shmogie
Well-Known Member
So does abiogenesisNo. As it stands, in regards to earth, the question remains unanswered.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So does abiogenesisNo. As it stands, in regards to earth, the question remains unanswered.
You are asking too much.
They have no facts on their side.
To be an informed and intellectually honest
creationist is simply impossible.
Who determines what is meaningless ? I do agree with your last sentence though.It’s all too hilarious. Wasting portions of 25 years of life for something that is meaningless, outside of perhaps the need to win absolutely nothing, the need for pats on the back from the choir, the need to call others pathetic and tell others to grow up. Consciously or unconsciously knowing that all of his needs to feel and do all of that wouldn’t even occur without opposition. All of the intellectual dishonesty going into every argument for 25 years ~ already knowing not a single thing will satisfy, already knowing that every “creationist” evolved to be a “creationist” due to their biological genes, racial memory, determinism, etc. It’s just 25 years of hypocritical, intellectually dishonest meaninglessness.
Who determines what is meaningless ? I do agree with your last sentence though.
I'm not sure what you mean, as its not known if life on earth had a biogenesis or abiogenesis.So does abiogenesis
There is (surprise, surprise) a classic creationist error in your third sentence. Everything in science is a theory. Evolution is a theory in just the same way as quantum theory or the theory of plate tectonics, or the kinetic theory of gases.Well how disturbing is this? Let me ask a few questions. If science has the answer for the theory of evolution why is it still a theory and why does science still exist? What I see that is ironic here is that the majority of Nobel prize winning scientists are christian while it seems to be those who follow the religion of athiesm and agnosticism try to use the theories behind science as a crutch to try prove that there is no God. Can science prove or not prove that there is a God? There is not one shred of data anywhere that has proved that there is no God. If so than why pretend that there is? From what I can read here the great pretenders are the ones supporting the OP of this very thread. To think otherwise is not to be very well informed.
It’s all too hilarious. Wasting portions of 25 years of life for something that is meaningless, outside of perhaps the need to win absolutely nothing, the need for pats on the back from the choir, the need to call others pathetic and tell others to grow up. Consciously or unconsciously knowing that all of his needs to feel and do all of that wouldn’t even occur without opposition. All of the intellectual dishonesty going into every argument for 25 years ~ already knowing not a single thing will satisfy, already knowing that every “creationist” evolved to be a “creationist” due to their biological genes, racial memory, determinism, etc. It’s just 25 years of hypocritical, intellectually dishonest meaninglessness.
Dismissing or trivializing scientific explanation as "just" a theory is popular along with demonizing and mischaracterizing people supporting science by referring to them as evolutionists/Darwinists.That's achieved with things such as "just a theory" and "evolutionist/Darwinist." They would never do anything to try to conflate scientific biogenesis with Creationism. At least when I was a Christian, "creation science" did refer to Creationism. Using it in place of biogenesis seems to be a newer thing. And you have to remember, about the only science they do universally reject is anything pertaining to evolution. They have no problem accepting germs, and most likely won't challenge the idea of micro-evolution when it comes to bacteria becoming treatment-resistant, but when you start to mention a bacteria sharing common ancestry with this or that, they tend to shut down and the misconceptions and misinformation take hold.
Does someone else want to field this and address all these erroneous notions? I tried asking questions to help him clarify this and all I got was evasion, twisting and religious persecution.Well how disturbing is this? Let me ask a few questions. If science has the answer for the theory of evolution why is it still a theory and why does science still exist? What I see that is ironic here is that the majority of Nobel prize winning scientists are christian while it seems to be those who follow the religion of athiesm and agnosticism try to use the theories behind science as a crutch to try prove that there is no God. Can science prove or not prove that there is a God? There is not one shred of data anywhere that has proved that there is no God. If so than why pretend that there is? From what I can read here the great pretenders are the ones supporting the OP of this very thread. To think otherwise is not to be very well informed.
The only thing that can be said about the origin of life is that we do not know what it is. That it is currently unknown in science does is not an opening for any default belief to fill the gap and claim to be the correct answer without evidence.L
LOL. A creationist needs two understand only two things about the sciences of origins.
1) In essence, science knows virtually nothing about the origin of the universe.
2) Even less is known about abiogenesis, it is a ¨had to have occurred¨ position, thus is covered by sheets of hyperbolic propaganda. It ain´t so.
As to the intense discussions, I rely on a friend, a full professor of microbiology with over a hundred peer reviewed articles and papers, a creationist, or the writings of other scientists who are creationists, and they are many.
That is what I believe some of them have done. They did not seek credible sources, but found people just like themselves, but reporting on science as if they understood it and were offering valid review of the work when neither was correct.It's perfectly possible they have studied evolution for decades but only from a creationist viewpoint. In other words, they may well have poured countless hours into reading and listening to the views of people who either don't understand evolution or else twist the research and data behind it to suit their own agenda. It's quite well documented that the longer a person spends on a mistake, the less likely they are to give up on it.
That said, on the internet it's usually best to take a person's stated qualifications with a grain of salt.
That may only mean that they are not very good Christians. Being Christian is not a panacea against ignorance, bias, or bad acts. The default position of a Christian is not perfection.That's right up there with all of the other supposed Christian things I see. There are a few good Christians but many people who claim to be Christians are not. They don't follow Jesus at all. Jesus said to be meek and humble.They are not. Jesus said to be loving toward others. They are not. Jesus said not to store up treasures on earth. They are greedy and selfish. And on and on. When you encounter these people, you should understand that they are most likely control freaks, not Christians. They are not even worth talking to. They are completely fake and, yes, probably do not know what they are talking about because they don't even know the Bible to be able to quote from it. They just listen to other fakes and quote them.
There is (surprise, surprise) a classic creationist error in your third sentence. Everything in science is a theory. Evolution is a theory in just the same way as quantum theory or the theory of plate tectonics, or the kinetic theory of gases.
In science, a "theory" does not mean just a "hunch" or "guess", as some people use the term in popular speech. A scientific theory is a model of some aspect of the physical world, that enables us to fit observations into a pattern and predict what further observations should be expected.
As for God, science has no opinion whatsoever about God, one way or the other. Science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. This way of proceeding is called "methodological naturalism" and you can look it up on the internet if you want to understand more about what it is, and what it is not.
Whether you are a religious believer or not has no bearing on what science you can do, as in fact your pie chart seems to illustrate.
All that being said, creationism, which is what the OP is about, is not scientific for the simple reason that it (i) does not follow the scientific method and (ii) offers no predictive model based on observation. It is purely a religious belief.
I see that you have already been made fun of with a pointless argument about the effort you have expended in defense of reason is wasted. Oh, the names for you did fly. Hypocrite. Intellectually dishonest. Meaningless.I have been involved in the creation/evolution 'debate' online in one way or another for about 25 years or so.
One commonality among every single creationist I can ever recall encountering is an overblown, evidence-less sense of their own superior knowledge of the science. And this includes the 'professional' creationists (who may act the way they do for money or 'glory', hard to tell).
The very first creationist I ever encountered - on a now defunct listserv - asked me for a list of phylogenetic studies using nuclear DNA. I provided a list. He then attacked me for not 'explaining them all' to him. When I reminded him that he had merely asked for a list, not an explanation, he again attacked me, saying that a REAL scientist like Feynman would have explained it all, that the list actually supported creation, blah blah blah. In the end, I realized that he simply didn't understand the list I had presented, despite claiming to be a student and to have been involved in the 'debate for years.
Little has changed since then. On this very forum, there are creationists that insist up, down, left, and right that they have vast scientific knowledge, that that have "studied" evolution for decades, that they are 'science geeks', etc.
And then, they write things like this:
"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes
"But if there is no genetic proof of descendancy, it is mere speculation to suggest it happened. How? What mechanism overcame the high genetic walls? It cannot happen, it did not happen, & it will not happen, with what we know of genetic science. Unless a force or mechanism can be defined & demonstrated, the leaps between genome pairs & genetic parameters is impossible. It is a myth based on children's drawings trying to indoctrinate naturalistic origins."
"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."
"Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc."
And this gem:
"Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself."
Amazing...
And they apply laughably obvious double standards, embracing scientific studies that they have misinterpreted as being supportive of their claims, while dismissing studies using the same types of data and analyses if they do not....
etc., etc., etc.
Who do these folks think they are fooling? A freshman/sophomore biology major can see all the laughable errors in those claims, yet here we are, with adults claiming decades of study making these kinds of laughably wrong, totally wrong, claims, all the while insisting that their position/interpretation is correct..
Look, if you want to believe in your religious tales, go for it!
But DO NOT pretend to understand things you do not, because you not only make yourself look foolish, you make it your religion look like its existence hinges on it's adherents lying about it!!!
Grow up! Be a man (or woman)!
How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratchYour post does not respond to what you are quoting from. All I have read from the posts in this thread so far are people making claims to seek to justify the concepts of evolution that do not actually prove evolution. Science in itself is constantly evolving for this reason what we may find as evidence and proof today within science can be proven false tommorrow. Even within science itself there are many conflicting evidences for the questions and hypothesis that have been promoted that scientists argue between themselves as being true or not true through experimentation.
Our current scientific understanding of genetics alone does not disprove creation and our understanding of genetics without the context of all living and physical sciences collectively as an integrated whole (the big picture as a whole) needs to be understood and weaved into this whole discussion. Most scientists are specialists in speicfic scientific disciplines. Now who has the big picture and understands the origin of life? No one in this thread so far from what I have read has put up a single bit of evidence that supports the theory of evolution and the origin of life. That is why it remains to be a theory as it is unproven and provides no evidence to support or define the origin of life.
If we were to ever come to an understanding through science of the origin of life we will be able to demonstrate and replicate life. At the moment it is all unproven theory as no one has been able to create life in science.
Where did you get the idea that there was an effort in science to establish proofs?Your post does not respond to what you are quoting from. All I have read from the posts in this thread so far are people making claims to seek to justify the concepts of evolution that do not actually prove evolution. Science in itself is constantly evolving for this reason what we may find as evidence and proof today within science can be proven false tommorrow. Even within science itself there are many conflicting evidences for the questions and hypothesis that have been promoted that scientists argue between themselves as being true or not true through experimentation.
Our current scientific understanding of genetics alone does not disprove creation and our understanding of genetics without the context of all living and physical sciences collectively as an integrated whole (the big picture as a whole) needs to be understood and weaved into this whole discussion. Most scientists are specialists in speicfic scientific disciplines. Now who has the big picture and understands the origin of life? No one in this thread so far from what I have read has put up a single bit of evidence that supports the theory of evolution and the origin of life. That is why it remains to be a theory as it is unproven and provides no evidence to support or define the origin of life.
If we were to ever come to an understanding through science of the origin of life we will be able to demonstrate and replicate life. At the moment it is all unproven theory.
Perhaps it was all projection and does not require a response.I am afraid you are just too wonderful for me to
even risk reading your entire post, I may sully
it with my imperfect appreciation.
Did you read the article your linked? You did not did you. This is not life.How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratch
Every decade science is getting closer closer to answering the fundamentals. I suspect it won't be long.
I believe if you read his post, you will find the words life-like and getting closer, not life and know the answer.Did you read the article your linked? You did not did you. This is not life.