Queston for atheistic evolutionists

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by OPTIONAL777, Feb 21, 2009.

  1. Assuming life began from nothing but primordial lifeless goo, with no plan or design behind the existence of the goo or the potential for the goo to gel into life, just some spontaneous chance happenings that have lead to millions of species over that time frame to the current day...

    Why is it that some species never accidentally mutated into a form of biological life that does not die, but rather perpetually regenerates now cells.

    Why are all species programmed to be born, live for some period of time, then die?

    Seems reasonable that if were all chance, that if a hundred monkeys would eventually type out Shakespeare...that a single biological organism would eventually mutate up to live forever through constant cell regeneration and self DNA repair.

    Unless it is by design before the evolutionary process that all biological organisms have a set boundary of birth, life, then death...

    If that is the case, why is that, and who or what created a program that despite all the random forces of evolution to produce mutations and new species...cannot be broken, cannot be suspended...all as if by design.
     
  2. Your remarks, brought to mind a statement by Karl Barth, on the "self-witness" of the created realm, in which we create our "history" in each minute of each day.


    "...The simple point is that the creaturely world, the cosmos, the nature given to man in his sphere and the nature of this sphere, has also as such its own lights and truths and therefore its own speech and words. That the world was and is and will be, and what and how it was and is and will be, thanks to the faithfulness of its Creator, is declared and attested by it and may thus be perceived and heard and considered. Its witness and declaration may be missed or more or less dreadfully misunderstood. But it is given with the same persistence as creation itself endures thanks to the faithfulness of its Creator.

    It is given , therefore, quite irrespective of whether the man whom it addresses in its self-witness knows or does not know, confesses or denies, that it owes this speech no less than its persistence to the faithfulness of its Creator. Like its persistence, its self-witness and lights are not extinguished by the corruption of the relationship between God and man through the sin of man, his pride and sloth and falsehood. However corrupt man may be, they illumine him, and even in the depths of his corruption he does not cease to see and understand them......."

    It would seem to me that, the "faith" of the macro-evolutionists, endeavor to hide this "self-witness" of order and design, in the cloud of "billions and billions and billions of years ago".
     
  3. People live longer now compared to people in the past. So that is proof of some evolution of longer life, but not living forever. Maybe in the future people will never die? Who knows?
     
  4. People are living longer exactly why?

    Because of biological evolution?

    Think again.

     

  5. I am not a scientist, or study religion but what if because of better medicine over time, better health care, better and more food, less stress of enviroment, that this changes a persons cells so when they have babies, their babies are stronger because they are born to a healthier person?
    But this topic is complicated, and I do not know much about it. Just wondering about that.
     
  6. If you are suggesting that longer life is a result of better medicine, better health care, better food, less stress...none of that is result of biological evolution.

    Biological evolution is not the factor.

     
  7. If people have better medicine, health care, less stress, and other changes, then maybe this changes their cells, or keeps their cells from disease, and they have babies who they pass on new cells to. This would be biological evolution.
     
  8. Not if people in poor countries who don't get better medicine, health care, less stress, etc. What we see is that people do not live longer in areas that do not benefit from the external agents of the "modern" world. We also do not measure the quality of the extended lives...many are living in America to longer time frames but exist mostly as zombies because we can keep the body alive longer through technology...their mental condition is hardly worth living...yet they count to the increase in overall lifespan. Statistics are easy to use to spread lies, and new diseases are developing all the time.

    Then the reality is not a work biological evolution but just maximizing existing biology through human technology to improve the natural function of the existing biological condition.

    It may well actually be a form of biological devolution, if the body becomes more dependent on non naturally occurring substances and situations to live the current age or a longer age.

    A simple thing to ask is if animals are living longer due to modern technology, diet, etc....or do they die at about the same rate as from the same approximate causes as hundreds of years ago.

    In addition, it is a bit like saying an engine developed a hundred of years ago would not benefit by today's more efficient fuels, etc. to improve its lifespan and productivity. If we learn to reduce friction and do so, extending the life of the engine, we have not seen an evolution of the engine itself.

    The engine didn't evolve to get more mileage or productivity, we didn't change the essential nature and design of the engine, we just learned how to help the engine "live" longer and be more productive through better fuels, lubricants, cooling, etc. A change happens which extends the life and productivity of the engine, but it is not a product of the new design of the old engine itself.

    We could just as easily be doing nothing but maximizing the biological condition without doing anything to actually change the biological condition...in this case the change is external, not a product of mutation or anything resembling natural selection and the typical ideas of evolution of species.

    The bottom line still is that every single biological organism is programmed to die, has a relatively fixed span of life, and has certain characteristics that do not change.

    We have never found a single species that mutated itself into an eternal condition, which is logically possible unless some fundamental programming resists this as a possibility...which so far it seems to have done.

    It then appears that there is something more fundamental to biological evolution than biological evolution itself, which sets it limits...and that of course is the arena that the evolutionists are terrified of.

    Of course if you want to show something "new" which appeared out of nothing, which self programmed itself out of nothing...by all means.

     

  9. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/10/2135222.htm

    Something like this. Something changed in the parent pig to make them give that characteristic to their babies.
     
  10. Yes, something changed, but it is still nothing but a glowing pig. We have bred animals for years...dog breeders, cat breeders, pig breeders, cattle breeders...but is that biological evolution producing a completely new complex species, or just mixing of the same species to get different external characteristics. It would appear that we are not generating something out of a pig which is not still just a pig.

    Can we damage the genetic structure so that future generations are mutated and carry the same damage forward?

    Sure.

    Is that evolution?

    Don't think so.



     
    #10     Feb 22, 2009