A Microbiologist Explains Her Conversion From Evolution To Creation.

reply to post by OpenMindedRealist

This argument makes no sense. You and Hot-airsock will grant the possibility that everything, known and not yet known, in the universe may have been created by a deity, but you are hung up on the question of what it was made from?

No, I am an atheist poking fun as a ridiculously flawed premise.

Sounds like typical detemined atheism to me. Just as close-minded as the blindy religious that you so enjoy to ridicule.

Wow, I didn't realize I was the topic. Is this the part where I thank everyone for their support and natter on about feeding the starved children and working for world peace? No? Wrong pageant? Darn.

reply to post by randyvs


I know that it's hard for you to shake the calcified cockles in your brain, but I can't imagine a great deity arising from nothing and being alone. If a great deity arose, then others surely arose. Perhaps God has family. Is that so hard to fathom? What is a deity but a spiritual being that has a greater spiritual mastery then ourselves.

If we're all eternal spiritual beings, created in gods' image, then, at some point we will have achieved the spiritual mastery that the gods currently enjoy.

reply to post by buster2010

Technically God isn't from Earth so he/she/it is an Alien.

How can you be called alien to anything you've created ?

I think its funny....cell structure is complex so it cant be random, but the millions of examples of complex visual patterns in nature are totally natural....

reply to post by xDeadcowx


Pure Darwinian evolution cannot explain the incredibly diverse, ingeniously adapted, balanced ecosystems the comprise the living Earth.

As has always been the case with complex questions, the scientific community latched on to the first plausible explanation to the origin of life. The claim that it is all a result of random mutation is full of holes; the more we learn, the more this theory resembles a central European dairy product. Like geocentric theory or "bad blood" medicinal blood-letting, educated scientists and over-confident amatuers cling to the first, best explanation and refuse to budge until the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

We are getting there. As a Darwin worshipper stated in this thread, someone like this young biologist will have to fully develop a replacing theory before the scientific community acknowledges the fallacy of assuming that Darwinian evolution is the sole mechanism by which this world blossomed.

reply to post by buster2010

nice, good ... where is god from?

ELECTRIC UNIVERSE, and U do not need god
she just realize that science of today is in wrong path...
she is not first and not last, more to come every generation...

reply to post by buster2010


SEEEEEEE!~!!!!!

Like I said. We don't know. Therefore.... ALIENS!!!!

reply to post by ketsuko


You claim to want to know how God "did it". Once such is discovered, and can be replicated, then is the unverifiable theory of God necessary? After all, if we can replicate "it" in a lab, then Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

reply to post by windword


Then do your own research on the subject. Find what you
think is the best authority on the subject as I did.



This one even agrees with you that God does have family.
But that doesn't mean he isn't thee Creator God. Our Heavenly
Father.

So what if I like cookies.

windword
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

But who designed and created God?

We do in the future and we travel back in time

That should just about cover all questions.

OpenMindedRealist
As a Darwin worshipper stated in this thread, someone like this young biologist will have to fully develop a replacing theory before the scientific community acknowledges the fallacy of assuming that Darwinian evolution is the sole mechanism by which this world blossomed.

First, it was me who stated the biologist would have to develop a replicable theory.

Second... Darwin worshiper? I've made no mention of Darwin at all.

Third, get your facts straight, and leave your ignorance and baseless assumptions at the door. Darwin was a creationist who believed in Natural Selection, not evolution. Later scientists used his collected evidence of natural selection to support their theories of evolution, but Darwin himself had no such notions.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You belittle the beliefs of others in a thread about evolution and creationism, and you don't expect that to be addressed? If atheists spent as much time thinking and educating themselves as they do laughing at the religious, threads like this would be a lot more interesting.

reply to post by BrianG


how did we get to the future first time with no god, i mean before we create him and go back?

reply to post by windword


That thought... "but who started God? Or, mechanistically, what started life... or "stuff" in general?" plagues me... in fact, overwhelmed by the intricate weirdness of everything, I've come to believe that everything is patently impossible...

God = Nothingness
Check Genesis 1 agian.

"God" doesnt need a predecessor.

What comes before Nothing?
Did God need to create Nothing?
Of course not. Nothing always was, is, and will be.

About the OP maybe we should look into this book to find out exactly what the individual thinks.

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


One problem, cells do not make exact copies of themselves. They make almost exact copies but with very subtle differences in their genetic makeup which allows over millennia plus dependant on environmental conditions at the time and/or species involved the various mutations to come to the fore front. A very good example of this would be us humans as we know that there have been many separate species/off-shoots on this planet. Through the intermingling of various groups over time along with the subtle differences in genetic makeup we as humans evolved dependant on our environment. Another good example would be the Peppered Moth.

Peppered Moth

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

You belittle the beliefs of others in a thread about evolution and creationism, and you don't expect that to be addressed? If atheists spent as much time thinking and educating themselves as they do laughing at the religious, threads like this would be a lot more interesting.

i don't know how some are allowed to troll constantly like this. Mucking up interesting
threads all the time. i know I don't get away with it. But to me it's just an admission
of weakness and fear based hate.

ketsuko
Not at all.

I could never be God. No one could, but that doesn't mean I can't begin to puzzle out how it works. That is part of having dominion.

"Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" Genesis 1:28

And since God does not exist in this universe. He is not part of it. He pre-existed it. We will never find Him here no matter how much of its secrets we unravel. We would have to free ourselves from it to find Him. I've already stated - nothing we find here will prove His existence one way or the other, not definitively. Because He made it, He is not bound by it.

It is interesting that then in next chapter, God actually created Women from first man rib?! (he run out of materials) and already in beginning of Bible we have contradiction?!

This little thing can be explained as 2 different writers made those 2 chapters, but then there goes idea that this has been word of God written down.

Good choice to prove Bible (and God) being our human creation.

ketsuko
No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying it's not enough anymore.

For what Darwin saw in his day, OK.

But for what we see and know now? No. We need to expand. Imagine Einstein being constrained to shoehorn his theories into Newtonian physics because everyone would be terribly afraid that if he went further, tried to explain and understand more with his questions, it might go somewhere else other than comfortable old Newton.

I feel like there are so many who are so invested in Darwin as the anti-God that they cling to him with religious fervor. Understand that I don't believe that any scientific inquiries we make in this universe will ever do anything to either prove or disprove God. He is the author of that is and as such exists outside this universe we are defined by. The only way we will ever possibly scientifically come close is if we find a way to break beyond the bonds of this universe, IMO.

So for me, for us, tsting Darwin and looking for the next layer of our understanding in the process of life isn't about proving or disproving God, it's about a better understanding of the processes of how life and organisms work on the genetic level.

So you or even better, your husband don't see any improvements in Genetics, Biology, Evolution, Biogenesis, Tissue Engineering, Stem Cell research... just to name few. Not all of them are connected to evolution, but none of them contradict it either.

If you like to see something similar as advance from Gravitation Theory to Quantum Mechanics in Evolution, then look at genetics. Today we have for example scientists working on creating dinosaurs (yeah Baby, like Jurassic Park, except no need for mosquito ) from today's chicken - which theory evolution proves to be ancestors to T-Rex dinosaurs?! So making changes to genetic code scientists are able to make modification and to awake long forgotten and obsolete functions that got changed through evolution.

We will call it a 'chickenosaurus'

It is a simple way to demonstrate how evolution works, by showing that the genes for these primitive characteristics continue to reside in DNA -- even when they are of no particular use at the present, but when they might be useful in the animal's evolutionary future. The chicken-dinosaur is also an icon for genetic engineering in animals, providing a focus for discussions concerning ethics.

It is interesting, for example, that some people consider simple genetic engineering, such as the dino-chicken, to be unethical, while they find selective breeding -- potentially producing the same results over time -- to be an ethical endeavor.

I think of the dino-chicken as a tool to educate people about the extraordinary characteristics of evolution and give them the primer knowledge to make future decisions about these types of biological research. You can read more about this stuff in my book entitled "How To Build a Dinosaur." **

** Source - CNN

What do you think?

reply to post by redmage


Instead of debating the issue with facts or hypotheses, let's just pick apart each other's posts and miss the major points completely. How's that sound?

If you read my post again you may see that my criticism is not of Darwin's theory of evolution, and in fact I acknowledge that it is a significant, verified biological mechanism.

I also did not use your name, because frankly it doesn't matter who made that statement first in this tread. It is a truth, and not an original thought.

I am quite familiar with Darwin's story and his writings. I never denied that he deserves to be regarded with admiration alongside the great minds of science. My critique is if of the scientific community, which today is largely composed of the more intelligent portion of the ignorant masses.

EDIT: Just noticed that you misread my wording "replacing" as "replicable." Read a little slower, even if you have already decided to disagree.