Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 7:54 PM
386 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,870 Year: 16,476/21,208 Month: 2,365/3,593 Week: 478/882 Day: 99/97 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 91 of 140 (568907)
07-18-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by marc9000
07-18-2010 5:31 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Less than the original? This may be worthy of another thread, either a new one, or an existing one that I'm not aware of. Is the scientific community now claiming a human ability to create and destroy? It didn't when I went to school.

Alternatively, perhaps you weren't paying any attention in science class. That would explain a lot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 5:31 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 92 of 140 (568913)
07-18-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by marc9000
07-18-2010 5:20 PM


Re: intuitive linking
IT DOES IF THE SAME WORD IS USED TO DESCRIBE THEM. If both apples and oranges were called "apples" there would be a problem distinguishing them. If supernatural creation and naturalistic abiogenesis are both dishonestly called "abiogenesis" there is a problem distinguishing them! Atheist scientists wish to dishonestly confuse the issue, because they only have a fragmented, atheistic belief system to support abiogenesis, unable to meet the criteria they themselves have set for Intelligent Design.

Your lies and hysteria apart, what word would you like to use?

Adjectives are necessary to distinguish between two alternate versions of abiogenesis.

Then in message 72, why did you ask me why I used the adjectives?

Because it suggested that you agreed that we are distinguishing between two alternate versions of abiogenesis.

How about this one....."Creation"?

Too broad. Try again.

Creation means a lot of things. If we want to talk about the origin of life in particular, what we want is either:

(a) One word which means: the-process-by-or-event-in-which-life-originated-whether-or-not-it-happened-by-magic.

(b) Two words, one of which means a-process-by-or-event-in-which-life-originated-by-magic and one of which means the-process-by-or-event-in-which-life-originated-without-magic-being-involved.

You object to the word "abiogenesis" being used for term (a). You would like it to only mean the second term in (b). But then we need two other words: one for the first term in (b), and one for the concept described in (a).

Any suggestions?

No word is necessary for that. As soon as you say "abiogenesis" no further details are necessary. It means "life from non-life. Life could have originated WITHOUT being rearranged from non-life.

Well, if life was poofed out of nothingness, then I would point out that nothingness is not alive, and counts as non-life.

However, I would also point out that the Bible, like lots of other creation myths, has people being formed out of clay, which was then brought to life by magic, rather than people just being poofed out of nothing.

Atheists cannot prove that life was not instantly created, completely independent of a rearrangement process.

Well, I can point out that this is impossible. But then you tell us that you have an imaginary friend who can do impossible things, and who did this impossible thing. And you don't provide a shred of evidence for this. Which leaves me appealing to the laws of nature, which can be demonstrated, and creationists appealing to the unevidenced magic tricks of an unevidenced invisible magic man. Which leaves me in a rather stronger position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 5:20 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 862
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 93 of 140 (569017)
07-19-2010 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by crashfrog
07-18-2010 5:42 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Yeah, less than the original. In other words, I broke an atom into two pieces, and when I weighed the two pieces, their weights added up to less than the original atom.

Any number of gases, both visible and invisible, can exist without having any weight, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist - that they’re not real material.

I can burn up a piece of paper. I haven’t done any weight experiments with it, but it’s reasonable to guess that the ashes will weigh far less than the original piece of paper. But I only rearranged it into ashes and smoke, and other invisible gases. Just because I can’t weigh the smoke and gases doesn’t mean I destroyed anything. The smoke and gases don’t disappear. They change into gases that change into other gases that end up being taken in by vegetation etc. It’s never destroyed. Humans can witness and comprehend some very profound rearrangements, but they’re never anything more than rearrangements. They’re not creation or destruction.

What level of school? You wouldn't have learned nuclear physics until sophomore year of college, at the very earliest.

Junior high hahahahahahaha. I can still see that statement in my science textbook, because it was so profound to me, it was something I’d never thought of before. “Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.” [by humans] If today’s scientific community tells me that “abiogenesis is a fact”, I’m not ready to instantly believe them when they tell me they can actually create and/or destroy matter.

marc9000 writes:

Science is not applicable to many subjects.

Empiricism is applicable to all subjects. No other epistemology but empiricism produces results that can be distinguished from imagination.

When it comes to human behavior, there are studies/thought processes that fall between empiricism and imagination. The words “philosophy” and “motivation” come to mind. Good examples of details of those two words are contained in the US Constitution, and other US founding documents, such as the Federalist Papers.

I'm sure that we both agree that "just guessing" or "just making things up" may produce something that gives the appearance of knowledge, but is not actually knowledge. Kekule may have awoken from a dream of the Orouboros with the aromatic structure of the benzene molecule fixed in his mind, but he didn't actually know benzene had that structure until he had performed the experiments that verified his intuition. (Imagine all the nameless chemists who dreamed that the structure of benzene was a hairpin, or a figure-8, or a branched tree, or the like.) You can't be said to "know" something if you haven't produced that knowledge via a means that produces results distinguishable from imagination.

How about evolutionists who imagine that the basic form of life, the cell, with its signal processing behaviors that rival or surpass that of modern computers, just fell into place by blind, unguided, purposeless, happenstance processes? Huxley, (the originator of the term “abiogenesis”) dreamed that the simplest forms of life were little more than lumps of protoplasm. He had dreams – why do todays scientists, with todays knowledge of the cell, DNA, etc, have exactly the same dreams, with no updates? The answer is, of course, that they're supporting their worldview of atheism. Objective study comes in second.

marc9000 writes:

How people get along, how to manage money, what may happen in the future.

Sociology
Economics
Climatology
To name a few.

Those aren't strictly empirical subjects. If they were, there would be no political division in the US, would there? As a conservative, I believe that the best way to know which ideas in those subjects work the best is by looking at the history of previous applications of them. Which ideas have stood the test of time. Money management principles in the book of Proverbs have been time-proven to work well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2010 5:42 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by DrJones*, posted 07-19-2010 7:54 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 95 by Theodoric, posted 07-19-2010 8:04 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2010 10:12 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2010 10:48 PM marc9000 has responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1657
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 94 of 140 (569020)
07-19-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by marc9000
07-19-2010 7:50 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Any number of gases, both visible and invisible, can exist without having any weight

Well thats just not true.


It\'s not enough to bash in heads, you\'ve got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it\'s Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I\'ll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 7:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 95 of 140 (569023)
07-19-2010 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by marc9000
07-19-2010 7:50 PM


I think you need a science class.
Just an idea.


Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 7:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 862
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 96 of 140 (569024)
07-19-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Huntard
07-18-2010 6:00 PM


Re: intuitive linking
No there isn't actually. Life wasn't there before, it's here now. This means it must've come from something "non-living". Whether that was nothing at all (creation ex-nihilo) or from chemicals, there is no other way.

It didn’t necessarily have to be rearranged from something else. Non-living material had to come into existence instantly, there’s no scientific reason to not believe that living material couldn’t have possibly originated instantly. There may be an atheistic reason, but not a scientific reason. There is a difference between material that was non-living, and ‘nothing’. “Creation ex-nihilo” can have nothing to do with chemicals.

Since Darwin actually provided evidence for his theory, and the authors of the bible provided absolutely nothing whatsoever, I find your accepting of the one over the other very strange indeed.

Different people have different definitions of what ‘evidence’ is. I find the Bible to be perfect in the way it describes human nature, judging it by history and experience. I find Darwin lacking in his knowledge of the simplest forms of life, judging by recent scientific discoveries of the simplest forms of life.

I've got some other utterly unevidenced stories for you. God authorized me to tell them, wanna hear them? Wanna accept them as true without any evidence whatsoever?

Nope – the Bible warns about false teachers, or anyone who tries to add to it beyond the book of Revelation. Many thousands of people have written books - extensions and explanations of Christianity, and many of them are very good. The way to judge their soundness is to see if they clash with the ultimate truth, the Bible. The Bible's warnings about false teachings, it's descriptions of the Nature of God and Christ, make it fairly easy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Huntard, posted 07-18-2010 6:00 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Huntard, posted 07-20-2010 3:16 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 862
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 97 of 140 (569026)
07-19-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by jar
07-18-2010 6:03 PM


Re: Trying to get back to the topic
Atheist statements? Nonsense. They are the topic of this thread and also subjects accepted by much of Club Christian.

A quick google search shows me nothing about your organization. Is there any info about it on the net?

I am pretty sure that I've given you the link to the Clergy Project Letter.

You haven't - I'm fairly new here and don't remember having a discussion with you before, but atheists on another forum brought it to my attention. It's a quote mine that is nothing more than an attempt by the Catholic church to mollify an atheist community who has been a threat to bankrupt them with legal action and member intimidation for decades now. In the late 60’s, there was an over-population frenzy largely brought on by the scientific community, predicting massive starvation in the 1970’s etc. In December of 1968, 2600 scientists published a petition in the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, and ‘Commonweal’ (a catholic magazine) urging Catholics to withhold contributions from collection plates, because of the Pope’s stance on birth control. Catholicism often caves to the scientific community. The Clergy Letter Project was a financial/political thing, nothing more. A few of its statements clash with what the Bible says. I don't agree with it, I'm not Catholic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 07-18-2010 6:03 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 07-19-2010 8:42 PM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 862
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 98 of 140 (569027)
07-19-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Granny Magda
07-18-2010 6:32 PM


Re: intuitive linking
I would welcome your reply, but it would be best diverted to Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists. Cheers.

I'll respond in that thread to what you said here in the coming evenings. Time is of the essence tonight - I need to finish up what substance there is left in this thread tonight.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Granny Magda, posted 07-18-2010 6:32 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

jar
Member
Posts: 29008
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 99 of 140 (569030)
07-19-2010 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by marc9000
07-19-2010 8:20 PM


Re: Trying to get back to the topic
marc9000 writes:

jar writes:

Atheist statements? Nonsense. They are the topic of this thread and also subjects accepted by much of Club Christian.

A quick google search shows me nothing about your organization. Is there any info about it on the net?

What organization, Club Christian?

Club Christian is any and all of the recognized Christian Sects that exist. My Chapter happens to be the Episcopal Church of the Anglican Communion within the overall Club Christian.

marc9000 writes:

jar writes:

I am pretty sure that I've given you the link to the Clergy Project Letter.

You haven't - I'm fairly new here and don't remember having a discussion with you before, but atheists on another forum brought it to my attention. It's a quote mine that is nothing more than an attempt by the Catholic church to mollify an atheist community who has been a threat to bankrupt them with legal action and member intimidation for decades now. In the late 60’s, there was an over-population frenzy largely brought on by the scientific community, predicting massive starvation in the 1970’s etc. In December of 1968, 2600 scientists published a petition in the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, and ‘Commonweal’ (a catholic magazine) urging Catholics to withhold contributions from collection plates, because of the Pope’s stance on birth control. Catholicism often caves to the scientific community. The Clergy Letter Project was a financial/political thing, nothing more. A few of its statements clash with what the Bible says. I don't agree with it, I'm not Catholic.

I'm sorry but beyond being simply wrong and more of your misrepresentation, that is a really silly statement. I also note that yet once again you try to palm the pea, to change the subject.

The Clergy project as has been pointed out to you (I did give you the link this time at least) is NOT something created by the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, it was first written by Michael Zimmerman, a Professor of Biology at Butler University.

In addition, this topic as has been pointed out to you several times, is about science. It also doesn't matter what you agree with.

The facts are that the Clergy Project shows that the issue is NOT atheistic. It shows that Evolution as a fact and the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation of the diversity we see about us is accepted and recognized by Theists and in particular, Christians.

It is only the Christian Cult of Ignorance that continues to support Special Creation and to "deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

Your assertion that Abiogenesis and Evolution are atheistic has been soundly refuted.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 8:20 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 9:08 PM jar has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 862
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 100 of 140 (569031)
07-19-2010 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by crashfrog
07-18-2010 7:24 PM


Re: intuitive linking
I don't understand, I guess.

This message of mine should go into enough detail to clarify it.

"Abiogenesis" is just a word that can be applied to any model of the chemical origin of life.

It didn’t have to be a chemical origin, it could have been an instant origin, instant chemicals, with no rearrangement involved. An instant origin could have nothing to do with gradual chemical changes.

And there are a few. But the word could really be applied to any instance of life emerging from lifelessness,

No, God’s method of creation (described in the Bible) doesn’t involve gradual chemical changes. It’s in a realm that humans can’t possibly understand. Science can’t prove that there is no such thing as a realm of reality that humans can’t understand. “Why is there something rather than nothing” – “how can space be endless” there are many other questions that imply that there exists some reality that humans can’t possibly understand.

which is why the standard creationist argument "abiogenesis is physically impossible; therefore God did it" is so patently stupid.

It’s no more stupid than “there can’t be a god, or if there is, humans can perfectly understand him” therefore, abiogenesis is a fact. Or “there can’t be a god, so the signal processing behaviors found in the simplest forms of life that can rival or surpass modern computers had to have fallen into place by blind, unguided processes.

But I don't see what any of that has to do with what I asked.

I’m not sure at this point just what you asked, but I’ll now clarify the reason for my entering this thread in the first place.

“Once there was no life on earth, and now there is, therefore abiogenesis is a fact.” That’s a tricky statement, and it’s a delight to the scientific community. It doesn’t directly address religion, it certainly doesn’t attack it, it simply marches right by it, pretending like religion doesn’t exist. Atheists, agnostics, Confucianists, Deists, Wiccans, Club Christians, – they can excitedly launch into discussions and projections about abiogenesis based on that statement, and as long as no pesky Christians are there to ask questions, they can make it as scientific as they want, even though there is nothing close to a complete scientific package about it. The only way to get rid of the pesky Christians is to include supernatural creation under the (now vague and largely useless) term of abiogenesis. Then public school teachers can proclaim “abiogenesis is a fact”. Teenagers will not automatically recognize the word as vague and useless, they’ll relate it only to naturalism, and that’s a slippery way to indoctrinate them into atheism. It is NOT HONEST.

Uh...huh. So, you've never observed it yourself, though, which is what I asked. Right?

No more than atheists have observed the big bang, or Tiikalak Rosae crawing out of the ocean millions of years ago and eventually sprouting into a human, or any number of things asserted by the scientific community. Naturalists accept them just as quickly as Christians accept what the Bible tells them.

marc9000 writes:

just like atheists reading "Origin of Species" and accepting without question all the experimentation and theories of Darwin.

But we don't do that.

But there is evidence that it has been going on ever since 1859. Darwin didn’t board planes and do book tours, he didn’t get on television and do interviews with CNN, he didn’t get colorful pages on amazon with raving promotions and reviews by scientists. Book promotion was very slow - little more than word-of-mouth in the mid 19th century. But his book still SOLD OUT ON THE VERY FIRST DAY. We’re supposed to believe that’s because of a sudden interest in science by general public. Common sense tells me that it was a long hunger for intellectually fulfilled atheism that caused the book to sell out, for Darwin to be hero to atheists, in 1859, and today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2010 7:24 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Theodoric, posted 07-19-2010 9:16 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 104 by ringo, posted 07-19-2010 9:46 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2010 11:12 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 109 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2010 4:29 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 862
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 101 of 140 (569034)
07-19-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
07-19-2010 8:42 PM


Re: Trying to get back to the topic
What organization, Club Christian?

Yes, or whatever Christian organization endorses what you've said in this thread about Christianity. You've said that;

Claiming a creator tells us nothing, explains nothing.

Atheists agree.

Saying "She willed it into existence" is just an empty assertion with little information or relevance.

Atheists sometimes mock God by referring to him as a "she".

Genesis 2 and 3 are a "Just so story". Humans wrote the story and the god they created for the story places humans in a special place.

Atheists agree.

No one I know of except Biblical Creationists think that Genesis 2 refers to anything scientific. It is a fable, a folk tale, a Just So story.

Atheist agree.

Well, of course Christ was not a Christian nor is there all that much about Christianity in the Bible.

Atheists love you.

Destroyed silly ideas like "There was a Noahic flood".

Atheists agree.

They are the topic of this thread and also subjects accepted by much of Club Christian.

Much of? Do Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, honest Catholics, Pentecostals, agree with the statements you made above?

My Chapter happens to be the Episcopal Church of the Anglican Communion within the overall Club Christian.

This webpage shows the Anglican/Episcopal's "Sacred or Distinguishing Text" to be "The Bible, The Books of Common Prayer."

When Christians refer to different Christian denominations, they actually call them "denominations", not "sects" like you and atheists do.

Your next post is going to have to be really profound for me to waste anymore of my time with you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 07-19-2010 8:42 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 07-19-2010 9:34 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 102 of 140 (569038)
07-19-2010 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by marc9000
07-19-2010 8:42 PM


Re: intuitive linking
But his book still SOLD OUT ON THE VERY FIRST DAY. We’re supposed to believe that’s because of a sudden interest in science by general public. Common sense tells me that it was a long hunger for intellectually fulfilled atheism that caused the book to sell out, for Darwin to be hero to atheists, in 1859, and today.

Again you show an amazing ability to not only be wrong but to misrepresent also.\.
The first edition was less than 1200 copies. Whoopee, there is an atheist revolution for you. As for selling out on the first day. Read away.

quote:
Darwin received a copy early in November; Peckham says that Murray sent it on Wednesday 2nd. The overseas presentation copies were sent out before Friday 11th, and the home ones must have gone out at about the same time because he received a letter of thanks from Sir John Lubbock on Tuesday 15th, or earlier. Twenty-three author's presentation copies are recorded, but there were probably more; the twelve which I have seen are all inscribed by one of Murray's clerks and I know of no record of one inscribed by Darwin himself. It was offered to the trade at Murray's autumn sale a week later, on 22nd; most sources say that 1,500 were taken up, others 1,493. Only 1,250 had however been printed of which 1,192 were available for sale, the rest being twelve for the author, forty-one for review and five for Stationers' Hall copyright. As Darwin took at least another twenty for presentation, the final number available for the trade was about 1,170. These facts are at variance with the often-printed statement that all the 1,250 copies were sold to the public on publication day, Thursday 24th; indeed once copies had reached the bookshops, up and down the country, how could anyone know whether they were sold or not. The origin of this mistake is in Darwin's diary '1250 copies printed. The first edition was published on November 24th, and all copies sold first day.' And in a letter to Huxley on November 24th "I have heard from Murray today that he sold the whole edition of my book the first day."

Source


Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 8:42 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29008
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 103 of 140 (569040)
07-19-2010 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by marc9000
07-19-2010 9:08 PM


Re: Trying to get back to the topic
Do you even understand any of what you quoted or can you only try to change the subject? This thread is not about my beliefs about Christianity but rather the topic of Abiogenesis and Evolution.

I will be happy to educate you about what those statements mean but they are off topic for this thread and once again I will try to get you headed back towards the topic.

By the way it is the Book of Common Prayer.

Marc9000 writes:

jar writes:

They are the topic of this thread and also subjects accepted by much of Club Christian.

Much of? Do Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, honest Catholics, Pentecostals, agree with the statements you made above?

Yet another example of you taking things out of context and misrepresentation.

The "they" in that quote refers to the fact of Abiogenesis and Evolution and the fact that the Theory of Evolution is not only the best explanation for the diversity we see around us, it is the ONLY model. There simply is no Creation Science model.

And yes, Lutherans and Baptists and Presbyterians and Roman Catholics and Episcopalians and Jews and Unitarians and Methodists agree that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the best and only explanation and model presented so far. Had you read the list of signatures to teh Clergy Project Letter you would have seen that.

Marc9000 writes:

When Christians refer to different Christian denominations, they actually call them "denominations", not "sects" like you and atheists do.

Except I am a Christian and used those terms, so your assertion has been refuted.

Now, if you would like to challenge or discuss some of my statements about Christianity, please propose a new topic and I will be glad to try to educate you.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 9:08 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 13181
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 104 of 140 (569042)
07-19-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by marc9000
07-19-2010 8:42 PM


Re: intuitive linking
marc9000 writes:

It didn’t have to be a chemical origin, it could have been an instant origin, instant chemicals, with no rearrangement involved. An instant origin could have nothing to do with gradual chemical changes.


That's a bizarre statement. You have trouble accepting the gradual rearrangement of chemical elements - which we see every day - and you propose as an alternate mechanism an instant magic poof from nothing? That's like saying you don't believe cars are made in Detroit but you do believe the Easter Bunny leaves them in your driveway. How do you expect anybody to take you seriously after that?


I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I\'m back where I started.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 8:42 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Coyote
Member
Posts: 5859
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 105 of 140 (569045)
07-19-2010 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by marc9000
07-19-2010 7:50 PM


Re: intuitive linking
How about evolutionists who imagine that the basic form of life, the cell, with its signal processing behaviors that rival or surpass that of modern computers, just fell into place by blind, unguided, purposeless, happenstance processes?

The following information suggests that you are wrong:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 7:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017