You know those comments at the bottom of news articles on search engines such as Yahoo!? Well, I just so happen to have commented on an article and one guy started replying. I thought the conversation is interesting and thought I might post it here. As well here is the article itself. A.J. 1 day ago7 2 "Religious, less educated, and older respondents were likelier to espouse a young Earth creationist view" Oh yea? I know God exists, but I also study biology. I challenge anyone reading this to look up the flagellum, and tell me if Maco-evolution could have created that creature. Don't tell me the more educated individual will believe in Macro-evolution. Collapse Replies (7) Reply John 1 day ago1 2 Of course a flagellum is a result of evolution. It's life and Evolution affects all life. More A.J. 1 day ago2 0John, apparently you have no concept of the difference between Macro and Micro evolution. More John 1 day ago1 2That's because they're the same thing ultimately. What do you get when you have millions of micro changes? Macro change. It's all Evolution. More A.J. 1 day ago1 0 Then the burden of proof lies with evolution to prove cross specie connection. I still haven't seen the proof in the fossil record of missing links. Out of all the fossils we don't have them? Sure there's a few fossils in China that look like dinosaurs with feathers, but that just means those animals existed, not that they turned into something else. Where are the missing links? More John 1 day ago1 2 Fossils that are found in different layers of strata tell a story how evolution affected generations of creatures over time. Speciation has been demonstrated in the lab. So we have speciation which can be observed, and the fossil record tells us the history of speciation. More A.J. 1 day ago0 1 Tell me this, let's say the bible is fact. Now, when Jesus was raised from the dead, his cells would have had to be brought to life from lifeless cells. Wouldn't you say that would take faith to believe that? More John 2 hours ago0 0 Unless you could study the resurrection in a controlled environment and show evidence for your findings then you would have to take the claim on faith. Hypothetically speaking. More A.J. Then along that thought, could it not be said that anyone believing in macro evolution believes that DNA and life came to be from non-living chemical compounds? And can it not be said in that case that, since we have not observed this occurring in our day, then it is a matter of "faith" on the part of science to say life came from non-living compounds, and not science at all?
Nice dialogue and arguments on your part, Josh... !!!! The guy you're talking with doesn't put forward any scientific proof of what he is talking about... Speciation in the lab ? ok, prove it ! Speciation in fossils ? ok, prove it ! Is it because something can be observed in the lab that that is what happened indeed millions of years ago... ? Unless the guy provides proof of what he's claiming, what he says is hot air. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution aren't the same thing at all. There's a huge difference between a chihuahua and a great dane, yet, as a figure of speech, I never came across a dog that miaowed... Resurrection in a controlled environment ? lol You don't need a controlled environment... If the once dead guy is alive, he's alive. Who needs a lab to ascertain it ?!?!?! lol In a pinch, death should be pronounced in a lab... not a comeback to life !
John 3 days ago You're conflating evolution with the origin of life which is false. Evolution addresses what happens to life once it is established, not how life got established. The truth is no one knows for sure how life got established so the only honest answer to the question of how life got started is I don't know. More A.J. 1 day ago Good honest answer. Well let me just say that not all creationist believe the six days of creation were to be taken literal, that in fact those days could have been thousands of years long, if not longer. The reason why is, (and let's hypothesis there is a God) according to that book he rested on the seventh day, now we know that seventh day is thousands of years long, so the other days no doubt would be equal. Just a thought. More John 1 day ago Ok. What is the justification for believing any of that though? We can hypothesize about a purple octopus creating everything from its ink but it doesn't get at any kind of truth. More A.J. 10 hours ago If your asking my opinion, I would have to say it comes down to consciousness, human consciousness. Even putting aside quantum physics and the idea the universe needs intelligent life to exist, you still have really only two options for the origin of life, do we not? One being life came to be in a primeval ooze, and humans are an evolutionary result of that, or there is a higher intelligent life that created the universe and conscious life to enjoy it. My approach is simply to examine all information pertaining to both in order to find the truth. If you don't explore the possibility of life being created, are you not simply avoiding another scientific theory on the origin of life? And is that very objective? John 8 hours ago Sure, I agree. How can we tell the truth though? It's by the evidence presented. So if you want to claim life came from primordial ooze you have to show the evidence for it. If you want to claim life was created you have to show evidence for that too. My point is there isn't sufficient evidence for either so all we can say is we don't know and believing in one or the other is unjustified. Wondering where I go from here...
Hey Joshua - At this point, it seems he would be at least open to this argument: Because DNA is complex, a base-4 encoded instruction set for creating ultra-complex symbiotic living structures, there is inference of intelligence. Without a doubt the things seen are engineered, there can be no argument. In the same way you would certainly conclude that a book which contains ideas, and communicates mind, the creation itself infers mind behind it's existence. Hence the 'fool has said in his heart, there is no God'.
A.J. • 19 hours ago RemoveI would have to say, (in my opinion) that there is more evidence to the creation theory. Let's start with DNA itself. Compare that to a book, you come across a book with all the information inside, you quite simply know its the work of an intelligent creator. Let's look at history. Every time science has tried to say that a certain city or event did not occur although the Bible says it did, then archaeology finds that city, or proof of that event. You have to admit the Bible is an extremely accurate representation of history, no? Then you can look at the lack of evidence. Look at all the gaps in the Macro-evolution theory, the missing information for the origin of life, the gaps between species in the fossil record. Then look at what the Bible tells us, it tells us quite frankly where and how life was created. Does not life itself tell you that the universe was designed for life to enjoy it? Foods have flavor, the world has colors, the pleasures in relationships, did life need these things to exist? Yes man has taken advantage of free will and the current state of society is ugly, but isn't that exactly what a no-God theory teaches, that you can do what ever you want, kill, steal, what ever because there is no consequence? On the flip side, does not creation give a future hope that the world will be returned to how God originally purposed it? Full of perfect humans who will never die, or be sick, or sin ever again? And speaking about that, did you know we don't know why we age? That our cells should divide for ever. The work with telomerase shows that. So to conclude, its not always about what can be seen, but more perhaps of which theory is missing the most facts... John • 18 hours ago Report AbuseI think archaeology is just as affirming the bible is true as New York is affirming Spider Man is true. Some cities are ancient and would have been written about in fiction and non-fiction. The bible is not historically accurate, not like an actual history book anyway. As for the book analogy I recognize the book as being written because I know how authors write them and how they are published. I can provide evidence for a claim like books have been written by people. I can't provide evidence a god created anything and how would a Universe created by a god and a random Universe differ? There's no evidence to say either way. Finally a godless life is full of consequence. I can affect the lives around me negatively or positively. This is the only life we have so that means life is so precious and our moments should be cherished. Our time is fleeting but it's beautiful while it lasts. There is no need to waste time on worshiping something that's probably not there.
Hi Joshua: Just as you can't reason with a drunk, you can't reason with a fool. I don't use that word lightly, but " The foolish* one says in his heart: “There is no Jehovah.â€"+ Psalm 14:1 frank
Hey Joshua, Well argued! In my opinion, the next step: There is no single piece of proof which conclusively 'proves' the Bible true, rather a series of data-points which point strongly in that direction. Historicity as you showed, philosophical truth, prophetic claims, 1600 years of ~44 people writing in sync without deviation, a sensible explanation for the universe and the moral realm of man. Like DNA this collection of books infers intelligence beyond the capability of man. Scientists do this all the time - assemble data-points and draw a conclusion, we aren't arguing for 'blind faith' but evidence based faith. It seems he would be open to something along those lines.