GlockTalk.com
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 02-23-2013, 17:07   #926
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Makes you wonder, why abiogenesis doesn't occur in dead bodies, all the compounds are there. Or why not a little evolution? Some cells can move on their own, and are capable of anaerobic metabolism. Just the absence of a functioning heart shouldn't be enough to halt that evolution of something like a macrophage. Oh well, just a thought.
I'd like to introduce Cavalry Doc Frankenstein, at your service...

The absurdities keep on rollin!!!!

Never say never, though. I suppose the odds of abiogenesis occurring in dead bodies greatly exceed the odds of a rational argument from Doc Frankenstein at this point. Or as the doc would say, since there's 2 possibilities, the odds must be 50% either way... :rofl Statistics may not be his forte either I fear.

Just another "honest" opinion from the doc... SHM

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 02-23-2013 at 17:58..
steveksux is online now  
Old 02-23-2013, 17:12   #927
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding; are you saying that claiming roughly equal possibilities while denying all evidence on one side and refusing to present evidence for the other isn't weaseling?

That's certainly how it reads to me, ksg.
hooligan74 is offline  
Old 02-23-2013, 17:17   #928
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
I'd like to introduce Cavalry Doc Frankenstein, at your service...

The absurdities keep on rollin!!!!

Never say never, though. I suppose the odds of abiogenesis occurring in dead bodies greatly exceed the odds of a rational argument from Doc Frankenstein at this point. Or as the doc would say, since there's 2 possibilities, the odds must be 50% either way... :rofl Statistics may not be his forte either I fear.

Randy
Steve,

would not abiogenesis be more likely to occur where all the elements are there, in such a tiny space?

Still, no one can point to a single time where abiogenesis or ID has been observed.

And yet you are so invested in believing in a certain way, because it supports your larger pretense. Admit it or not, it's still evident.

Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-23-2013, 17:44   #929
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
There is not one single record of abiogenesis being observed.
That's your requirement, that abiogenesis actually be observed before being accepted? Is that the only possible way of demonstrating natural processes are responsible for life coming into existence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
What evidence are you referring too?
The evidence has been presented several times by several different posters; as you are wont to suggest, try the search function. Try google.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It seems to me your acceptance of the convenient theory requires a much lower hurdle for acceptance of evidence supporting abiogenesis.
"Convenient theory"? "Lower hurdle for acceptance of evidence"? My "low hurdle" is that there be evidence to consider. There is evidence, admittedly not conclusive, that life arose naturally. There is NO evidence for intelligent design. Unless, by some miracle, you're concealing something for some reason. So far, all you've offered is "it seems too complicated to have happened naturally."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I've not seen anything I would consider convincing evidence from either the ID or the Abiogenesis supporters.
Interestingly, you don't really specify what you would consider evidence, apart something along the lines of "abiogenesis observed."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I see a lot of hope though.
Can you identify a non-creationist who's made the junkyard tornado argument?

Can you provide an example of irreducible complexity that hasn't been refuted?

Do you have evidence for your assertion that most atheists "don't realize the complexity in a single living cell"?
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-23-2013, 17:46   #930
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 10,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
He's not rejecting the complexity of life forms.


That's kind of amazing. Being a young earth creationist, doesn't believe in evolution... I have to ask if you answered test questions based on science rather than scripture in order to get an A, do you consider that lying on the tests since the answers you provided you would consider false? I apologize in advance for how that came out, I couldn't think of any way to phrase that neutrally. My intent is not to accuse you of lying, but to explore how you handle the conflict between what they want to hear vs what you consider the truth.

As long as Gods are based on ignorance, I will continue to reject the belief in them....

Randy
And you can create life? If it happened spontaneously it could surely be done by men couldn't it?

I had one professor with a doctorate in physiology. He was an atheist, but he understood how unlikely it was for life to have spontaneously . He said it is like throwing a jigsaw puzzle into the air and eventually it will assemble itself, but it is not that simple.
__________________
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.
Vic Hays is offline  
Old 02-23-2013, 17:59   #931
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Steve,

would not abiogenesis be more likely to occur where all the elements are there, in such a tiny space?

Still, no one can point to a single time where abiogenesis or ID has been observed.

And yet you are so invested in believing in a certain way, because it supports your larger pretense. Admit it or not, it's still evident.

Whatever you say Frankenstein.

Can you try taking benadryl, and being honest in small doses, build up a tolerance a little at a time, maybe avoid that rash you get when you stop trolling.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 02-23-2013 at 17:59..
steveksux is online now  
Old 02-23-2013, 18:07   #932
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,539
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
...
Randy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Steve,
...
Calvary Doc, why is it that you insist on calling Randy "Steve"?

Is that just a petty amusement of yours?

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-23-2013, 18:10   #933
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Calvary Doc, why is it that you insist on calling Randy "Steve"?

Is that just a petty amusement of yours?

-ArtificialGrape
Yes, the trolling in general is meant to irritate folks in general, but that is directed specifically at me.



Teenagers living in their mothers basement were so much more well behaved back when I was a teenager...

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 02-23-2013 at 18:18..
steveksux is online now  
Old 02-23-2013, 18:21   #934
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Calvary Doc, why is it that you insist on calling Randy "Steve"?

Is that just a petty amusement of yours?

-ArtificialGrape
AFG,

It's only a shortening of his screen name.

I figured Randy or Steve was interchangeable for him.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-23-2013, 18:27   #935
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Yes, the trolling in general is meant to irritate folks in general, but that is directed specifically at me.



Teenagers living in their mothers basement were so much more well behaved back when I was a teenager...

Randy
Steve,

You picked your screen name. I didn't. Relax.

I'm hesitant to show you my home office, because I'm afraid it would seem like bragging. I live far below my means, several states away from my mother. You can go ahead and google how much a PA makes in TX, and add that to Retired Pay for a Major if you would like, It's not that hard. You've probably already checked, and are just jealous. That sounds like projection to me. How much does your mother contribute to your cost of living every month? Or are you able to help her, or not?



Personally, I'm not all that interested in how much I make. Mrs. Cavalry Doc is trained as an accountant. I haven't balanced a checkbook since 1990. I work so she doesn't have to. I really don't know within a few thousand dollars how much I make every year. I don't know which days are pay days. It doesn't really matter.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-23-2013 at 18:30..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-23-2013, 18:33   #936
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Whatever you say Frankenstein.

Can you try taking benadryl, and being honest in small doses, build up a tolerance a little at a time, maybe avoid that rash you get when you stop trolling.

Randy
I think you might have taken too much benadryl. Any idea what that causes?

Last time I ran into that, was with a guy that was found naked swimming in a pile of dirt outside the barracks in winter.

Funny thing is, he made a lot more sense than you are now.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-23-2013, 19:12   #937
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I think you might have taken too much benadryl. Any idea what that causes?

Last time I ran into that, was with a guy that was found naked swimming in a pile of dirt outside the barracks in winter.

Funny thing is, he made a lot more sense than you are now.
Sure thing Dr Frankenstein. At least I'm not loopy enough to wonder why dead organisms don't spontaneously reanimate as new organisms....

Better cut back on something, cause your meds are WAY off, buddy...

Randy
steveksux is online now  
Old 02-23-2013, 20:06   #938
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Sure thing Dr Frankenstein. At least I'm not loopy enough to wonder why dead organisms don't spontaneously reanimate as new organisms....

Better cut back on something, cause your meds are WAY off, buddy...

Randy
Not the organism, just a cell within it. Seems that if abiogenesis were just the natural way things happened when all the building blocks of life were present in a small area, that would be a place where all the building blocks were present.

It only sounds far fetched when you forget that you consider abiogenesis is the natural thing that happens when all the pieces happen to be in a small space together.

Considering that it doesn't happen, maybe that's evidence against abiogenesis? What do you think?

Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-23-2013, 23:19   #939
wingryder
Senior Member
 
wingryder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 28.420, -81.171
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Big bang, abiogenesis, evolution..... All clung to with ardor and faith in two out of the three.
... and NONE of the three have anything to do with atheism.

Quote:
I've not seen any evidence of any gods that have been claimed to exist either, but I do take into account ancient mans limitations, the limitations of translation and passing on accurate information.
I don't see how the scientific limitations of middle eastern goat hearders should be taken into consideration as evidence of anything.

Quote:
It is easily just as possible that life on the planet was created as it is that it just happened.
How is it "just as possible"? Do you have one single shred of evidence to support this position? The fact that they can't recreate abiogenesis in a lab (especially since it perhaps happened over a billion year timespan), is not evidence that it didn't happen... and it certainly doesn't point to the conclusion that "God did it".

There was a time when man thought that every natural phenomena were caused by gods... it was only in the light of painstaking observation and experimentation that we learned any differently. Not one single scientific principal, that is now carefully understood, has EVER required a god or a supernatural cause to explain it. In lite of the fact that the bible has been proven WRONG far more than right, I will assume, not by faith, but buy statistical probability, that abiogenesis, big bang and evolution will also not require a god to be explained.

Quote:
So answer me this, if it turns out that it is proven life could have been made on this planet by an intelligence, how does that fit with believing there is no deity? It's a bump in the road, that's all.
I don't know what you mean by "created by intelligence", are you talking about lab scientists, aliens, gods? What ever the cause. Belief is accepting a premise without evidence. I try not to "believe" in things. If there is evidence found for a god, then I would accept that there was a god. I don't see why, if such a god exists, he becomes more increasingly illusive and the miracles keep getting smaller and smaller.

CAV: You answer me this. When evolution or abiogenesis is PROVEN to be true, will you accept that there is no god? Of course not, believers have a looooooong history of redrawing the line in the sand. 600 years ago, people were burned alive for suggesting that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Currently, the line is drawn at apes, finite universes and abiogenesis... 100 years there will be some unexplained quark or planks limit particle that "must have been made by god".

Quote:
I'll bet you had no problem deciding what to have for lunch today without worrying over the answer to how life began on this planet.

Really, it's not a big issue in day to day life, and yet, some people proselytize religiously for atheism. Evangelical Atheists exist, in much larger numbers on line than in the general population.
I didn't have to accept lunch without evidence, I went to Taco Bell and bought it. Whereas accepting mythological creatures, without evidence, is absurd, and passing along such beliefs to children is just painful to watch. I don't want this nonsense taught to my children, and yet my religious family insists on it. Perhaps that is why many (not all) atheist are adamant about their position.
__________________
"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

Last edited by wingryder; 02-23-2013 at 23:30..
wingryder is offline  
Old 02-24-2013, 00:04   #940
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Not the organism, just a cell within it. Seems that if abiogenesis were just the natural way things happened when all the building blocks of life were present in a small area, that would be a place where all the building blocks were present.

It only sounds far fetched when you forget that you consider abiogenesis is the natural thing that happens when all the pieces happen to be in a small space together.

Considering that it doesn't happen, maybe that's evidence against abiogenesis? What do you think?

There comes a point where new stars don't form in any given sector of space because all of the hydrogen in that area has already gravitated into already formed stars. Sometimes a process progresses to a point where it can prevent previous processes from reoccurring. It's a bit like observing an environment where chlorine is only found combined with sodium in NaCl2 and proclaiming that chlorine can only be found combined with sodium in any imaginable environment... because that's all that's been observed. You need to keep looking rather than proclaim the possibility of supernatural intervention that has never been observed.

So what's more likely? That this is simply another process that we don't fully understand yet (just as the sun burning and revolving around the earth once was) or that some magical force that has never been observed is responsible?
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-24-2013, 05:11   #941
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
And you can create life? If it happened spontaneously it could surely be done by men couldn't it?

I had one professor with a doctorate in physiology. He was an atheist, but he understood how unlikely it was for life to have spontaneously . He said it is like throwing a jigsaw puzzle into the air and eventually it will assemble itself, but it is not that simple.

The "watchmaker" fallacy has been debunked over and over again, Vic. This puzzle analogy is just another flavor of that same flawed argument.
hooligan74 is offline  
Old 02-24-2013, 05:37   #942
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
And you can create life? If it happened spontaneously it could surely be done by men couldn't it?

I had one professor with a doctorate in physiology. He was an atheist, but he understood how unlikely it was for life to have spontaneously . He said it is like throwing a jigsaw puzzle into the air and eventually it will assemble itself, but it is not that simple.
Actually, it's more like throwing an unknown yet enormous number of jigsaw puzzles into the air in an enormous number of locations. Also, each piece that fits together is naturally attracted to fit together. Then each time a new piece fits in it stays in for for every subsequent toss until all the pieces are in place. Now you can go ahead and make your puzzle as complex as you like and it doesn't matter.

You should know by now why it's like that. It's been explained to you dozens of times but you obviously weren't paying attention.
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-24-2013, 05:44   #943
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
There comes a point where new stars don't form in any given sector of space because all of the hydrogen in that area has already gravitated into already formed stars. Sometimes a process progresses to a point where it can prevent previous processes from reoccurring. It's a bit like observing an environment where chlorine is only found combined with sodium in NaCl2 and proclaiming that chlorine can only be found combined with sodium in any imaginable environment... because that's all that's been observed. You need to keep looking rather than proclaim the possibility of supernatural intervention that has never been observed.

So what's more likely? That this is simply another process that we don't fully understand yet (just as the sun burning and revolving around the earth once was) or that some magical force that has never been observed is responsible?
Well, stars are a lot different than cells. Space, ingredients, temperature, and a few others. NaCl2 doesn't exist, Sodium Chloride is NaCl. But I get where you are going.

It's a little more than a process we don't understand, it's simply an unproven and poorly supported hypothesis. Relying on trillions and trillions of tries hoping that the improbable would have occurred at least once is a fantastic claim. Not any more than the claim that a deity did it mind you. The more you really consider each of the possibilities, the more you see the gaping holes in the suppositions. A firm belief in abiogenesis or ID is a matter of faith.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-24-2013 at 05:47..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-24-2013, 05:50   #944
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
And you can create life? If it happened spontaneously it could surely be done by men couldn't it?
Sure it could. My question to you (and Cav if he doesn't feel like dodging difficult questions today) is where exactly do you get off proclaiming that this should have happened by now? Do you know they just cured type 1 diabetes in a dog? Yep, it took this damn long but it looks like they did it. Why didn't that happen sooner?

Because the discovery happened when our understanding of science progressed to a point where it could happen. How can you say it should have happened any sooner when you know absolutely nothing about curing diabetes?

What you're doing is a bit like calling an electrician over to wire up your new house because you have no ****ing clue how to do it yourself and then proclaiming that he sucks at his job because you wanted him to distribute power from the breaker box all throughout your house without using all that expensive wiring and he didn't know how to do that.


Man. That new 2100 Corvette will be badass machine for sure. 1000 pounds curb weight, antimatter engine, tirillium alloy wheels and it drives itself just by you thinking about where you want to go. Why can't I buy one now? GM really dropped the ball on that one huh?

Last edited by Gunhaver; 02-24-2013 at 05:57..
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-24-2013, 05:58   #945
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
Actually, it's more like throwing an unknown yet enormous number of jigsaw puzzles into the air in an enormous number of locations. Also, each piece that fits together is naturally attracted to fit together. Then each time a new piece fits in it stays in for for every subsequent toss until all the pieces are in place. Now you can go ahead and make your puzzle as complex as you like and it doesn't matter.

You should know by now why it's like that. It's been explained to you dozens of times but you obviously weren't paying attention.
The problem is that there is no attractive force pulling the pieces into place. The natural force would be diffusion. Where is the data supporting that, or is it a supernatural force? In observed science, cells currently must be made by other cells. It is an active process, requiring the expenditure of energy and putting all the pieces together.

Cells are not passively self sustaining, they require active and passive transport systems in the surface and inside the cell. Those active transport systems are not spontaneous, they are controlled in order to maintain homeostasis.


The abiogenesis and ID suppositions each have their gaping holes.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-24-2013 at 06:26..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-24-2013, 06:28   #946
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Well, stars are a lot different than cells. Space, ingredients, temperature, and a few others. NaCl2 doesn't exist, Sodium Chloride is NaCl. But I get where you are going.

It's a little more than a process we don't understand, it's simply an unproven and poorly supported hypothesis. Relying on trillions and trillions of tries hoping that the improbable would have occurred at least once is a fantastic claim. Not any more than the claim that a deity did it mind you. The more you really consider each of the possibilities, the more you see the gaping holes in the suppositions. A firm belief in abiogenesis or ID is a matter of faith.
The NaCl2 thing was a typo but congrats on not using it to play dumb. Stars are indeed different than cells. Do you disagree with my statement that some natural processes progress to a point where previous processes are no longer observable? Will the fossil record ever be 100% complete considering the fact that 99.9% of the animals that have ever lived are now dead and gone and most have died under conditions that were not just right for fossilization?

Or I could just ask you the same question I asked Vic. You saw that one didn't you?
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-24-2013, 06:49   #947
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 10,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Vic,

The guys standing on the other side of the coin from you keep throwing the charge of "Young Earth Creationist" out there.

Is that just BS, or do you actually believe that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old?

Just curious...
They throw out a lot of false charges. They feel more secure demonizing someone who believes in a sovereign God as insane and radical.

Personally I don't know how old the earth is. Even the evolutionists make a number of different claims as to age of the earth and the age if the remains of ancient critters.

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.

1. Evolution requires death. Man was created in the image of God and was intended to have eternal life. Evolution requires the death of the weakest to enhance the most adapted traits of man. We as a race are becoming weaker and more diseased. Most of us cannot even contain the wisdom teeth that were apparently a necessary part of our ancestors. I have heard of ancient axe head being found that weighed 30 lbs. How many of us could use a tool like that?

2. The answer the Bible gives is that man entered into sin which threw everything in the earthly creation out of whack and set our planet on course for death. If evolution is true then there was no Garden of Eden and no fall of man from sinless ness to sinfulness. If that is true there is no need of a Savior because a sinless state then becomes only an artificial concept. His death would then become moot because we could not be saved from our sin and return to our former sinless state. The earth could not be returned to its perfect absolutely gorgeous state if it never existed.

3. I choose to believe that I have purpose , a reason for existing in a more grand scheme of things than blind chance and circumstance . I desire the breadth of character displayed to us in the life of Jesus. I desire the absolute innocence that I believe was once possessed by man. I can't do that by believing the philosophies and thoughts put forth by those who hate the very mention or thought of a loving Creator God.

4. The Bible presents the philosophies and thoughts of satan as being worked out in his followers. The curtain is pulled aside to see them warring against God and their ultimate end. Good against evil, Morality against immorality. The Bible points out that Jesus is going to win. I would rather be on the winning side.

Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
Hebrews 11:25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
Hebrews 11:26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward.
__________________
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.
Vic Hays is offline  
Old 02-24-2013, 06:52   #948
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
Sure it could. My question to you (and Cav if he doesn't feel like dodging difficult questions today) is where exactly do you get off proclaiming that this should have happened by now? Do you know they just cured type 1 diabetes in a dog? Yep, it took this damn long but it looks like they did it. Why didn't that happen sooner?

Because the discovery happened when our understanding of science progressed to a point where it could happen. How can you say it should have happened any sooner when you know absolutely nothing about curing diabetes?

What you're doing is a bit like calling an electrician over to wire up your new house because you have no ****ing clue how to do it yourself and then proclaiming that he sucks at his job because you wanted him to distribute power from the breaker box all throughout your house without using all that expensive wiring and he didn't know how to do that.


Man. That new 2100 Corvette will be badass machine for sure. 1000 pounds curb weight, antimatter engine, tirillium alloy wheels and it drives itself just by you thinking about where you want to go. Why can't I buy one now? GM really dropped the ball on that one huh?
What an interesting post you have there.

Lets get right to your questions:

Where do I get off??
&
Why can't you buy something that doesn't exist?


Wow, those are deep. Like diving into a wading pool.

I'll let you answer your own rhetorical questions. But I did want to comment on your post. You've presented an illustrative moment.

I'm just the messenger, and it's a message you evidently don't like that causes you great distress. Dropping the F-bomb, little insults sprinkled about, it's cute.

You've had to imagine a few things you can't have. Proof of abiogenesis, convincing evidence, this mysterious supernatural force that pulls the elements of life together that overwhelms natural diffusion and now a corvette that you couldn't afford if it did exist. Maybe some day things will change and you can have one or more of those imagined things. Hope is a good thing, most of the time.

Your arguments are not much different than "God works in mysterious ways". In fact, they aren't different at all. There are gaping holes in both genesis of life suppositions, and each side seems to be deeply invested in their chosen theory being correct, after all, if it's not, and they are wrong on that one little tiny historical detail, then they will have A LOT of re-evaluation to do.

The interesting thing is that you are passionately invested in abiogenesis being correct. Passionate enough to lose your normal cheery disposition when it is questioned. It's almost the same reaction when a religious person hears blasphemy, well, not really almost, but I'm trying to be gentle with you.


Like I have been saying for a long time, it's not just the definitions, it's true in the spirit of the words too. Thanks for the demonstration. You've been useful today.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-24-2013 at 06:54..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-24-2013, 07:09   #949
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
They throw out a lot of false charges. They feel more secure demonizing someone who believes in a sovereign God as insane and radical.

Personally I don't know how old the earth is. Even the evolutionists make a number of different claims as to age of the earth and the age if the remains of ancient critters.

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.

1. Evolution requires death. Man was created in the image of God and was intended to have eternal life. Evolution requires the death of the weakest to enhance the most adapted traits of man. We as a race are becoming weaker and more diseased. Most of us cannot even contain the wisdom teeth that were apparently a necessary part of our ancestors. I have heard of ancient axe head being found that weighed 30 lbs. How many of us could use a tool like that?

2. The answer the Bible gives is that man entered into sin which threw everything in the earthly creation out of whack and set our planet on course for death. If evolution is true then there was no Garden of Eden and no fall of man from sinless ness to sinfulness. If that is true there is no need of a Savior because a sinless state then becomes only an artificial concept. His death would then become moot because we could not be saved from our sin and return to our former sinless state. The earth could not be returned to its perfect absolutely gorgeous state if it never existed.

3. I choose to believe that I have purpose , a reason for existing in a more grand scheme of things than blind chance and circumstance . I desire the breadth of character displayed to us in the life of Jesus. I desire the absolute innocence that I believe was once possessed by man. I can't do that by believing the philosophies and thoughts put forth by those who hate the very mention or thought of a loving Creator God.

4. The Bible presents the philosophies and thoughts of satan as being worked out in his followers. The curtain is pulled aside to see them warring against God and their ultimate end. Good against evil, Morality against immorality. The Bible points out that Jesus is going to win. I would rather be on the winning side.

Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
Hebrews 11:25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
Hebrews 11:26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward.
I was wondering. I haven't met anyone that actually thinks the world is 6000 years old, but it keeps being thrown around like it's a rampantly evident false belief by the atheists/anti-theists.

We do have different opinions on a few things. Evolution is more of a chance thing. A trait that might kill you right after reproducing the first time is not a desirable trait, but it can exist (See Salmon). I see both chaos and order in the system of life. At the cellular level, I see much more order than chaos. I can accept life evolving, whether that is a designed event, or random chance is obviously debatable.

As far as our species becoming more diseased, that's likely a factor of compassion. The sick are treated, and allowed to stick around much longer than biologically necessary. I'm not complaining mind you, allowing people to get old is a nice thing to do most of the time. Our weakness is likely because we live lives of pampered luxury. We aren't chasing down our food, carrying water, walking great distances to get things we need, tilling the earth by hand, fighting off predators and competitors.......

Anyway, thanks for answering the question. I had a feeling that was the case. I get a lot of baseless charges from the evangelical atheists too. They really hate blasphemers. I may not be convinced your beliefs are correct, but at least we can be polite about it.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-24-2013, 07:12   #950
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
What an interesting post you have there.

Lets get right to your questions:

Where do I get off??
&
Why can't you buy something that doesn't exist?


Wow, those are deep. Like diving into a wading pool.

I'll let you answer your own rhetorical questions. But I did want to comment on your post. You've presented an illustrative moment.

I'm just the messenger, and it's a message you evidently don't like that causes you great distress. Dropping the F-bomb, little insults sprinkled about, it's cute.

You've had to imagine a few things you can't have. Proof of abiogenesis, convincing evidence, this mysterious supernatural force that pulls the elements of life together that overwhelms natural diffusion and now a corvette that you couldn't afford if it did exist. Maybe some day things will change and you can have one or more of those imagined things. Hope is a good thing, most of the time.

Your arguments are not much different than "God works in mysterious ways". In fact, they aren't different at all. There are gaping holes in both genesis of life suppositions, and each side seems to be deeply invested in their chosen theory being correct, after all, if it's not, and they are wrong on that one little tiny historical detail, then they will have A LOT of re-evaluation to do.

The interesting thing is that you are passionately invested in abiogenesis being correct. Passionate enough to lose your normal cheery disposition when it is questioned. It's almost the same reaction when a religious person hears blasphemy, well, not really almost, but I'm trying to be gentle with you.


Like I have been saying for a long time, it's not just the definitions, it's true in the spirit of the words too. Thanks for the demonstration. You've been useful today.
Yes, I'm often too illustrative for my own good. Maybe I'll just stick to direct questions to you from now on since you'll happily take any opportunity to focus on anything but the main point.

Direct question: Do you think that the fact that the abiogenesis process cannot be currently explained means that it will never be explained?

They are working on it.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1978170520/
Gunhaver 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 18:37.



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


Users Currently Online: 1,375
447 Members
928 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42