Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 45 of 140 (568271)
07-05-2010 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:37 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Peg writes:
but then in the same breath they say that abiogensis is the only explanation for how life began...even Richard Dawkins says 'it MUST have happened that way'
They also say gravity is the explanation for things falling down. Yet you don't say that's part of evolution, now do you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:37 PM Peg has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 60 of 140 (568602)
07-07-2010 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by dall22
07-07-2010 4:56 AM


Re: evolution & abio
dall22 writes:
Your evidence is an assumption, you cannot produce any scientific support. It equally follows that God created, otherwise we wouldn't be here, and I have evidence for that, knowing God's love and healings.
Yeah. You know what we would call such an event? Abiogenesis. Also, you've got your evidences mixed. There is scientific evidence for a naturalistic abiogenesis. There isn't any for a divine abiogenesis.
And a free tip, if you use the "peek" button on the bottom right of this post, you can see how I did those nice quoteboxes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by dall22, posted 07-07-2010 4:56 AM dall22 has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 86 of 140 (568897)
07-18-2010 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by marc9000
07-18-2010 5:47 PM


Re: intuitive linking
marc9000 writes:
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 5:47 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 8:06 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 108 of 140 (569061)
07-20-2010 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by marc9000
07-19-2010 8:06 PM


Re: intuitive linking
marc9000 writes:
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.
And where did I say that "creation ex-nihilo" has anything to do with chemicals whatsoever? For that matter, where did I say that life must've come about from rearangement of different parts? And while you're at it, please point out where I said that life could not possibly have come about instantly.
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.
Your bible doesn't even mention the simplest forms of life. Anyway, what does this have to do with evolution being true, or abiogenesis being wholly seperate from it?
Nope — the Bible warns about false teachers, or anyone who tries to add to it beyond the book of Revelation.
And you know I'm a false prophet how? You know, god warned me about people like you, he called them "the great corrupters of my works and words". Guess he doesn't like what you're doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 8:06 PM marc9000 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024