Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the source of life
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 9 of 211 (495521)
01-23-2009 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by homunculus
01-22-2009 1:57 AM


Wrong way round
Homunculus, you've got it the wrong way round. The Earth doesn't fit life perfectly, life fits the Earth perfectly.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by homunculus, posted 01-22-2009 1:57 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 3:33 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 13 of 211 (495570)
01-23-2009 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
01-23-2009 11:40 AM


Hey CS shouldn't this:
Catholic Scientist writes:
You are looking at a puddle and concluding that the water in it must have been designed to perfectly fit the pothole.
Be: "You are looking at a puddle and concluding that the pothole must have been designed to perfectly fit the water in it"?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-23-2009 11:40 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-23-2009 12:53 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 28 of 211 (495717)
01-24-2009 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by homunculus
01-23-2009 4:41 PM


Re: -Law of Providence-
homunculus writes:
Keep in mind that I am not asserting this as a variable. I claim that provision is required. Because in 6,000 years, the only thing that has been observed is life producing life (I.E. mating), sources for all happenings and effects being caused.
Spontaneous Generation has never happened. Look the universe over for life self generating. It never happens. Our universe does not suggest the supernatural, it guarantees it.
If life can only come from life, where did the first life come from?
Further, we can observe new life emerging without the need for mating.
And as a final thought, there is absolutely NO evidence for the supernatural.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by homunculus, posted 01-23-2009 4:41 PM homunculus has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 29 of 211 (495719)
01-24-2009 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by homunculus
01-24-2009 2:06 AM


Re: Goldilocks
Homunculus writes:
Yes, life can flourish in just about every place on the earth. But, as stated in the providential law,
What law?
it is limited to the earth.
How do you know?
my assertion is comparing the rationality of supernatural intercession with spontaneous generation.
Well, since we have absolutely no evidence for the supernatural, yet we have some clues pointing to the natural, I'd say the natural is a bit ahead on this one.
As per the argument, I noted that life on earth exists on a delicate balance of global position, climate and atmospheric gases.
the atmosphere is 'all too conveniently' some 75 - 77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1 - 3% carbon dioxide as well as other gasses in the atmosphere represent the ideal figures necessary for the survival of living beings, consequently separating earth's ecosystem from the vacuum of space.
earths global position sets about 90 million miles from the sun, according to the "experts". earth's solar distance measures max difference of about 5 million miles. astronomically speaking, 5 million miles isn't an extreme range of distance, considering the sometimes visible Mar's average distance of 140 million miles to the sun. Differing range of 50 million miles to earth.
So why did you say: "1 mile closer to the sun and we would burn, 1 mile further and we would freeze."Which has been shown to be false for a very long time now? But this still doesn't matter. As I said, the Earth doesn't fit life perfectly, life fits the Earth perfectly.
Back to the point at hand
Ok
earth houses life on a plain of pain staking balances.
Wrong. Life has developed to fit those circumstances.
In addition to the much needed conditions for life on earth, according to evolution, life would have needed to spontaneously generate, as per the conditions or nigh.
Wrong. Evolution doesn't care how life began, it only comes into play after life has arisen.
The problem with spontaneous generation, again, is that it has never been observed or had evidential facts documented.
Then where did the first life come from, if it didn't come from other life?
Since there is no other life in 'observable space',
How do you know, have you seen everything in observable space? Do you even have any idea how BIG observable space is?
we can safely assume that, according to evolution, spontaneous generation would've had to have taken place due to earth's global specific environs.
Wrong. Evolution doesn't care how life began, it only comes into play after life has arisen.
Sadly, No such spontaneous generation observed or evidence documented, again.
then where did the first life come from?
Thus, making spontaneous generation entirely speculation, which happens to be a founding principle of Evolution.
Wrong. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution.
This principle, as well as the rest of them (not confusing Evolution with 'adaptation' or 'science of immutable change over time', I like to separate the weeds from the crop), is entirely speculation.
What the hell are those other two things you bring up here? Evolution is the change of allele frequencies in a population over time. It ahs nothing to do with where the first life comes from, despite you claiming it again and again. Please check what the theory of evolution actually says, before attacking it and showing that you don't know what it says.
Finally, until life does spontaneously generate, either on this planet or on another, I'm ruling that 'living' organic provision is required, which ultimately, not only suggests the supernatural, it requires it.
Why is organic material "supernatural"? And again I ask you, if life can only come from life, where did the first life come from?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 2:06 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 7:26 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 34 of 211 (495725)
01-24-2009 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by homunculus
01-24-2009 3:30 AM


Re: thanks for the comment
First, I would like to bring to surface that the asset of this thread is that 'organic life coming from non life' or, if it is OK, 'spontaneous generation', has never been observed or documented as evidence. Evolutionists suggestions may indeed hold weight in Evolutionary science, but in universal science, only observable facts may be subject to validation. same goes with Creation.
As has been pointed out to you, evolution is not claiming life came from non life, evolution doesn't say anything about where life came from. Evolution IS real science, creationism is not.
Secondly, I respect your resourceful application of the geologic column, however, I would like to note that it is commonly believed by Creationists, like myself, that the geologic column is entirely speculation.
Of course, but as with most things concerning science, you're wrong.
Allow me to brief;
Charles Lyell's book (wrote in 1833, before Darwin's "The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life") "principles of geology", where the geologic column originated, elaborates on the geologic column being layers in the earth that hold testament to Evolutionary science.
So, even before evolution was even there, this book tried to support it? Do you not see the complete ridiculousness of that claim?
He claims The layers of earth were formed by millions of years of Climate change, erosion, erratic weather patterns, etc. He had no way of knowing that!
I think he did, further, ALL the tests done since have confirmed this.
He construed layers in the earth, which can form rather quickly (it's true, consider a lake, or something where erosion or water is involved, heavier rocks and solid earth goes to the bottom, dirt and lighter soils to the top, eh?) with Evolutionary/Atheistic standpoint of 'old earth' philosophy.
Even before evolution even existed? Could he see the future? Further, atheism also has nothing to do with science.
As well, the bones and fossils he found during his high budget excavations were in obvious assortments and duly categorized. Meaning, he found the bones in common groups and obviously in different layers. Showing, of course, different time zones, but assumed the number of years.
And all fossils found since confirm his findings.
His belief that the earth is millions of years old and presumption of Evolution, combined with natural forming layers in the earth and random assortment of bones and fossils in the earth created the geologic column.
Again, evolution before it even existed, please homunculus, this is starting to make you look not too bright on this subject.
Note: Charles lyell is not identified as the contingency for physical science. I discredit his work for my health.
You might, the vast majority of scientists accept the basics it taught, and have continued to develop it over the years since the publication.
As to suggest believing in 'abiogenesis' or life originally coming from non living matter or energy into the primordial soup into the amoebae, that's fine. amino acids and nucleic acids into proteins and conjoining with polymers and a "spark" to begin reproduction, it can be explained, but it cannot be observed or accounted for. Beyond that, it is trivial to say more.
Perhaps not yet. What's your point? Where did the original life come from if not from other living things?
Finally, when I say "observable universe", I mean, "observable universe". I am aware of polar ice caps on moons and planets that arise interests of "maybe there was life on this planet" or "maybe there will be life on that moon". I have uncovered the veil of monotonous circular reasoning in the realm of Evolution, i understand that i will convince no one. I rest upon the principle of providential generation.
And again you show you don't know what you're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with there being life outside this planet.
And again, I ask you, how big is the observable universe?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 3:30 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 8:34 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 35 of 211 (495726)
01-24-2009 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by homunculus
01-24-2009 3:33 AM


Re: Wrong way round
Does it matter? The earth came first so i suspect you are right. doesn't change a thing.
If the Earth came first, then how can life NOT perfectly ft the circumstances in which the Earth resides? If it didn't we wouldn't be here today, now would we?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 3:33 AM homunculus has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 45 of 211 (495749)
01-24-2009 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by homunculus
01-24-2009 6:20 AM


Re: -What Law of Providence is That?-
Hey Homunculus.
Here is where I decide to go out on a limb and say that I understand that the idea of god turns your stomachs, but something tells me that until i say, "there is no god, there is only evolution" you people will continue to fling feces at me.
I for one don't care if you believe in god or not. I only point out where you are wrong in your assumptions. If something I say isn't clear, or you want more explanation, just ask, and I will be happy to provide it. The reason my answers are short, is because I don't want to go through the trouble of making a big great explanative post, only to have the one it is addressed to saying "Nuh-Uh, you're wrong". I've got better things to do with my time. I will concede the point we don't know how the first life arose. So, if you want, you can say god did that, I don't care. However, this has nothing to do wih evolution, as so far you've been saying. Evolution is the development of life, not the origin.
Sorry, I still say the only thing we have seen is life producing life. Don't forget everything having a source.
Yes, but life must have come from "non-life" ulltimately. How else could it have gotten started? If god poofed it into existence, it still came from nothing.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 6:20 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 10:55 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 48 of 211 (495755)
01-24-2009 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by homunculus
01-24-2009 6:46 AM


Re: -Law of Providence-
Uhm Homunclus....This:
homunculus writes:
And, spontaneous generation or 'autopoiesis', in this text, applies to non organic material producing life without fundamental aid, therefore maggots and bacteria, however disgusting do not apply as they obviously spawn from organic fester, though I'm sure if the maggots are placed there or if the bacteria first spawns them. clever! but off point.
Shows us exacly that you don't know what you're talking about. Maggots don't "spawn" from organic fester, nor do bacteria. Maggots are fly larvae, they come from the egss put there by flies. And bacteria are everywhere anyway, they don't "magically" appear in organic fester either, they can just thrive and reproduce in it better, as can fungi.
Oh, and about this:
4,400,000,000 years ago? I see a bunch of numbers. Listen very closely, all of you. these numbers, ... we're pulled from someone's back side. I choose to believe, with the right to change my mind and not placing dollars to donuts on it, that the earth is around 6,000 years old. Not only does no one have 'evidence' to "debunk" the other, but neither theories have the 'evidence' to prove themselves.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the fact that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 6:46 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 1:38 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 54 of 211 (495775)
01-24-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by homunculus
01-24-2009 7:26 AM


Re: Goldilocks
homunculus writes:
Huntard, previously I made mention of my very own providential law. No, you certainly will not acknowledge it, but, I reserve the right to change my relational terms so that they make sense to me, like Evolutionists do.
I suppose you think of me as an evolutionist, I'm not, I follow the evidence where ever it leads. I never change my terms once I have defined them.
you see, Evolutionists regularly invent new terminologies and rules, to systematically dismiss the very proposal of creation.
No they don't, they'll come up with names for new phenomena, but that's only logical.
The Providential Law is my way of saying that:
1) all life is produced from life or living/once living, organic matter.
Then where did the original life come from, if it can only come from living or once living matter?
2) everything has a source, the source it came and the source it will return.
Your evidence for this being?
3) every happening is originated / every effect has a cause.
Again, please provide evidence.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 7:26 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 2:12 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 58 of 211 (495781)
01-24-2009 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by homunculus
01-24-2009 8:34 AM


Re: thanks for the comment
But your description of evolution is wrong. That's not what evolution is. Evolution is the change of allele frequencies in a population over time. In other words, it describes the development of life, not its origin.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 8:34 AM homunculus has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 71 of 211 (495804)
01-24-2009 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by homunculus
01-24-2009 10:55 AM


Re: -What Law of Providence is That?-
The problem is not the mentioning of god, the problem is that some of the ones mentioning god want everybody else to live like they do too.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 10:55 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 9:10 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 81 of 211 (495909)
01-25-2009 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by homunculus
01-25-2009 1:02 AM


Re: definition(s) of evolution
Hello again Homunculus.
Homunculus writes:
But, originally, evolution has a conducive nature of principles. This "theory of evolution" unites several theories, later distinguished. These theories are: Cosmic Evolution, Organic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Macro Evolution and Micro evolution.
This is not true. The theory of evolution has always and only referred to one thing, biological evolution, in your examples "macro" and "micro" evolution.
Further, you don't seem to know what a theory means in science. It does not mean "guess" or "nice thought" it means that it is supported by facts, and no experiment has yet refuted it.
For the life of me, no one has ever seen an animal turn into a different animal.
Of course not. This is not what evolution says is happening. Evolution says that change on such a level will take a long time, far longer then we can observe.
There is one thing that bothers me here. Did you get this definition from Hovind? If you did, go to this youtube channel and watch the videos on him: ExtanDodo. They have 8 videos about him, 6 shorter, and 2 longer ones. You probably won't like what they are saying, but please watch them. Everything they say is supported by facts and experiments. You can go there if you didn't get the list from Hovind, of course, it's always good to learn new things. You can also think of it in this way, if you find that what they are saying is not true, and you can demonstrate this, you will have taken out one of Hovind's best debunkers.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by homunculus, posted 01-25-2009 1:02 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 9:06 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 103 of 211 (496094)
01-26-2009 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by homunculus
01-26-2009 1:38 AM


Re: -Law of Providence-
homunculus writes:
Of course I know that maggots are fly larvae, I doubt you will give me that much, but irrelevant. Same with the bacteria, bacteria is what makes inorganic material, organic, not solely but makes it subject to decay.
Ok, it seemed from your comment you thought they spawned out of nothing. I appologize.
homonculus writes:
Huntard writes:
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the fact that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
Let's see some
Here
{ABE}The most important thing in the link is probably the various dating methods used, and they all corroborate each other. I didn't want to go to deeply in to this, since it's a bit off topic here, that's why i just posted a link, sorry about that.
Edited by Huntard, : See {ABE}

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 1:38 AM homunculus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-26-2009 7:27 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 104 of 211 (496096)
01-26-2009 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by homunculus
01-26-2009 2:12 AM


Re: Goldilocks
homonculus writes:
Hi Huntard, wanted to say I've passed through the Netherlands once a few years ago, beautiful country.
Thanks, I've never been to America (I assume that's where you're from), but I'm sure there are very beatiful places there as well.
This process, provides 2 possible conclusions, -supernatural intercession- or -naturalistic autopoiesis and succession-
Of which, no evidence has been provided to outlaw one and prove the other.
The point is that it is logical to conclude that life MUST come from non-life at some point. It hasn't always existed, therefore it must have come from non-life at some point in time. How this happened exactly we don't know yet, but science is getting there.
This, my friend, is observable, to what we understand. Rivers return to the oceans.
Rivers don't come from oceans.
The dead return to the ground.
Some have been shot into space.
Everything with a beginning has an ending and that ending shifts contents back to original matter/energy, This is anyways a fallacy That no one can disagree with.
It's a fallacy? So you're saying it's wrong, yet everybody says it's right? Sorry, but I don't follow.
The burden of proof is not on me on this one.
Yes it is, you made the claim.
Every effect is the product of a cause, for elaboration see explanation #2.
Than what was the cause for the effect known as god?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 2:12 AM homunculus has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 111 of 211 (496141)
01-26-2009 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by homunculus
01-26-2009 12:28 PM


Re: The Law of Reality
Just a few points.
homunculus writes:
I will later make a post about how Radiometric dating is bologna.
First, if you want to discuss it, make a new topic, or find an old one, this one isn't about radiometric dating.
Second, read up on the subject, and really understand what it's about, before claiming radiometric dating is bullshit, we have several people here who've actually worked with it a lot, and they will point it out if anything you say is wrong.
Trust me, there are millions, if not billions, of people out there out there that stand neutral to such things, like me, and require evidence for it.
There is evidence for it, the fact you don't acknowledge it because it refutes a certain interpretation of the bible doesn't amke it any less true.
Evolutionary (or "Evilutionary") scientists have a reputation for lying and omission
LIES. See this thread
I will go ahead and continue to believe it's not credibl.
You can believe all you wish, the evidence supports it being true.
The reality is you don't know that, you think that.
No, we know that.
That video is utterly wrong and has been refuted here.
I don't want to debate videolinks here, apart from it being against the forum rules, it looks really stupid to other readers. But watch that video, and if you find anything wrong with it, start a new thread on it, and I'll see what i can do for you.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 12:28 PM homunculus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024