FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
.
You mean fail to memorize it
You mean fail to memorize it
-
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!
If Theory of Darwin is fact, not theory, then Darwin Theory is wrong in its title already?
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
No, I mean what I said.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
In simplest terms. One observes. Draws a conclusion. Forms a testable hypothesis and then tries to refute it.
And that is a very poor argument. It would only prove your version of God to be false. It would not prove all versions of God to be wrong. The fact that life is the product of evolution does not refute the existence of God. It only refutes mistaken versions of God.
There is not that much difference between a Flat Earth believer and a creationist. How would you react if a Flat Earther said "Prove that the Earth is and Globe and God will be proven to be false."?
The creation myth uses spoken spells, magic.
There is no scientific evidence for 'design'. Creationists cannot even properly define it.
What? Okay I think that English may not be your first language since that does not seem to make any sense at all.
gnostic
The Lost One
People create babies all the time, since the dawn of the man (Homo sapiens).
It is called “reproduction”, “pregnancy” and “childbirth”, dummy.
And it is not just humans. All mammals used the same process, we are not fishes, reptiles or birds, where eggs are laid, and offspring being born outside of the wombs.
And you cannot make babies out of nothing.
Where do get such stupid strawman idea that science should be able to make babies from nothing with with no cells (eg no eggs, no sperms)?
Only creationists like yourself will try to give science impossible task, of making babies in factories with no cells to work with. That’s not going to happen.
All humans and all mammals naturally required sperms and eggs, to join and form and to develop embryonic fetus in the wombs, and with humans (ignoring other mammals for now) the gestational period can last on average 9 months, before the baby (or babies, eg twins, triplet, etc) is born.
All that occur, naturally.
But sometimes reproducing by natural means, through sex, won’t result in pregnancy of woman, and medical science have developed several mean for any couple to have babies, such as different ways of artificial insemination, eg IVF, IUI, egg donor or sperm donor.
Sometimes, a woman might not be able to carry out the pregnancy to full term, for some medical reasons, so her egg is planted in another woman’s womb, eg surrogate mother.
All of these are demonstrable evidence that people can have babies, when the normal and natural processes don’t work.
And all of these examples, still required two living cells, to combine to produce a baby in the end.
And none of these processes, whether by natural means (conception/pregnancy/birth) or artificial means (eg IVF), required magic involvements or god’s involvement or the stork.
You have been asking for the impossible, to create babies without any cell at all. That’s not going to happen.
You are just being ignorant and dishonest.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Address one point at a time and you will not have to reply to everyone. In an online debate it is an error to use a Gish Gallop. One will be buried by the responses. Instead try to make one clear point at a time.
Assertions w/o references....
Shad
Veteran Member
You are changing you statement and standard after the fact. Ad hoc rescue. Besides synthetic life has been created.
You won't follow your own logic. Typical...
What irrational, shallow reasoning is manifested by your response! It does not follow the same reasoning, lol. (You didn’t deny that intelligence was/is the source, as represented by those scientists who [might] create life.)
So before humans...Where’d it come from?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Why not? As I understand it, your reasoning is that if humans create life, we can conclude that "intelligence is required for life to emerge". Correct?
Please try to understand that adopting someone else's reasoning to make a point doesn't mean I agree with that reasoning.
“Enough intelligence....was sufficient”?
Please! And this Intelligence before life began, existed how, exactly?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You asked a very general question. No references needed. It was an explanation. If you want specifics ask a specific question.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Holy cow HC, it was your claim. He was showing how you need to find a way to show evidence for your "intelligence".
gnostic
The Lost One
If you were a Christian that follow the Bible, then magic is involved if god can turn dust into living adult man.
If you were a Muslim or Baha’i who followed the Qur’an, then magic is involved if you believe that Allah can create a living adult man from clay.
It is not naturally possible for either dust or clay to magically turn into a living adult man, like Adam in Genesis or in the Qur’an.
You do believe in magic, if you believe in either scriptures or both of them.
Christians, especially literal Christians, also believed in angels and demons, as well as talking serpent and donkey. Muslims believed in angels and jinns, as well as King Solomon being able to understand languages of birds and even ants.
All of these required belief in the supernatural, which all of these stories are myths.
There is even a myth of Muhammad in one of the Hadiths, where he travelled to Jerusalem in a single night (which would mean he would have to travel over 1400 km), as well as visiting the 7 heavens riding on flying steed (horse). This is clearly a myth that Muslims have rip-off from the story of Enoch visiting the heavenly realms (source: 2 Enoch).
The Qur’an (al-Isra) does allude to the Night Journey, but left out part about riding a flying steed.
Obvious, whether you rely on the Quran or some Hadiths, this journey is nothing more than a made-up myth.
God wants us to be many.
gnostic
The Lost One
Now, you are being utterly absurd.
Man using science, trying to understand nature, to understand the universe, it doesn’t mean man himself is planning, designing or creating the universe.
And when man trying to learn about the stone, trying to understand the composition and properties, doesn’t mean he is designing and creating a stone.
You are conflating what man can Design and create with what god can Design and create.
For one thing, man is real living being. He may have certain abilities to design and create, but none his abilities involved magic or miracles.
For another, god is not real living being, he made up by man’s imagination, meaning god or gods are mythological. That you think and believe this imaginary god of your can create life, create Earth or create the universe, you have no evidence for this god’s existence, let alone creating anything.
The differences between god and man, is man is real, god isn’t real, and what you believe that god can do, is based on ignorant superstition belief.
Not the point. Do you understand the difference between a necessity and sufficiency in logic?
If p==>q,
we say that p is sufficient for q and that q is necessary for p.
So, if intelligence is sufficient for life, we have
intelligence ===> life
as a conclusion.
But, what you want is to go from the known existence of life to the conclusion that am intelligence is involved. In other words, you want to go
life ===> intelligence
which is to say that intelligence is necessary for life.
What you provided is (potentially) sufficiency, but your argument requires necessity.
Yep!
Prior to the beginning of physical life (in the universe), where & how would this intelligence exist?
Really though, what you might label as ‘supernatural intelligence’,
I would call natural...just by some means that are not completely understood currently. Ex.: humans have detected what they term “dark matter”, which apparently comprises over 60% of the known universe....it may have much to do w/ invisible life existing.
With how little we understand, it’s quite arrogant for biologists IMO, to discount that there’s an intelligent source behind the complex information neededo for life & matter, especially when empirical science constantly reveals intelligence as the source for functionality and complex information discovered in other fields!
Explain to me the evolutionary pathways selected by natural mechanisms that would build something as simple as the bacterial flagellum....and you’ll begin to break down my POV that much of Evolution is based on the fantastical.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
That's true! I forgot about that myself.
Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'
gnostic
The Lost One
Wow, you really still don’t get it.
If you are going to claim there is “intelligent source” being either the Designer, Creator or God, then you will need EVIDENCE to demonstrably show that such agent of creation of life exist.
Without evidence for the Designer or Creator, then what you claim that intelligence being the source of first life is nothing more than silly old fashion superstition.
You are asking for biologists to accept Intelligent Designer by default, without any evidence whatsoever for the Designer’s existence. That the arrogance of creationists, because you want biologists to accept your bogus claims about “intelligent sources”.
Ok, I’ll bite. I am not a biologist, but you said there are evidences for “intelligent source” behind the creation of life, so please present to us, these imaginary scientific papers, scientific evidence and scientific data, right here, right now, that Designer unequivocally exist.
Even Michael Behe, who is smarter than you, have qualification in biochemistry and teach at university, wrote paper on Irreducible Complexity, and wrote book titled Darwin’s Black Box, have never presented any scientific evidence and data for Irreducible Complexity and for Intelligent Design, AND YET you seems to have these evidence and data that Behe have not.
So present them, Hockeycowboy.
Last edited: