 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
 Originally Posted by Capuchin
Quote: Secondly you seem to believe that both theories are based around randomness. This couldn't be farther from the truth. That proves that either you know very little about evolution. Very little about science. Or that you don't care about the facts. Sincerely, De Maria |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The following is from NASA's Planetary Biology Program. Note that they depict the spontaneous generation of life from lifeless material: The final, most important events leading to the origin of life are perhaps the least understood chapters of the story. Life began during the first billion years of an Earth history which is 4.5 billion years old. The illustration depicts an early Earth in which volcanoes, a gray, lifeless ocean, and a turbulent atmosphere dominated the landscape. Vigorous chemical activity is represented by the heavy clouds, which were fed by volcanoes and penetrated both by lightning discharges and solar radiation. The ocean received organic matter from the land and the atmosphere, as well as from infalling meteorites and comets. Here, substances such as water, carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen cyanide formed key molecules such as sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides. Such molecules are the building blocks of proteins and nucleic acids, compounds ubiquitous to all living organisms. A critical early triumph was the development of RNA and DNA molecules, which directed biological processes and preserved life's "operation instructions" for future generations. RNA and DNA are depicted in the illustration, first as fragmets and then as fully assembled helices. These helices formed some of the living threads, as shown in the illustration, however, other threads derived from planetary processes such as ocean chemistry and volcanic activity. This evolving bundle of threads thus arose from a variety of sources, illustrating that the origin of life was triggered not only by special molecules such as RNA or DNA, but also by the chemical and physical properties of the Earth's primitive environments. Obviously this is all unverifiable speculation which these scientists are passing off as facts. The Prebiotic Earth This is from RESA, an educational service agency that provides a broad spectrum of services and support to Wayne County’s 34 school districts... "An equally interesting question that is currently studied in laboratories on Earth is how life originally could have arisen from lifeless molecules, and evolved into the already sophisticated isotope fractioning life forms... [in such a short period of time]... " From Life on Earth began at least 3.85B years ago Origins of Life So, the content of the reference was accurate and unbiased. Science does claim that life was created spontaneously from non-life. Sincerely, De Maria |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Also, God is violating the first law of thermodynamics because he is creating something out of nothing.
Something that creates something out of nothing, even if they are all powerful, is breaking this law.
Compare this to your theory that the universe and the law of thermodynamics which was derived by men to explain the universe, came to be on their own without any intelligence to create them. There is no way of testing this assumption of yours. And that means that your assumption isn't science. Since scientific results are supposed to be testable. Nor is there any experience of any law being created without an intelligence to create it. Its an assumption based on a broken law. It contradicts the law of thermodynamics. Therefore what makes your assumption better than ours? Just your superiority complex? You said it so it must be so? Sorry, but our assumption is logically superior to yours. And it is testable. Look around. We know that every mechanical device we see was created by man because of the wisdom of their design. But nature is even grander in design. Look at a human body. Yet science assumes that biological entities created themselves by sheer chance? No, the logical answer is that a vast intelligence far grander than human intelligence created them.
2. A materialistic view has absolutely no problem with accepting that there was equal energy now as there was at the big bang.
Why does there need to be a "first sauce"? Couldn't it have always been? The God argument rests on the same fact that God could have always been.
The tornado itself is proof that increasing entropy can seem to be violated if one doesn't look at the whole system. A tornado is formed by unpredictable and random winds, but somehow these form a stable structure.
Lets take a die for instance. You roll a die and there are six possibilites. Who made it so? The man who invented dice. There are other configurations. Coins have two sides. Who ever decides to use a coin will have two possibilities, 50/50 chance. But who reduced the possibilities of the universe. Who made it so the universe would have order? Who said apple trees will bear apples? Genesis 1 12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Sincerely, De Maria |
||||
|
||||
|
Hi DeMaria
I just wanted to pop in and let you know that I don't really understand or I don't let my mind focus on the “science” portion of things. I never liked science, so I guess that is why I don't understand it, or perhaps it is the reverse. I don't see how religion and science mix and perhaps they don't. What I am trying to say is I don't really understand any of the science things that are being said so I can't really ascertain who is saying what to whom. But if you are doing all of this, out of Love for your fellow man and for the love of God, I admire you and respect you and send you a hug. You are carrying the torch alone and I just hope your heart is not getting sad because of the difference in opinions. There are some on this thread that see things very differently then you, that I have been blessed to know, and who I actually love dearly and are sharing their viewpoints on this thread brilliantly (even though most of it is over my head) I feel that you are doing this with God's love in your heart and I did want to send you encouragement. I guess, if it was me, not sure I would have held up, it would have saddened me by now. So that's why I pop in to send a hug. It's not that I am siding with anyone here and haven't read through every post so I don't know if any hurtful words have been exchanged, but I just was hoping none of this was making you sad and to keep sharing God's love, either by loving words or actions. And the same goes for everyone on this thread, don't want anyone to feel frustrated or upset. I have been experiencing bouts of being “emotional”. I have been doing very well, but it's crept back on me, and it's okay, but I guess that's why it feels twice as important to me to let you know that you don't stand alone and this is only a discussion and I hope the others on here don't get upset at me. I guess what I am trying to say is that I have love and concern for all of you and De Maria , I include you in that. I know I may sound like a loopy loop, but it is part of who I am. Take care. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by De Maria
As you say, I know very little about evolution and science, you're right. But you know even less and you're too arrogant to admit it. The fact you think that the big bang was an explosion just shows you haven't studied even the most basic course in it. I know that you don't realise that you are misrepresenting science, but you have to believe me that you are. Neither of the theories assert what you say they assert. Evolution does not say where life came from at all. Big bang theory does not say what happened before the big bang at all. This is for the exact reason that you give, we don't have evidence, so we don't claim to have knowledge about it. We do however have hypotheses which we can use to make models and predictions and see if they lead to the things that we do observe, however these are never set in stone and they are always subject to change. And they are EXPECTED to be changed to fit further observations. I don't know why you state that life from non-life is impossible. Research has shown that it is possible at least in theory. But of course we have not observed it yet (except from the fact that it obviously happened at some point). If you actually want to learn more about where you're misrepresenting science and want to learn more about these theories, let me know. Otherwise I'm done here. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Capuchin
As you say, I know very little about evolution and science, you're right. But you know even less and you're too arrogant to admit it.
The fact you think that the big bang was an explosion just shows you haven't studied even the most basic course in it.
THE BIG BANG About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event ... THE BIG BANG These folks from the University of Michigan are doing just that. MOST POWERFUL EXPLOSION SINCE THE BIG BANG CHALLENGES GAMMA RAY BURST THEORIES http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1998/98-075.txt This guy from NASA describes it the same way, as an explosion. I would think these folks know a little bit about science considering where they work. Are you a higher authority than they?
I know that you don't realise that you are misrepresenting science, but you have to believe me that you are.
Neither of the theories assert what you say they assert. Evolution does not say where life came from at all.
Why did Darwin say? Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Why does this short summary from the NASA website describe the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter: The final, most important events leading to the origin of life are perhaps the least understood chapters of the story. Life began during the first billion years of an Earth history which is 4.5 billion years old. The illustration depicts an early Earth in which volcanoes, a gray, lifeless ocean, and a turbulent atmosphere dominated the landscape. Vigorous chemical activity is represented by the heavy clouds, which were fed by volcanoes and penetrated both by lightning discharges and solar radiation. The ocean received organic matter from the land and the atmosphere, as well as from infalling meteorites and comets. Here, substances such as water, carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen cyanide formed key molecules such as sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides. Such molecules are the building blocks of proteins and nucleic acids, compounds ubiquitous to all living organisms. A critical early triumph was the development of RNA and DNA molecules, which directed biological processes and preserved life's "operation instructions" for future generations. RNA and DNA are depicted in the illustration, first as fragmets and then as fully assembled helices. These helices formed some of the living threads, as shown in the illustration, however, other threads derived from planetary processes such as ocean chemistry and volcanic activity. This evolving bundle of threads thus arose from a variety of sources, illustrating that the origin of life was triggered not only by special molecules such as RNA or DNA, but also by the chemical and physical properties of the Earth's primitive environments. The Prebiotic Earth
Big bang theory does not say what happened before the big bang at all. This is for the exact reason that you give, we don't have evidence, so we don't claim to have knowledge about it. We do however have hypotheses which we can use to make models and predictions and see if they lead to the things that we do observe, however these are never set in stone and they are always subject to change. And they are EXPECTED to be changed to fit further observations. I don't know why you state that life from non-life is impossible. Research has shown that it is possible at least in theory.
But of course we have not observed it yet (except from the fact that it obviously happened at some point).
If you actually want to learn more about where you're misrepresenting science and want to learn more about these theories, let me know.
You have just illustrated how so many scientists make dogma out of their unsubstantiated beliefs. Obviously you think that life can come from non life so you claim research has shown it. In theory. As though that were somehow a fact. But it isn't. You have assumptions. Not facts. Some of you say nothing existed before the Big Bang, you and others say it was a single point in space, and others make other assumptions equally as unprovable as the existence of God in any experiments. But the existence of God is the most logical of all the assumptions. If any of you found a simple utensil on the ground, a spoon or a watch, you'd assume that an intelligent being made it. But you see things infinitely more complex and wonderful and you assume that they happened by an accumulation of chance events. Makes no sense.
Otherwise I'm done here.
Sincerely, De Maria |
||||
|
||||
|
The Steve's seem to support evolution.
NCSE Resource |
||||
|
||||
|
Missing link shows bats flew first, developed echolocation later
"It's clearly a bat, but unlike any previously known. In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors."... "The limb proportions of Onychonycteris are also different from all other bats---the hind legs are longer and the forearm shorter---and more similar to those of climbing mammals that hang under branches, such as sloths and gibbons. " --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Did any of them tell us how complex capabilities like echolocation or flight could have arisen by chance? Did they elaborate the dozens, if not thousands, of lucky mutations that would have had to come together blindly to produce a flying mammal from a mouse? No! If anything, they uncovered a more astonishing thing – that the flight capabilities of bats are dynamically integrated with their sonar systems. Did they watch 52 million years go by? Did they watch the so-called primitive bat change into a more advanced creature? Did they seriously entertain any of the many, many scientific criticisms that could be leveled against their tale? NO." This is dogmatism masquerading as science. Looks like true science makes it harder and harder for evolutionist to explain the things we observe. New findings like these only lead to more theories and hypothesis that CANNOT BE PROVED OR TESTED. Science glorifies God's creations. :) |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by inthebox
Furthermore are you really expecting full detailed explanations of morphologies etc in a popular science article? The evidence is recent and I'm sure many scientists will study it further and explain how it evolved in the future. Science is an ongoing thing. We don't have all the answers right now. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by inthebox
Believe me, I know how irritating it must be for you to hear it, but it really does come down to picking an explanation that suits you. If "God did it" works for you, I'm happy for you, really. But for a lot of people, it's no explanation at all, so it's a waste of your time as well as theirs to get in their face with it. |
||||
|
||||
|
Hello again, Christians:
You think we're the same. You think we're just as religious about evolution as you are about religion. You think that our entire scientific based world would collapse under its own weight, if only we would allow ourselves to see the logic of your argument. But, we're blinded by our religion - science. Well, that may be true for some, but not me. Science takes work. It takes rigor. It's HARD. And, it STILL doesn't have the answers. So, I'm left scratching my head. Nope, science really sucks! Believe me, I'd love to have the easy answer - God did it. That would clear up SOOOOO much stuff for me. I could relax and not think about those things, because I'm bothered that I don't know where I came from. I really want to know. So, I don't have a stake in science. I'd really rather have some other explanation. I WANT an easy way to explain it. I want it very desperately... But, you're not convincing me. I don't know. Is it me? I'm willing. I want to believe. excon |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
View more questions Search
|
