Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-24-2013, 18:45   #961
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
A lot of people make the Bible say things that were not intended by the writers. The Bible does not say the universe was created in 6 days.

Creation week on the earth was 6 days plus the Sabbath. It is evident from the language that these days consisted of an evening and a morning in that order. These are literal days. The Seventh day Sabbath is a literal day commemorating creation.


Even so it was not necessary for God to create babies and have them grow up. He can create a bird flying in midair with all the accompanying dynamics. He could create the entire universe with the light in place if He chose to do so.

He is the creator of physics and is not bound by it.

Soooooo, do you believe our universe was created in 6 days, as we understand a day to be?
hooligan74 is online now  
Old 02-24-2013, 18:47   #962
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
It's been awhile, but as I recall, Pasteur dealt with spontaneous generation, not what would be considered abiogenesis today.

An example of spontaneous generation would be maggots spontaneously generating out of rotting meat. Pasteur worked to dispel this belief.

-ArtificialGrape
I'm having a hard time considering abiogenesis as anything but spontaneous generation.

Where is the difference?

I'm not forgetting the trillions of tries making possible the one remotely possible event, but still see abiogenesis as spontaneous generation.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-24-2013, 19:11   #963
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 11,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
Soooooo, do you believe our universe was created in 6 days, as we understand a day to be?
The Bible does not say our universe was created in 6 days. A lot of people Christians and non Christians want to interpret and add to the Bible things it did not say.

On the forth day the sun and moon were set in the sky. God made the stars also does not necessarily mean that they were created on the forth day although it certainly is possible with God.

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Thinking that the Creator God is in some way limited is the mistake made by atheists and evolutionists and even Christians. If a long timespan is considered to be sufficient for life to spontaneously appear then certainly a being of sufficient power and wisdom could do it in a day.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Last edited by Vic Hays; 02-24-2013 at 19:14..
Vic Hays is offline  
Old 02-24-2013, 20:52   #964
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,951
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I'm having a hard time considering abiogenesis as anything but spontaneous generation.

Where is the difference?

I'm not forgetting the trillions of tries making possible the one remotely possible event, but still see abiogenesis as spontaneous generation.
Abiogenesis may still be considered spontaneous in that regard.

However, during Pasteur's time, some thought that maggots spontaneously arose from decomposing meat; fruit flies spontaneously arose from decomposing fruit, etc. the spontaneous generation would have been commonplace. I don't suppose you hold this explanation as having a 50/50 chance of being true?

That is quite different than what would have only needed to be a onetime occurrence in primordial soup. Pasteur's work was not in what we would consider abiogenesis today.

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-24-2013, 21:00   #965
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,951
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
The Bible does not say our universe was created in 6 days. A lot of people Christians and non Christians want to interpret and add to the Bible things it did not say.

On the forth day the sun and moon were set in the sky. God made the stars also does not necessarily mean that they were created on the forth day although it certainly is possible with God.

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Thinking that the Creator God is in some way limited is the mistake made by atheists and evolutionists and even Christians. If a long timespan is considered to be sufficient for life to spontaneously appear then certainly a being of sufficient power and wisdom could do it in a day.
Perhaps you overlooked my earlier question. I'll condense it.

Could you accept an earth that is a 100 thousand years old? A million? A billion?

thanks,
-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-24-2013, 21:25   #966
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Abiogenesis may still be considered spontaneous in that regard.

However, during Pasteur's time, some thought that maggots spontaneously arose from decomposing meat; fruit flies spontaneously arose from decomposing fruit, etc. the spontaneous generation would have been commonplace. I don't suppose you hold this explanation as having a 50/50 chance of being true?

That is quite different than what would have only needed to be a onetime occurrence in primordial soup. Pasteur's work was not in what we would consider abiogenesis today.

-ArtificialGrape


It's still a very fantastic claim. Abiogenesis has been disproved by science once, and although it may be the real truth to the beginning of live, it's hardly more than a supposition.

It's very interesting that so many are arduously invested in believing in abiogenesis.

Seems to me, the logical approach would be to withhold judgement until either abiogenesis or ID was proven correct.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-25-2013, 02:15   #967
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
IAbiogenesis has been disproved by science once
Disproving that meat turns into maggots or dust into fleas is not the same thing as 'disproved abiogenesis'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Such ideas have no operative principles in common with the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged in the early ages of the planet, over a time span of at least millions of years, and subsequently diversified without evidence that there ever has been any subsequent repetition of the event.
We're talking about chemicals turning into very small, very simple creatures here. Not nonliving substances turning into something even as developed as a maggot. And note the 'hypothesis' in the 'modern hypothesis' in the above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
, it's hardly more than a supposition.

It's very interesting that so many are arduously invested in believing in abiogenesis.

Seems to me, the logical approach would be to withhold judgement until either abiogenesis or ID was proven correct.
You are aware that nothing that relates to reality can be proven correct, aren't you? No model, no matter how good, can claim to have shown that it is *never* incorrect. The best you can do is prove the model is internally consistent and then test it against reality - and that will give you confidence in the model. Right up until you discover the model is incorrect (just as Newton's model couldn't accurately predict the orbit of Mercury. Newton's model was wrong, but nobody had a problem using it where it was useful, and nobody has a problem using it where it is useful even today)

If your standard is 'proof' - *nothing* meets that standard, other than pure mathematics or pure logic, which do not have to match reality. But some possibilites are easier to look into than others, and some possibilities look more likely at any given time than others. Why do you seem to understand this so intuitively with some subjects, but demand that strict proof be the standard for this one in particular?

Seems to me, the logical approach would be to support people who are honestly trying to figure it out, using the only process that has any record of actually working consistently. Based on my experience, scientists say a lot of qualifying things in this area - a lot of 'it's not known yet but there's stuff that looks promising'. The ID camp says a lot of things that are provably false if you're the sort of person that bothers to look into it even a little. And people have a lot of experience observing natural processes - I've seen a ton of natural processes in my life. I've never once seen a supernatural process. So why do you think it's unreasonable to say 'We don't know what it is. There's not enough evidence at the moment to determine if any of the currently competing hypotheses are actually correct enough to be accepted. But an unknown natural process seems a hell of a lot more likely than a supernatural process."
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-25-2013 at 02:32..
void * is offline  
Old 02-25-2013, 06:24   #968
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Disproving that meat turns into maggots or dust into fleas is not the same thing as 'disproved abiogenesis'.



We're talking about chemicals turning into very small, very simple creatures here. Not nonliving substances turning into something even as developed as a maggot. And note the 'hypothesis' in the 'modern hypothesis' in the above.



You are aware that nothing that relates to reality can be proven correct, aren't you? No model, no matter how good, can claim to have shown that it is *never* incorrect. The best you can do is prove the model is internally consistent and then test it against reality - and that will give you confidence in the model. Right up until you discover the model is incorrect (just as Newton's model couldn't accurately predict the orbit of Mercury. Newton's model was wrong, but nobody had a problem using it where it was useful, and nobody has a problem using it where it is useful even today)

If your standard is 'proof' - *nothing* meets that standard, other than pure mathematics or pure logic, which do not have to match reality. But some possibilites are easier to look into than others, and some possibilities look more likely at any given time than others. Why do you seem to understand this so intuitively with some subjects, but demand that strict proof be the standard for this one in particular?

Seems to me, the logical approach would be to support people who are honestly trying to figure it out, using the only process that has any record of actually working consistently. Based on my experience, scientists say a lot of qualifying things in this area - a lot of 'it's not known yet but there's stuff that looks promising'. The ID camp says a lot of things that are provably false if you're the sort of person that bothers to look into it even a little. And people have a lot of experience observing natural processes - I've seen a ton of natural processes in my life. I've never once seen a supernatural process. So why do you think it's unreasonable to say 'We don't know what it is. There's not enough evidence at the moment to determine if any of the currently competing hypotheses are actually correct enough to be accepted. But an unknown natural process seems a hell of a lot more likely than a supernatural process."
I just thought it was interesting that biogenesis was at one time a scientific law.

I support scientific discovery, I don't know that I would push for support of a competing theory over another one though. I'd hope the evidence would lead where it leads, even though that is not always what happens.

The problem is that there is no such thing as a very simple creature that is capable of maintaining homeostasis and replication.

At some point, the cell actually takes active steps to remain alive. Makes you wonder where the will to live comes from? For that matter, where does the need to replicate come from.

There's much more to this life thing than most people realize.

That's why I don't have a firm belief in either abiogenesis or ID, both are claims that require a lot of holes to be filled in with supposition and imagination. I can see the attractiveness of each to people with certain other firm beliefs.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-25-2013 at 06:29..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-25-2013, 06:35   #969
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Abiogenesis may still be considered spontaneous in that regard.

However, during Pasteur's time, some thought that maggots spontaneously arose from decomposing meat; fruit flies spontaneously arose from decomposing fruit, etc. the spontaneous generation would have been commonplace. I don't suppose you hold this explanation as having a 50/50 chance of being true?

That is quite different than what would have only needed to be a onetime occurrence in primordial soup. Pasteur's work was not in what we would consider abiogenesis today.

-ArtificialGrape
I see the difference, and Pasteur's law of biogenesis has been tossed aside, and yet, so far, he's not been proven wrong. Life has not been observed coming from anything other than life.

I guess we'll have to wait, but I see no movement that is really going to settle the issue. Even if life is made in a lab, both sides are going to claim that ability supports their version of the beginning of life.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-25-2013, 08:06   #970
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,951
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's still a very fantastic claim. Abiogenesis has been disproved by science once, and although it may be the real truth to the beginning of live, it's hardly more than a supposition.

It's very interesting that so many are arduously invested in believing in abiogenesis.
As void already pointed out, abiogenesis has not been disproven. Proving that fully formed animals do not spontaneously arise from decomposing meat has nothing to do with proving that single-celled life could not arise from an early abiotic earth, and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Regarding "hardly more than a supposition", supporting abiogenesis science:
  • Can create amino acids in the lab
  • Has identified 74 amino acids in meteorites (including all that are found in living organisms)
  • Can easily create most of the proteins found in living organisms by simply splashing amino acids onto hot, dry volcanic rock.
  • Can demonstrate several mechanisms for arranging short polymers into longer chains.
  • Can explain how to get from this to a eukaryotic cell through endosymbiosis as can be observed today in giardia and pelomyxa.
So, far from proving that abiogenesis is impossible, steps have been demonstrated that would take inorganic material into amino acids to proteins and other polymers to prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. All the steps are gradual, none require extraordinary circumstances, and none are beyond plausible. Most of the steps can be reproduced in the lab, or are still observed in nature today.

I'm not invested in believing in abiogenesis, but it is currently the explanation with the strongest evidence. A stronger evidence-based case could be built for the argument that life on earth was seeded by life from outer space than for ID.

Yes, the complexity of life today is amazing, but to argue that there is a 50/50 between life arising naturally or life being created is pretty indefensible. Unless... You care to play Angel's Advocate and present the evidence for Creation.

An argument from incredulity is a logic fallacy, not evidence. It is basically saying, "I, Cavalry Doc, don't understand how life could arise naturally. Perhaps it was created by a god."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Seems to me, the logical approach would be to withhold judgement until either abiogenesis or ID was proven correct.
Even if abiogenesis can be reproduced in a lab, that will not prove that is how life on earth arose. Theories can be supported by a metric arse load of evidence, but they remain falsifiable and are not "proven correct".

I am not claiming that abiogenesis is how life first arose, but, for now, that is where the best evidence lies, but I'll again invite you to present the evidence for Creation that warrants you giving it a 50/50 likelihood.

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-25-2013, 12:09   #971
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Gosse's Omphalos -- God created the universe with an appearance of age.

An omnipotent god could have created the universe including us with false memories last Thursday or 5 minutes ago. I fully concede that an omnipotent god could also be omnideceptive.

The argument can neither be proven, nor falsified, so it is best ignored.

-ArtificialGrape
Never thought of that. Would be a great premise for a movie.
__________________
------------------------------------------------------
Warranty voiding

Never buy vegan tacos from a chick with longer armpit hair than yourself. - Woofie
Roering is offline  
Old 02-25-2013, 12:44   #972
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 11,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Perhaps you overlooked my earlier question. I'll condense it.

Could you accept an earth that is a 100 thousand years old? A million? A billion?

thanks,
-ArtificialGrape
There seems to be an unspoken premise here that you are hitting on. That premise is; Christians believe that the earth is (fill in the blank) years old , therefore if we can prove (fill in the blank) years old they will abandon their faith and join with the unbelievers in their miserable hopeless world view.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but my faith does not rest upon the foundation of the age of the earth.

To answer your question on what I can accept for the age of the earth, it doesn't matter as long as it is truth and no, the Bible does not make the claim that the earth or the universe is 6000 years old. It only makes the claim that God created the heavens and the earth.

My faith is founded upon the Bible and specifically the focus of the Bible which is Jesus Christ my Savior and His teachings.

The Bible outlines the history of the earth from beginning to end. I know the future because it has been revealed to me through Gods word. I know the specifics for my time and the near future. God warned of the flood. Do you see anything left of the ones before the flood who scoffed at the warning?

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
Luke 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Last edited by Vic Hays; 02-25-2013 at 12:53..
Vic Hays is offline  
Old 02-25-2013, 13:37   #973
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
...God warned of the flood. Do you see anything left of the ones before the flood who scoffed at the warning?...

You know what else we don't see? Any archeological signs that a global flood has ever occured.

Do you not find that strange?
hooligan74 is online now  
Old 02-25-2013, 14:17   #974
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 11,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
You know what else we don't see? Any archeological signs that a global flood has ever occured.

Do you not find that strange?
Sometimes it is hard to see the forest for the trees.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/DesmondFord.html#coal

An example is the powder river coal in Montana. It seems these deposits of coal defy explanation by scientists because they do not fit in with the accepted non-flood theories .
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Last edited by Vic Hays; 02-25-2013 at 14:33..
Vic Hays is offline  
Old 02-25-2013, 19:27   #975
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
As void already pointed out, abiogenesis has not been disproven. Proving that fully formed animals do not spontaneously arise from decomposing meat has nothing to do with proving that single-celled life could not arise from an early abiotic earth, and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Regarding "hardly more than a supposition", supporting abiogenesis science:
  • Can create amino acids in the lab
  • Has identified 74 amino acids in meteorites (including all that are found in living organisms)
  • Can easily create most of the proteins found in living organisms by simply splashing amino acids onto hot, dry volcanic rock.
  • Can demonstrate several mechanisms for arranging short polymers into longer chains.
  • Can explain how to get from this to a eukaryotic cell through endosymbiosis as can be observed today in giardia and pelomyxa.
So, far from proving that abiogenesis is impossible, steps have been demonstrated that would take inorganic material into amino acids to proteins and other polymers to prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. All the steps are gradual, none require extraordinary circumstances, and none are beyond plausible. Most of the steps can be reproduced in the lab, or are still observed in nature today.

I'm not invested in believing in abiogenesis, but it is currently the explanation with the strongest evidence. A stronger evidence-based case could be built for the argument that life on earth was seeded by life from outer space than for ID.

Yes, the complexity of life today is amazing, but to argue that there is a 50/50 between life arising naturally or life being created is pretty indefensible. Unless... You care to play Angel's Advocate and present the evidence for Creation.

An argument from incredulity is a logic fallacy, not evidence. It is basically saying, "I, Cavalry Doc, don't understand how life could arise naturally. Perhaps it was created by a god."


Even if abiogenesis can be reproduced in a lab, that will not prove that is how life on earth arose. Theories can be supported by a metric arse load of evidence, but they remain falsifiable and are not "proven correct".

I am not claiming that abiogenesis is how life first arose, but, for now, that is where the best evidence lies, but I'll again invite you to present the evidence for Creation that warrants you giving it a 50/50 likelihood.

-ArtificialGrape
And yet you can't see how the opposite is also unreasonable. You can't say that "I, Artificial Grape, don't understand how life could have been designed. Perhaps it occurred by a natural process that was able to overcome diffusion and the octet rule of chemistry."

The fact is that both theories are fantastic claims with no real convincing evidence supporting them.

Frankly I don't see any evidence one way or the other. I see a lot of arguments for one way or the other, and even if something like creating life in a lab (an unaccomplished hypothetical feat) were to happen, it really doesn't convince me that the first cell on life just happened, or that it was made.

I do see a lot people that cling to one or the other (abiogenesis vs ID) because it is a comfortably compatible belief with their chosen perspective, not out of any real evidence.

I understand that, I just don't agree with that approach.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-25-2013 at 19:36..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-25-2013, 20:37   #976
chickenwing
Senior Member
 
chickenwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,802
Still feeding the troll I see.



What is the evidence for ID again? That life is to complicated to happen without a "designer"?

I've yet to see any facts disputing AG's post listing the evidence that supports abiogenesis, just a bunch of wishy washy, "anything is possible" BS.



What I find most funny is you cling to your "belief" of a designer. Yet have no problem chiding posters on their "beliefs".

You are not the middle of the road, objective agnostic you claim to be. Stop the BS. You are a troll, and don't have the balls to argue for any position that makes you wrong. Instead you pretend to be "objective" with your passive-aggressive-super-duper-agnostic nonsense.

You really don't even have an argument. Because with your position everything is possible.



AND more important please list the evidence for ID.
__________________
Quote:
...don't give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men!..
Charlie Chaplin -

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
chickenwing is online now  
Old 02-25-2013, 21:11   #977
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,951
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
And yet you can't see how the opposite is also unreasonable. You can't say that "I, Artificial Grape, don't understand how life could have been designed. Perhaps it occurred by a natural process that was able to overcome diffusion and the octet rule of chemistry."
But the truth is, I can understand how life could be created, what I don't see is a shred of evidence to support Creation of life or a Creator. "God did it" is both lazy ("I give up, let's just say God did it"), as well as arrogant ("If I can't figure out a natural process today, then nobody else ever will, so let's just say God did it").

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The fact is that both theories are fantastic claims with no real convincing evidence supporting them.

Frankly I don't see any evidence one way or the other. I see a lot of arguments for one way or the other, and even if something like creating life in a lab (an unaccomplished hypothetical feat) were to happen, it really doesn't convince me that the first cell on life just happened, or that it was made.
Do you dispute that amino acids can be created in the lab?

Do you dispute that amino acids have been found on meteorites?

Do you dispute that proteins have been created from amino acids in the lab?

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-25-2013, 21:26   #978
wingryder
Senior Member
 
wingryder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 28.420, -81.171
Posts: 3,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenwing View Post
Still feeding the troll I see.



What is the evidence for ID again? That life is to complicated to happen without a "designer"?

I've yet to see any facts disputing AG's post listing the evidence that supports abiogenesis, just a bunch of wishy washy, "anything is possible" BS.



What I find most funny is you cling to your "belief" of a designer. Yet have no problem chiding posters on their "beliefs".

You are not the middle of the road, objective agnostic you claim to be. Stop the BS. You are a troll, and don't have the balls to argue for any position that makes you wrong. Instead you pretend to be "objective" with your passive-aggressive-super-duper-agnostic nonsense.

You really don't even have an argument. Because with your position everything is possible.



AND more important please list the evidence for ID.
^^^ There it is.
__________________
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
wingryder is online now  
Old 02-25-2013, 21:42   #979
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
But the truth is, I can understand how life could be created, what I don't see is a shred of evidence to support Creation of life or a Creator. "God did it" is both lazy ("I give up, let's just say God did it"), as well as arrogant ("If I can't figure out a natural process today, then nobody else ever will, so let's just say God did it").



Do you dispute that amino acids can be created in the lab?

Do you dispute that amino acids have been found on meteorites?

Do you dispute that proteins have been created from amino acids in the lab?

-ArtificialGrape
Again, making it in a lab doesn't really convince me of anything. Amino acids are a very far piece away from making life.

I really don't know what would be convincing. Both ID and Abiogenesis are wildly remote possibilities, with firm believers on both sides of the debate. I still have no problem deciding on what to have for lunch without solving that little dilemma on a daily basis.

I can comfortably live in the present without picking sides on that one.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-25-2013 at 21:43..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-25-2013, 21:45   #980
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,951
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
There seems to be an unspoken premise here that you are hitting on. That premise is; Christians believe that the earth is (fill in the blank) years old , therefore if we can prove (fill in the blank) years old they will abandon their faith and join with the unbelievers in their miserable hopeless world view.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but my faith does not rest upon the foundation of the age of the earth.
No unspoken premise, and no burst bubble here. There are plenty of Christians that can reconcile a 4.5 billion year old earth with their beliefs. It was not an attempt to get anybody to abandon their faith. Merely to determine if it was worth pursuing a discussion of science. When somebody admits that regardless of evidence they will not accept something that runs counter to their faith, it is not worth pursuing the discussion. This is the case with discussing abiogenesis or evolution with you given your earlier comment that, "One thing that I have as a foundation belief is that the Bible is the inspired word of God. This definitely rules out the spontaneous appearance of life. It also rules out evolution as the force behind the creation of man."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
The Bible outlines the history of the earth from beginning to end. I know the future because it has been revealed to me through Gods word. I know the specifics for my time and the near future. God warned of the flood. Do you see anything left of the ones before the flood who scoffed at the warning?
In a previous discussion of the flood and dinosaurs you shared the following, "It has been suggested that the dinosaurs were a product of gene splicing and were therefore amalgamated and not the pure creation of God. When you think of the lifespan of man before the flood and the fact that their every thought became evil continually it makes sense that they might gene splice to grow food and produce animals for warfare.
This would be a good reason for the dinosaurs to be left off the Ark.
"

You'll have to understand my skepticism when you enter a discussion of science because in one quote you admit that regardless of evidence you cannot accept a theory (in this case evolution), and in this quote you think "it makes sense" that over 4000 years ago man was performing genetic splicing to create dinosaurs for food and warfare which would explain why they were not spared on the arc, despite not a shred of evidence to support this.

So you reject evidence when it counters your faith, and you are willing to accept an incredulous claim with no evidence when it supports your faith. That is why I made my earlier "zero credibility" remark.

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:52.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 885
249 Members
636 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31