Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?
- Thread starter Johnnytoxic
- Start date
What flaws? The only 'flaw' I see is our inability to observe speciation due to the time it takes, which is because of our short life spans (so, gods fault?).
We have observed speciation however it was in plants so doesn't count. Standard modus operandi, if evidence is found move the goal posts.
What was God's plan for the people who lived thousands of years ago? Those that have left cave art, some of which date back 6000 or more years? They didn't know of Christ. And those fossilised creatures which show a remarkable similarity to modern man - to the extent that it's hard to tell if they were different or just butt ugly? Nearly 2 million years old.
Life does not need a purpose. Why does the bee make honey? To feed it's young and preserve the next iteration of bees
Life does not need a purpose. Why does the bee make honey? To feed it's young and preserve the next iteration of bees
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,909
- Location
- Merseyside. UK
wow, thats a bold statement!
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 113
Would that be these points? I'll admitt my knowledge is lacking when it come to the changes in chromosome numbers but I'd like to see your views on the second law of thermodynamics argument:
Originally Posted by Jason2
It takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist. You see, no one has ever witnessed evolution happening. When evolutionists say they have witnessed evolution, what they mean is that they've seen micro-evolution. They certainly have not seen macro-evolution happening. Still, the evolutionists maintain that enough of these small changes and you'll eventually get a new specie. And you want to tell me that doesn't take faith? It's absurd to ever think that random mutations can create new information. How can a process which has no direction or purpose write new information? It can't! .
Yes but when you look at those micro-changes together with how the fossil record shows gradual adaption from one creature to another it looks like a pretty good mechanism. Also again depends on your interpretation of macro and micro off the top of my head I can't think of examples in animals because of the time span it would require for a suitable number of generations. The experiment involving bacteria changing from sugar to citrate (hope I've got that right think theres also been one carried out where they've feer off a form of plastic but please don't me to that) is a pretty damn huge change in the workings of a single celled organism and not merely a change from one colour to another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason2
So, evolutionists tell us macro-evolution is happening today, whilst at the same time admitting they can't see it happening. Oh the irony! The reason they can't see it happening is because it simply doesn't happen. New genetic information does not just randomly arise. .
Whether it is a micro or macro change, its still new genetic information regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason2
Moving on, the second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Which is what evolutionists claim when species change and become new species. Either the second law of thermodynamics is wrong or evolution is wrong. Which is it?.
By second law of thermodynamics I'm guessing your referring to where its worded as "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.". This ones easy, life is not a closed system as we take in energy from the sun. Also thers other examples of order from disorder that don't even involve life, for example freezing water becoming crystalline **********, I'm not 100% sure of the mechanism for that of the top of my head but I'm guessing the ordered structure is a lower energy state due to the hydrogen bonds between molecules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason2
And finally, how do evolutionists explain the locked chromosome count? One male from one specie and cannot mate with another female from another specie. This proves that man cannot share a common ancestor with the monkeys. Neither can any other specie evolve into another specie..
Species with different numbers of chromosomes can reproduce, granted most of the time their off spring can't though. I have to admitt I don't know much about this so I'll have to do some research. Theres even a chance science doesn't know but thats the beauy of it, some one will do some research and maybe find an answer. If we write it off as a "god of the gaps", we'll never know.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
Whats the purpose of life for a christian? To serve God?
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 113
To know God in all his infinite glory and to share in his glory. Remember Jesus calls us not servants, but friends.
If there is no purpose to life, why does the desire to have a purpose exist? All human beings at one point in their life have asked "What is my purpose?". If we are just a collection of atoms with no soul why would this question even arise?
A common myth invented by creationists, goes something like this;
'EVOLUTION IS FALSE BECAUSE NO KNOWN INCREASE IN INFORMATION, WITHIN DNA HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED, ANY CHANGES WITHIN THE DNA CAN ONLY BE DESTRUCTIVE TO THE ORGANISM, THEREFORE EVOLUTION IS WRONG'
They have this bloody awful habit of saying something nobody else said, then disproving their own BS and claiming victory; type 'evolution' into youtube and scroll down to read the comments, and count the seconds before you want to kill yourself, it's so awful.
There are countless changes that have been observed within DNA which alter the organism for the better or for the worse, in eyesight - opsin genes which cause colour blindness or the ability to be a dichromat/trichromat, parasitic organisms which perform 'germ line therapy' on the host, which alters' it's genetic makeup for it's own purpose (some crop parasites)
Countless examples, all of them amazingly interesting and almost unbelievable - but true.
Because we have evolved to the point where we have the intelligence to be self aware and ask these questions. Doesn't mean they have a gratifying answer, or an answer at all.
Creations of the mind. Survival mechanisms
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 113
I meant his reply regarding to my answer regarding it. ie. Could he clarify what he meant by second law of dynamics as the first descriptions of it were in terms of heat which isn't relevant. So I then took the assumption that he meant in terms of entropy as in "entropy can't decrease in a closed system" and explained that life on earth isn't in a closed system as there is an energy input from the sun and gave an other example of how nature can have a decrease in entropy other than life (a snow flake forming from water).
Edit. Forgot to add I've seen the videos, but I don't think reasonable discussion can be had using such heated language, if you insult some one view point they are less likely to consider your's.
(I also agree he's most likely a troll, but it's something to do and gets me thinking
Plus if he is portraying himself accurately it can't hurt to try and educate him on wrongly held assumptions)
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 113
Jason2 what is your definition of a soul? Would you say that a persons personality and memory are a part of their soul? Do you think a persons physical body has an effect on the soul?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
Ok, lets dispute evolution:
I want to know how nature can create information. No one has ever seen nature create new information. It only ever follows patterns. If new information can be written, then why are universes laws still the same? How come they have not changed? If they did life would not exist on this planet. I have said many times on this board that random mutation cannot create new information. Mutations only ever lead to the deletion or substitution of information. Take the fruit flies for example. Many experiments have been done on them and yet these mutations only ever lead to dead or deformed fruit flies. No matter how many mutations they went through they still remained fruit flies!
Fossil Gaps:
My next point brings me to transitional fossils. Why is it we cannot find no transitional fossils that can be categorized into one specific life form? When archeologists dig up fossils they just find completed life forms. These could simply be animals that have gone extinct, and not ancestors of man. Darwin said:
Anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz at the University of Pittsburgh said, life "appear[ed] in the fossil record asAthena did from the head of Zeus—full grown and raring to go."
"The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be," writes David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History), "We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin’s time … so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated."
"Fossils have … failed to yield the host of transitional form demanded by evolutionary theory," according the Australian molecular biologist Michael Denton, and "absence of transitional forms is dramatically obvious."
The start of life:
Evolution is built on a fallacy. Evolutionists claim life arose spontaneously. Just a lucky accident. They also admit the possibility of life just arising has an extremely low probability, yet given enough time it can happen. To give a picture of this, they use the coin analogy. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance.
And finally, isn't it surprising that no other life has yet been found in the known observable universe, even though we've found planets capable of supporting life? Take mars for example, it had all the right properties to support life and yet, despite nasa's best attempts, no evidence of life can be found. Why is that? Why just our planet?
I want to know how nature can create information. No one has ever seen nature create new information. It only ever follows patterns. If new information can be written, then why are universes laws still the same? How come they have not changed? If they did life would not exist on this planet. I have said many times on this board that random mutation cannot create new information. Mutations only ever lead to the deletion or substitution of information. Take the fruit flies for example. Many experiments have been done on them and yet these mutations only ever lead to dead or deformed fruit flies. No matter how many mutations they went through they still remained fruit flies!
Fossil Gaps:
My next point brings me to transitional fossils. Why is it we cannot find no transitional fossils that can be categorized into one specific life form? When archeologists dig up fossils they just find completed life forms. These could simply be animals that have gone extinct, and not ancestors of man. Darwin said:
Anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz at the University of Pittsburgh said, life "appear[ed] in the fossil record asAthena did from the head of Zeus—full grown and raring to go."
"The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be," writes David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History), "We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin’s time … so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated."
"Fossils have … failed to yield the host of transitional form demanded by evolutionary theory," according the Australian molecular biologist Michael Denton, and "absence of transitional forms is dramatically obvious."
The start of life:
Evolution is built on a fallacy. Evolutionists claim life arose spontaneously. Just a lucky accident. They also admit the possibility of life just arising has an extremely low probability, yet given enough time it can happen. To give a picture of this, they use the coin analogy. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance.
And finally, isn't it surprising that no other life has yet been found in the known observable universe, even though we've found planets capable of supporting life? Take mars for example, it had all the right properties to support life and yet, despite nasa's best attempts, no evidence of life can be found. Why is that? Why just our planet?
Before you try and debunk evolution you should probably try to actually understand it first. Evolution makes no such claim about the origin of life, it does not deal with that question at all.
I know I am probably going to have to repeat this ad infinitum as I do with Kedge, but cest la vie.