We don't know exactly what the conditions were on the early earth. We also don't have the billions of years to experiment that it took. Despite that, we've made quite a few strides in our investigations.

But none of this has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Also, this is not evidence for creationism. Explain to me how trying to poke holes in the existing theory is evidence for something else.

Originally Posted by T.Q

We don't know exactly what the conditions were on the early earth. We also don't have the billions of years to experiment that it took. Despite that, we've made quite a few strides in our investigations.

But none of this has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Also, this is not evidence for creationism. Explain to me how trying to poke holes in the existing theory is evidence for something else.

how is disproving natural explanations without divine intervention not evidence for divine intervention?

Do we really need to keep going in circles? You're setting up a false dichotomy. If the ToE is thrown out, it does not automatically mean that creationism is correct.

Now stop repeating the same question.

Originally Posted by T.Q

Do we really need to keep going in circles? You're setting up a false dichotomy. If the ToE is thrown out, it does not automatically mean that creationism is correct.

Now stop repeating the same question.

I didn't mention evolution in this topic.

You did.

Originally Posted by RandyA

how is disproving natural explanations without divine intervention not evidence for divine intervention?

1) You only disprove one natural explanation
2) It provides no evidence that divine intervention occurred

Your argument is nothing more then if the sky is not orange it must be black.

Originally Posted by obvious_child

1) You only disprove one natural explanation
2) It provides no evidence that divine intervention occurred

Your argument is nothing more then if the sky is not orange it must be black.

Where did I only address one natural explanation? I referred to natural explanations in general.

When natural explanation is ruled out, there is only the supernatural.

Originally Posted by RandyA

I didn't mention evolution in this topic.

You did.

Oh, so you were not in any way talking about evolution in these posts? Then why are they posted on the c vs e board?

Please, that's just pathetic.

Originally Posted by T.Q

Oh, so you were not in any way talking about evolution in these posts? Then why are they posted on the c vs e board?

Please, that's just pathetic.

Pathetic?

You said I was talking about evolution. I didn't even mention it

You said I had to be talking about evolution in a c vs e board, when I clearly mentioned creation in my title.

You completely ignored what I've said on another thread three different times.

and you're calling me pathetic?

ok

Originally Posted by RandyA

Pathetic?

You said I was talking about evolution. I didn't even mention it

You said I had to be talking about evolution in a c vs e board, when I clearly mentioned creation in my title.

You completely ignored what I've said on another thread three different times.

and you're calling me pathetic?

ok

Yes, I am. Because you are either:
a) too dense to understand what a false dichotomy is, or
b) Know what it is but somehow think it's clever to just retype the same question over and over again when it's already been answered.

I'm going with b), with some a) mixed in, as your only response seems to be to post the same sentence over and over.

If you accept what God says in Genesis, He created life by natural means. The earth and waters brought forth life.

This is why so few Christians are YE creationists; the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly refuted by God.

Originally Posted by RandyA

When natural explanation is ruled out, there is only the supernatural.

Our present incomplete understanding of processes hardly amounts to ruling out natural explanations. No evidence of the supernatural exists. Strictly the inference of the faithful. Gets us nowhere. One could just as easily assert extraterrestrial intervention as supernatural intervention.

Originally Posted by RandyA

Life is simply too complex to have arised naturally.

How can scientists assert that it simply appeared on this planet billions of years ago?

They can manipulate the environment however they wish, they can create an environment that is many many times more ideal for life to arise than any place found in the natural world.

We can put a man on the moon, create nano-technology, build skyscrapers, create machines that can process billions of commands a second, and yet not re-create something that simply happened in a pool of chemicals?

Hi Randy!

Could you define complexity, please? I'm having trouble with why you assert that life is too complex to have arisen by abiogenesis (rather than an act of creation) and it would help me see where you are coming from if we are both singing from the same hymn sheet (so to speak).

Thanks,

Larni

Originally Posted by RandyA

Life is simply too complex to have arised naturally.

This is an unsupported assertion, and it the logical fallacy known as 'personal incredibility' aka 'The arguement from ignorance'. It also, is incorrect. It has been shown through computer modeling, very complex structures can be formed via very simple rules and a filter. So, not only does this start out with a logical fallacy, it starts out with a declaration that has been already falsified.

How can scientists assert that it simply appeared on this planet billions of years ago?

Uh,.. I see you don't know what the scientists think, and the reasons for it. Maybe you should take some simple biology classes.

They can manipulate the environment however they wish, they can create an environment that is many many times more ideal for life to arise than any place found in the natural world.

We can put a man on the moon, create nano-technology, build skyscrapers, create machines that can process billions of commands a second, and yet not re-create something that simply happened in a pool of chemicals?

They can, and are doing so actually

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

Originally Posted by trebor

They can, and are doing so actually

WOW.

Thanks for the link, Trebor!