Question Your Beliefs...

[chadbag]

Nice bowing out. So much for the burden of proof being on the one who asserts that supernatural beings exist.

This is a strawman. You define God as supernatural and then shoot that down. Why do you think God is supernatural (ie, I take that to mean above natural or using what humans might call magic)? In non religious terms, God would be the ultimate scientist, with all knowledge of how things actually work, not just approximations that we humans have figured out (that was not a dig at science).

[kartoffel]

I like turtles.

[SteyrAUG]

Creation is a belief. Evolution is a belief.

Both are theories, both require faith, and neither of them will ever be provable in this iteration of our universe.

Not true at all.

We have proven evolution, we can observe it on the microbial level. The fact that we have a less than complete fossil record just means we don't have the entire evolutionary chain for every species.

[SteyrAUG]

Really? You do know that, for Evolution to even be considered, it must be explained where the universe actually came from first, right? It's not a buffet where you can pick and choose what looks good. It's literally all or nothing. It's either a theory or it's a fact. There is absolutely no in-between.

There's a reason Evolution is called a "theory."

Your argument is disingenuous.

That is a not true at all. Evolution is not directly related to the origin of the universe. Your question has more to do with where did life originate and we currently do not know, and evolution doesn't address that issue.

Evolution is more the genealogy of life once it began.

[Skyyr]

That is a not true at all. Evolution is not directly related to the origin of the universe. Your question has more to do with where did life originate and we currently do not know, and evolution doesn't address that issue.

Evolution is more the genealogy of life once it began.

How can you claim to know the progression of life if you can't even explain where it came from? The entire theory of evolution revolves around the progression of life from single-celled bacteria, which are claimed to come into existence from the random gathering of a single type of amino acids which has never and cannot ever be replicated solely on its own
(that is, without human intervention). It defies the very laws of thermodynamics. It requires pure belief that it can happen as we humans will never live long enough to ever prove if it is even plausible.

It's a belief, faith that the laws of physics don't apply, and faith that world has indeed existed long enough for evolution's time line to be plausible. To claim otherwise is to support an infallible argument ("the fact that we're here supports evolution and the fact that it takes so long that we can't see it also supports evolution) and is logically unsound.

It's faith, pure and simple. You tell me about your faith... and I'll tell you mine.

[chadbag]

As a person of faith, I don't have a problem with evolution. It is the best approximation of the creation that humans have come up with as an explanation of how it happened.

Christianity unfortunately bases a lot of its "belief" on tradition that stems from "a real long time ago" when they did not have our knowledge and expertise and science to explain every day phenomenon so they explained it based on their religious beliefs. There is nothing about the saving message of Jesus Christ the Savior that relies on a literal 6-day creation, a 6000 year old (or whatever) "young earth", or an all encompassing literally earth covering flood. That is all "baggage" that has been passed down as companions to the saving message of a loving Father in Heaven and his Son, our Savior. "Baggage" that was written down by people who were charged with writing down God's plan for us, but whose own personal knowledge of how things work was not any greater than their general populace and hence the background they used for writing down the Saving message of Christ was that which was generally understood and believed at the time (while they did not call him that, the OT prophets all looked forward to the Savior and I use today's term for what they were looking forward to).

However, that is not what this thread is about. (I know, I am a major problem when it comes to thread deflection.)

I question my beliefs almost daily. The fact that I come to a different conclusion than say LittleLebowski or SteyrAug does not mean I am not questioning them.

[SteyrAUG]

How can you claim to know the progression of life if you can't even explain where it came from? The entire theory of evolution revolves around the progression of life from single-celled bacteria, which are claimed to come into existence from the random gathering of a single type of amino acids which has never and cannot ever be replicated solely on its own
(that is, without human intervention). It defies the very laws of thermodynamics. It requires pure belief that it can happen as we humans will never live long enough to ever prove if it is even plausible.

It is easy, it is no more difficult than doing the genealogy of your family from the time they arrived in this country in 1792 without knowing what country they came form.

By the same token we can understand evolution by observing it. I know you desperately want it to be otherwise but that is the way it is.

We do not have to have the answer to every question to know the answers to some of them. The bottom line is evolution is FACT, we have observed it time and again and there is no question that it happens and has been happening since life began.

What is a DIFFERENT QUESTION is the origin of life. Where did if first originate and how? And evolution has almost nothing to do with the answer to that question nor does it claim to have the answer to that question. Evolution is nothing more than the processes of life from that point forward.

As to the answers to that specific question, the answer is WE DO NOT KNOW. We have some ideas based upon some evidence to suggest they might be true, but these ideas are hardly proven and barely constitute enough evidence to qualify as a theory. So at best we THINK we know but every real scientist would tell you we could be wrong.

And again, since you seem to not know, we have OBSERVED evolution. We can watch it as it happens on the microbial level which does happen in our life span.

[Skyyr]

It is easy, it is no more difficult than doing the genealogy of your family...

Ah, but it is...

You see, you assume that single-celled bacteria are the basis for all life. Therefore, you have the predisposition that evolution went from simple to complex. It's not about the origin of life, it's about the assumptions evolutionists make based on their predispositions without realizing it.

If there is not a Creator, then there must be a starting point of biological lifeforms, otherwise to believe that life "just happened" takes more faith than the acknowledgment of a perfect Creator. Ergo, you must explain how we came into being as humans, starting with the first organism of evolution, the single-celled bacteria.

I'm curious - can you explain how you, how evolutionists, know that a single-celled bacteria was the first living organism that existed?

[6933]

One of my majors was Biology. I had no idea Evolution was a fact. If so, then it would be the Law of Evolution. There's a reason it is still called the Theory of Evolution. It has not been conclusively proven; period. Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. The textbooks call it a theory for a reason. The Theory of Evolution can't even explain how life formed.

[BrianS]

No I'm a follower of reason and evidence (methods promoted by Sagan) and I use those methods to determine what I believe.

This is what atheists always claim to believe, but when you really press them about topics and areas in which reason and evidence become inadequate they always wind up saying things that are embarassing.

A great example is the famous episode in which Dawkins theorized that all life on Earth might not have evolved here from single cell organisms, but might have been seeded by some super intelligent, hyper technologically advanced alien race. But Dawkins claimed the life used by the Aliens (I will capitalize these mythical creatures to help point out the analogy being drawn for the reader) for said "seeding" MUST have used life that had evolved from single celled organisms on some other planet since Dawkins knows that the theory of evolution is a FACT.