WSJ Column: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God (Abiogenesis, dinosaur, Darwin)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I said nothing about evolution. I was talking about the origin of life. If the laws of the universe could not generate life and God had to do it by a special intervention, why did God NOT make a universe that would naturally yield life? Did God screw up the first time and have to patch things up later? Did he change his mind?
Isn't it more reasonable to say that generating life is a natural consequence of the way the universe is put together? It would seem to make for a less problematic picture of God if you choose to believe in God.
No because what you are suggesting is assuming that life is supposed to be on those planet. What leads you to that conclusion? You don't know the real reason why God created those planets, no one does.
No because what you are suggesting is assuming that life is supposed to be on those planet. What leads you to that conclusion? You don't know the real reason why God created those planets, no one does.
I am talking about why God would need to interfere with his own creation to start life. Why did he not simply incorporate that capability to begin with? You are talking about other planets. I am not. Answer the question I asked.
And for the 7, 340th time (exactly), where evolution starts still points to an issue of what created it. I'm not suggesting that the two are comparable, I am stating that evolution doesn't have a proven starting point and that's where it becomes a belief based on faith, just like creationism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FT897
I can't even get one to admit that life started. It's so easy to expose these guy's.
What you poor befuddled people do not understand is that evolution says NOTHING about the beginning of life and never did. It has NOTHING to do with evolution theory. Evolution theory has solid evidence from multiple disciplines. That IS how we establish scientific facts. A scientific theory is superior to mere facts because it provides the explanation for and description of the process that produced the facts. Evolution theory does that. It does NOT answer how life began and does NOT even TRY to do so.
What you poor befuddled people do not understand is that evolution says NOTHING about the beginning of life and never did. It has NOTHING to do with evolution theory. Evolution theory has solid evidence from multiple disciplines. That IS how we establish scientific facts. A scientific theory is superior to mere facts because it provides the explanation for and description of the process that produced the facts. Evolution theory does that. It does NOT answer how life began and does NOT even TRY to do so.
I have never said evolution had to answer HOW life began but the very theory accepts that fact that it did. If it rejected that life began it could not claim it evolved. Very simple. Why would anyone who believe evolution deny that life began? Evolution is impossible without life, hence evolution must accept the fact that life began. What could be more easy to accept and understand? Life Began!
I have never said evolution had to answer HOW life began but the very theory accepts that fact that it did. If it rejected that life began it could not claim it evolved. Very simple. Why would anyone who believe evolution deny that life began? Evolution is impossible without life, hence evolution must accept the fact that life began. What could be more easy to accept and understand? Life Began!
Yes everyone agrees that life began. Perhaps when you originally used the term when life was created it causes the impression that there is an inference of a Creator to create this life.
What you poor befuddled people do not understand is that evolution says NOTHING about the beginning of life and never did. It has NOTHING to do with evolution theory. Evolution theory has solid evidence from multiple disciplines. That IS how we establish scientific facts. A scientific theory is superior to mere facts because it provides the explanation for and description of the process that produced the facts. Evolution theory does that. It does NOT answer how life began and does NOT even TRY to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FT897
I have never said evolution had to answer HOW life began but the very theory accepts that fact that it did. If it rejected that life began it could not claim it evolved. Very simple. Why would anyone who believe evolution deny that life began? Evolution is impossible without life, hence evolution must accept the fact that life began. What could be more easy to accept and understand? Life Began!
I am sure you think there is some important point being made that in some way affects the truth or falsity of evolution theory . . . but there isn't. Of course life began. So what? In itself that answers nothing since no one has any proof of HOW life began or WHY? In any case . . . it has nothing to do with evolution theory. The existence of life only evidences the existence of life . . . nothing else. The existence of reality evidences the existence of reality and I see that as evidence of God. Others do not. But none of it has anything to do with the truth or falsity of evolution theory . . . which has more than sufficient evidence from many different disciplines.
I am sure you think there is some important point being made that in some way affects the truth or falsity of evolution theory . . . but there isn't. Of course life began. So what? In itself that answers nothing since no one has any proof of HOW life began or WHY? In any case . . . it has nothing to do with evolution theory. The existence of life only evidences the existence of life . . . nothing else. The existence of reality evidences the existence of reality and I see that as evidence of God. Others do not. But none of it has anything to do with the truth or falsity of evolution theory . . . which has more than sufficient evidence from many different disciplines.
I have not addressed the truth of evolution. I was looking for common ground to begins with. I wanted to see if those who accept evolution agree that life was created by something or someone at some point. I know that nothing can evolve that does not exist so I felt we could all agree on that. I am surprised at the difficulty some have with the idea that we exist or have to exist in order to evolve. You would think this would be a no brainer. I just look for common ground to start with and felt this would be a great place we could all agree since evolution must accept that life was created first before we could evolve. Why would you disagree with that? I am learning that some have a problem admitting life began. A very interesting problem if you wish to support the idea that this life, you think does not exist, evolved. How would that happen? This is a new concept to me.
Yes everyone agrees that life began. Perhaps when you originally used the term when life was created it causes the impression that there is an inference of a Creator to create this life.
Does anyone claim that there is no life?
Based on the responses I am beginning to wonder if some think life does not exist. But anything with a beginning is created. I am not addressing what or who did the creating but just looking for general agreement that life began. You would think that would be an easy thing to do. Seems some have an issue with the idea that life began. Else who so many objections to that claim?
Based on the responses I am beginning to wonder if some think life does not exist. But anything with a beginning is created. I am not addressing what or who did the creating but just looking for general agreement that life began. You would think that would be an easy thing to do. Seems some have an issue with the idea that life began. Else who so many objections to that claim?
Can you understand if it's put this way?
How and/or why life started and evolution are two different subjects.
Discussing evolution is talking about the development after the start of organic life.
This, of course, cannot include Adam and Eve as the Genesis idea of one time, one moment (our currently accepted idea of time) zapped fully formed humans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.