|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: the source of life | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
RAZD, when i look back 3,600,000,000 years ago?
4,000,000,000 years ago? 4,400,000,000 years ago? I see a bunch of numbers. Listen very closely, all of you. these numbers, ... we're pulled from someone's back side. I choose to believe, with the right to change my mind and not placing dollars to donuts on it, that the earth is around 6,000 years old. Not only does no one have 'evidence' to "debunk" the other, but neither theories have the 'evidence' to prove themselves. And, spontaneous generation or 'autopoiesis', in this text, applies to non organic material producing life without fundamental aid, therefore maggots and bacteria, however disgusting do not apply as they obviously spawn from organic fester, though I'm sure if the maggots are placed there or if the bacteria first spawns them. clever! but off point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
that the earth is around 6,000 years old. Not only does no one have 'evidence' to "debunk" the other, but neither theories have the 'evidence' to prove themselves. Are you saying that there's no evidence to prove that the Earth is older than 6000 years? Where do you get this 6000 years from, did you pull it out your butt?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Uhm Homunclus....This:
homunculus writes:
Shows us exacly that you don't know what you're talking about. Maggots don't "spawn" from organic fester, nor do bacteria. Maggots are fly larvae, they come from the egss put there by flies. And bacteria are everywhere anyway, they don't "magically" appear in organic fester either, they can just thrive and reproduce in it better, as can fungi. And, spontaneous generation or 'autopoiesis', in this text, applies to non organic material producing life without fundamental aid, therefore maggots and bacteria, however disgusting do not apply as they obviously spawn from organic fester, though I'm sure if the maggots are placed there or if the bacteria first spawns them. clever! but off point. Oh, and about this:
4,400,000,000 years ago? I see a bunch of numbers. Listen very closely, all of you. these numbers, ... we're pulled from someone's back side. I choose to believe, with the right to change my mind and not placing dollars to donuts on it, that the earth is around 6,000 years old. Not only does no one have 'evidence' to "debunk" the other, but neither theories have the 'evidence' to prove themselves.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the fact that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
aaahhh ... The joy of the protuberant finger waver. Let's see, I would like to ask you to not use immature speech on a debate friendly, uncensored forum. Thanks.
As you haven't said one thing valid so far except Bu****it, I will do everyone the favor of not responding to you with reason to my argument. Rather, I will assert that Even though Evolutionists don't have a shred of evidence to back up their principles (which, ironically is the absence of principle), they still become frustrated (I.E. Taz) to a point of nearly giving themselves a stroke. I say I don't understand, when really I do. As I had said before, if I had stated on here that everything came from nothing or created itself (I.E. the big bang THEORY) or if I said that life originated from nothing or created itself (abiogenesis, or whatever name it be tagged for the season), I would be lucky to get a single reply, probably an agreement. But because I said we have only seen life produce life, suggesting the possibility of a god, it's like a black man walked in the middle of a kkk convention with a white girl. You people have went bonkers. Does the idea of a supernatural creator really crawl on you that much?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
Thank you for this intelligent supplication! I really respect someone going out to actually gather information on behalf of what they believe or think. I'll remember this post for future reference!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Is it just me? Or has anyone else noticed that homunculus keeps assertin the same things, in a slightly different form, That have already been demolished by his critics. You get that with creos. State position.Refuse to acknowledge replies. Restate position. ...and so on and so forth, I think it is an old charter or tradition or something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
Huntard, previously I made mention of my very own providential law. No, you certainly will not acknowledge it, but, I reserve the right to change my relational terms so that they make sense to me, like Evolutionists do.
you see, Evolutionists regularly invent new terminologies and rules, to systematically dismiss the very proposal of creation. well, I thought I should give it a try. The Providential Law is my way of saying that: 1) all life is produced from life or living/once living, organic matter. 2) everything has a source, the source it came and the source it will return. 3) every happening is originated / every effect has a cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Hi, Homu.
Can I ask that you please structure your sentences in a different way? Your post have the feel of someone torturing the English language to come across more erudite than you are. Quixotism.
But to appease the crowd, it is edited out. Don't take the piss. You edited it out because you realised how wrong it was.
I said only that life producing life is all that has been observed. That is a very unbiased, although I am biased for creation, neutral and immutable assertion, Saying the contrary is strictly speculation, no matter the favor. No one would deny this. What would be denied is that observing life only on Earth (currently) equals your god (I assume you mean Yahweh) being a creator. Edited by Larni, : Interview with director. Edited by Larni, : Stills gallery. Edited by Larni, : Deleted scenes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
homunculus writes:
I suppose you think of me as an evolutionist, I'm not, I follow the evidence where ever it leads. I never change my terms once I have defined them.
Huntard, previously I made mention of my very own providential law. No, you certainly will not acknowledge it, but, I reserve the right to change my relational terms so that they make sense to me, like Evolutionists do. you see, Evolutionists regularly invent new terminologies and rules, to systematically dismiss the very proposal of creation.
No they don't, they'll come up with names for new phenomena, but that's only logical.
The Providential Law is my way of saying that:
Then where did the original life come from, if it can only come from living or once living matter?
1) all life is produced from life or living/once living, organic matter. 2) everything has a source, the source it came and the source it will return.
Your evidence for this being?
3) every happening is originated / every effect has a cause.
Again, please provide evidence. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Here is your hypothesis
The Providential Law is my way of saying that: 1) all life is produced from life or living/once living, organic matter. 2) everything has a source, the source it came and the source it will return. 3) every happening is originated / every effect has a cause. Now show me your testing & observations and your conclusion so it can be peer reviewed. Edited by bluescat48, : typo There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hello homunculus, welcome to the fray.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips. RAZD, when i look back 3,600,000,000 years ago? 4,000,000,000 years ago? 4,400,000,000 years ago? I see a bunch of numbers. Do you understand that there is no evidence of life at those times? And if we go back to 4,600,000,000 years ago we have trouble finding evidence for an earth. Based on this evidence, sometime between 3,600,000,000 years ago and 3,500,000,000 years ago life began on earth, because we find evidence of it 3,500,000,000 years ago.
Listen very closely, all of you. these numbers, ... we're pulled from someone's back side. Cute. Millions of scientists know squat, while you know the truth?
I choose to believe, with the right to change my mind and not placing dollars to donuts on it, that the earth is around 6,000 years old. Not only does no one have 'evidence' to "debunk" the other, Unfortunately for you, your opinion has no effect on reality. This is the law of reality. You can chose to let reality affect your opinion, or you can chose to deny reality. You are of course free to believe anything you want, but you cannot "believe away" evidence. I am glad to see you say "with the right to change my mind" as I have a challenge for you: see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) I note that not one creationist has been able to explain even one of the correlations, and this topic has been around for a while, since 03*21*2004. This is currently at version 1 number 3 (threads are generally limited to 300 replies), with 297+306+272 = 875 replies without one single refutation on one single correlation. If you want, we can take it in stages, however I note that there is overwhelming, objective, physical evidence of the reality that the age of the earth is more than 6000 years. This evidence correlates and validates the different methods used and confirms each other.
Confirmation Bias and Cognitive dissonance are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion.
... but neither theories have the 'evidence' to prove themselves. Curiously, no scientific theory is ever proven, and using the word "prove" shows a lack of understanding of the scientific process. Science approximates reality with theories, and theories are the way we understand reality, they are based on observed facts of objective reality, and they are tested by observed facts of objective reality. The better the theory approximates reality the better it will be able to predict new aspects of reality that were unknown before, but there is no way to know all about reality. Thus all theories are tentative, they can be falsified and invalidated by evidence that shows they do not reflect reality, but they can never be proven to cover all of reality. The reality is that the earth is old. The best approximation we currently have is that the earth is 4.55 billion years old. The reality is that life on earth is old. The best approximation we currently have is that life is 3.5 billion years old.
And, spontaneous generation or 'autopoiesis', in this text, applies to non organic material producing life without fundamental aid, therefore maggots and bacteria, however disgusting do not apply as they obviously spawn from organic fester, though I'm sure if the maggots are placed there or if the bacteria first spawns them. So you concur that the experiments of Pasteur et al did not invalidate the concept of abiogenesis. Reference.com - What's Your Question?Abiogenesis - Wikipedia Nor does abiogenesis propose "self-creation" as the answer. There has been a lot of study in the field of abiogenesis, and there are a number of people around here that would be happy to discuss this on a new thread. This brings up a critical issue: terminology. If you are going to discuss science you need to use the terminology used in science to mean the things science uses them to mean. In science "spontaneous generation" means the experiments of Pasteur concerning the decay of organic matter and the growth of maggots, etc. In science "spontaneous generation" does not mean abiogenesis, and using it to mean abiogenesis confuses the issues rather than clarifies them, and it betrays a limited understanding of the science.
clever! but off point. We got off on a tangent because you used the wrong terminology. If you want to discuss this further see by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
OK, my response to MR. Huntard's reply 34.
Concerning your skewed perspective of Evolution and Creation, I will reiterate that we are in a forum called "Creation vs Evolution". Allow me to elaborate. Creation, as I believe can be agreed on by everyone on this ground, is the proposal, supplemented by the, including but not limited to, christian (as example, because that's what I am), bible, that a supernatural force (god) is responsible for designing and creating the physical realm accounted in the bible about 6,000 years ago, taking 6 days. (creationism, creationist) Theory, though aggressive Evolutionists regularly dismiss it from science, saying it has nothing to do with science, unites facts has has supporting facts. Primary basis; all life is similarly designed and compatible to live solely on the earth and answers questions of life's and matter/energy origin. proposes contingency for morality, purpose and sentience. As well as offer gratification for salvation to the assured death. source; Creation Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster source; Creation - Wikipedia Now it get's tricky.Creation's alternative counterpart is Evolution. Evolution, as is usually argued about it's true meaning. Either, that Evolution is the grain behind the principles of the universe being billions of years old, inspiration to the invention of the geologic column, inspiration to the invention of "species", the belief of universal common ancestry and abiogenesis/self generation origination/autopoiesis, as universally identified or, as argued by some, progressive adaptation. (evolutionism, evolutionist) Theory uniting facts and examines naturalistic possibilities. Although a theory of speculations, it is taught in schools and, by aggressive evolutionists, is somehow, inherently assimilated with science. Primary basis; all life has similarities, especially with DNA, the universe is dubbed with an uncertain age, the earth has layers in it's soil and life had to have generated from somewhere. source; Evolution - Wikipedia source; Evolution Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster This is what I mean when I say Evolution and Creation (for reference see the name of forum).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
But your description of evolution is wrong. That's not what evolution is. Evolution is the change of allele frequencies in a population over time. In other words, it describes the development of life, not its origin.
I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
Sure it is.
Annafan used him as a reference. I said his speculation was not credible. Need I keep saying that favored resources do not dictate which theories are true and which one's are false? If Evolutionists can systematically dismiss every notion of Creation material, then I can call choke on Mr. lyell. And if Charles lyell's thoughts are the extent of "accumulated knowledge of geosciences" then I should really express sympathy. Edited by homunculus, : the big AND
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Does the idea of a supernatural creator really crawl on you that much? Not at all, we just have this thing for truth, honesty, and rationality. There comes a limit where we can only take so much uneducated naive crap in so few posts, and we tend to get cranky.
if I had stated on here that everything came from nothing or created itself (I.E. the big bang THEORY)... Then I, as a comsologist, would have told you that you have been misinformed, and invited you to another thread to discuss the topic.
or if I said that life originated from nothing or created itself (abiogenesis, or whatever name it be tagged for the season) then our resident biologists would have told you that you have been misinformed - which I think they have done. But you seem to still be spouting crap. Any reason for this?
But because I said we have only seen life produce life, suggesting the possibility of a god... Every single gap in our knowledge since the dawn of man has been seen as evidence for a god - and every time our knowedge has increased, that "evidence" has vanished. Why are you so confident that this case is different to all the rest? And say you are right. What will you say to Allah when you stand before him?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024