No, we don't.
Answer my question.
Do we have to know the ultimate origin of nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen in order to know that lightning is produced by thunderclouds?
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.
Answer the question, do we know how first life was created?
No, we don't.
Answer my question.
Do we have to know the ultimate origin of nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen in order to know that lightning is produced by thunderclouds?
No we don't.
Then we don't need to know he origin of life in order to know how life changed once it was here.
then you shouldn't get all upset when someone suggests a god is responsible for this life, right?Then we don't need to know he origin of life in order to know how life changed once it was here.
then you shouldn't get all upset when someone suggests a god is responsible for this life, right?
evolution is all about a natural cause for life and its diversity.
isn't that what is being asked of you?I would only ask that they provide evidence that this is the case.
yes, and it's my guess it's because science has found abiogenesis to be impossible.It only deals with the diversity part.
isn't that what is being asked of you?
yes, and it's my guess it's because science has found abiogenesis to be impossible.
i believe that in order to show someone wrong, you have to show you are right.I am not claiming that I know how life started.
Those who claim that God is responsible are making a positive claim, and need to provide evidence.
it's a good one.You guess?
yes, and it's my guess it's because science has found abiogenesis to be impossible.
You guess?
Scientists are people, and people do have biases. If its hard to believe, even if true, it will take a while for acceptance, especially if it does change a paradigm. In science, however, acceptance does come.i understand that.
look what happened to this woman.
she presents research that went against the then current dogma, yes dogma.
they scorned her so much that she just threw up her hands and quit publishing her work.
there was absolutely no cause for this to happen, especially when she had the research as proof.
being sceptical is one thing, but what happened to mcclintock went further than that.
what would cause these people to shun this research?
scientists do not rely on buzzwords like "ridiculous" or "ludicrous".
my guess is that it smashed their world view of evolution.
by the sound of it, i assume it meant the end of "gradual change".
also, it would imply some kind of intelligence at work because some genes are never mutated, hox genes i believe.
it's true.. . ., even if true, . . .
why else would they be sceptical?Case in point. You have been asked before how her research "smashed their view of evolution," and have refused to explain.
you have to ask those scientists why they did what they did.You have not shown why geneticists were slow to accept transposons because of the theory of evolution.
this isn't an isolated incident you know.I submit that you are refusing to let go of a paradigm you are fond of. Just like those scientists.
my guess is that it smashed their world view of evolution.
by the sound of it, i assume it meant the end of "gradual change".
also, it would imply some kind of intelligence at work because some genes are never mutated, hox genes i believe.
i wouldn't know, i'm not a groupie.Do you really think the Templeton Foundation the ICR, and other religious groups, would just ignore something that would "smash" the world view of evolution?
and again, i'm not a groupie.Again, if she had that kind of evidence, the ICR and Templeton Foundation, and people like Ray Comfort and Eric Hovind would be all over it. She would be world famous by now. But she's not. That should tell you everything you need to know.
it's true.
why else would they be sceptical?
even to the point where she stopped publishing?
she had the research, the evidence that won her a nobel prize.
tell me, why would they not accept her work if it didn't smash their world view?
it's my guess it put an end to the "gradual change" bit.
you have to ask those scientists why they did what they did.
this isn't an isolated incident you know.
Thus my statement, science is ignorant concerning what life came from. They have plenty of guesses and suppositions though.
then you shouldn't get all upset when someone suggests a god is responsible for this life, right?
evolution is all about a natural cause for life and its diversity.
and what, exactly, would this paradigm be?Once more... it was because it smashed a paradigm concerning genetics and DNA (the genetic material)... not evolution. You are laboring under the misconception of the "evolution world view" creationist paradigm... yet another precious paradigm that should be tossed out.
i wouldn't know, i'm not a groupie.
who are these people you mention?
were they around when all this took place?
it is?Come on, that's a cop out and you know it.
is that what drives you in respect to evolution, that the other guy might win?Are you seriously saying that religious organizations wouldn't care if proof existed that would destroy the Theory of Evolution?
like i said, i wouldn't know.Google them? They are very well funded YECers who spend most of their time denying the Theory of Evolution, or looking for evidence that would prove it wrong.
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?