As has also been mentioned, even if man could create life in a lab - this would also prove it takes outside intelligence and life to bring forth the same. Therefore, something much greater than us would need to be at work to bring forth all of creation, with all its balance and mathematical precision.
Since we can create lightening in a lab that must mean that it takes outside intelligence to bring forth lightening.
Since we can create crude oil in a lab, that must mean that it takes outside intelligence to bring forth oil.
Since we can make fire in a lab, that must mean that it takes outside intelligence bring forth fire.
Doing something in a lab doesn't eliminate the possibility of that same thing occurring in the natural world.
You misunderstand the point. Or rather you attempt to convince others it is permissible to misunderstand.
How is the issue - not
what. Nor where. How does lightning occur in nature? How is it created in the lab?
If life were created in the lab, it would be due to intelligent agents directly manipulating materials.
Proving that the materials are capable of manipulating themselves on their own is not done by demonstrating that one can manipulate them. That's like saying because I can walk my bike across the street, my bike must be perfectly capable of walking itself across the street. (And don't forget, bikes that can't walk themselves across the street get eliminated by 'natural selection'!)
Although I sincerely trust that every single reader who happens across this thread can figure out such simple tricks, I still enjoy exposing them.
He has revealed Himself in His creation. The evidence is all around us:
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the skies declare the work of His hands" (Psalm 19:1). "I will praise Thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Thy works are wonderful and my soul knows this full well" (Psalm 139:14).
Some people believe that the balance and resilience of life to evolve and respond to massive environmental changes really does showcase the intelligence and mighty power of God.
Are these "some people" simultaneously holding that life is the result of blind chance, and that there is no evidence of
any intelligent being, let alone God, being involved in creation?
People have been known to claim contrary things. I should like to see their attempts to reconcile idea that evidence of a creator is utterly lacking with the scripture which tells us there's
no excuse for failing to acknowledge it. Can you direct my to any such writings?
I have no problem with you challenging or disputing the theory of evolution. If it is incorrect then it is incorrect. I have no allegiance to the theory. It would be great if someone could challenge it with something that doesn't mischaracterize it.
Care to support it without mischaracterizing? Any version of evolutionism which omits transformism or spontaneous generation, or any other essential godless element is sure to be offered by defenders of evolutionism who know their religion can't stand up to even casual examination.
In their "innovative" play on the straw man fallacy, they never seem to defend the teachings and beliefs they mandate for others.
I don't suppose you'd like to be the first in a long, long, long time to defend real evolutionism, would you?
Since he provides no reference to the fish story, I am inclined to pass it off as hearsay.
Actually, there's a just-so story that's probably behind this.
Human skin is unlike the skin of most mammals. Most have basically a sack of skin containing the body, while hanging loosely. This includes apes.
Human skin is fairly firmly attached to underlying tissue, and so is the skin of dolphins & whales. (Fat cells are involved, but that's a bit technical for this discussion.) So to account for this fact, someone dreamt up the idea that humans became fairly aquatic during their imagined evolution from apes.
There are a couple of proponents of this fantasy, but not much more. I don't think most evolutionists are even aware. With the implications-first reasoning they employ, I'm sure it's a welcome way to explain away the evidence any time they need it, but beyond that I don't think it's being seriously pursued.
Would that change a particular individual and cause that individual to evolve a bigger brain? No, because evolution is not about changes within an individual. Rather it is concerned with heritable traits passed on to offspring.
There's more than one version of evolutionism. And there's not much loyalty to any single brand. Not much at all.
Next - The study of Science and biology itself is commendable and very helpful. But it does not depend upon evolution, nor is it based in evolution.
Says you. However, most all biologists agree that most of biology makes no sense without the theory of evolution. According to them, there is no framework for how things operate within the sphere of life, without evolution.
Says you. I have seen a devoted evopusher say words to this effect. I have not seen any statement on the merits of evolutionism from biologists as a group.
But in evomath, one loudmouth, if he says what they want to hear, constitutes "the majority of biologists".
And all the statements we see from evolutionists which are contrary to the party line? What are we to make of them? "Out-of-context"? Not by the old definition of that term, the one with meaning! "Out-of-context" in evospeak = "something we refuse to acknowledge". Either that, or they are L-I-A-R-S. (This is not a case of false dichotomy, either.)
The majority wins because the experiments and predictions regarding evolution have been repeated.
Here we go.
1. State an experimentally testable and falsifiable hypothesis that says all life as we know it evolved from whatever you claim the original source was.
2. Show where even one such experiment has been conducted which had the potential to falsify the hypothesis.
This isn't a beauty contest. The theory of evolution went through the same trials that Special Relativity did and both are still going through.
It is a beauty contest. Do you not know what T.H. Huxley admired most about evolutionism?
Creation "scientists" have scientific claims? Point me to one and to the experiments that have been done to support such claims.
You actually think some transient reader will stumble through here and only read this one post? Most likely they'll read a few others and see just how bogus your claims are. You continue to say all sorts of false things about what's been presented on this forum.
But that's Russ' problem. I've done my job. Your inaccurate statements are posted on his forum - not mine.
Do you believe that the statements are incorrect in Genesis, yet you profess them to be correct? I don't think so. Lying requires intent to deceive. Most people who support a literal Genesis creation actually believe in a literal Genesis creation so they are not liars. They may be incorrect but they are not trying to deceive.
And those who deny the flood, exactly as predicted?
Is God's intent by providing a simple story regarding creation to be considered an attempt to deceive? The story provides a demonstration of His power over the universe and His accessibility to each person. That is no more an intent to deceive than Jesus' use of stories to provide insight into ultimate truths. So, I guess I am not calling God a liar either, unless you consider the use of stories by Jesus as a form of lying.
This babble is not my problem.
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction
Those who think they can treat His word as being second place to the flawed theories of man (which they appear to uphold as infallible truths) could very well be insulting God Himself. God is the source of all wisdom/knowledge, not an evolutionary scientist.
Could be insulting God, himself? Strangely, your assessment of the situation doesn't really scare me.
It shows.
