MrDeets
TOL Subscriber
AHA! Thanks. That's a better answer than I gave... :thumb:
I agree with this. I remember being this way. :bang:
Science for a pre-sin world
- Thread starter Greg Jennings
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
it would be more persuasive if they could reproduce it (abogenesis) in the lab
:think: same thing with evolution, for that matter
How am I derailing this thread? All I did was ask a straightforward question based on something you said. Will you answer it?
:chuckle:
I see a rational discussion is beyond you. No wonder you stick with posting links.
MrDeets
TOL Subscriber
They're working on it, and learning more all the time. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. :idunno: This article is far from absolute proof, but it is intriguing...http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum
That statement shows exactly how well you understand evolution. "Evolution"(artificial selection is a better term when humans guide or influence it) is "duplicated" in agriculture, the breeding of animals, vaccines, etc. Duplicating natural selection in a lab would prove zilch, because it's a forced duplication under scientific circumstances. Natural selection or "evolution" is being observed all over the world, though I'm sure you'd call it "micro", which would even farther demonstrate your lack of understanding.
Right Divider
Body part
Something out of nothing. Interesting "theory".
6days
New member
So far the attempts to produce life in a lab has shown that extreme intelligence is required.
6days
New member
Observed.... Hmmm... We observe rapid adaptation. (Creationist model). We observe this adaptation is possible because of pre-existing information in the genome and pre-existing mechanisms. We observe that 'natural selection' is unable to create anything, and is usually quite impotent at deleting anything. We observe that mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious and even the rare beneficial outcome, usually is a result of destroyed pre-existing information. (Such as loss of specificity of an enzyme). We observe that kinds such as cats, and dogs, and horses, and butterflies and apple trees reproduce after their kind.
What we observe "all over the world" is evidence supporting the Biblical Creator. These are exciting times to be a Christian.
There is no analogy. You cannot believe in logic and say there is no God. I wonder to which camp you subscribe. That everything must be an accident, or everything was designed and created.
Right Divider
Body part
How dare you claim that there is an immaterial world out there that atheists and agnostics cannot test under a microscope!
MrDeets. That's only true if you believe in magic and ignore reality. As science progresses, common descent becomes more ridiculous than it already is.
Greg Jennings
New member
Welp.....I backed off completely gave this a couple days in hope that someone would offer what I was asking for: scientific evidence of a pre-sin world or of a time when all creatures were vegetarians and nobody died. So far the closest thing I've gotten (and it's not close to being scientific) is "Genesis 1." If that counts as science then so does The Odyssey, meaning that scylla and cyclops are real. That's doubtful
So can the creationists here admit that there is NO scientific evidence for their origin story, and that it's simply a belief with no substantiating evidence?
And finally quit trumpeting that "science supports Genesis"?
So can the creationists here admit that there is NO scientific evidence for their origin story, and that it's simply a belief with no substantiating evidence?
And finally quit trumpeting that "science supports Genesis"?
Last edited:
Greg Jennings
New member
If that's true then why has it been consistently being accepted at increasing numbers in the scientific community over the past 100 years? Now it's to the point that it's almost unanimous among scientists that evolution is very real and observable (north of 99%).
So if science is making it appear more and more ridiculous every day, why don't the scientists think that?
Evolutionists hate reading.
Greg Jennings
New member
Mmhmm.....because scientists, people who write and meticulously proofread papers and do tedious studies in order to gather research for those papers in order for other scientists to read and review those papers, hate reading.
It all makes sense now
Because the evidence — along with a prediction — was given to you, but you, an evolutionist, have pretended not to have seen anything.
Greg Jennings
New member
Care to direct me to the page on this thread where the evidence is listed? Or if you want post the evidence again right here and prove me, the evolutionist who has pretended to not see it or lied about not seeing it, wrong.
You can validate your claim that evolutionists are dishonest/illiterate right now Stripe. This is the chance of your lifetime. Don't pass it up
Greg Jennings
New member
You passed it up. Why I wonder?