The majority of people used to believe in spontaneous generation. Were they lying or were they just ignorant?
(Hint: Evolutionists believe in spontaneous generation, whether they'll admit it or not.)
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The Age of the Universe--and Days of Creation
- Thread starter Sinai
- Start date
The majority of people used to believe in spontaneous generation. Were they lying or were they just ignorant?
(Hint: Evolutionists believe in spontaneous generation, whether they'll admit it or not.)
Creationists, whether they will admit it or not, believe that Piltdown man was a true human ancestor. They also believe that Joseph Stalin was the first President of the United States, whether they will admit it or not.
Not only that, but they, even the ones who haven't bothered to actually study the subject, have somehow managed to not be ignorant about the geologic column while the thousands of scientists of various faiths and various cultures around the globe that have actually studied geology - they are "ignorant" (only some of them are lying).
Upvote
0
So Nick, you working on getting those calculations together for us? Or were you just working off of John Woodmorappe's assumptions?
Upvote
0
Yep, evolutionists still beleive in spontaneous generation since it hasn't been disproven. Their standard is if you can't disprove it, it must be true, unless you are talking about God.
Upvote
0
Your closing arguments were brief.
I, personally, see more promise in the abiogenetic hypotheses than I do in (for instance) panspermia. I don't "believe in" or accept any of them.
Anyway - more to the point: The abiogenetic hypotheses considered by researchers in the field today are not spontaneous generation. They are, in fact, an attempt at an explanation of how life came to be in spite of the known fact that spontaneous generation does not and cannot happen.
IOW, your case is weak, and as such, you would be (as Nick was) wrong to present your claim about the "beliefs" of evolutionists as fact.
I, personally, see more promise in the abiogenetic hypotheses than I do in (for instance) panspermia. I don't "believe in" or accept any of them.
Anyway - more to the point: The abiogenetic hypotheses considered by researchers in the field today are not spontaneous generation. They are, in fact, an attempt at an explanation of how life came to be in spite of the known fact that spontaneous generation does not and cannot happen.
IOW, your case is weak, and as such, you would be (as Nick was) wrong to present your claim about the "beliefs" of evolutionists as fact.
Upvote
0
Whatever. They think life can come from inanimate matter all on its own. Call it what you want. It looks like spontaneous generation to me.
Upvote
0
That's fine. Can you go ahead and admit that you were wrong about the spontaneous generation claim then, and that it was based on your misunderstanding of the two different ideas of spontaneous generation and any particular current abiogenetic hypothesis? Can you admit that scientist don't "believe in" or even "accept" any particular abiogenetic hypothesis at this time?
I can admit that they see promise in finding an abiogenetic hypothesis that both explains and makes at least a few testable predictions....
Upvote
0
No because I am not arguing using your definitions but mine. I think you knew what I referred to, and it looks like a version of sponataneous generation to me.
I admit that you don't think so, which I find puzzling since it is life stemming from inanimate matter, and I don't know what all scientists believe, but I was taught that evolutionists beleived in abiogenesis, and the ones I meet generally still do.
I admit that you don't think so, which I find puzzling since it is life stemming from inanimate matter, and I don't know what all scientists believe, but I was taught that evolutionists beleived in abiogenesis, and the ones I meet generally still do.
Upvote
0
At least you admit to the fact that your argument is based on personal, subjective, and non-standard definitions. That's more than what Nick would do.
Upvote
0
Indeed.
If we could all go around creating our own private definitions of well-established words and concepts, then we couldn't attach common meaning to anything.
The conclusion here is either:
a. randman does not understand the scientific community's view of these topics, as evidenced by the fact that he uses incorrect definitions. In this case, randman is arguing about things he does not correctly understand; or
b. randman *does* understand the scientific community's views of these topics, but cannot refute those arguments. Thus creating the need to re-define them in such a way that randman thinks he can defeat them (i.e., create a strawman position).
Neither (a) nor (b) is very flattering to randman.
Upvote
0
In his defense, I don't think randman is being intentionally dishonest. I think, rather that he is a victim of "Morton's Demon"....
Upvote
0
I understand normal English. From what I can tell, evolutionists make up definitions to avoid the facts.
They call species transitional that may have never evolved into another species.
They state they don't beleive in spontaneous generation, and then have the gall to claim they don't based on their definition of the term. Guess what. "Sponteneous generation" is not a modern scientific term. It goes way back, and I am using it correctly. Pick up a dictionary.
They call species transitional that may have never evolved into another species.
They state they don't beleive in spontaneous generation, and then have the gall to claim they don't based on their definition of the term. Guess what. "Sponteneous generation" is not a modern scientific term. It goes way back, and I am using it correctly. Pick up a dictionary.
Upvote
0
Not hardly. Unless you'd like to show proof where these definitions have changed or been made up?
Sources for this claim? You do have proof of this, right?
No, they have the gall to claim that they don't use *your* definition. Wow. Sheer nerve of them.
If you'd start by using a scientific definition of the words you toss around so easily, maybe you wouldn't get yourself into such hot water so often. Hmmm?
It's your claim that scientists have re-defined this term. It's up to you to prove that claim - not me.
Upvote
0
I don't really have a problem with your (unstated) definition of "spontaneous generation"... I have a problem with your definition of abiogenesis.
If we are agreed that Spontaneous generation means the uncaused (spontaneous) creation (generation) of living organisms from non-living organisms, and if you will recognize that abiogenesis is the stepwise creation (generation) of living organisms from simple self-replicators due to their chemical activity, which in turn were generated by normal chemical reactions between organic compounds.. then we can agree that the two are different ideas and cannot reasonably go by the same name.
Upvote
0
Its the weasel word --- "may" never have transitioned... Of course transitional forms "may" never have "transitioned"... its sophistry.. His claim is accurate, if irrelevant.
Upvote
0
Thank you for your input as to which theory you prefer.
"Young earth" creationists arrive at that figure by adding up the ages of the people listed in Jesus's geneologies, adding the years since his life on earth, and adding six days for creation (first chapter of Genesis). Some add an additional 6,000 years for the thousand years being as a day to God, and a few add various other amounts that can get it up to as much as about 50,000 years--but that is still a few billion years short of what mainstream science asserts.
The Bible does not necessarily close the door on that possibility. A very close and careful reading of the first two chapters of Genesis led the Jewish Hebrew scholar Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (generally called Nahmanides) to list something very similar to what you suggest as being an interpretation of those passages--and he wrote it hundreds of years before Darwin.
Upvote
0
Thanks for your reply to my questions Sinai - it's appreciated. Interesting stuff about the Nahmanides - I have to check them out.
Wookie
Wookie
Upvote
0
Similar threads
