Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 75

Thread: Science is not Atheistic?! Really?! Then prove it!!

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by Zorba View Post
    It is only the so called sciences like evolution and its offshoot sciences which attempt to explain our origins as a species apart from God which cross over into the philosophical as they attempt to mask their beliefs with pseudo science which are motivated by a preconceived and atheistic outcome that fit into your category of an atheist based science.
    If I challenged your beliefs based on your motives, would that invalidate them? No. This is called "ad hominem" argumentation.

    There is massive evidence for evolution. Why don't you look into it, without letting your own preconceptions determine your assessment of that evidence?

    This explanation confirms in very clear terms the incredible philosophical handicap the atheist/atheistic world view suffers from when one can state so firmly that there is no evidence of God.

    When I look at the symbiotic chain of life, how one level of life serves the one above it and does it cooperatively as they coexist in perfect harmony until one consumes the other, all I can see is Gods hand in that symbiotic creation.
    But what you are here talking about is not empirical, material evidence. A theist and an atheist can both look at symbiotic features of the living world and see exactly the same things, in empirical terms. The reefs, the fish, the worms, the algae, the plankton -- all of them and their intereactions present exactly the same empirical, material phenomena to the believer and the nonbeliever. A scientific explanation of these phenomena -- including of their origins in history -- takes as its basis only the empirical and material dimension of them. It's part of what makes science applicable across many metaphysical beliefs. Whether one is an atheist or a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim, a Hindu or a Buddhist, the empirical and material phenomena are what they are, and they are subject to exactly the same naturalistic explanations.

    Whether they can also be described and explained in supernatural terms, such as a divine intention, is where the different belief systems will part ways. Is a coral reef a product of God's will for the world, realized in terms of nature's workings? or is it just the product of nature, with no divine intention involve at all? This is not a question that can be answered by natural science, because it's not an empirical, material question. The theist and the atheist will look at exactly the same observable evidence, but hold different metaphysical views of it.

    If you wish to argue that atheism is erroneous, well, okay. But don't pretend that the evidence for its error is empirical and material, i.e., natural-scientific, in nature. The claim that the natural worlds exists in virtue of a supernatural cause is not something that can be answered by appealling to nature!

    And then when I look at what His bible says about Mans place in creation, that Man has dominion over all life on earth, the modern atheist will first claim that the bible was written by stone age level men with no real understanding of the world around them, yet you will completely ignore the FACT that from then until now we human beings have dominated all life on earth just as the bible says it would be.
    In the first place, the Bible was written by men, albeit men long after the stone age. And they understood plenty about the world! But they didn't understand nature very well, or at least not as well as we now do. Not for nothing have more than 2500 years elapsed.

    Moreover, the fact that human beings are the planet's dominant species is hardly something that demands Biblical support -- and it wasn't a prediction even when it was written!

    The biggest advantage the atheist has with their world view is that they are able to pick and choose which truths and realities they will decide to embrace. That many of these considerations conflict with each other and with reality means nothing at all to the deluded atheist.
    But Christians do this all the time, too! How many of the laws found in Leviticus, say, do you follow? Ever eat a ham sandwich?

    Meanwhile, there are parts of the Bible that are inconsistent. One of the most famous is the inconsistency in the orders of creation provided right there in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The fact that "these considerations conflict with each other" doesn't seem to bother conservative Christians too much.

    Heck, I've even seen them go to preposterous lengths to explain why there's really no contradiction at all -- based on ideas that are tenuous at best, and that have nothing whatever to do with what the Bible itself says.

    Also, just to give one more glaring and simple evidence of Gods existence from His bible I give you a single OT chapter, "Isaiah 53" which every religious and scriptural authority on Earth agrees was written between 700 and 750 years before Christ yet is an undeniable and accurate description of the Messiah who was to come in Christ Jesus our Lord.
    But again, you seem to be confusing "evidence" with "interpretation." The chapter says what it says -- that's evidence. But it then has to be interpreted. The chapter is often taken -- by Christians, but certainly not by Jews, who know a thing or two about their own sacred texts -- to describe Jesus Christ. But it's also interpreted -- even by some Christians -- as a metpahor for Israel itself!

    Step outside of what you consider "undeniable." Consider other possible ways to look at things.

    This is just one of many hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in the Old and New Testaments which atheists refuse to consider or study for confirmation...
    First, couldn't an atheist say that you refuse to study such things for refutation? Surely, we shouldn't assume that they're true and then figure out how? That's circular reasoning!

    But second, consider. The New Testament was written long after the Old. Anything that a New Testament author wished to present as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy could easily be so presented!

    ...to their own peril. Now is the time to seek the truth, to place your human understanding against our Creators is foolishness and proves how truly blind the atheist is where a lasting truth about life is concerned.
    Why should this be taken as anything other than fear-mongering?
    Last edited by Matthew; 10-03-2010 at 02:36 PM.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by Zorba View Post
    Actually, no, you are dead wrong in your claim that natural selection is a symbiotic process which leads all life to as you say, harmonize with all other life. The very definition of biological evolution is the principle that life strives to improve and survive at the expense of all other life around it.
    That's an overstatement. Evolutionary biology is perfectly capable of showing how some life comes to thrive by cooperating with other life. It explains how members of the same species come to do so (e.g. ants), and it explains how members different species come to do so (e.g. leaf-cutter ants and the fungi they raise in their nests).

    If two organisms exist in the same place, the competition for one to out survive the other invariably exists from the outset. And the winner never worries about the loser.
    Not true. There are plenty of cases where individuals coexist despite competition, and where they sometimes even cooperate at some times while competing at others. Monkey troops and wolfpacks are great examples. Their social systems have developed as the result of their genes, which do a great job of continuing to produce socially minded monkeys and wolves, and thereby better survive into the future.

    Richard Dawkins sometimes takes unnecssary potshots at religion in the midst of his biological writing. Nonetheless, his The Selfish Gene remains a great introduction to how altruism and social relations can evolve.

    In the same way when two animals occupy the same ecosystem, according to your religion of natural selection one animal will evolve the needed changes to survive without ever worrying about or caring about the animal which shared its ecosystem but failed to evolve the needed traits to survive the environmental pressures they both faced.
    And again, the same point applies. Sometimes it's in an organism's biological interest for another organism to do well. Consider the relations between fig trees and fig wasps. It's pretty clear how symbiosis could begin to evolve in such a relationship, and how it could get refined, and how some organisms would take advantage of the partnership, including even the figs and wasps at times. It's an extraordinary interaction, and you should look into it.

    There is nothing at all harmonious or symbiotic about what evolution describes as the process that occurs in reality in the animal kingdom.
    I feel it necessary to ask, although it may sound rude: Have you ever read what evolutionary biologists actually say about how symbiotic relationships evolve? I mean, please forgive me, but you don't give the impression of someone who's well-versed in the topic he's criticizing.

    And neither does it realistically deal with the changes we do observe in the natural world. What I mean by that is this, just look at how many millions of years your bogus science says it takes for true and real changes to take place in species, yet look at how drastically the worlds weather and complete environment has changed over just the past 10,000 years.
    Actually, it has in the last few decades become very clear that evolutionary change can occur quite rapidly at times, and go through long periods of relative stasis as well. Again, you don't seem well-versed.

    When it suits your debate your side will refer to the Great Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago, but you never stop to consider the animals that never would have survived the onset of that Ice Age according to the incredibly slow process of natural selection under real world conditions.
    Actually, this doesn't follow in the first place. It could well have been the case that the ice age was slow to develop!

    But in point of fact, it probably occurred relatively rapidly -- in which case, see what I pointed out in the previous comment.

    Based on what you have said so far, you are one of those people who don't understand biology.
    With all due respect, you don't give the impression of someone who has spent any time studying the subject at all.

    And you are typically arrogant to assume that just because one doesn't accept the philosophy of biological evolution that I don't understand it.
    I won't speak for others, but I have no doubt that there's much in biology that you can understand without evolution. But there's even more that you can't.

    Here's a puzzler for you: Why does an antibiotic that ordinarily affects bacteria also kill the malaria parasite?... Look into it.

    If you want to say "because God wanted it that way," note two things. First, this is a theological rather than scientific explanation. Second, it doesn't actually explain things: then we should ask why God would want it that way; and with all due respect, that seems pretty inscrutable to me.... But perhaps after looking into it, you can explain it to me.

    You have just shown that you have no absolute moral center at all and what's more, you are clueless as to the existence of absolute truth.
    Insofar as human beings are finite and limited, I don't believe that any of us -- including myself, and including you -- has access to "absolute truth." That sort of unconditional access to the way things are is beyond our powers.

    I would think that this sort of view would be quite compatible with theism. We're not God, after all.

    But it seems to me that theists are actually more likely to make claims to such perfect knowledge. And thus, it also seems to me that it is not theists' opponents who are theologically and philosophically arrogant....

    You actually believe that you are qualified to be an honest and objective arbiter of right and wrong and good and evil in life. This is your first and most serious self delusion because it sets you up for a lifetime of thinking you are qualified to be your own god. That is not only delusional, it is blasphemous and puts you at odds with your Creator who made you in love for fellowship.
    Hey, you are the one claiming to have access to "absolute truth." So if anyone is playing God, I'd say it ain't your opponent!

    Sure you adjust your thinking based on feelings and emotions and what feels right at the time. But you have no firm understanding of what is actually right and wrong according to a perfect and holy judge, in life.
    But you have it? I don't think so, O imperfect one.

    Again with the arrogance as you attempt to define what my outlook on life is as a believer, and you insult me with your perspective no less.
    Please. You do this repeatedly to your atheistic opponent, and that's okay, but when somebody does the same to you, you cry foul?

    Hypocrisy, pure and simple. If you don't want people to define your outlook, maybe you shouldn't define theirs. Golden Rule, and all that.

    What makes you think believers don't enjoy our lives here and now? And why do you think I consider life here to be one of suffering? Is it beyond you to appreciate that we finally know who we are and why we exist? We fellowship with our Creator whom we now know created us specifically for fellowship. How you can see that knowledge in us as a scary thing or something that causes us not to enjoy and embrace our lives just reveals how ignorant you are of the spiritual realities we have been blessed enough to learn.
    What's scary is that you think this is knowledge, rather than an unprovable belief. If you merely said, "here's what I believe about the world beyond nature, including the afterlife," there would be no problem. But religious conservatives try to impose worldly laws based on their unprovable beliefs about extraworldly things upon people who don't share them. And that is extremely scary.

    This paragraph makes me so sad for you and it drives home the point that it is you who is living a miserable existence and a truly scary one also since you have absolutely no idea who you are and no idea what follows this life. My advice to you is to seek the absolute and eternal truth NOW while in this life. And place no limitations on where that journey takes you; just insist within yourself that you seek absolute love and truth according to the maker of all that is if He/She in fact exists at all.
    But the place to find truths about nature is not "within yourself!" The world is out there, not in here!

    The path to God and tranquility may well lie within. But the path to knowledge of nature requires looking elsewhere.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by Zorba View Post
    More uninformed arrogance from someone who makes huge assumptions based on only knowing I'm a conservative christian. So obviously you just assume I must be ignorant and brainwashed.
    But isn't that exactly what you say about evolutionists? (See below.)

    According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method and concerned with the physical world." I agree with this definition.

    The only difference between you and I is that I require these same standards from all branches of studies that dare to call themselves science where as you accept facts NOT in evidence from pseudo sciences like evolution which exist to prove a preconceived conclusion with imaginary outcomes.
    But aren't you just going with preconceived conclusions? I mean, come on: you have claimed some sort of access to "absolute truth." You already know it, and nothing is going to shake it.

    You can claim there's no evidence all you like. But I think that's your preconception talking.

    No, God defines Himself, how utterly arrogant for you to believe you are the least bit capable of defining Him. Define the expanse of the Alpha and the Omega if you can. Imagine the completeness of the God who told Moses to tell Pharaoh that "I AM" sent you.
    Okay, so what do they mean? Can we think about these things? Or do we just accept them, whether we understand them or not?

    Imagine being able to define yourself simply as "I AM". Can you even conceive of the concept if you are being honest with yourself? I can't....
    I can't, either. So what does it mean? Come on! What am I supposed to do in the face of such a statement? What are its implications?

    How about some help with that "absolute truth," dude!

    Your question is irrelevant and a red herring as it brings us no closer to actually knowing an undefinable God who encompasses all that is with His presence and character. Sadly you are so ignorant of who God is and your place in His eternity that you fail to appreciate that unless He breathed the breath of life into all creation it would cease to exist. His very energy is what sustains our complete and total existence.
    I have no doubt that you believe this to be true. But I also don't think you can prove it to anyone who doesn't believe it. It's a conviction, perhaps borne of a supernatural experience or an inward search (a la St. Bonaventure). But it's purely subjective, and I don't think it is even slightly reasonable to call people ingorant for failing to have the same subjective experiences as you!

    All the evidence of Gods existence is obvious and directly observable in the world around you...
    I addressed this in an earlier post. There is nothing "obvious" about using nature as evidence for something supernatural. To the contrary, I would say it's self-contradictory.

    ...if you weren't brainwashed to accept and believe an atheistic man made fairy tale called evolution.
    Aha! Refer back to the opening of this post! You do think it's okay to describe your opponents as "brainwashed," but if they were to say the same of you, that's bad.

    Jesus had a word for this sort of thing: "hypocrisy."

    It blows my mind that I deal with people who consider themselves intelligent yet they rely on the bones of long dead creatures that men with agendas tell them are our human ancestors.
    Because there's evidence for it. Meanwhile, if having an agenda were a problem, that would rule out creationism, no question about it.



    By all means, show me the testable and repeatable experiments that prove that any of the fossils evolutionists claim are human ancestors, are actually human ancestors.
    As for the "testable and repeatable experiments" I confess that I'm not sure what you have in mind. But before I even try to provide any such, I hope that you don't think astronomers know nothing because they can't work with stars in the lab?

    In the meantime, there is a mountain of evidence for human evolution, and a lot of it's been written about in books. Try The Link by Colin Tudge, or Carl Zimmer's Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins.

    Go ahead, produce actual testable evidence that biological evolution up to and including a change in alleles ever produced a new and better species from a preceding one ever occurred.
    Look into Richard Lenski's research on bacteria. Or experiments on fruit flies to get them breeding in new substrates, or field experiements on guppies and the kinds of coloration that are adaptive for them, or.... The list is not short.

    The question is....

    And something above the organic level would be nice for once. Go on, impress me.
    ...is there any evidence that could impress you? I rather think that your preconceived notions are going to get in the way here.

    (And what does "above the organic level" mean?!?)

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Montreal Qc
    Posts
    1,275
    i must ask, SeriousSister if you are still around which i doubt,
    why are you afraid of criticism? you, as a religious believer, are not priviledged enough to be exempt from criticism of your beliefs. and if you think you are, then i am too, being a non-believer, yet you are free to attack my beliefs in your original post. upon being confronted with the slightest criticism, you hide under a veil of disrespect for the bible. why? if you hold a strong belief in something as you do, you should be prepared to defend it when confronted with criticism.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    @SS, Define atheism and I will tell you if I am willing to debate it.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    31
    I have read the discussions and just want to put in what I feel.

    Actually, science is a systematic analysis, study, and intellectual evaluation of things and objects around us for a better appreciation or advantage in human life. Science can only deal with natural things, that can be perceived by our five senses (directly or indirectly) and that can be naturally explained.

    Since this is so, pure science (not the scientist) as a discipline cannot contain God as its subject, although science can be an instrument to shed light on the systematic array of things in this universe, the complexity of life, the marvel of life, etc., and a believer in God can have a better appreciation of his Creator and nonbeliever can at least hypothesize some higher intellectual power or source. These things usually happen in science, but recently rational critical methods and change of scientific attitude have left no place for God in science. Not only science, but all aspects of life. I am not sure it started with the hypothesis of evolution and its development, but it seems to be fueling and accelerating these things in the recent years.

    Communism that died in communist countries has resurrected again back a hundred fold in all nations, in all disciplines of life, and in all areas of life, to de-weed God from humans. Humans are comfortable with this since each can form their own rules, principles, morals. Science, medicine, psychology, social sciences, politics, etc., that once worked once for furthering and bettering human life, today are potent weapons against human life, the dignity of marriage and family, core values of love and sacrifice, etc.

    In name of some cunning words like freedom, choice, bias/discrimination, self-expression, political correctness, etc., and/or using trumped-up majority, various destructive things are passed into the human society.

    Human development at expense of such gross damage to human life is an illusion, a big lie, and better not needed. Science today is a silent obedient slave to those in higher places with an occult agenda. If there can be heresy in a religion, why not all the more in the discipline of science. No humans are infallible, even though the various disciplines are true and pure.
    Last edited by Navigator; 10-30-2010 at 03:31 AM.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4
    These things usually happen in science, but recently rational critical methods and change of scientific attitude have left no place for God in science.
    First off, what are these critical methods you're talking about because the scientific attitude never changed- when the world was discovered to be round, scientists said the world was round. When we found out about plate tectonics, scientists said that plate tectonics explained the continents. Just because the train of science is now rolling past your God hypothesis and treating it the same, doesn't mean it's "critical". Second, so what if it doesn't? God is apparently a metaphysical entity so why should it have a place in science where we examine, what's the word, real things?

    Not only science, but all aspects of life.
    So how has science forced God out of your life?

    I am not sure it started with the hypothesis of evolution and its development, but it seems to be fueling and accelerating these things in the recent years.
    It didn't start with evolution- it started in BCE times. Even then, people were calling bull on religion.

    Communism that died in communist countries has resurrected again back a hundred fold in all nations, in all disciplines of life, and in all areas of life, to de-weed God from humans.
    Do you understand Communism or are you just using it as a scare word? I highly doubt that an economic philosophy based on workers has anything to do with genocide of religious people.

    Science, medicine, psychology, social sciences, politics, etc., that once worked once for furthering and bettering human life, today are potent weapons against human life, the dignity of marriage and family, core values of love and sacrifice, etc.
    Alright then, how exactly has eradicating small pox, beginning to colonize space, and making a more eco-friendly world tried to kill us all? How has science said anything about marriage and family or core values? Science is a tool- it doesn't say anything. Scientists do- scientific communities do.

    In name of some cunning words like freedom, choice, bias/discrimination, self-expression, political correctness, etc., and/or using trumped-up majority, various destructive things are passed into the human society.
    Such as...

    Science today is a silent obedient slave to those in higher places with an occult agenda.
    "And I can show you this by pointing you to example..."

    If there can be heresy in a religion, why not all the more in the discipline of science.
    One of the pillars of science is that there HAS to be discourse! Evolution wasn't just shoe-horned into the scientific community- scientists examined evidence and judged it. Many times, scientists have to go back to the theoretical drawing board because the scientific community disagrees with them. The only thing is that science is based on cold, hard, tangible evidence and religion is not.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennedict View Post
    Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

    Redi and Pasteur's experiments were of spontanious generation, which they did disprove. im not arguing spontanious generation, im arguing abiogenesis - the ability for life to generate from non-living matter under the right circumstances. the circumstances are right in certain parts of the world and this is possibly how life started. it isnt an inanimate object transforming into an animate object, please dont be ridiculous. a bit of simple research on the subject would prove helpful.
    I did simple research on the subject and that is the reason for my response. I do think that you are being not only ridiculous, but absurd in your assurtion that spontaneous generation is any different then abigenesis. One claims that a living organism came from something inanimate, and another claims that it comes from non-living matter. I don't see the difference here. If something is a non-living matter then it is not possible that anything can generate from it. The cells are dead if we are talking about non-living matter from something that used to be a living organism, so it can no longer generate life. Now if we are talking about the bacteria generating a living organism, then that would still mean it stemed from living matter, disproving your theory of abiogenesis..

    The right circumstances? The right part of the world? That is just absurd! Where is the sources for your claims? I'd like to see them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bennedict View Post
    to rule out the possibility of chance would be a very unscientific thing to do. i was just stating that the sky being blue is a good example of how chance could have produced such a colour. if the chemical makeup of the atmosphere were slightly different, it may be a different colour and you would claim THAT was a miracle created by God.
    I don't claim to be scientific, you do. I'm arguing against it. So it would stand to reason that it would not interest me one way of another if I sound unscientific.

    Chance could not have make the sky blue. The chemicals in the atmosphere made the sky the color that it is. Chemicals that were adjusted for life to be able to thrive on this planet. If the chemical atmosphere were slightly different I wouldn't be here to think anything and neither would you, the color of the sky would be the last thing on our minds because we would be dead. Any alteration in the atmosphere chemical wise would render this planet uninhabitable for us. If YOU do YOUR research YOU would see that if any chemical in the atmosphere changed then we would not be able to survive. Yes the color would change, but we wouldn't be here to see it. And that my friend is not by chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bennedict View Post
    like i said before, why should scientists be blamed for certain side effects? would you expect medical scientists to custom make a formula for everyone getting an injection? and also, why would you blame medical scientists for probably saving your life? if it werent for them your great great grandparents would have small pox and you would never have been born and its plausible that the human race would have succumb to a number of diseases if it werent for them. you might as well blame Henry Ford for the pollution crisis.
    Now I laugh at the sheer novice of this response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bennedict View Post
    i must ask, SeriousSister if you are still around which i doubt,
    why are you afraid of criticism? you, as a religious believer, are not priviledged enough to be exempt from criticism of your beliefs. and if you think you are, then i am too, being a non-believer, yet you are free to attack my beliefs in your original post. upon being confronted with the slightest criticism, you hide under a veil of disrespect for the bible. why? if you hold a strong belief in something as you do, you should be prepared to defend it when confronted with criticism.

    I'm around, but I have a life as well. When I started this topic I knew I wasn't going to be around much to debate it because I was in the middle of a job switch and moving, etc. I do have a life outside of cyberspace. Maybe you should look into it. And never think I'm not around because I'm hiding. I always come back.

    I don't argue the bible because it is wrong to do so. I respect the bible enough not to drag it into debates to be picked apart. I don't feel the need to hit people over the head with the bible, so I'll defend my beliefs with sheer fact and leave the bible out of it. That's not being a coward and hiding behind a veil I'm here and ready to defend what I believe that is not being a coward thank you very much!

    PS- You have alot of misspelt words in your post.
    Can you understand what I'm saying?! If you can't, then don't respond at all. Save us both the time and get a life.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,679
    Quote Originally Posted by SeriousSister08 View Post
    I did simple research on the subject and that is the reason for my response.
    Then no doubt you will have some refrences you can show us, please post them.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Left Coast
    Posts
    7,822
    Quote Originally Posted by SeriousSister08 View Post
    I have been watching debates like this go on for a while now and still have not seen anyone who believes that science is not atheistic give a logical sound reason for why it is not. So I'm challenging anyone who believes science is not atheistic to a debate. I would like to be able to have my say in the matter, because I believe that not only has science proven to be atheistic through the years, but it has also proven be to more harmful then good in a number of ways. Let me list a few...

    1. Morals

    2. Medicine

    3. Concience

    If anyone would like to debate me on this, then please feel free to challenge me.
    BS! In general I've found scientists to have a far higher standard of morality than preachers and followers of religion.

    How can you have a sensible practice of medicine without the science to back it.

    I've found the consciences of preachers and religionists to be extremely troubling in the way that they excuse their cruel behavior to others.
    Brother, you can believe in stones as long as you do not hurl them at me. Wafa Sultan

    “War is an American way to teach geography,” British soldier

    War is sweet to those who have not tasted it, but the experienced man trembles exceedingly at heart on its approach. – Pindar

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Left Coast
    Posts
    7,822
    I'd like to have a more precise definition of abiogenesis, which is a new word to me.

    Obviously, a growth of bacteria or mold or other microorganisms cannot occur without s spore or whatever method of reproduction used by the organism infecting material.

    However, I certainly wonder where and how the first occurrence of inanimate matter springing into a sort of life form occurred. Obviously, since such an occurrence has not been observed, it must be very rare.

    I do believe, nevertheless, that the spontaneous creation of life from inanimate material has been made to occur in labs.

    For example, viruses. What are they? Are they living? Where did the first virus in existence come from?
    Brother, you can believe in stones as long as you do not hurl them at me. Wafa Sultan

    “War is an American way to teach geography,” British soldier

    War is sweet to those who have not tasted it, but the experienced man trembles exceedingly at heart on its approach. – Pindar

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by simone View Post
    I do believe, nevertheless, that the spontaneous creation of life from inanimate material has been made to occur in labs.
    Then you don't know what you're talking about. Every single life form ever cataloged has had a common ancestor which uses DNA -> protein transcription. This life so pervades this planet that people have mistaken earth species for alien ones because they found them on meteors.

    If someone formed life from non-life, we would know about it; it would be as big as discovering DNA itself.

    What you hear about is hyped stories in which the occurrence of bio-chemical reactions outside of cellular machinery, while quite exciting for our study of life; are not surprising.
    Last edited by Freedom; 09-03-2011 at 09:28 PM.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Left Coast
    Posts
    7,822
    Sez you!

    Where did the First Ancestor come from?
    Brother, you can believe in stones as long as you do not hurl them at me. Wafa Sultan

    “War is an American way to teach geography,” British soldier

    War is sweet to those who have not tasted it, but the experienced man trembles exceedingly at heart on its approach. – Pindar

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by simone View Post
    Sez you!
    lol, nice come back. Xcaliber says it better though. "That's your opinion".

    Quote Originally Posted by simone View Post
    Where did the First Ancestor come from?
    Give me a unified field theory.... I don't know, no one knows; hec they don't even know how life advanced.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Accipiter View Post
    Then no doubt you will have some refrences you can show us, please post them.
    I have already posted the refrences that I'm using. Please look at the earlier posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by simone View Post
    BS! In general I've found scientists to have a far higher standard of morality than preachers and followers of religion.

    How can you have a sensible practice of medicine without the science to back it.

    I've found the consciences of preachers and religionists to be extremely troubling in the way that they excuse their cruel behavior to others.
    What you say is not only BS but is an open ended statement void of facts or references to back it up. So what we have here is an individual who misinterpreted what the meaning of a debate really is. Please do not waste my time. Give me your references if you want to debate. If not then do not address me with anymore open ended far fetched statements. I have better things to do.
    Can you understand what I'm saying?! If you can't, then don't respond at all. Save us both the time and get a life.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •