Evolution vs Creation and So Forth

[JohnAdams]

evolution

...is a laughable fantasy.

 

[Pero1234]

...is a laughable fantasy.

Oh no... we lost John!

 

[JohnAdams]

Oh no... we lost John!

I used to believe in evolution until I learned biology and human anatomy and physiology. There is absolutely no way a living cell, even the simplest one, could have happened by chance. It doesn't work.

There is no possible way that a cell came together with all of the parts it needs to function all at the first iteration. There is also no way the DNA that contains the instructions needed to cause the cell to perform all of its functions, including replicate could have came together on the first iteration.

Then even more impossible, there is no way the cell, AND it's DNA came together on the first iteration.

The simplest cell is vastly more complicated than any machine that humans have ever created or ever will create. The mathematical probability that such a thing could come together in this world by chance is just outside the realm of possibility.

A cell is a molecular machine. The DNA is the instruction set, which is in base 4 machine code, that is used to make the cell make copies of itself. How can anyone possibly believe that such a thing wasn't created by an intelligence? The order of the universe is entropy, where things tend to move towards disorder.

Also, if this sort of process were even possible in the first place, how come we don't see new types of life, that use other types of methods to function and replicate or not replicate, in infinite variations, arise every day? We don't. We never see new types of information arranging at a molecular level anywhere in nature. Isn't it odd that they say the living cell spontaneously arose billions of years ago and all life comes from that, yet we don't see that same thing happening today?

 

[JohnAdams]

lmao this got moved to its own thread....

 

[annV]

I used to believe in evolution until I learned biology and human anatomy and physiology. There is absolutely no way a living cell, even the simplest one, could have happened by chance. It doesn't work.

So who created God then?

 

[Mister Muso]

So who created God then?

OK I'll play.

The question of "Who created God?" leads to the question

• "Who created (the one who created God)"

Which in turn leads to:

• "Who created (the one who created (the one who created God))"

and so on. It becomes an infinite regress, and you have to stop somewhere.

The Bible doesn't try to prove God - it just assumes him ("In the beginning, God created...") Like it or not, but here's why that is a valid thing to do.

When I studied logic, I was told that to solve this problem of an infinite regress caused by asking such questions you could basically stop wherever you like, and assert A. You could then continue to assert A, as long as you don't find yourself with a logical absurdity. For example

• A -> B AND A -> Not B

The sceptic would say and example of such a logical absurdity is "How can it be that (A) a loving God exists, and (B) there is pain in the world, when there should be (Not B) No pain in the world?

The believer would say that you are asking the wrong questions, or question some of your assumptions about God (A) or about pain (B).

In the end, you can argue all you like, but either you have (Faith) or (Not Faith).

Me? I have Faith.

 

[JohnAdams]

OK I'll play.

The question of "Who created God?" leads to the question

• "Who created (the one who created God)"

Which in turn leads to:

• "Who created (the one who created (the one who created God))"

and so on. It becomes an infinite regress, and you have to stop somewhere.

The Bible doesn't try to prove God - it just assumes him ("In the beginning, God created...") Like it or not, but here's why that is a valid thing to do.

When I studied logic, I was told that to solve this problem of an infinite regress caused by asking such questions you could basically stop wherever you like, and assert A. You could then continue to assert A, as long as you don't find yourself with a logical absurdity. For example

• A -> B AND A -> Not B

The sceptic would say and example of such a logical absurdity is "How can it be that (A) a loving God exists, and (B) there is pain in the world, when there should be (Not B) No pain in the world?

The believer would say that you are asking the wrong questions, or question some of your assumptions about God (A) or about pain (B).

In the end, you can argue all you like, but either you have (Faith) or (Not Faith).

Me? I have Faith.

First off, although I think it was God, I'm not even going there here. God is alleged to be outside of what we conceptualize as time and space, as both of those things are part of what He would have created in the first place. Therefore, under that model, there doesn't have to be a creator of God.

Right now though, I'm not trying to prove in the existence of a God more so than trying to disprove the evolutionary model of the origin of life.

 

[Ecip]

It's the 21st century. Really? Grow up and move on.

 

[JohnAdams]

It's the 21st century. Really? Grow up and move on.

So growing up involves accepting an unproven hypothesis that is mathematically impossible? The spontaneous creation of a living cell has never been observed and observation is the basis of the scientific method. All people like you can do is insult people like me for questioning your evolution religion, because that's what it is, a religion. You are basing your belief that chemicals from rocks came together randomly and created a cell on nothing but faith. Evolution is your religion.

 

[Agrajag364]

...is a laughable fantasy.

Oh boy now this is just lame trolling.

Did you actually say at one point that you had a DEGREE IN BIOLOGY.

 

[JohnAdams]

Oh boy now this is just lame trolling.

Did you actually say at one point that you had a DEGREE IN BIOLOGY.

BS Biomedical Engineering Technology.

It is not trolling. One thing I have noticed is that nobody that actually believes in a living cell coming into existence randomly will dare even discuss how such a thing could even be possible. It has to be based on shear ignorance of how complex even the simplest cells are.

 

[Agrajag364]

BS Biomedical Engineering Technology.

It is not trolling. One thing I have noticed is that nobody that actually believes in a living cell coming into existence randomly will dare even discuss how such a thing could even be possible. It has to be based on shear ignorance of how complex even the simplest cells are.

Anyone who understands phylogenetic trees arranged by genetics and morphology can't argue evolution is false unless they believe that God deliberately designed it that way to make us believe in evolution. Went around changing individual base pairs in DNA to make it look exactly like one species evolved from another.

I'm sure we could get into that at tedious length, but instead I'm just wondering if you are a bit bored John Adams? Didn't you say you had a wee baby? Wouldn't your wife maybe like some help with that.

 

[JohnAdams]

Wouldn't your wife maybe like some help with that.

I usually post when waiting for a process to run in my computer system. I certainly help my wife with the kid.

phylogenetic trees

Well, my main contention is about the spontaneous appearance of the living cell, however, if you want to talk about species differentiation, I believe that happens, we can see it happen with domesticated animal breeds, however, we have never observed one species differentiating into another species that was incapable of interbreeding with its native population, while also maintaining the ability to breed itself.

On this topic, they claim Australopithecus is a transitional species between chimpanzees and humans. The most famous of all of these incomplete specimens is Lucy. They point to the angle of the hip bones as showing that this chimpanzee was able to stand up and that is the distinguishing characteristic. How did they determine that the hip bone was angles like that of an upright bipedal animal like a human?

They used a damn grinder to make it look like that.
Look at the logic here:
It looked like a chimp (because it was).
But they already had made up their mind it couldn't have been.
They concocted a theory that the bones were broken, and then fused back together (in the same shape of a chimp's)
So they used a grinder to reshape the bones to look like a human's.
Lucy was not a transitional fossil. It was a chimp.

Oh, and the knee bone.......

It was found over a mile away in strata about 60 meters deeper from the rest of the fossils.

"The best I can now determine is that there were 2 knee joints, one found nearby and one far away. The one found far away was found two to three kilometers away from the skull and 60-70 meters deeper in the strata."

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/lucy.html

So they used a grinder to make the hip look more human like and the knee bones weren't even verifiably part of the same animal as they were found very far away from the rest of the animal.

 

[Ecip]

Evolution is your religion.

Erm.... no. That is false.

 

[Agrajag364]

I usually post when waiting for a process to run in my computer system. I certainly help my wife with the kid.

Well, my main contention is about the spontaneous appearance of the living cell, however, if you want to talk about species differentiation, I believe that happens, we can see it happen with domesticated animal breeds, however, we have never observed one species differentiating into another species that was incapable of interbreeding with its native population, while also maintaining the ability to breed itself.

On this topic, they claim Australopithecus is a transitional species between chimpanzees and humans. The most famous of all of these incomplete specimens is Lucy. They point to the angle of the hip bones as showing that this chimpanzee was able to stand up and that is the distinguishing characteristic. How did they determine that the hip bone was angles like that of an upright bipedal animal like a human?

They used a damn grinder to make it look like that.
Look at the logic here:
It looked like a chimp (because it was).
But they already had made up their mind it couldn't have been.
They concocted a theory that the bones were broken, and then fused back together (in the same shape of a chimp's)
So they used a grinder to reshape the bones to look like a human's.
Lucy was not a transitional fossil. It was a chimp.

Oh, and the knee bone.......

It was found over a mile away in strata about 60 meters deeper from the rest of the fossils.

"The best I can now determine is that there were 2 knee joints, one found nearby and one far away. The one found far away was found two to three kilometers away from the skull and 60-70 meters deeper in the strata."

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/lucy.html

So they used a grinder to make the hip look more human like and the knee bones weren't even verifiably part of the same animal as they were found very far away from the rest of the animal.

This is a bit like the guy who came on posting about sea anemones but I'll bite for a minute.

Do you understand what I'm saying about DNA and phylogenetic trees?

 

[just1morething]

I think we are all a bit agnostic like Warren Buffet. How can anyone know for sure? All I know is I'm suffering from tinnitus with no relief but sleep.

Humanity starting from Adam and Eve seems hard to believe with all the different races in the world today.

 

[Agrajag364]

Also, I'd like to question why a belief in evolution is seen as completely incompatible with religion, apparently in the USA. My grandfather was moderator of the united free Presbyterian Church in my country for a time in the 1950s, and his wife my grandmother had a PhD in botany and taught biology at University, as well as playing a big role in her local church. I'm told they never had an argument about evolution and that my grandmother realised its truth. I don't believe that all the religious biologists in the USA don't believe in evolution.

 

[JohnAdams]

Erm.... no. That is false.

Evolution has never been observed directly, which is the basis of the scientific method. It is not scientific, it is a theory. If you believe in it, you belief is based not on direct knowledge but faith. This is what shapes your worldview. It is your religion. All you folks can do is reply with put downs and one liners. It's amazing!

 

[Agrajag364]

Evolution has never been observed directly, which is the basis of the scientific method. It is not scientific, it is a theory. If you believe in it, you belief is based not on direct knowledge but faith. This is what shapes your worldview. It is your religion. All you folks can do is reply with put downs and one liners. It's amazing!

You have not addressed my point about phylogenetic trees.

 

[JohnAdams]

Do you understand what I'm saying about DNA and phylogenetic trees?

Of course I understand. My contentions about the theory of evolution aren't based on my ignorance of it. I understand that you believe that minor variations from genetic mutations over the course of billions of years have given rise to the various species of animals.

My grandfather was moderator of the united free Presbyterian Church in my country for a time in the 1950s, and his wife my grandmother had a PhD in botany and taught biology at University, as well as playing a big role in her local church. I'm told they never had an argument about evolution and that my grandmother realised its truth.

You cannot claim to be a Christian and believe in evolution as it turns the entire premise of the faith on its head.

The Bible teaches us that Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins, which brought death into this world beginning with Adam and Eve, which were created immortal. This is not merely a spiritual death, but all physical death.

If evolution is true, mankind came into the world after billions of years of reproduction and death. If death already existed before the fall of man, then what did Jesus die for? The answer would be nothing, his death would have been a pointless murder of an innocent man that changed nothing. Also, you can add up the generations from people we know for a fact existed in the Bible back to Adam and Even, and it shows that all of Creation is about 6,000 years old.

The whole point of Christianity is the belief that Jesus died for our sins, sins that brought death into the world. Evolution turns that on its head. If evolution is true, then Christianity is a lie. They cannot both be true, which many people believe, but you cannot be both a Christian and and evolutionist. It's conflicted.

 

[JohnAdams]

Humanity starting from Adam and Eve seems hard to believe with all the different races in the world today.

What is harder for me to believe is that a living cell just came together from random chemicals floating around in some kind of a liquid. Nobody can offer any type of step by step model to show how this process could happen.

A cell is a profoundly complex bimolecular machine. Machines don't just randomly assemble themselves, let alone machines that contain code, base 4 machine code, that can make copies of themselves.

 

[JohnAdams]

My point here is not to prove Christianity is true, as that's not really possible, even with the strong evidence that exists. It is a faith.

My point here is to show you that the notion that a living cell arose out of nature through random physical and chemical processes is itself an unprovable faith.

 

[Agrajag364]

My point here is not to prove Christianity is true, as that's not really possible, even with the strong evidence that exists. It is a faith.

My point here is to show you that the notion that a living cell arose out of nature through random physical and chemical processes is itself an unprovable faith.

OK, you're clearly not interested in having a logical argument. I'm out.

 

[Ecip]

it is a theory

Yes. Everything is a theory. We use the best theory to explain how something works until a point where a better one comes along that works even better. That's how science works.

Evolution has never been observed directly

That is false. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes.

If you believe in it, you belief is based not on direct knowledge but faith.

Also false. Faith is a religious term. Science is based on facts.

to prove Christianity is true, as that's not really possible

First thing you've said that makes sense. Not just limited to one religion and one deity, but all of them.

My point here is to show you that the notion that a living cell arose out of nature through random physical and chemical processes is itself an unprovable faith.

That's really not true, either. Abiogenesis is the best theory that we (humans) currently have, and all evidence points to this being true. Just because we can not yet proof this doesn't mean that our scientific understanding doesn't eventually become better to advance our understanding of this process. Abiogenesis didnt happen overnight either. You're looking at billions of years of difference molecules coming together to, eventually, form the simplest of living structures.

Who knows, maybe we're completely wrong about Abiogenesis, and the evolutionary process is completely different. But that's okay. That's how science works. Eventually, we'll figure it out.

 

[JohnAdams]

Here is something else none of you can explain:

Proteins are made by protein synthesis, which happens inside the cell.

The cell is also made of proteins.

Where did the first proteins that made the first cell come from if the cell is the thing that makes proteins?

 

[Lilah]

God is the master of the universe. The portion we understand about His works is called "science." Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Ecip]

Here is something else none of you can explain:

Proteins are made by protein synthesis. which happens inside the cell.

The cell is also made of proteins.

Where did the first proteins that made the first cell come from if the cell is the thing that makes proteins?

Why would you expect us to be able to explain this? This is a tinnitus support forum.

If you're really interested in learning about this process then why don't you consult scientific literature dealing with this subject, and/or speak to someone with this knowledge. I guarantee you that you can find answers to this on the Internet. You may not be able to understand it, but the information surely is available.

Edit: Here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/

 

[Ecip]

So who created God then?

Man.

 

[Agrajag364]

Of course I understand. My contentions about the theory of evolution aren't based on my ignorance of it. I understand that you believe that minor variations from genetic mutations over the course of billions of years have given rise to the various species of animals.

if evolution ISN'T true..........then explain the concordence between morphology based and DNA sequence based phylogenetic trees. Why would God have arranged for species higher up on a tree (as suggested by morphology) to have DNA changes that could be traced down the (DNA sequence based) tree to species theorised to evolve from species higher on the tree? Why the match? Why would God work so hard to make it LOOK as if species evolved from one another?

 

[JohnAdams]

Why would you expect us to be able to explain this? This is a tinnitus support forum.

If you're really interested in learning about this process then why don't you consult scientific literature dealing with this subject, and/or speak to someone with this knowledge. I guarantee you that you can find answers to this on the Internet. You may not be able to understand it, but the information surely is available.

Edit: Here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/

You don't have to post in this thread if you don't want to, and we talk about all kinds of stuff in this community, not just tinnitus.