1 registered members (AbrahamR),
717
guests, and 4
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far
[Re: Impaler]
#210966
06/14/08 07:53
06/14/08 07:53
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,140 Baunatal, Germany
Tobias
Moderator
|
Moderator
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,140
Baunatal, Germany
|
You are right about the Urey-Miller experiment: It does not prove that life could not have arisen by chance. However it does prove that it could not have come about by that process, and that is the only theory that I know of (besides from outer space, but that just moves the problem to space, doesn't it?) Actually as far as I know there are about 10 different plausible theories about the origin of life. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_lifeScience at the moment does not know which of the 10 is right, if any. Thats still one of the gaps in our knowledge but does not mean that God sits in all those gaps. If He did, he would become smaller and smaller as our knowledge grows and the gaps are getting smaller and smaller. Thats why I do not believe that you can find God in gaps, as Creationists think. Also, the amino acids will not form in the presence of oxygen, and oxygen is just as much a part of water vapour as hydrogen is, Tobias. Thats a misunderstanding, Impaler. Amino acids will form in the presence of water vapor. Only pure oxygen O2 or O3 can prevent the forming of long amino chains, but pure oxygen was not present in the early atmosphere.
|
|
|
Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far
[Re: Tobias]
#210982
06/14/08 09:38
06/14/08 09:38
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128 Papua New Guinea
Impaler
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128
Papua New Guinea
|
Yes, I had a look at that Wikipedia page and I see 5 models for the formation of life, all of which involve either the synthesis of compounds by random chance or some kind of pre-life "natural selection". Frankly I found the Urey-Miller experiment the most convincing. How you can say that NH3 is hydrogen but H20 is not oxygen makes no sense to me. Pure oxygen was not present in the early atmosphere.
That is an absurd thing to say. Just take a look at this page: Miller-Urey experiment The existence of oxygen in a "primitive atmosphere" is controverial. To dismiss it as absent is to evade the argument. By the way, I am not trying to prove God's existence by showing the shortcomings of evolution. I am trying to demonstrate that creationism is a plausible theory, and that belief in God's existence does not mean belief in an un-scientific and old-fashioned theory. Evolution is a theory, not a law, and it is important that people know this.
Murphey's Law: << if anything can go wrong, it will >> (Murphey was an optimist).
|
|
|
Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far
[Re: Impaler]
#211005
06/14/08 12:02
06/14/08 12:02
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
But are you sinning any less than them? At least I would expect to deserve to have the same chances as Adam and Eve We got started as super men and super women , then step by step because of our sins...
Last edited by AlbertoT; 06/14/08 12:02.
|
|
|
Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far
[Re: AlbertoT]
#211057
06/14/08 17:42
06/14/08 17:42
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121 Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
|
But are you sinning any less than them? At least I would expect to deserve to have the same chances as Adam and Eve We got started as super men and super women , then step by step because of our sins... SinYou said that God is almighty and knows everything. He rules over time and space. If all this applies then He must have realized the sinning from the beginning. So why he offered the snake and the apple to Adam and Eve? He must have known that they will fail. He created them. He could have made them robust against sin. He could have made them that way that they dislike forbidden apples and don't want to talk with snakes. But he did not. So the sin must have been an initial part of his design. PunishmentIf God already knew of his weak creatures and of the sin that will happen then he already knew that he will punish them with banning from paradise and with the flood and all that. So why he designed us so weak to punish us? Is he an evil child? Does he like the punishments? Very strange situation.
Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
|
|
|
Not a theological discussion
[Re: Tobias]
#211124
06/15/08 06:01
06/15/08 06:01
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128 Papua New Guinea
Impaler
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128
Papua New Guinea
|
Everything God does will eventually result in greater glory for Him, and the redemption of mankind is that fulfillment. If you want more Christian, theological answers, read the Bible (more specifically the New Testament). It will tell you much better than I will, although I suppose this forum isn't even meant to be about the Bible.
Murphey's Law: << if anything can go wrong, it will >> (Murphey was an optimist).
|
|
|
Re: Not a theological discussion
[Re: Impaler]
#211165
06/15/08 11:06
06/15/08 11:06
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121 Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
|
Ok. Then it cannot be answered. The bible is a book about murder, sin, inbreeding, many story collected over a long period of time similar to stories of other religions.
It will not answer my questions. It will raise even more questions.
Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
|
|
|
Re: Not a theological discussion
[Re: Impaler]
#211204
06/15/08 16:54
06/15/08 16:54
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177 Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Everything God does will eventually result in greater glory for Him, and the redemption of mankind is that fulfillment. If you want more Christian, theological answers, read the Bible (more specifically the New Testament). It will tell you much better than I will, although I suppose this forum isn't even meant to be about the Bible. How do you know everything God does will eventually result in 'greater glory for Him' (whatever that means, please explain) ???? I totally agree with Frank here, if you're talking about looking for answers, then the Bible only raises more questions for me as well...
|
|
|
Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far
[Re: Impaler]
#211431
06/16/08 16:53
06/16/08 16:53
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 33 Russia/Netherlands
Hand_Of_Law
Newbie
|
Newbie
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 33
Russia/Netherlands
|
By the way, I am not trying to prove God's existence by showing the shortcomings of evolution. I am trying to demonstrate that creationism is a plausible theory, and that belief in God's existence does not mean belief in an un-scientific and old-fashioned theory. Evolution is a theory, not a law, and it is important that people know this.
Could you describe exactly the theory of creationism you find plausible, and how it describes the origins of the universe, life and speciation on a scientific way ?
|
|
|
|