Jump to content
Online Baptist

Evolution Mask Off - In Their Words


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Does anyone else enjoy this besides me? Miller-Urey 1953 

"But the Miller-Urey experiment, important as it was, had a flaw. Urey had based his primitive-Earth atmosphere on astronomical data just then coming in, the first spectra from the giant planets in our Solar System: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. These characteristic bands of color showed that the giants were swathed in atmospheres rich in methane and ammonia, thought to be left over from the planets' formation.

The catch is that oxygen, although an absolute necessity for multicellular, advanced life, is poison to pre-biotic synthesis. Do a Miller-Urey experiment in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, Kasting said, and "you don't form things like amino acids. There are too many oxygen atoms in there." So, over the years, "enthusiasm for the warm little pond theory has waned." ~ Reflections From a Warm Little Pond, By David Pacchioli

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
2 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Does anyone else enjoy this besides me? Miller-Urey 1953 

"But the Miller-Urey experiment, important as it was, had a flaw. Urey had based his primitive-Earth atmosphere on astronomical data just then coming in, the first spectra from the giant planets in our Solar System: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. These characteristic bands of color showed that the giants were swathed in atmospheres rich in methane and ammonia, thought to be left over from the planets' formation.

The catch is that oxygen, although an absolute necessity for multicellular, advanced life, is poison to pre-biotic synthesis. Do a Miller-Urey experiment in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, Kasting said, and "you don't form things like amino acids. There are too many oxygen atoms in there." So, over the years, "enthusiasm for the warm little pond theory has waned." ~ Reflections From a Warm Little Pond, By David Pacchioli

Many secular scientists are abandoning evolution for intelligent design because of the many failures of the theory.  Unfortunately, they have aliens designing us. I think even atheist Richard Dawkins has moved towards this position, at least, he suggests it's possible.

Anything but believe in an almighty creator God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 3/27/2021 at 8:02 PM, SureWord said:

Many secular scientists are abandoning evolution for intelligent design because of the many failures of the theory.  Unfortunately, they have aliens designing us. I think even atheist Richard Dawkins has moved towards this position, at least, he suggests it's possible.

Anything but believe in an almighty creator God.

I enjoy the debunking of these THEORIES by people seeking to supplant God's truth for their own misguided self-indulgence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
2 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

What about the moral aspect of mankind? How did morality develop in Darwin's theory of natural selection?

Since you asked. - the claim is in order for functionality of a society a moral code must of been developed, trades, marriage, laws etc.

But look at natives of the americas, they had society with laws, but their morals were way off center.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

What about the moral aspect of mankind? How did morality develop in Darwin's theory of natural selection?

My guess is they'll say that morals are an evolutionary result of a species determining what is best for the survival of the group as a whole. In other words, war is bad because it is not good for the survival and comfort ("life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness") of a species as a whole except when it's beneficial for the betterment of the species. This is why a moral reason is needed to go to war ("liberating an oppressed people") when we know the motive is usually control of resources and power by a few at the top. Somehow, through natural selection or "social Darwinism", the species has evolved this determination or whatever it may be called. Of course, this is shifting sand to build on for morals and conscience can be manipulated as we see now where behavior such as homosexuality is now regarded as good and any who opposed it are considered evil. It also doesn't explain how this morality, conscience or survival instinct was coded into us.

This is my guess.

Edited by SureWord
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
On 3/27/2021 at 5:02 PM, SureWord said:

Many secular scientists are abandoning evolution for intelligent design because of the many failures of the theory.  Unfortunately, they have aliens designing us. I think even atheist Richard Dawkins has moved towards this position, at least, he suggests it's possible.

Anything but believe in an almighty creator God.

I just ask, "So, where did THEY come from? And did they plant the universe in place, as well? Did they supply the open space to put the universe into? You can't have aliens without having the same questions of origins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
15 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

I just ask, "So, where did THEY come from? And did they plant the universe in place, as well? Did they supply the open space to put the universe into? You can't have aliens without having the same questions of origins.

I agree. There's a video in YouTube with Ben Stein confronting Dawkins about this. Even if we were genetically engineered from apes where did the "engineers" come from? It takes more faith to believe what they believe than to believe the God of the Bible created us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
18 hours ago, SureWord said:

I agree. There's a video in YouTube with Ben Stein confronting Dawkins about this. Even if we were genetically engineered from apes where did the "engineers" come from? It takes more faith to believe what they believe than to believe the God of the Bible created us.

Yes, I believe that was from the movie "Expelled", very good. He really boxed Dawkins into admitting what he didn't want to admit: that there HAD to be an intelligent source for life. Later, Dawkins claimed he was 'tricked' into saying it, even though he had the right to have them remove that footage of the show. He is a whiner.

On 3/27/2021 at 2:39 PM, 1Timothy115 said:

Does anyone else enjoy this besides me? Miller-Urey 1953 

"But the Miller-Urey experiment, important as it was, had a flaw. Urey had based his primitive-Earth atmosphere on astronomical data just then coming in, the first spectra from the giant planets in our Solar System: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. These characteristic bands of color showed that the giants were swathed in atmospheres rich in methane and ammonia, thought to be left over from the planets' formation.

The catch is that oxygen, although an absolute necessity for multicellular, advanced life, is poison to pre-biotic synthesis. Do a Miller-Urey experiment in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, Kasting said, and "you don't form things like amino acids. There are too many oxygen atoms in there." So, over the years, "enthusiasm for the warm little pond theory has waned." ~ Reflections From a Warm Little Pond, By David Pacchioli

Another issue with the Urey-Miller experiment, was that about 97% of what the experiment produced was a toxic tar sludge that had to be immediately removed, or it would have killed the few amino acids produced. So either the slidge, or oxidation, both had to be taken into account and carefully removed by an 'intelligent source' for the whole experiment to not be a failure. Which is was, of course, a spectacular failure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

Regarding science's explanations, this is not original but I don't recall from whom or from where I found it...

Quote

[u]Universe[/u]

1. We have an explosion.
2. There is no need to consider what might have been before the explosion.

[u]Sun[/u]

3. We have gravity (the effect can be seen but the essence is not fathomable, i.e. its referred to as a phenomenon).
4. There is no need to ask the question of how gravity initiated.

[u]Earth[/u]

5. We have collisions without scattering.
6. Don’t concern yourself with the effect of masses colliding under high velocity.

[u]Atmosphere[/u]

7. We have generation of life’s building blocks.
8. Don’t study the requirements of amino acid (prebiotic) life and compare it with the atmospheric requirements of  biotic (oxygen requiring) life.

[u]Man[/u]

9. We (you and I) have arrived.
10. Don’t begin to reason about morality. It is clearly evident from the process proposed above moral conscience has little to no chance of evolving.

A person could be led to believe all the speculation and supposition referenced from the scientific community. Persons would have to ignore the proof within themselves they have a sense of what is right and wrong. Which amino acid, bacterium, organelle, or eukaryote would you attribute with your moral conscience?

 

Edited by 1Timothy115
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...