gilthorp Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Is there anything more useless than a "proof of God" conversation? BIngo...which is why our boy TimC has vaulted to the top of the fisherman class for this one. Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Can we still be friends, friend. Sure, as long as when this thread ends you don't waste time trying to recruit me to snake handling by quoting bible verses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Hey, can we get back to something. I've been asking about the origin of the first life since this topic started and still it seems that no one has an answer to that. If it wasn't created, then how - from nothing - did the first life appear? It's really a simple question and surely science, in all it's brilliance, has an answer. Any guesses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) Hey, can we get back to something. I've been asking about the origin of the first life since this topic started and still it seems that no one has an answer to that. If it wasn't created, then how - from nothing - did the first life appear? It's really a simple question and surely science, in all it's brilliance, has an answer. Any guesses? Firstly, over the many debates we've had on this subject here, the origin of life has always been thrown out as a refutation of evolution by the ID folks. In fact, the two things are totally different, as has been pointed out. Darwin's book is "The Origin of Species", not the origin of life. With that out of the way, I personally have no clue as to the origin of first life but I would guess there are actually several, brought on by the juxtaposition of exactly the right circumstances with exactly the right events. I don't see why life would not have originated in more than one place at more than one time, especially given the almost infinite possibilities when you consider the billions of years the planet has been here. Edited November 21, 2007 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) Firstly, over the many debates we've had on this subject here, the origin of life has always been thrown out as a refutation of evolution by the ID folks. In fact, the two things are totally different, as has been pointed out. Darwin's book is "The Origin of Species", not the origin of life. I posted the exact same thing earlier in this thread to Pirates exact same question. He is not looking for an answer; he is trying to make a point. Edited November 21, 2007 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Firstly, over the many debates we've had on this subject here, the origin of life has always been thrown out as a refutation of evolution by the ID folks. In fact, the two things are totally different, as has been pointed out. Darwin's book is "The Origin of Species", not the origin of life. With that out of the way, I personally have no clue as to the origin of first life but I would guess there are actually several, brought on by the juxtaposition of exactly the right circumstances with exactly the right events. I don't see why life would not have originated in more than one place at more than one time, especially given the almost infinite possibilities when you consider the billions of years the planet has been here. So what are "exactly the right circumstances" to make life just happen from nothing that has life? Because I'd really like to have a horse but don't want to pay for one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 As you can see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 It's a simple point that I'm trying to make. People use evolution as an alternative to God and creation, but it falls short of answering the question that has yet to be answered by science - and don't think that they haven't tried. And even if you do establish the exact right circumstances for life to begin, then you must go back even farther and answer the same question for the beginning of the universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 McNasty's here, and he's a nurse, he'll know all the right answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 So what are "exactly the right circumstances" to make life just happen from nothing that has life? Because I'd really like to have a horse but don't want to pay for one. I have no idea how to create life from no life but I am willing to bet it will be achieved in my lifetime and it won't be God doing it. As to the circumstances, I don't know but lightning or some electrical charge probably was involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Guess he didn't feel like sifting through 15 pages of bullmanure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNasty Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Hey, can we get back to something. I've been asking about the origin of the first life since this topic started and still it seems that no one has an answer to that. If it wasn't created, then how - from nothing - did the first life appear? It's really a simple question and surely science, in all it's brilliance, has an answer. Any guesses? I would imagine there are no truly "scientific" answers to that question, because scientists restrict their focus things that are repeatable and confirmable, then rigorously tested and peer reviewed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 People use evolution as an alternative to God and creation, but it falls short of answering the question that has yet to be answered by science Dang it, I thought you just agreed that evolution and initial life are two entirely different things? Evolution does NOT attempt to answer creation, much less God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNasty Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 McNasty's here, and he's a nurse, he'll know all the right answers. They told us in the ceremony, right after they swore us in with a blood oath of secrecy. If I reveal those secrets to laymen, I lose all my magical healing mojo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 It's a simple point that I'm trying to make. People use evolution as an alternative to God and creation, I've said it already and so has Ursa......evolution is theory that uses observations to explain how became who we are. It does not concern itself with God or Creation. Your point is fallacious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 I have no idea how to create life from no life but I am willing to bet it will be achieved in my lifetime and it won't be God doing it. As to the circumstances, I don't know but lightning or some electrical charge probably was involved. So you think that someone will CREATE life in your lifetime? Interesting choice of words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 I've said it already and so has Ursa......evolution is theory that uses observations to explain how became who we are. It does not concern itself with God or Creation. Your point is fallacious. That's interesting seeing as how macroevolution has NEVER been observed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) That's interesting seeing as how macroevolution has NEVER been observed. Good Lord...what are you talking about and what is your point? Your never going to believe in a billion year theory unless a billion year old man can prove he observed it all? Edited November 21, 2007 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Good Lord...what are you talking about and what is your point? Your never going to believe in a billion year theory unless a billion year old man can prove he observed it all? Which is the exact same logic that you and others in this topic have been using when it comes to the Bible and Jesus. So what is the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 That's interesting seeing as how macroevolution has NEVER been observed. It can't be physically observed. We've only had time lapse cameras for a little while. For macroevolution to be observed, an observer would have to be billions of years old. However, it can be deduced from the evidence provided. Not every murder has an eyewitness....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Which is the exact same logic that you and others in this topic have been using when it comes to the Bible and Jesus. So what is the difference? Jesus dude, you are really flailing around here. The only thing I've really been doing is defending evolution and pointing out does, in fact, hold up to the strict and rigorous standards of the scientific method and has become a valid scientific theory. If you are going to use irrational and fallacious pretenses...I might question that; but I'm not attacking one's faith. And by the way. there is a preponderance of scientific data that almost certainly indicates.."Marcoevolution" has taken place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Hey, can we get back to something. I've been asking about the origin of the first life since this topic started and still it seems that no one has an answer to that. If it wasn't created, then how - from nothing - did the first life appear? It's really a simple question and surely science, in all it's brilliance, has an answer. Any guesses? Heck we covered that back on page 5. So? Its an unknown. This is one of the great questions science is exploring now. How did it happen? If there were no unresolved riddles, there would be no need for science. That's actually at the heart of scientific exploration. We don't know how something works. Form a hypothesis and experiment. Only the creationists require answers to everything now. And they can only answer with "God did it" - which is a completely untestable hypothesis. Again, a supreme being/ law giver is completely untestable. As soon as creationism comes up with an experiment for it, let me know. The burden of proof is entirely upon them. I have no problem admitting I don't know how life began. It doesn't have a thing to do with evolution of species as others pointed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 And by the way. there is a preponderance of scientific data that almost certainly indicates.."Marcoevolution" has taken place. no there isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) Sorry, but I disagree that the evidence shows that Macroevolution has almost certainly taken place. As I said earlier, there is plenty of evidence on the side of macroevolution - I won't argue that. But there is scientific evidence to the contrary as well. It is not the open and shut case that you like to present it as and there are plenty of people within the scientific community that would agree. Edited November 21, 2007 by Pirate lookin' at 40 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 no there isn't. We've already established you ignore science that contradicts your faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.