|
Author
|
Topic: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 167 of 300 (424188)
09-26-2007 4:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 165 by Force
09-26-2007 1:02 AM
|
|
Re: thiestic evolution
You should look into RNA world hypothesis because it has more support than abiogenesis. A distinction without a difference, surely? A specific hypothesis as to how life began is still a hypothesis as to how life began.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 165 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 1:02 AM | | Force has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 168 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 4:50 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 193 of 300 (424483)
09-27-2007 9:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 168 by Force
09-26-2007 4:50 PM
|
|
Re: thiestic evolution
Dr Adequate, I am excited because you're aware that a hypothesis is a hypothesis. LOL. Can you provide information that will help the community? Or are you going to try and play Doctor? LOL. Besides an evident desire to be impolite, I can attach no meaning to this post.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 168 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 4:50 PM | | Force has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 197 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 4:32 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 208 of 300 (424717)
09-28-2007 8:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by Force
09-27-2007 4:32 PM
|
|
Huh?
I felt the same way about your previous post to me. I'm sorry, I had no intention to be rude or obscure. My point was that the RNA world is one hypothesis as to how abiogenesis took place. As such, it can't be more likely than abiogenesis. Possibly we are using the terms in subtly different ways. Certainly we don't seem to be understanding one another.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 4:32 PM | | Force has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 209 of 300 (424719)
09-28-2007 8:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 206 by Force
09-27-2007 5:57 PM
|
|
Re: excitment and fun facts
No, Yes/It can't be, and True. Ok, now I AGREE with Abiogenesis as a Scientific Fact. However, I am unsure of the theory I support in the realm of Abiogenesis. In a perfect world, you'd have said "hypothesis" instead of "theory", but apart from that, yes, you're right, sometimes the best answer is "I don't know".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 5:57 PM | | Force has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 210 of 300 (424720)
09-28-2007 8:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 201 by Force
09-27-2007 5:35 PM
|
|
Re: excitment and fun facts
Also, if God breathed life into dirt that would not be Abiogenesis. God would be a life(breathing life into dirt), so life came from life. Well, this is a bit ambiguous. The phrase "life coming from life" would cover the spontaneous generation of fleas on cats. What we actually observe is that organsisms come from similar organisms reproducing. I think I've mentioned this before on this thread, and I think I finsihed up with this challenge: give me a definition of "life" which encompasses God and a bacterium. Any takers? --- Finally, it's just occurred to me that even if fiat creation of life by God could be held to obey this "law" that "life comes from life", divine intervention in such a matter is still, is it not, a miracle --- it breaks some of the laws of nature --- is that not the whole point? Otherwise it wouldn't be a miracle, it would be a natural occurence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 201 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 5:35 PM | | Force has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 224 of 300 (425155)
09-30-2007 8:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 221 by CTD
09-30-2007 6:42 PM
|
|
Re: Simple answer
From what I've seen, evolutionists don't believe in fixity of language any more than they believe in fixity of species. Well of course not, for the same reason: both species and languages are known to change over time. This is why my posts are not written in Middle English.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 221 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 6:42 PM | | CTD has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 230 of 300 (425222)
10-01-2007 12:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 228 by CTD
10-01-2007 3:11 AM
|
|
I am not here to offer new definitions. One may suppose all sorts of things. If you want to get it right, either keep guessing or find out what the Scripture says. So, you're not going to tell us what you think.
Do you maintain that as evolutionists, "folks like Francis Collins and many Catholics, Anglicans, etc." would be expected to insult all Christians in the manner one witnesses in that thread? In which thread have all Christians been insulted?
You guys should probably start a new thread. While I think the general practice of redefining every other word is a key evolutionist strategy for promoting abiogenesis, big bang, & evolution "theories" ... ... you are totally wrong. Which is a splendid reason why you should give up. If you want to start a thread about this rubbish, instead of running away from the subject, then feel free.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 228 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 3:11 AM | | CTD has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 234 of 300 (425350)
10-01-2007 9:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 233 by Force
10-01-2007 9:43 PM
|
|
Re: A word of caution
That was also very strange. Before you start lecturing us all on what atheists think, why don't you find an atheist and ask him what he thinks? 'Cos then, when you tell us what atheists think, you could be telling the truth, instead of reciting nonsense. You might want to find out some stuff about science too. I don't think you're deliberately lying, but you are talking rubbish about stuff that you've never bothered to learn about, and that disturbs me. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 233 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 9:43 PM | | Force has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 237 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 10:23 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 235 of 300 (425352)
10-01-2007 9:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 231 by Force
10-01-2007 7:04 PM
|
|
Re: A word of caution
So, really, Science has a possible GAP in understanding truth. If Science is the only reality to Scientists, rather people who don't believe in GOD, or even the possibility of GOD, then there is some unrational behavior on their part. Thus is why I believe in Theistic Evolution. My mind is open to all possible truths. Splendid. Then you will be eager to learn that your latest rant is a halfwitted attack on a strawman of your own construction.
I recently started reading about sound equalizers in order to tune my computer speakers. I wanted to be able to understand what frequencies are and what decibels are. I came across an interesting thought in the process of learning about sounds. There are frequences that the human ear can not hear unless you increase the decibels of that particular frequency. In some cases if you turn up the decibels the human ear still can't hear the sounds. So, I started to wonder if there is a possibility with the same or similiar issue and vision. Anyways, I have not had time to look into my ideas/thoughts but they are ideas which should be researched. My point is that if there is things human beings can't hear or see(not biological such as radio frequencies) simply because they are undetectable to our senses then that is within in reason/rational thinking that they do exist. Oh, hurrah, you discovered the existence of reality. You know, if you go on thinking like that, eventually you'll realise that it is possible to know about the past without owning a time machine, and then you'll start saying stuff about the past that's actually true, and who knows where it might end?
Last but not least my perception on what a "FACT" is, is still that FACTS can't change, but now I understand what typically a Scientist would percieve a Fact to be. I mean why call it a FACT if it is a theory? Of course, the imaginary scientists who call something a fact when it is a theory are just some crazy nonsense that you've made up in your head, as we all know, except possibly you. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 231 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 7:04 PM | | Force has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 238 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 10:23 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 246 of 300 (425422)
10-02-2007 9:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 245 by CTD
10-02-2007 8:51 AM
|
|
You realise, don't you, that if trossthree hangs around these forums long enough, he'll encounter some actual evolutionists? Indeed, he has done so already. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 245 by CTD, posted 10-02-2007 8:51 AM | | CTD has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 279 of 300 (425797)
10-04-2007 2:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 250 by Force
10-02-2007 4:20 PM
|
|
Sure the big bang, abiogenesis, and the toe are facts, so what. I think we may have discovered the ultimate creationist argument.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 250 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 4:20 PM | | Force has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 280 by Force, posted 10-04-2007 4:42 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 294 of 300 (430143)
10-23-2007 2:04 PM
|
|
|
Since this thread is swiftly approaching closure, perhaps we should carry on here, where we're debating exactly the same post by TiberiusMax.
|
™ Version 4.2