Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
JamesJah

Evolution and theChristian faith?

Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?
Jim

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

JamesJah wrote:
Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?


Evolution IS real.
Historic Chronology (despite certain pseudo Christian sects efforts) is real
Niether of these affects the  faith in Christ Jesus, God Incarnate.,
gone

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

JamesJah wrote:
Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?


Science is taken seriously, unlike creationism!
Jim

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Floo wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?


Science is taken seriously, unlike creationism!
 

Define creationism, floo!
There is the YEC position (which I find untenable in the light of all the evidence)
And there is the "Thinking Christian' perspective, which fully accepts the evidence of evolution, prehistory and early history, in the light of a God-inspired creation lasting 14 billion years, give or talke the occasional January sale break.
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

[quote="Jim:111294"]
Floo wrote:

And there is the "Thinking Christian' perspective, which fully accepts the evidence of evolution, prehistory and early history, in the light of a God-inspired creation lasting 14 billion years, give or talke the occasional January sale break.


If you can believe that a "God" of love and compassion inspired the cruel life system we see on earth, then your interpretation of "love" and "compassion" is directly opposed to mine.
JMC

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Leonard James wrote:

If you can believe that a "God" of love and compassion inspired the cruel life system we see on earth, then your interpretation of "love" and "compassion" is directly opposed to mine.


I agree with you. Well, to be more accurate, I agree that God does not appear to have created the cruel system of life we see on earth right now - it is a result of the Fall. I would not presume to say God could not or should not have done things in such and such a way as opposed to another.
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

JMC wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

If you can believe that a "God" of love and compassion inspired the cruel life system we see on earth, then your interpretation of "love" and "compassion" is directly opposed to mine.


I agree with you.


Good for you!  
gone

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Jim wrote:
Floo wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?


Science is taken seriously, unlike creationism!
 

Define creationism, floo!
There is the YEC position (which I find untenable in the light of all the evidence)
And there is the "Thinking Christian' perspective, which fully accepts the evidence of evolution, prehistory and early history, in the light of a God-inspired creation lasting 14 billion years, give or talke the occasional January sale break.


Believing the Biblical deity kicked it all off as per Genesis.
JamesJah

Are there any real Christians on this forum?

Why did Jesus suffer the horrendous death because man had become so cruel if Adam was not to be replaced with some one with a lot more sense?




Click to see full size image
gone

JamesJah wrote:
Are there any real Christians on this forum?

Why did Jesus suffer the horrendous death because man had become so cruel if Adam was not to be replaced with some one with a lot more sense?




Click to see full size image


Are you are 'real' Christian, can JWs be classified as such?  
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
Are there any real Christians on this forum?

Why did Jesus suffer the horrendous death because man had become so cruel if Adam was not to be replaced with some one with a lot more sense?




Click to see full size image


Are there any real Christians on this forum?

Yep.

Wot has that got to do with th O/P?
JamesJah

Floo wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Are there any real Christians on this forum?

Why did Jesus suffer the horrendous death because man had become so cruel if Adam was not to be replaced with some one with a lot more sense?




Click to see full size image


Are you are 'real' Christian, can JWs be classified as such?  


At least we know that the Almighty is Almighty and able to do the things that Jesus showed he could do.

We also believe what Jesus taught having real faith in the promises he made and not fobbed of with the pseudo science of this world who have just prolonged mans suffering with their cleverness.

Romans 5:11-14
Not only that, but we are also rejoicing in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned

 For sin was in the world before the Law, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law. Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the same way that Adam transgressed, who bears a resemblance to the one who was to come.

It is Adams foolishness we are suffering can science do any better without some good advice from their creator?

Who knows how this planet works?

When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?

Can you live without in peace on this planet without instructions from the Almighty?
gone

I wonder if Jesus would have approved of the JW cult? Somehow I doubt it!
Jim

Floo wrote:
I wonder if Jesus would have approved of the JW cult? Somehow I doubt it!




You might require something soft to fall against at this point....
I agree with you.
gone

Jim wrote:
Floo wrote:
I wonder if Jesus would have approved of the JW cult? Somehow I doubt it!




You might require something soft to fall against at this point....
I agree with you.


The JW twaddle is such a travesty of anything which is reasonable, even this old heathen didn't think Jesus would have approved of the cult if he was a halfway decent guy.
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
Floo wrote:
I wonder if Jesus would have approved of the JW cult? Somehow I doubt it!




You might require something soft to fall against at this point....
I agree with you.



Does Jesus approve of the religions of this world fighting for the country they live in?

Does any one here know what God's will is?


Matthew 7:21
Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
Jim wrote:
Floo wrote:
I wonder if Jesus would have approved of the JW cult? Somehow I doubt it!




You might require something soft to fall against at this point....
I agree with you.



Does Jesus approve of the religions of this world fighting for the country they live in?

Does any one here know what God's will is?


Matthew 7:21
Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.
   

Wot the blood and stomach pills does this have to do with th O/P?
Isn't it a bit early to derail the thread with the usual tripe?
gone

Being a JW, JJ has to try to throw smoke in one's eyes because his belief system has no substance to it!
Rose

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

JamesJah wrote:
Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?


Can you post a link to where they said it was simple?

Julie
JamesJah

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Rose wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?


Can you post a link to where they said it was simple?

Julie


It is in most of the old publications the simple cell they called it until they discovered DNA, RNA and a few thousand other things hiding in the so called simple cell.
JamesJah

Is this the chat room for pretend Christians?

This week New scientist might be worth a read it has a bit on training the mind away from fixations?

Is it possible for people to discover that what they hold to so dearly is what some one else thinks that they should be thinking.

No one stops to ask themselves why they think the way they do if it is ok to hold those ideas in the community that they live in now does it?

Where is the proof of evolution?

Metamorphoses is proof that there is no such thing.

So is entropy, is it not?
Leonard James

JamesJah wrote:
Is this the chat room for pretend Christians?

This week New scientist might be worth a read it has a bit on training the mind away from fixations?

Is it possible for people to discover that what they hold to so dearly is what some one else thinks that they should be thinking.

No one stops to ask themselves why they think the way they do if it is ok to hold those ideas in the community that they live in now does it?

Where is the proof of evolution?

Metamorphoses is proof that there is no such thing.

So is entropy, is it not?


Oh dearie me!  
LeClerc

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Morning Leonard

Leonard James wrote:


If you can believe that a "God" of love and compassion inspired the cruel life system we see on earth, then your interpretation of "love" and "compassion" is directly opposed to mine.


Maybe you should read Torah.

Genesis 6
5 YHWH saw how evil humans had become on the earth. All day long their deepest thoughts were nothing but evil. 6 YHWH was sorry that he had made humans on the earth, and he was heartbroken. 7 So YHWH said, “I will wipe off the face of the earth these humans that I created. I will wipe out not only humans, but also domestic animals, crawling animals, and birds. I’m sorry that I made them.” 8 But YHWH was pleased with Noah..”

In the above scripture why was YHWH heartbroken ?

and

What is the evolutionary origin of sex ?

Regards

LeClerc
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

LeClerc wrote:
Morning Leonard

Leonard James wrote:


If you can believe that a "God" of love and compassion inspired the cruel life system we see on earth, then your interpretation of "love" and "compassion" is directly opposed to mine.


Maybe you should read Torah.

Genesis 6
[i]5 YHWH saw how evil humans had become on the earth. All day long their deepest thoughts were nothing but evil. 6 YHWH was sorry that he had made humans on the earth, and he was heartbroken.


Surely you don't expect me to believe such nonsense? Humans are, and always have been, a mixture of mostly good, some bad and some indifferent. As a social species they have to be to survive. To suggest that there was any point in their history when they were all nothing but evil is totally daft, since they would have become extinct.

Quote:
7 So YHWH said, “I will wipe off the face of the earth these humans that I created. I will wipe out not only humans, but also domestic animals, crawling animals, and birds. I’m sorry that I made them.”


Drowning them was hardly a compassionate way to get rid of them.  

Quote:
8 But YHWH was pleased with Noah..”


Well, the writer of the fable had to think of some way for humans to survive, didn't he.

Quote:
In the above scripture why was YHWH heartbroken ?


Why ask me? It could be because he realised he had made a balls-up in designing humans.

Quote:
What is the evolutionary origin of sex ?


Science hasn't yet discovered for certain how it arose, although there are various theories about it.
Rose

Well I reckon sex is a bit odd, and it would seem a very odd process for a God to design from scratch.

You would expect something more dignified!



Well sort of!

Julie
Leonard James

Rose wrote:
Well I reckon sex is a bit odd, and it would seem a very odd process for a God to design from scratch.


Especially considering that he has never indulged himself. (Or do gods have sex?)

Quote:
You would expect something more dignified!



Well sort of!


Like the Martians, just touching fingertips? Nah, ours is much more fun!
bnabernard

Genesis 6
[i]5 YHWH saw how evil humans had become on the earth. All day long their deepest thoughts were nothing but evil. 6 YHWH was sorry that he had made humans on the earth, and he was heartbroken.

I can well see why people puzle over what is preached as an Almighty all knowing God when heartbreak enters into the sphere of Gods day.

Can we, are we able to determine whether this heartbreak is real, did it happen as stated or was it something God knew He would have to experience. What I'm asking is, did God know from the outset that to achieve his desired goals certain sacrifices would have to be made to refine his creation to a point in free will that free will would have the answer to alternative thinking, and of course in refering to alternative thinking I relate to God's instruction as the prime thinking, his word.

Has God allowed mankind and spirit kind the option to learn the hard way so as to maintain free will.

bernard (hug)
JamesJah

science has not yet discovered is a common saying of those that support their dream world that they have built.

Those that look to science for their salvation have a real problem do they not, and that problem is they keep dying before science can find the answer, do they not?

Any one in Noah's day could have built a large raft with storage and living accommodation upon it but they did not why not the bible sais they were too buzzy eating and drinking marrying and giving in marriage.
gone

JamesJah wrote:
science has not yet discovered is a common saying of those that support their dream world that they have built.

Those that look to science for their salvation have a real problem do they not, and that problem is they keep dying before science can find the answer, do they not?

Any one in Noah's day could have built a large raft with storage and living accommodation upon it but they did not why not the bible sais they were too buzzy eating and drinking marrying and giving in marriage.


Only a psychopathic deity would have flooded the whole world if the story had any credence, which of course it doesn't!
Lexilogio

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

JamesJah wrote:
Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?


Please give evidence that they, "lied".

Knowledge grows as the tools to delve into that knowledge grows. So scientists first came to understand the cell, and as optical technology grew, they were able to identify things within the cell.

Unless of course you are arguing that no organisation or conceptual group can amend their stance with new knowledge - because to do so entirely discredits them? In which case, may I point out that the world has not yet ended - despite the numerous predictions to do so before today, by your organisation.
JamesJah

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Lexilogio wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?


Please give evidence that they, "lied".

Knowledge grows as the tools to delve into that knowledge grows. So scientists first came to understand the cell, and as optical technology grew, they were able to identify things within the cell.

Unless of course you are arguing that no organisation or conceptual group can amend their stance with new knowledge - because to do so entirely discredits them? In which case, may I point out that the world has not yet ended - despite the numerous predictions to do so before today, by your organisation.



Knowledge has to grow for man because he is bourn only with the instincts that he was created with.

How do people who ignore the knowledge that their creator has learn what I poisonous and what is not?

Ever tried collecting mushrooms for dinner?

Can you imagine some one so stupid as to eat one after some one who knows tells them not to eat or they will die?

What does science know more than any other? Nothing it is all guess work and who suffers their mistakes?
Quizzimodo

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

JamesJah wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?


Please give evidence that they, "lied".

Knowledge grows as the tools to delve into that knowledge grows. So scientists first came to understand the cell, and as optical technology grew, they were able to identify things within the cell.

Unless of course you are arguing that no organisation or conceptual group can amend their stance with new knowledge - because to do so entirely discredits them? In which case, may I point out that the world has not yet ended - despite the numerous predictions to do so before today, by your organisation.



Knowledge has to grow for man because he is bourn only with the instincts that he was created with.

How do people who ignore the knowledge that their creator has learn what I poisonous and what is not?

Ever tried collecting mushrooms for dinner?

Can you imagine some one so stupid as to eat one after some one who knows tells them not to eat or they will die?

What does science know more than any other? Nothing it is all guess work and who suffers their mistakes?


A total failure to answer the question

Did the world end in 1914?
Jim

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Quizzimodo wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?


Please give evidence that they, "lied".

Knowledge grows as the tools to delve into that knowledge grows. So scientists first came to understand the cell, and as optical technology grew, they were able to identify things within the cell.

Unless of course you are arguing that no organisation or conceptual group can amend their stance with new knowledge - because to do so entirely discredits them? In which case, may I point out that the world has not yet ended - despite the numerous predictions to do so before today, by your organisation.



Knowledge has to grow for man because he is bourn only with the instincts that he was created with.

How do people who ignore the knowledge that their creator has learn what I poisonous and what is not?

Ever tried collecting mushrooms for dinner?

Can you imagine some one so stupid as to eat one after some one who knows tells them not to eat or they will die?

What does science know more than any other? Nothing it is all guess work and who suffers their mistakes?


A total failure to answer the question

Did the world end in 1914?




Come on, Quizzi;
You should be familiar with James' tactics by now.
Since he is unable to answer a question, he wil
1) check with what the current WTBTS errormongers are writing.
2) Reply by asking questions which are nothing to do with questions others have put to HIM, in the hope of disguising the fact that his group cannot cope with evidence which contradicts it;
&
3) Post yet another text which will not answer either the original questions, or the questions he himself has asked.


He has a track record.
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Jim wrote:



Come on, Quizzi;
You should be familiar with James' tactics by now.
Since he is unable to answer a question, he wil
1) check with what the current WTBTS errormongers are writing.
2) Reply by asking questions which are nothing to do with questions others have put to HIM, in the hope of disguising the fact that his group cannot cope with evidence which contradicts it;
&
3) Post yet another text which will not answer either the original questions, or the questions he himself has asked.


He has a track record.


Thank you, Jim! I had no idea there was a system to his posts ... they all seemed haphazard nonsense to me, but I think you are right.
gone

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Jim wrote:
Quizzimodo wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?


Please give evidence that they, "lied".

Knowledge grows as the tools to delve into that knowledge grows. So scientists first came to understand the cell, and as optical technology grew, they were able to identify things within the cell.

Unless of course you are arguing that no organisation or conceptual group can amend their stance with new knowledge - because to do so entirely discredits them? In which case, may I point out that the world has not yet ended - despite the numerous predictions to do so before today, by your organisation.



Knowledge has to grow for man because he is bourn only with the instincts that he was created with.

How do people who ignore the knowledge that their creator has learn what I poisonous and what is not?

Ever tried collecting mushrooms for dinner?

Can you imagine some one so stupid as to eat one after some one who knows tells them not to eat or they will die?

What does science know more than any other? Nothing it is all guess work and who suffers their mistakes?


A total failure to answer the question

Did the world end in 1914?




Come on, Quizzi;
You should be familiar with James' tactics by now.
Since he is unable to answer a question, he wil
1) check with what the current WTBTS errormongers are writing.
2) Reply by asking questions which are nothing to do with questions others have put to HIM, in the hope of disguising the fact that his group cannot cope with evidence which contradicts it;
&
3) Post yet another text which will not answer either the original questions, or the questions he himself has asked.


He has a track record.


You have got him well sussed!
JamesJah

Proverbs 26:4, 5
Do not answer the stupid one according to his foolishness, So that you do not put yourself on his level.  Answer the stupid one according to his foolishness, So that he does not think he is wise.


Proverbs 1:30, 31
They refused my advice; They disrespected all my reproof. So they will bear the consequences of their way, And they will be glutted with their own counsel.
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
Proverbs 1:30, 31
They refused my advice; They disrespected all my reproof. So they will bear the consequences of their way, And they will be glutted with their own counsel.
   




Ah.....
Option 3!
JamesJah

JamesJah wrote:
Proverbs 26:4, 5
Do not answer the stupid one according to his foolishness, So that you do not put yourself on his level.  Answer the stupid one according to his foolishness, So that he does not think he is wise.


Proverbs 1:30, 31
They refused my advice; They disrespected all my reproof. So they will bear the consequences of their way, And they will be glutted with their own counsel.


Which?
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Proverbs 26:4, 5
Do not answer the stupid one according to his foolishness, So that you do not put yourself on his level.  Answer the stupid one according to his foolishness, So that he does not think he is wise.


Proverbs 1:30, 31
They refused my advice; They disrespected all my reproof. So they will bear the consequences of their way, And they will be glutted with their own counsel.


Which?
 


Nice combination of options 2 & 3, James.
Quizzimodo

Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Proverbs 26:4, 5
Do not answer the stupid one according to his foolishness, So that you do not put yourself on his level.  Answer the stupid one according to his foolishness, So that he does not think he is wise.


Proverbs 1:30, 31
They refused my advice; They disrespected all my reproof. So they will bear the consequences of their way, And they will be glutted with their own counsel.


Which?
 

It is a masterclass, isn't it?



Nice combination of options 2 & 3, James.
JamesJah

Proverbs 1:22
“How long will you inexperienced ones love inexperience? How long will you ridiculers take pleasure in ridicule? And how long will you foolish ones hate knowledge?



Jim

JamesJah wrote:
Proverbs 1:22
“How long will you inexperienced ones love inexperience? How long will you ridiculers take pleasure in ridicule? And how long will you foolish ones hate knowledge?

Ah! Option 3 again!



JamesJah

It is not possible for some one to reject the ransom then say he is a Christian, no Adam no need for  the ransom.



Click to see full size image
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
It is not possible for some one to reject the ransom then say he is a Christian, no Adam no need for  the ransom.



Click to see full size image
 




Reverting to option 2?
Well, variety is the spice of life.
LeClerc

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Morning Leonard

Leonard James wrote:

Surely you don't expect me to believe such nonsense?


Well Leonard you believe that all life on this planet evolved from a single cell.

Now Leonard how did that first single cell manage to do this

Regards

LeClerc
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

LeClerc wrote:

Well Leonard you believe that all life on this planet evolved from a single cell.


Rubbish! I don't believe any such daft thing. You would do far better to ask people what they believe than to leap to false conclusions.

Life began long before the evolution of the cell. Read up a little on the subject and you won't make such silly remarks.
gone

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

LeClerc wrote:
Morning Leonard

Leonard James wrote:

Surely you don't expect me to believe such nonsense?


Well Leonard you believe that all life on this planet evolved from a single cell.

Now Leonard how did that first single cell manage to do this

Regards

LeClerc


LJ comes over as highly intelligent, unlike a couple of posters on this thread! He has never claimed such a stupid idea!
LeClerc

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Hello Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:

Well Leonard you believe that all life on this planet evolved from a single cell.


Rubbish! I don't believe any such daft thing. You would do far better to ask people what they believe than to leap to false conclusions.

Life began long before the evolution of the cell. Read up a little on the subject and you won't make such silly remarks.


Okay Leonard I am asking you what you believe. What form do you believe that life took before the evolution of the cell ?

Regards

LeClerc
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

LeClerc wrote:
Hello Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:

Well Leonard you believe that all life on this planet evolved from a single cell.


Rubbish! I don't believe any such daft thing. You would do far better to ask people what they believe than to leap to false conclusions.

Life began long before the evolution of the cell. Read up a little on the subject and you won't make such silly remarks.


Okay Leonard I am asking you what you believe. What form do you believe that life took before the evolution of the cell ?

Regards

LeClerc


I believe that some kind of molecule formed of simple chemicals which was capable of making a replica of itself.

Nobody yet knows exactly how it happened, but there are many indications that it was possible in the right circumstances. See here :-

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#minerals
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html
JamesJah

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hello Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:

Well Leonard you believe that all life on this planet evolved from a single cell.


Rubbish! I don't believe any such daft thing. You would do far better to ask people what they believe than to leap to false conclusions.

Life began long before the evolution of the cell. Read up a little on the subject and you won't make such silly remarks.


Okay Leonard I am asking you what you believe. What form do you believe that life took before the evolution of the cell ?

Regards

LeClerc


I believe that some kind of molecule formed of simple chemicals which was capable of making a replica of itself.

Nobody yet knows exactly how it happened, but there are many indications that it was possible in the right circumstances. See here :-

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#minerals


Do you know what the word entropy means?

Chemicals are formed in suspension what can you suspendd things in fort them to do self assembly?
JamesJah

Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html


We all know where it is when that is the trick not mastered yet many animals have the technique just man finds it hard work does hew not?
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

JamesJah wrote:


Do you know what the word entropy means?


Of course I know what it means ... don't talk to me as if I were an idiot.

Entropy can be temporarily reversed, as in the formation of a human embryo, even though in the long run it will die and decompose.

Quote:
Chemicals are formed in suspension what can you suspendd things in fort them to do self assembly?


Read the article I cited and find out.
LeClerc

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Hello Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hello Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:

Well Leonard you believe that all life on this planet evolved from a single cell.


Rubbish! I don't believe any such daft thing. You would do far better to ask people what they believe than to leap to false conclusions.

Life began long before the evolution of the cell. Read up a little on the subject and you won't make such silly remarks.


Okay Leonard I am asking you what you believe. What form do you believe that life took before the evolution of the cell ?

Regards

LeClerc


I believe that some kind of molecule formed of simple chemicals which was capable of making a replica of itself.

Nobody yet knows exactly how it happened, but there are many indications that it was possible in the right circumstances. See here :-

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#minerals


The site you linked to contains the following quote.

Quote:

To a certain degree, yes. Could this have been the first primitive cell? Why not?


So Leonard do you believe that all life on this planet evolved from this first primitive cell ?

Regards

LeClerc
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html


We all know where it is when that is the trick not mastered yet many animals have the technique just man finds it hard work does hew not?


What animals?
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

LeClerc wrote:


So Leonard do you believe that all life on this planet evolved from this first primitive cell ?

Regards

LeClerc


For goodness' sake don't keep asking a question I have already answered ... it wastes my time and yours.

No. I do not believe that. The first primitive cell was just one step along the line in the evolution of life, and it had evolved from much simpler beginnings than a cell.

Now, is that clear?
JMC

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Lexilogio wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?


Please give evidence that they, "lied".

Knowledge grows as the tools to delve into that knowledge grows. So scientists first came to understand the cell, and as optical technology grew, they were able to identify things within the cell.

Unless of course you are arguing that no organisation or conceptual group can amend their stance with new knowledge - because to do so entirely discredits them? In which case, may I point out that the world has not yet ended - despite the numerous predictions to do so before today, by your organisation.


Indeed. JamesJah pretty much admits that the scientists got it wrong on the bottom of page 2, which is of course not the same as lying. However, there is perhaps a point to be made that a lot of the earlier scientific understanding for evolution, which has since been modified, does tend to take longer to be expunged from the public conscience. Therefore you do get people believing evolution based on evidence that is no longer supported by science. Is that alright so long as the correct belief is held? I don't know.

The idea of evolution is pretty well entrenched: an idea that predates any scientific evidence that was later dug up (often literally!), and an idea that captured the imagination of western Europe and was fashionable. It still is, of course.
Jim

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

JMC wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Has science fooled every one into thinking evolution is real when they lied about the cell being simple?

Would science be taken a bit more seriously if they showed us how complicated things of creation are?


Please give evidence that they, "lied".

Knowledge grows as the tools to delve into that knowledge grows. So scientists first came to understand the cell, and as optical technology grew, they were able to identify things within the cell.

Unless of course you are arguing that no organisation or conceptual group can amend their stance with new knowledge - because to do so entirely discredits them? In which case, may I point out that the world has not yet ended - despite the numerous predictions to do so before today, by your organisation.


Indeed. JamesJah pretty much admits that the scientists got it wrong on the bottom of page 2, which is of course not the same as lying. However, there is perhaps a point to be made that a lot of the earlier scientific understanding for evolution, which has since been modified, does tend to take longer to be expunged from the public conscience. Therefore you do get people believing evolution based on evidence that is no longer supported by science. Is that alright so long as the correct belief is held? I don't know.

The idea of evolution is pretty well entrenched: an idea that predates any scientific evidence that was later dug up (often literally!), and an idea that captured the imagination of western Europe and was fashionable. It still is, of course.
 



I agree with this.
It saddens me that many faith positions cannot - or will not - accept the evidence of history, archaeology, palaeontology, geology and the 'life sciences' that show an evolving life in a very old earth in a 14 billion year old universe.

    Many theologians, liberal as well as evangelical, have no issues in accepting this. Indeed, many scientists, including physicists, are committed Christians.
My own limited experience in the field of Egyptology convinced me (if any convincing were necessary) that the YEC model of creation is untenable.

    The WTBTS skewed version of history is equally so, given their distressing habit of cherry-picking quotes from various sources, twisting those quotes, and fitting them erroneously into their preconceived idea of what things SHOULD be.

This is, of course, the absolute opposite to what objective science should be.

    I personally have no problem in accommodating the concepts revealed by science into my 'world view'; indeed, far from denting my faith, they give me cause to praise our Creator God all the more for His works!
JMC

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Jim wrote:

I agree with this.


That's nice to read, though what I said didn't exactly agree with what you wrote afterwards. Ah, well.  
JamesJah

Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html


We all know where it is when that is the trick not mastered yet many animals have the technique just man finds it hard work does hew not?


What animals?


Pigs  mainly
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html


We all know where it is when that is the trick not mastered yet many animals have the technique just man finds it hard work does hew not?


What animals?


Pigs  mainly
Why?
LeClerc

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Morning Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


So Leonard do you believe that all life on this planet evolved from this first primitive cell ?

Regards

LeClerc


For goodness' sake don't keep asking a question I have already answered ... it wastes my time and yours.

No. I do not believe that. The first primitive cell was just one step along the line in the evolution of life, and it had evolved from much simpler beginnings than a cell.

Now, is that clear?


Please forgive me Leonard if I have misunderstood you, I was only quoting from the link you gave me.

Quote:

To a certain degree, yes. Could this have been the first primitive cell? Why not?


Can I ask, do you believe that all life on the planet desended from what is referred too as the Last Universal Ancestor. It is widely taught that the LUA was a small, single-cell organism.

Regards

LeClerc
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

LeClerc wrote:


Can I ask, do you believe that all life on the planet desended from what is referred too as the Last Universal Ancestor. It is widely taught that the LUA was a small, single-cell organism.

Regards

LeClerc


Yes, of course ... its very name proclaims that such is the case. If it was a universal ancestor all current life must have descended from it.

However, what I keep trying to point out and you keep ignoring is the fact that life began long before the cell evolved. The cell is a very complicated organism which couldn't possibly have formed spontaneously ... it clearly evolved from much simpler beginnings.
LeClerc

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Morning Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Can I ask, do you believe that all life on the planet desended from what is referred too as the Last Universal Ancestor. It is widely taught that the LUA was a small, single-cell organism.

Regards

LeClerc


Yes, of course ... its very name proclaims that such is the case. If it was a universal ancestor all current life must have descended from it.

However, what I keep trying to point out and you keep ignoring is the fact that life began long before the cell evolved. The cell is a very complicated organism which couldn't possibly have formed spontaneously ... it clearly evolved from much simpler beginnings.


Could you please define ''life''

Regards

LeClerc
bnabernard

The moon  

bernard (hug)
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

LeClerc wrote:
Morning Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Can I ask, do you believe that all life on the planet desended from what is referred too as the Last Universal Ancestor. It is widely taught that the LUA was a small, single-cell organism.

Regards

LeClerc


Yes, of course ... its very name proclaims that such is the case. If it was a universal ancestor all current life must have descended from it.

However, what I keep trying to point out and you keep ignoring is the fact that life began long before the cell evolved. The cell is a very complicated organism which couldn't possibly have formed spontaneously ... it clearly evolved from much simpler beginnings.


Could you please define ''life''

Regards

LeClerc


I'm afraid even scientists don't agree on this point, but in my opinion life is the ability of an organism to autonomously absorb nutrient from the environment and use it to produce a duplicate copy of itself.
JamesJah

Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html


We all know where it is when that is the trick not mastered yet many animals have the technique just man finds it hard work does hew not?


What animals?


Pigs  mainly
Why?


Because they get agitated  the same as many other animals before a quake.
JamesJah

bnabernard wrote:
The moon  

bernard (hug)


Come now Bernie, get real you certain you do not mean a Panatela a fishing rod and a looking at????

Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html


We all know where it is when that is the trick not mastered yet many animals have the technique just man finds it hard work does hew not?
l

What animals?


Pigs  mainly
Why?


Because they get agitated  the same as many other animals before a quake.
why?
LeClerc

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Morning Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Can I ask, do you believe that all life on the planet desended from what is referred too as the Last Universal Ancestor. It is widely taught that the LUA was a small, single-cell organism.

Regards

LeClerc


Yes, of course ... its very name proclaims that such is the case. If it was a universal ancestor all current life must have descended from it.

However, what I keep trying to point out and you keep ignoring is the fact that life began long before the cell evolved. The cell is a very complicated organism which couldn't possibly have formed spontaneously ... it clearly evolved from much simpler beginnings.


Could you please define ''life''

Regards

LeClerc


I'm afraid even scientists don't agree on this point, but in my opinion life is the ability of an organism to autonomously absorb nutrient from the environment and use it to produce a duplicate copy of itself.


How does the organism, which you are referring too, produce a duplicate copy of itself. Could it be by transcription and translation ?

Regards

LeClerc
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

LeClerc wrote:

How does the organism, which you are referring too, produce a duplicate copy of itself. Could it be by transcription and translation ?

Regards

LeClerc


I'm afraid I have no idea ... but a biologist would be able to help you, I suppose.
JamesJah

Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html


We all know where it is when that is the trick not mastered yet many animals have the technique just man finds it hard work does hew not?
l

What animals?


Pigs  mainly
Why?


Because they get agitated  the same as many other animals before a quake.
why?


If scientists were to know why they could perhaps develop a detector don't you think?

Rocks when crushed produce a signal so a detector is something that should be easy enough to build especially now days with todays detectors should it not?
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html


We all know where it is when that is the trick not mastered yet many animals have the technique just man finds it hard work does hew not?


What animals?


Pigs  mainly
Why?


Because they get agitated  the same as many other animals before a quake.


How much time is there between the pigs getting agitated and the quake occurring?
Jim

Anyone else nostalgic for MicholasMarks?
I know NM joined here....
JMC

Jim wrote:
Anyone else nostalgic for MicholasMarks?
I know NM joined here....


From the BBC boards? I was a member there but it was ages ago (years before even NGLr came into being) so I don't recognize the name.
gone

JMC wrote:
Jim wrote:
Anyone else nostalgic for MicholasMarks?
I know NM joined here....


From the BBC boards? I was a member there but it was ages ago (years before even NGLr came into being) so I don't recognize the name.


He posts on R&E http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php, although he hasn't been around for a few weeks.
JamesJah

Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html


We all know where it is when that is the trick not mastered yet many animals have the technique just man finds it hard work does hew not?


What animals?


Pigs  mainly
Why?


Because they get agitated  the same as many other animals before a quake.


How much time is there between the pigs getting agitated and the quake occurring?


Plenty of time to do something sensible a far as I can remember,r It would have been a very old New Scientist article how you find the I have no idea.
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html


We all know where it is when that is the trick not mastered yet many animals have the technique just man finds it hard work does hew not?


What animals?


Pigs  mainly
Why?


Because they get agitated  the same as many other animals before a quake.


How much time is there between the pigs getting agitated and the quake occurring?


Plenty of time to do something sensible a far as I can remember,r It would have been a very old New Scientist article how you find the I have no idea.


How far away from the epicentre were the pigs, to enable something sensible to happen?
What do you mean by something sensible?
How was the agitation distinguished as earthquake-caused?

Why don't all people who live in earthquake zones keep pigs if they are such good predictors?
How big is the pig farming industry in Japan for example?
Leonard James

Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html


We all know where it is when that is the trick not mastered yet many animals have the technique just man finds it hard work does hew not?


What animals?


Pigs  mainly
Why?


Because they get agitated  the same as many other animals before a quake.


How much time is there between the pigs getting agitated and the quake occurring?


Plenty of time to do something sensible a far as I can remember,r It would have been a very old New Scientist article how you find the I have no idea.


How far away from the epicentre were the pigs, to enable something sensible to happen?
What do you mean by something sensible?
How was the agitation distinguished as earthquake-caused?

Why don't all people who live in earthquake zones keep pigs if they are such good predictors?
How big is the pig farming industry in Japan for example?


Excellent, Seb!

Posting in the same style as he does, with a barrage irrelevant questions.

ps. I doubt it will make any difference!  
JamesJah

Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html


We all know where it is when that is the trick not mastered yet many animals have the technique just man finds it hard work does hew not?


What animals?


Pigs  mainly
Why?


Because they get agitated  the same as many other animals before a quake.


How much time is there between the pigs getting agitated and the quake occurring?


Plenty of time to do something sensible a far as I can remember,r It would have been a very old New Scientist article how you find the I have no idea.


How far away from the epicentre were the pigs, to enable something sensible to happen?
What do you mean by something sensible?
How was the agitation distinguished as earthquake-caused?

Why don't all people who live in earthquake zones keep pigs if they are such good predictors?
How big is the pig farming industry in Japan for example?


Highly recommended if you can stand the smell of the pigs
JamesJah

Leonard James wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:


When was the last time science told you when the next earth quake will be?


2012

http://www.voanews.com/content/sc...predicted-earthquake/1816935.html


We all know where it is when that is the trick not mastered yet many animals have the technique just man finds it hard work does hew not?


What animals?


Pigs  mainly
Why?


Because they get agitated  the same as many other animals before a quake.


How much time is there between the pigs getting agitated and the quake occurring?


Plenty of time to do something sensible a far as I can remember,r It would have been a very old New Scientist article how you find the I have no idea.


How far away from the epicentre were the pigs, to enable something sensible to happen?
What do you mean by something sensible?
How was the agitation distinguished as earthquake-caused?

Why don't all people who live in earthquake zones keep pigs if they are such good predictors?
How big is the pig farming industry in Japan for example?


Excellent, Seb!

Posting in the same style as he does, with a barrage irrelevant questions.

ps. I doubt it will make any difference!  


It would be quite difficult to get a sensible answer from any one who thinks life made itself.

Humans are not very good at admitting that their knowledge is quite limited are they not?
Leonard James

JamesJah wrote:

It would be quite difficult to get a sensible answer from any one who thinks life made itself.


On the contrary, they are the ones with the most feasible answers, and don't plead invented supernatural powers.

Quote:
Humans are not very good at admitting that their knowledge is quite limited are they not?


Especially those who claim knowledge they don't have, like god believers.
JamesJah

Leonard James wrote:
JamesJah wrote:

It would be quite difficult to get a sensible answer from any one who thinks life made itself.


On the contrary, they are the ones with the most feasible answers, and don't plead invented supernatural powers.

Quote:
Humans are not very good at admitting that their knowledge is quite limited are they not?


Especially those who claim knowledge they don't have, like god believers.


Does  the creator have greater in knowledge than hums, should be the question?

Is he wiser?

Even in this enlightened age there are many humans that are foolish enough to believe they know better are there not?

So tell me which human is smart enough to make just one blade of grass?
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:


So tell me which human is smart enough to make just one blade of grass?


http://www.grass-direct.co.uk/?gclid=CLGRmMTIob0CFY_ItAodZXwAvg
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:


Highly recommended if you can stand the smell of the pigs


Highly recommended by who?


How far away from the epicentre were the pigs, to enable something sensible to happen?
What do you mean by something sensible?
How was the agitation distinguished as earthquake-caused?

Why don't all people who live in earthquake zones keep pigs if they are such good predictors?
How big is the pig farming industry in Japan for example?
LeClerc

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Hello Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:

How does the organism, which you are referring too, produce a duplicate copy of itself. Could it be by transcription and translation ?

Regards

LeClerc


I'm afraid I have no idea ... but a biologist would be able to help you, I suppose.


I took your advice

Living things are similar to each other because all living things evolved from the same common ancestor that lived billions of years ago.

Now I believe you posted the following

Leonard James wrote:


However, what I keep trying to point out and you keep ignoring is the fact that life began long before the cell evolved. The cell is a very complicated organism which couldn't possibly have formed spontaneously ... it clearly evolved from much simpler beginnings.


Therefore that life which you refer too, which you say existed before the cell evolved, could not have been life according to the biology web site.

Regards

LeClerc
bnabernard

Areyou saying there's life on the moon?  

bernard (hug)
JamesJah

JamesJah wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
JamesJah wrote:

It would be quite difficult to get a sensible answer from any one who thinks life made itself.


On the contrary, they are the ones with the most feasible answers, and don't plead invented supernatural powers.

Quote:
Humans are not very good at admitting that their knowledge is quite limited are they not?


Especially those who claim knowledge they don't have, like god believers.


Does  the creator have greater in knowledge than hums, should be the question?

Is he wiser?

Even in this enlightened age there are many humans that are foolish enough to believe they know better are there not?

So tell me which human is smart enough to make just one blade of grass?


So the answer is no, obviously man is still in his jumping up and down stage trying to pretend he is clever.

The frock suits.
LeClerc

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Hello Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:

How does the organism, which you are referring too, produce a duplicate copy of itself. Could it be by transcription and translation ?

Regards

LeClerc


I'm afraid I have no idea ... but a biologist would be able to help you, I suppose.


I took your advice

Living things are similar to each other because all living things evolved from the same common ancestor that lived billions of years ago.

Now I believe you posted the following

Leonard James wrote:


However, what I keep trying to point out and you keep ignoring is the fact that life began long before the cell evolved. The cell is a very complicated organism which couldn't possibly have formed spontaneously ... it clearly evolved from much simpler beginnings.


Therefore that life which you refer too, which you say existed before the cell evolved, could not have been life according to the biology web site.

Regards

LeClerc
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

LeClerc wrote:
Hello Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:

How does the organism, which you are referring too, produce a duplicate copy of itself. Could it be by transcription and translation ?

Regards

LeClerc


I'm afraid I have no idea ... but a biologist would be able to help you, I suppose.


I took your advice

Living things are similar to each other because all living things evolved from the same common ancestor that lived billions of years ago.

Now I believe you posted the following

Leonard James wrote:


However, what I keep trying to point out and you keep ignoring is the fact that life began long before the cell evolved. The cell is a very complicated organism which couldn't possibly have formed spontaneously ... it clearly evolved from much simpler beginnings.


Therefore that life which you refer too, which you say existed before the cell evolved, could not have been life according to the biology web site.

Regards

LeClerc


I think self-reproducing prebiotic molecules existed before the cell arose. I don't know much about it, but here is an extract :-

"The evolution of life from its beginning through the development of the metazoa (primitive multicellular organisms) took billions of years. The earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen when the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. This reducing environment provided favorable conditions for the natural synthesis of the first organic compounds. The first phospholipid bilayer membranes formed along with primitive RNA and DNA genetic molecules. The membranes adsorbed proteins and the hereditary DNA/RNA material. From these organic molecules, the first primitive prokaryote (simple single cell organism lacking a nucleus) arose. Natural selection began."

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html
JamesJah

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hello Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:

How does the organism, which you are referring too, produce a duplicate copy of itself. Could it be by transcription and translation ?

Regards

LeClerc


I'm afraid I have no idea ... but a biologist would be able to help you, I suppose.


I took your advice

Living things are similar to each other because all living things evolved from the same common ancestor that lived billions of years ago.

Now I believe you posted the following

Leonard James wrote:


However, what I keep trying to point out and you keep ignoring is the fact that life began long before the cell evolved. The cell is a very complicated organism which couldn't possibly have formed spontaneously ... it clearly evolved from much simpler beginnings.


Therefore that life which you refer too, which you say existed before the cell evolved, could not have been life according to the biology web site.

Regards

LeClerc


I think self-reproducing prebiotic molecules existed before the cell arose. I don't know much about it, but here is an extract :-

"The evolution of life from its beginning through the development of the metazoa (primitive multicellular organisms) took billions of years. The earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen when the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. This reducing environment provided favorable conditions for the natural synthesis of the first organic compounds. The first phospholipid bilayer membranes formed along with primitive RNA and DNA genetic molecules. The membranes adsorbed proteins and the hereditary DNA/RNA material. From these organic molecules, the first primitive prokaryote (simple single cell organism lacking a nucleus) arose. Natural selection began."

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html


The earth was to hot to start life one billion years ago at alone four billion when is science going to start working with the facts instead of the fiction?

The earth needed to form a crust thick enough to reduce the temperature from six thousand degrees to at least one hundred.

should be plenty of carbon about though if you know what to do with it when things do eventually cool down.

O by the way science has recently discovered acid rain came next you might like to check on what they think can live in an acid environment?
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

JamesJah wrote:


The earth was to hot to start life one billion years ago at alone four billion when is science going to start working with the facts instead of the fiction?

The earth needed to form a crust thick enough to reduce the temperature from six thousand degrees to at least one hundred.

should be plenty of carbon about though if you know what to do with it when things do eventually cool down.

O by the way science has recently discovered acid rain came next you might like to check on what they think can live in an acid environment?


I'm sure your points are refutable. but I can't be bothered to research them.

I have faith in the scientific method, and I laud its honesty in recognising mistakes and trying to correct them. It is the only reliable tool we have for gaining knowledge.

Listening to the pronouncements of religious moguls who believe that some god or other has instructed them is for the gullible ... not for me.
LeClerc

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Morning Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hello Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:

How does the organism, which you are referring too, produce a duplicate copy of itself. Could it be by transcription and translation ?

Regards

LeClerc


I'm afraid I have no idea ... but a biologist would be able to help you, I suppose.


I took your advice

Living things are similar to each other because all living things evolved from the same common ancestor that lived billions of years ago.

Now I believe you posted the following

Leonard James wrote:


However, what I keep trying to point out and you keep ignoring is the fact that life began long before the cell evolved. The cell is a very complicated organism which couldn't possibly have formed spontaneously ... it clearly evolved from much simpler beginnings.


Therefore that life which you refer too, which you say existed before the cell evolved, could not have been life according to the biology web site.

Regards

LeClerc


I think self-reproducing prebiotic molecules existed before the cell arose. I don't know much about it, but here is an extract :-

"The evolution of life from its beginning through the development of the metazoa (primitive multicellular organisms) took billions of years. The earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen when the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. This reducing environment provided favorable conditions for the natural synthesis of the first organic compounds. The first phospholipid bilayer membranes formed along with primitive RNA and DNA genetic molecules. The membranes adsorbed proteins and the hereditary DNA/RNA material. From these organic molecules, the first primitive prokaryote (simple single cell organism lacking a nucleus) arose. Natural selection began."

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html


The origin of self replication requires a solution to three problems:

Chemical evolution must create a protein, an RNA molecule or an RNA like molecule.

This molecule must possess the molecular knowledge that enables self replication. It must also be able to implement this knowledge.

The molecule must possess the molecular knowledge needed to harness an energy source to do useful work, and it must also be able to implement this knowledge in such a way that the energy source drives replication.

Regards

LeClerc
Leonard James

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

LeClerc wrote:


The origin of self replication requires a solution to three problems:

Chemical evolution must create a protein, an RNA molecule or an RNA like molecule.

This molecule must possess the molecular knowledge that enables self replication. It must also be able to implement this knowledge.

The molecule must possess the molecular knowledge needed to harness an energy source to do useful work, and it must also be able to implement this knowledge in such a way that the energy source drives replication.

Regards

LeClerc


Many elements already possess the "knowledge" of combining with others in different ways to form molecules, which in their turn carry on the combining process by bonding to other molecules.

I do not profess to know how all these various combinations led to a self copying unit, but I am confident that science will find out sooner or later.

In the meantime I don't consider it necessary to arrive at an answer by inventing a supernatural power for which there is zero evidence.
LeClerc

Re: Evolution and theChristian faith?

Morning Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


The origin of self replication requires a solution to three problems:

Chemical evolution must create a protein, an RNA molecule or an RNA like molecule.

This molecule must possess the molecular knowledge that enables self replication. It must also be able to implement this knowledge.

The molecule must possess the molecular knowledge needed to harness an energy source to do useful work, and it must also be able to implement this knowledge in such a way that the energy source drives replication.

Regards

LeClerc


Many elements already possess the "knowledge" of combining with others in different ways to form molecules, which in their turn carry on the combining process by bonding to other molecules.

I do not profess to know how all these various combinations led to a self copying unit, but I am confident that science will find out sooner or later.

In the meantime I don't consider it necessary to arrive at an answer by inventing a supernatural power for which there is zero evidence.


Y'shua Ben Yosef of Nazareth, the Messiah, is the evidence, and can be trusted 100%

You like Bernie have just proved the truth of the Messianic Writings

John 1
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

Regards

LeClerc
bnabernard

So LC  are now saying/sugesting in light of scripture that Jesus is not the omnipetent Almighty God after all ?
Now if you are taking to believing at Jesus is the preiodic table was he all the elements or simply some of the elements?

bernard (hug)
Leonard James

Hi LeClerc,

Jesus was just another man taken in by the scriptures of his religion.
LeClerc

Morning Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
So LC  are now saying/sugesting in light of scripture that Jesus is not the omnipetent Almighty God after all ?
bernard (hug)


Who spoke these words, was it not Y'shua ?

Revelation 1
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Regards

LeClerc
Leonard James

LeClerc wrote:
Morning Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
So LC  are now saying/sugesting in light of scripture that Jesus is not the omnipetent Almighty God after all ?
bernard (hug)


Who spoke these words, was it not Y'shua ?

Revelation 1
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Regards

LeClerc


Those words were put into the mouth of Jesus by the writer of Revelations. You have no way of knowing if he actually said them.
LeClerc

Morning Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
So LC  are now saying/sugesting in light of scripture that Jesus is not the omnipetent Almighty God after all ?
bernard (hug)


Who spoke these words, was it not Y'shua ?

Revelation 1
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Regards

LeClerc


Those words were put into the mouth of Jesus by the writer of Revelations. You have no way of knowing if he actually said them.


Those without the Spirit would say that Leonard.

John 7
38 Whoever puts his trust in me, as the Scripture says, rivers of living water will flow from his inmost being!” 39 (Now he said this about the Spirit, whom those who trusted in him were to receive later — the Spirit had not yet been given, because Yeshua had not yet been glorified.)

Regards

LeClerc

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat Page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum