2
1Markseeker 2 points ago +2 / -0

The weight of evidence appears to favor an organic origin, most petroleum coming from plants and perhaps also animals, which were buried and fossilized in sedimentary source rocks. See Levorsen, A.I., Geology of Petroleum, 2nd ed., W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, pp. 3–31, 1967.

The petroleum was then chemically altered into crude oil and gas.

The chemistry of oil provides crucial clues as to its origin. Petroleum is a complex mixture of organic compounds. One such chemical in crude oils is called porphyrin:

Petroleum porphyrins … have been identified in a sufficient number of sediments and crude oils to establish a wide distribution of the geochemical fossils.

~ Tissot, B.P., and Welte, D.H., Petroleum Formation and Occurrence, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p. 128, 1984

See this article for more information regarding this line of research.

3
1Markseeker 3 points ago +3 / -0

Good discussion.

In all fairness to the positions on the table, they are mutually exclusive. They both can’t be true. Definitions are important here.

If we define Darwinian Evolution as a mindless, unguided, entirely natural process, then it stands in direct opposition to any creation story that posits a Mind, and both theories cannot both be true. One must be false.

Theistic Creation = Mind Involved

Darwinian Evolution = Mind not involved.

9
1Markseeker 9 points ago +9 / -0

Wanna make a libtards head explode?

Ask them if we should require a VAX ID in order to vote.

2
1Markseeker 2 points ago +3 / -1

A thousand yeses

1
1Markseeker 1 point ago +3 / -2

But but…NASA has pictures of the curve??

4
1Markseeker 4 points ago +4 / -0

Codes are math, logic.

Well, this is a confusing statement, because Math isn't Logic either. Consider the very definition of "Code."

A Code is a system of signals or symbols for communication. Not the same as Math. And Codes never form by purely natural, unguided processes. They come only from Minds.

Codes don't arise from minds, they are discovered.

Yes, they always come from Minds. And they're discovered by Minds.

4
1Markseeker 4 points ago +4 / -0

Even God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick.

5
1Markseeker 5 points ago +5 / -0

Bingo! Well said.

5
1Markseeker 5 points ago +5 / -0

Thank you for this!

2
1Markseeker 2 points ago +3 / -1

Most of the Oil deposits in the world were created from the great flood. Massive amounts of organic material being buried under pressure very quickly. The process occurred rapidly, not over eons of time.

5
1Markseeker 5 points ago +5 / -0

My pleasure!

The feeling is mutual

7
1Markseeker 7 points ago +7 / -0

If it's so fantastical to believe that "single celled organisms poofed into existence one day and evolved", why is it suddenly okay to believe that we were poofed into existence as whole humans?

I dont want to be a victim of a strawman here. So I'll try and clear up my position a little bit more. I'm a Creationist. I believe there was a Mind (God) behind the creation of the Universe and the appearance of Man. How (or by what mechanism) God brought everything into existence we don't know yet (I do think it fascinating that all the major founders of Modern Science were all Bible believing Christians who simply thought that "doing Science" was merely "thinking God's thought after Him"). So maybe at some point in the future we will discover the technology God used to bring material Reality into existence.

But I think we can say with some level of certainty that the process was guided. IOW, it was not a random, unguided, and purely natural process. Theistic Evolution is an option on the table, but even that theory has its issues. The main issue, IMO, is Information. We need information in order to create things and design new species. Information always comes from Minds. Always.

SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) has spent millions looking for a simple message from outer space. And a "simple" message is all they need to conclude it must've originated from an intelligent mind. Well, we have the informational equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica stored on a practically invisible, biological hard drive called DNA. But somehow DNA doesn't need a Mind to explain it's origin and continued existence? DNA (literally a codebook for all of Life) can come into existence all on it's own with no explanation other than randomness and chaos (which aren't explanations). Meh. This, to me, stretches Scientific credulity.

Even Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan (two staunch Evolutionists) have to admit to Alien seeding (the involvement of Minds) to explain the inordinate amount of complexity we find in the origin of Carbon based life forms.

Here's a quick syllogism to consider:

1) Codes only arise from Minds

2) DNA is a code (even Bill Gates admits this seeing he's trying to hack it)

3) Therefore, DNA came from a Mind

Overall, here are the choices on the table. There are no others:

  1. Nothing created everything

  2. Something created everything

My money is on #2

4
1Markseeker 4 points ago +5 / -1

Agreed.

Just another fairy tale for those wanting to avoid a creator God.

I see now. Your other comment above about aliens and the 2nd law makes more sense now. Sorry for the tone of my above comment.

9
1Markseeker 9 points ago +9 / -0

Darwinian Evolution is a "Time of the Gaps" argument

Just add Time and anything is possible!

5
1Markseeker 5 points ago +5 / -0

If Aliens exist and "seeded" our Planet (which I think is another fairy tale), then Darwinian Evolution is false.

7
1Markseeker 7 points ago +7 / -0

Great example of Mutations being deleterious and working against Darwinian Creation account.

6
1Markseeker 6 points ago +7 / -1

Man, talk about a forum/discussion slide.

Aliens = Fallen Angels

Interdimensional Beings

5
1Markseeker 5 points ago +5 / -0

Another thing to keep in mind is that Darwinian Gradualism (DG) went through some evolution itself when the Precambrian Explosion was discovered. The amount of complex life that literally exploded onto the scene during the Cambrian era - and then remained static (no change) in their "evolution" - forced Stephen J Gould to postulate Punctuated Equilibrium, which states the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change.

Punctuated Equilibrium and Special Creation - from the Fossil record's point of view - looks almost exactly the same.

9
1Markseeker 9 points ago +9 / -0

All good questions.

Is it possible that macro hasn't been observed because it can take hundreds of thousands or millions of years? Is the scale of macro so large that we simply could never observe it in a human lifetime?

Notice, though, that you are admitting Macro is unobservable. Once one admits this, then, by definition, one is no longer doing Operational Science where one deals with testable, repeatable events. The beginning of the Universe is a singular event that hasn't happened before. The Origin of Life is a singular event that only happened once. The origin of Man only happened once, as well. These events are not repeatable. Therefore, when one opines about these events, they are doing more of a Forensic Science. At this point, the Creationist and the Evolutionist are in the same boat. They're both looking at what they can see (Dinosaur bones, Rocks, etc...) and trying to piece together what happened in the past. Just like a Forensic Scientist at a crime scene.

Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows that Time is deleterious and works against order. Entropy is observable and unavoidable.

If macro doesn't exist, how did all of today's species get placed on earth? Hand of God?

All the variations found within all the Species on the Earth were found within the information (DNA) of the original Species. There were much less animals on the Earth at the beginning. As time progressed and animals mated, the variations became expressed. God likes variety and programmed that variety into the original DNA molecules so that Life could diversify (within their species - i.e Kind begets Kind) and multiply.

Once placed in a mother's womb, life takes off and expands exponentially. In just a few weeks, the body is formed and the heart starts to beat.

Life is, indeed, amazing. This ability to multiply and grow screams of a Master Programmers touch. The amount of molecular engineering occurring on the microscopic level is truly astounding. So much so, that no amount of wind, rain and randomness (throw in as much Time as you want, too) will get you the results we see today under our microscopes. Darwin's microscope couldn't peer into the simple cell in order to view the exquisite engineering masterpiece that he called "simple." The cell is anything but simple. We have inordinate complexity right from the rip. DNA is extremely complex. The inner workings of the cell are extremely complex. But they both need each other to "survive." You cant have one, without the other. There is no gradual path to the existence of a functioning cell. You need both the DNA and the Cell that surrounds it to be preset at the same time. And any experiment (Miller/Urey Experiment) attempting to prove that Life could've arose by itself only shows that a Mind (Miller and Urey) was required to get it started. I digress.

Moving a few genes around can definitely change a person. It's basically high speed evolution

Don't forget, though, that these "changes" aren't happening all by themselves, at random, over massive amounts of time. There are intelligent minds behind the experiments. And they are making these "moves" with purpose (something utterly repulsive to Darwinian Evolution). Therefore, this would be an argument for Intelligent Design, not Darwinian Evolution which states there was no Mind involved at all.

Just a few precursory thoughts for ya...

4
1Markseeker 4 points ago +4 / -0

Heh...I feel ya there.

9
1Markseeker 9 points ago +12 / -3

I see there are at least 3 people in here who's sense of humor is flatter than the earth.

Edit: Make that 6

view more: Next ›