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.
Ya know, you may avoid discussing the origin of life, but you either have to accept that life in our universe originated from non-life (since life did not always exists in our universe), or you have to accept that life originated from a living being outside of our universe.The theory of evolution explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth... in other words, the Origin of Species (ring a bell?), not the origin of life. What part of that are you having trouble understanding? I tell you what... you can have your miracle for the origin of life on earth... as long as you agree it has evolved since.
The flying spaghetti monster might be responsible? Really?The simple answer is that no one can be 100% certain of how the universe began, as many debates have made clear, and science would not claim, 'I don't know' is a perfectly good position. Indeed the flying spaghetti monster/god might be responsible
Are you making an argument for the flying spaghetti monster too?Do you even understand what the concept of "nothing" means in quantum physics? It's not even clear if the concept is defined at all. Many models in fact hold that "nothing" is a physical impossibility, and given that time is just another dimension, "before the universe there was nothing" is sort of like "north of the north pole there were polar bears" - a nonsensical statement curtailed by the very definition of the terms.
Not really, just using it to make a point. That whole first cause/ william craig argument.The flying spaghetti monster might be responsible? Really?
Are you making an argument for the flying spaghetti monster too?
Ya know, you may avoid discussing the origin of life, but you either have to accept that life in our universe originated from non-life (since life did not always exists in our universe), or you have to accept that life originated from a living being outside of our universe.
So which one do you think it is most likely to be?
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion given what I was saying.Are you making an argument for the flying spaghetti monster too?
In the first place, life is chemistry. It is not a substance. It is not, despite the misinformation in the Bible, either blood or breath. It is a process. So yes, when carbon chemistry achieved a certain level of complexity, sequestered from the outside environment the chemical processes involved are called "alive" So, we do not have to accept that it originated from a living being. Following your logic, then physical phenomena must have been created by a physical being, which, I think, you probably deny.Ya know, you may avoid discussing the origin of life, but you either have to accept that life in our universe originated from non-life (since life did not always exists in our universe), or you have to accept that life originated from a living being outside of our universe.
Chemistry is a subset of physical processes, and life is a subset of chemical processes.So which one do you think it is most likely to be?
If that silly idea works for you, great!In the first place, life is chemistry. It is not a substance. It is not, despite the misinformation in the Bible, either blood or breath.
Nope, the logic would be God-energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms.Following your logic, then physical phenomena must have been created by a physical being, which, I think, you probably deny.
All life on earth is a living form of energy. This proves that energy can be alive. It also proves that God-energy, the ultimate energy, can be alive.Well, we have absolutely no reason to believe that a living being outside of our universe is possible (and if it were, how we would examine it), but have made great strides in explaining how life could come from non-living matter. We're not quite there yet, and I'll be the first to admit that abiogenesis is a field that is still in its relative infancy, particularly given how difficult the subject matter is, but it is considerably more well-founded than the idea of special creation.
See, I know what each of those words mean, individually, but the way you put them together, I just... Um...All life on earth is a living form of energy. This proves that energy can be alive. It also proves that God-energy, the ultimate energy, can be alive.
If I was someone who came up after the evidence happened and only saw the naturalist scientist with a bat in his hand and ID scientist will a broken knee cap then that all I could testify truthfully in the court of law. There is no way to replay the past event so I couldn't prove absolutely the naturalist intentionally hit the ID scientist with the bat. For all I know the naturalist could have taken the bat out of the hands of another person who actually did the act. Now if there were two witnesses who testified they actually saw the naturalist hit the ID scientist with the bat then that would be strong evidence the naturalist is guilty.I challenge anyone here who thinks that science cannot examine the past to commit a crime - and crime - that leaves no direct witnesses, then argue that forensics cannot be applied in your trial because science cannot examine the past. You'll be laughed out of the room and into a jail cell, because you're so phenomenally, mind-bogglingly wrong that laughter is the only reasonable response.
Here's another reason why YEC thinking is so dangerous: even if you think evolution is useless (it isn't), the same reasoning leads many to completely abandon forensics.If I was someone who came up after the evidence happened and only saw the naturalist scientist with a bat in his hand and ID scientist will a broken knee cap then that all I could testify truthfully in the court of law. There is no way to replay the past event so I couldn't prove absolutely the naturalist intentionally hit the ID scientist with the bat. For all I know the naturalist could have taken the bat out of the hands of another person who actually did the act. Now if there were two witnesses who testified they actually saw the naturalist hit the ID scientist with the bat then that would be strong evidence the naturalist is guilty.
I didn't realize using sound reasoning was so dangerous. No one claims forensics is totally useless. Just because someone reject one extreme doesn't mean they automatically support the opposite extreme.Here's another reason why YEC thinking is so dangerous: even if you think evolution is useless (it isn't), the same reasoning leads many to completely abandon forensics.
Ugh.
Do you have any idea how many convictions have been made (or overturned!) using forensic evidence? The problem is that your reasoning is completely and utterly unsound.I didn't realize using sound reasoning was so dangerous.
And no one knows how many innocent are wrongful convicted using forensic evidence. At least one forensic scientist thinks so, Thomas Young.Do you have any idea how many convictions have been made (or overturned!) using forensic evidence? The problem is that your reasoning is completely and utterly unsound.
Unless you can recreate the original cesspool with all the original chemicals within the original environment and then let nature take over, all abiogenesis will ever prove is intelligent design since intelligent humans are the ones doing all the work.Well, we have absolutely no reason to believe that a living being outside of our universe is possible (and if it were, how we would examine it), but have made great strides in explaining how life could come from non-living matter. We're not quite there yet, and I'll be the first to admit that abiogenesis is a field that is still in its relative infancy, particularly given how difficult the subject matter is, but it is considerably more well-founded than the idea of special creation.
...You don't understand what's wrong with this, do you?Unless you can recreate the original cesspool with all the original chemicals within the original environment and then let nature take over, all abiogenesis will ever prove is intelligent design since intelligent humans are the ones doing all the work.
The whole point of abiogenesis is to demonstrate that life could possibly come about by natural means. That is to say, that given a set of starting conditions akin to those on an early earth, the chemical processes to produce simple single-celled organisms could happen without outside intervention. As a result, experiments in the field are done to mimick nature, and if these processes can bridge these steps, then it can be reasonably deduced that these steps could have happened in nature. Barring this, we lack a naturalistic explanation, and supernaturalistic explanations are not acceptable in science, for a variety of reasons.No. Do you?
I love this headline:No. Do you?
From that same blog you cited:I love this headline:
Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...t-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/
He must not read anything from this forum as some think they do.
Pssst! Don't tell the evolutionists, but we know they don't have a clue.
I really don't know.Ya know, you may avoid discussing the origin of life, but you either have to accept that life in our universe originated from non-life (since life did not always exists in our universe), or you have to accept that life originated from a living being outside of our universe.
So which one do you think it is most likely to be?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?