• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The creator did it.

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Ok, if I'm wrong, I have nothing to lose.
However, if you are wrong, you have everything to loose!
If you are wrong, you are in the exact same boat that I am in.

You could die and find yourself face-to-face with Allah, or Thor or Zoroaster or any other of the thousands of gods human beings have worshiped throughout history.

Pascal's Wager is not a great argument.

Well, if you read the personal testimony of the person who experienced it you would KNOW how it would answer your question now would't you? Not only that, but all of those that were there confirming his physical death. So, look into it. Like I said, you more than likely wont because its easier for you to just make negative comments here.
How would that help answer the question? That question again, was how is your example of the guy dying and coming back evidence that there is an afterlife? And more specifically, how does it demonstrate the specific afterlife you personally believe in?

My grandfather died and came back from the dead as well. He said he saw nothing and experienced nothing when it happened. He said it was just like sleeping. So, do you think his experience is proof that there is no life after death?

Like I said, I've read these stories many times before, and they always turn out to be far less extraordinary than originally claimed.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
Correction, anti-theists.:rolleyes:
How would you counter this statement taken from an evolutionary web site that was provided to me by one on your side here recently. I can provide the entire thing if you like so I'm not charged with taking anything out of context.
"But whereas for biological evolution the historic record is to a degree accessible through palaeobiologic and phylogenetic studies, for the process of abiogenesis those methodologies have proved uninformative; there is no known geological record pertaining to prebiotic systems, and phylogenetic studies become less informative the further back one goes in attempting to trace out ancestral lineages."
Oh what the heck, here ya go.
3. Is the origin of life problem soluble in principle?

In addressing the OOL question, it first needs to be emphasized that the question has two distinct facets—historic and ahistoric, and the ability to uncover each of these two facets is quite different. Uncovering the historic facet is the more problematic one. Uncovering that facet would require specifying the original chemical system from which the process of abiogenesis began, together with the chemical pathway from that initiating system right through the extensive array of intermediate structures leading to simplest life. Regretfully, however, much of that historic information will probably never be known. Evolutionary processes are contingent, suggesting that any number of feasible pathways could have led from inanimate matter to earliest life, provided, of course, that those pathways were consistent with the underlying laws of physics and chemistry. The difficulty arises because historic events, once they have taken place, can only be revealed if their occurrence was recorded in some manner. Indeed, it is this historic facet of abiogenesis that makes the OOL problem so much more intractable than the parallel question of biological evolution. Biological evolution also has its historic and ahistoric facets. But whereas for biological evolution the historic record is to a degree accessible through palaeobiologic and phylogenetic studies, for the process of abiogenesis those methodologies have proved uninformative; there is no known geological record pertaining to prebiotic systems, and phylogenetic studies become less informative the further back one goes in attempting to trace out ancestral lineages. Phylogenetic studies presume the existence of organismal individuality and the genealogical (vertical) transfer of genetic information. However, the possibility that earliest life may have been communal [14] and dominated by horizontal gene transfer [15–17] suggests that information regarding the evolutionary stages that preceded the last universal common ancestor [18] would have to be considered highly speculative. Accordingly, the significance of such studies to the characterization of early life, let alone prebiotic systems, becomes highly uncertain.


The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.
Now what part of this does your "probability" factor in as positive for your case?

You do not understand what you posted, or you wont ask
such question.

Now-

Which part of "never mind" is it that you do not understand?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Quite the contrary. If you are wrong, you are in the exact same boat that I am in.

You could die and find yourself face-to-face with Allah, or Thor or Zoroaster or any other of the thousands of gods human beings have worshiped throughout history.

Pascal's Wager is not a great argument.


How would that help answer the question? That question again, was how is your example of the guy dying and coming back evidence that there is an afterlife? And more specifically, how does it demonstrate the specific afterlife you personally believe in?

My grandfather died and came back from the dead as well. He said he saw nothing and experienced nothing when it happened. He said it was just like sleeping. So, do you think his experience is proof that there is no life after death?

Like I said, I've read these stories many times before, and they always turn out to be far less extraordinary than originally claimed.

My big worry is that I just cannot stop myself from
going about in public with my hair uncovered!!!

AND, if Islam and Allah turn out to be the real deal,
look what I have in store for (shameless) me!!!

https://www.google.com/search?q=isl..._AUIDigB&biw=729&bih=402#imgrc=YrC2xrzmeogTGM:
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
My big worry is that I just cannot stop myself from
going about in public with my hair uncovered!!!

AND, if Islam and Allah turn out to be the real deal,
look what I have in store for (shameless) me!!!

https://www.google.com/search?q=isl..._AUIDigB&biw=729&bih=402#imgrc=YrC2xrzmeogTGM:
I'm more concerned that I won't be able to pay the ferry man and I"ll end up having to wander the shores as a lonely ghost until I can come up with the money. Let's hope the ancient Greeks were wrong.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I'm more concerned that I won't be able to pay the ferry man and I"ll end up having to wander the shores as a lonely ghost until I can come up with the money. Let's hope the ancient Greeks were wrong.

This is so simple!!!

Just have your family burn a bunch of ghost money.

I've done it myself, at a funeral.

 

Rapture Era

Active Member
Several scientists have demonstrated that abiogenesis is at least a possibility, given that they were able to demonstrate that some of the key molecules of life (e.g. amino acids) could have been synthesized on earth under certain sets of conditions.
What is your resource for this statement?
Yep. Evolution is a fact of life. There is a demonstrable change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Ok, being you made that statement of "Fact",
Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
What is your resource for this statement?

Ok, being you made that statement of "Fact",
Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

Yes, gene duplication along with mutation to give another functioning gene with a different function. We know of many situations where this has happened.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Then why is personal testimony so powerful in court when evidence is obscure?
It isn't. It is recognized in court as the weakest form of evidence. It is only used as a last choice, not as a first one. Your post points that out. Reliable evidence has to be weak to even rely on personal testimony. And even by court standards the Bible fails. One has to rely on at least eyewitness testimony. None of the gospels are eyewitness testimony. Paul never saw Jesus. All that the Bible has would be qualified as hearsay in a court and be tossed out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rapture Era

Active Member
Why do you quote sources that you do not understand and pretend that you have proven something by doing so?
And as a creationist you should not make claims that you cannot support. When you claim "speculation" you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Since you do not understand the science there is no way that you can know whether their findings are speculation or not.
So you disagree with this text? No, wrong again:D The burden of proof is on you! You are making a claim that cannot be supported but you claim it can and still after all of this are inept at producing anything to validate what you keep saying:D What is your best argument for life spontaneously generating!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So you disagree with this text? No, wrong again:D The burden of proof is on you! You are making a claim that cannot be supported but you claim it can and still after all of this are inept at producing anything to validate what you keep saying:D What is your best argument for life spontaneously generating!
No, I understood the text. You clearly did not. It does not support your claims in any way at all.

This illustrates why you need to learn at the very least the basics of science. Would you like to discuss the nature of evidence? What is and what is not scientific evidence.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Please share this astonishing information.
This information is hardly astonishing. When you ask questions if you want an answer it helps if you answer properly. If you did not know about gene duplication you should have asked. One commonly observed mutation is that of gene duplication. That is when a long string of DNA is replicated giving two copies of a gene:

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

Before this was observed it was difficult to explain how a key gene could evolve without killing the host. Now we know that gene duplication is quite often the answer. One copy does the original work of the gene while the second is free to mutate. And by definition when the copy mutates that is "new information".
 

Rapture Era

Active Member
No, I understood the text. You clearly did not. It does not support your claims in any way at all.
This illustrates why you need to learn at the very least the basics of science. Would you like to discuss the nature of evidence? What is and what is not scientific evidence.
I want you to produce something, anything that supports your claim that abiogenesis is a fact? How many times do I need to ask you ?:rolleyes:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I said the comment was the height of stupidity, I've heard this one many times, you just happened to repeat it. If I wanted to say you were stupid, I would say it, but I didnt.;)

But it wasn't and your use of the phrase is pushing the rules here. Your beliefs could be more hated by the real "God" than mine are. That is a very real possibility. After all if you believe the creation myths because of the Bible you are in effect calling God a liar. I only lack a belief in God, you are trying to say that he lies to us. Don't you think that might make a being angrier than a mere lack of belief?

Where on earth did you get that from?o_O


You mean to tell me that you are not even a scholar of the Bible at all? None of the Gospels have a named author. They are all anonymous. There are no bylines anywhere. The author of Luke states that his gospel is not eyewitness testimony. He did not see any of the events. Mark, the first gospel is thought to have been written between 66 and 70 AD, more than a full generation after Jesus's death:

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I want you to produce something, anything that supports your claim that abiogenesis is a fact? How many times do I need to ask you ?:rolleyes:
I did not say that abiogenesis is a fact, but even the Bible states that it happened. Abiogenesis is simply life from non-life and the Bible myths say that "In the beginning" there was no life. I have stated time after time that scientific abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, but it is supported by evidence. There is no reliable evidence for your beliefs.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Please share this astonishing information.

Most globin genes are duplicates. Serine proteases are duplicates. Look at any 'family' of proteins and there is probably an investigation done in how they were produced via duplication from an ancestral gene.

This is standard material, by the way.
 
Top