-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The proof my friend is that life exists on this world in the absence of any evidence of the existence of a deity (a typical atheist response). 
That said, you are probably familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment that succeeded in producing more than 20 of the essential amino acids that life requires. The point of this experiment, and others that followed, was to demonstrate that complex organic molecules necessary to life could form under natural conditions. It is thought now that fewer than these may have been required to produce the first life.
Do biologists understand yet how the first self-replicating molecules formed? No. You know that. My question is, what will you say when they succeed?
That said, you are probably familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment that succeeded in producing more than 20 of the essential amino acids that life requires. The point of this experiment, and others that followed, was to demonstrate that complex organic molecules necessary to life could form under natural conditions. It is thought now that fewer than these may have been required to produce the first life.
Do biologists understand yet how the first self-replicating molecules formed? No. You know that. My question is, what will you say when they succeed?
Furthermore what if I told you they found chariots of Pharaoh's army under water... Exactly where the bible says they crossed the Sea and went towards their promise land. Would this not be evidence? Or would it?
Last edited:
H
The proof my friend is that life exists on this world in the absence of any evidence of the existence of a deity (a typical atheist response).
since there is no evidence of life arising from non life, unless u already presuppose that there is no God...than that really isn't proof at all, is it? ( a typical Christian response I suppose) lol
But didn't his experiment require an enormous amount of energy to succeed at all? I know that it was believed there were a ton of lightning storms on the early earth but not enough to produce the amount of energy needed in his experiment.
what will I say IF they succeed? I'll think of something I'm sure...but as u know...I'm pretty sceptical that when or if will ever come.
now...what will u say when u meet the God of the Universe and realize that He really did set everything into motion?
Further more the Miller Urey experiment had the following flaws...
They didn't accurately model the Earth's early atmosphere, which means that things didn't exist in the proportions they thought.
The amino acids were racemic (there were two variations on each amino acid formed), whereas in current life this is not the case.
It's a long way from making amino acids to forming life. Amino acids are found in interstellar gas clouds, but that doesn't mean that there are squirrels floating around up there.
This is taken from Socratic.org
Also they fail to mention that another bolt of electricity would have DESTROYED the proteins, they were simulating the hypothesis that lightning struck the ocean and created life... They also failto mention that the proteins were the most basic of basic and were not able to join together by any means! They could not get the proteins to form a structure if their lives depended on it.
They didn't accurately model the Earth's early atmosphere, which means that things didn't exist in the proportions they thought.
The amino acids were racemic (there were two variations on each amino acid formed), whereas in current life this is not the case.
It's a long way from making amino acids to forming life. Amino acids are found in interstellar gas clouds, but that doesn't mean that there are squirrels floating around up there.
This is taken from Socratic.org
Also they fail to mention that another bolt of electricity would have DESTROYED the proteins, they were simulating the hypothesis that lightning struck the ocean and created life... They also failto mention that the proteins were the most basic of basic and were not able to join together by any means! They could not get the proteins to form a structure if their lives depended on it.
Last edited:
I read Collins' book. Everything he said about evolution I agreed with. I see what happened now. You only quoted a part of the Biologos statement. This is what threw me. If you had given the whole quote I would not have had as much of a problem with it.
It reads:
We at BioLogos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today. While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism. Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. Instead, we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created the universe and all life. Christians disagree, however, on how God created. Young Earth Creationists believe that God created just 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and disagree with much of mainstream science. Supporters of Intelligent Design accept more of evolutionary science, but argue that some features of life are best explained by direct intervention by an intelligent agent rather than by God’s regular way of working through natural processes. We at BioLogos agree with the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and evolutionary development of all species, seeing these as descriptions of how God created. The term BioLogos comes from the Greek words bios (life) and logos (word), referring to the opening of the Gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made.”
You left out that one very important line: We at BioLogos agree with the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and evolutionary development of all species, seeing these as descriptions of how God created.
Yes, that is what he stated in his book and I had no difficulty with it. Hopesprings, leaving that out of the quote you provided, gave me the wrong impression. Perhaps you didn't want me to see that missing line?
My views and those of Biologos are identical, except that I have removed God from the equation.
It reads:
We at BioLogos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today. While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism. Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. Instead, we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created the universe and all life. Christians disagree, however, on how God created. Young Earth Creationists believe that God created just 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and disagree with much of mainstream science. Supporters of Intelligent Design accept more of evolutionary science, but argue that some features of life are best explained by direct intervention by an intelligent agent rather than by God’s regular way of working through natural processes. We at BioLogos agree with the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and evolutionary development of all species, seeing these as descriptions of how God created. The term BioLogos comes from the Greek words bios (life) and logos (word), referring to the opening of the Gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made.”
You left out that one very important line: We at BioLogos agree with the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and evolutionary development of all species, seeing these as descriptions of how God created.
Yes, that is what he stated in his book and I had no difficulty with it. Hopesprings, leaving that out of the quote you provided, gave me the wrong impression. Perhaps you didn't want me to see that missing line?
My views and those of Biologos are identical, except that I have removed God from the equation.
H
thats basically what I said...I was just trying to summarize because copying and pasting is hard on my iPad
they believe that evolution is the natural process God used to create.
Wasn't trying to give you the wrong impression at all....which is why I said that they differ slightly in their view of intelligent design from some other views.
I don't disagree with them either, btw
and wow....u really jumped on board of thinking I did that intentionally, didn't u? What ever happened to the benefit of the doubt
jk
And...i wouldnt say your views are identical....they are quite adamant that God started the whole thing
they believe that evolution is the natural process God used to create.
Wasn't trying to give you the wrong impression at all....which is why I said that they differ slightly in their view of intelligent design from some other views.
I don't disagree with them either, btw
and wow....u really jumped on board of thinking I did that intentionally, didn't u? What ever happened to the benefit of the doubt
jk
And...i wouldnt say your views are identical....they are quite adamant that God started the whole thing
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree with you both, if God used evolution, God is not a god worth worshiping... PERIOD!
A god that used a series of deaths to finally get perfection is not my God! It is not supported by the Bible and never will be, evolution is a religion.
With evolution the bible is wrong... Evolution mixes up the birds and reptiles in the day's they were created...
A god that used a series of deaths to finally get perfection is not my God! It is not supported by the Bible and never will be, evolution is a religion.
With evolution the bible is wrong... Evolution mixes up the birds and reptiles in the day's they were created...
Last edited:
Adam and Eve would not die until they ate of the fruit... How do you get humans that cannot die in evolution...???
Furthermore how do you explain Isaiah 11?
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
How do you explain the Bible and evolution having different orders of the creation of birds and reptiles?
How do you explain Dinosaurs being found with cancer, if dinosaurs lived before the fall of man.
Furthermore how do you explain Isaiah 11?
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
How do you explain the Bible and evolution having different orders of the creation of birds and reptiles?
How do you explain Dinosaurs being found with cancer, if dinosaurs lived before the fall of man.
As it stands there is no evidence either way. There is no physical proof a deity created life, and there is no proof life arose from an existing soup of organic molecules by, as yet, an unknown process.
Your argument seems to rest on the claim that we can't imagine how life could have formed without God. The difficulty with this is that biochemists are trying to imagine how life might have arisen, and they might eventually succeed in creating it in the lab. While the Miller-Urey experiment, and others like it, have not created life, they have formed -- what we think -- may be all the necessary precursors. Remember too, we are not looking for the spontaneous creation in the lab of a macro-bacteria. We are looking for a self-replicating molecule. Such a thing would be incredibly small and hence very difficult to detect. It might not be visible through a light microscope, but perhaps would require a scanning electron microscope to detect. It is not a simple task we’ve set ourselves: the creation of life in the laboratory. But what if we succeed? What will you say then?
Your argument seems to rest on the claim that we can't imagine how life could have formed without God. The difficulty with this is that biochemists are trying to imagine how life might have arisen, and they might eventually succeed in creating it in the lab. While the Miller-Urey experiment, and others like it, have not created life, they have formed -- what we think -- may be all the necessary precursors. Remember too, we are not looking for the spontaneous creation in the lab of a macro-bacteria. We are looking for a self-replicating molecule. Such a thing would be incredibly small and hence very difficult to detect. It might not be visible through a light microscope, but perhaps would require a scanning electron microscope to detect. It is not a simple task we’ve set ourselves: the creation of life in the laboratory. But what if we succeed? What will you say then?
H
I can't answer those questions right now....that's why I am asking my own questions about evolution.
But I know that I am in no position to tell God He could not have used evolution as His process of creation just because i say so. I mean...He is infinite after all....and He has been around a really long time....so if He made all this happen using a longer process then 6 actual, 24 hour days...I suppose that's His right.
I can't answer those questions right now....that's why I am asking my own questions about evolution.
But I know that I am in no position to tell God He could not have used evolution as His process of creation just because i say so. I mean...He is infinite after all....and He has been around a really long time....so if He made all this happen using a longer process then 6 actual, 24 hour days...I suppose that's His right.
But I know that I am in no position to tell God He could not have used evolution as His process of creation just because i say so. I mean...He is infinite after all....and He has been around a really long time....so if He made all this happen using a longer process then 6 actual, 24 hour days...I suppose that's His right.
You are listening to man's religions and saying God you did it this way...
I know this is harsh and I apologize but you are wrong... Every time the phrases in Genesis for the word DAY is used, always refers to a single day, not a unknown time period. ALWAYS! Even in Hebrew it is the same.
My God is not a god that is subject to the world and humans interpretations of the universe... My God made the universe in all its splendor! My God made it in 6 days, literal day as the bible says... I will not allow someone to say "but what if you interpret it this way"? NO! THE WORD OF GOD IS NOT MADE FOR INTERPRETATION! It is what it says it is, period.
Last edited:
H
My argument, if u will, rests on the fact that there is no evidence for abiogenesis. And yet there is the claim that it must be true because there is no such thing as a supernatural beginning. The belief that abiogenesis is true is completely based off of a presupposition that God is NOT true.
The Creationist says that there is no evidence for abiogenesis because the beginning was supernatural. It is the exact same argument. It is not that I cannot imagine life could have formed without a God...but that there is no evidence that life can form from non life....and atheistic scientists repeatedly make the claim that they need evidence/ facts in order to believe. It's a little hypocritical IMO
and...we do have evidence for supernatural intervention in creation....He had it written down for us and everything
if they succeed in creating life from non life then I will personally fly to your house on a golden pony so I can shake your hand and congratulate you on proving me wrong
hehe
It is almost midnight where I am. I will have to get into this later; but to give you a taste, did you notice that Eve does not notice that snakes should not be able to talk? Did you notice that God created light on the first day and the Sun on the forth? You cannot have days at all without the sun.