Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffncandace
If so, why is it so hard for athiests to accept, since you believe we all evolved from nothing, essentially?
ex-nihilo? Dumb it down please.  |
OK: Latin:
ex = from (ex-patriot; ex-Christian, etc.)
nihilo = nothing. (a-
nnihil-ate (reduce to
nothing)
The usual convenient but officially tired-out
pseudo-argument from Creationists is that atheists claim things. When, of course, they don't. By definition, being an atheist simply means you don't believe an any gods, no matter what breed, bias or supporting oddball mythology. There are no attendant beliefs, no pseudo-relligion associated with disbelief in mystical godz.
Yes most anti-Genesis (i.e.: logical) scientific types are also atheists, but then, most country Christians are often gun owners too. So are all Christians owners of AK-47s?
Now, Evolutionists, that's another story. Most of them/us are schooled in the subject, having become interested in it, or having learned via the usual post-high-school education. Me, I'm a graduate biologist, engineer & geologist, so have been exposed to a lot of the scientific facts so many theists love to hate.
Nowhere, any time, any place, ever, have I read or been told that those who accept the proven facts of biological adaptation and consequent Evolution also believe that we just popped out of
nothing. The incredibly ill-educated perpsective that Evolution
also demands a mandatory Big Bang, or that we all came, ZINGO, fully alive, out of nothing.
What a crock. People only show their incredibly stubborn arrogance and inherited intransigence when they make that stupid and wildly mistaken claim.
[Want to prove me otherwise? Then please, just this once, make a written statement here and now, in your posted response, that you agree: Evolution does not conflate with a Big Bang, outa-nuthin' scenario. You could start a trend in intellectual honesty! Imagine!]
The correct most-likely scenario: First, there was some pre-existing reality,
obviously, but we just can't quite imagine it. Nonetheless it surely "was", lurking just beyond our currently limited intelligence. It's sorta like asking a chipmunk to explain laser light systems. Then, by an event we can and have timed backward
(the universe is expanding, and all from a singular point source, by all our calculations, so it would seem logical that it had a point of origin. Yes? No?), there was a Big Unleashing, an event horizon that seems to have initiated a chaotic reorganization.
With me so far?
This generated masses of early, simple elemental entities; iron, hydrogen, helium, oxygen, etc. Later, in the atomic cauldrons of the formations of stars, and due to
inexplicable gravitation
(but then, could you have explained them danged lasers 50 years ago? Nope. And yet, there they are...) we see the formation of many more complex atoms and molecules. We see them in the radiation signatures of newly formed stars
(seems the Genesis event was not all-encompassing and inherently perfect after all; there was a lot left un-Created...). and given the right conditions and hundreds of billions of years and trial and error chemical reactions,
voila: DNA, RNA, and many other elements and molecules.
Then, those interacted in now-predictable ways to form a self-replicating molecule which generates it's own identical (or nearly so) replacement. It's called life in it's simplest form, and has now been accomplished out of simple precursors in a British lab
(so don't waste your breath denying that it can happen.)
And oh BTW, you don't have to have a gopher digging in your lawn, or storing roots and earthworms, or a banana plant or a talking human to claim "life". Just a self-regulating, self-replicating molecular structure.
Like, say, a proto-bacterium, or a viral particle capable of invading other cells and taking over by simple chemical interactions and now-known laws of biochemistry.
Only then begins EVOLUTION. As in: the evolution
(the dictionary definition, not the debated process...), through now-proven
logical and well-documented mutation events, resulting in the trial and error testing of alternate molecular formats. Intellectually difficult to imagine or follow through with? Hardly. And hardly
illogical.
This did not occur before or even immediately after the Big Bang
(even if that's how it happened; right now that's just a logical but nonetheless hypothetical event. Don't even say we claim that one as absolutely true... just yet). No Abiogenesis (origins of original life) out of
nothing (as in
"ex-nihilo").
As
illogical as I agree
that concept is, it's precisely how your Creation Story, using the nose-wiggling powers of a nonexistent God, equally
illogically accomplished it. Out of literally nothing, which you claim is impossible. Well, but... with exceptions you say? Hmmmm... How convenient for your story-line.
Then, over literally uncountable trial-and-error chemical reactions, easily duplicated now in a
logical lab setting, and in a rich primordial broth, at just the right temperature, the necessary molecules
do, dang it all, show up. But if the conditions had been substantially different, you say? Well then, either some different molecule(s) would have survived,
or there'd simply be no life here. Life itself is not proof of God, just of the right conditions for it to have begun.
Anyhow, then those molecules aggregate & coalesce,
logically, and form up in predictable ways and then,
dang it agin, guyz' ...they started replicatin'. 'N stuff.
Logic. It's so.... so... undeniable. Huh?
Versus the Christian versions. Them's
very illogical, and nowadays,
very deniable.
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.
