Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[bcbsr]

13 hours ago, Mike Mclees said:

I'm not educated in biology but have listened to different debates about evolution verses intelligent design. Evolution says all living things are made of sells. The first original cell which was a one celled creature that needed water. They say the earth was to hot for water until it cooled to the right temperature for rain to form. So when the temperature cooled rain developed and so much so that we have the oceans as we have today. Evolutionists' say one celled organisms with the rain and there was no other creatures. Then came cell division which formed different creatures. Here is my question.

Early creatures were as fish that had to be in water to survive. How did it come about that other creatures but they were made of the same cells. Who divided the cells up to make other creatures.? Then they evolved to other creatures there able to live out of their water world and develop on land. We could not count the different living things on the earth but all things are made up of cells that originally only lived in water. Now how did  these cells make themselves into frogs or monkeys or dinosaurs., plants ,trees . bugs and you name it. Last we come to humans.. When i go to the doctors many times you see pictures of all the parts the make up the human body. All of these parts are also made of sells. How did the cells no what part they would be. Our brain is superior over all other creatures of the earth. The mind is another subject by itself.   How do atheist's say we made ourselves? Have they ever been asked that question and have had the   answer? Its like the fine tuned universe. they do not have the answer.

I like to think of a brand new car  in your driveway. How did the car get there? Some one put it there. This is the law of everything.  of course we can ask Lawrence Cross or Dr. Dawkens . 

          

First, just to mention it. Evolution is not the explanation for abiogenesis. That is, there is no evolutionary explanation of the development of the first cell. Evolutionary explanations are only introduced when replication is a fact. As for explaining the develop of complex creatures and organisms, the atheistic naturalists simply makes the proposition that such occurred over long period of time by the mechanisms of mutation and replication in conjunction with environmental factors as fitness or survivability and such.  They have no actual statistics or probability to prove it. But what they do have is evidence that it occurred, but they cannot really prove how it occurred. Like they cannot disprove that divine intervention was one of the factors. 

As for the car issue, Dawkins would merely point out that the car is not self-replicating. However I would propose this. What is you landed on a planet  and found a factory run by robots which manufacturer robots. Would the atheistic naturalist propose that such came about by "evolution" seeing as replication is involved and the factor could make mistakes and such? Probably they would be laughed at as fools. Likewise regarding biology. 

[David1701]

17 hours ago, teddyv said:

Would you accept that there was miraculous, divine protection over the ark and the earth itself during the Flood?

Yes.

[Mike Mclees]

Thanks. I would just like to know what i their motive. and what is do they hope to gain?. 

 Maybe the Nobel prize.  

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, bcbsr said:

Evolutionary explanations are only introduced when replication is a fact. As for explaining the develop of complex creatures and organisms, the atheistic naturalists simply makes the proposition that such occurred over long period of time by the mechanisms of mutation and replication in conjunction with environmental factors as fitness or survivability and such.  They have no actual statistics or probability to prove it.

Even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that scientists have "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."    Would you like to see that?

6 hours ago, bcbsr said:

What is you landed on a planet  and found a factory run by robots which manufacturer robots. Would the atheistic naturalist propose that such came about by "evolution" seeing as replication is involved and the factor could make mistakes and such? Probably they would be laughed at as fools. Likewise regarding biology. 

Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things.  And that would work just as well for evolution, as if the earth brought forth living things (as God tells us).

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

Going back to the idea of Evolution.   If humanity arrived from the process of Evolution, wouldn't those be without [SIN}?

 

If Adam was [Created] by God, a special Creation because from Adam would eventually lead to the Messiah, once he fell he caused a sin chain reaction to take place in humanity from that point.

 

But if we have 2 [origins] to human life, Creation and Evolution, and through Creation it eventually led to a [sinful nature], are those humans [if Evolution is factual] free from sin because they are not from the Creation point of Adam?

 

The Bible claims [ALL] have sinned and fell short...((but isn't "ALL" meaning ALL that was from Adam?))...Does [SIN] actually disprove Evolution?

Edited December 8, 2020 by kingdombrat