Hi bluejay our posts are getting long with many q@a 's. So I'm going to try to get them shorter. I hope thats OK with you. Eye witnesses are not always reliable. this is true. Evidence can be read different ways. But science is getting better, at things like this. But expert witnesses , like different scientist is areal problem. I think you missed the point about DNA. You can have a theory about DNA , that it is unique to an individual. But until out go and test 1000s of individuals. You can't have confidence in it. Same with finger prints. So you need both parts of my theory to show that. This the same with the start to life.The only problem is you can't check it out.( at least so far)
The bible says that God is abundant in energy. Science tells me that energy can be transformed. That gives me an explanation of how the universe got here. So what was before the 'big bang'?
Miller and Urey's experiments , have not been successful, so one really knows why yet. You have to assume how the earth and the chemicals etc. got there. Could have it been by a creator, or did it just happen? Where did all of this material come from in the universe?
The evidence for early life, is only circumstantial. The experiments can only show how the scientists thought it happened. If they do make life from non life, that does not show how it actually happened. ( I know i'm repeating myself)
THERE IS NO VALUE IN STUDYING CREATIONISM, BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO BE ABLE TO SUBSUME LITERALLY ANYTHING INTO ITSELF, THUS RENDERING ITSELF INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING UNIQUE INFORMATION AND PREVENTING ANY EVIDENCE FROM DISCREDITING IT.
I wanted to answer this. - All the work and evidence from science so far, is not worthless. It is worth pursuing. It is just that for 150 years or more science has, been trying to prove something, that in the end they have no proof for. And they are actually going against, what proof there is. And that is, life comes from life, and the design in life.
You mentioned that many scientists believe in God . They can still do science. That's no problem. But if they believe in the God of the bible, then , they have to believe that God created all things.
You have mentioned some things in your last posts that I picked up on. and would like to discuss, but that really gets off of the subject.
Hi, Dunsapy. dunsapy writes: I think you missed the point about DNA. You can have a theory about DNA , that it is unique to an individual. But until out go and test 1000s of individuals. You can't have confidence in it. Same with finger prints. So you need both parts of my theory to show that. This the same with the start to life.The only problem is you can't check it out. (at least so far) But, you can check it out. You can check it against the geological evidence I have been talking about since the beginning of this thread. There is evidence!!
Also, I yellowed a very important part of your post. "Not yet" does not imply "not ever." But, your argument is deriving a "not ever" from a "not yet."
I have no problem with checking out the geological evidence. But if was as simple as that science would have done it by now. That in itself does not tell you about creation or non creation. It may only tell you what the conditions were or might have been. The 'not yet' I mean here, is giving science the chance to find some place that they can observe from.
Would it make a difference if a Designer/Creator put it there? If life requires a meteorite collision, what difference does it make whether God threw the meteorite or it just flew by naturally? In either event, the meteorite is the important factor, because, if life can start from God throwing a meteorite, it can also start from a natural meteorite collision.
That is the point of the theory . If science throws a rock at it's experiment, and it works, then science can say we made it by throwing a rock. But that doesn't say what actually happened that. Or how it happened.. So what science does then is goes and looks where meteorites landed and see if life formed there. ( for proof) And the experiment from scientist doesn't tell you how the rock was thrown , by a natural forces or by someone. So the experiments, results may look natural, but in reality , be caused by intelligence. If scientists go out in the field, to look for proof and looks at 100's of meteor crashes, but finds no life, caused by it. The experiments by the scientists, could be concluded as it only worked in the experiment. ( intelligence) They actually have test it in the feild. To prove it.
Yes, life comes from life. But, we know that this can't be universal, because of the evidence of the Big Bang. Since there was a point in the history of the universe when life didn't exist, there also has to have been a point in the history of the universe when life came from non-life, or else life wouldn't be here now.
This is the point that the Creator steps in and creates from the materials of the earth. The bible says the from the dust of the ground. But even this means life comes from life, or from intelligence. ( creator)
We don't know how it happened, or who was involved. But, the point is that it had to have happened somehow. And, however it happened, there was a method behind the happening. Science has the ability to find the method without even making a single reference to the designer of the method (if there is one).
But that is like taking a note out of a symphony, and calling it just a note, and saying, no, there is no music here. Science can take apart that note and break it down to it's elements. and tell you a lot about the note. But they have missed the music. But as science finds more and more notes, they will be forced to recognize the symphony. Thats what i think is happening by theories science is using now. They are getting closer to this.
But, if we can show that life was created without magic, then we have proven that life came about naturalistically (that is, by using natural processes). What's the difference between naturalistically and naturally?
I call this the RIH factor ( rabbit in Hat ) A magician shows you a empty hat, but then produces a rabbit. Magic. But everyone knows that the magician brings the rabbit to the show. All, is not what it seems.
But, this still is not "life" coming from "life." Keep in mind that the Law of Biogenesis has a specific definition for "life." That definition is purely chemical: life is defined in terms of its physical properties (carbon, cells, etc.). None of those physical properties could exist in the early stages of the universe because atoms didnâ€™t exist to make carbon, let alone cells. If God existed in the early stages of the universe, He does not fit the chemical/physical definition of â€œlifeâ€ given by the Law of Biogenesis, so His creating life is still â€œlifeâ€ from â€œnon-life,â€ and still violates the LoB.
Thus, you must accept either the Law of Biogenesis or divine creationism, not both together, because the two are contradictory to one another.
Yes I understand this. That is why science is not there yet. But it is getting closer. We are physical but God is not. But through , his energy he can make physical things. But you have to remember that the 'law' of biogenesis, is a man made law, it can be undone, or changed.
I asked you what difference it would make if it was thrown or if it sailed in naturally. Would you argue that non-intelligence couldnâ€™t heave rocks? Or that non-intelligence couldnâ€™t result in a volcano eruption or a lightning strike?
If intelligence isnâ€™t needed to heave rocks, or to do anything that the experiment does, then why do you think the experiment shows that intelligence might be needed?
I could take 2 rocks and smash them together, I could take one rock and smash it into the ground and at the same time twist it, I could just grind one rock into another, i could pound it a number of times. All of these things take intelligence,, because in the natural world it may not happen that way. So intelligence , changed natural movement of a rock. Any of these things may have been needed.
P.S. I actually like debating with you: I hope my strong approach isn't giving you the wrong impression.
Actually you are more polite and serious about your answers than most I have come across. If you have to explain things in a simple way with me. That's OK. I don't pretend to be up on all scientific, information, or understanding. My theory really does not require that I be. It's just about the process anyway. I really have no idea how life was created. ( other than from the dust of the ground) I find that the bible with it's 39 writers, over a 1500 year period of time, it 100 % on prophesies , and the theme, constant throughout . There are no contradictions in the bible. It would have been impossible for man to do. So inspiration had to be true. But further than this, the bible is accurate when it comes to true science. Even when the thinking of the day, was not. This holds true today also. I think science may fight it all the way, but they will have to come to terms with this in the end. Nothing else is possible. The evidence points to that conclusion.( including scientific evidence ) I wonder what your comment on this will be? :)
Leviticus 11: 20Â Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome thing to YOU. 21Â â€œâ€˜Only this is what YOU may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth. 22Â These are the ones of them YOU may eat of: the migratory locust according to its kind, and the edible locust after its kind, and the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. 23Â And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to YOU. 24Â So by these YOU would make yourselves unclean. Everyone touching their dead bodies will be unclean until the evening. 25Â And everyone carrying any of their dead bodies will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening.
This is not saying all bugs have 4 legs. It is just saying the flying creatures that have 4 legs. Also some of these laws were for the people at that time, to keep themselves clean, from the dead bodies etc. This was in a time when people did not know anything about germs etc. These things were not discovered by man, until a long time later.
I understand your thinking on religion , but when ever, has mainstream religions been correct. If you look at bible history , it has always been 1 or 2 prophets that were sent to get people back on the right track. At the flood 8 people, out of an estimated 1 million at that time. The bible even says few will find the truth. The bible talks about governments, down to our day, including, the US, the League of Nations, and the United Nations. It talks about people in our time as ruining the earth, which is what we see. I don't know if you want to continue with this, because it is off topic. But if you want to ask any questions on the bible etc, I will try to answer them. But I do stand by what I say there are no contradictions in the bible and the prophecy are 100% . ( there are a just few left to fulfill) Christian religions have misrepresented God. So I can see, why people are turned off of religion.