- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,366
- 11,910
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
That would be you "quoting you" to then claim your own statement is hilarious.
Am I supposed to object??
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.
Wait, is he actually claiming that the aim of the Miller-Urey experiment was to create life from non-life? That's a hilarious misunderstanding of the facts.
We all assume abiogenesis is true, as I explained. Even the Bible agrees.
Of course abiogenesis occurred. There was a time on Earth when there was no life, and a later time when there was life, .
Abiogenesis and evolution are distinct, though related concepts: abiogenesis is a hypothesis, .
Irrelevant. The title is ambiguous.
You would be better off just reading Miller and Urey's own paper, A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions to find out what they actually intended the experiment to demonstrate.That would be you "quoting you" to then claim your own statement is hilarious.
Am I supposed to object??
You would be better off just reading Miller and Urey's own paper, A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions to find out what they actually intended the experiment to demonstrate.
Genesis 1:11. According to the Bible, there wasn't any life on Earth before that.That is a fiction I have not read before - where did you get it? sounds like fun.
But you misrepresented them as trying to and failing.Chemists can find a reaction to create an "amino acid" but amino acids forming the proteins for actual living organisms are of a specific chiral orientation -- unique and very specific - so then Urey Miller failed in the "building block" claim for abiogenesis ... details ... matter. as it turns out.
Not only could their contrived abiogenesis not "make the house" they could not even make "the bricks for the house" in terms of what could conceivably be used to build that house. It was epic fail.
apparantly I need to refresh Bobryan's memory
He posted in another thread
(emphasize is mine)
What do you like or dislike about the Creation Museum in Kentucky?
Genesis 1:11. According to the Bible, there wasn't any life on Earth before that.
The definition is, the original appearance of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
No, it's not abiogenesis because the rabbit was already alive when you put it there. You're not bringing the rabbit into existence de novo. According to the Bible, God did not bring creatures to the Earth from elsewhere, He created them on the spot on an Earth where no life had previously existed.There was not a rabbit in my drive way before that.
That is not the definition of abiogenesis.
If I go to a newly formed volcanic Island and put a rabbit on it -- that is also "not abiogenesis".
How is this even the least bit confusing for anyone?
I already pointed out that the " Falsification for Abiogenesis " was demonstrated in the Urey/Miller experiment over half a century ago.
But, but, but..... that's not what I meant. The Bible says, um, something different. And (let me change subject quickly) you're an atheist anyway because you disagree with me.Bingo is right. Just like the Bible says God created Adam from inorganic or inanimate substances.
No doubt, but this is the 32nd page on CF, where it is suggestive of a miracle if a thread stays on topic for more than three pages. So, the discussion has moved on so that one facet of it is very much based upon the distinction between the two.no doubt... but I am not the one that came up with this thread subject with that title.
"What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?"
The Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper tells us that the capacity to falsify or refute a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by evidence is what is necessary to test its validity. With abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution, the advocates of their theories or what I call scientific atheism have left no room for this capacity as they assume there is no God, creator, or other supernatural presence involved.
I suppose this can be extended to the Big Bang Theory, as well, as I think Father Georges Lemaitre's theory had its falsifiability removed. We have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for it, but still no acceptance of God as falsification to Big Bang Theory. Furthermore, the creation scientists such as Edward Blyth have been relegated to second class status for natural selection when he came up with the hypothesis before Charles Darwin and John Gould (Darwin's finches ornithologist and bird artist). I think even Darwin read the writings of Blyth on natural selection and took his ideas of natural selection from him.
Thus, my argument is how can abiogenesis, ToE, Big Bang, and even Darwin's explanation for evolution by natural selection be falsified if the creator or God have been systematically eliminated from the beginning (since 1850s)? The creation scientist, or those who believe in God (such as Edward Blyth), have been eliminated from peer review today.
Abiogenesis and evolution are distinct, though related concepts: abiogenesis is a hypothesis, .
Irrelevant. The title is ambiguous.
No doubt, but this is the 32nd page on CF, where it is suggestive of a miracle if a thread stays on topic for more than three pages. So, the discussion has moved on...
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?