-
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!
"Where Did Life Come From?" A 13 Minute Primer For Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Genesis has its own take on this.
"God commanded the seas to bring forth life."
Genesis says that life appeared on land first - ten years ago people would say
that was wrong but now there's a strong suspicion that life cannot develop in
salt water - it most probably emerged in fresh water, wet volcanic rocks or wet
clay.
Goodness...its "Where's Wally" impersonating a scientist.....!
What was that? Science for 7 year olds? It might convince a 7 year old....but adults might notice a repeat of some words in this video that kids probably wouldn't....its what turns science fact into science fiction. There is a great dependency on the words "could have" and "might have" all the way through this bit of nonsense.
God "might have" or "could have" created life too......there is just as much real evidence.
Nice try....
What was that? Science for 7 year olds? It might convince a 7 year old....but adults might notice a repeat of some words in this video that kids probably wouldn't....its what turns science fact into science fiction. There is a great dependency on the words "could have" and "might have" all the way through this bit of nonsense.
God "might have" or "could have" created life too......there is just as much real evidence.
Nice try....
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Goodness...its "Where's Wally" impersonating a scientist.....!
What was that? Science for 7 year olds? It might convince a 7 year old....but adults might notice a repeat of some words in this video that kids probably wouldn't....its what turns science fact into science fiction. There is a great dependency on the words "could have" and "might have" all the way through this bit of nonsense.
God "might have" or "could have" created life too......there is just as much real evidence.
Nice try....
One of many problems with the Urey Miller experiment is it assumes a reducing atmosphere.
There is no evidence that the earth ever had a reducing atmosphere according to NASA
However a primordial problem is that miller generated mostly poisonous materials and the chemicals made were not stable and also random handedness where life is highly left or right handed.
A rescue device is having life form of life formed in a slushy comet! Some evolutionists realized the hopelessness of the Urey Miller conclusion and gave that up in favor of life elsewhere. Some such as Crick even said life is so complex it was seeded by the aliens but can't answer the question where the aliens come from.
Not to mention entropy. Information cannot arise spontaneously. Information runs down but with a creator 'in the beginning was information' Creation explains that.
Last edited:
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Isn't it interesting, the same people who scream about separation of church and state like to fund PBS to push religious evolutionary ideas on kids. And that without a balancing rebuttal. Imagine my surprise.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Creationists often complain when scientists use peer terminology and then complain again when others point out how ignorant that is. And if scientists treat something as well proven as gravity as a fact they tend to have a cow.Goodness...its "Where's Wally" impersonating a scientist.....!
What was that? Science for 7 year olds? It might convince a 7 year old....but adults might notice a repeat of some words in this video that kids probably wouldn't....its what turns science fact into science fiction. There is a great dependency on the words "could have" and "might have" all the way through this bit of nonsense.
God "might have" or "could have" created life too......there is just as much real evidence.
Nice try....
There is no pleasing the terminally wrong.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
PBS version of elvutionary propaganda?
But it's out of date since the earth never had a reducing atmosphere as assumed by Urey Miller (and Star Trek)
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/earths-early-atmosphere-an-update/
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nothing religious in the video. The problem for you is that there is no "balancing rebuttal". Creation "scientists" tend to be too cowardly to form a rebuttal .
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nothing religious in the video. The problem for you is that there is no "balancing rebuttal". Creation "scientists" tend to be too cowardly to form a rebuttal .
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
It's deeply religious and in fact out of date as most scientists abandoned the reducing atmosphere of early earth view
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/earths-early-atmosphere-an-update/
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wrong on several points. Yes, the original experiment assumed an extremely reducing atmosphere. But by the time life arose it was probably less reducing. One similar to the bases that we observe from volcanoes today. Miller-Urey was probably in error for that. So guess what scientists did? They reran the experiment and it still produced amino acids.
And no, the creation myth explains nothing and has been refuted.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And that article supports what I just posted. Less reducing than the atmosphere used by Miller-Urey.
Also, not religious. Tell me, what does your religion say about bearing false witness against others?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And that article supports what I just posted. Less reducing than the atmosphere used by Miller-Urey.
Also, not religious. Tell me, what does your religion say about bearing false witness against others?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You really should ask for help when it comes to understanding scientific articles.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Don't know what "religious evolutionary ideas" are, but perhaps they realize that the only known rebuttal is that of creationist whose contentions are grounded in faith and not science, and because the program is centered on science, faith doesn't bring any balance whatsoever to the issue. If you want to box in the boxing tournament you don't bring track shoes to the contest.
.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
It's pretty satisfying to me that now, creationists have generally retreated to arguing about the origin of the universe and origin of life, and not much else. That's quite a bit of progress from when I first started in these debates.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Gotta love it.....when Deeje comes across science material for laypeople she waves it away as too simplistic and childish, and when she comes across science material for professionals she waves it away too technical and laden with "technobabble" (and accuses the scientists of using jargon to deliberately confuse the public).Goodness...its "Where's Wally" impersonating a scientist.....!
What was that? Science for 7 year olds? It might convince a 7 year old....
Gee, it's almost like she just looks for any excuse she can think of to make inconvenient information go away. Now why would Deeje do that?
Skwim
Veteran Member
'Tis indeed.It's pretty satisfying to me that now, creationists have generally retreated to arguing about the origin of the universe and origin of life, and not much else. That's quite a bit of progress from when I first started in these debates.
.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Er....um.....what?