Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense!

I didn't ask angels, but I asked God and he simply replied that I took finches there, there's food for them and they want to be there. Birds can fly.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Edit: On another occasion I asked why the finches are different on each island and He replied I made them different. Then natural selection decides which succeed. Diversity is prerequisite how life can go on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I accept Evolution, but just because of that doesn't mean I won't accept religion. I am a Catholic who believes in the existence of evolution.

However, people saying that evolution created humans is kind of an over-statement of evolution. For a particle to turn into a human there would have been some reason for this to have happened. Evolution occurs because of environmental reasons. Also, evolution is not adaption of species, it is removing the factor of the non-fittest and allowing the ones that have the ability to reproduce and later on genetically improvise their current structure, however to an extent. If you could explain how humans had evolved from a particle to what we are today without any broad sense of the idea, it could be a good idea to look at but simply because evolution can explain how a turtle evolved to grow a long neck from a short one over thousands of years doesn't supply sufficient evidence to the idea that humans evolved from small particles.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From particles (elements) comes chemistry. From chemistry comes biology and the first single celled life forms. They adapted through a process of evolution and became more complex, eventually turning into mammals, then apes, then us. I have a feeling your argument is simply incredulity at the fact of evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so because turtles can evolve a longer neck abiogenesis is a fact ...
:shrug:

 

That big leap because of the existence of evolution is really an over-statement still. And how his my argument incredulity? Just because I am religious doesn't mean I base all scientific thought on religion. People use that argument just because they can't find anyway to counter it.

And how do you suppose particles just decided to come together unless they have an intelligence? Unless you can provide evidence of a natural force that could have intelligently caused the particles to come together in such intelligent forms it is more speculation than scientific fact.

 

No, that's evolution.

But since we have in fact created self-replicating molecules in the lab from inorganic materials, we can prove that can happen.

 

I bet their food didn't feel the same way . . . .

 

But us having to create these self-replicating molecules only insists that there was intelligent design. It required intelligence to make the self-replicating molecules, which means unless there can be self-replicating molecules made out of nothing but particles coming together without any force acting upon them it requires intelligent design.

 

Intelligence can only operate on existing natural processes. If the particles come together in a certain way, it desn't matter whether it was intelligence that pushed them or not. They will react in the same way.

And note that even IF an intelligence - e.g. God - pushed those particles together, that says nothing about where the particles or the processes came from.

 

Molecules can self-replicate without any life forms, things like DNA and RNA can do it in a jar. I think you underestimate chemistry. The first replicators became better and better replicators simply because the best ones proliferated. This established a kind of arms race, and billions of years later, cells learned to come together and cooperate and those became the multi-cellular life forms we know today.

 

I am not arguing whether they were created by an intelligence, I am arguing whether particles had come together in such ways that it was developed by an intelligent design.

Second, the probability of particles coming together in such an intelligent way without an external force is highly unlikely without any opposite force attracting them together because with the Big Bang the particles would be flying at almost the same speeds due to the Big Bang's force upon the particles, which means an opposite force would have to have caused the particles to collide together to make what it is today.

They can replicate because they already had a basis off of the replication process. They didn't just start replicating randomly.

 

Yes, there can be self-replicating molecules that form from nothing more than happening to be in the same place at the same time. There are also self-catalyzing reactions that increase the odds considerably.

 

Oh please, you don't have to go back that far, we already had an Earth which had a stew of complex molecules floating around.

 

One has to go back that far in order to get correct statistics on where the particles went. If the particles went out towards the ends of the Universe, there would be no possible way for the particles to collide without any opposite force acting upon them in the opposite direction.

 

I don't see the distinction. Either intelligence was required or it wasn't. I'm saying that not only was intelligence NOT required but intelligence couldn't do anything that couldn't happen naturally.

 

Assuming they don't have their own gravity to pull them together?

 

the fact that more than one physicist has ran away from the field of biology with their tail between their legs proves that they can't prove how it can happen
:shrug:

 

Are you stating that the gravity of the particles was strong enough to pull each other together when they were all traveling at a high-rated speed?

 

Going back to the Big Bang is just silly. The fact is that we do have a planet earth with the necessary chemicals for life. Your objection is utterly irrelevant.

 

The only speed that matters is their speed relative to each other.