Evolution and the origin of life.

[Walksonlegs]

So you find the explanation that we're all descended from one celled creatures, that sprang to life from nothing, more plausible???

I never asserted that nothing existed. If you got proof of nothing existing, then show it. Otherwise, don't distort my arguments.

I do believe that evolution is more plausible than being descendants of an incestuous relationship that went bunk due to a talking snake. I also have no problem showing you that a woman does not come from a rib. Just offer one up.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Walksonlegs

[leoxiii]

Marine fossils on mountains is pretty good evidence for a world-wide flood of Biblical proportions.

Yes, because floods embed living things at various stages of development along with evidence of prolonged habitation like footprints and worm burrows in successive ecosystems into the bedrock of the highest points of land all the time. Good grief man think about what you are claiming!

Geologists constantly say that at one time or another every part of the earth was once under water.

All we are saying is that it happened all at once.

[MorningGlory]

So you find the explanation that we're all descended from one celled creatures, that sprang to life from nothing, more plausible???

I never asserted that nothing existed. If you got proof of nothing existing, then show it. Otherwise, don't distort my arguments.

I do believe that evolution is more plausible than being descendants of an incestuous relationship that went bunk due to a talking snake. I also have no problem showing you that a woman does not come from a rib. Just offer one up.

Well then, Walks, what did the first life come from if not from non-life? Explain yourself; I can't distort an argument that has not been made.

So....you want me to offer you a rib? As in barbeque or....what???

[Rick-Parker]

But there are in fact scientific evidences that support ID.

To say that all ID proponents go by is that the bible said evolution is wrong is misleading, many ID proponents are agnostic and do not support any religion, simply ID.

I was being gracious when I used the term ID. I should have said creation. Happy now?

[~candice~]

So you find the explanation that we're all descended from one celled creatures, that sprang to life from nothing, more plausible???

I never asserted that nothing existed. If you got proof of nothing existing, then show it. Otherwise, don't distort my arguments.

I do believe that evolution is more plausible than being descendants of an incestuous relationship that went bunk due to a talking snake. I also have no problem showing you that a woman does not come from a rib. Just offer one up.

It is a mathematical impossibility that the universe has infinite age. Hence at one point, it must have started. Before this, therefore, there was nothing. Your assertion that the universe has infinite age is neither supported by the majority of scientists nor the bible.

[Sir Gareth]

I was always under the impression that ID was simply the scientific term for creationism.

Either way I see lots of evidence for creation, both in actual science as well as in common sense logic.

To say that there is no evidence for creation and only evidence for creation is an insult to all the ID scientists

[leoxiii]

For something to be scientific, it can only deal with natural phenomena.

I utterly reject your Enlightenment definition of science. Science is knowledge. Some knowledge cannot be known through experimentation. For that you need philosophy, which is the queen of the sciences, and at the top of the branches of philosophy is theology.

You do not realize it, but you are a slave to the philosophy of naturalism, which you shamelessly use to render your erroneous definition of science.

[Botz]

I know that is what is claimed...but it has been used as a spring-board to demolish biblical foundational teaching, and been championed by some of the foremost Atheists of our time, whose agenda is glaringly obvious.

Abuse does not negate use. Christianity has been used as a spring-board to demolish synagogues in Nazi Germany, and been championed by some of the more deplorable figures in history, whose agenda was glaringly obvious. Does this mean we judge Christianity by those who have abused it?

That is a fair point...I can't really argue with that.

The thing is a layman can make a claim based on faith, that is not rooted in scientific reasoning, and is castigated because he is not of the scientific fraternity and his opinions are therefore irrelevant to them...for example belief in a world-wide flood...evolutionary based science would say there is no evidence, and therefore it is untrue and the bible cannot be relied upon....so the layman such as 'I' says...'I believe it is completely true, and your evidence must be wrong'...it is a choice of belief, and how far one trusts the evidence presented.

The evidence against a world wide flood has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. If evolution were completely disproved there would still be mountains of evidence against a global flood. If your global-flood-believing layman wants to have a personal opinion that the basics of physics and geology are wrong that's fine but if he wants to spread such a belief to, say, school curriculum, then he's going to get castigated and understandably so - the claim is ridiculously inconsistent with the most rudimentary understanding of geology and relies upon God supernaturally causing a flood and then hiding it with evidence that there was no flood at all. I would expect the same reaction to flat earthers and geocentrists and it has everything to do with their blatant denial of clear evidence and nothing at all to do with their personal faiths. You could be an atheist who advocates the outlawing of all religions, but try and pass off geocentrism as true and you will soon find yourself annihilated in the winepress of scientists' wrath.

I don't think you are ingenuous with this argument....you are making the assumption that those that teach evolution really know what they are talking about, and those that teach creation don't know what they are talking about....many that actually teach creation have a strong scientific back-ground and are not mere 'laymen', and don't simply defer to the Bible, but see science as only effective within a different framework....to them science is a tool...but to many evolutionists it appears to have become the tail wagging the dog.

Do you really think that the vast majority of Believers are complete morons, who totally ignore the claims of science, and stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes to every bit of science that seems to contradict what the Bible teaches....this is the picture the atheistic scientific lobby likes to present...and the comparison to the flat-earth society or myths and fairy-tales and imaginary dragons and magic pixies are all part and parcel of their strategy to expose what they think is total unreality on our part.

[MorningGlory]

I was always under the impression that ID was simply the scientific term for creationism.

Either way I see lots of evidence for creation, both in actual science as well as in common sense logic.

To say that there is no evidence for creation and only evidence for creation is an insult to all the ID scientists

That would be the wrong impression Sir Gareth.

For something to be scientific, it can only deal with natural phenomena. The instant you involve a supernatural force as part of the explanation, it stops being science.

Can creationism exist without involving the supernatural? If not, it isn't science.

How silly. God IS science; where do you think it came from? Like everything and everybody, science was created by the Creator.

[Sir Gareth]

if science cannot exist without any kind of 'supernatural' then you have to say quantom physics, paranormal reaserch and a few other areas of science are not really science either.