Creator or Evolution? Confused...

by Newborn 55 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Satanus

  I don't think that evolutionary theory posits that the universe came from nothing. I would say that the universe originated from a potential, a state of balance, which can easily be tipped in any direction. This concept shouldn't be that hard to consider, being that the opposites for the various forms of matter in the universe have been found or theorized by science. If all the particles in the universe met their opposites, the result would be annahilation and a burst of pure energy. The energy would dissapate, and balance be reached, again, or something like that. Time and space might still exist, which it may not have, in the preuniverse potential.

  S
• 

  MissingLink

  "Evolution" has NOTHING to do with how life ORIGINATED. And isn't even in the same realm of science to address how the UNIVERSE originated. We have to all at least understand the basic terms before we can have an intelligent discussion without being side tracked.

  And Scotsman >> "I notice you say that the articles stating otherwise are "religious". You do not need to read religiously motivated books to find a strong counter argument against the theory of evolution."

  Post ONE!

  I'm not the one getting all of my information from the same source. I'm guessing your source is the "Discovery Institute".
• 

  Tuesday

  Please read "It's Only A Theory" by Ken Miller. Another great tool is www.youtube.com/donexodus2 he has a series explaning what evolution is. First you have to know what evolution is, what the proofs are for evolution before youdismiss it.
• 

  Tuesday

  Chalam, I usually like your posts but I thought this one was a bit too pithy not to merit a response.

  Anyhow the long and the short of it is this, evolution states that my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandmother was a fish right?

  No that would still probably be homo-sapien. The human race is alot older than you'd give it credit for, unless you're saying Omo1 and Omo2 didn't exist. But I'm sure you're going to say that this isn't what you meant simply that when it boils down to it you descended from a fish. However all types of life originated from common descent. If you don't think so there's a simple solution for this. If you could explain why androgenous retro-viruses show themselves exactly how common descent has been proven. Or for even a smaller example if you could explain how our chromosome #2 is a merged chromosome from 2 primate chromosomes. No chromosome could disappear, that would be lethal. I mean I don't have a problem with people saying God exists and created life, but I don't believe in a deceptive God. One that would put this in our DNA to make it appear that evolution occured when it didn't.

  And her great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandmother was a single cell?

  No actually they would still probably be a fish. Even if you're talking the Cambrian explosion. However again if you're talking about common descent then yes eventually you will see that things do boil down to single-cell animals.

  That single cell spontaneously appeared in the big bang right? Or am I in the "old light" here too?

  Not old light, unless you went to High School before 1953 when it was proven that life can come from non-life. Abiogenesis in a word. Check out the Miller-Urey expiriment that shows organic matter can be created from inorganic matter. Now where that inorganic matter came from, could be from the big-bang. Before that, yes Scientists are not sure, but they've actually tracked it to 1 .0000000000000000000000042nd of a second after the big-bang. This is when theoretical physics come in to play regarding the rules before the natural world technically existed, maybe other rules apply in this case. Regardless the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, so even if you're saying that "this all boils down to the big bang" it really doesn't. The big bang is basically saying how all of these pieces of matter and elements were separated. It actually boils down to protons and electrons attaching themselves to elements of hydrogen (if I'm recalling correctly) which changed the type of element it is. This would've happened due to the immense amount of energy that occurs in supernovas and certainly in a type of release of energy that would break apart that sort of matter.

  Regardless, if you're going to be pithy really try to at least get the facts straight before typing. Ignorance breeds ignorance, unless you want science to stall out and not find cures for the new evolving diseases you're going to want science to figure out how things evolve so they can be treated. Unless you want to try and pray away the disease, I mean that has such a great history of curing diseases.
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  The fact is this... even if a very solid piece of evidence against evolution were to be discovered tomorrow (which is highly unlikely), it would still take about 100 years to explain away the mountain of evidence FOR evolution
• 

  Caedes

  """Err no, the alternative according to science is that everything is here due to natural processes""".

  What natural processes produced the universe - oh pleae elaborate?

  I am referring to scientific naturalism, if science ever comes up with a theory of everything then it will refer entirely to natural processes. All science is based on scientific naturalism, the supernatural is the province of theologists, frauds and crackpots.

  """Science does not know what came 'before' the big bang"""

  Neither do I - no one does.

  """So perhaps you could rewrite that to be 'we dont know what made everything - entirely in line with the basic rules of science."""

  No - quite happy with what I have written already - you have said nothing that changes what I said.

  Since you agree that science has no theories regarding what 'came before' the big bang then how exactly is your statement "The alternative to Creation is ultimately - Nothing Made Everything" in any way a correct or factual account of the alternative to creationism? If science has no theories on the subject then science can in no way be claiming that nothing made everything.

  """Evolution was proven by Darwin"""

  Some evolutionary biologists would disagree with you on this.

  Put your money where your mouth is, prove it, show me just one of these evolutionary biologists who has a peer reviewed (published in a reputable scientific journal) paper disagreeing with evolution by natural selection.

  """If you could point out one scientific article (in a reputable scientific journal) that proves Darwin wrong on the fundamentals of evolution by natural selection?"""

  And this is the problem - both sides of the argument can pruduce loads of articles, evidence etc etc - it is a circular conversation.

  You are mistaken it is not a circular argument it is a one sided argument because you have not produced one single piece of evidence so far.

  Look - believe what you want to believe, I am happy and content to believe that God created the entire universe and all life on earth. For me this is the only logical conclusion.

  Each to their own......

  You are entitled to believe whatever you wish, I have no interest in changing your mind. I am merely pointing out that you are talking unsubstantiated nonsense on a subject you clearly have little understanding of.