Repeated Abiogenesis?

[CabVet]

So science is useless without macroevolution? is that what you want me to believe?

Unless we came from atom-to-adam evolution, my computer shouldn't work?

Nope, I would very much prefer consistency. Either all of science can take a hike or none of it can, there is no middle ground. If you want to use the Bible as your sole source of information, fine, that is your choice. What I really don't like is cherry picking scientific facts and using them to support your side of the story, but dismissing others, equally well supported, just because they don't fit your story.

And I am not talking about using computers here, I am talking about evolution.

 

[Orogeny]

It sure would.

Anyone can post anything they want.

The trick is living what you believe.

If you believe everything you visualize, then you're far beyond my help. Good luck with all that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, I would very much prefer consistency. Either all of science can take a hike or none of it can, there is no middle ground.

If that's your parameters, that's your prerogative.

I happen to agree with 95% of science, and I don't need to be pressured into believing in the 5% that hates all things sacred.

If you're telling me that you're not going to accept my 95% -- fine; I'm not going to accept your 5.

I'd say that makes you 19x as stubborn as you think I am.

 

[CabVet]

If that's your parameters, that's your prerogative.

I happen to agree with 95% of science, and I don't need to be pressured into believing in the 5% that hates all things sacred.

If you're telling me that you're not going to accept my 95% -- fine; I'm not going to accept your 5.

I'd say that makes you 19x as stubborn as you think I am.

Nothing in science hates anything sacred.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you believe everything you visualize, then you're far beyond my help. Good luck with all that.

I've got Boolean standards, chief; and until you realize that, I don't need your help.

And when you finally do realize it, I don't need your help.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing in science hates anything sacred.

Of course not. [rolls eyes]

 

[CabVet]

Of course not. [rolls eyes]

Science hates the dissemination of false information. I will give you one example:

"The idea that evolutionists try to get across today is that there is continual upward progression. They claim that everything is getting better, improving, all by itself as if there is an inner-drive toward more perfection and order."

That is a completely false statement, yet believed as fact by many creationists. Want to guess where that quote comes from?

 

[Orogeny]

I've got Boolean standards, chief; and until you realize that, I don't need your help.

And when you finally do realize it, I don't need your help.

Right. 'Boolean' probably isn't the 'B' word I'd use to describe your standards but hey, I'm not the one you're trying to convince.

 

[Split Rock]

The Old Man in the Cave says the Bible is contaminated.

This time [he's] wrong.

Actually, the Old Man is saying that your interpretation of scripture is contaminated. And he's right again.

I don't think scientists think they are lying; I think scientists are deceived.

I'm not sure this dovetails with purposely hiding evidence that doesn't fit evolution.

I can visualize an evolutionist standing before God saying, "But ... but ... the fossil record looks like an upside-down pyramid."

Whereupon God says, "Yes, but I left you enough evidence in it that you could have taken Genesis 1 literally; instead, you explained it away."

I picture you standing before God as he chastizes you for promoting creationism and making Christianity look silly. "Didn't you even try to understand the context of GEN 1 and 2?" he roars.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science hates the dissemination of false information. I will give you one example:

"The idea that evolutionists try to get across today is that there is continual upward progression. They claim that everything is getting better, improving, all by itself as if there is an inner-drive toward more perfection and order."

That is a completely false statement, yet believed as fact by many creationists. Want to guess where that quote comes from?

Kent Hovind?

 

[AV1611VET]

Right. 'Boolean' probably isn't the 'B' word I'd use to describe your standards but hey, I'm not the one you're trying to convince.

That's fine with me -- you need to disagree, else you'd have to give up some of those beliefs, wouldn't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure this dovetails with purposely hiding evidence that doesn't fit evolution.

Neither do I -- that's why He didn't.

All it takes is the Bible to tell you evolution is wrong, you don't need bones in the ground to verify (or deny) it.

Once He gave us Genesis 1, He could have arranged the bones to spell MADE IN CHINA, if He wanted to.

 

[CabVet]

Kent Hovind?

Yepp, and it's a lie that keeps being perpetuated. Another one (which I don't even need to quote) is that your grandparents were chimpanzees. That is what science has a problem with, not with Christianity in general.

The only "things" that have problems with Christianity and completely reject it are other religions, not science.

 

[Orogeny]

That's fine with me -- you need to disagree, else you'd have to give up some of those beliefs, wouldn't you?

Nope, just the ability to separate reality from my own fantasies.

Anyway, I'm done derailing this thread. Thanks.

 

[The Paul]

Just off the top of my head here...

Why do endoskeleton creatures reign over the exoskeletons?

There's an illusion that endoskeleton creatures reign over those with exoskeletons because endoskeleton creatures are bigger.

Creatures with endoskeletons have a much greater upper size limit because breathing through an exoskeleton is inefficient, but the nature of surface/volume ratio compensates at small body sizes.

...couple of the other questions don't really make sense.

But anyway, this is a danger religion provides. Once you train yourself to answer these sorts of questions with "God did it," you've trained yourself to remain ignorant of all the details.

Asking supposedly unanswerable show-stopper questions, then declaring evolution is false and the only possible answer is the hand of God, when you probably could have learned a detailed answer by Googling a few key terms or making a quick trip to Wikipedia is a common, sad tactic.

 

[AV1611VET]

But anyway, this is a danger religion provides.

To whom? you?

Are you telling me that someone not having the full 411 on endoskeletons and exoskeletons constitutes a danger?

 

[The Paul]

Because all life that we see around us today shares features in common that would be almost impossible to have come about twice. It's kinda like computers. You can look at your operating system and see that there are certain lines of code that show it is a Windows operating system. We can take any computer and look at the code and we can tell just from that if it is windows based or whatever.

Likewise, it life developed a second time on this planet and it managed to survive, it would have features that would do the same job as the life we know, but because of the sheer complexity of the way life we know does those jobs, this second life would be unlikely to have hit on the same exact way of doing it.

So if we look at a life form and it has feature that are the same as the life we see around us, features that all life has, then we would know that it isn't some new arisal of life.

Well, sure, if abiogenesis happened again today we'd be able to tell the difference between that and an organism from the 4-billion year old line.

But if abiogenesis happened a second time 4 billion years ago, and became some deep ocean-floor scuzz that survives to this day, would we be able to tell the difference between that cell line and on that simply diverged 4 billion years ago and evolved into deep ocean-floor scuzz.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, sure, if abiogenesis happened again today we'd be able to tell the difference between that and an organism from the 4-billion year old line.

But if abiogenesis happened a second time 4 billion years ago, and became some deep ocean-floor scuzz that survives to this day, would we be able to tell the difference between that cell line and on that simply diverged 4 billion years ago and evolved into deep ocean-floor scuzz.

Provided it survived to the present day, yes we would.

Like I said, a second arisal of life will display characteristics that are not found in any life forms today.

For example, DNA that we are familiar with consists of four chemicals: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). If we found a life form that had DNA that used different bases instead of these, then we would have pretty strong evidence that it was from a second arisal of life.

WHEN it happened won't change the fact that it is DIFFERENT.

 

[good brother]

Let me try to address some of your other questions:

You make it sound like the Earth was completely covered by water during the Cambrian and Devonian. That is not the case, there was plenty of land during both periods. The reason why there were no frogs or bunnies back then is simply because they did not exist.

Does one find fossils of buffalo all across the midwestern states of North America? No. Why not, according to history they were one of the most prevalent creatures when the Europeans got here? because fossils don't always happen. Lack of evidence does not mean lack a creature existing. You cannot say that a creature didn't exist at a certain time because there weren't any fossil remains left over from it. Think about it, evolutionists use that same argument all the time. They are constantly looking for a missing link to link us humans to some lower primate.

In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

Because all life that we see around us today shares features in common that would be almost impossible to have come about twice. It's kinda like computers. You can look at your operating system and see that there are certain lines of code that show it is a Windows operating system. We can take any computer and look at the code and we can tell just from that if it is windows based or whatever.

Likewise, it life developed a second time on this planet and it managed to survive, it would have features that would do the same job as the life we know, but because of the sheer complexity of the way life we know does those jobs, this second life would be unlikely to have hit on the same exact way of doing it.

So if we look at a life form and it has feature that are the same as the life we see around us, features that all life has, then we would know that it isn't some new arisal of life.

If you ran across a computer in the woods, would you think it came about by random, unplanned, undirected accident? You would know that it was planned and designed by seeing the operating systems that control it. You and I both know that.

In Christ, GB