The creator did it.

[Subduction Zone]

What denial of reality?

If you deny the sciences and believe a book of myths you are denying reality. What you should be asking is how scientists know what they know.

 

[Misunderstood]

The way that scientists are studying abiogenesis is to see if they can cause reactions that would be replicated in nature. It would be pointless to create life in a way that could only be done in the lab. In fact I do believe that they have already done that.

As to your definition now that you have that now you need to find evidence for it. And to do that you would need to come up with a testable hypothesis, a test that would show your idea to be wrong if it failed. Creationists tend to be afraid to take that step, which is why there is no evidence for their claims, there is only hand waving at best.

I was not aware that they had created life in a lab yet. I did know they can make synthetic DNA and RNA and insert into a viable cell. Not that I doubt that it did happen, as I feel it may someday be possible.

But that gets to my point, even if abiogenesis can be replicated, it still cannot rule out ID as completely false; in fact I feel it strengthens it.

If abiogenesis is proven possible even in a natural environment. Does that rule out life everywhere else, that it was only possible here on earth? Since it is proven possible here does that not also say it could happen elsewhere if the conditions are right?

So lets assume life started elsewhere long before life began here, and became a much more advanced life form than we have here. That advanced life form came here and seeded life on our planet. Wouldn't science support a hypothesis such as this if we are able to synthesize life, couldn't another life form be able to do it also?

 

[Etritonakin]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

Some believe "God" is "unknowable" -an unsolvable mystery -but an inherently-unknowable God is an impossible God.
For believers in biblical scripture, that is not even what the God of the bible is quoted as saying.
God may keep one from knowing this or that because God is able -but that is not the same as saying there is nothing to be known.

Perhaps the most difficult thing for a believer in an eternal creator to accept is that the eternal creator could not have decided to exist or have created itself.
OUR creator -not ITS OWN creator -at least not INITIALLY -but creating itself as increasingly able.
An eternal God could not have created itself or decided to create itself.

I AM THAT AM.
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was not aware that they had created life in a lab yet. I did know they can make synthetic DNA and RNA and insert into a viable cell. Not that I doubt that it did happen, as I feel it may someday be possible.

But that gets to my point, even if abiogenesis can be replicated, it still cannot rule out ID as completely false; in fact I feel it strengthens it.

If abiogenesis is proven possible even in a natural environment. Does that rule out life everywhere else, that it was only possible here on earth? Since it is proven possible here does that not also say it could happen elsewhere if the conditions are right?

So lets assume life started elsewhere long before life began here, and became a much more advanced life form than we have here. That advanced life form came here and seeded life on our planet. Wouldn't science support a hypothesis such as this if we are able to synthesize life, couldn't another life form be able to do it also?

That is true. Showing that life could have arisen naturally does not rule out magic. Or even"ID". The problem is that there is no evidence for ID.

And no, science would not support your hypothesis since it is not a hypothesis. What reasonable test would show it to be wrong? If you can't answer that question then your idea is worse than being wrong in the sciences, it falls into the category of "not even wrong". You see when scientists find out that they are wrong they can learn from that. Your idea does not even present that possibility.

 

[Misunderstood]

That is true. Showing that life could have arisen naturally does not rule out magic. Or even"ID". The problem is that there is no evidence for ID.

And no, science would not support your hypothesis since it is not a hypothesis. What reasonable test would show it to be wrong? If you can't answer that question then your idea is worse than being wrong in the sciences, it falls into the category of "not even wrong". You see when scientists find out that they are wrong they can learn from that. Your idea does not even present that possibility.

Now your not going to give me an easy one like that.

After life is synthesized we should get an idea of the requirements that would be needed for life to begin. When that happens, science will need to provide a theory that earth was able to provide those requirements, if they cannot, they will need to consider, if life did not originate elsewhere.

That would be one way to prove my hypothesis either possibly right or wrong.

 

[He has Risen!]

So lets assume life started elsewhere long before life began here, and became a much more advanced life form than we have here. That advanced life form came here and seeded life on our planet. Wouldn't science support a hypothesis such as this if we are able to synthesize life, couldn't another life form be able to do it also?

Great point. Time is an essential element in the evolutionary theory, there is not enough time for life to have evolved here on earth. That is just one of many hurdles that many evolutionist gloss over or are simply unaware of. But you said "Let's assume life started elsewhere", the statistical probabilities are not there for life to begin even one time in the universe, much less 2 times or more. Many conditions need to be met such as we have here on earth for biological life to exist. I heard it put this way "If evolution has happened, it is a very great miracle by which only God can do." I hope that we keep looking for life elsewhere in the universe, I hope science keeps an open mind to other theories such as ID. But that may be just wishful thinking on my part.

Earth May Be a 1-in-700-Quintillion Kind of Place - D-brief

 

[He has Risen!]

Now your not going to give me an easy one like that.

After life is synthesized we should get an idea of the requirements that would be needed for life to begin. When that happens, science will need to provide a theory that earth was able to provide those requirements, if they cannot, they will need to consider, if life did not originate elsewhere.

That would be one way to prove my hypothesis either possibly right or wrong.

That is right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now your not going to give me an easy one like that.

After life is synthesized we should get an idea of the requirements that would be needed for life to begin. When that happens, science will need to provide a theory that earth was able to provide those requirements, if they cannot, they will need to consider, if life did not originate elsewhere.

That would be one way to prove my hypothesis either possibly right or wrong.

Sorry, your "test" is so vague it fails. You just put yourself in the Not Even Wrong group.

 

[He has Risen!]

HhR, you need to realize that these people are not interested in what you have to say. No matter what you say, they will try to deny it's truth or try to rabbit trail you with "what about this and what about that" kind of stuff. They say they want evidence and when you give it to them, they tell isn't evidence and you go round and round. This is how they operate. When I came into this thread, and to this very post, my question of "where did the information in the cells come from" is still not answered. Why? Because there is no evolutionary process, meaning primordial soup to man. It doesn't
exist, and it never did. They gag every time this subject comes up. You can tell by the way they attack or insult or try and get you off the subject to escape the question. It's kind of funny in a way and sad at the same time. Anyway, I wont be surprised if any of them actually view the video I sent you and come back with some kind of insult. It's part of their makeup to elevate themselves to a higher and to a more "Intellectual" status. When people are generally interested in learning something, they behave in a certain manner. When they are not interested, they behave in a certain manner. It's easy to pick up on.
They have no absolute standard when it comes to the question, "What is life?" So the listen to professors, intellectuals with PhD's who give this kind of answer;
Life's Great Mystery: What, Exactly, Is Life?
"We don't have a very good definition of life," said researcher Christopher Voigt of the University of California, San Francisco, who works on synthetic biology. "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at what point we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, it just becomes way too murky." So therefore, you'll get answers from his fans that mirror his thoughts like the rainbow of colors above. Now Chris Voigt is a really smart guy! But when you have lost your absolute standard concerning this subject of life, you'll get goofy answers like this...........Life's Great Mystery: What, Exactly, Is Life? "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at what point we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, it just becomes way too murky." That's it? And we are criticized by those who say "Creationists tend to be afraid to take that step, which is why there is no evidence for their claims, there is only hand waving at best." You see, this is what I'm talking about, this makes no sense whatsoever!

Boy O boy Rapture Man, you sure call them as you see them. The same thing is being done to "Misunderstood" that was done to me, yet they don't see it. Oh well...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Boy, you sure call them as you see them. The same thing is being done to "Misunderstood" that was done to me, yet they don't see it. Oh well...

The same offer goes to you. I will clearly answer any properly asked question. If you screw up a bit I will stop try to answer it, with a slight correction. There is no reliable evidence for your beliefs. There are mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution.

 

[Misunderstood]

Sorry, your "test" is so vague it fails. You just put yourself in the Not Even Wrong group.

OK, you win with your witty comment.

I see there is not much to respond to here as I guess I seem to be so unenlightened that what I say is nothing as I am not even able to make a comment that is even wrong or worthy of your consideration. Anyway I do not want to go down that road so I am going to bow out.

I will come back and make a follow up summary tomorrow of the point I was trying to get to.

Thank you for your time and have a good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, you win with your witty comment.

I see there is not much to respond to here as I guess I seem to be so unenlightened that what I say is nothing as I am not even able to make a comment that is even wrong or worthy of your consideration. Anyway I do not want to go down that road so I am going to bow out.

I will come back and make a follow up summary tomorrow of the point I was trying to get to.

Thank you for your time and have a good night.

It is not that hard of a lesson. Understanding the scientific method and the concept of evidence would improve your debating technique. You would be able to understand which arguments to avoid and how to support your own claims.

 

[He has Risen!]

OK, you win with your witty comment.

I see there is not much to respond to here as I guess I seem to be so unenlightened that what I say is nothing as I am not even able to make a comment that is even wrong or worthy of your consideration. Anyway I do not want to go down that road so I am going to bow out.

I will come back and make a follow up summary tomorrow of the point I was trying to get to.

Thank you for your time and have a good night.

Thanks for trying...but it is rather trying after a while.
Now I know how Jesus must have felt when He said "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."
Goodnight

 

[ecco]

I am going to address you instead of "ecco" who does not acknowledge my posts or rather the information they contain.

Actually, I did acknowledge your post.

ecco post #269

That is a link to a very long Wikipedia entry. Do you expect me to read through it all to find support for your argument? How does something like...

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378 – 444) was the Bishop of Alexandria when the city was at its height of influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christological controversies of the late 4th and early 5th centuries. He was a central figure in the First Council of Ephesus in 431, which led to the deposition of Nestorius as Archbishop of Constantinople. Cyril's reputation within the Christian world has resulted in his titles "Pillar of Faith" and "Seal of all the Fathers".​

...support your position?

If you want to use Wikipedia to support your argument - OK. But you have to be a lot more specific than just posting a link.

So you see, I did read your post and I did look at the article you linked to and I pointed out that there is
nothing in the link that supported your argument. Furthermore, I quoted from the article you linked and asked you a question about it.

So, your comment ...

I am going to address you instead of "ecco" who does not acknowledge my posts or rather the information they contain.​

...is (how do say this delicately?) erroneous.

Let's recap, step by step...

• I stated there were no reliable references outside the Bible for the existence of Jesus
• You stated there were many
• I asked you to show some
• You linked to a big Wikipedia article that allegedly supported your argument
• I read through the article
• I found nothing to support your argument
• I responded to you showing I did follow your link
• I responded to you stating I did read the article
• I responded to you stating that there was nothing in the article to support your argument

It's very clear why you would rather have a discussion with a fellow Bible believer than with me. That's OK. But that's not a valid reason to intentionally make "erroneous" comments about me.

 

[Rapture Era]

@Rapture Era , what exactly would you like to know? You goofed up a bit using the quote function.

No, actually I did that on purpose to easily ask questions to your statements.

 

[Rapture Era]

Answer my two questions on the post you think I goofed up, you can take them one at a time at your request.

 

[ecco]

Christopher Hitchens disavowed everything when challenged. When presented with the fact that there was more historical evidence of Jesus than Socrates he responded " I don't believe in Socrates.

Source?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, actually I did that on purpose to easily ask questions to your statements.

You still goofed up since the quote function did not work when I quoted it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Answer my two questions on the post you think I goofed up, you can take them one at a time at your request.

please ask them again.

 

[Rapture Era]

Boy O boy Rapture Man, you sure call them as you see them. The same thing is being done to "Misunderstood" that was done to me, yet they don't see it. Oh well...

The part of the video that pertains to this thread is found on the timeline from 39.15 to 49.15 minutes. Like I said, it's easy to pick up!