Yes, the Bible has room for an argument for evolution, but it is a guided evolution. And if the show would have at least looked at that in support and
the science claimed to exist for it that would have been one thing.
Could you point me towards the science that supports a guided evolution? and why is that the only possibility from a religious perspective? Why
couldn't god or gods if he she they exist have simply set things in motion and let it ride out without a plan? It seems pretty illogical to me that a
godlike creature could INTELLIGENTLY design me and put my fun parts in such close proximity to my waste siposal units or give me a spine and hip that
require corrective surgery.
Religion itself is a system of governance over individuals and can be anything. It can be Buddhist, Islam, Catholic, and Voodoo. And it can
also involve science. Take global warming for instance. Some of the supporters of this are quite religious in their actions. And evolutionists can
sometimes take science as their religion.
I disagree entirely on this premise. The only reason it may come off that way is because, with evolution at least, there is a century and a half of
legitimate data to support it. There really is no question as to the reality of evolution from any biologist or anthropologist. The same is true with
climate change. We have a century and a half of first hand records coupled with 100's of thousands of years of Ice Core and tree ring data to support
it. I think the only part that can be disputed is the extent of human involvement in our changing climate and if theres anything we can do about it
but wait it out and hope for the best.
Evolutionaries would argue that life "evolves" from one thing to another through the process of time and change combined with mutation.
Selective changes through the concept of the survival of the fittest also come into play here. But there has never been a controlled experiment where
this has been proven in the lab. The adaptation of viruses and bacteria don't really count because in the end they are still viruses and
No,"evolutionaries" wouldn't argue, they would show supporting evidence. It's only an argument when someone denies evidence staring them in the
face. As far as bacteriological experiments, they count. Humans are still apes. Dogs are descended from wolves but are still a member of the family
Canis along with wolves, fox, dingoes and jackals.
But while evolutionaries can take this stance on present life, they cannot come up with the reason for life itself, that is, how it happened
to begin at all. Life happened but they don't know how, so their journey would seem to have hit a road block. Science demands that a thing be proven
by experimentation and repeat outcomes ruling out other controls. If life happened from a whack of lightning and soupy amino acids then it should be
provable in the lab. But still nothing to show for it. So the evolutionaries stop there not wishing to be pressed on life itself.
This is because hypothesis like abiogenesis have nothing to do with evolution. One is a biologicval process the other chemical. Two very different
fields of study. There is some overlap but the beginnings of life and how life evolves are different processes and studied as separate fields by
We go back to life itself then, where on that one day it all began, and life happened. And we have two choices. One of those choices is by
intentional design, and the other is by random chance. If I choose by design I should have something to show for it. So I look at the complexity of
the double helix and the millions of things it does. To prove design I must by experimentation prove that it can be modified and reprogrammed by
intentional interference. This has already been done in the lab and repeatedly so. So I now know the DNA helix is not only a code but a programmable
code at that.
can you show me a citation that supports this?
If I take the random chance stand, I must prove by random chance that it can happen as I claim. If I believe that in a mixture having all of
the right chemicals and ingredients, that if I apply electrical force there should be evidence of life happening, then I must conduct the experiment
in the lab to prove the results and then repeat the experiment. The experiment was conducted, and while acids did combine to form other chemicals,
life was never found. The experiment has been repeated many many times and without any success.
abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory. there is evidence to support it though.
Environmental - There are several conditions that must apply to make chemical evolution possible. First, there has to be an external energy source*.
Prebiotic earth has lots of these- lightning, volcanoes, radiation. Second, we can’t have a lot of oxygen. Lots of oxygen will make any formed
complex molecules short-lived. Again, prebiotic earth had little atmospheric oxygen. Third, there has to be the chemicals available for life around to
work with. That means 6 indispensable macro-elements- C, H, O, N, P and S have to be around. Again, these are known to be present.
Why not Panspermia? Every cell of every organism is remarkably the same at an elemental level. It doesn’t matter if we are looking at fungi or fish
or humans. The percentages of the macro-elements above are very similar. This is exactly what we’d see if life started by using the available
chemicals on earth. In fact, the proportions of elements in every organism aligns most closely to river water. This supports abiogenesis occurring
here on earth, and is a smoking gun for a natural origin of life.
Forming complex molecules- the environmental conditions above are necessary for abiogenesis but not sufficient to show its feasibility. Since the
Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950s, we have shown that the building blocks of a cell will occur naturally. We have shown that amino-acids, sugars,
RNA/DNA bases, hydrocarbons, phosphate esters, peptides etc will all be formed under the right abiotic conditions.
The 8 amino-acids that dominate these abiotic conditions are also those most common in proteins. This is another ‘smoking gun’ that life began
from abiotic conditions on earth.
The Proto-cell - A cell is basically a package of organic & inorganic molecules surrounded by a double-lipid membrane. We have shown small
double-lipid membranes will form in small vesicles that surround organic molecules (since the experiments of Fox in the 1970s). In fact, it is
remarkably easy to generate these.
Replicating molecules. Life also needs molecules to be able to replicate. This is also a natural chemical phenomenon. In 1996 the jounal Nature
reported the discovery of a self-replicating alpha-helical peptide. This had a 32-amino-acid sequence, and interestingly, had several dipeptides found
in the membrane proteins of ancient archaebacteria.
The scientific evidence is consistent with and supports an origin of life on earth out of abiotic conditions. There has been no chemical, biological
or physical law that has been discovered in this research that would prevent life emerging. We have discovered so much about the processes of this
chemical evolution that recreating life in the test-tube now looks feasible.
The external energy sources for abiogenesis is why Pasteur’s experiments on spontaneous generation don’t apply. Pasteur looked at a closed
thermodynamic system. Abiogenesis is about open thermodynamic systems. In order for complex molecules to be formed, local entropy has to be reduced
and this is only possible in open-energy systems.
Of course, we should for completeness consider the evidence for a divine creator or intelligent designer. I’ve made a list, but it’s blank.
Now, if I use my deductive reasoning, I would see that the designer hypothesis has more weight to it than the random act hypothesis. I would
tend to go with intentional design. And if so, then by whom?
The whom for me is God.
In your opinion, what gives ID more weight?
As for the discussion. I'm not glum, I like good ol fashioned discussion. Some Christians, like those who are evolutionaries tend to get a
little disjointed because they feel the need to convince others that they are right. Mr. Ham is one of them. There are a couple in some of the replies
here towards me. These people would be upset one way of the other and if a creationist show version of COSMOS were to pop up, you could bet that
Stephen Hawkins and Bill Nye would have a few things to say as would Richard Dawkins. As for me, I'm comfortable with what I believe I know and what
I believe the science says.
Why would anyone be upset over a show promoting creationist themes? They have several "amusement" parks as well as their own network, CBN which
gives them a mouthpiece for their views 7 days per week. Why should they get equal time on a once per week show about science when there is no science