ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

How Did Life Begin

Did the universe and all life have a naturalistic or a supernatural beginning?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Creationism Quiz
 ---Jerry6593 on 3/17/17
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



strongaxe states, "Some things about DNA suggest random mutation rather than deliberate design,"

But Future Studies have identified "Distinct Patterns." and not, "Random Mutation."
---john9346 on 4/12/17


strongaxe states, "which is consistent apes and humans having common ancestry,"

Sir, i'm sure you are aware that this supposition is predicated on Jaw and Teeth Evidence,yet, this is not conclusive ever look at the teeth of bamboons and orangutans??
---john9346 on 4/12/17


StrongAxe
Church teachings have a powerful hold over those who follow them, if they believe in those teachers. Do your Church teachers, teach evolution,or are you alone in this thinking?

If they teach evolution, what denomination do you follow?
---David on 4/12/17


About Carbon 14:

C14 is indeed GREAT evidence - but not for evolution. Classical C14 measurement is indeed highly innacurate, with a broad statistical peak and tends to greater innacuracy with sample age. That is because it uses a simple geiger count method for determining the proportion of C14. Accelerator Mass Spectrometer measurements of C14 in fossils, on the other hand, is highly accurate, and gives a narrow statistical peak of ALL fossil ages at about 4,500 years BP - exactly in accordance with the biblical flood of Noah!



ax: You were describing President Bill Clinton, right?


---Jerry6593 on 4/12/17


David:

Some things about DNA suggest random mutation rather than deliberate design, e.g. two fused human chromosomes, and why humans and other species contain inactive DNA fragments from extinct viruses. It would be like a Ferrari containing Model T parts inside that weren't connected to anything.


Jerry6593:

I admit that I don't know things that the Bible doesn't explicitly state, rather than presumptuously claiming that I can read what God didn't see fit to write between the lines.

Agnostic?! If you want to fling mud, why should Christians listen to (let alone vote for) a president who is an unrepentant adulterer and demonstrable liar, whose favorite "Christian" verse is "an eye for an eye"?
---StrongAxe on 4/11/17




But why would GOD not use similar tools to build all that exist.
---Samuelbb7 on 4/10/17


To me similar DNA points to the same creator. Years ago I could look at a Ford or Chevy, and tell at a distance, it was a Ford or Chevy. Each make, each model, were different. But because they had the same designers year after year, they were very similar.

Strange how we seem to make a mystery out of what should be obvious, to make the explainable, unexplainable. I think our friend StrongAxe just likes a good mystery.
---David on 4/11/17


ax: "What I have constantly stated on these blogs, with regards to the times in Genesis, is that "I don't know"."

I believe you. There is a name for you - AGNOSTIC!

Why should we Christians listen to an admitted agnostic?
---Jerry6593 on 4/11/17


I have read a number of times that having similar DNA proves Evolution and close relationship from ancestry.

But why would GOD not use similar tools to build all that exist.

Evolution starts with something that Science says is impossible.

Non living matter must become alive. That has no way for it to happen. They have been trying to get it to happen for a long time.

Intelligent design Christians says that GOD has used his intervention to lead all that happened to bring about people and his desire.

They are still Christians. I just disagree.

While
---Samuelbb7 on 4/10/17


strongaxe states, "but makes no sense from the point of view of deliberate design, unless God was deliberately."

Sir, in Gen 1 God made man and animals separate and in Gen 2 it was a man who named the animals.

Moses writing bythe the Holy Spirit tells us that Adam had no suitable helper.

Also Scientific Studies confirm that mutations are losing information not increasing in info.

If what you state regarding mutation is true, then mutations would be colossal in New Information not losing information.
---john9346 on 4/10/17


strongaxe states, "which is consistent apes and humans having common ancestry,"

This is supposely based on the Fossil Record, but to substantiate this claim is like looking for a needle in a hey stack.

This is not clear and conclusive when one looks at the Fossil Record the majority of the fossils are marine invertebrates.

The
---john9346 on 4/10/17




john9346:

If you look at the many different species, especially when arranged in a tree, you can see close resemblances between them. The DNA sequences in such species are also very similar to each other. One curious thing is that apes have 24 chromosome pairs, while humans have only 23 - but one human chromosome has and "end of string" sequence in the middle of it - which is consistent apes and humans having common ancestry, but two human strands somehow getting joined together at some point during reproduction and occasional mutation, but makes no sense from the point of view of deliberate design, unless God was deliberately trying to deceive us.
---StrongAxe on 4/10/17


Strongaxe,

Carbon Data is unreliable and conclusive.
Could be more specific of the GeneticEvidence of species??
---john9346 on 4/9/17


john9346:

Yes, I know the theory that the earth had a cloud canopy like Venus, that blocked radiation, and percipated during the flood. This would make all carbon dates before the flood seem older.

Genetic evidence suggests species are related. Many contain spurious organs and unused DNA more consistent with evolutionary steps than one single creation event with built-on legacy artifacts whose sole purpose is to falsely suggest evolution.

Optic evidence is consistent with stars being very far away. It is unlikely that God faked approaching light just to fool us into believing that.


micha9344: Genesis says "evening". NOW that means sunset, but what did it mean before there was even a sun to set?
---StrongAxe on 4/9/17


strongaxe states, "There is ample evidence in our genes, in the rocks, and in the sky that show things have been around for much longer than 6021 years. Why would God go to great lengths to elaborate fake that?"

Sir, please tell me you aren't basing this on Carbon Data Evidence??
---john9346 on 4/9/17


/I don't presumptuously insist that they were thousands or millions of years, only that Genesis doesn't say, so that those who INSIST that they were 24 hours long also do so presumptuously.\-StrongAxe on 4/9/17
But, the Bible does say how long.
It defines the word "day" in regards to the creation week.
So, it is not presumption as you so falsely claim, but what most call "grammar."
Just as today, it consisted of one morning, one evening, a period of dark (night), and a period of light (another defining "day").
These were consistent all through the six days, with or without the Sun, which man uses to measure the "day."
God didn't need the sun to know how long a day is and tell us.
---micha9344 on 4/9/17


By their very definitions, one could consider ANY supernaturalistic creation story to be "logical", whether Christian, Greek, Norse, or Hindu. Each claims to be true, and if you take one's word for it, you must take another's word for it by the very same reasoning.
---StrongAxe on 4/8/17

This is "Untrue." by considering the evidence when one looks at the Vedas, Greek and Norst Mythology there is a colossal of Illogical and irrationsal belifs.

So, it is very equivocating and not tomention very dishonest to say we must accept the "Scriptures." on the same level with mythology.
---john9346 on 4/8/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


Samuelbb7:

Yes, keeping the seventh day is a MEMORIAL. Memorials specifically reproduce some aspects of the original event to bring them to mind - they do NOT replicate all the aspects of the original.

What I have constantly stated on these blogs, with regards to the times in Genesis, is that "I don't know". I don't presumptuously insist that they were thousands or millions of years, only that Genesis doesn't say, so that those who INSIST that they were 24 hours long also do so presumptuously.

But not a salvation issue.

Agreed! So many people choke on gnats while swallowing camels.
---StrongAxe on 4/9/17


ax: "Which words, EXACTLY, did God say? "

This is getting ridiculous!

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and ALL that in them is

What part of ALL don't you understand?


"There is ample evidence in our genes, in the rocks, and in the sky that show things have been around for much longer than 6021 years."

Not True! There is ample evidence to the contrary. The rocks (e.g.) do not show long age deposition, but fiat creation in Polonium halos in granite, rapid flood burial of fossils, 4,500 year BP age of ALL fossils, etc.



---Jerry6593 on 4/9/17


How can you know which one of them is REALLY true? --StrongAxe

StrongAxe
Go to any hospital intensive care unit, an you will see man can not survive unless all the systems of the body are working. Ask the doctor if man can live without a heart, brain, lungs, etc. If not, this proves man had to be created all at once.

Go to the delivery room, and you will see babies who were created though a reproductive process which required two participants, for recreating man. Both of which have different sexual organs.

Evolution is plausible?
For evolution to be plausible, the first human had to have survived more than a million years, waiting for the second human creation, so they could make more humans.
---David on 4/9/17


Strongax yes day can be used for different lengths of time. Adam was told to rest on the Seventh day. Since that is one of the days of creation it does not fit as being thousands years. In the Fourth Commandments in Exodus 20 it says to keep the Seventh day of Creation memorial. We don't live thousands of years to be able to do that.

I can only go by what GOD says. So I believe Genesis states it correctly. When Genesis happened I don't know. When the earth was created. I don't know. It was in existence before the first day since the earth there but without form. Also Adam named animals.

I used to believe in Evolution. I have no argument with Intelligent Design. I see it as a compromise. But not a salvation issue.

Agape.
---Samuelbb7 on 4/8/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


Jerry6593:

Which words, EXACTLY, did God say? One possibility is "Let amoebas be. Let oaks be. Let rabbits be. ... (several million sentences) ... Let humans be." Another possibility is "Here are rules for formation of particles, atoms, and molecules. Let these give forth all manners of life."

The Bible does not say which of these it was, yet you presume to know. It frequently uses 'day' for different lengths of time, yet you presume to know which.

"Heavens and earth declare the glory of God". There is ample evidence in our genes, in the rocks, and in the sky that show things have been around for much longer than 6021 years. Why would God go to great lengths to elaborate fake that?
---StrongAxe on 4/8/17


David:

I consider evolution plausible, not definite. Where have I rejected God's version? Genesis does not say HOW God created. It says he did, but gives no specific scientific details.

Also, how can you prove God's version?

By their very definitions, one could consider ANY supernaturalistic creation story to be "logical", whether Christian, Greek, Norse, or Hindu. Each claims to be true, and if you take one's word for it, you must take another's word for it by the very same reasoning. (Hence, the "reductio ad absurdum" theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.) How can you know which one of them is REALLY true? You must rely on OUTSIDE evidence.
---StrongAxe on 4/8/17


ax: "Ex 20:11 or PS 33:6,9 say God created (which I don't dispute). Neither mentions HOW."

None are so blind as those who will not see. In these two texts, anyone with normal reading and reasoning abilities can readily see two things:

1) How God did it was "by the WORD of His mouth".

2) How long it took was SIX DAYS.

These two facts directly refute your speculation that "God did it by creating Evolution" and "It took millennia to accomplish". Either God (and scientific evidence) is lying or you are. I'll go with God.

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God ...



---Jerry6593 on 4/8/17


Evolution takes millennia--StrongAxe

StrongAxe
Science figured out long ago, if you throw many years at your hypothesis, you can teach your theories forever. A zillion years ago.....

What I can't figure out, is how you, as a Christian, except these unprovable man made theories, and reject Gods version, which can be easily proven today.

I spent some years, almost an atheist. And the one thing that keep me on the fence, was creation. I've always looked for the simple explanation for the unexplainable, and even then, I found the Bible version logical, and evolution totally illogical.
---David on 4/7/17


Shop For Christian Gifts & Jewelry


Miracles are supernatural events with natural consequences. "Let there be light" would be meaningless without the illuminating properties of light. Raining fire on Sodom would be useless without the natural destructive properties of fire.


David:

Evolution takes millenia. Evidence that it doesn't happen in years proves no more than a video of one day in the life of a child proves humans don't reproduce.


Jerry6593:

Ex 20:11 or PS 33:6,9 say God created (which I don't dispute). Neither mentions HOW.
---StrongAxe on 4/6/17


"Did the universe and all life have a naturalistic or a supernatural beginning?"
Both. Understanding depends on perspective...From mans, beginning is supernatural. From Gods, it is naturalistic in that it is of, by, in accordance with His nature/character, His essence.
So that, what is natural to man and natural to God are not always viewed the same.
Verses concerning life, both natural/mortal and eternal...
"Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men."Jn 1:3-5
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being" Acts 17:28
"he giveth to all life, and breath" vs 25
(Acts 17:24-28)
also
---chria9396 on 4/6/17


StrongAxe
Google "Fruit fly" & "Evolution". You may find it interesting. When I was in school, they used the fruit to prove the theory of evolution.
---David on 4/6/17


ax: "Why do you INSIST that you KNOW how he [sic] DID it?"

You are either incapable of reading or incapable of retaining. Here is how I KNOW how He did it. He wrote with His own finger in stone:

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

He inspired David to write:

Psa 33:6,9 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. ... For he spake, and it was done, he commanded, and it stood fast.

God Himself declares that HIS Creation was a fiat event - not a multi-billion year accident.


---Jerry6593 on 4/6/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


David:

Primitive proteins and amino acids have been seen spontaneously forming out of primordial gases under primitive circumstances within only a few years. This includes bases for RNA, and primitive RNA sequences are capable of self-replication (i.e. viruses).

Have we seen that yet? No. However, given that the basics are there within observable time, this is now "at least plausable", rather than "a snowball's chance in hell".

Why haven't you brought up the Fruit Fly?

What about the Fruit Fly? Please enlighten me.


Jerry6593:

Again, the Bible does NOT get into details about how God created. Why do you INSIST that you KNOW how he DIDN'T do it, if you don't know how he DID?
---StrongAxe on 4/5/17


Where ever did you get that idea?--StrongAxe

StrongAxe
If your primordial creation came into being, as you believe,....it was alone and all by itself. If it was all by itself, could it reproduce?

Why haven't you brought up the Fruit Fly?
---David on 4/5/17


Why are so many Christians so INSISTENT that it COULD NOT have been via evolution?
---StrongAxe on 4/2/17

Because Christians believe Christ - not atheist College professors. Christ said that He created the heaven and the earth in 6 days. Darwin disagrees. Choose this day whom you will serve. If Christ be God, then follow Him.



---Jerry6593 on 4/5/17


Why are so many Christians so INSISTENT that it COULD NOT have been via evolution?
---StrongAxe on 4/2/17

For most of us it is harder to unlearn than learn. Most adult Christians have been indoctrinated early.
There are two human creation accounts in Gen. Gen 1 male and female (created)are hunter gatherers. Gen 2 Adam an Eve (formed) are tillers. There is a undocumented unreported (generational) era before Adam and his lineage. Adam offspring kept his history, we are reading it.
Evolution is not scientifically practical or logical. Leaving/avoiding the first 50% of their "theory" unanswered... which came first the Rooster or the Hen? Adams story at least leans to the Rooster.
---Trav on 4/4/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


David:

Where ever did you get that idea?! The whole mechanism of natural selection, and evolution through mutation, is dependent on living things reproducing faithfully most of the time, and on rare occasions inexactly.

Creating living things is sophisticated. Creating living things that reproduce themselves is more sophisticated. Creating living things that can adapt to their surroundings and evolve into other kinds of living things is more sophisticated still. People who believe that God could not possibly have used evolution believe in less powerful God than those who believe he could have.


Jerry6593:

Please cite chapter and verse of how DNA was formed. You can't, because God doesn't say.
---StrongAxe on 4/4/17


Genesis said God created various living things, but does not get into specifics about just HOW he did so.--StrongAxe

StrongAxe
True, but God tells us he gave his creation a need to reproduce, and gave creation the ability to reproduce in ( Genesis 1:11-12). And we can see proof of Gods explanation of creation, through reproduction, played out in every day life.

According to your theory, reproduction is unnecessary. If creation was able to create itself, why would creation have needed, to give itself the ability to reproduce?
---David on 4/4/17


Cluny: "Don't you believe the same thing, Jerry--only you call your magic "God"."

No Cluny, I call God's creation SUPERNATURAL. You insist that creation happened slowly by God's having empowered NATURE with the MAGIC of creation. My explanation harmonizes with the Bible version. Yours contradicts it.



ax: "We're just quibbling over HOW he did."

There should be no quibble over HOW, as He told us HOW He did it in the Bible.

As for your silly rationalization over dependence in probabilistic computation, I can't wait for your theory of how the various chemical constituents made themselves "dependent".


---Jerry6593 on 4/4/17


Jerry6593:

No, you didn't. Multiplying probabilities gives a result probability for events that are statistically INDEPENDENT, but it is less accurate when they are slightly dependent, and totally inaccurate when they are closely dependent. You make the implicit ASSUMPTION that they are independent, hence your probabilities, but you have nowhere proved that they are independent.

(As with David's argument about bones being in the right arrangement - we see bones adapting to changes even within one person's lifetime, and with natural selection (proved and observable) it would be easy to select for creatures whose bones happen to adapt more favorably.)

I didn't say God didn't do it. We're just quibbling over HOW he did.
---StrongAxe on 4/3/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


\\Similarly, neither you nor any academic professor can offer a plausible explanation for the Cambrian explosion, yet you BELIEVE that the myriad of life forms found therein magically appeared from nowhere.\\

Don't you believe the same thing, Jerry--only you call your magic "God".

Actually, there are single-cell organisms in pre-Cambrian strata.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/3/17


ax: "It's a plausible explanation."

NO, IT IS NOT!

Plausibility, like probability, has reasonable limits. I have shown you with mathematics that abiogenesis is not possible, yet you BELIEVE it is. The conclusion of the majority of scientists is that abiogenesis is impossible, yet you BELIEVE it is.

Similarly, neither you nor any academic professor can offer a plausible explanation for the Cambrian explosion, yet you BELIEVE that the myriad of life forms found therein magically appeared from nowhere.

You do not believe the Word of God Himself that He did it, yet you cling by blind faith to the ravings of the lunatic Darwin.



---Jerry6593 on 4/3/17


David:

You wrote: Do you believe everything was created by evolvion? Fish, birds, mammals, plants, etc...

It's a plausible explanation. Genesis said God created various living things, but does not get into specifics about just HOW he did so. Why are so many Christians so INSISTENT that it COULD NOT have been via evolution? The only reason I can see is that they see the idea of evolution (which allows for supernatural creation but does not REQUIRE it) is a direct threat to their belief in a supernatural creation.
---StrongAxe on 4/2/17


StrongAxe
Do you believe everything was created by evolvion? Fish, birds, mammals, plants, etc...
---David on 4/2/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


Jerry6593:

Our lifetimes are too short to be able to duplicate evolution via scientific experimentation, but exactly the same thing applies to duplicating Genesis 1 by scientific experimentation. If evolution cannot be scientifically proven, neither can creationism.

Given the 125 word and 75 message limits on these blogs, proposing theories as you suggest is just as futile as observing evolution or creation during our own lifetimes.


David:

Humans did not evolve from apes. The theory is that both humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Since most species die out, and 99.999% of bodies decompose after death not leaving fossils, it is natural that we will have large gaps everywhere in the evolutionary tree.
---StrongAxe on 4/1/17


The Bible is the ONLY valid explanation for creation and this limited to, "He created...", with no details.
One of the many problems that has not been established is what is the length of a day at the time of creation?
Evolutionist have nothing concrete,but say, "We think this may have bee the way it happened" or "maybe it happened this way", etc. They argue a point from silence or partial truth.

Never confuse the the "Who" with the "how" and both sides of the issue do this all the time, that's like comparing, Apples with Oranges"
---WrIVV on 4/1/17


ax: All I hear from you is double-talk. Tell us one thing you know about Evolution that is true, scientific and testable. Also, please propose theories for naturalistic abiogenesis, the Cambrian explosion and missing transitional life forms in the fossil record. We'll be waiting.



Cluny: I believe you'll find that single cells do indeed have systems for assimilation, respiration, etc. They are extremely complex.



---Jerry6593 on 4/1/17


StrongAxe
I've never understood the theoretical missing link. If humans evolved from apes, why aren't apes evolving into humans?
---David on 4/1/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


David:

No, it doesn't. Suppose several related life forms. The first does not possess a feature, each progressive one has more of it, and last can't do without it. Somewhere in the middle are forms that can live with or without it, but do better with. The further you go along, the more necessary it is. There is no point where X doesn't need it, but X+1 suddenly does. It's a gradual progression.

Many organs in man and other living things don't serve a useful purpose, but are obvious leftovers from other creatures that needed them (e.g. appendix, tail bone).


Jerry6593:

I DID answer his question.

Bones adapt in amputees and 0G. Natural selection favors those who adapt better. NO random assembly required.
---StrongAxe on 3/31/17


I learned in biology 50+ years ago that there are 10 life functions everything from a monocellular organism to individual cells in the body through vertebrates perform.

The few that I remember--assimilation, elimination, respiration, circulation, and reproduction--are not systems in single cells, but obviously are carried out.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/31/17


How we would survive without an essential system is hypothetical, and clearly "we can't".--StrongAxe

StrongAxe
"We Can't", and that alone proves that man had to be created, created all at once, else we would not survive. I love science too, but we can't believe everything they say.

Just because many tend to think the scientist is smarter than them, they tend to accept everything they say as the Truth. It's best to view all men as fools, until they can prove different.

I have left many an evolutionist with a deer in the headlights look, when I asked them the same question. We are the most obvious evidence that we were created, and did not evolve.
---David on 3/31/17


David: You are making the Behe Mousetrap argument - that there exists a limit of irreducible complexity beyond which a system will not function. The axster refuses to answer your question because he has no answers, and as a liberal snowflake, he is not man enough to admit it.


ax: The generally accepted mathematical limit of possibility is 10^-50. The probability of the 206 bones assembling in the right order is on the order of 10^-240 - well beyond impossible. Now add in the 37 trillion cells in the human body and you have an extreme mountain of impossibility to climb.

You may cling to the god of random chance and his prophet Darwin if you like, but I'll stick with Jehovah and His prophet Moses.


---Jerry6593 on 3/31/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


David:

How we would survive without an essential system is hypothetical, and clearly "we can't". However, as I said, many living creatures have systems like ours in various stages of development. None developed all at once, and to speak of them as if they did is to create a straw man argument.

Jerry6593:

To contemplate a task and deduce it is "clearly impossible" is usually to say "I don't know how it could be done" - NOT proof of impossibility. A few hundred years ago, it was believed that man flying was clearly impossible, traveling 60 mph would clearly be fatal, and today, David Copperfield's illusions seem "clearly impossible", yet are clearly possible, because he does them.
---StrongAxe on 3/30/17


There is no need to look at hypotheticals.--StrongAxe

StrongAxe
Facts are not hypotheticals. And you avoid the questions I have asked because you know they are facts. Your argument is the hypothetical.

If I am wrong, answer this question.
Could you live without your respiratory, circulatory, digestive, or pulmonary system?
---David on 3/29/17


ax: "Explain how"

George Wald, in "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954, wrote:

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, akin to you're attempt to reconcile the Bible with Darwin.

Mathematically, the probabilistic computation of the self-assembly of a known number of elements is easily shown to be impossible with as little as 206 elements (bones in the human body). A single-cell organism with 1000's of elements, even less probable.

---Jerry6593 on 3/29/17


ax: You need to further understand the fallacy of "chemical evolution". Miller performed classic experiments in the 50's wherein he created some simple amino acids using a mixture of inorganic gasses and electricity. Although many hard-core evolutionists were quick to proclaim that abiogenesis was all but proved, several facts stand in the way.

First, the gaseous mixture was reducing, and the resulting amino's had to be quickly removed to prevent their destruction. Secondly, both right- and left-handed molecules were produced, and only the lefties were viable. Modern research has shown that life-sustaining proteins act not by covalent or ionic chemical bonds, but rather as nano-machines, and only lefties will work.
---Jerry6593 on 3/29/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


David:

There is no need to look at hypotheticals. Just study a bit of biology. There are many very primitive life forms (viruses, bacteria, protozoa, fungi, plants, flatworms, etc.) that have various essential systems (nervous, digestive, circulatory, reproductive, etc.) with a wide variety of diffent levels of complexity.

The next time you go to a doctor, ask him if a man could survive if he was missing any one of the systems of the body. My friend, don't become oblivious to the obvious.

That is a straw man argument, and you know it. We have systems designed to interoperate as they are. Other simpler creatures are perfectly happy with simpler systems that also interoperate with each other.
---StrongAxe on 3/28/17


Evolution is a very slow process.--StrongAxe

StrongAxe
But this primordial creation had to eat, drink, and reproduce to survive. How could it have possibly survived the time it would have taken to develop a digestive, and reproductive system?

The next time you go to a doctor, ask him if a man could survive if he was missing any one of the systems of the body. My friend, don't become oblivious to the obvious.
---David on 3/28/17


David:

There are so many erroneous pseudo-scientific assumptions in the above statement, that I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Evolution is a very slow process. If (say) 99.9999% of DNA reproduces faithfully, you would have to throw away a lot of bandages before any of them contained anything that wasn't 100% you, and even once you found one of those, the chances of a random mutation being actually beneficial rather than harmful is quite slim.

Plus, even with correct DNA, the chance of a drop of blood from a bandage turning into fully functioning human being is also practically nil.
---StrongAxe on 3/27/17


We see from simpler organisms that all could develop simultaneously, in very small steps--StrongAxe

StrongAxe
I'm curious to understand what you would do with a bandage, removed from a cut on your hand?

You see my trash gets picked up once a week. And if I believed as you do, there is no way I would throw it away, because my DNA would be on it, and I would fear it might evolve into a human before the garbage got picked up.

I would have a lot of explaining to do when the cops came a knockin on my door. LOL
---David on 3/26/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


David:

No. We see from simpler organisms that all could develop simultaneously, in very small steps.


Jerry6593:

"You have no proof" is not using "logic", only saying YOURE statements do not follow rules of logic.

Why not provide PROOF, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks? Explain HOW science and mathematics have "concluded" abiogenesis is IMPOSSIBLE.

Also, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum. The claim that a flying spaghetti monster created life supernaturally is just as "scientific" (or not) as the claim that Jehovah or Zeus or Odin did. We have no SCIENTIFIC proof of Genesis - it is a matter of faith.
---StrongAxe on 3/25/17


StrongAxe
The very creation of life, is absolute proof of a creator. Go to an intensive care unit sometime, and look at someone hooked to a machine that's supplementing a lost body function. All the other systems are fully functional except one. Pull the plug, and they will die. And yet folks believe man evolved? It's ridiculous when you think about it.

Here's something else to consider. If man did evolve, why can't we grow a new heart, lungs, kidneys or liver when we need one?
---David on 3/25/17


\\ the creation of life from nonliving matter - is indeed IMPOSSIBLE. \\

And yet, there is non-living matter in us and every other living thing.

On the other hand, I admit that it is impossible to get any matter at all from absolutely nothing without God.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/25/17


ax: "There is no scientific PROOF that physics CANNOT produce life."

WOW! That's the same logic the atheist uses to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created our world.

You are as inept in the field of science as you are in that of the Bible. Science and Mathematics have indeed concluded that abiogenesis - the creation of life from nonliving matter - is indeed IMPOSSIBLE. Similarly, the ONLY explanation available from Scripture is SUPERNATURAL. Thus, you are wrong in both spheres.
---Jerry6593 on 3/25/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Could God create man in one day? Yes. Do the laws of physics and biology REQUIRE that he did? No.
---StrongAxe on 3/24/17


StrongAxe
Are you suggesting evolution? The body evolved after many days, weeks or years? If you are, I have two questions.

What body function evolved first.....the circulatory, pulmonary, respiratory, or digestive system?
Can you explain how it survived until all the other systems evolved?
---David on 3/25/17


David:

That does not follow logically. Similarly, if God created man on day 6, and human parasites on an earlier day, how did THEY survive?

Look at all the other living creatures out there. All organ systems humans have exist in similar forms in other animals, often in in simpler forms. For example, our heart has four chambers. Some animals have two- and one-chambered hearts. The heart valve is similar to the valves in the legs that keep blood from flowing backwards due to gravity (and whose damage causes varicose veins). There are some primitive creatures that have only one valve, and whose blood moves when their bodies do.

Could God create man in one day? Yes. Do the laws of physics and biology REQUIRE that he did? No.
---StrongAxe on 3/24/17


The only logical conclusion, when knowing the physiology of man, is Supernatural.

Can a man survive...
Without a heart?
Without a respiratory system?
Without a digestive system?
Without a circulatory system?
Without a brain?

No, if you removed anyone of these, man would die. This proves man had to be created all at once, and for this creation to happen, man would have needed a creator.
---David on 3/24/17


Jerry6593:

You wrote: Laws of biology and chemistry obey the laws of physics, but none of them can produce new life forms.

That is not a statement of fact, merely opinion. There is no scientific PROOF that physics CANNOT produce life. You may assert that we cannot see it happening, and that we do not know how it is done, but absence of proof is not proof of absence. As our knowledge increases, we see more and more evidence that various pieces of evolution of life can, in fact, work (e.g. spontaneous creation of organic molecules including proteins and nucleic acids out of elemental gases).
---StrongAxe on 3/23/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


How God's eternal and unmaterial, "Fiat!' breaks into the physical and temporal universe, taking effect, is a mystery the Bible does not describe, and obviously science cannot define.

The Bible is NOT a scientific text. As a wise man said, the Bible does not tell how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/23/17


Cluny: Laws of biology and chemistry obey the laws of physics, but none of them can produce new life forms. In fact, the Bible definitively states that ALL Creation was supernatural in origin, as:

Psa 33:9 For he spake, and it was done, he commanded, and it stood fast.

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.



---Jerry6593 on 3/23/17


\\But none of the laws of physics can accomplish creation of life, as Evolutionists assert. \\

Don't forget there are also the laws of biology and chemistry going on at the same time.

You don't think that these laws created themselves, do you?

I certainly do not.

Whether creation was an act of God working ouside the laws of nature, or whether God worked through them, it's still GOD active in creation.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/22/17


Cluny: "Do you understand the difference?"

Of course. But none of the laws of physics can accomplish creation of life, as Evolutionists assert. Gravity can't make animals! The Bible records Creation as a supernatural, 6-day event, not an ongoing flow of new life forms from the wellspring of physical forces.



---Jerry6593 on 3/22/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


//Cluny: According to Merriam-Webster, pantheism is "a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe".

So it's really close, as is Theistic Evolution.//

But I'm NOT equating the forces and laws of the universe.

What I said was that God normally works through the laws of nature, physics, and such that HE HIMSELF established.

Do you understand the difference?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/20/17


Cluny: According to Merriam-Webster, pantheism is "a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe".

So it's really close, as is Theistic Evolution.



---Jerry6593 on 3/20/17


\\ Are you implying Pantheism - that God is just a force pervading all of nature? \\

This is not what pantheism is.

God can work through His own laws, or miraculously outside them.

Either way, it's still God working.

I have several medical issues, gout and diabetes among them, that require daily medications. And every day I thank God for the provision He has made for me, because I'm still being healed.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/19/17


Cluny: "God generally works thorugh natural laws that He Himself established."

Are you implying Pantheism - that God is just a force pervading all of nature? That seems to be at odds with the biblical quote from Josef below that:

"Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Natural phenomena do not manifest themselves this way. As the scripture implies, one needs faith to understand the Creation.





---Jerry6593 on 3/19/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Yes.

God generally works thorugh natural laws that He Himself established.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/18/17


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. He spoke, and it was done, He commanded, and it stood fast. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."
---Josef on 3/17/17


supernatural

And God's ways are "past finding out" (please consider Romans 11:33) > this is why scientists keep discovering how they can not figure things out. Because our Creator's ways are still working in His creation, including how our bodies function at such a high level (c:
---Bill on 3/17/17


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.