IS EVOLUTION POSSIBLE?

[cpizzle]

"The key word in that last statement is "today."  Scientists have made great strides in using evolution to explain the complexities of life, and they continue to do so.  Before the study of DNA, explaining the complexities of life was extremely difficult; now it is virtually a "piece of cake."  So, as of today, there is still progress to be made.  Science is not a static set of rules that we memorize from a book.  Science is dynamic; ever-changing; educating us; removing from us our biases and prejudices; removing from us our arrogance and our ignorance.

So far as you other word, "nope," that word indicates a predisposed prejudice against the possibility of evolution ever being able to explain life.  You cannot make a viable case based on prejudice."

Ok, I will amend my answer:

Is it possible that life on earth evolved from a single cell organism.....no, it is not possible.

Natural evolutionary forces cannot explain the complexity of life that currently exists on this planet.

 

[Route_70]

Ok, I will amend my answer:

Is it possible that life on earth evolved from a single cell organism.....no, it is not possible.

Natural evolutionary forces cannot explain the complexity of life that currently exists on this planet.

As I said before, and please allow me to rephrase:  your prejudice is not a determining factor.  How do you know that it is not possible that all life on earth arose from a single-celled organism?

Just because someone cannot explain something does not negate the veracity of that thing.  Scientists and science are working toward an explanation of such things.  Most scientists believe that all life arose from a common, single-celled organism; but they do not all agree on how that happened.

The question I asked was: ?Is it possible??  You say, ?No, it is not even possible.?  And you say that because you cannot understand how it is possible that the eye could have evolved as it is today: THAT is your logic.



[/quote]

 

[cpizzle]

Ok, I will amend my answer:

Is it possible that life on earth evolved from a single cell organism.....no, it is not possible.

Natural evolutionary forces cannot explain the complexity of life that currently exists on this planet.

As I said before, and please allow me to rephrase:  your prejudice is not a determining factor.  How do you know that it is not possible that all life on earth arose from a single-celled organism?

Just because someone cannot explain something does not negate the veracity of that thing.  Scientists and science are working toward an explanation of such things.  Most scientists believe that all life arose from a common, single-celled organism; but they do not all agree on how that happened.

The question I asked was: ?Is it possible??  You say, ?No, it is not even possible.?  And you say that because you cannot understand how it is possible that the eye could have evolved as it is today: THAT is your logic.

[/quote]

You are correct....let me change "no it is not possible" to "based on all of our current understanding of science and natural law, there is no known mechanism that would allow new information to be added as well as allowing complex biological systems develop on their own." 

I suppose that it is possible that one day in the future scientists will discover, despite 1000's of years of observation and testing, that life behaves in a totally unknown way.

 

[Route_70]

"based on all of our current understanding of science"

Once again, you need to amend your statement.  It should read "based on all of my current understanding of science"

It took me about 20 years from the time I divorced myself from my belief in God to fully embrace this idea of evolution.  It did not seem possible.  I kept getting hung up on the things that are hanging you up.

Through the years, I have read and studied -- not some book written by someone who wanted to convince me of evolution -- textbooks; attended lectures; read as many scientific journals that I could find and understand.  I can clearly see now how it is possible that a multi-celled, multi-chromosome organism can evolve from a simple, single-celled, non-chromosomal organism.  I don't see it by belief; I see it by seeing how DNA works.

I won't go into further detail; you will have to figure it out for yourself.  It requires an open mind -- a flushing away of preconceived prejudices and narrow-minded numbness.

Let me get you started:  Google and research human chromosome #2.  Here, I shall give you a link: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

 

[cpizzle]

If I didn't believe in God, then I would also believe in evolution. Not because the science is there to prove it, but because it is the only other option.  Either the world was created or it made itself.  A creator is the obvious conclusion to an observed creation (when I see a painting, I immediately assume a painter, ect...) 

Evolutionary theory begins with the premise that complex life came about by natural means.  No "supernatural" explanations, because that becomes faith (religion) and not science.  When you start with this conclusion, any evidence will be biased.  Even when a divine creator  is the most reasonable answer, it must be ignored because that would not equate to science.  There is evidence for evolution, but even stronger evidence against life coming from non-life and complex life evolving from single cells.  Why do you think new theory's about parallel multiverses and alien simulations are actually being taken seriously? 

In my opinion, Creation leads people to God, not vice versa.  People don't just believe in creation because they believe in God, they believe in God because they believe in a creator.

 

[Route_70]

A creator is the obvious conclusion to an observed creation (when I see a painting, I immediately assume a painter, ect...)

I won't respond to everything ... just this.  The usual response to this argument is this:  your logic then dictates that the creator must have had a creator also.  Surely the creator (the painter) is more complex that the creation (the painting).  When you use this logic, your conclusion becomes ad nauseam; would you not agree?

There is only one way, if you accept the Bible as a source of truth, to believe that God created the universe: that answer is found in Hebrews 11:3.  You are correct in pointing out that the act of creation is not compatible with science.

 

[cpizzle]

A creator is the obvious conclusion to an observed creation (when I see a painting, I immediately assume a painter, ect...)

I won't respond to everything ... just this.  The usual response to this argument is this:  your logic then dictates that the creator must have had a creator also.  Surely the creator (the painter) is more complex that the creation (the painting).  When you use this logic, your conclusion becomes ad nauseam; would you not agree?

There is only one way, if you accept the Bible as a source of truth, to believe that God created the universe: that answer is found in Hebrews 11:3.  You are correct in pointing out that the act of creation is not compatible with science.

I don't respond to logical arguments that I cannot refute as well  (I'm kidding....sort of.......)

I did not say that Creation is not compatible with science, I just said that it is not science.  Science does not prove or disprove God.

The natural world requires a supernatural creator.  God is supernatural, and I don't require any explanation for his existence.  Evolutionary theory continues ad nauseam.  Where did the single cell come from....where did the prebiotic soup come from....where did the rocks and water come from....where did the matter and energy for the big bang come from.....you eventually throw your hands up and just say "we don't know........yet!"

What is scientific about saying that you think you will know something in the future so you just go ahead and accept it now?

 

[Route_70]

I won't respond to everything ...

I just want to concentrate on one issue.

I did not say that Creation is not compatible with science, I just said that it is not science.  Science does not prove or disprove God.

The very reason why Creation (and God) and Science or not compatible.  The modern-day "Creation Science" movement is bogus.  If creation can be explained scientifically, then we should expect that Jesus turning water into wine; raising the dead; healing a blind man; etc, should all be explainable by science.

The natural world requires a supernatural creator.

Says you.

God is supernatural, and I don't require any explanation for his existence. 

So say those who believe in aliens; unicorns; mermaids; etc.

Evolutionary theory continues ad nauseam.  Where did the single cell come from....where did the prebiotic soup come from....where did the rocks and water come from....where did the matter and energy for the big bang come from.....you eventually throw your hands up and just say "we don't know........yet!"

Very true.  This is how science works.  As I said, science is not a set of facts in a book.  Science is dynamic; always changing; always questioning.  Sometimes a definitive answer is found; sometimes a previous answer is overturned; sometimes a question remains unanswered.

What is scientific about saying that you think you will know something in the future so you just go ahead and accept it now?

Too many young, inexperienced scientists never make their mark because they, like so many Believers, refuse to question their beliefs.

 

[T-Bone]

NO

 

[Jo]

"Too many young, inexperienced scientists never make their mark because they, like so many Believers, refuse to question their beliefs."

Interesting statement.  What would you say about physicians?  I think that typically, they are pretty intelligent people.  I happen to live in an area where quite a few physicians proclaim to be Believers.  I knew one personally that was a Believer.  He was far from inexperienced.

P.S.  LongGone:  I care about the subject.  I am not a fan of making people feel idiotic about their faith.

"Long as we tread this desert land, new mercies shall new songs demand."

 

[Route_70]

I happen to live in an area where quite a few physicians proclaim to be Believers.

So do I.  It would be very bad for business to be otherwise.

 

[Jo]

I happen to live in an area where quite a few physicians proclaim to be Believers.

So do I.  It would be very bad for business to be otherwise.

You are probably right, Route 70.

You sound like an intelligent person, and I think you're proud of that.

There are some intelligent people who have embraced the Creator, believe it or not.

There are also some people who profess Christianity but do not live like it matters.  Sounds like you've run into some folks like that.

Perhaps, you would like to be a genuine believer, and you envy those who have sincere Christianity.  It's obvious you can quote scripture.

Just as you would like people to be open minded to the evolution theory that you've read so much about, I pray that one day you might open your mind and heart to the possibility that God is alive.  We will all find out for sure one day.

 

[Recovering IFB]

"As I said before, and please allow me to rephrase:  your prejudice is not a determining factor.  How do you know that it is not possible that all life on earth arose from a single-celled organism? " rt 70

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth

 

[Route_70]

"As I said before, and please allow me to rephrase:  your prejudice is not a determining factor.  How do you know that it is not possible that all life on earth arose from a single-celled organism? " rt 70

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth

Which, of course, is a farce.  The heavens and the earth were NOT created first (in the beginning).  Heaven came into being on the second day; earth on day three.

 

[Recovering IFB]

"As I said before, and please allow me to rephrase:  your prejudice is not a determining factor.  How do you know that it is not possible that all life on earth arose from a single-celled organism? " rt 70

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth

Which, of course, is a farce.  The heavens and the earth were NOT created first (in the beginning).  Heaven came into being on the second day; earth on day three.

Heaven, Where God is, has always existed. The heavens is the atmosphere, stars etc

 

[Route_70]

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth

Which, of course, is a farce.  The heavens and the earth were NOT created first (in the beginning).  Heaven came into being on the second day; earth on day three.

Heaven, Where God is, has always existed. The heavens is the atmosphere, stars etc

Where do you get this nonsense?  You Christians -- you are either ignorant or a bunch of liars or stupid.  I cannot figure which.  Heaven clearly has not always existed.  I pointed out to you that heaven came into existence on day 2. 

Insofar as where God lives, his dwelling place, heaven (I Kings 8:43), came into existence on day 2.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you are always getting everything so wrong?

 

[Recovering IFB]

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth

Which, of course, is a farce.  The heavens and the earth were NOT created first (in the beginning).  Heaven came into being on the second day; earth on day three.

Heaven, Where God is, has always existed. The heavens is the atmosphere, stars etc

Where do you get this nonsense?  You Christians -- you are either ignorant or a bunch of liars or stupid.  I cannot figure which.  Heaven clearly has not always existed.  I pointed out to you that heaven came into existence on day 2. 

Insofar as where God lives, his dwelling place, heaven (I Kings 8:43), came into existence on day 2.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you are always getting everything so wrong?

Well, what's "wrong" in your worldview? If there's something wrong that means there's a standard of right and wrong. So again I ask, and like Vince, you don't answer, where do you get right from wrong without God?



You still haven't answered that question yet, until you do, you're a fool!

 

[Route_70]

Well, what's "wrong" in your worldview? If there's something wrong that means there's a standard of right and wrong. So again I ask, and like Vince, you don't answer, where do you get right from wrong without God?

Well clearly, since God does not exist, no one gets "right or wrong" from God.  Right and Wrong are relative, and are determined by personal beliefs, personal or public mores, public laws, etc.  What may be right today could be wrong tomorrow. 

 

[Twisted]

Well clearly, since God does not exist, no one gets "right or wrong" from God. 

We have a bed here in the ward for Route 666.

Either he is a nut....or.... he is playing you all "for entertainment purposes only".

May I suggest the latter.

 

[Route_70]

We have a bed here in the ward for Route 666.

Either he is a nut....or.... he is playing you all "for entertainment purposes only".

May I suggest the latter.

Or perhaps I am just smarter, wiser, and more informed that you and everyone on this forum ... and I am playing you for entertainment purposes only.

Like taking candy from a bay.