The Great Debators © discussion
Religion
>
Creation Vs. Evolution
message 51:
by
Mr. Never Smiles
(new)
Jun 19, 2011 12:19PM
Pick one of the hundreds. Im with clarinet on this
reply
|
flag
Evidently, i'm a Deist, and I think we dont have a choice. Its just who I am...
Here I am.. sneaking in again...I'm totally for creation. I mean, the Big Bang theory is just sort of... ridiculous.
We all evolved from an explosion of nothingness? Uh, I don't think so.
many things have been found in favor of Evolution but practically everything has been proved false. How much more do you need?
Maybe its just me but we didn't come from a rock or apes or whatever. We came from God.
WEll i believe that we were ashes formed into humans like "From ashes to ashes we must return" When we get ashes on Ash Wednesday...
Mod
That's not true. In order for chance to account for the numerous changes that would have to happen to chemicals -- not even bacteria, in order for them to become bacteria is so great that the earth has not been around long enough. The Big Bang* happened fewer seconds ago than the number of possible combinations for the components of a simple protein! That's not even accounting for the massive diversity that exists on the earth.
*(The Big Bang: proof that the universe had a beginning since it is expanding. Necessarily, running backward it had to not exist 10 to the 21st power seconds ago.)
By the way, the Big Bang means that this diversity that we see came from nothing! If you ask me, a Creator is a whole lot more logical than something from nothing.
Mod
Science has proved that the universe is expanding. If it is expanding, going in the opposite direction in time, it would at one time not have existed. I don't "believe in" the Big Bang either, but that is what science is calling it.
It is more logical to think that something started something else than to think that something came from nothing. That something else is the eternal hand of God.
Mod
Give me a logical argument for atheism.
he dosn't make cancer, or murders that's life, just how he made it, God oviusly had a sence of humer
no no! it's just what it is, how life is supposed to be, bacteria is good, well some, but in life there's always good AND evil..
message 62:
by
Millie AWKWARD TURTLE! ♥Cheeseburger♥*THING11*, ~Elven Warrior~ <3
(new)
Mod
Mod
When we are talking about Creation v Evolution, we are talking about a God v everything happened without supernatural input.
Creation and Evolution cannot vs each other because they are so dissimilar. One is a story, found in a book written 6,000 years or so ago by illiterate nomadic desert people, and the other is a collection of well-verified scientific evidence and research that neatly explains biology.
It is more logical to think that something started something else than to think that something came from nothing. That something else is the eternal hand of God. So an infinitely complex creator god doesn't have to have to have a creator, but a complex universe does? That makes no logical sense.
Mod
Please explain how the Bible is so "un-verified" I think that I can dis-prove every one of your inconsistencies. As to verifieable proof of the bible itself, I could give you a 20 page document showing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
On the other hand you say that evolution is completely verified Scientific fact. NOT!
Give straight answers to some questions which are so far as I can tell unexplainable to evolution.
How is it that Blue Stars (which should have burned out after only a couple million years) are still around after several billion years?
How is it that un-fossilized red blood cells and hemagloben have been found in fossilized dinosaur bones? (They were estimated to have lived several million years ago but red blood cells and hemgloben would have decayed long before then).
Where did the first cell (etc.) come from? (I do not go along with the alien theory I mean come on people THAT is just stupid!).
How do you explain missing links?
Also according to evolution, our mind is just a random collection of molecules, so how can you know that what you think in your brain is right?
I could give you lots more but I think this will suffice for now.
"Please explain how the Bible is so "un-verified" I think that I can dis-prove every one of your inconsistencies. As to verifieable proof of the bible itself, I could give you a 20 page document showing the historical accuracy of the Bible."http://truth-saves.com/chapter2.php?s...
"The Bible says Joshua destroyed the wall of Jericho around 1400 BCE but Archaeological evidence shows that an earthquake destroyed the wall in 2300 BCE. The city was also thoroughly destroyed by a fire and then abandoned in 1600 BCE. Jericho was not inhabited again until 700 BCE. There was no wall to tumble down or citizens to destroy at Jericho within centuries of when the Bible says Joshua was there. "
"Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son/successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (whom's name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. "
"Matthew 27:52-53 claims that when Jesus died graves were opened as zombies rose from them and this was seen by many people. If a city under Roman occupation was invaded by zombies don't you think at least one contemporary historian would have written about it? Needless to say, there is not one historical documentation of an actual zombie uprising. "
"The Bible's story of Moses and the Israelites' exodus from ancient Egypt is purely fictional. Not only is there no evidence for the exodus but it also contradicts known history. Evidence shows that there was no major increase of people in Israel at the end of the supposed exodus. There were also no Jews, Israelites, or Hebrews in ancient Egypt. It was not until almost 2,000 years after the Great Pyramids were finished that we see the earliest record of Jews in Egypt. These Jews were also not slaves, they were soldiers who fought alongside the Pharaoh's soldiers. And contrary to popular belief the pyramids and other great monuments of Egypt were constructed by voluntary workers, not slaves. "
'The Bible does not say what year Jesus was born but it does tell us during which specific historical events his birth took place. Matthew says Jesus was born in Judea during the reign of Herod the Great and Luke says Jesus was born during the major tax census while Quirinius was governor of Syria. These are both documented historical events but they are also separated by at least 10 years making it historically impossible for Jesus to be born during both events. "
"The Bible places the events of its Tower of Babel story around 1000 BCE. According to Genesis before this time "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech". In reality there were many spoken and written languages prior to the Tower of Babel events. Chinese was developed prior to 1200 BCE and speakers of several Semitic languages developed the abjab and consonantal alphabet prior to 1500 BCE. The oldest known text in the Sanskrit language, the Rigveda, dates to 1700-1100 BCE. Egyptian hieroglyphs date back to about 3100 BCE and Sumerian writings date as far back as 3200 BCE. "
"The book of Genesis claims that a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred which covered all of the highest mountains and killed off all living creatures that were not on Noah's Ark. This flood never happened and the 35 million people who inhabited the planet went on with their lives unaffected. There is no evidence for a global flood in the archaeological record, zoogeography, tree rings, or the polar ice caps. There is only extensive evidence for the contrary. "
Is that enough proof?
"How is it that Blue Stars (which should have burned out after only a couple million years) are still around after several billion years?"
This questions is unrelated to evolution. Please stay on topic.
"How is it that un-fossilized red blood cells and hemagloben have been found in fossilized dinosaur bones? (They were estimated to have lived several million years ago but red blood cells and hemgloben would have decayed long before then)."
Before I answer this, please state from which source you got this information.
"Where did the first cell (etc.) come from? (I do not go along with the alien theory I mean come on people THAT is just stupid!)."
Evolution deals with life after this is life to deal with. The origins of life are not under the umbrella of evolution. Again, please stay on topic.
"How do you explain missing links?"
You'll have to be more specific, for a more specific answer, but this is the general answer. Imagine you're on the top of a hill, on a sled, on a snowy day. You push yourself down the hill, leaving a trail in the snow as you go. However, halfway down you hit a bump, and you catch air for a few seconds. Now there is a gap in your trail, from those moments you were in the air. Because of this gap, would anyone argue that you never really slid down the hill? That this gap means that you couldn't have slid down the hill?
"Also according to evolution, our mind is just a random collection of molecules, so how can you know that what you think in your brain is right?"
Again you display your lack of knowledge of evolution. Our mind is not, I repeat, NOT random. Natural selection was very careful about which brain genes survived and which ones died, along with their host. That's why our brain works so well, because all the bad brains never survived to pass on their genes.
Secondly, are you speaking of an absolutist right, or a subjective right? Because certainly, our brain is not absolutist. If our brains saw this computer right, as you say, it would be mostly empty space, for atoms are just that, mostly empty space. However, our brains processes the world in a way that is most beneficial to our survival. It would be pretty hard to function if everything was empty space, so we see what we can't pass through as solid, and what we can pass through as more clear.
Before you return, please, try to learn what evolution actually is. These are the kind of arguments religious websites tell you to use to "stump the evolutionist." And it's frankly insulting that you actually think that's true. Half of your points were irrelevant and the other half showed a complete lack of understanding of natural selection.
message 69:
by
Millie AWKWARD TURTLE! ♥Cheeseburger♥*THING11*, ~Elven Warrior~ <3
(new)
Mod
Mod
First I think it is too bad that all you evolutionists can do in answer to our questions is say that they are irrelevant. That is not true.
For example you said that my question on Blue Stars irrelevant. It IS relevant: If those star are still around it means that the universe CAN'T be more that a few million years old.
I will however answer all of your questions (though I don't think I will have time to cover all of them in this post.)
"The Bible's story of Moses and the Israelites' exodus from ancient Egypt is purely fictional. Not only is there no evidence for the exodus but it also contradicts known history. Evidence shows that there was no major increase of people in Israel at the end of the supposed exodus. There were also no Jews, Israelites, or Hebrews in ancient Egypt. It was not until almost 2,000 years after the Great Pyramids were finished that we see the earliest record of Jews in Egypt. These Jews were also not slaves, they were soldiers who fought alongside the Pharaoh's soldiers. And contrary to popular belief the pyramids and other great monuments of Egypt were constructed by voluntary workers, not slaves. "
When are you placing the Exodus as having happend? I would put it at around 1600-1500 B.C. (17th Egyptian Dynasty). At that time there is good evidence of Isrealites in Egypt as early as 1900 B.C.
Consider Tel el-Dab'a: a dig under the city of Ramses which has several proofs:
1. Lots More adult women than men (because of baby boys killed).
2. More infants buried than is normal.
3.Longhaired sheep (something to be expect by Isreal but not by Egyptians)
Also there IS good evidence of Isrealites that were enslaved by Egypt.
"The Bible says Joshua destroyed the wall of Jericho around 1400 BCE but Archaeological evidence shows that an earthquake destroyed the wall in 2300 BCE. The city was also thoroughly destroyed by a fire and then abandoned in 1600 BCE. Jericho was not inhabited again until 700 BCE. There was no wall to tumble down or citizens to destroy at Jericho within centuries of when the Bible says Joshua was there. "
Where are you getting this evidence? The Bible does NOT say that the battle of Jerico happened in 1400. Rather if you compute the dates the Battle of Jerico happened approximately 1700-1600 B.C.
They then destroyed the city with fire, and (as you say yourself) the city was left practically uninhabited until 700 B.C. The Earthquake which you state is irrelevant because the people of the city just rebuilt the wall in the 500 years between then and the Battle of Jerico.
"Matthew 27:52-53 claims that when Jesus died graves were opened as zombies rose from them and this was seen by many people. If a city under Roman occupation was invaded by zombies don't you think at least one contemporary historian would have written about it? Needless to say, there is not one historical documentation of an actual zombie uprising. "
WHOOAA!!! dude! where did you hear that? There is NO valid translation which says that. I even took the time to check the greek and it nowhere says anything about zombies!
"The Bible places the events of its Tower of Babel story around 1000 BCE. According to Genesis before this time "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech". In reality there were many spoken and written languages prior to the Tower of Babel events. Chinese was developed prior to 1200 BCE and speakers of several Semitic languages developed the abjab and consonantal alphabet prior to 1500 BCE. The oldest known text in the Sanskrit language, the Rigveda, dates to 1700-1100 BCE. Egyptian hieroglyphs date back to about 3100 BCE and Sumerian writings date as far back as 3200 BCE. "
Once again you are totally off on you're biblical dates. The date is ACTUALLY around 2300 B.C. As to the writings from the 3000 B.C. and earlier, how do you know when they where written? I would date them MUCH later.
"The book of Genesis claims that a catastrophic worldwide flood occurred which covered all of the highest mountains and killed off all living creatures that were not on Noah's Ark. This flood never happened and the 35 million people who inhabited the planet went on with their lives unaffected. There is no evidence for a global flood in the archaeological record, zoogeography, tree rings, or the polar ice caps. There is only extensive evidence for the contrary. "
Oh man, I can give you LOTS of evidence on this. But here is a sampling:
More evidence for a global flood is the fact that the entire human and animal population perished. In the 1500-2500 years (depending on which time scale you use) between Adam and Noah, the human population would have exploded. With people living to be 900 years old, the population would have multiplied quickly. Using a conservative formula, it is reasonable to place that world population before the Flood at five to nine BILLION! (you say there were only 35 million) For all these people to even fit on the earth, they had to have been spread out over the entire planet. A global flood would have been necessary to kill them all.
If those 5-9 Billion people had lived there would be no room for more people!
There is lots of geographical evidence. there is no need to think that all the trees were uprooted, but most trees are under 3,000 years old which is within the date estimated for the flood.
Also supporting the Flood is geological evidence. Sedimentary rock is found all around the world, and is created by water. The last 3,000 feet of Mount Everest are made of sedimentary rock and crushed shells. Fossilized clams and other fossilized sea life have been found at the top of Mount Everest.
People did notice. The evidence for a global flood is overwhelming. More than 250 cultures worldwide have Flood traditions that are similar to the Biblical account. This cannot be dismissed as coincidence. One famous one is the legend of Gilgamesh, who survived a great flood with his family by building a boat and filling it with animals. The Greek version of this legend is similar. Tribes around the world like the Mayans and Aborigines also have legends of a great flood.
You say there is no evidence for the flood in the archeological record. But there is:
Why do we find vast beds of coal all over the world?
Why is there limestone in Arizona (etc.)?
What caused the Grand Canyon? (I say it happened because of the vast smount of water from the flood. Consider Mount Saint Helens, It made in just hours canyons (albeit not as big as the Grand Canyon) in solid rock 100 feet in depth, And other canyons where carved with the massive mudslides If you look at these they are made of hundreds of layers of sediment but these were each formed in just minutes (rather than millions of years)).
Also how is it that fossilized clams have been found? (These could not have fossilized except under perfect conditions like the flood).
These and many other questions show the validity of the Bible. (I will answer your other two questions I just don't have time right now).
Mod
Yes you are entirely correct.
1. In the Bible the word used for the relationship of Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar is often translated "son". The word in the aramaic (from which the versions we read was translated) the word is most literally "ansestor" this now makes sense that Nebuchadnezzar was not his father but rather his one to whom he was related.
2. Belshazzar's father (Nabu-naido) was King (as you said). However, he had gone off to war and left Belshazzar in command IN HIS PLACE. Now we come to a verse which agrees with this:
Daniel 5:16 And I have heard of you, that you can give interpretations and explain enigmas. Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.”
Notice he says THIRD ruler in the kingdom, that is in essence giving Daniel the highest place possible. Look at how this works out:
1. Nabu-naido: King
2. Belshazzar: Crown Prince
3. Daniel
So as you see the Bible COMPLETELY agree with the historical record.
Mod
God, the creator, is eternal. He doesn't have to have a cause. But since the universe is not eternal, it has to have a cause.
God, the creator, is eternal. He doesn't have to have a cause. But since the universe is not eternal, it has to have a cause. That's no answer at all.
Andrew, i don't know the answers to all the questions you raised (this doesn't mean you're right, it means that like most people, i'm not an astrophysist/geologist/biologist/biblical archaeologist. it also means that it's a lot easier to grab a handful of objections off the internet than it is to research the answers). I do, however, know a bit about geology and can answer some of your geological "proofs" of creationism. Also supporting the Flood is geological evidence. Sedimentary rock is found all around the world, and is created by water. and What caused the Grand Canyon? ....
Regarding sedimentary rock being found all over the world: 70% of the earth's surface is covered by water. A great, worldwide flood is not required to make sedimentary rock.
Regarding the Grand Canyon: You seem to be suggesting that the flood both laid down the sediment that the Grand Canyon is carved in, then carved the canyon. This could not have happened, as there are a number of facts this "model" of yours doesn't take into account. It doesn't explain the nonconformity, angular unconformity, and three disconformities which can be found in the Grand Canyon rocks. It doesn't explain the the basalt intrusions into the Hakatai Shale formation. It doesn't explain the way the sediments are layered. Finally, it doesn't explain how a canyon can be carved in a mile thick layer of mud (yes, the canyon is a mile deep in places) and still leave disctinct and well defined layers of sediment behind to later, somehow, turn to rock.
Mod
I need to go to Church right now but I will get back to you on this question.
"How can 'Natural Selection' CHOOSE which ones survive? I mean Natural Selection is a process, I knows nothing because it is not living. for something to choose, it must have a brain, body, and be a living thing. Natural selection doesn't choose, natural selection happens."Say you have two animals who live in a cold climate. They both have 4 babies. One animal, animal A, has furry babies, all of them. Animal B only has 2 furry babies, and two non-furry. Now, in this cold climate, the furry babies will survive, and the non-furry will be too cold, and die. The furry babies will pass on their furry genes to their children, and their children, and every time a genetic mutant is not furry, they're taken out, so their genes can't be passed on, because their genes don't work in that climate. That is what I mean by choose.
"For example you said that my question on Blue Stars irrelevant. It IS relevant: If those star are still around it means that the universe CAN'T be more that a few million years old."
The age of the universe has no bearing on whether evolution exists. Substantial evolution can be shown in fruit flies within a decade.
Basically, everything you used to argue is the same point. You brought up no references, not a single expert. You just said "blah I'm right this is the truth." For all we all know, you could be making up all those dates, because you provided no information about where you got them. What credible sources did you use? Unless I'm mistaken, you are not a theologian, so you can't be an expert yourself. What sources are you relying on?
"God, the creator, is eternal. He doesn't have to have a cause. But since the universe is not eternal, it has to have a cause."
If the universe is not eternal, please show me its outer boundary.
"I need to go to Church right now but I will get back to you on this question."
Course you do.
Mod
That's no answer at all."
Of course it is an answer. If Universe has a beginning, then what is the cause of the beginning? But if God is eternal, He doesn't need a cause because He always was.
Mod
I feel that it is unfair that in this debate you will ask me to answer your questions (which I answer). But you refuse to answer my questions. This does not make for a reasonable debate. You are acting as if Evolution was proved beyond doubt and thus should not be questioned.
You have asked for evidences for what I am saying. Here are some of the sources I use for my answers:
Ancient Civilizations & the Bible: A Biblical World History Curriculum from Creation to Jesus Christ
Romans, Reformers, Revolutionaries: Resurrection to Revolution AD 30-AD 1799
The New Answers Book
The New Answers Book 2
Evidence That Demands a Verdict
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 2
Centuries Of Darkness: Challenge To The Conventional Chronology Of World Archaeology
Pharoahs and Kings: A Biblical Quest
Mere Christianity
Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense
The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications
One Blood: The Biblical Answer to Racism
Now you may complain that all of these books were written by Christians... But seriously, do you think those opposed to Christianity would want to give a reasonable defense for it? In giving you this list I am trying to show you I am not some insane person twisting history. The Bible IS an accurate protrayal of the TRUE history of the world, and there are, many intellegent people and proven evidences which agree with me.
Mod
How many people here have their PhD in Evolutionary Biology?Because as far as I can tell, most people here aren't really informed on what Evolution actually is. Anyone invoking the concept of "Big Bang" when having a discussion about Evolution is completely irrelevant. Also people discussing the origins of life is completely irrelevant.
Also, the Bible uses the Hebrew word "yom", which is specifically meaning a 24 hour period. Some people above seem confused about that. So when Genesis says in 7 days, it literally means 7 24 hour periods.
Mod
You are entirely right.
'But you refuse to answer my questions. This does not make for a reasonable debate"The problem is, you ask questions that have no bearing on evolution. Their answers would do nothing to prove or disprove it, as you would know if you had studied it more extensively. Age of the universe is irrelevant. But thank you for actually posting your sources, I do appreciate it.
"The Bible IS an accurate protrayal of the TRUE history of the world, and there are, many intellegent people and proven evidences which agree with me. "
Fallacy. Just because intelligent people think something does not make it true. Correlation does not imply causality. An idea can't will itself into being just because lots of people agree with it, if it was never true in the first place.
'Also, the Bible uses the Hebrew word "yom", which is specifically meaning a 24 hour period. Some people above seem confused about that. So when Genesis says in 7 days, it literally means 7 24 hour periods. '
Forcing everyone into a literal interpretation.
You have to force everyone into a literal interpretation though. Otherwise everyone could make whatever wonky interpretation they want, based on next to nothing written in the Bible. I would prefer people stuck to the text itself and didn't deviate from it. I couldn't care less what people THINK the Bible says, I care about what the Bible ACTUALLY says.Usually because what the Bible actually says is more ridiculous than any attempted interpretation... plus you need to work within a data set, if you start making claims outside the data set and pretend they're inside that data set you've made all kinds of false claims already.
Mod
I agree, I try to take the most literal interpretation of the text in the Bible.
"I agree, I try to take the most literal interpretation of the text in the Bible. "Then shouldn't you be out stoning some not-virgins or gay people instead of wasting your time on us?
Lauren wrote: ""I agree, I try to take the most literal interpretation of the text in the Bible. "Then shouldn't you be out stoning some not-virgins or gay people instead of wasting your time on us?"
Technically yes, but they use Jesus as a cop-out to stop doing the rituals and following Hebrew Law. Even the Hebrew's don't follow much of the literal Hebrew Law anymore.
Mod
Quoting Lauren: "Conservation of Mass/Energy states mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted into other forms. Neither CREATED, NOR DESTROYED. You tried to use this to your advantage but it backfired. Yes, nothing can come from nothing, but there IS obviously something, which means that the something must have always existed in order to conform to this Conservation rule. The answer is, matter has ALWAYS existed in some form or another, and it never needed to be created by god or anything else."
Yes, So you agree with premise 2 (so do I).
The point is NOW you have to get from MATTER to LIFE (ie a cell).
To agree with this would contradict Proven Scientific Facts.
Thus Evolution is left at a dead end.
The only way to get out of this quandry is to say that some form of life (ie. a cell) has always existed.
Mod
Then shouldn't you be out stoning some not-virgins or gay people instead of wasting your time on us?"
Technically yes, but they use Jesus as a cop-out to stop doing the rituals and following Hebrew Law. Even the Hebrew's don't follow much of the literal Hebrew Law anymore.
That is true. Christ has abolished the Old Law. He has replaced it with a "New Covanent"
Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
Romans 7:2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.
Romans 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.
Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.
Romans 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
Romans 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”
See the "Old Covenant" was based on works salvation: (sacrifices, stoning Adultrers etc.) In the "New Covenant" which Christ has made by His death on the cross, we are under a "new" law (covenant) We are saved by God's grace and our faith rather than by our works. (It is really much more complex than this but I don't think you all want a sermon on the all of the details about the Old and New Covenant).
Andrew wrote: "This is from the Atheism vs. Religion debate:Quoting Adam: "Conservation of Mass/Energy states mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted into other forms. Neither CREATED, ..."
Andrew, I didn't say that. Lauren did.
Andrew you've demonstrated here that you have no idea what Evolution says. What do you think it actually says?????
Mod
Sorry I changed that.
Andrew you've demonstrated here that you have no idea what Evolution says. What do you think it actually says?????
Maybe it would be easier if YOU explained what it says and then we can work from that.
Evolution ONLY talks about the speciation process AFTER life is already established.
Mod
Of course, if there was no life already to speciate from then there would be nothing to study, life as we know it wouldn't exist.I think people get really confused when they read the title of Darwin's book "The Origins of the Species"... I think most people read this as "The Origins of Life". But these are two extremely different things. The origins of life is an incredibly advanced idea and research is ongoing. Right now it's being studied under Abiogenesis. I'm not saying it will never become part of the Theory of Evolution once it is solved, but right now since it is unsolved, it cannot be part of the Theory.
Evolution can only deal with life after life exists. It shows how traits and such move in the gene pool. It never CLAIMED to know about the origin of life. To use that against it is invalid.
Andrew wrote: "Lauren,I feel that it is unfair that in this debate you will ask me to answer your questions (which I answer). But you refuse to answer my questions. This does not make for a reasonable debate."
Andrew wrote, June 26 at 7 am: Alan wrote: "Andrew, i don't know the answers to all the questions you raised (this doesn't mean you're right, it means that like most people, i'm not an astrophysist/geologist/biologist/biblical archaeologist...."
I need to go to Church right now but I will get back to you on this question."
Mod
Well, I think I'll go with a theory which DOES give a reason for life. It makes MUCH more sense to say "from God, life", than "From nothig, life" or even "from non-living matter, life".
What theory says "from nothing, life"?How exactly does it make much more sense to say "from God, life". Not to mention God took NON-LIVING matter and made life... how would this be different than Abiogenesis for you?
"Well, I think I'll go with a theory which DOES give a reason for life. It makes MUCH more sense to say "from God, life", than "From nothig, life" or even "from non-living matter, life". "Involving a god means the origins of such a creature must be explained as well. Instead of one assumption, matter always existed, you need two. That God always existed and that he such that he created life as we know it. Or, if God needs a creator, who needs a creator, ad infinitum, you have an infinite number of assumptions, each one more unlikely than the next, so the odds of any of it being true approach zero.
Mod
Involvi..."
No Lauren, the origin of an ETERNAL being does not need to have an origin. On the other hand, saying that life springs from nothing, well that is quite an assumption. Especially since nothing has never produced something ever in our experience. (The laws of physics state that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.) Therefore, something outside of the natural world creating life from nothing and then the rules by which nature runs makes a whole lot more sense. You should reconsider your position for logic.
Linda, again, who says something was created from nothing?? I have never heard this uttered by physicists, biologists, chemists, etc.Linda, I think you also missed where Lauren said "if".
The Great Debators ©
Books mentioned in this topic
Graduate Research: A Guide for Students in the Sciences (other topics)Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary (other topics)
The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications (other topics)
One Blood: The Biblical Answer to Racism (other topics)
Centuries Of Darkness: Challenge To The Conventional Chronology Of World Archaeology (other topics)
More...
