From: user6340@newsgrouper.org.invalid
JTEM posted:
> On 12/18/25 1:06 AM, Steven Douglas wrote:
>
> > There is so much evidence for God, that a person has
> > to be willfully blind to not see it.
>
> No. Not really.
That's just a misunderstanding of the evidence. Do you
know anything about the fine-tuning of the universe?
It's incredible that so many people think ALL the
conditions that are necessary for our existence on
this planet just happened by some strange string of
massive coincidences -- the odds of that happening
are beyond staggering, yet you so can so easily
choose to believe that it all just happened all
by itself.
>
> >> We can start with fossils. They stretch back billions
> >> of years. But moths don't. Cats don't. Lizards don't.
>
> > There is nothing in the fossil record that shows one
> > species turning into another species.
>
> That's just a misunderstanding of the evidence.
No, I understand the "evidence" quite clearly. It's
just as I stated it just above.
>
> >> Anyway, we have a fossil record which, though extremely
> >> far from complete, does show a picture of increasing
> >> complexity.
>
> > Like the Cambrian Explosion?
>
> Yes. Like the Cambrian explosion. We see the very first
> glimpse at what looks like a spinal cord, for example.
>
> There's very little preserved from that period and the
> consensus these days leans towards a preservation bias --
> it wasn't a sudden "Explosion," it's a case where not
> much of the earth from that period survives.
Yes, there's always an excuse.
>
> >> And that is evidence. So unless by
> >> "Evidence" you mean "Proof," there's plenty of fossil
> >> evidence.
> >
> > The Cambrian Explosion produced a lot of new life forms
> > in far too quick a time to be explained by evolution.
>
> Not true at all.
>
> What are you pretending is the time? How much was needed?
It was far more rapid than whatever is claimed to have
happened prior to that.
>
> >> There's also DNA evidence, which strongly supports the
> >> Common Descent of life.
>
> > DNA is far too complex to have evolved all by itself.
>
> Not true. That's just a misunderstanding of DNA.
I understand DNA quite well, and it's astounding to
me that anyone can think it created itself. Because
it is a creation. It is excellent evidence of a
Creator. It's contains a type of software code
that is more complex than any computer software
ever created -- because things like this need a
Creator, they don't just happen all by themselves.
>
> Humans actually don't have as many genes as some other
> species!
Yes, and? Did you have a point?
>
> > It's literally a machine, and it's capable of doing
> > things that indicate a Creator must have created it.
>
> It's not a machine and it's not doing anything that only
> a creator can do.
Yes, it IS a machine. You need to study it.
>
> >>> It's possible that the body of captive body of water
> >>> might have been the scene of a flood at some point
> >>> in the past, and fish and other lifeforms wound up
> >>> in that body of water before the flood receded.
> >>
> >> People who talk about/investigate this stuff don't seem
> >> to think so, in a lot of cases.
>
> > What's their explanation?
>
> Two explanations -- no proof -- are that birds are carrying
> this life from body of water to body of water. One says that
> the birds are failing to digest the eggs of some life, pooping
> them out in a new location, and the other says that they get
> stuck to feet or in feather or whatever, and carried to new
> locations that way.
>
> It's not a particularly hot topic for me but I've never seen
> any hard science backing any explanation.
>
> >> The real problem is not their failure. It's that success
> >> would be proof positive of creation. That, it would be
> >> proof that AN INTELLIGENCE can BY DESIGN bring life into
> >> existence. It would not nor could not prove that abiogenesis
> >> ever happened.
>
> > They've tried to duplicate the conditions of the
> > chaotic world in which they claim life popped into
> > existence all by itself. They can't do it because
> > it didn't happen all by itself. There had to be a
> > Creator who created life, and everything else.
>
> Again, the failure does nothing but expose the religious
> adherence to the belief. SUCCESS would be a huge problem
> for them though, because THAT would be proof of creationism.
> It would be an example of creationism!
Not if they could duplicate the chaotic conditions
of the world at the time they say life popped into
existence all by itself. That would prove that it's
possible for life to have popped into existence all
by itself, but they can't get it to happen no matter
how hard they try.
>
> >> Yes. And it had countless opportunities to start elsewhere BEFORE
> >> it had an opportunity here. So I conclude that it most likely
> >> arrived here from elsewhere.
>
> > How did it survive the ride through space?
>
> Why wouldn't it survive?
>
> Google: Oldest surviving bacteria.
>
> Apparently it can survive long enough to reach the nearest GALAXY,
> never mind solar system!
So the first life -- that produced ALL living things
we see all around us -- was a bacteria from space?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
