Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 65 of 140 (568762)
07-14-2010 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
07-05-2010 6:51 AM


Re: intuitive linking
Peg writes:
ok im going to stop right here because obviously you've missed the whole object of this thread.
Hi Peg - a good thread, and I believe he and everyone else understood it perfectly.
Evolution and abiogenesis were originally one subject — they both were (and still are) about naturalistic change over long periods of time, with no supernatural action involved. Atheists have made great progress through the late 1800’s right up to today in putting together their godless evolutionary package that begins with a common single celled organism. But naturalistic, godless ORIGINS of that very first organism has continued to elude them. Recent scientific study of the past few decades that shows the complexity of the simplest forms of life, put into plain language largely by Michael Behe, has shown completely naturalistic, unguided abiogenesis to be nothing more than an atheist faith. This has been a tremendous source of frustration for the atheistic scientific community, this thread clearly displays it. Since it’s an atheist faith, it’s actually no more science than is Intelligent Design, yet they need to teach it in public schools, to support evolution. Their very recent attempt to alleviate their embarrassment, and allow themselves to teach abiogenesis in schools, has been to attempt to change the meaning of the word abiogenesis — to transform it to mean ANY beginning of life, including supernatural creation. Again, you can see the evidence of that throughout this thread. It seems to be working for them somewhat, they can easily switch the word back and forth — in and out of naturalism. Notice message 57, when the poster said, you need the chemicals necessary for abiogenesis before you can have abiogenesis! He was referring to it in a completely naturalistic way, and no one else in the thread 'corrected' him on it — explained the brand new definition to him. An atheist school teacher can now declare to his students abiogenesis is a fact, and if a concerned parent questions him about any separation of atheism and state, he can quickly say Abiogenesis can be ANY beginning of life, including creation as described in Genesis. Then when the parent swallows that, he can go back to teaching the children about chemical reactions and random processes of naturalistic, atheistic abiogenesis.
The claim that abiogenesis can include supernatural creation is only a very recent phenomenon, a highly dishonest one. The main reason creationists cannot separate abiogenesis from evolution is because they are not separate! They are both about naturalistic processes happening over long periods of time, and they are both fervently studied and worshiped by atheists. The only difference in them is that the atheists have been somewhat successful at one, and completely failed at the other. That’s the reason todays scientific community tries to separate them. The claim that abiogenesis now suddenly can include a supernatural action lays the dishonesty of the atheistic scientific community completely bare. Unless of course, an evolutionist here can prove to me that the word "abiogenesis" was being used to refer to the supernatural anytime in the first half of the 20th century.
The question is, is all of common-descent-evolution (Darwinism) riddled with the same kind of dishonesty?
I hope you don't mind my recap of your point, now all the sputtering with rage can be directed at me rather than you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 07-05-2010 6:51 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 07-14-2010 10:02 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2010 8:34 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 73 of 140 (568839)
07-18-2010 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
07-14-2010 10:02 PM


Re: intuitive linking
jar writes:
Speaking as a Christian...HUH?
Why of course — where would these types of discussion forums be without a few Christians to get things going, or ask the anger inspiring questions?
Let’s address God’s magic breath briefly at this time — it’s been referred to a few times in this thread. Science is restricted to the realm of rearrangement, our lives are completely restricted to it — humans cannot create nor destroy, and can’t comprehend actual creation or destruction. That’s why science is all about change over time, big bangs, growth, deterioration — it’s always about existing material changing properties in some way — it’s never about brand new material, or of any material completely ceasing to exist. When evolutionists do their glances at the book of Genesis, it’s understandable that they read Genesis 2:7 to refer to a scientific rearrangement, when it says And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life When taken in the entire context of Genesis 1 and 2, it means something different. All throughout Genesis 1, God creates — he speaks the earth, the sun, the stars, living creatures, into existence. He creates, from nothing. Atheists/Evolutionists find this laughable — since it’s beyond rearrangement and they can’t understand it, they don’t believe it. But the simple truth is that if we go back far enough, rearrangement doesn’t answer all the questions about the existence of matter. Atheists can theorize about how all matter was compressed into an area the size of a head of a pin 13 billion years ago, but reducing its size and specifying billions of years of time still doesn’t explain how it originated to a more believable extent than Christian claims of a creator.
Genesis 2:7 was not referring to a chemical rearrangement in any way — it was referring to God’s special care and attention to human life. It was his creation that was most important to him, closest to him, or capable of being close to him, that’s the only reason for the breath reference. Abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with God’s method of creating, because actual creation, whether a person believes in it or not, has nothing to do with rearrangement/ change over long periods of time. It is life from nothing, it is not life from non-life. Even if atheists don't believe in it, they should recognize the belief for what it is.
Abiogenesis is much more related to evolution than it is to supernatural creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 07-14-2010 10:02 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 07-18-2010 9:24 AM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 74 of 140 (568842)
07-18-2010 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
07-17-2010 8:34 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Apples and oranges were originally one subject --- they are both fruit.
And they still are - nothing has changed about them. Just like nothing has actually changed in the relationship evolution had with abiogenesis, in 1870 when the term was coined by an evolutionist, to today.
Incidentally, how did you find out how long abiogenesis took?
If you'll show me where I specified how long abiogenesis took, we'll discuss it.
Now, if only you could convince biologists of this nonsense, rather than ignorant kids in Sunday school classes. Then you'd be getting somewhere.
If militant atheist biologists refuse to acknowledge the complexity of the simplest forms of life, and the utter failure of the scientific community to ever be able to address it using naturalism, I can't convince them, sorry.
Could I point out to you that in this very paragraph you yourself used the phrase "completely naturalistic, unguided abiogenesis"? Why the adjectives, eh?
Because as we're seeing throughout this thread, evolutionists have only recently began to blend naturalistic abiogenesis with supernatual creation, as if one word (abiogenesis) describes them both. Adjectives are necessary when evolutionists are playing word games.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2010 8:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2010 10:23 AM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 77 of 140 (568882)
07-18-2010 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by jar
07-18-2010 9:24 AM


Re: intuitive linking
I am a Christian and was asking you how you could post such nonsense as you did in message 65.
My source for information about Christianity is found in the Bible, it describes Christ's life and teachings. Where do you get your information about Christ's life and teachings?
Utter nonsense. I have created things. I help fund projects that create things. I have destroyed things.
Name some things that you have created, or destroyed. It will take me about 5 seconds to describe the basics of the rearrangement process that you used.
No one I know of except Biblical Creationists think that Genesis 2 refers to anything scientific.
I didn't say it refers to anything scientific. But I did say that science is not the only source of knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 07-18-2010 9:24 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2010 5:09 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 80 by jar, posted 07-18-2010 5:30 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 79 of 140 (568884)
07-18-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
07-18-2010 10:23 AM


Re: intuitive linking
Again, I have to point out to you that identifying one thing that two things have in common does no make them into "the same subject", nor "blend them" or. If evolutionists call both apples and oranges "fruit" they are not "blending" apples and oranges.
IT DOES IF THE SAME WORD IS USED TO DESCRIBE THEM. If both apples and oranges were called "apples" there would be a problem distinguishing them. If supernatural creation and naturalistic abiogenesis are both dishonestly called "abiogenesis" there is a problem distinguishing them! Atheist scientists wish to dishonestly confuse the issue, because they only have a fragmented, atheistic belief system to support abiogenesis, unable to meet the criteria they themselves have set for Intelligent Design.
Adjectives are necessary to distinguish between two alternate versions of abiogenesis.
Then in message 72, why did you ask me why I used the adjectives? Are you a troll?
If you would prefer a whole different noun, please suggest one.
How about this one....."Creation"?
What word would you like us to use to mean: "abiogenesis, but only if it happened by magical impossible processes rather than real natural processes"?
No word is necessary for that. As soon as you say "abiogenesis" no further details are necessary. It means "life from non-life. Life could have originated WITHOUT being rearranged from non-life.
Atheists cannot prove that life was not instantly created, completely independent of a rearrangement process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2010 10:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2010 5:33 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2010 9:38 PM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 81 of 140 (568889)
07-18-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by crashfrog
07-18-2010 5:09 PM


Re: intuitive linking
I recently engaged in a process of atomic decay wherein I destroyed mass. From one atomic nucleus I produced two whose masses, when summed, were less than the original.
Less than the original? This may be worthy of another thread, either a new one, or an existing one that I'm not aware of. Is the scientific community now claiming a human ability to create and destroy? It didn't when I went to school.
No one who has ever said this is able to give an example of any other reliable source of knowledge.
Science is not applicable to many subjects. How people get along, how to manage money, what may happen in the future. You'd be surprised at what the Bible has to offer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2010 5:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2010 5:42 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2010 9:19 PM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 83 of 140 (568894)
07-18-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by jar
07-18-2010 5:30 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Destroyed silly ideas like "There was a Noahic flood". Created a whole new way to design cable television systems.
Give me a break - I was referring to material, not ideas. Cable TV systems is all rearrangement of existing materials.
Is there some reason you did not address those issues?
Because they are atheistic statements. Anyone who wants to can call themselves a Christian. Sometimes atheists do it just for fun. You may not be - I'm not judging you - but would it make you nervous if someone suspected you were a phony Christian, when you claim the the Bible is fairy tales, that Christ was not a Christian, the Bible isn't about Christianity? This is atheistic mocking, it isn't Christianity.
If you're a Christian, and Christ was not a Christian, what "Christ" do you follow?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 07-18-2010 5:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 07-18-2010 6:03 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 85 of 140 (568896)
07-18-2010 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
07-18-2010 5:33 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Why would we have to "prove" that it was not? What evidence is there that it was?
Because ANY origin of life is being called "abiogenesis" throughout this thread, as if there was no other way for life to originate. There really is another way.
What feats of instant creation have you observed by God or by anybody else? Please be specific. I'm having a difficult time accepting your assumption that instant creation is even possible. You have, after all, made a pretty compelling case that matter and energy can only be rearranged and inter-converted, not created or destroyed.
I read it in historical accounts (the Bible) by authorities that were authorized by the one who did it. That's good enough for me, just like atheists reading "Origin of Species" and accepting without question all the experimentation and theories of Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2010 5:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Huntard, posted 07-18-2010 6:00 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 88 by Granny Magda, posted 07-18-2010 6:32 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2010 7:24 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2010 9:15 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 122 by Blue Jay, posted 07-21-2010 3:37 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 93 of 140 (569017)
07-19-2010 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by crashfrog
07-18-2010 5:42 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Yeah, less than the original. In other words, I broke an atom into two pieces, and when I weighed the two pieces, their weights added up to less than the original atom.
Any number of gases, both visible and invisible, can exist without having any weight, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist - that they’re not real material.
I can burn up a piece of paper. I haven’t done any weight experiments with it, but it’s reasonable to guess that the ashes will weigh far less than the original piece of paper. But I only rearranged it into ashes and smoke, and other invisible gases. Just because I can’t weigh the smoke and gases doesn’t mean I destroyed anything. The smoke and gases don’t disappear. They change into gases that change into other gases that end up being taken in by vegetation etc. It’s never destroyed. Humans can witness and comprehend some very profound rearrangements, but they’re never anything more than rearrangements. They’re not creation or destruction.
What level of school? You wouldn't have learned nuclear physics until sophomore year of college, at the very earliest.
Junior high hahahahahahaha. I can still see that statement in my science textbook, because it was so profound to me, it was something I’d never thought of before. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. [by humans] If today’s scientific community tells me that abiogenesis is a fact, I’m not ready to instantly believe them when they tell me they can actually create and/or destroy matter.
marc9000 writes:
Science is not applicable to many subjects.
Empiricism is applicable to all subjects. No other epistemology but empiricism produces results that can be distinguished from imagination.
When it comes to human behavior, there are studies/thought processes that fall between empiricism and imagination. The words philosophy and motivation come to mind. Good examples of details of those two words are contained in the US Constitution, and other US founding documents, such as the Federalist Papers.
I'm sure that we both agree that "just guessing" or "just making things up" may produce something that gives the appearance of knowledge, but is not actually knowledge. Kekule may have awoken from a dream of the Orouboros with the aromatic structure of the benzene molecule fixed in his mind, but he didn't actually know benzene had that structure until he had performed the experiments that verified his intuition. (Imagine all the nameless chemists who dreamed that the structure of benzene was a hairpin, or a figure-8, or a branched tree, or the like.) You can't be said to "know" something if you haven't produced that knowledge via a means that produces results distinguishable from imagination.
How about evolutionists who imagine that the basic form of life, the cell, with its signal processing behaviors that rival or surpass that of modern computers, just fell into place by blind, unguided, purposeless, happenstance processes? Huxley, (the originator of the term abiogenesis) dreamed that the simplest forms of life were little more than lumps of protoplasm. He had dreams — why do todays scientists, with todays knowledge of the cell, DNA, etc, have exactly the same dreams, with no updates? The answer is, of course, that they're supporting their worldview of atheism. Objective study comes in second.
marc9000 writes:
How people get along, how to manage money, what may happen in the future.
Sociology
Economics
Climatology
To name a few.
Those aren't strictly empirical subjects. If they were, there would be no political division in the US, would there? As a conservative, I believe that the best way to know which ideas in those subjects work the best is by looking at the history of previous applications of them. Which ideas have stood the test of time. Money management principles in the book of Proverbs have been time-proven to work well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2010 5:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by DrJones*, posted 07-19-2010 7:54 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 95 by Theodoric, posted 07-19-2010 8:04 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2010 10:12 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2010 10:48 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 96 of 140 (569024)
07-19-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Huntard
07-18-2010 6:00 PM


Re: intuitive linking
No there isn't actually. Life wasn't there before, it's here now. This means it must've come from something "non-living". Whether that was nothing at all (creation ex-nihilo) or from chemicals, there is no other way.
It didn’t necessarily have to be rearranged from something else. Non-living material had to come into existence instantly, there’s no scientific reason to not believe that living material couldn’t have possibly originated instantly. There may be an atheistic reason, but not a scientific reason. There is a difference between material that was non-living, and ‘nothing’. Creation ex-nihilo can have nothing to do with chemicals.
Since Darwin actually provided evidence for his theory, and the authors of the bible provided absolutely nothing whatsoever, I find your accepting of the one over the other very strange indeed.
Different people have different definitions of what ‘evidence’ is. I find the Bible to be perfect in the way it describes human nature, judging it by history and experience. I find Darwin lacking in his knowledge of the simplest forms of life, judging by recent scientific discoveries of the simplest forms of life.
I've got some other utterly unevidenced stories for you. God authorized me to tell them, wanna hear them? Wanna accept them as true without any evidence whatsoever?
Nope — the Bible warns about false teachers, or anyone who tries to add to it beyond the book of Revelation. Many thousands of people have written books - extensions and explanations of Christianity, and many of them are very good. The way to judge their soundness is to see if they clash with the ultimate truth, the Bible. The Bible's warnings about false teachings, it's descriptions of the Nature of God and Christ, make it fairly easy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Huntard, posted 07-18-2010 6:00 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Huntard, posted 07-20-2010 3:16 AM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 97 of 140 (569026)
07-19-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by jar
07-18-2010 6:03 PM


Re: Trying to get back to the topic
Atheist statements? Nonsense. They are the topic of this thread and also subjects accepted by much of Club Christian.
A quick google search shows me nothing about your organization. Is there any info about it on the net?
I am pretty sure that I've given you the link to the Clergy Project Letter.
You haven't - I'm fairly new here and don't remember having a discussion with you before, but atheists on another forum brought it to my attention. It's a quote mine that is nothing more than an attempt by the Catholic church to mollify an atheist community who has been a threat to bankrupt them with legal action and member intimidation for decades now. In the late 60’s, there was an over-population frenzy largely brought on by the scientific community, predicting massive starvation in the 1970’s etc. In December of 1968, 2600 scientists published a petition in the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, and ‘Commonweal’ (a catholic magazine) urging Catholics to withhold contributions from collection plates, because of the Pope’s stance on birth control. Catholicism often caves to the scientific community. The Clergy Letter Project was a financial/political thing, nothing more. A few of its statements clash with what the Bible says. I don't agree with it, I'm not Catholic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 07-18-2010 6:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 07-19-2010 8:42 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 98 of 140 (569027)
07-19-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Granny Magda
07-18-2010 6:32 PM


Re: intuitive linking
I would welcome your reply, but it would be best diverted to Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists. Cheers.
I'll respond in that thread to what you said here in the coming evenings. Time is of the essence tonight - I need to finish up what substance there is left in this thread tonight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Granny Magda, posted 07-18-2010 6:32 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 100 of 140 (569031)
07-19-2010 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by crashfrog
07-18-2010 7:24 PM


Re: intuitive linking
I don't understand, I guess.
This message of mine should go into enough detail to clarify it.
"Abiogenesis" is just a word that can be applied to any model of the chemical origin of life.
It didn’t have to be a chemical origin, it could have been an instant origin, instant chemicals, with no rearrangement involved. An instant origin could have nothing to do with gradual chemical changes.
And there are a few. But the word could really be applied to any instance of life emerging from lifelessness,
No, God’s method of creation (described in the Bible) doesn’t involve gradual chemical changes. It’s in a realm that humans can’t possibly understand. Science can’t prove that there is no such thing as a realm of reality that humans can’t understand. Why is there something rather than nothing — how can space be endless there are many other questions that imply that there exists some reality that humans can’t possibly understand.
which is why the standard creationist argument "abiogenesis is physically impossible; therefore God did it" is so patently stupid.
It’s no more stupid than there can’t be a god, or if there is, humans can perfectly understand him therefore, abiogenesis is a fact. Or there can’t be a god, so the signal processing behaviors found in the simplest forms of life that can rival or surpass modern computers had to have fallen into place by blind, unguided processes.
But I don't see what any of that has to do with what I asked.
I’m not sure at this point just what you asked, but I’ll now clarify the reason for my entering this thread in the first place.
Once there was no life on earth, and now there is, therefore abiogenesis is a fact. That’s a tricky statement, and it’s a delight to the scientific community. It doesn’t directly address religion, it certainly doesn’t attack it, it simply marches right by it, pretending like religion doesn’t exist. Atheists, agnostics, Confucianists, Deists, Wiccans, Club Christians, — they can excitedly launch into discussions and projections about abiogenesis based on that statement, and as long as no pesky Christians are there to ask questions, they can make it as scientific as they want, even though there is nothing close to a complete scientific package about it. The only way to get rid of the pesky Christians is to include supernatural creation under the (now vague and largely useless) term of abiogenesis. Then public school teachers can proclaim abiogenesis is a fact. Teenagers will not automatically recognize the word as vague and useless, they’ll relate it only to naturalism, and that’s a slippery way to indoctrinate them into atheism. It is NOT HONEST.
Uh...huh. So, you've never observed it yourself, though, which is what I asked. Right?
No more than atheists have observed the big bang, or Tiikalak Rosae crawing out of the ocean millions of years ago and eventually sprouting into a human, or any number of things asserted by the scientific community. Naturalists accept them just as quickly as Christians accept what the Bible tells them.
marc9000 writes:
just like atheists reading "Origin of Species" and accepting without question all the experimentation and theories of Darwin.
But we don't do that.
But there is evidence that it has been going on ever since 1859. Darwin didn’t board planes and do book tours, he didn’t get on television and do interviews with CNN, he didn’t get colorful pages on amazon with raving promotions and reviews by scientists. Book promotion was very slow - little more than word-of-mouth in the mid 19th century. But his book still SOLD OUT ON THE VERY FIRST DAY. We’re supposed to believe that’s because of a sudden interest in science by general public. Common sense tells me that it was a long hunger for intellectually fulfilled atheism that caused the book to sell out, for Darwin to be hero to atheists, in 1859, and today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2010 7:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Theodoric, posted 07-19-2010 9:16 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 104 by ringo, posted 07-19-2010 9:46 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2010 11:12 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 109 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2010 4:29 AM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 101 of 140 (569034)
07-19-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
07-19-2010 8:42 PM


Re: Trying to get back to the topic
What organization, Club Christian?
Yes, or whatever Christian organization endorses what you've said in this thread about Christianity. You've said that;
Claiming a creator tells us nothing, explains nothing.
Atheists agree.
Saying "She willed it into existence" is just an empty assertion with little information or relevance.
Atheists sometimes mock God by referring to him as a "she".
Genesis 2 and 3 are a "Just so story". Humans wrote the story and the god they created for the story places humans in a special place.
Atheists agree.
No one I know of except Biblical Creationists think that Genesis 2 refers to anything scientific. It is a fable, a folk tale, a Just So story.
Atheist agree.
Well, of course Christ was not a Christian nor is there all that much about Christianity in the Bible.
Atheists love you.
Destroyed silly ideas like "There was a Noahic flood".
Atheists agree.
They are the topic of this thread and also subjects accepted by much of Club Christian.
Much of? Do Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, honest Catholics, Pentecostals, agree with the statements you made above?
My Chapter happens to be the Episcopal Church of the Anglican Communion within the overall Club Christian.
This webpage shows the Anglican/Episcopal's "Sacred or Distinguishing Text" to be "The Bible, The Books of Common Prayer."
When Christians refer to different Christian denominations, they actually call them "denominations", not "sects" like you and atheists do.
Your next post is going to have to be really profound for me to waste anymore of my time with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 07-19-2010 8:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 07-19-2010 9:34 PM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 111 of 140 (569197)
07-20-2010 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
07-19-2010 10:48 PM


Re: intuitive linking
But, in the atomic decay of uranium, we're aware of what gases are produced. When uranium decays, the result is one hydrogen nucleus and an atom of thorium. Yet, when you add up the mass of the hydrogen and thorium atoms that are produced, they do not add up to the atomic mass of uranium.
As it turns out, matter can be destroyed:
It's just, the doings are a little beyond junior high science. You'll get there.
My junior-high science book was from the 1960’s. Didn’t the type of destruction you’re talking about happen in Japan in 1945? Apparently, the statement in my science book wasn’t.extra simple, or some type of primer for higher level science, it was WRONG, wasn’t it? Scientific study isn't always perfect, is it? Anyway, it said matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and so far you’ve focused only on the destruction part. I’ll probably be accused of moving the goalposts, but concerning the origins of life, as this thread and most any creationist/evolutionist debate is, CREATION of matter is what the issue really is. Do you have any examples of matter being created, that wasn’t rearranged from something else?
I don't believe that either of those are a path to knowledge more reliable than imagination.
We have to agree to disagree on that — I think philosophy and motivation have a more solid foundation/backing than does simple imagination.
Neither the word "philosophy" nor "motivation" occur in the US Constitution.
The documents CONTAIN them, they can contain them without the words physically occurring. Richard Dawkins babblings contain atheism most of the time, yet the word itself may not occur all that often.
We've produced that conclusion as a result of a decades-long process of testable hypothesizing, experimentation, and observation of the natural world. Much of the evidence to which I refer is yours for the reading just as soon as you stop making pronouncements and start asking questions.
It would be nice if hypothesizing, experimentation and observation could be done by perfect people, who have no worldview bias. But everyone does. Hypothesizing and experimentation is done by following pathways, and pathways can be long, they often don't allow a person to realize that one questionable step may logically suggest that he back up 50 or 100 steps. Sure, I know you'll tell me that's a big creationist problem. It's also an atheist problem.
But there have been updates. The field of biology has made light-years of progress since the days of Darwin's Bulldog. And, of course, we believe that the "simplest forms of life" are far simpler than cells. Some of those simpler-than-cell forms of life exist today; viruses, for instance. And, of course, some cells are simpler than others - prokaryotes vs. eukaryotes, for instance.
Michael Behe has been responsible for some of that progress. But he veered off the atheist path 500 steps ago. Atheists don't want to back up and check out that path.
Of course there are. Not everybody adopts positions according to empirical truth. For instance, they may have fallen prey to faith. Or stand to gain materially from advocacy of positions that are contrary to empirical fact.
Faith? Gain materially? You see it in religion - I see it in atheism.
But empiricism provides the best possible means to discern truth. You just look, and see.
I agree! What you've described is empiricism. Just look, and see.
What is empiricism? Naturalism? One realm only?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2010 10:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2010 8:47 PM marc9000 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024