On Evolution...

[Yeshua1]

The current position from a scientific standpoint would be the process of abiogenesis.
Its essentially a process based in the science of organic chemistry. The basic premise is that organic chemicals bonded together on the primordial earth. After bonding, the existing energy in the environment induced the bonds to replicate into longer and longer molecules. Such molecules would later become encased in lipid spheres which are similar to cell walls which form in undersea thermal vents. Once the chain molecule was encased, it was protected and gave the molecule a safe place to grow until over time it developed into the first protocells.

Still no real answer, as that will not explain how non life generates life!

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course we share DNA with earthworms. Thats the entire point of common ancestry. That ALL LIFE is related.
The point is that we share more DNA with organisms like chimps, which we diverged from geologically speaking, rather recently.
If we didnt share DNA with earthworms, Evolution would be in serious trouble.

No, that supports an intelligent designer, as he based life upon a common template!

 

[Yeshua1]

Most Christians in the world do NOT consider it a "problem" to accept the reality of evolution nor do most think that evolution is a "lie".
It is only a minority subset of Christianity that takes issue with Evolution.

The Catholic Church for example came to grips with the reality of evolution years ago.
Once you free yourself from that minority interpretation of scripture, it allows one to accept evidence purely on its own merit, rather than trying to make all the evidence adhere to an incorrect interpretation.

the catholic church caved big time on this area, as the vast majority of Christians have always held to creationism, not evolution to explain Genesis!

 

[Deacon]

Still no real answer, as that will not explain how non life generates life!

Astute response!
That's what science is all about; trying to understand how things happen.
It's progressive; it builds upon itself, both its successes and its failures.

On the other hand, just saying "God did it!" is what is called "God of the gaps".
What can't be figured out by science is assigned to God.
The problem with that is that as more and more is discovered, God gets pushed out and eventually becomes an unnecessary item.

However, embracing scientific discovery (putting aside the philosophical undertones of naturalism) allows a Christian to marvel at the wonderful complexity our Mighty God has created.

Rob

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Astute response!
That's what science is all about; trying to understand how things happen.
It's progressive; it builds upon itself, both its successes and its failures.

On the other hand, just saying "God did it!" is what is called "God of the gaps".
What can't be figured out by science is assigned to God.
The problem with that is that as more and more is discovered, God gets pushed out and eventually becomes an unnecessary item.

However, embracing scientific discovery (putting aside the philosophical undertones of naturalism) allows a Christian to marvel at the wonderful complexity our Mighty God has created.

Rob

Agreed, but offering “just so” stories as KS did for abiogenesis to cover for complete ignorance is the same difference, “’science’ of the gaps.” In other words, it is not really science at all. It is not even science fiction.

And you can be sure that if he did try to offer a detailed scenario as a hypothesis, it would not pass muster. It would be shot down, then sink to the bottom of the sea where no lipid sphere could save it. Such is the track record of abiogenesis thus far.

We just have no idea how God actually did it. All we really know is that life arose on earth, although some scientists have “hypothesized” that unknown aliens planted life here from another point in the universe. Let’s not forget that the religion of scientism also plays a role in this.

 

[Yeshua1]

Astute response!
That's what science is all about; trying to understand how things happen.
It's progressive; it builds upon itself, both its successes and its failures.

On the other hand, just saying "God did it!" is what is called "God of the gaps".
What can't be figured out by science is assigned to God.
The problem with that is that as more and more is discovered, God gets pushed out and eventually becomes an unnecessary item.

However, embracing scientific discovery (putting aside the philosophical undertones of naturalism) allows a Christian to marvel at the wonderful complexity our Mighty God has created.

Rob

still NO answer to how life originated, except for God causing it to happen, and God made all things after their own kind, did not use evolution!

 

[Yeshua1]

Agreed, but offering “just so” stories as KS did for abiogenesis to cover for complete ignorance is the same difference, “’science’ of the gaps.” In other words, it is not really science at all. It is not even science fiction.

And you can be sure that if he did try to offer a detailed scenario as a hypothesis, it would not pass muster. It would be shot down, then sink to the bottom of the sea where no lipid sphere could save it. Such is the track record of abiogenesis thus far.

We just have no idea how God actually did it. All we really know is that life arose on earth, although some scientists have “hypothesized” that unknown aliens planted life here from another point in the universe. Let’s not forget that the religion of scientism also plays a role in this.

God created from nothing all that exists apart from Himself, and He created life itself directly.

 

[Deacon]

Agreed, but offering “just so” stories as KS did for abiogenesis to cover for complete ignorance is the same difference, “’science’ of the gaps.” In other words, it is not really science at all. It is not even science fiction.

And you can be sure that if he did try to offer a detailed scenario as a hypothesis, it would not pass muster. It would be shot down, then sink to the bottom of the sea where no lipid sphere could save it. Such is the track record of abiogenesis thus far.

We just have no idea how God actually did it. All we really know is that life arose on earth, although some scientists have “hypothesized” that unknown aliens planted life here from another point in the universe. Let’s not forget that the religion of scientism also plays a role in this.

​

The theories on the origin of life are a speculative science... something that science may never fully grasp.
There is quite a bit of debate even among scientists.

...it's relationship with evolution is tangential.​

As was said, it deals with Organic Chemistry, one of my favorite courses in college, but it's been a long time...

Rob

 

[Particular]

The current position from a scientific standpoint would be the process of abiogenesis.
Its essentially a process based in the science of organic chemistry. The basic premise is that organic chemicals bonded together on the primordial earth. After bonding, the existing energy in the environment induced the bonds to replicate into longer and longer molecules. Such molecules would later become encased in lipid spheres which are similar to cell walls which form in undersea thermal vents. Once the chain molecule was encased, it was protected and gave the molecule a safe place to grow until over time it developed into the first protocells.

Indeed, the current position is...
That position, like the laws of physics, will certainly change as scientists recognize their initial assumptions and tests led them down a wrong branch. Like Lewis and Clark, the search to go upstream and find the headwaters is filled with educated guesswork.
Ultimately the issue is not about the mechanisms used to adapt. The issue is whether the creator of life established the laws of nature and walked away or whether the creator remains active in his creation.
Science is too narrow and too ill equipped to answer this question. Thus, science falls under the umbrella of philosophy and fills its niche by seeking to answer how the mechanisms and laws function. It cannot answer the questions regarding the attributes of the Creator. It is, by design, incapable of answering the question of God's existence.
The arrogance in this matter is that person's who worship the narrow field of science actually imagine they can go outside their field and answer problems which they have no capacity to answer. Moreso, they imagine that only that which science can measure is actually real. Therefore they place their field of study on a pinnacle and claim they can know all. Such foolishness is laughable, yet the arrogant fools march on anyway, not knowing they march to their own gallow's.

 

[Yeshua1]

The theories on the origin of life are a speculative science... something that science may never fully grasp.
There is quite a bit of debate even among scientists.

...it's relationship with evolution is tangential.​

As was said, it deals with Organic Chemistry, one of my favorite courses in college, but it's been a long time...

Rob

Actually its really simple, as ONLY God can cause life to originate, as there is NO natural way to explain it coming out from non life!

 

[Yeshua1]

Indeed, the current position is...
That position, like the laws of physics, will certainly change as scientists recognize their initial assumptions and tests led them down a wrong branch. Like Lewis and Clark, the search to go upstream and find the headwaters is filled with educated guesswork.
Ultimately the issue is not about the mechanisms used to adapt. The issue is whether the creator of life established the laws of nature and walked away or whether the creator remains active in his creation.
Science is too narrow and too ill equipped to answer this question. Thus, science falls under the umbrella of philosophy and fills its niche by seeking to answer how the mechanisms and laws function. It cannot answer the questions regarding the attributes of the Creator. It is, by design, incapable of answering the question of God's existence.
The arrogance in this matter is that person's who worship the narrow field of science actually imagine they can go outside their field and answer problems which they have no capacity to answer. Moreso, they imagine that only that which science can measure is actually real. Therefore they place their field of study on a pinnacle and claim they can know all. Such foolishness is laughable, yet the arrogant fools march on anyway, not knowing they march to their own gallow's.

Genesis states that God created everything that exits, and that he created all life forms after their own kind. If he had used evolution, would he not have told us there?

 

[Particular]

Genesis states that God created everything that exits, and that he created all life forms after their own kind. If he had used evolution, would he not have told us there?

No, he wouldn't have. It is not the purpose or function of Genesis to make that claim. All of scripture is written to proclaim the promised one, Jesus, the Redeemer. It is not concerned with being a science textbook. In fact, it is belittling to the scriptures to narrow the text down to such an insignificant position.

What we know is that "in the beginning God created..." That's all we actually need to know. We either have faith or we establish an idol of something else to try replace God.
Atheists show their foolishness when they attempt to reduce everything to the small realm of science and then proclaim their narrow-minded thinking is all there is.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, he wouldn't have. It is not the purpose or function of Genesis to make that claim. All of scripture is written to proclaim the promised one, Jesus, the Redeemer. It is not concerned with being a science textbook. In fact, it is belittling to the scriptures to narrow the text down to such an insignificant position.

What we know is that "in the beginning God created..." That's all we actually need to know. We either have faith or we establish an idol of something else to try replace God.
Atheists show their foolishness when they attempt to reduce everything to the small realm of science and then proclaim their narrow-minded thinking is all there is.

Everything that the Bible talks about is fully accurate, so God could have very well described to us that he used evolution if he actually done that!

 

[BenWest]

In a sense, sure.
But science has to be testable or its completely useless.

Not so, since Science is the current consensus of most scientists at a particular time in history. Today's Science is not testable when it comes to scientific Theories. The ToE is a good example since the current scientific consensus accepts its incomplete views, as scientific Truth. The ToE is limited to the present Universe and Humans, the descendants of Adam, did NOT have our origin in this world.

By rejected the flood story as myth, today's Scoffers (scientists) have become "willingly ignorant" that Adam's entire firmament/Heaven/Universe, was totally and completely destroyed in the flood. 2 Peter 3:3-7 This is WHY their view is so incomplete since it cannot tell us how or when we changed from Ape to Human (descendant of Adam). Only Humans have inherited the intelligence of God. Genesis 3:22

 

[Yeshua1]

Not so, since Science is the current consensus of most scientists at a particular time in history. Today's Science is not testable when it comes to scientific Theories. The ToE is a good example since the current scientific consensus accepts its incomplete views, as scientific Truth. The ToE is limited to the present Universe and Humans, the descendants of Adam, did NOT have our origin in this world.

By rejected the flood story as myth, today's Scoffers (scientists) have become "willingly ignorant" that Adam's entire firmament/Heaven/Universe, was totally and completely destroyed in the flood. 2 Peter 3:3-7 This is WHY their view is so incomplete since it cannot tell us how or when we changed from Ape to Human (descendant of Adam). Only Humans have inherited the intelligence of God. Genesis 3:22

Adam was not born from a primate ape, as he was a direct and special creation of God!

 

[Particular]

Everything that the Bible talks about is fully accurate, so God could have very well described to us that he used evolution if he actually done that!

Evolution is a new term. God doesn't explain how he created each animal and each plant. Why would it matter when the reality is that God did it.

I believe God designed every animal and gives variation within that animal. God may also change genes as he pleases. We see God manipulating and determining the animals between Jacob and Laben. There God is active in his creation.
Evolution assumes random variation and no manipulation. This is silly because humans have shown that they can change and manipulate creation themselves. How much more capable of manipulation is God compared with man?
God is very much in control and is deliberately changing species according to his will. I find humans are amazingly arrogant in their foolish ignorance of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Evolution is a new term. God doesn't explain how he created each animal and each plant. Why would it matter when the reality is that God did it.

I believe God designed every animal and gives variation within that animal. God may also change genes as he pleases. We see God manipulating and determining the animals between Jacob and Laben. There God is active in his creation.
Evolution assumes random variation and no manipulation. This is silly because humans have shown that they can change and manipulate creation themselves. How much more capable of manipulation is God compared with man?
God is very much in control and is deliberately changing species according to his will. I find humans are amazingly arrogant in their foolish ignorance of God.

God was active when he created the Universe, life on earth, and especially Adam and Eve, but ceased since than, to become active again when Jesus comes back!

 

[Particular]

God was active when he created the Universe, life on earth, and especially Adam and Eve, but ceased since than, to become active again when Jesus comes back!

I disagree. God is active in his creation today. He directs every cell and membrane down to the smallest quark. He is not drawn back from his creation as a deist would claim. He is intimately involved.

 

[Yeshua1]

I disagree. God is active in his creation today. He directs every cell and membrane down to the smallest quark. He is not drawn back from his creation as a deist would claim. He is intimately involved.

I mean active in the sense of recreating into new forms His creation, as that awaits Second Coming!

 

[Particular]

I mean active in the sense of recreating into new forms His creation, as that awaits Second Coming!

Thanks for the clarification.