|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: For ToErs Eyes Only | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
NO look! the "dunno" philosophy is not the absolute base of my faith. Im just showing you how a cell being formed by chance is as impossible as randomly throwing letters on a paper to form a beautiful poem by "Chance". Well since no one suggests a cell formed by chance or was the form of first life there is no disagreement there. I suggest you learn about these things before engaging mouth gears.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chronos Member (Idle past 6255 days) Posts: 102 From: Macomb, Mi, USA Joined: |
Im just showing you how a cell being formed by chance is as impossible as randomly throwing letters on a paper to form a beautiful poem by "Chance". Actually, you didn't show that at all. Simply saying something doesn't make it true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mr_matrix Inactive Member |
Well...expalin to me how can a cell be formed by chance since you "know" more than me as you think!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mr_matrix Inactive Member |
Look! a cell being formed by chance is like the basic belief of an athiest evolutionist. If you say that no one suggested that a cell can be formed by chance than what is your belief about the emergance of the first cell? Are you willing to believe in chance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mr_matrix Inactive Member |
Each time I engage in a talk with evolutionists they start to talk about natural selection and speciation. But they fail to explain how it all started. Now, almost everyone realizes that believing in a cell emerging by chance is not in agreement with logic. Here I'd like to talk about abiogenesis. Posting essays about evolution of populations is not enough to prove evolution. Most important is to show how it all started. Otherwise evolution will fail to reach its sole purpose: The Denial of God!
By the way, just like how any machine needs an intellegent dsigner, so is the cell needs an even more intelligent designer. Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Belfry Member (Idle past 5116 days) Posts: 177 From: Ocala, FL Joined: |
mr_matrix writes:
No, it isn't. That's a straw man, I don't know where you got it from. Additionally, not all (likely not even most) evolutionists are atheists, if that's what you're saying.
Look! a cell being formed by chance is like the basic belief of an athiest evolutionist. mr_matrix writes:
We don't yet know how the first cell emerged. We probably never know for certain, although plausible theories using observable mechanisms have been proposed. It is likely that the first self-replicating "life" was far simpler than the simplest cells existing today. No matter, abiogenesis is a different topic than evolution (and that's why we have a separate Origin of Life forum here); regardless of how the first self-replicators emerged (or were created, for that matter), evolution is concerned with what happened (and continues to happen) after that. If you say that no one suggested that a cell can be formed by chance than what is your belief about the emergance of the first cell? I repeat, evolutionary theory does not rest on a foundation of abiogenesis. Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Belfry Member (Idle past 5116 days) Posts: 177 From: Ocala, FL Joined: |
mr.matrix writes:
Fortunately, evolutionary biology has no such purpose, so no worries. Otherwise evolution will fail to reach its sole purpose: The Denial of God! You might be happier talking to the folks over at the Internet Infidels forum (which is specifically for and about atheists). However, even they will inform you that evolutionary biology is not about atheism, nor about abiogenesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mr_matrix Inactive Member |
Ok then no need for me to further post. As long as you have no clue about the origin of life than I dont care about populations' evolution (although we dont know for sure if it exists, other than natural selection).
AS long as evolutionist fail to explain how evolution can account for the begining (not evolution) of life, then athiests failed to deny God. [It is likely that the first self-replicating "life" was far simpler than the simplest cells existing today.]---> Your saying maybe here, well maybe not, what if it was not simple. The layer of the first unicellular organisms clearly show their complexity that is just like modern day cells. YOur quote above is an example of how evolutionists create imaginary scenarios to satisfy their lack of evidence regarding the origin of life. Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: But you did learnt that Einstein did not believe in a personal god and thus it wasn't a total waste of your time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Belfry Member (Idle past 5116 days) Posts: 177 From: Ocala, FL Joined: |
mr.matrix writes:
Yes, we do. We have many observed instances of speciation, and mutation with natural selection is commonly observed in existing populations.
I dont care about populations' evolution (although we dont know for sure if it exists, other than natural selection). mr.matrix writes:
Abiogenesis has little to no bearing on whether or not atheists deny the existence of gods.
AS long as evolutionist fail to explain how evolution can account for the begining (not evolution) of life, then athiests failed to deny God. mr.matrix writes:
The "imaginary scenario" is called a hypothesis. Scientists are not disturbed by the fact that we don't know everything.
[It is likely that the first self-replicating "life" was far simpler than the simplest cells existing today.]---> Your saying maybe here, well maybe not, what if it was not simple. The layer of the first unicellular organisms clearly show their complexity that is just like modern day cells. YOur quote above is an example of how evolutionists create imaginary scenarios to satisfy their lack of evidence regarding the origin of life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: If you sincerely believe in God, then why do you care whether atheists "deny God" (whatever that means)? "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mr_matrix Inactive Member |
Hypothesis are accepted, but as long as your hypothesy is not proven, then you have to take into account the opposite hypothesies.
By the way, their is enough evidence against your so called hypothesis. The sediment layers tell us that the first unicellular life forms were no different from todays cells and bacteria in complexity. AS I said, I dont have to worry myself since athiests are unable to fully deny or disprove the existance of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, it is usually the theistically minded that seem so concerned to prove to the atheists that God exists. Most of the atheists I know simply point out that the "proofs" for God's alleged existence are unconvincing and mostly want to be left alone. "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
and there are 1000s of Gods who'd got the time to investigate and "disprove" them all!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
and there are 1000s of Gods who'd got the time to investigate and "disprove" them all! and there are 1000s of Gods who'd got the time to investigate and "disprove" them all! How would one go about attempting to 'disprove' even one God? Where would one begin disproving the FSM? What criteria would one use in order to disprove God? Logically (cu*), I imagine you are reliant on God proving himself to you. And that you have all the time in the world for him to do so * cu: common usage (of the word)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024