Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians

[RationalOkie]

There are different ideas about evolution and in order to make sure that I am discussing and debating your ideas, it only seems fair that you lay them out for me. For example, let's start with the origin of life; do you believe that evolution accounts for that origin or, as many evolutionists understand it, do you believe that evolution only accounts for the development of that which is already alive? There is a simple starting place for you to help me to understand your position.

 

I'd say firstly, lets make a clear distinction between evolution vs. ambiogenisis.

 

Ambiogenesis = theory of how life began.

Evolution = theory of how life came to be found in it's present form.

 

That's pretty broad, but I'd say it's a start and will avoid the whole "Evolution doesn't explain how rocks turned into humans!" argument that usually get's pulled out.

 

This thread IS NOT about Evolution....PERIOD! I asked LNC to Give us his theory of how life on planet Earth came about. I didn't say ANYTHING about Evolution.

 

If this thread is not about evolution, then why is it titled, "Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians"? It seems that evolution is a part of the discussion.

 

My exact words where "According to LNC how did life come about on planet earth? I'm not suckering you in, it's just that simple. " Are you going to continue to dodge this question or are you going to answer it?

[LNC]

C'mon LNC, hop in here. Give us your theory of how life on planet Earth came about.

 

Listen, I asked a simple question. There are different ideas about evolution and in order to make sure that I am discussing and debating your ideas, it only seems fair that you lay them out for me. For example, let's start with the origin of life; do you believe that evolution accounts for that origin or, as many evolutionists understand it, do you believe that evolution only accounts for the development of that which is already alive? There is a simple starting place for you to help me to understand your position.

I'll play.

 

Evolution does not directly deal with the origin of life from non-life. That's called abiogenesis, and although evolutionary biologists are working on the problem, it is not, strictly speaking, part of the theory of evolution.

 

What evolutionary theory does address is the progression of life from simple forms into more complex forms, and the division of complex forms into distinct species.

 

One of the difficulties in deciding when evolution began has to do with the question of what is life and what is not life. This is a more difficult question than you might think. The earliest form of proto-life is thought to be a virus-like molecular chain. But whether this was true life, or whether true life only came when cellular walls evolved, is an open question. And how those first virus-like chains came into being is not, strictly speaking, a part of the theory of evolution.

 

Most people who accept the theory of evolution also accept that life began when complex chains formed such that automatic replication of those chains would naturally occur. Whether or not God was involved is irrelevant, as it is in all branches of science. Science properly deals with the how, not the why of life, the universe, and everything. Unless the why can lead to a how, it's a pointless question as far as science is concerned.

 

So that's how science says life began, and how species originated. How do you say it happened?

 

That is a pretty good summation of the naturalistic position. I would say that, obviously, my viewpoint is that live came about as a result of an intelligent intervention. When I look at the record, including events such as the Avalon and Cambrian explosion events, I don't see enough time to allow for the variety of speciation that suddenly appears in those eras. So, although I do believe that the earth is 4-5 billion years old, it is not a straight line of evolution from that point until now due to catastrophic events like the late heavy bombardment and other events in Earth's history that had destroyed either all of or most of life on the planet.

 

For these reasons and more, I believe that a purely naturalistic process is an unsatisfactory explanation to me. I would also add in issues like consciousness and the mind as other hurdles that a purely naturalistic explanation does not adequately explain.

[RationalOkie]

C'mon LNC, hop in here. Give us your theory of how life on planet Earth came about.

 

Listen, I asked a simple question. There are different ideas about evolution and in order to make sure that I am discussing and debating your ideas, it only seems fair that you lay them out for me. For example, let's start with the origin of life; do you believe that evolution accounts for that origin or, as many evolutionists understand it, do you believe that evolution only accounts for the development of that which is already alive? There is a simple starting place for you to help me to understand your position.

I'll play.

 

Evolution does not directly deal with the origin of life from non-life. That's called abiogenesis, and although evolutionary biologists are working on the problem, it is not, strictly speaking, part of the theory of evolution.

 

What evolutionary theory does address is the progression of life from simple forms into more complex forms, and the division of complex forms into distinct species.

 

One of the difficulties in deciding when evolution began has to do with the question of what is life and what is not life. This is a more difficult question than you might think. The earliest form of proto-life is thought to be a virus-like molecular chain. But whether this was true life, or whether true life only came when cellular walls evolved, is an open question. And how those first virus-like chains came into being is not, strictly speaking, a part of the theory of evolution.

 

Most people who accept the theory of evolution also accept that life began when complex chains formed such that automatic replication of those chains would naturally occur. Whether or not God was involved is irrelevant, as it is in all branches of science. Science properly deals with the how, not the why of life, the universe, and everything. Unless the why can lead to a how, it's a pointless question as far as science is concerned.

 

So that's how science says life began, and how species originated. How do you say it happened?

 

That is a pretty good summation of the naturalistic position. I would say that, obviously, my viewpoint is that live came about as a result of an intelligent intervention. When I look at the record, including events such as the Avalon and Cambrian explosion events, I don't see enough time to allow for the variety of speciation that suddenly appears in those eras. So, although I do believe that the earth is 4-5 billion years old, it is not a straight line of evolution from that point until now due to catastrophic events like the late heavy bombardment and other events in Earth's history that had destroyed either all of or most of life on the planet.

 

For these reasons and more, I believe that a purely naturalistic process is an unsatisfactory explanation to me. I would also add in issues like consciousness and the mind as other hurdles that a purely naturalistic explanation does not adequately explain.

 

 

Thank you LNC. Now, let's take them one by one. You're first objection is you don't feel that there was enough 'time to allow for the variety of speciation that suddenly appears in those eras'. So, let's look at the time scale.

 

3.4 Billion Years Ago Single-Celled Life ( Fossil Record )

2.4 Billion Years Ago Oxygen was released from the seas as a byproduct of photosynthesis by cyanobacteria (Single-Celled Life).

800 Million Years Ago Oxygen levels reached about 21 percent and began to breathe life into more complex organisms.

600 Million Years Ago Multicelled Soft-Bodied Life

580 Million Years Ago Fish

405 Million Years Ago Amphibians

310 Million Years Ago Reptiles

210 Million Years Ago Mammals

40 Million Years Ago Apes

3.5 to 4 Mill. Yrs Ago Australopithecus

2.5 - 1.6 Mill.Yrs Ago Homo habilis

1.6 Mill - 500,000 Yrs Ago Homo erectus - Recently a Homo erectus lower jaw has been found in Georgia and said to be 1.6 million years ago.

500,000 to 275,000 Years Ago Homo sapiens

 

Which gap in time do you want to dispute?

[Antlerman]

There are different ideas about evolution and in order to make sure that I am discussing and debating your ideas, it only seems fair that you lay them out for me. For example, let's start with the origin of life; do you believe that evolution accounts for that origin or, as many evolutionists understand it, do you believe that evolution only accounts for the development of that which is already alive? There is a simple starting place for you to help me to understand your position.

 

I'd say firstly, lets make a clear distinction between evolution vs. ambiogenisis.

 

Ambiogenesis = theory of how life began.

Evolution = theory of how life came to be found in it's present form.

 

That's pretty broad, but I'd say it's a start and will avoid the whole "Evolution doesn't explain how rocks turned into humans!" argument that usually get's pulled out.

 

This thread IS NOT about Evolution....PERIOD! I asked LNC to Give us his theory of how life on planet Earth came about. I didn't say ANYTHING about Evolution.

 

If this thread is not about evolution, then why is it titled, "Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians"? It seems that evolution is a part of the discussion.

 

My exact words where "According to LNC how did life come about on planet earth? I'm not suckering you in, it's just that simple. " Are you going to continue to dodge this question or are you going to answer it?

I always like playing Devil's Advocate so I'll ask you that question. Since it appears you are now saying you are asking about Abiogensis, and not the Theory of Evolution, how do you see that life came about on this planet? I'm not sure we really know the answer to that as to "how" it first emerged.

 

The ToE is about species evolving from one form to another, not how life began. But my answer to it would be as follows: Since everything we look at in nature does have natural events as causes, it would be completely inconsistent with the rest of nature to expect a non-natural, "magic" event to be necessary. Why should everything after the beginning of life forms, change and shift and evolve naturally, not needing a specific act of divine creation for each and every new species that appears, yet the beginning of life someone required it?

[RationalOkie]

There are different ideas about evolution and in order to make sure that I am discussing and debating your ideas, it only seems fair that you lay them out for me. For example, let's start with the origin of life; do you believe that evolution accounts for that origin or, as many evolutionists understand it, do you believe that evolution only accounts for the development of that which is already alive? There is a simple starting place for you to help me to understand your position.

 

I'd say firstly, lets make a clear distinction between evolution vs. ambiogenisis.

 

Ambiogenesis = theory of how life began.

Evolution = theory of how life came to be found in it's present form.

 

That's pretty broad, but I'd say it's a start and will avoid the whole "Evolution doesn't explain how rocks turned into humans!" argument that usually get's pulled out.

 

This thread IS NOT about Evolution....PERIOD! I asked LNC to Give us his theory of how life on planet Earth came about. I didn't say ANYTHING about Evolution.

 

If this thread is not about evolution, then why is it titled, "Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians"? It seems that evolution is a part of the discussion.

 

My exact words where "According to LNC how did life come about on planet earth? I'm not suckering you in, it's just that simple. " Are you going to continue to dodge this question or are you going to answer it?

I always like playing Devil's Advocate so I'll ask you that question. Since it appears you are now saying you are asking about Abiogensis, and not the Theory of Evolution, how do you see that life came about on this planet? I'm not sure we really know the answer to that as to "how" it first emerged.

 

The ToE is about species evolving from one form to another, not how life began. But my answer to it would be as follows: Since everything we look at in nature does have natural events as causes, it would be completely inconsistent with the rest of nature to expect a non-natural, "magic" event to be necessary. Why should everything after the beginning of life forms, change and shift and evolve naturally, not needing a specific act of divine creation for each and every new species that appears, yet the beginning of life someone required it?

 

Goddamn it you guy's stop bailing him out. Let LNC answer the freaking question.

[Antlerman]

When I look at the record, including events such as the Avalon and Cambrian explosion events, I don't see enough time to allow for the variety of speciation that suddenly appears in those eras.

Are you aware of how many years these periods are? Gould theorized of Punctuated Equilibrium . These are still periods of 30 to 60 million years each, relatively short time periods in geological terms. Evolution doesn't need to follow straight, steady, even lines. One can compare any periods of rapid changes with a society due to external pressures to see evolution at work at accelerated rates (evolution is not limited to biology).

 

So, although I do believe that the earth is 4-5 billion years old, it is not a straight line of evolution from that point until now due to catastrophic events like the late heavy bombardment and other events in Earth's history that had destroyed either all of or most of life on the planet.

Extinction level events never wiped out all life. If it had, we would not be here. All animal life forms emerged from one single animal. Not many different animals.

 

For these reasons and more, I believe that a purely naturalistic process is an unsatisfactory explanation to me. I would also add in issues like consciousness and the mind as other hurdles that a purely naturalistic explanation does not adequately explain.

Since your understanding seems to be incorrect, then would your conclusion be also less than on solid grounds?

 

As far as mind goes, that is a very interesting point. But I believe it is part of the natural system. However, I will not take from that a point of view of reductionism. I go somewhere very different than that.

[RationalOkie]

When I look at the record, including events such as the Avalon and Cambrian explosion events, I don't see enough time to allow for the variety of speciation that suddenly appears in those eras.

Are you aware of how many years these periods are? Gould theorized of Punctuated Equilibrium . These are still periods of 30 to 60 million years each, relatively short time periods in geological terms. Evolution doesn't need to follow straight, steady, even lines. One can compare any periods of rapid changes with a society due to external pressures to see evolution at work at accelerated rates (evolution is not limited to biology).

 

So, although I do believe that the earth is 4-5 billion years old, it is not a straight line of evolution from that point until now due to catastrophic events like the late heavy bombardment and other events in Earth's history that had destroyed either all of or most of life on the planet.

Extinction level events never wiped out all life. If it had, we would not be here. All animal life forms emerged from one single animal. Not many different animals.

 

For these reasons and more, I believe that a purely naturalistic process is an unsatisfactory explanation to me. I would also add in issues like consciousness and the mind as other hurdles that a purely naturalistic explanation does not adequately explain.

Since your understanding seems to be incorrect, then would your conclusion be also less than on solid grounds?

 

As far as mind goes, that is a very interesting point. But I believe it is part of the natural system. However, I will not take from that a point of view of reductionism. I go somewhere very different than that.

 

 

Sorry ANT-MAN...thought you were talking to me. My bad...yipe...yipe...yipe...

[Ouroboros]

The title of this thread is "Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians" so I am trying to get a definition of evolution to determine whether I believe in it or not.

So you're answering a question with a question? That's not a real answer (according to the Almighty Yourself).

 

You know what Evolution is. You're just stalling and trying to fish for another angle. You know what it is, and you know what you believe, but you're not going to answer it, because you know you don't have much to support your belief on. It's just fairy tale, and you know it.

 

That is a pretty good summation of the naturalistic position. I would say that, obviously, my viewpoint is that live came about as a result of an intelligent intervention. When I look at the record, including events such as the Avalon and Cambrian explosion events, I don't see enough time to allow for the variety of speciation that suddenly appears in those eras. So, although I do believe that the earth is 4-5 billion years old, it is not a straight line of evolution from that point until now due to catastrophic events like the late heavy bombardment and other events in Earth's history that had destroyed either all of or most of life on the planet.

 

For these reasons and more, I believe that a purely naturalistic process is an unsatisfactory explanation to me. I would also add in issues like consciousness and the mind as other hurdles that a purely naturalistic explanation does not adequately explain.

Exactly what I thought. Very little about your explanation, or the religious explanation, but 99% about what is "wrong" with Evolution.

 

Christian Science method: pick up real science, critique the hell out of it, and leave as little left as possible, then to solve all the problems, just say "goddidit."

 

You're doing exactly what RO didn't want to. He wanted to know the Alternative Explanation by the religion, not the critique of Evolution. Right RO? Wasn't it? Did you look for Christians critique of Evolution, or did you look for Christian explanation and evidence of Creation or whatever they believe?

 

If this thread is not about evolution, then why is it titled, "Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians"? It seems that evolution is a part of the discussion.

No wonder you fail so miserable in logic. The first part of the sentence is just a layup, a clarification of the position of the person representing the counter-point. Basically this:

 

"If you don't believe in Evolution, then what is your theory?"

 

And Evolution is not that confusing or divided so you can really say "which one?" There are some fundamental principles, and you obviously don't believe in them, which means, you don't believe in Evolution to be true, which means, you have an alternative, which you don't want to share, because it's easier to criticized everyone else.

 

 

RO, you won't get any answer from LNC. He will just try to find whatever is wrong with I say, you say, anyone else says, or what science says, or philosophy says (when it doesn't agree with him), and even history say, or historians, or scholars. Because if they don't agree with him. Then they are obviously wrong. LNC got the 110% truth, direct from God. And everyone else is wrong. Simple.

 

My exact words where "According to LNC how did life come about on planet earth? I'm not suckering you in, it's just that simple. " Are you going to continue to dodge this question or are you going to answer it?

He's not even going to answer that question. But I can tell you what he will do: he will continue to dodge the question by criticizing everyone's views and opinions.

[Legion]

(evolution is not limited to biology)

There you go again fat head.

 

Check this out...

 

In my opinion it should be.

[Antlerman]

(evolution is not limited to biology)

There you go again fat head.

 

Check this out...

 

In my opinion it should be.

 

Yes.. well you know what they say about opinions, right a-hole?

[Legion]

 

Yes.. well you know what they say about opinions, right a-hole?

Do you even recognize that you have an opinion fat head?

 

Or are you used to being a fountain of truth?

[Antlerman]

 

Yes.. well you know what they say about opinions, right a-hole?

Do you even recognize that you have an opinion fat head?

 

Or are you used to being a fountain of truth?

Of course I'm a fountain of truth. We all are.

 

Everything I say is my opinion about things. Everything everyone says is. You expect to hear "in my opionion" before everything? Are you confused or something? "In my opinion, it's a nice day today. In my opinion, I disagree with the government. In my opinion, I think you're being petty and trite.", etc.

 

Happy?

[Legion]

Everything I say is my opinion about things. Everything everyone says is. You expect to hear "in my opionion" before everything? Are you confused or something? "In my opinion, it's a nice day today. In my opinion, I disagree with the government. In my opinion, I think you're being petty and trite.", etc.

 

Happy?

No fathead, I am not yet satisfied. I think you lose track of the fact that you are merely voicing your opinion. I believe I will begin to rewrite some of your posts until you see the light fathead.

[Guest end3]

And what is the big deal with this thread anyhow? If you like to do that kind of thing, go dig up rocks, speculate on how cell walls started.....good damn deal. Let us know when you find something out, otherwise, have a heaping cup of STFU until you do, or hey, go find someone who should give a rats ass......IMO.

[Ouroboros]

Okay. All fatasses, fatheads, and asshats, and fathats(?), back to the topic. It ain't the Lion's Den or something...

[Antlerman]

Everything I say is my opinion about things. Everything everyone says is. You expect to hear "in my opionion" before everything? Are you confused or something? "In my opinion, it's a nice day today. In my opinion, I disagree with the government. In my opinion, I think you're being petty and trite.", etc.

 

Happy?

No fathead, I am not yet satisfied. I think you lose track of the fact that you are merely voicing your opinion. I believe I will begin to rewrite some of your posts until you see the light fathead.

I doubt you understand the content well enough to rewrite it. Small-berries.

[Antlerman]

Okay. All fatasses, fatheads, and asshats, and fathats(?), back to the topic. It ain't the Lion's Den or something...

oh shucks... that's right. I'll be gooder. Promise.

[RationalOkie]

Holy crap I leave the room for a couple of hours and what the hell? Geesh.

 

Yes, Han...I simply wanted the Christian theory of how life began on earth. NOT EVOLUTION. We've all hashed and rehashed that topic to death. And you're right, he won’t touch it with a ten foot pole. Frankly, he's been dodging it from the moment I posted it. I've seen him read it and ignore it and then when he does finally pop in to enlighten us he has the gall to ask ME to explain what I meant by Evolution.

 

Not sure what an 'AssHat' is either. Another time I guess.

[Guest end3]

Holy crap I leave the room for a couple of hours and what the hell? Geesh.

 

Yes, Han...I simply wanted the Christian theory of how life began on earth. NOT EVOLUTION. We've all hashed and rehashed that topic to death. And you're right, he won’t touch it with a ten foot pole. Frankly, he's been dodging it from the moment I posted it. I've seen him read it and ignore it and then when he does finally pop in to enlighten us he has the gall to ask ME to explain what I meant by Evolution.

 

Not sure what an 'AssHat' is either. Another time I guess.

 

 

THE CHRISTIAN THEORY OF HOW LIFE BEGAN ON EARTH IS LOCATED IN THE FIRST BOOK OF THE BIBLE. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. IF YOU WISH TO KNOW HOW GOD DID THAT, YOU MUST REMAIN IN HIM.

[Ouroboros]

Not sure what an 'AssHat' is either. Another time I guess.

Oh.

 

That's the Who who wear their ass for a hat, instead of a cat.

Now you know what a kind he is, the one who is an asshat.

[Guest Davka]

I would say that, obviously, my viewpoint is that live came about as a result of an intelligent intervention. When I look at the record, including events such as the Avalon and Cambrian explosion events, I don't see enough time to allow for the variety of speciation that suddenly appears in those eras. So, although I do believe that the earth is 4-5 billion years old, it is not a straight line of evolution from that point until now due to catastrophic events like the late heavy bombardment and other events in Earth's history that had destroyed either all of or most of life on the planet.

 

For these reasons and more, I believe that a purely naturalistic process is an unsatisfactory explanation to me. I would also add in issues like consciousness and the mind as other hurdles that a purely naturalistic explanation does not adequately explain.

OK, I don't want to put words into your mouth, so tell me if I'm understanding you correctly.

 

It sounds as if you are advocating a "God of the gaps." That is to say, you accept the naturalistic explanation for the mundane, slow processes shown in the fossil record, but you also see things that, in your mind, cannot be the product of natural processes. So you infer that God must have intervened at those points. Among the events which you believe God to have initiated, you would include the origin of single-celled creatures; the Avalon and Cambrian explosion events; and the emergence of sentient (human) life.

 

Am I right so far?

[Ouroboros]

OK, I don't want to put words into your mouth, so tell me if I'm understanding you correctly.

I think that's probably the only way you will get any answers, because he won't tell you what he believes. He only wants to tell us where we're wrong.

[Antlerman]

THE CHRISTIAN THEORY OF HOW LIFE BEGAN ON EARTH IS LOCATED IN THE FIRST BOOK OF THE BIBLE. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

True. They believe there's a god and that god is the First Cause of everything: the heavens above, the earth below, life on this planet and everywhere, and everything else, including the coffee I'm drinking, the cup its in, the stereo system playing the recording of Glen Gould playing Bach three-part inventions for me, Glen Gould himself, Glen Gould's death many years ago now, etc.

 

All things came through God. That's what the Christian believes. So to you at least, it doesn't matter how, only that there is a single purpose for everything. You theory then, as it were, is that everything no matter how it came into existence has a single cause: Divinity.

 

IF YOU WISH TO KNOW HOW GOD DID THAT, YOU MUST REMAIN IN HIM.

For some reason as I read that it just sounded... well....

 

Anyway, if the divine is the all encompassing fabric/cause of everything, then it is impossible to not be "in him", as you so eloquently put it. But to be fair, seeing the world as part of the divine won't ever let you understand the mechanics , or the "how" of things outside of what we are seeing being exposed through science.

 

In fact this whole dichotomy between science and religion began with early understandings of the mechanics of the universe, which understanding at the time revealed a different world than what the religious layer of thought conveyed in their cosmological imagination. The emergence of life seemed to contradict a world that was winding down. But now we are seeing systems of the natural world which "wind up" that they were unaware of in early science. Life emerging in the cosmos does not contradict the natural world. Complex systems of organization do in fact arise naturally out of "chaos". It happens in the everyday world in front of us.

 

So the nature and place of religious thought underwent a shift in the face of this in the early days of science, and today with your Creationist pseudo-science you have the manifestation of the most radical reactionary thought in response to this whole dichotomy begun back then. It is, in my opinion, the heights of a fractured worldview. Understanding the nature of existence with a divine layer addresses a psychological, or "mind" aspect of our being in the face of our conscious awareness of ourselves both within and as an active part of the cosmos. To me, those that see it this way are not doing so in order to explain the mechanics of nature, but overall 'intent' of it, the 'web' if you will. That's very different than those who try to deny reliable knowledge to force fit their god into a broken worldview.

 

BTW, nice to see you still around End. Always a pleasure.

[Ouroboros]

THE CHRISTIAN THEORY OF HOW LIFE BEGAN ON EARTH IS LOCATED IN THE FIRST BOOK OF THE BIBLE. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. IF YOU WISH TO KNOW HOW GOD DID THAT, YOU MUST REMAIN IN HIM.

The Genesis is just a summary. It's like the introduction or cover-text to a book. It doesn't say how, or the details.

 

For instance, when God created Adam and used dirt. Where did he get all the other necessary minerals from, or water, etc? We consist of I think 70% water, but God created Adam from dirt? Did he manipulate the quarks so the molecules became water molecules instead, or is the story missing some details that he actually took a scoop of water and poured over Adam?

 

I think what RO want to know is the scientific details of Creation, not just the TV announcer script version.

 

Lets take a simple question. How long was "a day"? And what methods are you using to establish the number? Are you using any scientific methods, or do you have to guess?

 

You see the problem is: science use nature as its reference for establishing the facts about nature, while religion establish beliefs about nature by reading an outdated book. So can Creationists bring in true science to prove Creation and how it was done? Can Creationists establish a time line, date of Earth, etc, using Bible Dating Method which anyone can replicate?

[Guest end3]

You have seen Frosty the Snowman when Santa whips Frosty back into shape after he gets melted in the greenhouse? There you are except with soil.

 

I don't know if you can mix the two unless you are willing to read between the lines....Spirit = water.....I mean let's look at that experiment that showed the synthesis of amino acids by the repeated wetting and drying of soil... I may be incorrect in my statement as I only skimmed that article. I think it was posted here at ExC.... Anyway, there you are. So why would it be a big damn stretch to say they are one in the same if you can give the prior generations grace for not knowing the details. And in not understanding the details, how would it be that they derive a similar story?

 

Gheez folks.....starting to piss me off this morning.