the source of life

No.Concerning the editing bit, handled. I will list reason for edit from now on, no matter the irrelevance. While it is true that I believe in god/creation and in this thread I assert that -life producing life, in organic biology, is the only thing that has been observed-, it is not true that I said that was a scientific fact, though I believe it to be the truth. On a level of examination and process of elimination, since we have not found "the source of life" or proven one of the suggested theories, I reserve the right to continue to believe.So, no, "observing life on earth (currently), does not = my god"
that = not knowing/observing life's origin.My formula is [belief in god + not finding naturalistic scientific proof in explanations for the origin of life, universe, macro evolution ]
(note: even if qualifying evidence was found to prove one of these theories, that would not necessarily mean it was due to lack of supernatural intercession. Just thought I would point that out.)Edited by homunculus, : = suggestive standpoint.

Hi Huntard, wanted to say I've passed through the Netherlands once a few years ago, beautiful country. 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. This, my friend, is observable, to what we understand. Rivers return to the oceans. The dead return to the ground. 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. The burden of proof is not on me on this one. Every effect is the product of a cause, for elaboration see explanation #2.Edited by homunculus, : (#2)

See reply to Huntard message #54.

This is a, and I say this haphazardly, general agreed calculation amongst creationists that the bible illustrates a genealogy that dates back to "adam and eve and the days of the garden of eden", including the "6 day creation" the bible tells about. We use the bible as our reference to this and therein lies the "uncertainty of Substance". I would elaborate more, but that is a topic for another thread, much more to pick apart.

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

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.

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.

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.

I appreciate the aid with the qs= bit. HTML is a tricky one. and the indicators were more for my own gratification, but yes they are unnecessary. No, my friend. My belief in god and it's proceedings is not a certainty, but based on a, not entirely blind, faith. There is no such correlation or even subject facility.

Hi Huntard,

quote:

---

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.

---

Wow, tangent? This would be an interesting topic for a new thread sure. But I don't believe it's applicable here. I'm partially surprised the incorrigible members here have not murdered you for this.To the point, Don't think this is applicable. Nor do I believe that "some of the ones mentioning god want everybody else to live like they do too" is even a tangible argument. No doubt some people are like this, like in every culture, but I'm not like this and haven't led on to have anyone believe this. this vague insert doesn't really have a place.

Dear lord! A creationist! (I assume that because of your reference to the bible and saying creation was a fact). How exciting. I've been looking for some support on here.

It doesn't, but that's obvious.There may be some people that follow creationism, or a religious doctrine unquestioning. But, that applies to every line of belief. I personally know quite a margin of people that "believe" in evolution, as an example, as that's what they were taught in school. Not really knowing much about it. Also not having discerned the speculative nature of the theory, or sometimes even being kept from the fact is was an unproven theory.So, no disprove evolution --- does not ---> prove creation by default.The formula you are looking for is; correlating observations/suggestive evidence in favor of creation (+supernatural revelation or intervention) -----> belief in creation.'Also note: (Topic for another thread) when assuming a supernatural being, per say, supernatural intercession on an individual level encourages belief to said individual(s), assuming supernatural being is capable, not being bound by supernatural law, to intercede on personal behalf, for sake of revelation or providential purpose.' First, I would like to make clear that I have a high respect for anyone who pursuits a field of science in a progressive, objective manner, Evolutionary or otherwise. Suffice to say, my only discontent in this issue is, from first person perspective, is the preconceived notion that because I believe in creation/god I am somehow ignorant, misinformed, clueless, misguided information to what I'm talking about or attacking science. None of these are true.Simply put that I believe in creation, because that's where the observations take me. I have studied Evolutionary science and simply have no reason to believe it. I haven't seen any substantial evidence. Since my original stance, saying

quote:

---

It has only been observed that life produces life.

---

That is the observation, that is the obvious, it does not fall on me to provide evidence for that. We just haven't seen the contrary happen.Concerning the "god of gaps";I believe there is an engineering prospect that can scientifically explain how life came to be, there is no argument there. In fact, I tend to follow the polymerization model in this consideration, as it does help to illustrate a process that makes sense and not unmitigated to naturalistic definition. I tend to use a lot of Evolutionary models when elaborating different aspects of science, because I believe Evolutionary scientists have better access to tools and budgets to pursuit the aspects.I have also seen some impressive results from Evolutionary theories. But these models and aspects do not outlaw the possibility of supernatural intercession. When considering the 'origin of life' or the 'origin of the universe', supernatural intercession is practical, behind thorough research. The contradiction here is the models strictly professing naturalistic protocol, or deferring evidences with 'doctrinal disciplines'. The only place where I see precluding dismissal of supernatural intercession is with the aggressive supporters of Evolutionary theory. Saying "goddunit", is a dismissal in the interests of pursuit. No one can hope to know a whole lot if they relinquish their thoughts of interests to "goddunit". "Goddunit" doesn't explain anything, And has no place in science.Another 'thorn in the side', is this "attacking science" bit. If believing in creation, or believing it to be practical, is not considered "science", fine. It doesn't have to be, to you. Or, if believing in creation, or believing it to be practical is an "attack on science", fine. You may call it an attack, if you want. You may call it want you want. I look and see an extreme bias and as of yet, have no reason to change my position. I will continue give credit to the supernatural for the engineering of science, the physical universe and life, as the complexities of each field demands much attention.Edited by homunculus, : typos, couple of missing words in sentence breaksEdited by homunculus, : bracket after interventionEdited by homunculus, : No reason given.

Hi Bluejay,Do you have a specific interest in birds? or is the bird a symbiosis of a discipline you follow? just interested. I can respect that. In my recent posts, I had explained my position in science and in creation. I do not disagree with what you are saying. I do feel a bit partial to my "conspiracy theory" about how "evolutionists are trying to kill everyone and take over the world". Just kidding. I really do feel, however, that opposites are being played. You say,"In religion, there is great emphasis on universality." and"In science, we are not particularly interested in explaining everything with a single theory. Rather, science is interested in practicality. So, we divide up the physical realm into chunks to make it easier to understand. We define our “chunks” by similarity of the underlying mechanisms, and build up a theory to explain those mechanisms".I feel Evolutionary science is entitled to be as diverse and branched off as they please. On that note, I feel the same for creation science. However, it has been argued by some that "Creationism" and science have nothing to do with each other, by the naturalistic platform of which it is argued.This is bologna.You would have me to argue against a "multidiverse" science, based on, predominantly, an Evolutionary stance. While predisposing the notions of Biogenesis, Baraminology, morphogenesis, adaptation, geocentrology, astrodating (lunar recession) and geoinundation as "creationist stuff" which obviously "has nothing to do with science". Ha ha ha.To the rest of the post, I'll suffice to say I believe Creationism and non-Creation-pro-Evolution-not-so-science-to-branches of athiestic science inc. So, abiogenesis, (macro) Evolution, the big bang, common ancestry are science and different kinds of science. Anything that is associated with creation"ism" is ... not. That's great.

Carbon dioxide: Wikipedia says, source; Carbon dioxide - WikipediaI say, 1-3% carbon dioxide and other gases. I think there is more carbon dioxide in the air than .036% or .048% as listed in some references. I actually remember in an older text book (1995 or so), saying that there was nitrogen, oxygen and some 3-4% carbon and other gasses around there. Irrelevant. Would make an interesting topic for another thread. I thought plant life actually inhaled co2 as compulsory process. No matter.