The Religion Of Evolution And Infinite Typing Monkeys , , ,

Ahh , , you quote my lengthy post and IGNORE all that was said and then
request that I "enlighten" you on a point/
I don't think I will do that today. Maybe later and maybe not later.


Best.

JAG

 

Getting from point A to point B

Scientist: “What possible path could have been taken?”

Creationist:: “There was no path, everything was placed at the end by a higher power.”

Scientist: “Ok, but lets theoretically ask, “If there were a path, what would that look like, how would it start, and where would it end?”

Creationist: “You don’t have the right to ask questions. It happened one way and one way only.”

Scientist: “Yea, ok, I get that, but I’m just asking what it would look like and what experiments you could run if a path did exist?“ ”I have some data, it’s not complete or definitive in any way, but it at least may provide some more questions.”

Creationist: “You don’t have any evidence, or all your evidence is superficial.”

Scientist: “That could be true, but should I stop asking questions and then testing them every time they “may” make you feel like your beliefs are being challenged?”

Creationist: “Yes.”

 

It’s all a matter of the method accepted for accumulating knowledge.

 

An Taibhse,
This issue is not as "cut and dried" and as simple as your cartoons
assume it to be. There is more to be said than assuming "Creationists"
are stupid and assuming "Scientists" to be smart.

Modernpalidin Wrote:
"[.....] , , . I think evolution is the most likely and most accurate
(though not definitive or entirely accurate) depictionof the process
as it occurred in our reality. But I am ultimately a creationist.
It seems most likely to me that the Creation Story
depicted in The Bible is from the spiritual perspective and
attempting to describe the process in those terms. From our
perspective (had we been conscious to witness it) we would
have seen days 5 and 6 of the creation story take place
over hundreds of millions of years. God is timeless. If
Evolution is viewed through extreme 'fast forward', its
not meaningfully different from Creation by the 'unseen
hand' guiding the mutations and adaptations toward a
specific design.

So I am one example of a believer in Evolution but not
abiogenesis (at least not on its fundamental level that
it occurred by chance).:_______Modernpalidin
{in this thread}
Link:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-typing-monkeys.578368/page-4#post-1072052847

_________________________


An Taibhse,

Your cartoons do not take into consideration the issues/questions
I raised in my post down there. See if you can find some cartoons
that explain how a one-celled speck crawled up {or washed up}
out of the Primordial Slime and eventually became a "Ronald
Reagan" and an "An Taibhse" and a "Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

In light of your cartoons, see the section I titled {with a bolded red}
"Theistic Evolution" down-post and make a mental note that
Theistic Evolution renders your cartoons incorrect and meaningless.
,

Evolutionists claim that , , ,

~ natural selection
and
~ :random mutation
and
~ atoms and molecules
and
~ chemical reactions
and
~ etc etc etc

plus
unthinking non-intelligent Time
plus
unthinking non-intelligent Chance
plus
unthinking non-intelligent Matter , , ,

, , eventually produced a situation where our ancestors crawled
up out of the Primordial Slime or Primordial Soup, at first just a
tiny speck, later to become the size of a dime, later to become the
size of a golf ball, later to become a Bullfrog or Whatever You Say It Was
later to become a Monkey or a Chimp, later to become a "George W. Bush."

____________


Moreover, , , Evolutionists believe that , , ,


~ unthinking non-intelligent Time
plus
~ unthinking non-intelligent Chance
plus
~ unthinking non-intelligent Matter , , ,

. . . produced a , , ,

■ highly complex Human Brain
and
■ a highly complex Human Eye
and
■ a highly complex Fully Functioning Human Body
and
■ a highly complex Earth
and
■ a highly complex Universe.
and eventually produced a , , ,
■ "George W. Bush"

_____________


It takes a lot of Faith to believe all that up there.
And my view is that anybody who believes all that
up there is a Great Man Of Faith -- this is why I
speak about the Religion Of Evolution.

Speaking about Faith , ,
{Theistic Evolution}
I do NOT say that Evolution is not true.

Theistic Evolution may be the way it happened.
My view is that it has NOT been scientifically proved
that the one-celled speck in the Primordial Slime eventually
became "Oprah Winfrey" and "Joe Biden" , ,

, , but, , ,

, , Evolution is not a crucial issue for the Christian anyway.

Millions of us say Evolutionists have NOT scientifically proved
that "George W. Bush" started off as a single-celled speck that
"came up out of the Slime" -- but even if they do, one day, prove
that it happened that way, So what? Who cares?

We Christians will forever believe in the God that created the highly
complex Human Person, the highly complex Human Brain, the highly
complex Human Eye, the highly complex Earth, the highly complex
Universe, and all that exists --- how He did it, is interesting but it has
zero to do with our Faith in God , ,,

, , , repeat , , ,

how He did it, is interesting but it has zero to do with
our Faith in God , ,,

"Have Faith in God."___The Lord Jesus {Mark 11:22}

JAG

``

 

Again, you're welcome.
All men know there is a God -- Romans 1:18-20 says they know it.

Points:

I would encourage you to post it all even though your post will
be against my ideas and hostile to what I have written.

You write interesting posts.

Your voice needs to be heard.

If you have gone to the trouble to compose your rebuttal to what
I have written -- my view is you ought to post it.

Your posting it might be somewhat of a catharsis for you.

Your post will not be to lengthy. I doubt that it will be anywhere
near the length of some of the "Data Dumps" that some people
post inside Thread World.

My view is that you do NOT burden the Forum with your lengthy
posts.

However if you feel that the post you wrote is to lengthy even
if you post it in parts -- you can break it up into even smaller
portions and present it that way.

My view is that nobody will be bothered or "burdened" by your
lengthy post, so again, I encourage you to post what you have
composed as a rebuttal to my ideas.

Best.

JAG

"Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by
prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests
to God."___Philippians 4:6



``

 

Diablo,

Who are "theses people"?

Do you consider Modernpaladin to be one of "these people"?

Here is what Modernpaladin said in this very thread:

Modernpalidin Wrote:
"[.....] , , . I think evolution is the most likely and most accurate
(though not definitive or entirely accurate) depictionof the process
as it occurred in our reality. But I am ultimately a creationist.
It seems most likely to me that the Creation Story
depicted in The Bible is from the spiritual perspective and
attempting to describe the process in those terms. From our
perspective (had we been conscious to witness it) we would
have seen days 5 and 6 of the creation story take place
over hundreds of millions of years. God is timeless. If
Evolution is viewed through extreme 'fast forward', its
not meaningfully different from Creation by the 'unseen
hand' guiding the mutations and adaptations toward a
specific design.

So I am one example of a believer in Evolution but not
abiogenesis (at least not on its fundamental level that
it occurred by chance).:_______Modernpalidin
{in this thread}
Link:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-typing-monkeys.578368/page-4#post-1072052847


`____________________________________________________



"These people"__Diablo , , ,
________

Diablo,

Everybody does not have to agree 100% on everything in order to
be able to make some valuable points for the consideration of other
people. Some of "these people" might have something worthwhile
to offer you. No one man knows it all.


______________________________________________________




I guess I am one of "these people" even though I have posted the
following several times:

JAG Wrote:
I do NOT say that Evolution is not true.

Theistic Evolution may be the way it happened.
My view is that it has NOT been scientifically proved
that the one-celled speck in the Primordial Slime eventually
became "Oprah Winfrey" and "Joe Biden"
End quote
Link:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-typing-monkeys.578368/page-6#post-1072066682

Best.

JAG


"For I know the plans I have for you, declares
the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm
you, plans to give you hope and a future."
__Jeremiah 29:11



```

 

Getting from point A to point B
That is, from Atheism to Belief.

Scientist: I sometimes wonder if our "Natural Selection" can actually carry the heavy
load we have placed upon it?

Creationist: I too have some doubts. I don't always fully understand the Creation Story
in Genesis. Some of your fellow scientists have accused me of believing in a "talking
snake"

Scientist: Well, they ought not to have accused you of that. Obviously the snake was
metaphorical language, everybody knows snakes cannot talk.

Creationist: Thanks I'm glad you understand that. The snake represented Evil and
delivered the message that Evil always delivers.

Scientist: What message is that?

Creationist: That humans can be their own God.

Scientist: I don't understand. What do you mean "be their own God"?

Creationist: Its easy to understand. The snake, that is Evil, told Eve that if she ignored
God's commands and did what she wanted to do, that she would become like God.

Scientist: What was the exact words and where is that found?

Creationist: The exact words were "you will be like God" and its found in Genesis 3:5

Scientist: You believe Christ saved us from Evil, is that correct?

Creationist: Yes that's right, the Lord Jesus saved us from Evil, the Evil that will destroy
our souls if we do not have a Savior to deliver us from the strength and power of Evil.

Scientist: I don't understand that. Explain to me how Jesus can deliver us from Evil and
prevent us from being destroyed by it.

Creationist: Jesus took your punishment on the Cross.

Scientist: I don't understand that. That makes no sense to me.

Creationist: Its not difficult to understand, Evil is not only severely punishable but it will also
destroy the total person if it is not stopped and reversed.

Scientist: You said Evil is punishable?

Creationist: That is correct. The Bible teaches that God will punish all men who do evil.

Scientist: Well, I know that all men have done at least some Evil.

Creationist: That is correct and God will punish men for all their Evil if they do not believe
in His Son the Lord Jesus who took their punishment in their place.

Scientist: In their place?

Creationist: Yes in their place on the Cross. Christ took your punishment so you would
not have to bear it yourself.

Scientist: Where in the Bible does it say that?

Creationist: In 1 Peter 2:24 it says "He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross,
so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been
healed."

Scientist: My mother taught me the words of John 3:16 when I was a young boy, and I
have never forgotten them, it goes like this "For God so loved the world that He gave
His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have Eternal Life."

Creationist: Yes, for God so loved the world that He punished His own Son for the sins
of the world so that we humans would not have to bear the excruciating pain and agony
that Christ bore for us on the Cross.

Scientist: I once, long ago, prayed the sinner's prayer. I remember I prayed to God
something along the lines of "Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your
forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my
sins and invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You
as my Lord and Savior."

Creationist: Did you understand what you were praying?

Scientist: No at the time I did not. In fact I have never understood it.

Creationist: There is nothing more profound than the simple words of John 3:16.

Scientist: Christianity has always seems complicated to me. Are you saying that
Christianity is simple and not complicated?

Creationist: Yes and quite simple too.

Scientist: Can you give an example of Christianity's simplicity?

Creationist: A man known to be a brilliant intellectual was asked to deliver a speech to
a college assembly and he was asked to present the most profound truth he had ever
come across in his decades of studies. When the time came for his speech, he walked
to the podium and looked out over the audience for a long time, without saying a word.
Time passed and people began to get nervous. At long last the speaker spoke and he
said this, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Then without saying
another word he went back to his seat. Many in the audience wept silently as the
supernatural power of the Holy Spirit made that brief message real to their hearts.

Ending:

The Scientist once again prayed the simple sinner's prayer and he prayed from his heart
"Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You
died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come
into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my Lord and Savior."

Then an amazing thing happened. The supernatural power of the Holy Spirit enlightened
the mind of the Scientist so that he could now understand spiritual truths and the Scientist
turned away from his Atheism and became a believing Christian.

__________________

"The Lord Has Laid On Him The Iniquity Of Us All" , , ,
"He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all."
Isaiah 53:3-6

________

Best.


JAG

``

 

There's a great article in Scientific American which shows how hands originated from the fins of fish. I can't post it 'cos of the paywall, but this references it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elpistostege
Elpistostege is an extinct genus of tetrapod-like vertebrate that lived in the Late Devonian period (Late Givetian to Early Frasnian). Fossils of its skull and a part of its backbone have been found in rocks of the Escuminac Formation in Quebec, Canada. A complete specimen of the animal has since been found in the same formation. It has been proposed, by the palaeontologist Richard Cloutier at Université du Québec à Rimouski, that this species may dethrone its close relative Tiktaalik in the position of the most primitive stem-tetrapod, though phylogenetic analyses have shown them to be very close relatives. The fossil suggests that human hands likely evolved, eventually, from the fins of this fish, according to Cloutier, who claimed "[1]It is the first time that digits, as seen in tetrapods, are found in a fin covered by scales and fin rays, as seen in fishes."
No mention of a creator, though.........

 

This is a nice site, try it out, you might learn something - and never a creator in sight:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blog...-decades-biggest-discoveries-human-evolution/
Quote:
Ancient DNA
DNA tells us a lot about who we are now. But we also look to ancient DNA to learn about our origins.

When the decade first started, scientists recovered ancient genetic material from a fossilized finger bone found in the Denisova Cave in Siberia. They tested that material and discovered that the DNA didn’t match that of modern humans or Neanderthals. Instead, it belonged to a previously undiscovered species of early humans now called Denisovans. It was the first time a new species has been identified using ancient DNA.

What does this tell us? The human genome is a wondrous archive of our relationships with ancient species no longer around.

 

A really stupid piece of "design":

Let’s consider some aspects that would ashame God if He would’ve really made it. Instead we can simply explain some ankward stuff we find around the living world thanks to evolution.

Let’s talk about the title: A nerve stupidly long. A real example of stupid design.

Through evolution and embrional development many things change. One of them is the evolution from the Gills to our ears and lrynx. During the development of fishes, a nerve (neuronal cells) is formed that connects the brain to the 4th gillian arch, one of the arch which will form the Gills (the organ which through fishes absorb oxygen, breathing). Ok, if a fish need this nerve we are cool. What happened to us? We still have this nerve, but we don’t have gills anymore. Instead the nerve goes from the brain to our Larynx. That’s cool too.

There’s one single problem. From the 3rd gillian arch the Aorta forms. Where is the problem? That the Larynx nerve has to pass behind the Aorta before going up to the Larynx because mechanical constraints derived from the initail “project”.


A sketch of the situation illustrated. We can see the evolution of the structure of the gillian arches into the 3 (4th, 5th and 6th) arch arteries. On the left the situation make sense, but on the right we can see that the nerve, called the left reccurent laryngeal nerve, is obliged to pass over the ductus arteriosus, which would be the Aorta in mammals.
Imagine the hearth and all the tubes that get out it. The left Reccurent laryngeal nerve must go down from the brain, pass over the Aorta and go back up to the larynx. That’s is obviously an example of stupid design, perfectly explainable in the light of evolution. For the body is actually a waste of resource, the nerve could do a far shorter journey from the brain to the larynx, howevere, this was the project, and it never changed.

Someone could think, well that’s actually some centimeters longer than the optimal length. Although this should be a problem anyway, because nature tends to optimize everything, we actually have a quite short neck. Can you think of an animal with a longer neck? Yes. The Giraffe has the same problem! Which means, that giraffes have a left reccurent laryngeal nerve almost 4 meters long !! That’s a waste of resources!

Evolution can be as smart as stupid, sometimes it can be even hilarious. Let me tell you a story..

 

Where did those 'rules' come from? Random chance?

 

https://answersingenesis.org/human-...ting-the-record-straight-on-vestigial-organs/

 

Physics.

 

Religious nonsense with no proof. "Answersingenesis" rubbish.

 

Anytime I read nonsense like is in the OP, it reminds me of Kirk Cameron, who thinks a banana peel is proof god exists. Don't ask me to explain the logic, but something like, without god, how would the peel know to be the exact shape of the fruit inside.

"I don't understand it, so it must not be true," is not a valid argument.

 

An Taibhse,

This below has been posted in the thread a few times. This below
seems to satisfy your objection up there, does it not? Do you think
it could be true? Suppose it is true. You do not KNOW that it is
not true, do you? Do you have Empirical Evidence that demonstrates
that it could not have happened the way Modernpalidin presented it?

Modernpalidin Wrote:
"Many probably do, but not all. I think evolution is the most likely
and most accurate (though not definitive or entirely accurate)
depiction of the process as it ocurred in our reality. But I am
ultimately a creationist. It seems most likely to me that the
Creation Story depicted in The Bible is from the spiritual
perspective and attempting to describe the process in
those terms. From our perspective (had we been conscious
to witness it) we would have seen days 5 and 6 of the
creation story take place over hundreds of millions of
years. God is timeless. If Evolution is viewed through
extreme 'fast forward', its not meaningfully different
from Creation by the 'unseen hand' guiding the
mutations and adaptations toward a specific design.

So I am one example of a believer in Evolution but
not abiogenesis (at least not on its fundamental
level that it occurred by chance)."
End quote.
Link:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-typing-monkeys.578368/page-4#post-1072052847

Best.

JAG

___________

"He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross,
so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness;
"by his wounds you have been healed."__1 Peter 2:24


``

 

Good question but nature still follows rules. Like gravity, chemistry, math etc.

 

I will address your question briefly. In parts. First is the question beginnings. If one were to encounter an entity claiming to be responsible for creating our universe, in terms of questions someone of curiosity would ask, is ok then who/what made the creator of our universe? It’s a line of origins questioning that results in an infinite series of question of origins... who/what made the creator of the creator? Followed by who/what made the creator of the creatorwho/what made the creator of the creator of the creator... and on and on and on...
Second, to those not believing in biogenesis, I’d ash, which part? What aspect of biogenesis is rejected? And, if you are not aware of the current state of the research and how much we’ve learned over that last couple decades then what is the basis for rejecting the notion that we won’t sort the possibilities of being able to explain how life emerged as a natural consequence of the chemical interactions of known elements? Current research is showing the possibility that organic molecules are inevitable consequence of given the known properties chemical elements that are in abundance in our solar system and on our planet? We’ve come a long way from the philosophers of old speculating about the spontaneous emergence of life as simply pure chance.
Third, if you believe in God the creator, or intelligent design, how does accepting Evolution Theory and Natural Selection challenge that belief, unless your belief is dependent on a specific explanation for humans and the diversity of species is based on a specific narrative of events? Understanding evolution is entirely independent of both theories quantum mechanics and cosmological origins theory.
I would suggest an understanding of how biogenesis resulted in carbon based life is far nearer than many might believe; the puzzle is being gradually unraveled.
Forth, if we can show how biogenesis might have happened, it does not mean we know that our model is what actually happened. There may be more than one possible solution and it may be, while Carbon based life may seem an easy candidate a natural path to life, it may not be the only possible path, but without finding non carbon based life it may be more difficult proposition for understanding.
This is a video providing a relatively easy to digest where research,
[video] [/video]
the findings and some remaining challenges, stood at one point, though it may not show recent progress that is emerging such as
https://www.universetoday.com/14282...f-evidence-that-explains-the-origins-of-life/
Personally, I don’t understand why a belief in your God, your Bible, or intelligent design requires rejecting science inquiry and curiosity associated with applying the methods of understanding nature. Seems to me these are not mutually exclusive lines of thought, so why argue they are?

 

While I could address several items, and did a bit on biogenesis above, I will assures on the Believers Of intelligent design often site as criticism to the Theory of Evolution, that of the complexity of the human eye.
First, many different senses have emerged among different species as a result natural selection for navigation, avoiding predators and seeking food sources beyond the solution of the eye as a light sensitive sensory solution such as those to exploit smell, sound, taste, electric current, heat, touch, and vibration. Then too, light solutions for different species are varied and often reflect the environmental conditions particular species are adapted to exploit. Eyes, sensory solutions, that are adapted for exploiting light have independently evolved many times in different species, with different properties and forms. There are single cell organisms that don’t have specific light focusing functionality, but are never the less light sensing. There are multi faceted eyes, eyes that sense different parts of the spectrum than us, such as those of bees that see in ultraviolet, or snakes that can see in thermal infrared, or nocturnal or deep ocean species that have better sensitivity to dim light, eyes adapted to see movement, eyes of some species of birds with great acuity, multiple eye solutions of some arachnids, eyes positioned for 360 degree vision for predator avoidance, and eyes of some predators (and aboral dweller) positioned for depth vision. Amazingly, what species have evolved what for specific light sensing solutions span a spectrum (pun intended) eyes adapted for life in specific environments. That humans have the eyes they do can easily be seen, not to be the best design as you’d expect if intelligently designed, but eyes that are adapted for the environment and means of navigation/hunting, etc. that humans, and our ancestors have exploited. Human eyes are not optimum Swiss Army knife tools you’d expect if designed by a creator; they lack the acuity of species like birds, are inferior to some species of nocturnal animals, often are prone to lens distortion, resulting in near/far vision, prone to developing cataracts in age, lack transparent skin covering protection like some lizard species, and have other short comings. Intelligent design? Umm, better explained by evolution and natural selection which doesn’t always result in optimum design...

 

The following is not a response to any one person.

JAG Writes:

Proposition: If it is possible, given enough tries, it is inevitable

You have to produce absolute proof that , ,,
999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999, trillion
to the power of
999,999,999,999, 999, 999,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,, 999.999.999.999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999, trillion Dice
if thrown in the air, enough times, will inevitably, all come up all 6's

``
Then add this , , ,
For all you know for a fact, it might take 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,999,999,999, trillion times MORE than that up there , ,
to equal the complexity of the total Earth and every single thing on the Earth. You simply can NOT , , KNOW , , what the actual level of complexity is.
And if you say you DO know, then you are speaking as a Man Of Faith.

"If it is possible, then given enough tries, it is inevitable" is
a Faith Belief. And it does not matter how high the numbers go
on your principle ALL the dice at some point MUST come up all 6's

And THAT is absurd. It is absurd to believe that is even a remote
possibility.

_______________


And I am not going to believe the absurd in the name of Logic.
So?
So I will have to rephrase the original proposition that said,
"If it is possible, given enough tries, it is inevitable"
and change that to this , ,
"If it is possible, then given enough tries, it is inevitable, but the absurd is not possible." , , ,
and we are all allowed to "revise and extend" our remarks. We have a name for that. We call it "learning."

So?

So I now go with this:
"If it is possible, then given enough tries, it is inevitable, but the absurd is not possible."___JAG

JAG


``

 

Points:

■ God is your God too.
All men know there is a God. Romans 1:18-20

■ A belief in God, the Bible, and Intelligent Design may NOT
be mutually exclusive lines of thought.

■ Science has not proven with Empirical Evidence that
a one-celled speck crawled up {or washed up} out of the
Primordial Slime and eventually became a "Ronald
Reagan" and an "An Taibhse" and a "Ruth Bader
Ginsburg." If you believe that, it is a Faith Based Belief.

■ Nobody knows exactly how we all got here. Humans may
discover in the year 10,000 A.D. scientific truths that
make major adjustments in all the major theories held
so dear here now in the year 2020.

JAG


"You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless,
Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a
righteous person, though for a good person someone might
possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love
for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans chapter 5


``

 

[/QUOTE]■ God is your God too.
All men know there is a God. Romans 1:18-20[/QUOTE]
Your opinion, but as I have posted previously, it is erroneous, because I do not share that KNOWING, nor in any sense of life and death desperation have I reached out to a God. There may be a GOD, or GODS, or none at all. The prospect of any of those options is equally provable, unless you have already bought into a believe in one answer. And, the last time I checked, I was a man. So,nagain,nyour opinion, but doesn’t make it true.

Was that a refutal to an argument being made or even relevant to a discussion of abiogenesis, evolution, and a God Did it discussion?

Funny how religious folk like to invoke the language of science, asking for ‘empirical evidence’ when they will dismiss any evidence contrary to their entrenched beliefs; no evidence will suffice. You either believe in the supernatural which is outside of the domain of science, or adopt the epistemological framework using methods of the scientific method or the epistemological framework of faith in the supernatural, but you can’t use one framework to challenge the other.
It is likely we will never know what specifically triggered life to occur on this planet a few billion years ago even if we can demonstrate one or more possible solutions for abiogenesis, which as I posted, previously is not only possible, but, IMO, is probable. It appears researchers are getting closer to understanding given the progress of the recent research; we already have a pretty good idea of both how the pieces should fit together, how the basic chemistry of RNA/DNA works, the possible mechanics of replication, and have identified many of the remaining challenges for demonstrating one or more possible solutions. Among the questions is, pondering if there is only one possible solution or multiple solutions. We have already understood the chemical means RNA could be self assembled given knowledge of how chemical elements, abundant on the earth and the universe, why carbon made a good basis for RNA/DNA as a building block for life, and even demonstrated how the request compost result in combining with chirality handedness we observe in RNA/DNA structure, and why genetic material s highly folded (also provides indication why I claim that design makes genetic variation inevitable for a natural selection process in replication), among other discoveries. Nature had nearly a billion years and untold trillions of opportunistic chemical bonding events to get it right at least once; researchers working on experimenting with working out the specific requisite chiral combinations have only been doing so at this level of granularity for a decade and a half.
At a higher level we are already successfully demonstrating DNA decoding and editing and are moving rapidly toward further developing the technology. CRISPR technology is rapidly progressing but also, we are beginning to understand multiple ways of reading/encoding DNA, including developing a high level programming language to make it faster/easier to perform those operations and we are working toward multiple solutions for delivering edits to live hosts, effectively enabling re-engineering a living host’s DNA, DNA that will be passed along in reproduction.
As for the evolutionary path responsible for me, Reagan, or a Ginsberg our DNA already can be decoded to provide a general idea of our ancestry, our common genetic relations, and that of a common primordial ancestor, simply because we follow the identical pattern of blueprint common to that of all thus far known life. In this regard, there is empirical evidence consistent with understanding of our genetic origins.

Since the scientific method became an approach to understanding nature, our knowledge of nature, of ourselves, has progressed more in the last two to three hundred years than the thousands of years before. One aspect of knowledge and technology is it’s growth has become exponential. If you monitor a site like, phys.org over a month or two, it is hard to miss how rapidly new discoveries are being made. So, 10,000 ad? I think you far underestimate how rapidly human understanding is progressing. Then too, our assisting tech is improving; we are beginning to improve tech such as machine learning, working on quantum computing devices, working on neuralmorphfc computing, making strides toward AI and etc. all of which will enable us to push frontiers and enable speeding our computational speeds by many, many, magnitudes of that currently being used. The impact of these emerging tech developments will vastly increase our abilities for exploration and discovery.

[

Your use of scripture might have relevance to you or others already predisposed, but it not only is vapor to those that aren’t predisposed to that flavor of confirmation bias, but I won’t result on triggering conversions, but more likely will alienate those that don’t, as you do, ascribe to the Bible, the version of the Bible, you accept as an authority of ‘Truth’. To accept it as truth requires faith in that humans knew the ‘truth’ and faithfully, without error conveyed down through the centuries, by manual transcription, and all the language that translations, resulted in the translated and interpreted version of the Bible you like, and that you have decided is superior to the scripture of all other religions. Ok, if that works for you; it doesn’t work for me for a myriad of reasons.
BTW, Among my friends is a priest. Now and then we meet for drinks at a pub situated on the street behind his church. He’s tried and failed. After a couple whiskeys he tries harder... something strange about that.

 

You are as agnostic as I am. You merely dismiss one less god than I do, as being man-made. I reject all 33+ million gods that are, or have ever been worshiped. Percentage wise, we are as close to 100% in agreement as possible, without actually being at 100%.

I thought this thread was about evolution.

 

It is absurd in the 21st century to believe that a man was bodily raised from the dead, just because an old book with no eyewitness testimony, no original copy, by unknown authors says it happened.

And yet there you are, believing the absurd!

 

If you check the OP it might appear that, but the OP’s owner posted regarding evolution to reject the Theory and use the opportunity to steer the discussion in an Intelligent Design vs Evolution directed, a the Jag has done through several threads. The problem is Jag has little understanding of what the Theory of Evolution is, how Natural Selection works, and continues to push the ‘God did it narrative’, eventually, trying to extend the discussion to biogenesis, again of which he rejects as possible, without understanding the current state of the research. He’s not alone in his misunderstanding, even some accepting the Theory of Evolution have misunderstandings. But, Jag follows pattern as do many believers who accept the Bible as ‘the Truth’ Investing in the premise that the Bible is erring and rejecting the premise that those engaging in science inquiry must be wrong, because a, they can’t answer every question and b, anything counter to the ‘God did it’ perspective is by default wrong. The rejection of ID supporters isn’t limited to evolution and biogenesis but to any discussion of origins such as research into the physics of both quantum mechanics and cosmology. The gap in knowledge is filled, as it has for eons, with the explanation of supernatural causation that explains everything, and requires no need for advancing inquiry beyond that premise.
If anyone want to start a thread on evolution, biogenesis, I would likely play, but I am not sure I want to start one as an on-line class unless I can issue grades...Lol.