i've been scanning thru geronimo's recent thread on evolution, & have really enjoyed reading all the fascinating responses.
i was going to post in there, but was worried it might get buried.
many may not know me here, as i've barely posted, but in a nutshell, i'm still in the org (somewhat trapped at the moment) but consider myself a christian with somewhat leftish leanings.
| I should ask how and why did our planet get blessed by all the right chemical reactions so that life could not only appear but flourish? It does seem like the earth was made for us humans and animals and plant life. |
This logic is known as the 'Goldilocks fallacy'. Paleogeekgirl does a good job here of describing the fallacy:
i've been scanning thru geronimo's recent thread on evolution, & have really enjoyed reading all the fascinating responses.
i was going to post in there, but was worried it might get buried.
many may not know me here, as i've barely posted, but in a nutshell, i'm still in the org (somewhat trapped at the moment) but consider myself a christian with somewhat leftish leanings.
The difficult thing I have to reconcile is that living matter came from complete nothing. Life from nothing is what I have trouble with. Other than that many people believe that evolution is the natural selection process, and adaptation process that God created so that life would flourish and change over time suited for the environment. We now have intelligent design theory which I think shows that even some scientists believe there is an "intelligence" to life and our galaxy, etc. Some call this "IT" God, some call it nature, others do not know what to call it. |
You say life from nothing is a problem. Where does the universe come from? Where does your god come from?
Life from 'nothing' is a misnomer. Life has arisen out of the complexity of interactions of basic elements of the universe. So it's not life from nothing but life from the universe.
But your god from nothing, that's a real nothing.
I still don't understand how people find life arising from the universe hard to swallow, yet god from nothing sails by them as totally unnotable. Banging head on wall. Once you accept the existence of an invisible omnipotent being surely you can accept anything?
Here is what talk.origins says on the probability of abiogenesis ('life from no life'):
i've been scanning thru geronimo's recent thread on evolution, & have really enjoyed reading all the fascinating responses.
i was going to post in there, but was worried it might get buried.
many may not know me here, as i've barely posted, but in a nutshell, i'm still in the org (somewhat trapped at the moment) but consider myself a christian with somewhat leftish leanings.
This short video makes my point very well, about the inanity of the alternative to evolution:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060905/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_britain_telepathy
has anyone ever experienced this?
i have, as well as with emails and especially text messages.. do you think there's any chance this could be real-that there is a valid, unspoken connection between people who reach out to each other?
Here's why you should take Rupert Sheldrake's 'research' with a healthy pinch of skepticism:
i've been scanning thru geronimo's recent thread on evolution, & have really enjoyed reading all the fascinating responses.
i was going to post in there, but was worried it might get buried.
many may not know me here, as i've barely posted, but in a nutshell, i'm still in the org (somewhat trapped at the moment) but consider myself a christian with somewhat leftish leanings.
| Or consider caterpillars. A caterpillar has no obvious resemblance to a butterfly. The disparity in engineering is huge. The caterpillar has no legs, properly speaking, certainly no wings, no proboscis. How did a species that did not undergo metamorphosis evolve into one that did? |
Please see: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB311.html
i've been scanning thru geronimo's recent thread on evolution, & have really enjoyed reading all the fascinating responses.
i was going to post in there, but was worried it might get buried.
many may not know me here, as i've barely posted, but in a nutshell, i'm still in the org (somewhat trapped at the moment) but consider myself a christian with somewhat leftish leanings.
| But on the other hand, it seems a very great stretch to believe that nonlife spawned life, in any form whatsoever. I have no problem accepting some adaptations over time, as the case for these seem pretty solid, but i can't wrap my head around the idea that from inanimate matter came life. It just doesn't seem logical. That is but one thing that solidifies my faith in God. |
Life from non-life has nothing to do with evolution, but I'll comment anyway.
I never get this logic.
Molecules interacting in interesting ways over billions of years is apparently 'a very great stretch', but that the whole universe is created by a supreme omnipresent being for which we have no evidence is not an infinite times more of a stretch?
Why do you treat one idea so differently to the other?
You must believe that non-God spawned God? Is that not far more fantastical than interactions between molecules?
i know there are a lot of threads on evolution and creation and i've read a few here and there.
how can complex systems arise of themselves in the face of entropy?
one evolutionist book i read used snowflakes to show this is possible.
Evolution might bug you, nothing wrong with that, keep researching and it will bug you less. No evolution should bug you more.
For example, when did God invent the fully formed bird? Did he invent all existing species at once?
What explains extinct bird-like species and their place further back in the fossil record?
Archaeopteryx, 140 million years ago
Sinornithosaurus, 130 million years ago, rudimentary feathers/hairs on body
close up of head
Caudipteryx, 120 million years ago
artists impression
Gansus yumenensis, 110 million years ago
artists impression
Hesperornis, flight-less bird with teeth, 90 million years ago
Presbyornis, 50 million years ago
Diatryma, 50 million years ago
This is just a handful of bird and bird-like species. Did God drop them onto the planet fully formed? Does he still drop species onto the planet fully formed? What year was the last one?
i know there are a lot of threads on evolution and creation and i've read a few here and there.
how can complex systems arise of themselves in the face of entropy?
one evolutionist book i read used snowflakes to show this is possible.
I love these evolution arguments. Evolution is unstoppable. Argue all you want, but after we die, it will still be here. As long as there is DNA, heritability, mutation and reproduction it will still be here, independent of humans or their attitude towards it. Anti-evolutionists can only bury, or be taught to bury, their heads in the sand.
Kid-A - some of your posts are waaaay cool. Lot's of other good posts on here too. Remember the quote 'arguing with creationists is like whack-a-mole. you deal with one argument <whack>, you think it's gone, then it pops up again - the same argument you already dealt with' - process becomes dull after a while, but all the time the evidence continues to pile up.
Evolution is not anti-god. Evolution is God's creative process in motion. To argue against evolution is to blaspheme God's creation.
What is the creationist explanation for new species over time (millions of species over billions of years)? Does God parachute another fully-formed species onto the planet every few years? The creationist's God is a simpleton, they blaspheme God for their own political ends.
i've been attending an independent church were the women wave flags, play realy loud live music, speak in tongues (not me) and alot of other thingsi never saw in kh.
it realy feels weird, but have closer friendships than in kh.
| I've been attending an independent church were the women wave flags, play realy loud live music, speak in tongues (not me) and alot of other thingsI never saw in kh. It realy feels weird, but have closer friendships than in kh. |
Why? Why are you going to this 'independent church'? If it 'really feels weird' maybe your instinct is telling you something. Do you judge the authenticness of a church by the closeness of the people in it? I'm sure there are Scientologists, FDLS members etc that are real close to each other, maybe try those religions too?
i had a meeting with my heart surgeon yesterday, and after informing him of our faith, my wife still holding onto to parts of the organization, the dr. said that, "there is a new form that just came out last year from your mother church in new york.
" what this document does is (1) make it clear that the person is not allowing blood to be used, (2) makes it clear that the dr. will have a court order ready in case blood is deemed medically necessary to sustain life and (3) absolves the person's conscience of any guilt if it came down to it.
i'm not sure if this document has been discussed before, but i thought that it was a bit intriguing.
inthetruth - do you think that everyone on here has not heard such fallacious logic before? These are mostly ex-witnesses - they know the JW arguments as well, if not better, than you do. They know exactly how and why it is nonsense. Get it in perspective.
