but getting back to creation. It's almost like hot potato. They looked all over earth for the beginning of life and never really found it. Then they looked up in the sky and said, "Maybe it came from there." or riddely riddely ree. You're getting warmer. Every scientist will tell you, get close to light and it gets hot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This website is from the Christians. I am not Christian. For you this website will show how religions concede of to the truth of evolutionary biology. Is evolution a "theory in crisis"? Opponents of the science of evolution sometimes claim that evolution is a “theory in crisis.” This claim has had traction among regular church goers, 39% of whom believe that scientists do not generally agree that humans have evolved over time. When respondents are restricted to white Evangelicals, that number goes up to 49%.1 Such beliefs do not reflect what scientists actually think. When scientists themselves were asked the same question, 99% agreed that humans have evolved over time.2 There is very little debate among scientists about the central idea of evolutionary theory: common ancestry (including human beings). It is the settled backdrop against which biological research takes place. SNIP Conclusion At BioLogos we are concerned that those in the general public and Christians in particular have been misled about the nature of the disagreements between evolutionary scientists. There are very, very few PhD trained scientists in biology who doubt that evolution (including common ancestry) has occurred. We hear about some of these because (often well-intended) Christian leaders appeal to them for rhetorical effect. As Christians, we have a commitment to truth and we must present the facts accurately. While the science of evolution remains a vibrant field, with many things still to be discovered and disagreements about many details, it is not a theory in crisis. - See more at: http://biologos.org/common-question...ution-a-theory-in-crisis#sthash.seXbSz5O.dpuf Genomes as ancient texts: an analogy Perhaps an analogy would be helpful here. Prior to the invention of the printing press, manuscripts in the ancient world were copied by scribes. Though a good scribe could be counted on to provide a highly accurate copy, small copying errors were inevitable. These changes, however, would not be so large as to render the copies unrecognizable – the vast majority of the text would be correct. Once a copy was made (with the small errors in contained), it would often serve as the starting point for further copies. If so, the errors would be copied in the process, since the next scribe would also try to copy the manuscript as faithfully as possible (though he too might introduce new errors of his own). We can similarly think of a genome as a “text” that is passed on through copying with the possibility of copying errors. As with all analogies, however, there are some important differences. While human scribes interact with the meaning of the text they are copying, the genome “scribes” – enzymes that copy DNA sequences based on pairing monomers – do not. This means that while errors made by human scribes tend preserve a meaning of some kind (even if it is an altered meaning), DNA replicating enzymes do not check to see if meaning (i.e. function) is preserved as they copy. (The functional check for a DNA sequence will come later as that particular organism develops (or not) and reproduces (or not). In other words, natural selection is the check for “meaning” for a DNA sequence). To carry the analogy further, we could consider an organism’s genome to be like a book, with chapters, paragraphs and sentences. For a genome, the “chapters” might be the sequences of whole chromosomes; paragraphs would correspond to genes; and sentences the sub-components of genes. We could also consider printing runs of a book to be like a replication event. For example, consider two independent printings of the same manuscript. They would, of course, be almost identical – but suppose the two printings had specific typos that did not greatly alter the meaning of the text, and were thus missed by the editors: the 1st printing on page 14, and the 2nd printing on page 23: Now suppose that the original manuscript is lost, and the 3rd printing of the book is typeset from a copy of the 1st printing. This new printing would have the typo on page 14, and any new typos that happened to creep in (say, one on page 8): Imagine that over the course of this book’s history, there are five known printings arranged as follows: Now imagine that a previously unknown, 6th printing is found. This printing has the exact same characteristic typos on pages 14 and 3 found in the 1st and 4th printings, as well as a unique typo not previously seen before in any printing, on page 5. There are, of course, several possible explanations for the provenance of the 6th printing, with one explanation being more likely than the others. In increasing order of likelihood, some options are: The “6th printing” is in fact a separately authored book that is not a copy of the original manuscript of which the 5 printings are copies. The 6th printing is a direct copy of the original manuscript, but the editor happened to independently make two of the exact same errors found in other manuscripts as well as a new error on page 5. The 6th printing is a direct copy of the 1st printing, but the editor happened to independently make one of the exact same errors found in another manuscript as well as a new error on page 5. The 6th printing is a direct copy of the 4th printing, but the editor happened to make a new error on page 5 in the copying process. It should go without saying that option #1 would not be seriously considered by literature scholars, given the nearly identical text shared between the newfound printing and the other known printings. Option #2 would require that two rare events (typos) happen independently, twice over, in two printings. As such, it is less likely than option #3, which requires only one rare event to happen twice over independently. Option #4 is of course the best option, because it does not require that any rare events happen twice in independent copies. In this scenario, the reason the 6th printing has the features it does is because it is an (imperfect) copy of the 4th printing: In scientific terms, this option is the most likely, or parsimonious one: it offers an explanation for the provenance of the 6th printing with the fewest number of low-probability events. Back to biology Now consider speciation events in light of our analogy. At the point of separation, the two populations have nearly identical “books” (i.e. genomes). As lineages go their separate ways, “typos” (i.e. mutations) can occur in genes that are then passed down to the descendants of that lineage, just as we have seen for typos accumulating in copied texts: If indeed speciation events produced Species A – D from a common ancestral population, we would expect their genomes to exhibit certain features when compared to each other. First and foremost, their overall genome sequence and structure should be highly similar to each other – they should be versions of the same book, with chapters and paragraphs of shared text in the same order. Secondly, the differences between them would be expected to fall into a pattern. Species C and D, for example, would be expected to share some features as the result of sharing a common ancestor (Species A) more recently than they do with Species B. In this simple diagram, for example, Species C and D would have an identical mutation in gene 1, and the most parsimonious explanation for it would be that they both inherited it from a common ancestor (Species A). This would be much more likely than both species having the same mutation occur independently at the exact same location in both genomes. Put more generally, the hypothesis of common ancestry makes specific predictions about the pattern one should observe when examining genomes. In tomorrow’s post, we’ll see how well those predictions hold up when examining actual genomics data for a proposed group of related species. - See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-ve...-as-ancient-texts-part-1#sthash.pMI3vwFn.dpuf
So you are saying we have to be content with bacterial circumstantial evidence and built upon that this world came to fruition through the collision of some gases who came from nowhere but you are asking me for proof that Paul met Jesus on his way to Damascus? I don't think so, and no I cannot prove that. But so can you not prove any of the absurd theories that life started from nothing. Any sort of matter or gases must by any scientific logic come from somewhere. Fact remains that even most scientist are drawn to the idea that there must be some sort of creator because no theory in the world exists that supports the ability to create life from nothing. And your suggestion that Christians don't believe in adaptation and changes in life form is pulled out of thin air. Most every Christian I know fully acknowledges the fact that life forms evolve over time. There is zero contradiction between such acknowledgement and a believe in the creator God.
Lol yes humans did not have computers 2000 or 10000 years ago today they do. We evolved. Qed Thanks for the science lesson teacher.
So you are saying we have to be content with an invisible magic sky fairy explaining nothing and built upon this the world came into fruition through the collision of some dirt being breathed upon by a supernatural wizard from nowhere not existing in nature and not any common sense notion that the universe and life itself came about through natural circumstances of which every single thing there is, either contains or portrays evidence of. Any sort of imaginary concept must by any scientific logic come from somewhere. You can't have it both ways. If you want to call on scientific logic, you can't rely on something not physical or material and not subject to explanation according to natural laws.
imo, Jesus was not much difference when comparing today's atheists. I can see that he and his followers mainly believed in the natural GOD, from the Stoicism perspective. A God consists all things and everything in the (multi)universe. All human beings including Jesus is part of the GOD! A GOD encompasses/incorporates various forms of Gods that were worshiped by various religions from various cultures. That has been a truly simple concept/perception/instinct from the mind of all human beings! Without requiring any reading, studying, intelligence, etc. to capture this GOD feeling and recognition! An atheist does not believe any conventional religious God concept due to various reasons and rejecting all the attributes of God from all religious, basically. However, when considering a GOD concept being a scientific approach one based on evidence/logic/rationality, then the rejection by atheists would become invalid! As at the same time, an atheist becomes a fervent believer and fundamentalist of "No God"! That would be no difference between other believers of religions! One of his 'interesting' parable was like that, believers (elder son) are not truly believers, while non-believers are actually believers (younger son)! Of course, the scientists are basically believers of sciences, dynamically based on their research approaches and theories. Rather than a fixed set of outdated books, that were based on verbal stories from their old, very old, antecedents - without any proven evidence! Simple because the uneducated majority trust their leaders who were often a bit of better intelligence and education, especially religiously. Jesus set an example to today's atheists, as well as the secular world! In an analytical and logical/rational sense! (He was a rational thinker! On Sundays, people can do anything just like on everyday!) Obviously he also wished/wanted the religious believers to do the same, especially his followers/students! (Think about what some believers (front runners) today would think and talk about non-believers (rear walkers)!) Jesus was a visionary marketer/promoter/pioneer of equality (everyone is a son of God. Not just believers!) and liberty (salvation) for every individuals, no matter believers or non-believers of any religions! He said, Rains are for All! Not only for just a few (good men)! A God concept Jesus himself believed has no physical form, no boundaries/limitations, for all human beings - poor by suppression/ sicked by birth/ sinned by morality standards, etc. Several of Jesus' parables repeatedly implied the above meaning and reality! Spiritually and physically speaking! As he also specifically mentioned probably only few/some would understand the actual/implied (deeper) meaning of his parables (eternity? heaven?)! Just another 2 cents! http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/atheism.300055/page-19#post-4295849
Are you aware that you often make no sense? You assume that before the big bang there was nothing. It is more likely that there was always something, it just changes form. There are many plausible theories as to how life evolved and if one looks back in the fossil record life gets simpler and less diverse. The only earliest fossils are single celled organisms that stayed that way for some 1.5 billion years before getting their act together.
1. there is no proof life evolved from non life. We don't even have a complete plausible pathway from non life to life. In fact many scientists are not looking to the idea that life may have arrived here from other places because it does not look like there was enough time for life to have evolved from non life here on earth. 2. Many if not the vast majority of Christians accept the idea that we have had evolution once life formed.