And they still are - nothing has changed about them.
And apples and oranges are not "one subject". They merely have one thing in common.
If you'll show me where I specified how long abiogenesis took, we'll discuss it.
You wrote that: "abiogenesis [is ...] about naturalistic change over long periods of time."
If militant atheist biologists refuse to acknowledge the complexity of the simplest forms of life ...
No biologist refuses to acknowledge that.
Whom do you hope to deceive by pretending that they do?
... and the utter failure of the scientific community to ever be able to address it using naturalism, I can't convince them, sorry
You don't have to apologize to me --- I don't want you to convince the world's biologists of your daydreams, so the regret must be all your own.
Because as we're seeing throughout this thread, evolutionists have only recently began to blend naturalistic abiogenesis with supernatual creation ...
They have never done so.
Again, I have to point out to you that identifying one thing that two things have in common does no make them into "the same subject", nor "blend them" or. If evolutionists call both apples and oranges "fruit" they are not "blending" apples and oranges.
And again, I wonder whom you hope to deceive.
... as if one word (abiogenesis) describes them both.
It describes what they have in common.
Adjectives are necessary when evolutionists are playing word games.
Adjectives are necessary to distinguish between two alternate versions of abiogenesis.
If you would prefer a whole different noun, please suggest one. What word would you like us to use to mean: "abiogenesis, but only if it happened by magical impossible processes rather than real natural processes"? I am not aware that such a word exists, nor am I sanguine of your ability to give it currency anywhere outside this thread. But feel free to come up with a suggestion.
Would you also like two different words for rocks that were made by magic and rocks formed by natural processes? How about trees? Fish? Clouds?
I am a Christian and was asking you how you could post such nonsense as you did in message 65.
My source for information about Christianity is found in the Bible, it describes Christ's life and teachings. Where do you get your information about Christ's life and teachings?
Utter nonsense. I have created things. I help fund projects that create things. I have destroyed things.
Name some things that you have created, or destroyed. It will take me about 5 seconds to describe the basics of the rearrangement process that you used.
No one I know of except Biblical Creationists think that Genesis 2 refers to anything scientific.
I didn't say it refers to anything scientific. But I did say that science is not the only source of knowledge.
Name some things that you have created, or destroyed.
I recently engaged in a process of atomic decay wherein I destroyed mass. From one atomic nucleus I produced two whose masses, when summed, were less than the original.
Please name some things that you have observed God create ex nihilo.
But I did say that science is not the only source of knowledge.
No one who has ever said this is able to give an example of any other reliable source of knowledge.
Again, I have to point out to you that identifying one thing that two things have in common does no make them into "the same subject", nor "blend them" or. If evolutionists call both apples and oranges "fruit" they are not "blending" apples and oranges.
IT DOES IF THE SAME WORD IS USED TO DESCRIBE THEM. If both apples and oranges were called "apples" there would be a problem distinguishing them. If supernatural creation and naturalistic abiogenesis are both dishonestly called "abiogenesis" there is a problem distinguishing them! Atheist scientists wish to dishonestly confuse the issue, because they only have a fragmented, atheistic belief system to support abiogenesis, unable to meet the criteria they themselves have set for Intelligent Design.
Adjectives are necessary to distinguish between two alternate versions of abiogenesis.
Then in message 72, why did you ask me why I used the adjectives? Are you a troll?
If you would prefer a whole different noun, please suggest one.
How about this one....."Creation"?
What word would you like us to use to mean: "abiogenesis, but only if it happened by magical impossible processes rather than real natural processes"?
No word is necessary for that. As soon as you say "abiogenesis" no further details are necessary. It means "life from non-life. Life could have originated WITHOUT being rearranged from non-life.
Atheists cannot prove that life was not instantly created, completely independent of a rearrangement process.
My source for information about Christianity is found in the Bible, it describes Christ's life and teachings. Where do you get your information about Christ's life and teachings?
Well, of course Christ was not a Christian nor is there all that much about Christianity in the Bible. But that is still irrelevant; we are not discussing Christ or Christianity, rather we are discussing Abiogenesis and Evolution.
If you want to know about Christianity expand your reading.
marc9000 writes:
Name some things that you have created, or destroyed. It will take me about 5 seconds to describe the basics of the rearrangement process that you used.
Destroyed silly ideas like "There was a Noahic flood". Created a whole new way to design cable television systems.
marc9000 writes:
I didn't say it refers to anything scientific. But I did say that science is not the only source of knowledge.
But what we are discussing is only scientific. We are discussing Abiogenesis and Evolution. The points were covered in the very message you quotemined.
jar writes:
Except of course that Genesis 1 & 2 are totally unrelated, written by different authors of different cultures in different eras.
jar writes:
Claiming a creator tells us nothing, explains nothing. The current research is at least looking for some answers, not simply claiming 'magic'.
Abiogenesis does mean life from non-life and if God did it, we still need to determine 'how god did it'. Saying "She willed it into existence" is just an empty assertion with little information or relevance.
jar writes:
Genesis 2 and 3 are a "Just so story". Humans wrote the story and the god they created for the story places humans in a special place. But that same god the author created also placed women as subject to man which should give you a hint that GOD had nothing to do with the story but a guy did.
No one I know of except Biblical Creationists think that Genesis 2 refers to anything scientific. It is a fable, a folk tale, a Just So story.
Is there some reason you did not address those issues?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
I recently engaged in a process of atomic decay wherein I destroyed mass. From one atomic nucleus I produced two whose masses, when summed, were less than the original.
Less than the original? This may be worthy of another thread, either a new one, or an existing one that I'm not aware of. Is the scientific community now claiming a human ability to create and destroy? It didn't when I went to school.
No one who has ever said this is able to give an example of any other reliable source of knowledge.
Science is not applicable to many subjects. How people get along, how to manage money, what may happen in the future. You'd be surprised at what the Bible has to offer.
Atheists cannot prove that life was not instantly created
Why would we have to "prove" that it was not? What evidence is there that it was?
What feats of instant creation have you observed by God or by anybody else? Please be specific. I'm having a difficult time accepting your assumption that instant creation is even possible. You have, after all, made a pretty compelling case that matter and energy can only be rearranged and inter-converted, not created or destroyed.
Destroyed silly ideas like "There was a Noahic flood". Created a whole new way to design cable television systems.
Give me a break - I was referring to material, not ideas. Cable TV systems is all rearrangement of existing materials.
Is there some reason you did not address those issues?
Because they are atheistic statements. Anyone who wants to can call themselves a Christian. Sometimes atheists do it just for fun. You may not be - I'm not judging you - but would it make you nervous if someone suspected you were a phony Christian, when you claim the the Bible is fairy tales, that Christ was not a Christian, the Bible isn't about Christianity? This is atheistic mocking, it isn't Christianity.
If you're a Christian, and Christ was not a Christian, what "Christ" do you follow?
Yeah, less than the original. In other words, I broke an atom into two pieces, and when I weighed the two pieces, their weights added up to less than the original atom.
It didn't when I went to school.
What level of school? You wouldn't have learned nuclear physics until sophomore year of college, at the very earliest.
Science is not applicable to many subjects.
Empiricism is applicable to all subjects. No other epistemology but empiricism produces results that can be distinguished from imagination.
I'm sure that we both agree that "just guessing" or "just making things up" may produce something that gives the appearance of knowledge, but is not actually knowledge. Kekule may have awoken from a dream of the Orouboros with the aromatic structure of the benzene molecule fixed in his mind, but he didn't actually know benzene had that structure until he had performed the experiments that verified his intuition. (Imagine all the nameless chemists who dreamed that the structure of benzene was a hairpin, or a figure-8, or a branched tree, or the like.) You can't be said to "know" something if you haven't produced that knowledge via a means that produces results distinguishable from imagination.
How people get along, how to manage money, what may happen in the future.
Sociology Economics Climatology
To name a few.
You'd be surprised at what the Bible has to offer.
I've found it handy for propping up a wobbly desk, but that's about the limit of its usefulness.
Why would we have to "prove" that it was not? What evidence is there that it was?
Because ANY origin of life is being called "abiogenesis" throughout this thread, as if there was no other way for life to originate. There really is another way.
What feats of instant creation have you observed by God or by anybody else? Please be specific. I'm having a difficult time accepting your assumption that instant creation is even possible. You have, after all, made a pretty compelling case that matter and energy can only be rearranged and inter-converted, not created or destroyed.
I read it in historical accounts (the Bible) by authorities that were authorized by the one who did it. That's good enough for me, just like atheists reading "Origin of Species" and accepting without question all the experimentation and theories of Darwin.
Because ANY origin of life is being called "abiogenesis" throughout this thread, as if there was no other way for life to originate. There really is another way.
No there isn't actually. Life wasn't there before, it's here now. This means it must've come from something "non-living". Whether that was nothing at all (creation ex-nihilo) or from chemicals, there is no other way.
I read it in historical accounts (the Bible) by authorities that were authorized by the one who did it. That's good enough for me, just like atheists reading "Origin of Species" and accepting without question all the experimentation and theories of Darwin.
Since Darwin actually provided evidence for his theory, and the authors of the bible provided absolutely nothing whatsoever, I find your accepting of the one over the other very strange indeed. I've got some other utterly unevidenced stories for you. God authorized me to tell them, wanna hear them? Wanna accept them as true without any evidence whatsoever?
Cable TV systems is all rearrangement of existing materials.
The materials that make up a system are material, the design is not, and it was a whole new way to build a system.
marc9000 writes:
Because they are atheistic statements. Anyone who wants to can call themselves a Christian. Sometimes atheists do it just for fun. You may not be - I'm not judging you - but would it make you nervous if someone suspected you were a phony Christian, when you claim the the Bible is fairy tales, that Christ was not a Christian, the Bible isn't about Christianity? This is atheistic mocking, it isn't Christianity.
If you're a Christian, and Christ was not a Christian, what "Christ" do you follow?
Atheist statements? Nonsense. They are the topic of this thread and also subjects accepted by much of Club Christian. I am pretty sure that I've given you the link to the Clergy Project Letter.
It says in part:
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.
Currently it has been signed by over 12,000 Clergy, not simply believers or club members but Priests, Pastors, Ministers, clergy of all manner.
And while anyone can claim to be a Christian only members of a recognized chapter of Club Christian can honestly do so. I've been a recognized member of Club Christian for well over 60 years.
Would I get nervous if someone suspected I was a phony Christian? Of course not. Why would I care what someone else thinks about me, I know the truth about that one at least.
But note that you once again avoided addressing the topic or the issues raised and instead try to change the subject. That is called "Palming the pea".
We are discussing is only scientific. We are discussing Abiogenesis and Evolution. The points were covered in the very message you quotemined.
jar writes:
Except of course that Genesis 1 & 2 are totally unrelated, written by different authors of different cultures in different eras.
jar writes:
Claiming a creator tells us nothing, explains nothing. The current research is at least looking for some answers, not simply claiming 'magic'.
Abiogenesis does mean life from non-life and if God did it, we still need to determine 'how god did it'. Saying "She willed it into existence" is just an empty assertion with little information or relevance.
jar writes:
Genesis 2 and 3 are a "Just so story". Humans wrote the story and the god they created for the story places humans in a special place. But that same god the author created also placed women as subject to man which should give you a hint that GOD had nothing to do with the story but a guy did.
No one I know of except Biblical Creationists think that Genesis 2 refers to anything scientific. It is a fable, a folk tale, a Just So story.
Can you address the issues?
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
I read it in historical accounts (the Bible) by authorities that were authorized by the one who did it. That's good enough for me, just like atheists reading "Origin of Species" and accepting without question all the experimentation and theories of Darwin.
Because ANY origin of life is being called "abiogenesis" throughout this thread, as if there was no other way for life to originate.
I don't understand, I guess. "Abiogenesis" is just a word that can be applied to any model of the chemical origin of life. And there are a few. But the word could really be applied to any instance of life emerging from lifelessness, which is why the standard creationist argument "abiogenesis is physically impossible; therefore God did it" is so patently stupid.
But I don't see what any of that has to do with what I asked. Nobody has to prove to you that God didn't do something. Reasonable people don't accept positions only because they haven't been disproven - there's an infinite number of mutually contradicting positions that nobody has disproven simply because nobody has asserted them yet.
Assertions are supported by the positive evidence in favor of them, not by a lack of evidence against them. "It hasn't been disproven" is the beginning of your argument, not the end of it.
I read it in historical accounts (the Bible) by authorities that were authorized by the one who did it.
Uh...huh. So, you've never observed it yourself, though, which is what I asked. Right?
just like atheists reading "Origin of Species" and accepting without question all the experimentation and theories of Darwin.
Because ANY origin of life is being called "abiogenesis" throughout this thread, as if there was no other way for life to originate. There really is another way.
No. ANY origin of life is being called "abiogenesis", as though the word does not specific the way.
I read it in historical accounts (the Bible) by authorities that were authorized by the one who did it.
An assertion is not an argument.
That's good enough for me, just like atheists reading "Origin of Species" and accepting without question all the experimentation and theories of Darwin.
When you recite this absurd lie, whom do you hope to deceive?
Another question strikes me --- if you really think that you can't argue for your point of view without constantly spouting ridiculous falsehoods --- does that not suggest even to you that there must be something badly wrong with your point of view?
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)