the source of life

And here you have exactly the reason why science doesn't - and can't - consider supernatural explanations. They fit all and everything. And an answer to everything, is an answer to nothing. The only purpose of a supernatural explanation is to cover up an "I don't know", or at best an "I don't know yet"

Still trapped in your efforts to manipulate reality by changing the words you use to describe it, I see. So to sum up then: "Creationism, because science is hard."Capt.

Wow, you guys really take that bare link stuff seriously. I had better watch my step.

Thank you for the, mayhap applicable, but unnecessary qs/quote box. Fortunately, I agree with you. Not only do we not have evidence of life at those times, we don't have evidence for the universe at those times. I will later make a post about how Radiometric dating is bologna. No. millions of scientists, if there even are that many, and to which ones believe in the theory, have a theory I do not follow about the age of the earth, as well as other things. 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. Evolutionary (or "Evilutionary") scientists have a reputation for lying and omission and it has been agreed, amongst the creationist community, this is so and that the radiometric dating practice doesn't work. "My opinion doesn't effect reality", hmmm, that's good. For a moment I thought this was the twilight zone. No, my opinion doesn't effect reality, neither does the opinion of you or "millions of scientists". So you go ahead and account radiometric dating as "reality". I will go ahead and continue to believe it's not credible. Again, later I will post on why radiometric dating is crap (even though there is enough material on it to be placed on a new thread), and attempt to answer some of these correlations. The reality is you don't know that, you think that. just like I think the earth and life is about 6,000 years old.This is why I think that; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00I love this guy. There are also "cracks" at some radiometric dating.
I will later post on why radiometric dating is crap. The theory of abiogenesis is speculation, I gave a comparison earlier to this with the possibility of aliens. It can't be invalidated. Even if we found evidence for an alternative origin of life, that still wouldn't mean that originally polymerization did not take place.Point is, we don't know and never will. Interesting though, this rule of inscrutability and infallibility has only been used against creation. I think the same would go true for the theory of abiogenesis, but I doubt I could get anyone to agree, you would probably say something incoherent like "abiogenesis is naturalistic, that's why it's subject to examination." (Even then, wouldn't be subject to examination, Examinations so far have not proved it.) I suppose since "scientists" dictate what words mean, and change them in accordance with what fits their theory", I could not refer to abiogenesis as 'spontaneous generation'. Then if abiogenesis doesn't spontaneously generate or create itself, it ... ? "naturally forms from inorganic materials through a process of morphogenesis"?see Websters; Abiogenesis Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Edited by homunculus, : space bar usage

Hi, Homunculus. Your claim here is easily exposed as bunk by the simple observation that there is no theory of abiogenesis. There is a lot of speculation about abiogenesis, and there are several hypotheses of abiogenesis, but there is no theory.----- Semantically, the phrase "spontaneous generation" is not a problem, Homunculus. The problem is historical: the term "spontaneous generation" has already been applied in a technical sense to a principle of "ontogeny from exogenous sources," wherein a mouse is begotten by litter strewn about in a wheat field, and not by its mother and father. "Spontaneous generation," of this usage, defies common knowledge of heredity and parentage.Abiogenesis does not propose a mechanism like that: it proposes a gradually-increasing complexity of chemical systems, a phenomenon that is seen in the universe today. Complex molecules have spontaneously arisen from solutions of simple molecules, and have spontaneously formed into networks of reactions.The problem is not the meaning of the words: the problem is your usage of semantics to erroneously conflate two dissimilar mechanisms into a single concept so that you can claim that evidence against one is evidence against another.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Just a few points. 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. 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. LIES. See this thread You can believe all you wish, the evidence supports it being true. 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

When you do, I hope you come up with some real data instead of the PRATTS that have been bandied about for years.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

quote:

---

we would have to retrace our steps and pick out the theories, and sometimes lies, yes lies, from the actual facts.

---

emphasis addedOh, how exciting! Please, hop on over to this thread and tell us all about those lies. The thread is dying a lonely death from a complete lack of even a single proposed scientific fraud or hoax.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I'll be taking a break from regular replies for a bit. I really appreciate you guys and your constructive critique and thoughts. I have learned a lot about the possibilities of the origin of life.There is one issue that keeps surfacing betwixt this communal interest of the origin of life.I would like to point out that in this venture it is necessary to understand the fundamental differences between creation and "evilution". One major difference is the employment of terms and facts. I acknowledge the validity of the pursuit of scientists/Evolutionary scientists, and show my support. However, as I have said before, the facts and the theories are interpreted differently in the eyes of the beholder, Theistic and Atheistic.Atheistic approaches to science preclude the introduction of even the notion of supernatural intercession, by naturalistic rule. As such, the very presence of a creationist is an assault on "science", or in my opinion, Evolutionary science. As interpreted by Atheistic/naturalistic boundaries. Examinations begin once overruling the notion of supernatural intercession is set.Theistic approaches to science are based on theories of the mechanics of science as ruled by observation. The pursuit of the science of the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the age of the universe, change in biological science over a period of time due to adaptation and reproduction. These pursuits and discoveries led to the suggestive agreeable verification of probable supernatural intercession.Suggesting that all naturalistic theories can qualify as "science" except the supernaturalistic approach is not only presumptuous but, in my opinion, is derogatory, as there are a lot of people who believe in god and, often, do so having thoroughly studied Evolutionary theory.Also note that I am admitting The road goes both ways, I believe their should be a mutual respect for all beliefs and approaches of observational notions. saying Creation science is isolated and separate from "real science" (Evolutionary science) is dismissing an entire half of the scientific suggestive material.As well, once predisposing the creation idea, you have then assimilated the Atheistic supposition in with science, including supposition of Atheistic theorem, as unobserved theories, suddenly, once the notion of creation is removed, becomes all, as claimed by some, to be "science". This is a fallacy and is mass conditioning, by saying "since god doesn't exist we observe and examine these available suppositions, seeking evidence to scientific phenomena". I disagree with this methodology and encourage people to practice right of free thinking.There may be a god, there may not be a god. Creationists have a theory, which has not been proven false. Creationists also have a theory about science and social political "authorities" that illustrates individuals that exercise an extreme bias for the theory of Evolution or bipartisan practice that favor atheistic principle, to a point of disinterest in creation material (like giant bones, or flood evidences), exaggerations to primp the favored theory and out right lies. All of which has been witnessed and documented. then attempted to be covered up or to refurbished in an effort to save face.Concluding, I foresee a day coming, if atheistic principle of naturalism continues to influence individuals that encompass leverage of bulk society, where naturalistic principle will be enforced in social institutions (schools, universities, courts, museums, businesses, etc.). Every aspect of life will be effected, purging religious application from society, to suppress religious fervor and mediating morality and ultimately, permanently purging any influence of religion from society, as seen in communist countries in the world.Edited by homunculus, : giant bones, flood evidences addition, as examples.

No they don't. Creationism is not a theory, at best a number of hypotheses which yes has not been proven false which means nothing in that nothing is ever proven false any more than anything is proven true. To have a theory must must test the hypothesis and from the start it is impossible considering that there are over 1000 creation stories, none of which has any scientific backing. Why should your creation story be any more real that that of the Mayans, Egyptians, Hindis, Hopi or any other? All are based on human imagination to attempt to explain what is unexplained. The bronze age men who coined these stories had no inkling on what the universe, earth or anything on it was. Edited by bluescat48, : spEdited by bluescat48, : typoEdited by bluescat48, : clarity

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Hi Homunculus,The science forums presuppose the standard definition of science. If you'd like to use a different definition, or if you would like to critique the standard definition, then you can only do so in [forum=-11].Please use this thread to discuss the topic you proposed, how life could have begun naturally.--Percy

For reference to the ongoing chase of disputes in terminology trickery, see my other replies. The knowledge is not misapplied or misinformed. I have referred to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Merriam-Websters, University of Websters dictionary for definitions of terms.I still say that running in circles to find the changing "appropriate" meaning for terms is trivial and is misguided. Having said "Evolution has nothing to do with "the big bang" or abiogenesis or the age of the universe or chemical Evolution (a term in itself).It's like saying (to a creationist) that apples have nothing to do with bananas or oranges or grapes. They may be subject to different fields of interests, per say, but they all are part of the same scheme, all sharing theoretical value that plays against the theory of creation.

Why would the Big Bang (proposed by a Roman Catholic priest and physicist), abiogenesis and evolution of biological life (of which there are many adherants of theistic evolution) go against the concept of a divine creator and a divine creation? Many scientists have no problem marrying the two ideas of celestial, chemical, geological and biological evolution with the concept of God and divine creation.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

What I said about Charles Lyell, his book "principles of geology" and the geologic column, was my stance and interpretation on what went down with the excavations and how it ended up in the text. I really did not touch up on how "The principles of geology" helped to inspire a young, Darwin.I don't see what I am Do you feel I made up Charles Lyell? His book "principles of geology"? It's being wrote in 1833? Before Darwin's "origin of species"? The geologic column, at least the examinations and naming, originating in his book? Or am I making up the layers in the earth? Or am I making up that Lyell was a supporter of Evolution and used that interest in Evolution to fuel his examinations and inspire his findings?Nope, didn't make up any of that. I think most of the debate in here is blind finger pointing and incoherent claims. I believe Charles Lyell did write his book and make his claim from entirely speculation. Saying again, layers in the earth do not constitute the earth being billions of years old. Nor does it constitute millions of years of life progression. Nor does it constitute that the animals found, necessarily, lived at different times. People show fervor towards the theory, because it advocates their theory and world view.

When you want to refer to many fields of scientific inquiry at the same time, the proper term is "science".When you want to refer to species change over time, the proper term is "evolution".The definitions of these terms are not ambiguous, and it doesn't make sense to argue endlessly over simple terminology. If you could just accept and use the standard terminology and stick to the topic then discussion would become much more productive, and as a bonus you'd avoid attracting moderator attention.--Percy