the source of life

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; Creation Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webstersource; Creation - WikipediaNow 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; Evolution - Wikipediasource; Evolution Definition & Meaning - Merriam-WebsterThis is what I mean when I say Evolution and Creation (for reference see the name of forum).

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 then I should really express sympathy.Edited by homunculus, : the big AND

To Mr. Vacate #38, Nope, no laugh. That is however a presumption. 1) No, I'm not yet prepared to disappoint you. You should know, however, that the 'observable universe', once again, is the part of the universe/space/galaxy/solar system that we have 'OBSERVED'.2) Covered, and I will continue to call adaptation, adaptation and Evolution (union of principles),Evolution.3) You made a good point with the protozoa dwelling at the thermal heat vents. That is obviously a sign of intelligent design or that adaptation has played a role in keeping the protozoan under such intense heat. However, that doesn't sway my original theory about providential generation. I will also point out that the examination was subject to Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.

Replying to Mr. Vacate #40.Alright, this is rich. First lets post; This is a pretty big "what if" for starters. Your asking me "Is it possible that earth's Primordial environment, without a competitive community to extinguish the self sufficient organism (as suggested), could support reproducing proteins and sustain the growth of said protein.of course!I also take the liberty of comparing this scenario with another. 'If I ask you if you believe in aliens (that's intelligent life, for you young hipsters), you'd say, for example, no! then I'd say, but is it possible? your answer would have to be, yes! It doesn't matter how i answer the question, the constance (the possibility) stays the same.the "primordial environment" could possibly be. But it's not my speculation, it's yours.Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.

Reply to lyx2no #43Your reply is not applicable to anything I, or anybody here has said. yes, even though choice "scientists" keeping moving the percentage up and down, depending on how they want to view global warming, I'll say 1-3%, naturally, anyone who want's to take a crack at the christian will chime in something as inexhaustibly trivial and pointless as what you have said.On that note, I would like to applaud you on your candid ignorance. I am not without the knowledge that I am far outgunned here. I debate, not so to convince someone I'm right and they are wrong, although that certainly is the case, but to make sure you people understand the principles will not change for your interests or your opinions.Life produces life and that's all we, still, have observed.Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.

Brian #44Because that's whats observed...

I appreciate you actually exacting your words making it inclusive to reply to. I've read books and seen videos on polymerization and morphogenesis, I've simply been implying we haven't observed it yet. I like the "nuh-uh" and "goddunit" speech towards creationists, its is pretty encouraging.No, my friend, see I actually see a supernatural being at the helm an extremely practical thing. I don't think your evolutionists friends would share my sentiment. funny really, I've seen all kinds of tolerances, compassion, avocation for the 'equality' of the sexes movement, civil rights movement, animal rights movement, environmental movement, but someone mentions god and people clam up.Edited by homunculus, : typo

Suffice to say that's on another thread.I'm still choking down the origin of life.

My apologies, I haven't paid much mind to that aspect.I originally did not have the "biotic or primordial environment" bit inserted for thoughtlessness, I went back when realizing I failed to put it in there.I will post reason for edit from now on.

I would like to address the multi-defined word "Evolution".I understand that Evolutionists (someone who believes in evolution) definition currently is: source; Evolution - WikipediaBut, 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.The definitions of each are as follows:-Cosmic Evolution- They forgot to mention it is was a theory.-Organic Evolution- (from 'the free dictionary') This would be where the "distinguished" term abiogenesis falls into. With the presumption organic material inevitably incorporates the inorganic. While it is true organic material is derived from inorganic matter in composition, it is exclusively organic compounds that are required for reproduction and adaptation. subject to, again, decay. Again failing to mention it is not even close to a fact.-Chemical Evolution- Again, entirely theoretical. This would incorporate nucleic acid instability with the perpetual "polymerization" and "morphogenesis" in abiogenesis.-Macro evolution- Again, Theory. This would be "speciation". Now the trouble starts. It is a fact that living things change and vary over a period of time, through adaptation and reproduction. But it has never been proven or observed that animals change into new 'kinds' of animals.-Micro evolution- Yes, things change in variation over time due to adaptation and reproduction.Since it's already considered the theory to unite these principles, saying that it is only Variations and adaptation is very partial and down playing. Macro evolution is speculation, micro evolution is observed. Emphasis on Macro evolution being theory. For the life of me, no one has ever seen an animal turn into a different animal.In conclusion, all but micro evolution are theoretical. They are Not true, Guessing. See the perpetual communication is establishing Evolution as adaptation and varying, or the theory to unite facts with speculation. When I say Evolution, I mean the theory that incorporates abiogenesis, old age presumption, common ancestry and big bang speculation.thanks

So you believe a tired eyed, chin scratcher with a 6 year degree of thinking too much, can dictate our world view?If you choose to believe that because I said, these are theories and life producing life is the only thing we have observed, I applaud your Lack of objective thought.You apparently believe that because I Think its possible for supernatural intercession to have played a part in our existential (standing open for the pursuit of investigation), no matter the contempt, that I am attacking science, scientists and objective thought. See its apparent to me that opposites are being played here. I am old school. I believe If you have a theory, you test it. Then until your theory is observed and proved, you can't call it science, truth or authority, Even if it is held dear in your hearts.

I have taken the liberty of assuming most Evolutionists (again someone that believes in Evolution), conveniently, regularly rearrange the terms and definitions to reason and worm their way into a infallible standpoint. First, understand that most people, myself, no matter how regular and "laymen", view evolution as the union of known theoretical principles (abiogenesis, big bang, etc.).Also consider the name of the forum "Creation vs. Evolution". If you insist on dividing "Evolution" from theoretical origins like abiogenesis,the "big bang", old age theory, "chemical evolution" (term in itself) and limiting it to speciation, macro and micro evolution, only micro being proven, then we will have to create a name to suggest that the package deal is a big pile. Not only does Evolution systematically outlaw the supernatural (which is the agenda, I assume), but it presumes strict naturalistic conjoining factors, like above theories (I.E. since the supernatural did not participate in the origin of the universe or life, we have to cook up some theories that gratify our, then subjective, interests.)Finally, if we did that (and we won't), or rather I will satisfy that demand by naming the package deal, "Evilution", (lol, It's just a joke, don't flood me with replies.) but then we would have to retrace our steps and pick out the theories, and sometimes lies, yes lies, from the actual facts. In short, to avoid monotonous "trailing" with you people, we, Creationists, I, will continue to call the whole thing Evolution, despite Evolution Scientists protests, sorry. We just can't get caught up in this endless chase.

"the best way to win an argument is to dismiss your antagonists source consideration of point, there by, avoiding their entire point."Yes, I know what a theory is. No, I will not go to Webster's and post to dignify your attempt at attacking my integrity.You are telling me that a naturalistic attempt of examination and supposition can be called science, and anything contradicting that theory is an attack on science. you said, Well, perhaps I should give you a definition of science first; source; Science Definition & Meaning - Merriam-WebsterSeems to me 'KNOWING' something, is exactly that, 'knowing'. it rules that knowing something requires observation, which, I believe, I read it a few years ago, was once included in Webster's dictionary. Even if you say, that science is That, as I have said, systematically dismisses the supernatural, leaving a disturbing lack of explanation and principle. (which I believe is the problem here) But on a real time basis, assuming scientists are not omniscient, comparing naturalistic and supernaturalistic ideas as applicable explanations, that makes Evolution just as presumptuous as Creation and with less suggestive material. suggestive material being 'the lack of evidence to suggest the contrary'. not that 'Design', 'the origin of Life' and 'existence of matter and energy' aren't enough to believe in supernatural intercession. In conclusion, when you ordinate dismissing creation before even beginning examinations (which is exactly what I have observed), you are left with a perpetual, senseless, and in my opinion, never ending pursuit.Edited by homunculus, : / dashes to enclose quotes

Hi modulous, I've read some of your previous posts on other threads and have noted you to be a cogent poster, good. Not like me, who runs the mouth too often, I'm sure.

quote:

---

You might find it causes unnecessary confusion to equivocate over terms, or use terms that very few people use, during a debate. It'll just end up becoming a semantic debate over those terms and the argument will get lost. For evidence: see this thread.

​

I suggest you either find a new term, or create one. How about 'Universal Evolution', or to avoid confusion with Teilhard's theory, "The modern interpretation of Universal Evolution". This will still cause some confusion no doubt, but it might make things a little better.

---

Agreed, but unfortunately I use a common term, "Evolution" which has been protested that I use it in that sense, since then I have reconsidered my application of that word. I've decided to call this union of theories "Evilution", (tickles me every time) to illustrate the creationists prospects on Evolutionary theories. well, not really, I haven't yet been to it, since it's post. I know, but I've been replying to this one and looking at others. In addition, I feel a sense of complacency when addressing that one, more of an address than subject of disscussion, concerning providence, purpose, meaning of life, morality and all that. But I will look at it momentarily.Thanks for the reference to the word Evolutions meanings, original and current. I'll take that into consideration from now on.

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. Let's see some