It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

page: 15
42
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

who is to say the shattered particles didnt reconstitute as that new matter? thats not creating, thats reorganizing.


Really TzarChasm?

If so, are you saying then that when "shattered particles" was "reorganized", there should be no loss in energy? It should have equivalent weight and mass as before.

If no then you might be right. But are you?




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Life can only come from pre-existing life?



Dude, I already debunked this and you still haven't responded to my points about this. You cannot prove that statement so all of your following conclusions are invalid. If you can't prove it you can't use it as a premise to your argument. Why do you keep ignoring this and repeating the same claim over and over and over? The origin of life is not equal to a species giving birth. Stop the logical fallacies already. God conflicts with your statement above, if you postulate that as the explanation. If life can only come from existing life, then god had to have come from something else alive. Don't you see the issue yet?


Dude, you haven't debunked anything. All you did was to offer non-stop dribbles, attacks and nonsensical statements without any substance. But just for humor's sake, let's entertain your statement above.

so you said:


The origin of life is not equal to a species giving birth.


So to you, if "nothing" creates life, it's logical. It's logical as a human giving birth to a baby.

But when a pre-existing life creates life it's "logical fallacy".

Really?

I think you need to rethink your logic because you're not making sense.
edit on 7-10-2015 by edmc^2 because: shorten



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jekka

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: peppycat
I believe in God the creator, but when I try to think about this deeply, I wonder where God Came from. If life comes from pre-existing life then did God come from somewhere or has God always existed. I am just so baffled by this mystery that a part of me thinks everything has always existed in a circle.
Thank you for the thoughtful OP and in Christ I will meditate on this mystery, but maybe you have an idea about where God came from. Was God the first conscious? Does that mean God came from nothing? I like to think God has always been and always will be, but since we are a part of God in that we are his creation, we have always been and always will be weather our conscious goes on into eternity or not.
You've given me much to contemplate.


Thanks PeppyCat for the thoughtful words.

Since God is UNCREATED, therefore He has no beginning and has no end. He always existed. Otherwise the alternative is, he was created, which regresses to an un-ending question of who created the creator of God.

There's no other answer - but that he is what He is, Uncreated.

To help you contemplate - think of the concept of infinity. We have it mathematics and sciences. So when we say an infinite number, it means as it says, no beginning and no end.



If life must beget life then God must have been created by something as well. I will refer to your OP, "Life comes from pre-existing life". By that standard, either God is dead/not considered life, or God was spawned from a pre-existing life as well.


I refer you again to the OP if you didn't get what I said to peppycat:

There MUST be an Always Existing Life to produce life! There MUST be a pre-existing all powerful intelligent life to produce the physical Universe and all the things in it. A loving, all powerful UNCREATED God who willed the universe into existence. He is not the created "god of the gaps" that atheist like to throw at Christians but The Living God.


UNCREATED Living God is the ONLY answer. There's no other.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DaveNorris
If the alternative is believing that a magic bearded man created me, I think ill stick with science thank you


Is this the extent of your knowledge DaveNorris?

Too bad, you're demonstrating and representing the atheist point view in a very weak way.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Morellis
The study proves that simple organic molecules can be created in nature without living organisms being present and that at least part of this process could have happened in hydrothermal vents.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... organisms-develop.html#ixzz3nkD5kAFV

Surprised no one linked this.


Life wasn't created, but a simple carbon-based molecules



Hot sea vents spontaneously produce building blocks


then assumed that it



may have played a role in the emergence of the first life forms.





This research shows how one of the first steps in this journey may have occurred.


Nothing new. Old story.


edit on 7-10-2015 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: edmc^2


Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.


How can someone state this when they dont know what nothing is?

Nothing is related to nothingness. How does gravity work in a Void Of Space that is absolute empty of anything/something?
Such a Space is a absolute constant. There is no gravity in such a Space, because it is absolute neutral.

Nothing is a void of Space that would be a absolute constant and absolute neutral. Such a Space would never change randomly or by chance = Spontainously. For such a Space to create a change it would have to be intelligent and have the ability to create a change by it self. Of course if such an action tok Place it would probably look like it happened spontainiously.

en.wikipedia.org...

Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness


Nothingness: www.thefreedictionary.com...

Empty space; a void.


xactly.

It's nonsense on top of nonsense no matter how you look at it.


Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.


If the law of gravity is nothing, then how could it exist if it's nothing?

It's like saying X exist therefore it creates X. But if X = nothing, how could X create X when X is itself X?

Absolutely mind boggling incoherent statement.

Furthermore, if the Law of Gravity is nothing then it's not something. But gravity is not nothing, it's something that exerts force. So how could gravity be nothing then creates the universe from nothing which is actually something?

Anyway, too bad people are taken in by this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo just because it came from a brilliant man like Hawking.

Krauss made it worse.


edit on 7-10-2015 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
Dude, you haven't debunked anything. All you did was to offer non-stop dribbles, attacks and nonsensical statements without any substance. But just for humor's sake, let's entertain your statement above.


I pointed out the obvious logical fallacies in your posts. That is not drivel. You claimed that creation is the ONLY LOGICAL possibility. You can't argue logical possibilities with logical fallacies. It's a direct contradiction in logic.



The origin of life is not equal to a species giving birth.


Yes, this is my claim. This thread is about the origin of life, not procreation. You are equivocating the 2 concepts. That is a logical fallacy. I'm not making this up. You can't logically use 2 different versions of the same word or concept as equal.


So to you, if "nothing" creates life, it's logical.


I never said life could come from nothing. Now you are putting words in my mouth.


It's logical as a human giving birth to a baby.
But when a pre-existing life creates life it's "logical fallacy".


A human giving birth to a baby is not the origin of life. That is replication of life. These are vastly different concepts yet you equivocate them as if they are the exact same thing and use it to justify your complete guess that life can only come from life. You use intentionally vague language to try to confuse people. Your premise is a complete guess, therefor there is no logic involved in your posts.


I think you need to rethink your logic because you're not making sense.


en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not making sense to you because you've never studied or practiced logic. You are a preacher. You always use words like "undeniable proof", "fact", and "logic" in your thread titles, but the threads do not exhibit any of that. The origin of life has NEVER been observed, so there is nothing to compare this to. We have never observed life come from anything, we've only seen it replicate. So again, I'm asking you, where is your proof that the origin of life had to come from other life?

a reply to: edmc^2

It is one step in the process. You seem to have this wonky idea that life had to spontaneously form in an instant. That it couldn't be a slow developing process. Creating organic building blocks is the first step of abiogenesis. Thus far this has been observed to happen from comet impacts and from deep thermal vents. Once again, you use intentionally vague language to confuse the issue.


There MUST be an Always Existing Life to produce life!


But you literally just said that life CAN ONLY come from pre-existing life. You just contradicted yourself big time. You can't make up rules and then break them when it suits your argument. How do you not realize that your logic falls off a cliff when you do that?

I have no problem if you want to claim that as opinion, but you clearly said it's the only LOGICAL possibility. That is completely wrong.

edit on 7-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jekka

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: peppycat
I believe in God the creator, but when I try to think about this deeply, I wonder where God Came from. If life comes from pre-existing life then did God come from somewhere or has God always existed. I am just so baffled by this mystery that a part of me thinks everything has always existed in a circle.
Thank you for the thoughtful OP and in Christ I will meditate on this mystery, but maybe you have an idea about where God came from. Was God the first conscious? Does that mean God came from nothing? I like to think God has always been and always will be, but since we are a part of God in that we are his creation, we have always been and always will be weather our conscious goes on into eternity or not.
You've given me much to contemplate.


Thanks PeppyCat for the thoughtful words.

Since God is UNCREATED, therefore He has no beginning and has no end. He always existed. Otherwise the alternative is, he was created, which regresses to an un-ending question of who created the creator of God.

There's no other answer - but that he is what He is, Uncreated.

To help you contemplate - think of the concept of infinity. We have it mathematics and sciences. So when we say an infinite number, it means as it says, no beginning and no end.



If life must beget life then God must have been created by something as well. I will refer to your OP, "Life comes from pre-existing life". By that standard, either God is dead/not considered life, or God was spawned from a pre-existing life as well.


I refer you again to the OP if you didn't get what I said to peppycat:

There MUST be an Always Existing Life to produce life! There MUST be a pre-existing all powerful intelligent life to produce the physical Universe and all the things in it. A loving, all powerful UNCREATED God who willed the universe into existence. He is not the created "god of the gaps" that atheist like to throw at Christians but The Living God.


UNCREATED Living God is the ONLY answer. There's no other.



simply stating your opinion doesnt make it a fact. do you really think you can just tell us what to believe? Or how to think?

Either your god is proof that life doesnt require a progenitor, or life is proof that god requires a progenitor. Can't have it both ways.
edit on 7-10-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




I pointed out the obvious logical fallacies in your posts. That is not drivel. You claimed that creation is the ONLY LOGICAL possibility. You can't argue logical possibilities with logical fallacies. It's a direct contradiction in logic.


Pointed out? You haven't even showed us how "nothing" can create life!

For instance, you seem to be a believer of Exogenesis / Abiogenesis.



Creating organic building blocks is the first step of abiogenesis. Thus far this has been observed in comet impacts and deep thermal vents


If this is the case, how can inanimate things i.e. COMET produce life?

You seem to be an expert on this. So please describe for us the process.

How comets formed the first living cell in the "deep thermal vents"?

I'm sure you're an expert in cellular generation. How the first DNA / RNA was formed beneath the vast ocean, in the "deep thermal vents"? What protective barrier was needed to protect the DNA molecules from its hostile environment. And which came first RNA or DNA or the barrier? And how a barrier can form without the RNA/DNA. And how RNA/DNA can form without information? And how information (CODE) can exist without a carrier (RNA).

These just a few of the thousands of processes needed to occur to form a single cell.

But I'm sure, you've figured this one out already. So let us know. Edumacate us.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Furthermore - where did the comet that carried the "seed" that "seeded" life on earth came from?

How did the earth the universe formed? What was there before the "big-bang"?

Nothing?

So we're back to square one.
edit on 7-10-2015 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Still a better theory than creationism.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

Still a better theory than creationism.


Yet I'm not a proponent of Creationism. A word coined by atheists.

I'm a proponent of Biblical creation - Gen 1:1.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jekka

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: peppycat
I believe in God the creator, but when I try to think about this deeply, I wonder where God Came from. If life comes from pre-existing life then did God come from somewhere or has God always existed. I am just so baffled by this mystery that a part of me thinks everything has always existed in a circle.
Thank you for the thoughtful OP and in Christ I will meditate on this mystery, but maybe you have an idea about where God came from. Was God the first conscious? Does that mean God came from nothing? I like to think God has always been and always will be, but since we are a part of God in that we are his creation, we have always been and always will be weather our conscious goes on into eternity or not.
You've given me much to contemplate.


Thanks PeppyCat for the thoughtful words.

Since God is UNCREATED, therefore He has no beginning and has no end. He always existed. Otherwise the alternative is, he was created, which regresses to an un-ending question of who created the creator of God.

There's no other answer - but that he is what He is, Uncreated.

To help you contemplate - think of the concept of infinity. We have it mathematics and sciences. So when we say an infinite number, it means as it says, no beginning and no end.



If life must beget life then God must have been created by something as well. I will refer to your OP, "Life comes from pre-existing life". By that standard, either God is dead/not considered life, or God was spawned from a pre-existing life as well.


I refer you again to the OP if you didn't get what I said to peppycat:

There MUST be an Always Existing Life to produce life! There MUST be a pre-existing all powerful intelligent life to produce the physical Universe and all the things in it. A loving, all powerful UNCREATED God who willed the universe into existence. He is not the created "god of the gaps" that atheist like to throw at Christians but The Living God.


UNCREATED Living God is the ONLY answer. There's no other.



simply stating your opinion doesnt make it a fact. do you really think you can just tell us what to believe? Or how to think?

Either your god is proof that life doesnt require a progenitor, or life is proof that god requires a progenitor. Can't have it both ways.


To use your own words:




For life to have a beginning there has to be a point when there was no beginning



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

Still a better theory than creationism.


Yet I'm not a proponent of Creationism. A word coined by atheists.

I'm a proponent of Biblical creation - Gen 1:1.


...there should be a LMFAO button for posts like this.
edit on 7-10-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2



I'm a proponent of Biblical creation


I'm curious if you would include all of Genesis and not just that first verse. For example, do you accept that at one time in human history there was only one human, a male? Genesis says God trotted out the animals in front of him but no "suitable helper" could be found so God had to make Eve.

What do you make of this story? Surely you don't take it all literally.
edit on 7-10-2015 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

Still a better theory than creationism.


Yet I'm not a proponent of Creationism. A word coined by atheists.

I'm a proponent of Biblical creation - Gen 1:1.


...there should be a LMFAO button for posts like this..




Thing is, when you say Creationism, it's referring to Creation Science and encompasses many things, including the belief that life was created with Intelligence but absent of a personal Creator - God. It also includes the earth being created 6000 to 10,000 years ago. Not 4 billion years ago as science has found.

I hope you're aware of this.
edit on 7-10-2015 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

Still a better theory than creationism.


Yet I'm not a proponent of Creationism. A word coined by atheists.

I'm a proponent of Biblical creation - Gen 1:1.


...there should be a LMFAO button for posts like this..




Thing is, when you say Creationism, it's referring to Creation Science and encompasses many things, including the belief that life was created with Intelligence but absent of a personal Creator - God. It also includes the earth being created 6000 to 10,000 years ago. Not 4 billion years ago as science has found.

I hope you're aware of this.


No generally it refers to biblical creationists....the types attempting to warp scientific findings in order to 'prove' their magical beliefs. Basically the least sane version of 'creationists'.
edit on 7-10-2015 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
Pointed out? You haven't even showed us how "nothing" can create life!


Once again, you use incredibly vague language to confuse the issue. Abiogenesis is about life arising from it's basic building blocks. Basic building blocks are not "nothing." Stop with the deceptive wording. Use terminology that actually applies to your argument.



If this is the case, how can inanimate things i.e. COMET produce life?

You seem to be an expert on this. So please describe for us the process.

How comets formed the first living cell in the "deep thermal vents"?


www.nature.com...

Here you go.

www.geek.com...

Here is the simplified version.

Again, I didn't say comets produce life. Comets can create amino acids. It's the first step. Obviously we haven't duplicated most of the other steps, but it still doesn't take away from your intentionally deceptive posts. I don't know the answer as to exactly how life formed. Scientists do not know this yet either. It doesn't make your god hypothesis correct.


Furthermore - where did the comet that carried the "seed" that "seeded" life on earth came from?

How did the earth the universe formed? What was there before the "big-bang"?

Nothing?

So we're back to square one.


Comets come from the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud. Again, we do not know what was there before the big bang. You are guessing when you say nothing. You cannot prove that there was ever "nothing".

Yeah, we're back to square one because your primary method of argument is confusion, semantics, equivocation and appeals to ignorance. Then, in response to being call out on this, you just repeat the original claim. If science does not know the answer, it doesn't prove god. It proves we don't know and that you are using the classic 'god of the gaps' fallacy. You are inserting god into areas that science doesn't fully understand yet.

So again, where is your LOGICAL case for creation? You still haven't used a shred of logic and you won't even back up your claims.


Yet I'm not a proponent of Creationism. A word coined by atheists.

I'm a proponent of Biblical creation - Gen 1:1.


Yeah, and I'm not an IT guy, I just fix computers. Biblical creation = creationism.


edit on 7-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: edmc^2



I'm a proponent of Biblical creation


I'm curious if you would include all of Genesis and not just that first verse. For example, do you accept that at one time in human history there was only one human, a male? Genesis says God trotted out the animals in front of him but no "suitable helper" could be found so God had to make Eve.

What do you make of this story? Surely you don't take it all literally.


What do I make of the story?

Well, one thing, it agrees with science. All races are just skin deep but deep down we're all one race - the human race progenated by one man - Adam. Hence, we're all brothers and sisters. As for the first man Adam, there is a great story of him being alone and had to wait for a while to be with his own kind.
In fact, Hebrew scholars believed he was around 30-40 years old when Eve was brought to him as a "suitable helper" or a partner - a wife.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Pointed out? You haven't even showed us how "nothing" can create life!


Once again, you use incredibly vague language to confuse the issue. Abiogenesis is about life arising from it's basic building blocks. Basic building blocks are not "nothing." Stop with the deceptive wording. Use terminology that actually applies to your argument.



If this is the case, how can inanimate things i.e. COMET produce life?

You seem to be an expert on this. So please describe for us the process.

How comets formed the first living cell in the "deep thermal vents"?


www.nature.com...

Here you go.

www.geek.com...

Here is the simplified version.

Again, I didn't say comets produce life. Comets can create amino acids. It's the first step. Obviously we haven't duplicated most of the other steps, but it still doesn't take away from your intentionally deceptive posts. I don't know the answer as to exactly how life formed. Scientists do not know this yet either. It doesn't make your god hypothesis correct.


Furthermore - where did the comet that carried the "seed" that "seeded" life on earth came from?

How did the earth the universe formed? What was there before the "big-bang"?

Nothing?

So we're back to square one.


Comets come from the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud. Again, we do not know what was there before the big bang. You are guessing when you say nothing. You cannot prove that there was ever "nothing".

Yeah, we're back to square one because your primary method of argument is confusion, equivocation and appeals to ignorance. Then, in response to being call out on this, you just repeat the original claim. If science does not know the answer, it doesn't prove god. It proves we don't know and that you are using the classic 'god of the gaps' fallacy. You are inserting god into areas that science doesn't fully understand yet.

So again, where is your LOGICAL case for creation? You still haven't used a shred of logic and you won't even back up your claims.


Yet I'm not a proponent of Creationism. A word coined by atheists.

I'm a proponent of Biblical creation - Gen 1:1.


Yeah, and I'm not an IT guy, I fix computers. Biblical creation = creationism.


Ok let's cut to the chase, where did the "Kuiper belt and Oort cloud" come from? Who or what created it?

Stop kicking the can to the next galaxy.

Edit:

BTW - I just read your link - it said the same thing "building blocks" for life. Not life.

Then goes assuming that:




perhaps we were all born of a comet impact.


Also, if as you say



I don't know the answer as to exactly how life formed.


then what convinces you that it's a fact?

That "perhaps we were all born of a comet impact"?

After all you're the one promoting it here.



edit on 7-10-2015 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join