Forum

I am wondering if decay is actually necessary for us to have a functioning biosphere--and if it is actually necessary for us to have functioning bodies. Imagine, for example, a forest floor covered in leaves that never decay, so that the leaves endlessly pile up. Or if your hair never fell out. What I'm wondering about, though, is more than that. Could there be life as we know it without processes of decay? Would digestion work? Would we even need to eat? Would apples grow on trees? What would be different without processes of decay? Could there be human beings and apples without decay?

For the universe exist, so many things have to be dialed in just right; on top of all of that, we need all of the right conditions and material required to support life and maintain it on consistent bases. The universe and life discussion is not only an argument about molecules to man, but gravitational strength, all of the necessary ingredients in one place at one time, and so on. So everything in the macro world and the subatomic one would have to have all of their ducks lined up. Creation with all of the vastness we see and don’t see is immense in how large some of the things in it are, including space itself, and small it all is when we think about the particles. I stumbled upon an old video which gives us a glimpse of what a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, is that is also timeless would be looking at and being able to see it at once and everything and their relationship in its place with everything else. We can attempt to do the numbers (funny and well-done video (Varelse1@ watch this)), but a God who can speak all things (old video well done) into existence and never lose track of any of it is far above us. So can we find God by looking at the universe, I like CS Lewis’s “Finding God (Finding Shakespeare) by C.S. Lewis Doodle art (love the artwork along with the discussion)

https://biologos.org/common-questions/why-should-christians-consider-evolutionary-creation Evolution is a challenging subject to consider in light of biblical faith, so it is often easier to ignore or reject it than to engage in meaningful discussion about the topic. Yet considering evolutionary creation has important benefits for Christians both in our relationship with the Creator, and in our relationships with other people—both believers and non-believers.First, Christians should study evolution because, like all the natural sciences, it is the study of God’s creation. Creation itself is a complementary revelation to what God has communicated through Scripture, and through the created order God shows how and when he brought about the life we see today—to his honor and glory. The regular patterns in nature that we call natural laws have their foundation in the regular, faithful governance of God. Thus we believe that God created every species and did it in such a way that we can describe the creation process scientifically. The scientific model of evolution does not replace God as creator any more than the law of gravity replaces God as ruler of the planets.

The genomes of humans and chimpanzees are strikingly similar. In fact, humans and chimpanzees are actually more genetically similar to each other than chimpanzees and orangutans are. The chromosomes of humans and apes also show striking similarities. However, there is a glaring difference that would seem to throw a monkey wrench in the pristine evolutionary picture: Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs), while all other apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs). At first glance this might seem to contradict the theory of evolution. Afterall, if humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor, then wouldn't we expect them to have the same number of chromosomes? But a closer look reveals a different story. It turns out that we used to have 48 chromosomes, too. DNA sequencing confirms that our human chromosome number 2 is actually two chromosomes that have been fused together, which explains why we have one less pair of chromosomes. Chromosomes have distinctive sections that include a central region called a *centromere* and ends called *telomeres*. DNA sequencing not only reveals the exact location where the two chromosomes fused together, it has also confirmed the presence of two sets of centromeres and telomeres in human chromosome number 2. This is definitive proof that human chromosome number 2 truly was made from the fusion of two different chromosomes. It also matches the evolutionary picture perfectly, showing that the ancestor of chimpanzees and humans had 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), but then after chimpanzees and humans diverged there was a chromosome fusion event in the line leading to humans, which reduced our chromosomes to 46 (23 pairs). The evidence for chromosome fusion further strengthens the case for common ancestry. By contrast, the alternative hypothesis that chimpanzees and humans were separately created requires us to believe that an intelligent designer created human chromosome 2 to make it falsely look like it had an earlier history that involved a fusion event that included the creation of an extra centromere with no function as well as two extra telomeres stuck in the middle of the chromosome instead of on the ends. Here's a link to more information along with a video explanation: "This Picture Has Creationists Terrified"

Self explanatory, really...

https://youtu.be/kboUBQnMP8w Interesting talk on the eye.

And we'll try to discuss it.

Lets ask a serious question. We have two theories that attempt to explain our origins. Creation says an intelligent designer created and designed the earth to support life. Evolution says it happened by a series of accidents. Be honest. Which one makes sense? Isn't it obvious that somebody had to have done this?

Lets ask a serious question. We have two theories that attempt to explain our origins. Creation says an intelligent designer created and designed the earth to support life. Evolution says it happened by a series of accidents. Be honest. Which one makes sense? Isn't it obvious that somebody had to have done this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3CB7-Hg1BtegxWzMvEinsd5XgFk2_zkD9VPCE5-95THYq8qCAB3BOb3-A Nice discussion

Natural selection to me has always been an excuse for things that were made by design, and this is one of the reasons: Sharks have camo in that their underside is white, to match with the ocean from below, and their topside is grey, to hide from above. Most fish have this, but how did they come to have it?

Are ERVs (Endogenous Retroviruses) evidence for evolution that humans and chimpanzees are related and have a common ancestor? Consider the facts and you decide. Summary of Facts: 1. Some viruses (we'll call them ERVs) insert their genetic material into the genomes of organisms in random places and this genetic material can be inherited. [Analogy: Imagine an ERV is like a food stain on a random page of a book] 2. In humans, there are >100,000 such places in our genome where genetic material from these ERVs has been randomly inserted. [Analogy: Imagine you get a book that has over 100,000 random stains of different shapes and sizes on different pages] 3. Over 99.9% of these >100,000 ERVs are also found in the chimpanzee genome in the same, corresponding locations. [Analogy: Imagine a friend gets a copy of the book and when you compare you discover that it, too, has >100,000 random stains, and 99.9% of these stains are in the same, corresponding places as your book] What Would You Conclude? (What is the best explanation of the facts?) A. Independent Ancestry: The human and chimpanzees genomes independently acquired >100,000 bits of viral genetic material in the same corresponding locations by luck. [Analogy: The two books independently acquired almost all of these >100,000 stains in the same places by luck] B. Common Ancestry: 99.9% of these >100,000 ERVs are found in the same, corresponding places in the human genome and chimpanzee genome because humans and chimpanzees are related and have a common ancestor that already had 99.9% of these >100,000 ERVs in the places where they're found. [Analogy: The two books have >100,000 food stains nearly all in the same place because they are photocopies of a third book that already had 99.9% of these stains in the locations where they're found]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEf6mKZqJZs&t=1753s I have to admit I feel insulted when someone says I'm not allowed to have an opinion and speak about things I'm not an expert in. If this was not the intent those I'm speaking to mean, I'm sorry but it comes across that way. I want to point out that experts disagree, so to say that we cannot formulate our opinions because there is an expert that says otherwise is about as insulting as it gets. Science is not a cult is it, where the free exchange of ideas is looked down on, or is it?   We believe what we put our faith in that is telling us the truth if we are not concerned with truth, what is the point any lie or error will do. Truth is very exclusive something either is true or not, therefore it does have a dogmatic feel to it. Any belief system we hold we treat this way if we believe in a purely materialistic universe that will be held up to judge all things in the universe. Anything not seen as a material view only will be a threat to that world view, this will be no different for anyone's point of view on what they believe is true or not.   So we debate and argue which is, in my opinion, a great thing as long as we do it in a respectful manner without twisting or ignoring truth when we have to admit our own views are not consistent with the truth in reality. If our views contradict themselves we know we are not standing on good ground if our views do not reflect reality, we know we are not standing on good ground. If we find our views are not in agreement with someone else's view, good, lets put the views to the tests as we sort it all out. If you only want to live in an echo chamber listening to those who agree with you and not allow your opinions about truth to be tested, that is a blind faith dogmatic view that requires to be shielded from skepticism. The bottom line sharp educated people are on both sides of any discussion, defend your own views if you cannot or will not, why believe and question other's points of view?

Does reducing everything to natural explanations only limit all things down to the most basics, that is just the material makeup of the universe itself?

Would endless time matter in having abiogenesis occur if all of the conditions required were not setup correctly? A small handful would be the conditions the size and distance of a planet from its sun, the planet's axis, and rotation, along with the atmosphere? Some of the other not so minor details, having all the proper chemicals in one place going through the appropriate chemical reactions towards life and not anything else! All of this, of course, only done in a stable environment that could cause life to thrive and survive over time. The only time a chance for life to occur could happen would be if all the variables were appropriately met; if not, more time is meaningless; it would add nothing to the window of opportunities. The complexity of life is so great the mind that could design it would have to be incredibly powerful. Now we are in time, we have a past, present, and future (hopefully) and all we do is in this little sliver of time we call now. Now is so small it's leading edge, and its trailing edge occupies the same place. If we see things that present to us a chicken or egg issue in life's beginning, wouldn't the designer have to be outside of our time limitations? This designer would also not only have to incredibly intelligent but not be bound to time as we are! Since some requirements have several things being true at once, while we cannot have one without the other, that could only happen with someone outside of our time limitations doing the work? Just a thought.

This forum thread is meant to show everyone here what the US law says about teaching creationism and evolution side by side in public schools. The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required public school teachers to teach evolution and creationism side by side. The US Supreme Court in the Edwards v. Aguillard case declared the Louisiana law unconstitutional due to the establishment clause because the law wasn’t secular, as was interpreted from the establishment clause in the US constitution. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Edwards-v-Aguilard

I am, as the title of this thread says, puzzled as to why a club for "the evolution discussion" exists. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus both that (a) evolution occurred and (b) the theory of evolution (together with genetics) provides a good explanation of how evolution occurred, certainly in its broad outlines and also in many details (although many details remain unknown, and important mechanisms, like genetic drift, can still sometimes be added to the theory). Now, those of us who are not experts are always free to disagree with the overwhelming consensus of experts, but it's generally a bad idea to do so. The overwhelming of the experts *is* the overwhelming consensus of the experts for good reason, and they're the ones who are more likely to be getting it right. Would a club like this exist for "the gravity discussion," faux-debating whether or not the orbits of the planets really were gravitationally determined? Would a club like this exist for "the electricity discussion," faux-debating whether or not computers and TVs really ran on electricity? Would a club like this exist for "the supply and demand discussion," faux-debating whether or not economists' law of supply and demand really had validity? Come on. The experts know what they're talking about. Why pretend they don't?

I decided to create a thread devoted simply to asking and answering questions. No arguing, just discovering. If you encounter someone who either disagrees with you or you believe they said something factually incorrect, refrain from arguing with them. Just ask questions. Someone start by asking a question, and then let's continue the discussion the way I had in mind (questions and discovery).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^