Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 10:07 PM
144 online now:
Meddle (1 member, 143 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,446 Year: 3,483/19,786 Month: 478/1,087 Week: 68/212 Day: 29/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   the source of life
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3508 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 46 of 211 (495750)
01-24-2009 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
01-23-2009 11:18 PM


Re: -Law of Providence-
RAZD, when i look back 3,600,000,000 years ago?

4,000,000,000 years ago?

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2009 11:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Brian, posted 01-24-2009 6:52 AM homunculus has responded
 Message 48 by Huntard, posted 01-24-2009 6:56 AM homunculus has responded
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2009 8:14 AM homunculus has responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 47 of 211 (495752)
01-24-2009 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by homunculus
01-24-2009 6:46 AM


Re: -Law of Providence-
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.

Are you saying that there's no evidence to prove that the Earth is older than 6000 years?

Where do you get this 6000 years from, did you pull it out your butt?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 10:58 AM Brian has not yet responded
 Message 101 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 2:23 AM Brian has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 368 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 responded

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

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3508 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 49 of 211 (495756)
01-24-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Taz
01-24-2009 2:45 AM


Re: Goldilocks
aaahhh ... The joy of the protuberant finger waver. Let's see, I would like to ask you to not use immature speech on a debate friendly, uncensored forum. Thanks.

As you haven't said one thing valid so far except Bu****it, I will do everyone the favor of not responding to you with reason to my argument. Rather, I will assert that Even though Evolutionists don't have a shred of evidence to back up their principles (which, ironically is the absence of principle), they still become frustrated (I.E. Taz) to a point of nearly giving themselves a stroke.

I say I don't understand, when really I do. As I had said before, if I had stated on here that everything came from nothing or created itself (I.E. the big bang THEORY) or if I said that life originated from nothing or created itself (abiogenesis, or whatever name it be tagged for the season), I would be lucky to get a single reply, probably an agreement. But because I said we have only seen life produce life, suggesting the possibility of a god, it's like a black man walked in the middle of a kkk convention with a white girl. You people have went bonkers. Does the idea of a supernatural creator really crawl on you that much?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Taz, posted 01-24-2009 2:45 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by cavediver, posted 01-24-2009 9:09 AM homunculus has responded
 Message 72 by Taz, posted 01-24-2009 11:59 AM homunculus has responded

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3508 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 50 of 211 (495759)
01-24-2009 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Nighttrain
01-24-2009 3:30 AM


Re: Dem rocks
Thank you for this intelligent supplication! I really respect someone going out to actually gather information on behalf of what they believe or think. I'll remember this post for future reference!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Nighttrain, posted 01-24-2009 3:30 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 51 of 211 (495762)
01-24-2009 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by monkey boy
01-24-2009 2:57 AM


Re: observation
Is it just me? Or has anyone else noticed that homunculus keeps assertin the same things, in a slightly different form, That have already been demolished by his critics.

You get that with creos.

State position.
Refuse to acknowledge replies.
Restate position.

...and so on and so forth, I think it is an old charter or tradition or something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by monkey boy, posted 01-24-2009 2:57 AM monkey boy has not yet responded

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3508 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 52 of 211 (495767)
01-24-2009 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Huntard
01-24-2009 3:29 AM


Re: Goldilocks
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.

you see, Evolutionists regularly invent new terminologies and rules, to systematically dismiss the very proposal of creation. well, I thought I should give it a try.

The Providential Law is my way of saying that:

1) all life is produced from life or living/once living, organic matter.

2) everything has a source, the source it came and the source it will return.

3) every happening is originated / every effect has a cause.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Huntard, posted 01-24-2009 3:29 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Huntard, posted 01-24-2009 7:54 AM homunculus has responded
 Message 55 by bluescat48, posted 01-24-2009 8:07 AM homunculus has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 53 of 211 (495769)
01-24-2009 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by homunculus
01-24-2009 4:27 AM


Re: Woah! Slow Down That Rush to Judgement!
Hi, Homu.

Can I ask that you please structure your sentences in a different way?

Your post have the feel of someone torturing the English language to come across more erudite than you are.

Quixotism.

But to appease the crowd, it is edited out.

Don't take the piss. You edited it out because you realised how wrong it was.

I said only that life producing life is all that has been observed. That is a very unbiased, although I am biased for creation, neutral and immutable assertion, Saying the contrary is strictly speculation, no matter the favor.

No one would deny this. What would be denied is that observing life only on Earth (currently) equals your god (I assume you mean Yahweh) being a creator.

Edited by Larni, : Interview with director.

Edited by Larni, : Stills gallery.

Edited by Larni, : Deleted scenes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 4:27 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 1:56 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 368 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 responded

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

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2263 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 55 of 211 (495776)
01-24-2009 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by homunculus
01-24-2009 7:26 AM


Re: Goldilocks
Here is your hypothesis
The Providential Law is my way of saying that:

1) all life is produced from life or living/once living, organic matter.

2) everything has a source, the source it came and the source it will return.

3) every happening is originated / every effect has a cause.

Now show me your testing & observations and your conclusion so it can be peer reviewed.

Edited by bluescat48, : typo


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 2:18 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19754
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 56 of 211 (495779)
01-24-2009 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by homunculus
01-24-2009 6:46 AM


The Law of Reality
Hello homunculus, welcome to the fray.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips.

RAZD, when i look back 3,600,000,000 years ago?

4,000,000,000 years ago?

4,400,000,000 years ago? I see a bunch of numbers.

Do you understand that there is no evidence of life at those times? And if we go back to 4,600,000,000 years ago we have trouble finding evidence for an earth. Based on this evidence, sometime between 3,600,000,000 years ago and 3,500,000,000 years ago life began on earth, because we find evidence of it 3,500,000,000 years ago.

Listen very closely, all of you. these numbers, ... we're pulled from someone's back side.

Cute. Millions of scientists know squat, while you know the truth?

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,

Unfortunately for you, your opinion has no effect on reality. This is the law of reality. You can chose to let reality affect your opinion, or you can chose to deny reality.

You are of course free to believe anything you want, but you cannot "believe away" evidence. I am glad to see you say "with the right to change my mind" as I have a challenge for you:

see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

I note that not one creationist has been able to explain even one of the correlations, and this topic has been around for a while, since 03*21*2004. This is currently at version 1 number 3 (threads are generally limited to 300 replies), with 297+306+272 = 875 replies without one single refutation on one single correlation.

If you want, we can take it in stages, however I note that there is overwhelming, objective, physical evidence of the reality that the age of the earth is more than 6000 years. This evidence correlates and validates the different methods used and confirms each other.

Confirmation Bias and Cognitive dissonance are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion.

... but neither theories have the 'evidence' to prove themselves.

Curiously, no scientific theory is ever proven, and using the word "prove" shows a lack of understanding of the scientific process.

Science approximates reality with theories, and theories are the way we understand reality, they are based on observed facts of objective reality, and they are tested by observed facts of objective reality.

The better the theory approximates reality the better it will be able to predict new aspects of reality that were unknown before, but there is no way to know all about reality. Thus all theories are tentative, they can be falsified and invalidated by evidence that shows they do not reflect reality, but they can never be proven to cover all of reality.

The reality is that the earth is old.

The best approximation we currently have is that the earth is 4.55 billion years old.

The reality is that life on earth is old.

The best approximation we currently have is that life is 3.5 billion years old.

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.

So you concur that the experiments of Pasteur et al did not invalidate the concept of abiogenesis.

http://www.reference.com/browse/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Nor does abiogenesis propose "self-creation" as the answer. There has been a lot of study in the field of abiogenesis, and there are a number of people around here that would be happy to discuss this on a new thread.

This brings up a critical issue: terminology. If you are going to discuss science you need to use the terminology used in science to mean the things science uses them to mean.

In science "spontaneous generation" means the experiments of Pasteur concerning the decay of organic matter and the growth of maggots, etc.

In science "spontaneous generation" does not mean abiogenesis, and using it to mean abiogenesis confuses the issues rather than clarifies them, and it betrays a limited understanding of the science.

clever! but off point.

We got off on a tangent because you used the wrong terminology. If you want to discuss this further see


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 12:28 PM RAZD has responded

  
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3508 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 57 of 211 (495780)
01-24-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Huntard
01-24-2009 3:43 AM


Re: thanks for the comment
OK, my response to MR. Huntard's reply 34.

Concerning your skewed perspective of Evolution and Creation, I will reiterate that we are in a forum called "Creation vs Evolution". Allow me to elaborate.

Creation, as I believe can be agreed on by everyone on this ground, is the proposal, supplemented by the, including but not limited to, christian (as example, because that's what I am), bible, that a supernatural force (god) is responsible for designing and creating the physical realm accounted in the bible about 6,000 years ago, taking 6 days. (creationism, creationist)

Theory, though aggressive Evolutionists regularly dismiss it from science, saying it has nothing to do with science, unites facts has has supporting facts.

Primary basis; all life is similarly designed and compatible to live solely on the earth and answers questions of life's and matter/energy origin. proposes contingency for morality, purpose and sentience. As well as offer gratification for salvation to the assured death.

source; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creation

source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation

Now it get's tricky.
Creation's alternative counterpart is Evolution.
Evolution, as is usually argued about it's true meaning. Either, that Evolution is the grain behind the principles of the universe being billions of years old, inspiration to the invention of the geologic column, inspiration to the invention of "species", the belief of universal common ancestry and abiogenesis/self generation origination/autopoiesis, as universally identified or, as argued by some, progressive adaptation. (evolutionism, evolutionist)

Theory uniting facts and examines naturalistic possibilities. Although a theory of speculations, it is taught in schools and, by aggressive evolutionists, is somehow, inherently assimilated with science.

Primary basis; all life has similarities, especially with DNA, the universe is dubbed with an uncertain age, the earth has layers in it's soil and life had to have generated from somewhere.

source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

source; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

This is what I mean when I say Evolution and Creation (for reference see the name of forum).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Huntard, posted 01-24-2009 3:43 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Huntard, posted 01-24-2009 8:55 AM homunculus has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 368 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 yet responded

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3508 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 59 of 211 (495782)
01-24-2009 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by anglagard
01-24-2009 3:56 AM


Re: Another Ubermensch
Sure it is.

Annafan used him as a reference.

I said his speculation was not credible.

Need I keep saying that favored resources do not dictate which theories are true and which one's are false?

If Evolutionists can systematically dismiss every notion of Creation material, then I can call choke on Mr. lyell.

And if Charles lyell's thoughts are the extent of

"accumulated knowledge of geosciences"
then I should really express sympathy.

Edited by homunculus, : the big AND


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by anglagard, posted 01-24-2009 3:56 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 60 of 211 (495783)
01-24-2009 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by homunculus
01-24-2009 7:05 AM


Re: Goldilocks
Does the idea of a supernatural creator really crawl on you that much?

Not at all, we just have this thing for truth, honesty, and rationality. There comes a limit where we can only take so much uneducated naive crap in so few posts, and we tend to get cranky.

if I had stated on here that everything came from nothing or created itself (I.E. the big bang THEORY)...

Then I, as a comsologist, would have told you that you have been misinformed, and invited you to another thread to discuss the topic.

or if I said that life originated from nothing or created itself (abiogenesis, or whatever name it be tagged for the season)

then our resident biologists would have told you that you have been misinformed - which I think they have done. But you seem to still be spouting crap. Any reason for this?

But because I said we have only seen life produce life, suggesting the possibility of a god...

Every single gap in our knowledge since the dawn of man has been seen as evidence for a god - and every time our knowedge has increased, that "evidence" has vanished. Why are you so confident that this case is different to all the rest? And say you are right. What will you say to Allah when you stand before him?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 7:05 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 8:20 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019