Creationism/Creation Science... approved by Arkansas house

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
There are many aspects to that definition; but a key aspect is the ability to procreate.

Plenty of living things, either through defect or trauma, lose or never gain the ability to procreate.

Can you draw a distinction between procreation and a chemical reaction?

Probably not; can you?

Do you believe that life is nothing more than a chemical reaction?

What's "life," again?
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
So the existence of, say, Napoleon or Einstein = speculation? Or Jesus?

I cannot observe them. Nor can anyone.

Those people have been observed. Macroevolution has not.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So in the end, what is the real difference?

That is the real difference. I explained it.

To simplify it further would run perilously close to sarcasm or parody, but here goes.

Spontaneous generation: Not first life. Babies made from different kinds of stuff. No mommys or daddys. Babies just mini versions of big ones. Babies all creatures already seen in nature.

Abiogenesis: First life. Very simple. Not baby, just chemistry that copies self good, is stable, sealed from environment, responds to stuff. Made from long chains of chemicals. Is last part of long, natural process with non life long chains of chemicals becoming better at copying. Is start of new, long natural processe.

It appears that abiogenesis is merely a later revision of spontaneous generation.

Well, it doesn't. The fact that you can't comprehend the difference between the two doesn't make the latter the former, or invalidate a single piece of research in the field.

Your failure to understand an idea isn't a defeater for that idea.
 
Upvote 0

JMV

Member
Apr 10, 2021
21
1
34
Helsinki
✟18,331.00
Country
Finland
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Who you calling a scoofer?

Correct word is scoffer, much like a proper way of asking is "who are you calling." Not that spelling is important, that is if you understood :thumbsup:i'm not calling anyone scoffer for there is but One Judge. I was merely preaching about He who discerns the thoughts knowing their innermost intentions, who has revealed all have scoffed. As to your question, all who chooses to remain a scoffer.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,557
Colorado
✟427,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Those people have been observed. Macroevolution has not.
Really? You cant show me anyone who's observed Napoleon. You cant observe him yourself either. The best you have is documentary evidence. We reason from that evidence to conclude he existed.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
That is the real difference. I explained it.

To simplify it further would run perilously close to sarcasm or parody, but here goes.

Spontaneous generation: Not first life. Babies made from different kinds of stuff. No mommys or daddys. Babies just mini versions of big ones. Babies all creatures already seen in nature.

Abiogenesis: First life. Very simple. Not baby, just chemistry that copies self good, is stable, sealed from environment, responds to stuff. Made from long chains of chemicals. Is last part of long, natural process with non life long chains of chemicals becoming better at copying. Is start of new, long natural processe.

Both claim that life can pop out of a rock. The difference is subtle.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Well, it doesn't. The fact that you can't comprehend the difference between the two doesn't make the latter the former, or invalidate a single piece of research in the field.

Your failure to understand an idea isn't a defeater for that idea.

I understand the difference. The difference is negligible.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Really? You cant show me anyone who's observed Napoleon. You cant observe him yourself either. The best you have is documentary evidence. We reason from that evidence to conclude he existed.

The existence of these people is well documented. There is no credible documentation for the observation of macroevolution, nor rainbow unicorns for that matter.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,557
Colorado
✟427,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The existence of these people is well documented. There is no credible documentation for the observation of macroevolution, nor rainbow unicorns for that matter.
You said observation was necessary to establish facts. Not documentation.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
You said observation was necessary to establish facts. Not documentation.

You introduced a subject of history to make a point. However, let's not conflate history with science.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,557
Colorado
✟427,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
You introduced a subject of history to make a point. However, let's not conflate history with science.
The attitude toward a factual past is identical.

Nothing in the past is observable. I cannot see it. You cannot see it. Therefore the past is speculation. Thats where your approach leads.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
The attitude toward a factual past is identical.

Nothing in the past is observable. I cannot see it. You cannot see it. Therefore the past is speculation. Thats where your approach leads.

Macroevolution has not been established as fact.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,557
Colorado
✟427,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Macroevolution has not been established as fact.
Are we dispensing with your peculiar standard that direct observation is required to establish facts, either scientific or historical or any other type?
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Are we dispensing with your peculiar standard that direct observation is required to establish facts, either scientific or historical or any other type?

There has been no observation of macroevolution. We covered this already.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
What can we observe in the past? I cant think of anything. I think your standard is bogus. I know scientists do too.

Here is the quote which was the preamble to this facet of this discussion:

Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.

If you can find a scientist to refute this statement; I'll consider the credibility of your statement.
 
Upvote 0