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.
Accusing me of lying does nothing to support your position.
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.
I look forward to your critique of any one of the "creating life" experiments. I will be especially interested to in your pointing out the exact places in the experiments where the materials are directly manipulated and how prevention of that manipulation would significantly affect the outcome of the experiment.
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'!)
I forgot that no chemicals react with each other in nature. It wasn't until people put those chemicals together in a lab that they reacted. I guess fire (a chemical reaction) didn't exist until man made it because materials are incapable of manipulating themselves.
Although I sincerely trust that every single reader who happens across this thread can figure out such simple tricks, I still enjoy exposing them.
And haughty also. I guess your type of Christian is better than everyone else so you get to make judgments.
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?
No. Being a Christian, you should believe that God is in control of all things. Seems rather disingenuous of you to now say that anything is blind chance. Even so, can you show me the evidence, besides inference of design, that any scientist can use to conclusively show an intelligence was involved in the process by which the diversity of life resulted on this planet?
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?
Surely Paul could never make a mistake in his writings. He never believed that he would see the Philippians again on Earth when he actually would not (Philippians 1:25). He didn't really think that believers shouldn't get married...did he? (1 Cor 7). Maybe he felt that population control was in order. Good thing Christ's followers didn't listen to him. 2000 years of no children would pretty much decimate the Christian ranks.
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.
please define "transformism" or I will be unable to address that issue. Also, please show me where "spontaneous generation" is considered a possibility in any of the abiogenesis hypotheses that you know of.
Why do you feel that those elements (transformism and spontaneous generation) must be a part of the theory of evolution? Maybe they must be a part of "evolutionism", whatever that is, but you will be hard pressed to fine a biologist who would say that the theory of evolution even includes abiogenesis, much less spontaneous generation.
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?
I won't defend something that you won't define.
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.
I have skinned many animals and I will say that there are connections between the skin and the muscles typically via fat cell structures. Removal of deer hide requires the use of a knife at times. I don't have any references that say human skin is that much different so could you point me to a reference that shows this difference?
As far as the "just-so story" is concerned, without any further evidence to support it, I would have to categorize it as an unsubstantiated explanation. What was your point in bringing it up?
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.
There's more than one version of Christianity. And there's not much loyalty to any single brand. Not much at all. You claim that internal disagreements on the mechanisms of evolution means that evolution is false. I guess since there are those that believe in tongues as a manifestation of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and others that say it is false, then Christianity must be false. If it wasn't, then everyone would agree on all doctrines.
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.
How about
a survey or
Project Steve? Project Steve is a listing of scientists named Steve who agree with the following statement:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
Or did you need all biologists to agree with that statement?
But in evomath, one loudmouth, if he says what they want to hear, constitutes "the majority of biologists".
I'd say that the survey pretty much eliminates the idea that it is just one loudmouth.
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.)
Being wrong doesn't make you a liar. Do you call your child a liar if he spells a word wrong on a test?
Each statement should be evaluated on its own merits. In most cases I have seen the scientist who was quoted point out that it is either a misquote or that it is out of context. Obviously, that doesn't cover all statements, so each quote should be looked at and placed back in context to verify that it actually was meant the way the quoter is implying.
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.
There was no multicellular life in the beginning, if there is shown to be multicellular life earlier in the geologic column then the common single-celled ancestor idea is falsified.
2. Show where even one such experiment has been conducted which had the potential to falsify the hypothesis.
The search for fish-amphibian transitional in a particular level in the geologic column. If a fully developed reptile were found then that would have falsified the fish-amphibian-reptile 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?
T.H. Huxley's degree in biology was from what institution? Who gives a rip about some writer's opinion about evolution? That says nothing about the theory itself.
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.
You could have easily pointed to one of those experiments cited on another post, if they existed, but instead throw in a threat. How typical.
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?
The prediction doesn't require the deniers to be lying....just wrong.
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.
Since you take everything in the Bible literally then I would like $1000.00 please (Luke 6:30).
