical difficulties in synthesizing polynucleotides with defined sequences it is not unreasonable to hope that all these points will be clarified in the near future, and that the genetic code will be completely established on a sound experimental basis within a few years.
— Francis Crick
'On the Genetic Code', Nobel Lecture, 11 December 1962. In Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962 (1964), 808.
Science quotes on: | DNA (43) | Molecular Biology (15) | Protein (23)


It is one of the striking generalizations of biochemistry—which surprisingly is hardly ever mentioned in the biochemical text-books—that the twenty amino acids and the four bases, are, with minor reservations, the same throughout Nature. As far as I am aware the presently accepted set of twenty amino acids was first drawn up by Watson and myself in the summer of 1953 in response to a letter of Gamow's.
— Francis Crick
'On the Genetic Code', Nobel Lecture, 11 December 1962. In Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962 (1964), 811.
Science quotes on: | Amino Acid (8) | George Gamow (7) | James Dewey Watson (16)


Origin of Man: 7) Directed panspermia

<snip>

He then concluded this about life beginning by evolution:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... 51

Well, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book Life Itself. This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. 52 [emphasis mine]

<snip>

I'm not hanging my hat on one guy there are many on your side that reject theories within the theory. Yes I said earlier that he probably is an a believer in the alien theory. But I do and many on your agree that there is no way life could have come from non-life. Nor intelligence could come from a non-intelligent natural process.

The proof of life is that it is. The proof of the origin of life is like a chain hanging from a ceiling. Without the demonstrated link connecting it to the ceiling, it must fall and demonstration of what that link is is what you demand. What is that link?

If it comforts you to believe that it is God, then go ahead and believe it. There is no proof of this, however and faith is not a proof. By definition, faith requires the lack of proof.

Finding no proof does not mean there is no proof. All it means is that proof is not found. It does not mean that by default, God is the answer. Producing proof of God is the same, is it not? We know Him only through stories and accept His existence and His dominance on faith.

If the chain is not hanging from the ceiling and is instead just laying around in the dark and dusty ravine in the desert, what then? Does the chain cease to exist? if there is no ceiling, no link to the ceiling is required.

Is it more or less likely that billions of instances involving a pretty simple array of components resulted at some point in a combination that produced the starting point on the road to life as we understand it or that a fully evolved and all powerful entity existed and at some point decided us into existence.

You say that it is unlikely that very simple life sprung up from the simple materials available in the place and at the time. You say that it's impossible that a thinking creature like Man evolved from that form of life. You cite two impossibilities and yet, we are here.

You also say that it is a certainty that God exists, always has and always was, is and will be of the same form and all powerful and all knowing. This has the feel of another impossibility and yet, you acknowledge the reality.

Three things that cannot be. Three things that are so real, they weave the fabric of our understanding of life on various levels.

God help us!

 

[Youwerecreated]

The guy you're hanging your hat on thinks that life on earth was transplanted by a civilization from a different planet. He was an atheist and would turn over in his grave to have you invoking him to support Creationism.

Various quotes from Crick:


Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
— Francis Crick
What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138.
Science quotes on: | Biologist (12) | Design (25) | Evolution (299)


Finally one should add that in spite of the great complexity of protein synthesis and in spite of the considerable technical difficulties in synthesizing polynucleotides with defined sequences it is not unreasonable to hope that all these points will be clarified in the near future, and that the genetic code will be completely established on a sound experimental basis within a few years.
— Francis Crick
'On the Genetic Code', Nobel Lecture, 11 December 1962. In Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962 (1964), 808.
Science quotes on: | DNA (43) | Molecular Biology (15) | Protein (23)


It is one of the striking generalizations of biochemistry—which surprisingly is hardly ever mentioned in the biochemical text-books—that the twenty amino acids and the four bases, are, with minor reservations, the same throughout Nature. As far as I am aware the presently accepted set of twenty amino acids was first drawn up by Watson and myself in the summer of 1953 in response to a letter of Gamow's.
— Francis Crick
'On the Genetic Code', Nobel Lecture, 11 December 1962. In Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962 (1964), 811.
Science quotes on: | Amino Acid (8) | George Gamow (7) | James Dewey Watson (16)


Origin of Man: 7) Directed panspermia

<snip>

He then concluded this about life beginning by evolution:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... 51

Well, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book Life Itself. This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. 52 [emphasis mine]

<snip>

I'm not hanging my hat on one guy there are many on your side that reject theories within the theory. Yes I said earlier that he probably is an a believer in the alien theory. But I do and many on your agree that there is no way life could have come from non-life. Nor intelligence could come from a non-intelligent natural process.

The proof of life is that it is. The proof of the origin of life is like a chain hanging from a ceiling. Without the demonstrated link connecting it to the ceiling, it must fall and demonstration of what that link is is what you demand. What is that link?

If it comforts you to believe that it is God, then go ahead and believe it. There is no proof of this, however and faith is not a proof. By definition, faith requires the lack of proof.

Finding no proof does not mean there is no proof. All it means is that proof is not found. It does not mean that by default, God is the answer. Producing proof of God is the same, is it not? We know Him only through stories and accept His existence and His dominance on faith.

If the chain is not hanging from the ceiling and is instead just laying around in the dark and dusty ravine in the desert, what then? Does the chain cease to exist? if there is no ceiling, no link to the ceiling is required.

Is it more or less likely that billions of instances involving a pretty simple array of components resulted at some point in a combination that produced the starting point on the road to life as we understand it or that a fully evolved and all powerful entity existed and at some point decided us into existence.

You say that it is unlikely that very simple life sprung up from the simple materials available in the place and at the time. You say that it's impossible that a thinking creature like Man evolved from that form of life. You cite two impossibilities and yet, we are here.

You also say that it is a certainty that God exists, always has and always was, is and will be of the same form and all powerful and all knowing. This has the feel of another impossibility and yet, you acknowledge the reality.

Three things that cannot be. Three things that are so real, they weave the fabric of our understanding of life on various levels.

God help us!

All life is complex that is exactly why everything we see could not have happened by random chance.

 

[Gadawg73]

And all of it is also fully consistent with with the evidence of an old Earth. The problem superstitious YECs like Youwerecreated cannot surmount is that valid logic applied to ALL the verifiable evidence does not support any young Earth theory.

Let me show you why people on your side agree with my side. From the other thread.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

I'm pretty sure you are misrepresenting Francis Crick's actual belief, ... but even if you aren't, SO WHAT? Francis Crick still accepted the validity of the Theory of Evolution:

​

And he found very little validity in the alternative you present:

​

​

It looks like he didn't express that he thought it was "just not possible," and it also looks like you're still full of shit.

How about that?

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

It seems his actual answer was that his position "... should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that [life] could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and i will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.

Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

If there was ANY proof of a creator scientists would be the ones to prove it.
The ONLY ones.

 

[code1211]

I'm not hanging my hat on one guy there are many on your side that reject theories within the theory. Yes I said earlier that he probably is an a believer in the alien theory. But I do and many on your agree that there is no way life could have come from non-life. Nor intelligence could come from a non-intelligent natural process.

The proof of life is that it is. The proof of the origin of life is like a chain hanging from a ceiling. Without the demonstrated link connecting it to the ceiling, it must fall and demonstration of what that link is is what you demand. What is that link?

If it comforts you to believe that it is God, then go ahead and believe it. There is no proof of this, however and faith is not a proof. By definition, faith requires the lack of proof.

Finding no proof does not mean there is no proof. All it means is that proof is not found. It does not mean that by default, God is the answer. Producing proof of God is the same, is it not? We know Him only through stories and accept His existence and His dominance on faith.

If the chain is not hanging from the ceiling and is instead just laying around in the dark and dusty ravine in the desert, what then? Does the chain cease to exist? if there is no ceiling, no link to the ceiling is required.

Is it more or less likely that billions of instances involving a pretty simple array of components resulted at some point in a combination that produced the starting point on the road to life as we understand it or that a fully evolved and all powerful entity existed and at some point decided us into existence.

You say that it is unlikely that very simple life sprung up from the simple materials available in the place and at the time. You say that it's impossible that a thinking creature like Man evolved from that form of life. You cite two impossibilities and yet, we are here.

You also say that it is a certainty that God exists, always has and always was, is and will be of the same form and all powerful and all knowing. This has the feel of another impossibility and yet, you acknowledge the reality.

Three things that cannot be. Three things that are so real, they weave the fabric of our understanding of life on various levels.

God help us!

All life is complex that is exactly why everything we see could not have happened by random chance.

Again, throughout the world at any given instant, there are millions of occasions that 20 amino acids and 4 bases could interact. There were literally billions of years and literally trillions of chances for one of the interactions to have happened into the right order at the right time in the right combination.

In my mind that makes the possibility pretty good, almost certain that it would have happened. Once it happens, there's no stopping it.

One of my favorite stories of the persistence of life is that when the scientists arrived at the site of the first atomic bomb blast, cockroaches were already there.

All that is required is a membrane, the right combination of acids and bases and a welcoming environment. Except for the membrane, that describes most of Earth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let me show you why people on your side agree with my side. From the other thread.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

I'm pretty sure you are misrepresenting Francis Crick's actual belief, ... but even if you aren't, SO WHAT? Francis Crick still accepted the validity of the Theory of Evolution:

​

And he found very little validity in the alternative you present:

​

​

It looks like he didn't express that he thought it was "just not possible," and it also looks like you're still full of shit.

How about that?


It seems his actual answer was that his position "... should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that [life] could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive

Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and i will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.

Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

If there was ANY proof of a creator scientists would be the ones to prove it.
The ONLY ones.

Wrong if God wanted men of science to prove his existence it would happen because that is what he wanted. We are all under a test do we believe or not.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The proof of life is that it is. The proof of the origin of life is like a chain hanging from a ceiling. Without the demonstrated link connecting it to the ceiling, it must fall and demonstration of what that link is is what you demand. What is that link?

If it comforts you to believe that it is God, then go ahead and believe it. There is no proof of this, however and faith is not a proof. By definition, faith requires the lack of proof.

Finding no proof does not mean there is no proof. All it means is that proof is not found. It does not mean that by default, God is the answer. Producing proof of God is the same, is it not? We know Him only through stories and accept His existence and His dominance on faith.

If the chain is not hanging from the ceiling and is instead just laying around in the dark and dusty ravine in the desert, what then? Does the chain cease to exist? if there is no ceiling, no link to the ceiling is required.

Is it more or less likely that billions of instances involving a pretty simple array of components resulted at some point in a combination that produced the starting point on the road to life as we understand it or that a fully evolved and all powerful entity existed and at some point decided us into existence.

You say that it is unlikely that very simple life sprung up from the simple materials available in the place and at the time. You say that it's impossible that a thinking creature like Man evolved from that form of life. You cite two impossibilities and yet, we are here.

You also say that it is a certainty that God exists, always has and always was, is and will be of the same form and all powerful and all knowing. This has the feel of another impossibility and yet, you acknowledge the reality.

Three things that cannot be. Three things that are so real, they weave the fabric of our understanding of life on various levels.

God help us!

All life is complex that is exactly why everything we see could not have happened by random chance.

Again, throughout the world at any given instant, there are millions of occasions that 20 amino acids and 4 bases could interact. There were literally billions of years and literally trillions of chances for one of the interactions to have happened into the right order at the right time in the right combination.

In my mind that makes the possibility pretty good, almost certain that it would have happened. Once it happens, there's no stopping it.

One of my favorite stories of the persistence of life is that when the scientists arrived at the site of the first atomic bomb blast, cockroaches were already there.

All that is required is a membrane, the right combination of acids and bases and a welcoming environment. Except for the membrane, that describes most of Earth.

That has been what you have been taught but it's not proven on how long life has existed.

 

[code1211]

All life is complex that is exactly why everything we see could not have happened by random chance.

Again, throughout the world at any given instant, there are millions of occasions that 20 amino acids and 4 bases could interact. There were literally billions of years and literally trillions of chances for one of the interactions to have happened into the right order at the right time in the right combination.

In my mind that makes the possibility pretty good, almost certain that it would have happened. Once it happens, there's no stopping it.

One of my favorite stories of the persistence of life is that when the scientists arrived at the site of the first atomic bomb blast, cockroaches were already there.

All that is required is a membrane, the right combination of acids and bases and a welcoming environment. Except for the membrane, that describes most of Earth.

That has been what you have been taught but it's not proven on how long life has existed.

I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[jillian]

The premise that folks who believe in the theory of evolution are "ANTI-christian" is rather paranoid.

it's also ignorant....

and their ignorance is a good part of the reason we're getting our butts kicked in the sciences....

 

[Youwerecreated]

Again, throughout the world at any given instant, there are millions of occasions that 20 amino acids and 4 bases could interact. There were literally billions of years and literally trillions of chances for one of the interactions to have happened into the right order at the right time in the right combination.

In my mind that makes the possibility pretty good, almost certain that it would have happened. Once it happens, there's no stopping it.

One of my favorite stories of the persistence of life is that when the scientists arrived at the site of the first atomic bomb blast, cockroaches were already there.

All that is required is a membrane, the right combination of acids and bases and a welcoming environment. Except for the membrane, that describes most of Earth.

That has been what you have been taught but it's not proven on how long life has existed.

I don't understand what you are saying.

You have been taught to think that the earth is 4.5 billion years old,and life began around 5 or 6 hundred million years ago and that life had enough time to evolve to what we see today.

 

[konradv]

That has been what you have been taught but it's not proven on how long life has existed.

I don't understand what you are saying.

You have been taught to think that the earth is 4.5 billion years old,and life began around 5 or 6 hundred million years ago and that life had enough time to evolve to what we see today.

You're taught the prevailing theory. At least with true scientists, when new data becomes available, the theory can change. The problem with creationism and the reason why they're not true scientists is that the theory is already set in stone and the only experiments done are calibrated to point to a preconceived answer and only believed if they confirm that answer. To put it simply, our book isn't written yet. Yours is and THAT'S NOT SCIENCE.

 

[code1211]

That has been what you have been taught but it's not proven on how long life has existed.

I don't understand what you are saying.

You have been taught to think that the earth is 4.5 billion years old,and life began around 5 or 6 hundred million years ago and that life had enough time to evolve to what we see today.

As I understand it, life began a little earlier, but that is as accurate as my understanding of the topic needs to be.

How does that differ from what your understanding is?