Christianity and science

[Fez]

Seek the Light

Blessings and prayer

[Guest]

.... And where did "all" life begin?

I feel like a revered seer to be asked such an important question. Unfortunately I don't have an answer, but I wouldn't be surprised if one isn't eventually forthcoming. Someone at another site once told me though, that he wouldn't believe life evolved spontaneously even if biologists figured out how to replicate the event. Interesting. Yes?

Yes!

You Are Right

The Answer Is Forthcoming

And His Name Is Jesus Of Nazareth

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Colossians 1:16

He Is The Son Of God Don't You Know

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:1-3

And He Really Started It All Haven't You Heard

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1

And Boy Oh Boy Am I Ever Thankful He Did You See

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Hebrews 12:2

Because He Is My LORD And My Love And My Judge And He's Set Me Free

for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God

Romans 14:10

[Guest man]

And where did "all" life begin?

I feel like a revered seer to be asked such an important question. Unfortunately I don't have an answer, but I wouldn't be surpirsed if one isn't eventually forthcoming. Someone at another site once told me though, that he wouldn't believe life evolved spontaneously even if biologists figured out how to replicate the event. Interestng. Yes?

Life had to begin somewhere.

What are the beliefs of the evolutionists?

Evolutionists don't have a belief about the origins of life, but if I had to guess I imagine you might find two thoughts on this. Theistic Christians, or supporters of BioLogos

[Guest man]

You go were the evidence leads you. The fossil record has for 150 years been corroborating Darwin's findings. Now, in the last few years, genetics is corroborating the finds revealed by the fossil record. You don't have to know how life originated to investigate how it changed once it arrived. Those are two different fields of study. Even if life originated at the behest of God and was produced by a supernatural event, for which there would not likely be any evidence, we can still track how life changed (evolved) since that time.

There is no evidence. They can't show you beyond a shadow of a doubt that something evolved from one thing into another.

They have no evidence of the transition from one species to the next. They tell you what it was and what it is now, everything in between is missing. Where are the fossil records of that transition?

[MorningGlory]

You go were the evidence leads you. The fossil record has for 150 years been corroborating Darwin's findings. Now, in the last few years, genetics is corroborating the finds revealed by the fossil record. You don't have to know how life originated to investigate how it changed once it arrived. Those are two different fields of study. Even if life originated at the behest of God and was produced by a supernatural event, for which there would not likely be any evidence, we can still track how life changed (evolved) since that time.

There is no evidence. They can't show you beyond a shadow of a doubt that something evolved from one thing into another.

They have no evidence of the transition from one species to the next. They tell you what it was and what it is now, everything in between is missing. Where are the fossil records of that transition?

Good point, man. As in the case of the 'Missing Link' which was recently unveiled; the animal was a Lemur 47,000,000 years ago and it's descendants are still Lemurs. But we are to believe that the trail branched off and evolved into humans. That calls for a LOT of blind faith.

[Guest man]

You go were the evidence leads you. The fossil record has for 150 years been corroborating Darwin's findings. Now, in the last few years, genetics is corroborating the finds revealed by the fossil record. You don't have to know how life originated to investigate how it changed once it arrived. Those are two different fields of study. Even if life originated at the behest of God and was produced by a supernatural event, for which there would not likely be any evidence, we can still track how life changed (evolved) since that time.

There is no evidence. They can't show you beyond a shadow of a doubt that something evolved from one thing into another.

They have no evidence of the transition from one species to the next. They tell you what it was and what it is now, everything in between is missing. Where are the fossil records of that transition?

In fact there is ample evidence of transitional forms. If you think there are none it is because you have been reading the wrong sources. The point of a transitional fossil is that the in between features are present in abundance. The problem I have in discussing this with creationists is that even once shown a transitional fossil they always deny this is what it is. I believe I posted something a few months back concerning transitional hominid fossils. It, I think, makes the existence of transitional fossils pretty difficult to deny. If you are interested I will try and find it.

Yes, I'd like to see it.

Thanks.

[nebula]

Couple things to clear up. I did some investigating and it is not likely that any scientist is claiming this creatures' progeny evolved into humans. What they are saying is that it is transitional between lemurs and monkeys. The reason it has been so identified is that it has many lemur-like features, but it also has higher features found only in monkeys. No lemurs living today, apparently, have such characteristics and so it is not thought to be an ancestor of living lemurs.

Here is what I don't understand. I had done a basic search to understand the differences between monkeys and lemurs and found them to be of different suborders. When I looked up the differences between the suborders and compared them to the "differences" seen in Ida from lemurs - I wasn't seeing any of the traits that distinguished the two suborders.

So they are claiming Ida to be a transition, yet the transitions are not the ones that distinguish the two suborders.

[MorningGlory]

It is the media people who are making various claims about its ancestry. Interestingly the stomach contents have been x-rayed and the media is making different claims as to the contents. So let's be careful when we accuse scientists of exhibiting "blind faith" on this one. In reading your statement above, you have made some assumptions that are not in fact being proposed. Let's wait until we can actually see what the scientists themselves are saying.

What are you talking about? What assumptions? I'm stating what I heard and saw when I watched the documentary and read the articles by the scientists who worked on this fossil for two years. They are calling this animal the missing link and a distant ancestor of man, along with the media. And the Dutch scientist (for whose daughter the fossil was named) stated that the animal's last meal was roots and berries on the show about 'Ida'. Did you not read or watch these things?

[MorningGlory]

I think it might actually tell you something about Bowap if he has been getting his material from Collins and not Dawkins. Dawkins has been quite critical of Collins views on religion. I don't know what articles you read on Collins, but I think you'd be better to read, or hear, what Collins is saying about himself and not what others might be saying about him. Regarding Bowap, what makes you so certain? I don't know Bowap, and I am willing to concede that he might be an atheist trying to pass himself off as a Christian, but I can't be certain, he might also be the Christian that he says he is.

I've seen the scenario play out before, Hitchey. But we should let bowap speak for himself. I would hate for others to discuss me like I was a footstool in the corner.

[MorningGlory]

I think it might actually tell you something about Bowap if he has been getting his material from Collins and not Dawkins. Dawkins has been quite critical of Collins views on religion. I don't know what articles you read on Collins, but I think you'd be better to read, or hear, what Collins is saying about himself and not what others might be saying about him. Regarding Bowap, what makes you so certain? I don't know Bowap, and I am willing to concede that he might be an atheist trying to pass himself off as a Christian, but I can't be certain, he might also be the Christian that he says he is.

I've seen the scenario play out before, Hitchey. But we should let bowap speak for himself. I would hate for others to discuss me like I was a footstool in the corner.

Of course, I was defending him. Though I grant you, you would likely not have had the thoughts you did if he had been more forthcoming regarding his faith.

Personally, I hope he sticks around.

Shalom.

Me too; I may not agree with him but the guy's smart and articulate. Bowap? Are you out there?