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 6:24 PM
394 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, DrJones*, NoNukes, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Tangle (7 members, 387 visitors)
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: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   From protobionts to living cells
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2857
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 31 of 48 (497419)
02-04-2009 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Cedre
02-04-2009 5:10 AM


Re: Hunted
Cedre writes:

Well it's suprising for you to ask that question, my man, where've you been all this time, don't you get outsite of the house every so often to marvel at the beauty and sheer genius of nature. The hand of God hasn't been more evident in nature since the birth of science that has started unravelling the cell to unearth such involutions as the citric acid cycle, glycolysis and the various transport mechanism involved in generating useful energy, the slitting of the DNA helix ending up in two daughter DNA, transcription, translation I'm out of breath at this point but no doubt the list doesn't take my loss of breath in account it continues on smoothly. The hand of God is evident and logic supports that notion, science may not be able to validate his existence beyond a shadow of or doubt but it sure does a brilliant task at revealing his handywork in nature


The hand of god is only evident if you first believe in that god. For Muslims it's allah's hand, for Hindu's it's vishna's. You can say god used evolution to get where we are now, you'll get no argument from me. You can say god initiated the big bang, no argument from me either. You can say god is responsible for the laws within this universe that led to it being the way it is today, also, no argument from me. But bear in mind that the same can be claimed for ANY imaginary being.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 5:10 AM Cedre has not yet responded

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


Message 32 of 48 (497420)
02-04-2009 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cedre
02-04-2009 3:49 AM


Re: responding to Dr adequate
Your statement is frightfuly bold, Dr adequate. I will not speak for others but from experience I can avow that the different men and women who write on AiG are real qualified scientists, some of them are on a par with the best of what evolution can offer ...

On a par? I doubt that, firstly because of the mass of silly mistakes in the article, and partly because evolutionists produce good science, not random creationist blather.

Here, for example, are 72 Nobel-Prize winning scientists, and what they told the court in the case of Edwards v. Aguilard:

The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept [...] Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom. --- Nobel Laureates: Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.

Perhaps you could find 72 creationists with achievements "on a par" with these people.

They include, please note, Francis Crick and James Watson, discoverers of the structure of DNA, Har Khorana and Marshall Nirenberg, who deciphered the genetic code, Severo Ochoa, who discovered how DNA is transcribed into RNA, Robert Holley, who first described the structure of transfer RNA, David Baltimore, Howard Temin and Renato Dulbecco, discoverers of reverse transcriptase, Arthur Kornberg, the first man to isolate a DNA polymerase, Salvador Luria, who discovered restriction enzymes, Hamilton Smith, who discovered type II restriction enzymes and who sequenced the first bacterial genome, Barbara McClintock, who discovered transposons, and George Snell, who discovered the genetic factors underlying transplant acceptance or rejection. I think they might know a teensy bit more about genetics than this Dr. Gary Parker and his string of ridiculous mistakes.

What is more, though, is that, these scientists are also bible-believing christians, and to me it seems silly that they they would publish information with the intend to cozen unwitting readers. What good would it do for them but send them straight to the pits of hell. The bible guarantee us that all liars will have their part in hell, and in any event honesty is one of Christianity's precepts.

As has been pointed out to you, they don't know that they're wrong. It's not that they're deliberate liars, but just that they combine arrogance, ignorance, laziness and wishful thinking. They are not liars, who say things that they know to be untrue; they are bullshitters, who haven't taken the trouble to find out that what they're saying is untrue.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 3:49 AM Cedre has not yet responded

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1069 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 33 of 48 (497421)
02-04-2009 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Annafan
02-04-2009 5:02 AM


Re: Hunted
Perhaps Mr Hunter you do not realise just how huge a bone of contention not being able to explain how life originated for evolution is, if truth be told, it is a huge prickly thorn embedded out of reach in the side of evolution and no amount of abiobabble surgery will get rid of it. Let me explain why, Number one life as said by evolutionist has come about from non living mattr via four physical and chemical process aided by the(blind)force of natural selection and transforming abilities of mutations. First the emergence of dead organic matter like say nucleotides. Second the joining of the above-named monomers and others to form nucleic acids and other molecules such as amino acids. Third the arranging of these molecules into "protobionts" membrane-bound droplets with internal conditions differen't from that of their surroundings (So what my house has got conditions different from that of my yard, we keep it warm in winter and cool in summer but it doesn't mean its going to come to life someday or spontaneaosly give rise to a living cell). Then finally origin of self-replicating molecules that ushered in the age of replication. As easy as that. Hardly this sounds good on paper but what is its relevance to real world.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Annafan, posted 02-04-2009 5:02 AM Annafan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 5:38 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 36 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 5:41 AM Cedre has not yet responded

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


Message 34 of 48 (497422)
02-04-2009 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Cedre
02-04-2009 5:10 AM


Re: Hunted
Well it's suprising for you to ask that question, my man, where've you been all this time, don't you get outsite of the house every so often to marvel at the beauty and sheer genius of nature. The hand of God hasn't been more evident in nature since the birth of science that has started unravelling the cell to unearth such involutions as the citric acid cycle, glycolysis and the various transport mechanism involved in generating useful energy, the slitting of the DNA helix ending up in two daughter DNA, transcription, translation ...

Well now you're just playing into my hands. Who do you think discovered all these things?

(See my previous post for an answer.)

The hand of God is evident and logic supports that notion, science may not be able to validate his existence beyond a shadow of or doubt but it sure does a brilliant task at revealing his handywork in nature.

But it is not "evident" to the people who actually study nature and found out all these things for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 5:10 AM Cedre has not yet responded

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


Message 35 of 48 (497423)
02-04-2009 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Cedre
02-04-2009 5:34 AM


Re: Hunted
Perhaps Mr Hunter you do not realise just how huge a bone of contention not being able to explain how life originated for evolution is, if truth be told, it is a huge prickly thorn embedded out of reach in the side of evolution and no amount of abiobabble surgery will get rid of it. Let me explain why, Number one life as said by evolutionist has come about from non living mattr via four physical and chemical process aided by the(blind)force of natural selection and transforming abilities of mutations. First the emergence of dead organic matter like say nucleotides. Second the joining of the above-named monomers and others to form nucleic acids and other molecules such as amino acids. Third the arranging of these molecules into "protobionts" membrane-bound droplets with internal conditions differen't from that of their surroundings (So what my house has got conditions different from that of my yard, we keep it warm in winter and cool in summer but it doesn't mean its going to come to life someday or spontaneaosly give rise to a living cell). Then finally origin of self-replicating molecules that ushered in the age of replication. As easy as that. Hardly this sounds good on paper but what is its relevance to real world.

No amount of saying this makes it true.

The theory of evolution stands whether the first life was produced in accordance with the laws of nature or by God doing magic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 5:34 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Annafan, posted 02-04-2009 5:56 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 6:02 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Huntard
Member
Posts: 2857
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 36 of 48 (497425)
02-04-2009 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Cedre
02-04-2009 5:34 AM


Re: Hunted
Cedre writes:

Perhaps Mr Hunter you do not realise just how huge a bone of contention not being able to explain how life originated for evolution is, if truth be told, it is a huge prickly thorn embedded out of reach in the side of evolution and no amount of abiobabble surgery will get rid of it.


That reply was made by Annafan, not me (Huntard). And, as has been explained to you plenty of times now, evolution doesn't care where life came from! This thread is about the origin of life, not about the evolution of it, please provide some evidence for the hand of god in the origin of life, and drop this evolution thing, it's a seperate matter altogether.

Let me explain why, Number one life as said by evolutionist has come about from non living mattr via four physical and chemical process aided by the(blind)force of natural selection and transforming abilities of mutations. Second the joining of the above-named monomers and others to form nucleic acids and other molecules such as amino acids. Third the arranging of these molecules into "protobionts" membrane-bound droplets with internal conditions differen't from that of their surroundings (So what my house has got conditions different from that of my yard, we keep it warm in winter and cool in summer but it doesn't mean its going to come to life someday or spontaneaosly give rise to a living cell). Then finally origin of self-replicating molecules that ushered in the age of replication. As easy as that. Hardly this sounds good on paper but what is its relevance to real world.

Evolution says NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, about the origins of life.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 5:34 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3942
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 37 of 48 (497426)
02-04-2009 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cedre
02-04-2009 4:41 AM


Re: Hunted
Hi Cadre, welcome to EvC.

I hope I can give you a hand on what to expect here on this site.

First off, you are in a science forum here. EvC has science forums and religious forums.

The fact that you are in a science forum will lead the posters here to hound you for data that supports your position.

Nothing will be proven outside of maths and logic. It is very common for arguments to get side tracked looking for proof. The term to use is 'strongly supports'.

They will also expect you to put your arguments into your own words as discussion bare links is verboten.

There is also a high proportion of working scientist and working biologist in the science forums (for obvious reasons, of course) who tend to assume a working knowledge of the scientific method and biological principals of their debate opponents.

A good place to start is to state your level of understanding of the disciple involved (in this case biology) and of the 'scientific method'. The level of training within the discipline (once known) can very quickly allow the discussion to progress from quibbles about definitions to actual concepts.

It's also a good idea to to examine your reasons for coming to a science forum: is your aim to put forwards scientifically derived support for the creationist position?

Or is it to provided scientifically derived evidence for a refution of ToE.

And finally, what evidence could you imagine will allow you to alter your stance? If you can't imagine any evidence that will strongly support evolution this may well leave you frustrated with this forum.

I hope these points are useful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 4:41 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 2018 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 38 of 48 (497428)
02-04-2009 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
02-04-2009 5:38 AM


Re: Hunted
Cedre writes:

Perhaps Mr Hunter

The name's "Annafan" this time ;-)

dr adequate writes:

cedre writes:

... you do not realise just how huge a bone of contention not being able to explain how life originated for evolution is, if truth be told, it is a huge prickly thorn embedded out of reach in the side of evolution and no amount of abiobabble surgery will get rid of it.Let me explain why, Number one life as said by evolutionist has come about from non living mattr via four physical and chemical process aided by the(blind)force of natural selection and transforming abilities of mutations. First the emergence of dead organic matter like say nucleotides. Second the joining of the above-named monomers and others to form nucleic acids and other molecules such as amino acids. Third the arranging of these molecules into "protobionts" membrane-bound droplets with internal conditions differen't from that of their surroundings (So what my house has got conditions different from that of my yard, we keep it warm in winter and cool in summer but it doesn't mean its going to come to life someday or spontaneaosly give rise to a living cell). Then finally origin of self-replicating molecules that ushered in the age of replication. As easy as that. Hardly this sounds good on paper but what is its relevance to real world.

No amount of saying this makes it true.

The theory of evolution stands whether the first life was produced in accordance with the laws of nature or by God doing magic.

How hard can it be to understand this? Yet many people who seem to be able to use lots of big intimidating words like "nucleotides", "protobionts", "transforming", "molecules" and others, nevertheless don't seem to have the necessary intellectual capacity. No, something else must be going on here...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 5:38 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 6:20 AM Annafan has not yet responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1069 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 39 of 48 (497429)
02-04-2009 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
02-04-2009 5:38 AM


Re: Dr Adequate
Evolution isn't riding on such a clean and admirable slate as you think Dr. inadequately informed. You might want to look into Jean-Baptiste de Larmarck's work sometime, fascinating stuff, all disproved by the modern understanding of genetics, and who by the by was the father of genetics non other than a little christian monk called Gregor Mendel. Pray also look into the fruadulent models of embroyolgy that this guy Ernst Heinrich Haeckel invented to decieve. Are you familiar with Hitler, yes the dictator he commonly declared that Jews were completely ape, many of his ideas were inspred by the theory of devilution oh sorry i meant to say evolution. Enough of that do you know Johannes Kepler, I think you're very familiar with this one Galileo Galilei , or Blaise Pascal,Robert Boyle, O this want is a masterpiece the cream of the crop Sir. Isaac Newton, what about Carolus Linnaeus the father of modern taxonomy, Louis Pasteur, and Lord Kelvin, all atleast believers in a God some really passionate about God, and you know what the list is endless but I think you've got my point so I'll stop here.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 5:38 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-04-2009 6:17 AM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 6:18 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3794
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 40 of 48 (497434)
02-04-2009 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Cedre
02-04-2009 6:02 AM


Nothing in your message is on-topic in this topic
I've put your message 29 into your other topic and promoted it to the "Faith and Belief" forum, here.

Many of the themes in your message 39 have been covered in other existing topic. Perhaps someone can track one of those down, or perhaps you wish to propose another new topic on what you think is a particularly choice point.

But please, no new "Haeckel" topic. That theme has been beat on so many times I think we want to retire it. But perhaps someone can find the most relevant Haeckel topic and give it a bump to the topic of the current topic list.

It is truly prefered that there be no replies to this moderation message.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 6:02 AM Cedre has not yet responded

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


Message 41 of 48 (497435)
02-04-2009 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Cedre
02-04-2009 6:02 AM


Re: Dr Adequate
Evolution isn't riding on such a clean and admirable slate as you think Dr. inadequately informed. You might want to look into Jean-Baptiste de Larmarck's work sometime, fascinating stuff, all disproved by the modern understanding of genetics, and who by the by was the father of genetics non other than a little christian monk called Gregor Mendel.

The "modern understanding of genetics" is, in fact, the theory of evolution. This is why biologists aren't Lamarckists.

Pray also look into the fruadulent models of embroyolgy that this guy Ernst Heinrich Haeckel invented to decieve.

I have looked at them. Haeckel was wrong. This is why his ideas form no part of the theory of evolution.

Are you familiar with Hitler, yes the dictator he commonly declared that Jews were completely ape, many of his ideas were inspred by the theory of devilution oh sorry i meant to say evolution.

I am familiar with Hitler's writings on this subject. You, evidently, are not.

"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

You see what I mean about Creationists being bullshitters? You could have easily found out that you were not telling the truth, but you couldn't be bothered.

Enough of that do you know Johannes Kepler, I think you're very familiar with this one Galileo Galilei , or Blaise Pascal,Robert Boyle, O this want is a masterpiece the cream of the crop Sir. Isaac Newton, what about Carolus Linnaeus the father of modern taxonomy, Louis Pasteur, and Lord Kelvin, all atleast believers in a God some really passionate about God, and you know what the list is endless but I think you've got my point so I'll stop here.

You're talking now almost exclusively about people who didn't know about evolution (with the exception of Lord Kelvin, whose arguments against it have definitively been proven wrong). You might as well point out that Newton didn't believe in the planet Neptune.

How about some people who are actually alive, and who are aware of all the discoveries made in biology over the last 150 years?

I note also that your original claim was, and I quote, about the "different men and women who write on AiG". You wrote:
"the different men and women who write on AiG are real qualified scientists, some of them are on a par with the best of what evolution can offer". None of the people you have named writes for AiG. Can you name anyone who writes for AiG who has made any contribution to science comparable to the 72 Nobel Laureates whom I listed?

(Hint: no you can't.)

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 6:02 AM Cedre has not yet responded

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1069 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 42 of 48 (497436)
02-04-2009 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Annafan
02-04-2009 5:56 AM


Re: Annafan
You have to face up to the facts if there is no known or at least plausible mechanism that could account for a spontaneous generation, we are left to conclude that a higher-intellegence is responsible for life. And that being so we have to come to terms with the fact that he may well be the God of the bible, and the world has been created as it is postulated in the Genesis account. Everything was created in its present form but natural selection that kind that is observed gave rise to the different varieties that exist today.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Annafan, posted 02-04-2009 5:56 AM Annafan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 6:29 AM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Dr Jack, posted 02-04-2009 6:35 AM Cedre has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3794
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 43 of 48 (497437)
02-04-2009 6:20 AM


Topic closing soon (At least for a while)
-

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit: At least for a while

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-04-2009 6:47 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

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


Message 44 of 48 (497438)
02-04-2009 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Cedre
02-04-2009 6:20 AM


Re: Annafan
You have to face up to the facts if there is no known or at least plausible mechanism that could account for a spontaneous generation, we are left to conclude that a higher-intellegence is responsible for life.

No. This is a bizarre leap of illogic.

The history of science is full of people looking at things for which there was no known mechanism, and then discovering the mechanism. Anyone who had pointed at any of those things before the mechanism was discovered and said: "So we must conclude that God did it by magic" would have been wrong.

And that being so we have to come to terms with the fact that he may well be the God of the bible, and the world has been created as it is postulated in the Genesis account.

Another leap of illogic. Even if there was a requirement for magic as a cause for the first life, that would by no means confirm or even suggest the truth of a literal reading of Genesis.

Everything was created in its present form ...

A claim totally contraindicated by all the actual evidence having any bearing on it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 6:20 AM Cedre has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 45 of 48 (497439)
02-04-2009 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Cedre
02-04-2009 6:20 AM


Re: Annafan
You have to face up to the facts if there is no known or at least plausible mechanism that could account for a spontaneous generation, we are left to conclude that a higher-intellegence is responsible for life.

A thousand years ago there was no known or at least plausible mechanism that count account for lightning so our Viking friends concluded it was Thor throwing hammers at the giants. They were wrong.

In fact, the history of science is littered with such examples, once upon a time people in their ignorance concluded that some supernatural entity or doodad was responsible for the things they couldn't explain. Time and time again they've been proven wrong by scientists working away at a problem until they find the answer.

What reason can you give to believe that in this case not knowing how it happened should lead to the repeatedly discredited conclusion that goddidit?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 6:20 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 6:46 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017