In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

reply to post by SuperFrog


No there is not "Free will" in the sense that most people understand it.

There is Free will in the sense that you can do whatever you want without compulsion. However you are not capable of producing Faith that leads to Salvation from the Judgement.

So you are limited and bound. But this is a discussion born out of Theology and an understanding of Sin and its effects on the Human Will.

God will judge Corruption, thus you are not judged specifically for "lack of Faith"... but rather for the presence of Sin.

Those who escape the judgement, do not escape because they are Better, or because they deserve it. Rather they are just as guilty, yet Christ bore the punishment in their place. So Christ absorbs the Wrath of God instead of the having it Fall on the Faithful.

So Gods Wrath must be satisfied, and it will be, either through Christ, or without Christ, directly upon faithless sinners.

But again these are concepts of Theology which hardly matter in this discussion, nor I'm sure are you very interested in understanding them.

But suffice it to say, if God does not intervene and change you from the inside out. Then you have no Hope. But i don't know who God will work on, so I proclaim his Grace to all and leave it up to him to bring about his own purpose.

Soul

Someone in this thread is dismissing all of the Theory of Evolution because some of the theory hasn't been worked out yet.

That's good science!

reply to post by SuperFrog


So Disregarding the Claims of someone who is a Scientist is unacceptable?

Scientists are always completely impartial and never have an agenda behind their efforts??

So what you do say about the scientists who have presented evidence that your favorite fairy tales are unworkable and not plausible?

Why is it ok for you to disregard those scientists... but I can't question the validity of yours?

And I actually hope you do question the findings of all scientists. I'm just looking for a truly open mind who is capable of looking at all the evidence and using intellect to perceive it correctly.

Genetics and modern biology is providing more and more evidence that abiogenesis and evolution via mutation is impossible in the scope that the non-theist would have everyone believe.

Genetics and modern biology are decidely backing up my challange to your belief structure. If you can't understand this... you need to educate yourself further.

Just because you All claim That Chemicals could have randomly originated the first living cell and that Mutations Could have evolved the complex living organisms found today doesn't make it so.

You Can't provide a working plausible theory of how this could have happened. I'm not even asking you to prove it.... just provide a working theory.

And you epically fail over and over and just keep repeating your dogmatic Faith in the impossible becoming possible via your God of Mutations.

Open your eyes.

Soul

reply to post by wmd_2008


And once again you have no response to my challange or questions ... and rather resort to your only foundation, ridicule of Faith in God.

Look how insecure you guys are about your supposedly "working theory" for a godless existence.

Come on... lets get into the details and talk about your "intelligent" supposedly "science based" beliefs.

You haven't even begun to articulate this working theory. You just claim that the impossible must have happened... just because you say so.

Or perhaps it is because somebody else told you so.

I know all these people who believe everything that is told to them in front of a classroom. They actually believe everything their professors told them in college without examining the evidence for themselves.

After all, why would the professors lie to them??

Perhaps some day they will actually start thinking for themselves.

Soul

reply to post by SoulReaper


What questions? Each and every one of your questions has been answered by at least one person. The fact that you ignore their responses or simply dismiss them out of hand without bothering to refute them with evidence is your problem.

reply to post by rhinoceros


There is nothing that man has created that could come close to replicating what I do just in my daily routines.

All those machinces can certainly be more effecient and acurate then humans at certain specific tasks...

But over all.. there is nothing man has created that even approaches the versatility and ability of the human form to accomplish a wide range of impressive and useful feats.

Soul

Originally posted by SoulReaper
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Like I heve said over and over

I'm not trying to Prove creation here.. Ex nihilo is believed according to Faith... it can not be understood according to science. Science has no methodology to study such a concept except to proclaim that according to natural processes... it is impossible.

Evolution (in the limited capacity that I believe it) doesn't even approach explaining a godless existence. There is no intelligent argument that presents Evolution as a replacement for Creation. Evolution is so limited in its scope that it might as well not even be part of the conversation.

And again what I am looking for is a PLAUSIBLE alternative to the Origin of matter, energy, space, time and Life.

Abiogenesis is so Weak that it is being discarded by the members of secular society who actually use their intellect to consider the theory rather then blindly following a dogma where "Anything but God" is viable and plausible.

Join the rest of us who are interested in using our intellects to consider these matters.

Abiogenesis hasn't even begun to provide plausible proof of its viability. If I threw a bunch of logs, nails, sheet rock, and shingles in a big pile, would you believe me if I told you that if we left it there for millions of years that earthquakes, wind, updrafts and flooding would cause those materials to randomly join together to form a precisely built level House?

What you asking me to believe is FAR more unlikely and not credible. If you can't understand this, please spend some time studying what is necessary for a Living Organism to function.

You once again use an argument of Well I don't believe what you believe.. so what I believe doesn't need any proof.

And you know what i would be fine with this, so long as you admit that you Believe in the Impossible happining according to Faith without Proof.

As long as you are honest and admit that you are committed to a religious Belief in "anything but God" and that you are not resting purely on what has been ACTUALLY PROVEN as plausible by Science.

This abiogenesis nonsense and subsequent "Evolution by Mutation" fantasy are not Proven as plausible. You have to be delusional to say that they have been.

The challange still remains, can someone please point out to me a plausible working theory that explains how Mutations could have slowly bit by bit evolved the complex living organisms that we see today?

Simply Claiming that Mutations Could have done it, is not proof. I don't even need typical Lab proof where they are able to duplicate the process.

I just want a actual plausible Working Theory on paper.. that shows How the Complex Living Organism slowly evolved its necessary mechanisms over time... while still remaining viable and alive.

Of course this would require that you actually study the biology and functions of the living Cell and then consider logically the odds of what you claim is so obvious and plausible.

I doubt you will do it... I rather think you will continue to run and hide from doing any real thinking regarding these matters and continue to post Lame insults to Faith in God.

Soul

You're speaking out of ignorance. Abiogenesis research has made huge steps during the last few decades. Abiogenetic reaction pathways for the generation of most or all nucleotides now exist. Spontaneous reactions that create autocatalytic RNA molecules, which are widely believed to be the first living things in this planet (in the hypothetical RNA world), have been observed in the laboratory. And this is just skimming the surface. As for mutations and diversity of life. It has been proven beyond a shred of doubt that this is what happened and keeps on happening. This is supported by independent observations and experiments in dozens of fields of science. Of course it's impossible to rule out divine interventions, but there certainly are no signs of such thing having ever happened. These are facts. I don't really care if you think otherwise, but fact remains that my stance is supported by a mountain of evidence, and those who oppose have nothing but their blind faith and ignorance in the working of the scientific method.

Originally posted by SoulReaper
Genetics and modern biology is providing more and more evidence that abiogenesis and evolution via mutation is impossible in the scope that the non-theist would have everyone believe.

Actually, it's the 100% opposite, but I'm sure that is what you read from your creationist websites. Care to link to peer-reviewed science to support your claims? Of course you won't. Because you can't make baseless assertions in peer-reviewed science, and there's nothing to support you creationist views.

Originally posted by SoulReaper
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

There is nothing that man has created that could come close to replicating what I do just in my daily routines.

All those machinces can certainly be more effecient and acurate then humans at certain specific tasks...

But over all.. there is nothing man has created that even approaches the versatility and ability of the human form to accomplish a wide range of impressive and useful feats.

Soul

You're being human centric. For everything we can do, there are 10 things machines we have built can do better. Anyway, given how fast things progress, it's not difficult to see that in a couple of decades our machines have surpassed us in everything (if that is where we want to go).

Originally posted by SoulReaper
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Just because you All claim That Chemicals could have randomly originated the first living cell and that Mutations Could have evolved the complex living organisms found today doesn't make it so.

You Can't provide a working plausible theory of how this could have happened. I'm not even asking you to prove it.... just provide a working theory.

And you epically fail over and over and just keep repeating your dogmatic Faith in the impossible becoming possible via your God of Mutations.

Open your eyes.

Soul

What -exactly- are you looking for? Give me an exact question. You want a working theory, a working theory about -what-?

reply to post by Barcs


lol... I'm am more and more convinced that you don't even comprehend the conversation we are have Barcs.

You are so behind the ball.

Noone is claiming that Abiogenesis is the same as evolution.
Noone is claiming that mutations don't happen.

You have ZERO working theories for how the mutations that can be observed... could possiblly have slowly evolved the complex living organisms that we have today.

This is what I'm doubting.. not that mutations take place... but that they took place in the manner that you are proposing.

You really have no clue what it means to present a WORKING, PAUSIBLE theory for consideration.

It is a HUGE JUMP to go from showing that mutations happen... to claiming that this process of Accidents in copying information evolved the Complex living organisms that we have studied via modern biology.

Its just so laughable that you think this process has been explained by science. Where.. point it out to me.

You claim it has been presented in this thread numerous times... it hasn't.

Linking me to a site that shows an observed process that can occur randomly is not proof that those random process' caused the evolution of a complex living organism.

Its not even evidence of a theory that explains it without proof.

Simply claiming that Mutations can accomplish this is not science.

So yes I reject your delusional belief in the impossible idea that random accidental mutations, slowly evolved the complex living organisms that our modern biology has studied and observed.

Try to keep up with the times... the old boring theories of anti-theists are untenable and unworkable.

Be honest and say that you Have no Working Theory for a godless existence according to science. Your theories are all based on Faith in incredible events against impossible odds.

Soul

Originally posted by SoulReaper
So yes I reject your delusional belief in the impossible idea that random accidental mutations, slowly evolved the complex living organisms that our modern biology has studied and observed.

As I've pointed out previously. You've already made up your mind. You don't want answers, you want to look down on us.

You're done here. Get lost.

Originally posted by SoulReaper
It is a HUGE JUMP to go from showing that mutations happen... to claiming that this process of Accidents in copying information evolved the Complex living organisms that we have studied via modern biology.

It's very ignorant to try to argue that this is all modern synthesis stands on (even more ignorant to call is just an accident as if natural selection doesn't exist). How about the clear signs of past genome and gene duplication events? How about the frigging endosymbiotic reduced bacteria inside virtually all eukaryote cells? How about the fact that ~1/3 of our genes have clearly eubacterial origin, while another ~1/3 have clearly archaeal origin, and only the rest is specific to eukaryotes (percentages not accurate). How about the fossil record (remember, there are no 100 million year old fossils of contemporary animals)? Just skimming the surface here again..

reply to post by SoulReaper



LOL, but really LOL...

It must be hard to know that so many different teams are working on creating life out of nothing, and as I already posted, we already had first positive results. Knowing that this takes time (research, preparation, creating environment, etc...) we and especially religious community are in for a nice surprises in our life time.

Just for example, took 2 years for lawyers to verify that is OK to create life cells out of nothing.

Suggestion, for future arguments, please do some research. Please do not just hold onto propaganda material created by someone long time ago, and if you do, first verify that information is not obsolete. You know, in science is OK to prove something being wrong, people rather take and learn truth then hold on false facts.

Can you say the same for religion?

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by SoulReaper
It is a HUGE JUMP to go from showing that mutations happen... to claiming that this process of Accidents in copying information evolved the Complex living organisms that we have studied via modern biology.

It's very ignorant to try to argue that this is all modern synthesis stands on (even more ignorant to call is just an accident as if natural selection doesn't exist). How about the clear signs of past genome and gene duplication events? How about the frigging endosymbiotic reduced bacteria inside virtually all eukaryote cells? How about the fact that ~1/3 of our genes have clearly eubacterial origin, while another ~1/3 have clearly archaeal origin, and only the rest is specific to eukaryotes (percentages not accurate). How about the fossil record (remember, there are no 100 million year old fossils of contemporary animals)? Just skimming the surface here again..

edit on 12-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

There's too many big words in there, Rhino. He won't have a clue what you're talking about.

reply to post by HappyBunny

I know. I find it baffling how creationists claim to possess knowledge about evolution when they don't understand even basics of it. Do they also disregard doctors when it comes to their health related questions (maybe all those vaccine refusalists are creationists)?

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

I know. I find it baffling how creationists claim to possess knowledge about evolution when they don't understand even basics of it. Do they also disregard doctors when it comes to their health related questions (maybe all those vaccine refusalists are creationists)?

Don't go there. That's my turf and I just want to smack the refusalists silly. There's nothing Alex Jones will say that they won't believe. And yeah, I really think they are the same crowd that's rabid creationist.

They don't even have to understand the science behind it--all they have to do is ask their parents and grandparents what life was like before vaccines. I've seen children die from vaccine-preventable illness and wouldn't wish that on any parent. Talk about fate vs. free will.

But that's totally OT here, so I'll be quiet now.

Originally posted by SoulReaper
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

No there is not "Free will" in the sense that most people understand it.

There is Free will in the sense that you can do whatever you want without compulsion. However you are not capable of producing Faith that leads to Salvation from the Judgement.

So you are limited and bound. But this is a discussion born out of Theology and an understanding of Sin and its effects on the Human Will.

God will judge Corruption, thus you are not judged specifically for "lack of Faith"... but rather for the presence of Sin.

Those who escape the judgement, do not escape because they are Better, or because they deserve it. Rather they are just as guilty, yet Christ bore the punishment in their place. So Christ absorbs the Wrath of God instead of the having it Fall on the Faithful.

So Gods Wrath must be satisfied, and it will be, either through Christ, or without Christ, directly upon faithless sinners.

But again these are concepts of Theology which hardly matter in this discussion, nor I'm sure are you very interested in understanding them.

But suffice it to say, if God does not intervene and change you from the inside out. Then you have no Hope. But i don't know who God will work on, so I proclaim his Grace to all and leave it up to him to bring about his own purpose.

Soul

Or to sum this up in a pic



Also:

You have ZERO working theories for how the mutations that can be observed... could possiblly have slowly evolved the complex living organisms that we have today.

Wrong

So Gods Wrath must be satisfied, and it will be, either through Christ, or without Christ, directly upon faithless sinners.

And just because I believe that universe is about 14 billion years old, that life on earth took millions of year to develop, that earth is not center of universe, it's not flat and has orbit around the sun, that sun is not center of universe, that lighting is atmospheric release of huge amount of electricity, that all humans should have right to select who they like to spend they life with, no matter of sex, that people people should value humanity, not belonging to religious group/sect, that we all are belonging to the same race and have the same ancestors, that we should do everything in our power to support research that will help protect us from disease, as well that people should practice protected sex and that all humans should have opportunity to study and develop (without having to accept religion as price for opportunity) , that steam cell research will help us one day 'develop' required organs without need for donors, that people will learn truth about their history without having to believe in books that are proven more then once wrong.........

(I could go whole day about this... and if that is sin, sure, I am sinner, big time)

Suggestion for all of those interested, couple of good resources:

PNAS (Proceeding of National Academy of Science of the USA) (archives back to 1915, you can subscribe for weekly update)

Ted Talks Ideas worth spreading....

Scientific American - Great magazine...

Wonder how many of those publications/magazines our friend Soul is subscribed just to stay informed...