International opinions: USA on science!

A plant is organic matter and a rock is inorganic matter. Organic is living, and inorganic is non-living. Life and non-life. Rocks form, but living things procreate and grow. Is this your way of telling us that abiogensis is possible? So, you interact with rocks? Must be a one-sided conversation. Learning more and more about a particular subject as more evidence becomes available to you is perfectly normal and expected. My contention lies with ToE changing itself whenever something was demonstrably proven false. And that would be all fine and good of the proponents could simply concede that they were wrong in the first place. Instead of hearing that something was incorrect, a slow introduction of the new belief creeps in until the two theories, the antiquated and the updated version, are consolidated.For more clarity, think of it this way. The 1930's version of ToE was a FACT, and anyone countering that was just a misinformed religious zealot. Now, in 2006, the FACT of 1930 evolution has itself 'evolved' to the point that its largely a brand new theory. Oh, but no... Now, for sure, 2006 ToE is a FACT. Do you understand what I'm saying? It is for some. Its a revival of Druidic paganism for many who worship the creation rather than the Creator. Neither sentence can be stated too softly. Okay, this is a pagan belief... Something your ancestors believed in. Being that I don't believe in an anthropomorphic god, God breathing "life" into Adam was not a fat, bearded man leaning down from the clouds to give CPR to Adam. Its an analogy for something that cannot be literally explained by mere words. Science simply provides us the means to understand how God does what He does. If you find the terminolgy, "God," to be particularly offensive, then just substitute it for "nature." If it forces people to remove their head from their rectumm, then it is doing a wonderful service to humanity. You also forget that most creationists practice something legitimate and have legitimate degrees, before moving into creation science, whereas an evolutionary biologists has all of his/her stakes wrapped up in trying to prove ToE. And one can hardly see how someone's entire career devoted to nothing other than the furtherance of an untenable theory could ever betray those studies that have contributed nothing to society.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I'm sorry if I hurt your felings RAZD, that was not my intent. Can you explain your official position as a Deist? I only ask because it seems that all the Deists I've met have a different theory. Since they aren't unified on any given specifics, I wonder what purpose there is in calling oneself, a Deist. As well, if the Creator got it right from the start, then why would things evolve? I'm aware that theists don't simply encompass Christians. Afterall, you too are a theist. Maybe you explain your official stance on your beliefs, assuming that your beliefs about the Creator extend beyond that dirty word.... faith. Okay... I am led by experience here. Very rarely have I met a theistic evolutionist. And when I do meet them, they give me the impression that they are just misinformed. And before you ask, no , I don't think they are misinformed simply because they disagree with me. Most everyone on EvC is against my particualr beliefs, but I don't think most are misinformed.... maybe misguided though I think the theistic evolutionists are misinformed simply because they don't care enough about the subject to have ever made an honest inquiry. Its as if they buy into evolution because that's what the popular concensus says.... therefore, in their mind it must be true. As well, "religion" for them seems to serve some sort of emotional basis. In that arena, they seem misinformed there too. They don't display anything that tells me that they understand the Word beyond a Sunday school level understanding, like Noah and Jonah. Do you understand what I mean by that? And most evolutionists that I've ever met or have ever seen on the web are atheists. I think you could say the same thing about most Christians being creationists. Its not the rule, but it isn't some bigoted response. Right or wrong, stereotypes usually exist for a reason. They don't spring out of thin air. I think belief about evolution and its inherent draw for atheists isn't unfounded. Okay, I'm not really sure where this all fits into the argument. But since when has anyone honored PhD's in the creationist camps? Nowhere did I say, or alude to that atheists were taking over biology for nefarious purposes. What I meant was that evolution and atheism inherently go hand in hand. I also meant that ToE finally gave the atheist a compelling reason to be an atheist. Oh, hang on, let me turn the other cheek. There isn't an alliance between atheists and evolutionists, but rather, atheists tend to be evolutionists and vice versa. They aren't incahoots with one another, they are one and the same, typically. Get it? No conspiracy there. I didn't tell Him what His purpose was/is. He told me... So, let me get this straight. You believe that He/Her/It created the possibility for nothing to become actual so that it will allow for He/Her/It to be "surprised", i.e. He/She/It does not know the outcome, therefore, He/She/It is not omnipotent, even though you believe that He/She/It got it 'right' the first time around. Everything about that conflicts with the other premise. And these beliefs of yours, are they based on faith? Please don't confuse my assertiveness and confidence in my beliefs to be obstinate, close-minded, arrogant, prodeful, or ignorant. I haven't been discourteous to you or used ad hominem with you or anyone else on EvC. You know Chiroptera doesn't agree with me on anything, but she at least keeps it civil. Her effort goes along way.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Ask yourself what other purpose could it possibly had served.Miller, Stanley (1930-) -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Scientific Biography"Biological evolution is a slow process and organisms have had plenty of time. The earth itself is a little less than 5 billion years old. The earliest life forms, precursors of the simplest bacteria, may have originated 4 billionyears ago. Eukaryotes, nucleated cells, are estimated to have appeared only a billion years ago. Present-day
biological theories provide little light on what might have happened in the long years of prebiotic evolution. The major stumbling block is the vast body of biochemistry that is inseparable from life. The simplest attributes of life, reproduction and the transmission of hereditary information involve formidably complex biochemical processes. Life involves sophisticated processes of energy transduction and cellular communication, which is central to the functioning of complex organisms, requires an exquisitely controlled cascade of biochemical reactions. Precise molecular organization, breathtaking spatial and temporal control of cellular chemistry and a remarkable fidelity of replication are among the hallmarks of the
simplest of life forms. The evolution of life in the seething ferment of a prebiotic soup, however unlikely it may seem, appears to be a favoured view. Given the complexity and fluidity of molecular organization in biological systems, the spontaneous generation of a prototype primordial cell can only be seen as a happy ”chemical fluke’. The famous Urey Miller experiment of 1953, in which a spark discharge was passed through a gaseous mixture of methane, water, ammonia and hydrogen, conditions which purportedly mimic an ”early earth atmosphere’, yielded a mixture of amino acids. It is this the Universe, have worked on the fringes of science; generating hypotheses with little hard data, toiling on the borders of fact and fiction."5.pdf | jul102001 | currsci | Indian Academy of Sciences What other purpose did it serve? What's obvious was that morbid curiosity wanted to know if life originated at random from a few chemical compounds, (all of which would have to have, themselves, been created) to determine the origin of life through strictly naturalistic means. There's nothing inherently wrong about the test. But please, at least recognize the intent of the inquiry. Okay, that's fine... Where did the simple molecules come from? You might say, "from energy." Okay, then energy had to be eternal or it came from nothing. Really think about that. What other option is there? The fact of the matter is, something had to come from absolute nothingness, or something was first eternal. Seriously, what s flawed in that logic? Uh huh..... Okay. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Heh... That made me chuckle. For someone who's primary language is not English, is not as well versed as they'd like to be on the subject, and who was drunk at the time of writing the post, I'd say that you did a suberb job at getting your point across eloquently. You know, the way I see it, even if the opposition is still in disagreement, they are ingesting my thoughts, and I am ingesting theirs. If nothing else, we are learning more about our thoughts and beliefs and building up our debating skills and learning about the latest arguments, both pro and con for this or that. I think there is something worthy to be said of all of that. Ummmm, even if you don't like creationism, don't you think that calling them (me), "crazy," is a bit over the top? Oh, well thank you...

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Coal was once living material. But it is no longer a living thing, and it isn't going to come back to life because life only comes from life. And this scenario is empirically verified, by what? Everybody worships something. We don't have to think of worship to simply mean somebody bowing down in submission or an act of oblation.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Everything material is composed of atoms. To combine atoms to create life is a highly improbable event without the intervention or aid from many other subatomic particles. But of course, this again misses the obvious conundrum, which is, what created the atom, the quark, or the neutrino? We can break life down to its simplest subatomic particle, only to be met with the same question. People have been rooting for abiogenesis for a long time, but it really does defy logic if think about it- and so much so, that anyone capable of scoffing at creationists for believing that a Creator might just exist, seems trivial when we weigh the juxtaposition between abiogenesis and a Creator. Furthermore, a belief such as that is taken completely on faith, consequently, the same kind of faith that evolutionists charge creationists with. The only difference being, creationists believe that something created everything, whereas evolutionists believe that nothing created everything. The plain fact about any kind of spontaneous generation was put on the chopping block, once and for all, by Pasteur. Anyone's beliefs that run counter to Pasteur's experiments is no longer within the realm of science, but has ventured into the murky waters of science fiction.A creationist and apologist, William Lane Craig, expounded on an old philosophical notion known as Kalam's cosmological argument. Needless to say, its a very interesting concept. Anyhow, I figured I'd alow you all to read up on it, if you aren't currently aware of an argument such as this.http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html What do you mean by this? Yes, for face value I'd say that true Druids and their cheesy spin-off, Wicca, is a nominal figure. However, what I meant by Druids is nature worshippers, those who are enamored by nature and find themsleves believing that nature itself has a conscience. And taken a step away from any intent, yet while still maintain some level of fascintation with nature, I see the evolutionist as being similar, in that they worship the creation rather than the Creator. Of how what it is done?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Everybody worships something.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Everything comes from something, right? Its always been that way for every organism since the dawn of time, right? So then, if we keep reducing life's components down to its simplest elements, we will still have to come to a reasonable conclusion for the first cause. Does the First Cause mean the Judeo-Christian God, YHWH? No, not necessarily. Now, this is where you bring up "Flying Spaghetti Monster's", but something outside of the material universe, something not limited to time-space is necessary for anything to exist from nothing. If you say otherwise, then you completely undermine the immutable laws of physics. Its a chicken-egg argument. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?There is nothing so pernicious than any theory that invents b.s. in order to supplant the need for an intelligent designer. Pffft. Pasteur was virulently opposed to Darwinism and all its baggage, to include, but not limited to, spontaneous generation. Oh, he was a believer as well. You can try and rewrite history to fancy your particular brand of worship, but truth is truth, and it will either set you free or condemn you. If what Craig wrote was bunk, then refute it with an intelligible treatise more laudable than mere rhetoric.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Everybody worships something.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

There have been several attempts to quantify probability using a plethora of variables. Though the numbers differ from each scientist and mathematician, the number of zero's attached still speaks loudly of its improbability. To help aggrandize the enormity of such an improbability that life originated completely at random, 10^50 is considered absolute zero, in which we might as well say that its impossible.Naturalism

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

How is it irrelevant if evolution cannot even get started without spontaneous generation? Given the fact that the man codified an immutable law, such as the Law of Biogenesis, I'd say that his studies are more than ample proof that life could not have arisen by mere chance even under the controlled conditions. But again, this fails to address the fact that for anything at all to exist, whether it be subatomic particles, a compound chemical "soup," or energy, was still required of something, at some point, to be eternal.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

What blatantly biased statement did i make? Was it in referrence to abiogenesis or Deism? Yes, I understand that this is what Deists believe. I'm interested in knowing what prompted you to come to a decision of a Creator, or even a need for one to exist, when you at every turn you give no reason to even believe in one. If God is "unknowable," then how do you know Him? How could you have come to the decision that a Creator exists if there is no compelling reason to do so? You've effectively erased any possibility of a personal relationship, so we know that you haven't come to your conclusion down that avenue. And we know that you champion naturalistic explanations for everything, including spontaneous generation. So, your god didn't create the possibility of life according to your testimony. Where in the world does God fit in the picture for you to have ever come to your decision? This is what I don't understand about Deists. To me, it just sounds like a vague explanation. If you concede that the universe was designed by a Creator, whether that be a passive creation where it goes wherever it may go or otherwise, then why have you taken up the position that He/She/It has no position in the universe? How can you in one instance believe that God created the universe, and in the next, believe that it arose by chance? What exactly do you believe the Creator created? So, your faith is that Truth, in its totality, will be revealed? I can grasp this concept with my own, if in fact, that was what you were referring to. Believe me when I say that I had an aversion towards Christianity. I sought them all, (well, okay, not all), but quite a great number of them. And many of their beliefs seem to make sense until something else cancelled it out, but they all lacked this quality that I can't identify... Its as if there is/are no word(s) to convey such a lack. At the end of the day, they seemed to leave a bad taste in my mouth. Yesterdays discourse was a carbon copy of yesterdays rant - that is, until my prayers were answered in such a way that coincidence could not have played any factor in it. I can't speak on their behalf because I don't know them. But know this, I've met some pretty nutty people who claim the name of Jesus. I think you might be able to appreciate that when I turn on TBN, I see the same people that you do. And it angers me to no end because of the damage they are doing. They have brought Christ and the whole of Christendom into disrepute. Now, I'm categorically placed side by side with them by virtue of association. Yeah, I mean, I suppose its the nature of things that some people are going to offer a genuine explanation for the things they believe and others seem to make their own beliefs invalidated by their lack of care. Yes, on some level faith can only be manifested through the things that we do know. But even this may be elusive or may prve to be a lesson in futility. We'd have to question what we honestly "know," or even what knowledge is. Its kind of like Pontious Pilot asking Jesus, "What is Truth?" Its an honest question. And that question cannot be quantified or answered by some coined response. This is the dichotomy. On one hand I think we can safely assume that education is an important aspect in our development. At the same time, I think we are under a false illusion that education is going to be some bastian of hope or that people with high level of education are some how going to be more intelligent than someone without it. I know MIT and CalTech grads that could compose a very eloquent theorums about this or that, but they can barely function in society, let alone tie their own shoe laces.And then I also believe that we as humans tend to confuse knowledge with wisdom. Knowledge is attainable by virtually all. All it takes is a quick trip down to the local library or a Google search to gain knowledge. There is nothing wrong with knowledge, I just feel that wisdom is superior to it. Wisdom is a conglomerate of knowledge, experience, intellect, and a humility that we couldn't really pin point. My only reason for mentioning it is that evolutionists seem imbued by the notion that having a degree, even an advanced degree, is going to make that person more knowledgeable of this or that. And for the most part, its a safe assumption. But it isn't recognized of creationists because their studies run counter to that of the typical evolutionist. Why? If havng a PhD in whatever was the basis for having a valid opinion, then why not with the creationist? But see, I think that's silly because I think you could recognize that creationists are just as much fascinated with science as the average evolutionist. For them, its a way to explore the individual thought of God and have them revealed. Again, most creationists have some sort of theological belief. That isn't unfounded. And most evolutionists seem to fancy or favor a purely naturalistic explanation for everything. Neither cancels the other out, and neither is the absolute rule, but recognizing that most evolutionists exhibit atheistic tendencies isn't unfounded either. Let me ask you this: Do you honestly, truly, wholeheartedly believe that AiG and ICR is just complete and total nonsense? Or do you believe that they have, however miniscule,some level of understanding that exceeds the "general public?" Accomplish the task of what? Again, this is what I don't understand. You seem to think that God created the ability for evolution, but what was miracle event that precipitated it? I wouldn't whether it was boring or not because I'm not omniscient. But what leads to believe this? What was the defining principle for your belief in this? Did you take a hard look at nature and how pieces of a puzzle fal into place to have come to the conclusion of a Creator? You seem to be under the misconception that you or anyone else is immune to having formulated an opinion based on facts, and then call it a "bias." Being biased is trying to make evolution make sense, even when it doesn't. Being biased is trying to make a Creator make sense, even when it doesn't. I didn't grow up believing about God. It wasn't taught to me to believe in it. I came to that conclusion only a few years ago. Contrastly, I was indoctrinated by evolution from the beginning, just like eveeryone else on this forum. So nobody claim that my conclusions are predjudiced on the notion that I try to make God fit. I can't say the same thing for most of my counterparts. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos. I'll fix the rest later after i make some breakfast. As for now, I'm gonna go make some pancakes for me and the kids.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

No, I'm not supposing a First Cause. If I am, then you would have to inhernetly believe that the universe itself it eternal, in which case you'd have to abandone the Big Bang theory. If you don't believe the universe is eternal, to include space, time, and matter, then you have to have a First Cause. This is a simple philosophical concept. I'm not sure why anyone is stumbled over this. Alot of people say that there is compelling reason to believe in YHWH when its just as easy to assume that the First Cause was propagated by teh FSM. And I wouldn't argue that point just for face value. All I want at this point is for someone to come to the inevitable conclusion that something has to be eternal for space-time and matter to exist. Otherwise you believe in the fairytale that everything spawns from nothing. Being that no one has offered an alternative solution beyond, "Nuh uh," I'd say that I'm on the right track. Is this your way of saying that Pasteur was bogus? Alright, fair enough. I just go to Proposed Topics and the Mods, perhaps you, will parcel the post in the appropriate subtopic?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

An interesting question. Thank you for clarifying for me. I would say that a consciousness exists and that it displays itself within nature itself. This is the very foundation of Intelligent Design. Its an inference based on odds and statistics that dispell any notions of some capricious disorder constantly "getting it right." Its all about looking at the intent we see around us. Life works so well that it is difficult to come to the conclusion that all of it comes to us by way of mere happenstance.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Okay. I'll start another topic. Please explain how abiogenesis suports evolution, when evolution cannot even get off and running without it. So, a website about philosophy has to pander to your particular brand of philosophy in order to be legitimate? BTW, philosophy is an objective study where it seeks to express ones' view about this or that. That's pretty much what philosophy is all about. So I'm not sure where objection to it lies.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15