Renowned Chemist: Evolutionists Do Not Understand the Origin of Life

[gray wolf]

I am not one to deny that an agent is behind the Cosmos (that being God), but it is all magnificently mysterious.  I think the rationale behind this is in keeping with God's nature and His intentions.  If we were to observe God in the creative process, what faith would there be required in that?  It is not that easy, but it seems to me that God demands faith and doesn't expect us to believe following proof.  Because there is none.  I think it is just the way it should be.  Of course we can look at the majesty of it all and be led in the right direction, but it is faith ultimately that leads to saving grace. 

[Enoch2021]

I am not one to deny that an agent is behind the Cosmos (that being God), but it is all magnificently mysterious.  I think the rationale behind this is in keeping with God's nature and His intentions.  If we were to observe God in the creative process, what faith would there be required in that?  It is not that easy, but it seems to me that God demands faith and doesn't expect us to believe following proof.  Because there is none.  I think it is just the way it should be.  Of course we can look at the majesty of it all and be led in the right direction, but it is faith ultimately that leads to saving grace. 

 

==================================================================================

 

 

It is not that easy, but it seems to me that God demands faith and doesn't expect us to believe following proof.

 

That's because you're not using the definition of "Biblical" Faith...

 

(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

Biblical Faith has Substance and Evidence.

 

What you are referring to is "Blind" Faith-- Belief without Substance.  And is Admonished against in Scripture, By Proxy: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

 

If we were to observe God in the creative process, what faith would there be required in that?

 

Evidence doesn't Preclude the need for Faith.  As Illustrated by Peter....

 

(Matthew 14:26-31) "And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.  {27} But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying,  Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.  {28} And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.  {29} And he said,  Come.  And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.  {30} But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.  {31} And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him,  O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"

 

Peter had AAA Proof but still lacked Faith.

 

 

God demands faith and doesn't expect us to believe following proof.  Because there is none.

 

Huh?  I've posted a Metric Ton of "Proof" on these threads including Scientific Evidence on this very thread sir.

 

Which would you like to discuss: Scientific Evidence ("CODE"/Information, Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity), Biblical Archeology, Prophecy, Scriptural---only GOD would know--- evidences, Other?

[gray wolf]

You are quite right about proof actually, as in Peter's case.  And the Israelites had all the proof they needed during the Exodus and look what happened.

 

As for evidence, IMHO it doesn't necessarily lead to proof.  The evolutionists cite all the evidence too, yet despite their insistences, it is not proof.  You can marvel about the human eye, but in fact we were not there when the first one was created, nor are there witnesses to the origin of many things.  When we look to a wondrously crafted timepiece, we can say there is a creator because we can see it done.  

We can collectively gather these entities and infer that they were designed and make a compelling case, but I wouldn't go as far as to say I have absolute proof.  Do you agree?

[Enoch2021]

You are quite right about proof actually, as in Peter's case.  And the Israelites had all the proof they needed during the Exodus and look what happened.

 

As for evidence, IMHO it doesn't necessarily lead to proof.  The evolutionists cite all the evidence too, yet despite their insistences, it is not proof.  You can marvel about the human eye, but in fact we were not there when the first one was created, nor are there witnesses to the origin of many things.  When we look to a wondrously crafted timepiece, we can say there is a creator because we can see it done.  

We can collectively gather these entities and infer that they were designed and make a compelling case, but I wouldn't go as far as to say I have absolute proof.  Do you agree?

 

 

===============================================================================

 

 And the Israelites had all the proof they needed during the Exodus and look what happened.

 

Yes, another very good example.

 

 

As for evidence, IMHO it doesn't necessarily lead to proof.

 

Evidence and Proof are pretty tightly bound to one another...you could say they're synonymous.

 

The evolutionists cite all the evidence too, yet despite their insistences, it is not proof.

 

They have ZERO...and Insistence is "A TELL".  Proof/Evidence stands on it's Inherent Tenets/Merits.

 

 

You can marvel about the human eye, but in fact we were not there when the first one was created

 

I wasn't there when my Jeep Grand Cherokee was Created....but I know for Absolute Certainty that Intelligence Designed and Built it.  The Eye is Laughable Exponential Magnitudes more Specifically Complex and Irreducibly Complex than that Jeep ever could be.

 

Just one of thousands with the eye...there are Zero Intermediate Steps between Monochromatic---Dic-chromatic----Tri-chromatic vision not even speaking to the Symbolic Logic Conundrum.

 

 

We can collectively gather these entities and infer that they were designed and make a compelling case, but I wouldn't go as far as to say I have absolute proof.  Do you agree?

 

Nope, couldn't Disagree more.  Things are either Intelligently Designed or they're not.  "CODE"/Information only EVER comes from Intelligence...there is no "Gray Area" and No Inferences.

[ARGOSY]

It is very corrageous for these scientists to go against the flow of darwinism. I thank them for publicly taking this stand. They may not be burned at the stake for their stand but they are probably going to be put in stocks and have rotten eggs and tomatoes thrown at them--figuratively of course.

 

I agree with you here. He is not a fully fledged creationist but even so it helps our cause when scientists doubt Darwinism based on evidence alone in their specific fields. 

[gray wolf]

I agree as well.  There are voices out there that are not full fledged creationists who harbor doubts about evolution.  People will probably disagree with me, but I think we should all get up to speed about science, even evolution.  Then we can pinpoint better WHY we dissent from these ideas.

[jerryR34]

I agree as well.  There are voices out there that are not full fledged creationists who harbor doubts about evolution.  People will probably disagree with me, but I think we should all get up to speed about science, even evolution.  Then we can pinpoint better WHY we dissent from these ideas.

while I agree that the overwhelming physical evidence of speciation points to evolution, you are totally correct that if one is to argue against a point, one should understand it.  Most of the time creationists come off looking very ignorant of the science of evolution.  That hurts their argument.

[gray wolf]

Jerry, did you look at Dr. Tour's essay? What did you think of it?

[Bonky]

I enjoyed reading Dr. Tour's essay. He seemed very reasonable in his approach and his expression of his views. Unfortunately I wasn't quite able to discern whether he believed in a literal garden of Eden with Adam and Eve etc. I lean towards that he believes in some variation of theistic evolution?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

 

I agree as well.  There are voices out there that are not full fledged creationists who harbor doubts about evolution.  People will probably disagree with me, but I think we should all get up to speed about science, even evolution.  Then we can pinpoint better WHY we dissent from these ideas.

while I agree that the overwhelming physical evidence of speciation points to evolution, you are totally correct that if one is to argue against a point, one should understand it.  Most of the time creationists come off looking very ignorant of the science of evolution.  That hurts their argument.

 

 

Jerry, I'm curious as to how speciation would point to evolution?

 

I've pointed out to you before, almost no creationsits believe that there were tigers, lions, cougars, cheetahs, etc. on the ark, but that there was some pair of cats with a genome that had great potential for genetic diversity and since then speciation has occured to give us the diversity we see amoung the various cat species today.

 

If both explainations require speciation to be viable, how can it be evidence for one of them over and against the other?