by N.drew 173 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
We will discover how life came from non-life in due time.
I am pretty confident that this could very well be discovered within this century. Of course, evolution is a different issue - it describes what happens to life over generations of existence in a changing environment.
An interesting turn of events. Mr Jeff? Do you see what he said? I wonder why he hasn't said the same to you. Or has he?
I would suggest that if you don't have time to study and understand some basic scientific principles then you are also wasting your and others time asking these questions as there is no way to answer them for you.
- big bang = one hypothesis of the origin of our universe
- abiogenesis = the study of how life came from non life
- evolution = processes like of survival of the fittest, mutation, adaption etc.
- all of this doesn't necessarily interfere with a belief in some type of god
please elaborate on your point of the universe beeing too young. evolution happens every day, germs develop resistences to medicine, animals and plants go extinct, some homo sapien groups have more children than others and thus pass on more dns... the universe is too young for what exactly?
I believe living things mutate. Yes. How many changes needed for ALL the life that EVER was on Earth? The number must be bigger then all the stars in the universe. How many changes in a group of cells need to even produce one simple bio machine?
I don't think evolution is driven by need - for me evolution is inventiveness - so for me the spark that powers evolution is inventiveness - maybe this is why it is called creation
Here's an explanation for us laymen. We are still in our infancy of understanding this stuff. Remember that great minds were held back or killed off for thousands of years for daring to even suggest things we call scientific advancement. So give it time, it'll be understood.
N.Drew
1) is not a possibility untill you demonstrate a necessity for "God" and define that entity. Not everone has the same idea of what that word even means.
2) While this item seems reasonable (At least more so than 1) you also fail to demonstrate WHY the universe needs to be old to explain how we got here. You hint that the process should have taken longer but fail to make any statements that can be analyzed as to how the current understanding of both the origins and evolution of life cannot be used for the current age of the universe.
3) ?? once agian look at number 1 and 2. you say this without the support of even a theoretical model that has the neccesity of this existing.
This is my last post on this and I'm sorry I got sucked into it in the first place. You don't want to learn and ask questions to then investigate. You want a simple quick explanation that you can understand without effort and time. You might be better served by asking any number of religions for this as they are tailored to your mindset perfectly.
!!!!
Thank you. I do not believe in need either sof+gentle. I brought it up because it seems to be evidence against evolution. I believe evolution is some kind of tool, but not an explaination for life.
I don't think evolution is driven by need - for me evolution is inventiveness - so for me the spark that powers evolution is inventiveness - maybe this is why it is called creation
Well, thanks for sharing that - although I have absolutely NO IDEA what you just said...
better served by asking any number of religions for this as they are tailored to your mindset perfectly.
I am NOT an idol, honey.
