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: 18
42
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: toktaylor

All you have described is proof of the existence and reality of the UNIVERSE not proof of a supernatural being.




posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

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

"In other words, since God already exist, he can't create himself. It's illogical. But God can create the universe."

If he already exist then he could not have created existence. that is the illogical aspect of your argument. So is either there was no existence and he created it, meaning he would not have to exist to do so (fallacy to you reasoning).



I think we're saying the same thing, but you misunderstood what I said.

We're both saying that when something already exists then it's illogical to say that the same thing it exists again.

Now what's also illogical is what said before:




I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.


No, you can't justify that since "god can preexist before life" therefore "the universe can also preexists".

That's an illogical reasoning because God has no beginning but the universe began to exist (according to science) 13-14 billion years ago.

If you say this is the case, then you'll have to disavow the "singularity" or the "big-bang theory".

And since God doesn't exist to you, thus saying "the universe can also preexists" is illogical.

You need to clarify your position because mine is clear.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" - Gen 1:1

And God is UNCREATED.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: toktaylor

All you have described is proof of the existence and reality of the UNIVERSE not proof of a supernatural being.



OK, let me put this in another way.

Since pre-existing life according to scientific evidence is the source of life, thus I INFER based on the evidence, Life MUST then come from God.

That is, since the Living God is UNCREATED, therefore he can impart life.

Note the the word INFER.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

God in "UNCREATED" because you said it?? Well the UNIVERSE is UNCREATED because I said it.

Look... if god created everything (as you say) then he has to be separate and apart from his creation/ everything. So if he is not a part of everything then he is clearly nothing...nothing is non-existence...NADA..that is basic 101 logic to me.

clearly everything/existence/universe could not have been created...what would have been the building blocks, the by products,,,even thoughts, ideas require brain/mind so the only logical explanation is everything always existed but continues to evolve...evolution



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
OK, let me put this in another way.

Since pre-existing life according to scientific evidence is the source of life, thus I INFER based on the evidence, Life MUST then come from God.

That is, since the Living God is UNCREATED, therefore he can impart life.

Note the the word INFER.


Care to share sources that validate this hypothesis??

What scientist in what publication?

And how do you know if something is God's handy work or not?

Did anyone brake to you news that ID/Creationism is dead??

There is no such a thing as Intelligent Design - please follow my signature - link about Stupid Design.

It is well studied and conclusion is that we have a lot REAL (I know, new word for ya) evidence for Stupid Design.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: toktaylor

All you have described is proof of the existence and reality of the UNIVERSE not proof of a supernatural being.



OK, let me put this in another way.

Since pre-existing life according to scientific evidence is the source of life, thus I INFER based on the evidence, Life MUST then come from God.

That is, since the Living God is UNCREATED, therefore he can impart life.

Note the the word INFER.



You have no evidence for the "source of life" or that God is "uncreated" (that's a new one- congratulations!)

What's your evidence?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: toktaylor

All you have described is proof of the existence and reality of the UNIVERSE not proof of a supernatural being.



OK, let me put this in another way.

Since pre-existing life according to scientific evidence is the source of life, thus I INFER based on the evidence, Life MUST then come from God.

That is, since the Living God is UNCREATED, therefore he can impart life.

Note the the word INFER.



You have no evidence for the "source of life" or that God is "uncreated" (that's a new one- congratulations!)

What's your evidence?



Glad you're watching Phantom.

This not to put you on the spot but ...

If there's NO evidence of life emerging from non-life but we have evidence for life coming from pre-existing life, where did life then - come from?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Make up your mind Barcs. Either you're out or you're in the discussion.

Last post you said - YOU'RE DONE HERE.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: toktaylor

All you have described is proof of the existence and reality of the UNIVERSE not proof of a supernatural being.



OK, let me put this in another way.

Since pre-existing life according to scientific evidence is the source of life, thus I INFER based on the evidence, Life MUST then come from God.

That is, since the Living God is UNCREATED, therefore he can impart life.

Note the the word INFER.



You have no evidence for the "source of life" or that God is "uncreated" (that's a new one- congratulations!)

What's your evidence?



Glad you're watching Phantom.

This not to put you on the spot but ...

If there's NO evidence of life emerging from non-life but we have evidence for life coming from pre-existing life, where did life then - come from?








Ah, but there is evidence of life forming from non-life - remember self-assembly? And Craig Venter's experiment? But even if that wasn't valid, if life was formed from pre-existing life, then there still had to be a first event even if it was done by a creator.

Biologically, life is anything that can reproduce without any outside intervention. Even viruses are considered "alive" now. DNA can replicate itself. When this first happened is unknow. It may have been multiple events. We don't know. But there's more evidence for self replication of DNA independently than there is for some pre-existing life form who required intervention (i.e. a God) to exist.


edit on 8-10-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-10-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Life


Definition

noun, plural: lives

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: toktaylor

All you have described is proof of the existence and reality of the UNIVERSE not proof of a supernatural being.



OK, let me put this in another way.

Since pre-existing life according to scientific evidence is the source of life, thus I INFER based on the evidence, Life MUST then come from God.

That is, since the Living God is UNCREATED, therefore he can impart life.

Note the the word INFER.



You have no evidence for the "source of life" or that God is "uncreated" (that's a new one- congratulations!)

What's your evidence?



Glad you're watching Phantom.

This not to put you on the spot but ...

If there's NO evidence of life emerging from non-life but we have evidence for life coming from pre-existing life, where did life then - come from?








In every other examples of things created we have evidence of the things being created..."Made in China" etc. If there's no evidence of things being created without a seal of ownership...where did "your" creator come from??

Where is the evidence of your creation/creator...???



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Note that none of this is evidence that there ISN'T a God. All it says is that it is an unknown - and probably can't be known - because of the impossibility of acquiring evidence.

So the probability still lies with life developing from simple molecules of nucleic acids that hooked up with the phosphate deoxyribose molecule which then formed the backbone of DNA.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: toktaylor

All you have described is proof of the existence and reality of the UNIVERSE not proof of a supernatural being.



OK, let me put this in another way.

Since pre-existing life according to scientific evidence is the source of life, thus I INFER based on the evidence, Life MUST then come from God.

That is, since the Living God is UNCREATED, therefore he can impart life.

Note the the word INFER.



You have no evidence for the "source of life" or that God is "uncreated" (that's a new one- congratulations!)

What's your evidence?



Glad you're watching Phantom.

This not to put you on the spot but ...

If there's NO evidence of life emerging from non-life but we have evidence for life coming from pre-existing life, where did life then - come from?








Ah, but there is evidence of life forming from non-life - remember self-assembly? And Craig Venter's experiment? But even if that wasn't valid, if life was formed from pre-existing life, then there still had to be a first event even if it was done by a creator.

Biologically, life is anything that can reproduce without any outside intervention. Even viruses are considered "alive" now. DNA can replicate itself. When this first happened is unknow. It may have been multiple events. We don't know. But there's more evidence for self replication of DNA independently than there is for some pre-existing life form who required intervention (i.e. a God) to exist.



If I'm not mistaken, Craig Venter's experiment was based on an existing specimen. I believe it was a certain type of bacterium. It wasn't based on a non-living material. So that experiment is not a good "evidence of life forming from non-life"

Subsequently any DNA replication/manipulation/re-engineering is still based on a living specimen, so my point continue to be valid 100%.

Also, since atheist posit that there was no guiding agent when life was created, thus any experiment done by PEOPLE today is invalid.

To really show that life can emerge from non-life unguided, intelligence must not be part of the equation/process.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: toktaylor

All you have described is proof of the existence and reality of the UNIVERSE not proof of a supernatural being.



OK, let me put this in another way.

Since pre-existing life according to scientific evidence is the source of life, thus I INFER based on the evidence, Life MUST then come from God.

That is, since the Living God is UNCREATED, therefore he can impart life.

Note the the word INFER.



You have no evidence for the "source of life" or that God is "uncreated" (that's a new one- congratulations!)

What's your evidence?



Glad you're watching Phantom.

This not to put you on the spot but ...

If there's NO evidence of life emerging from non-life but we have evidence for life coming from pre-existing life, where did life then - come from?








Ah, but there is evidence of life forming from non-life - remember self-assembly? And Craig Venter's experiment? But even if that wasn't valid, if life was formed from pre-existing life, then there still had to be a first event even if it was done by a creator.

Biologically, life is anything that can reproduce without any outside intervention. Even viruses are considered "alive" now. DNA can replicate itself. When this first happened is unknow. It may have been multiple events. We don't know. But there's more evidence for self replication of DNA independently than there is for some pre-existing life form who required intervention (i.e. a God) to exist.



If I'm not mistaken, Craig Venter's experiment was based on an existing specimen. I believe it was a certain type of bacterium. It wasn't based on a non-living material. So that experiment is not a good "evidence of life forming from non-life"

Subsequently any DNA replication/manipulation/re-engineering is still based on a living specimen, so my point continue to be valid 100%.

Also, since atheist posit that there was no guiding agent when life was created, thus any experiment done by PEOPLE today is invalid.

To really show that life can emerge from non-life unguided, intelligence must not be part of the equation/process.







Soon you will have to find different straw...

phys.org...

A team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK believes they have solved the mystery of how it was possible for life to begin on Earth over four billion years ago. In their paper published in the journal Nature Chemistry, the team describes how they were able to map reactions that produced two and three-carbon sugars, amino acids, ribonucleotides and glycerol—the material necessary for metabolism and for creating the building blocks of proteins and ribonucleic acid molecules and also for allowing for the creation of lipids that form cell membranes.

edit on 8-10-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2






First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world's smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats, and stored the information on a computer.
Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a "watermark" so it was distinguishable from the original natural one.

Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code.

The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life.

Dr Venter compared his work with the building of a computer. Making the artificial DNA was the equivalent of creating the software for the operating system. Transferring it to a cell was like loading it into the hardware and running the programme.

"This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer," said Dr Venter.


The synthesized DNA was placed into a shell - i.e. a bacterium that had all its DNA removed - so there was only an envelope into which the synthesized DNA was inserted. The synthetic chromosome began to replicate - which is the definition of being "alive".

I understand what you're driving at - and it's a valid point. But if we think of DNA as a code which self-assembled and can replicate, that's all we really need to create "life" synthetically. And that suggests that this is how it began as well.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: toktaylor

All you have described is proof of the existence and reality of the UNIVERSE not proof of a supernatural being.



OK, let me put this in another way.

Since pre-existing life according to scientific evidence is the source of life, thus I INFER based on the evidence, Life MUST then come from God.

That is, since the Living God is UNCREATED, therefore he can impart life.

Note the the word INFER.



You have no evidence for the "source of life" or that God is "uncreated" (that's a new one- congratulations!)

What's your evidence?



Glad you're watching Phantom.

This not to put you on the spot but ...

If there's NO evidence of life emerging from non-life but we have evidence for life coming from pre-existing life, where did life then - come from?








Ah, but there is evidence of life forming from non-life - remember self-assembly? And Craig Venter's experiment? But even if that wasn't valid, if life was formed from pre-existing life, then there still had to be a first event even if it was done by a creator.

Biologically, life is anything that can reproduce without any outside intervention. Even viruses are considered "alive" now. DNA can replicate itself. When this first happened is unknow. It may have been multiple events. We don't know. But there's more evidence for self replication of DNA independently than there is for some pre-existing life form who required intervention (i.e. a God) to exist.



If I'm not mistaken, Craig Venter's experiment was based on an existing specimen. I believe it was a certain type of bacterium. It wasn't based on a non-living material. So that experiment is not a good "evidence of life forming from non-life"

Subsequently any DNA replication/manipulation/re-engineering is still based on a living specimen, so my point continue to be valid 100%.

Also, since atheist posit that there was no guiding agent when life was created, thus any experiment done by PEOPLE today is invalid.

To really show that life can emerge from non-life unguided, intelligence must not be part of the equation/process.







Soon you will have to find different straw...

phys.org...

A team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK believes they have solved the mystery of how it was possible for life to begin on Earth over four billion years ago. In their paper published in the journal Nature Chemistry, the team describes how they were able to map reactions that produced two and three-carbon sugars, amino acids, ribonucleotides and glycerol—the material necessary for metabolism and for creating the building blocks of proteins and ribonucleic acid molecules and also for allowing for the creation of lipids that form cell membranes.


Same question to you:

If life emerged from non-life unguided in nature, who are the " team of chemists" in nature?

it's not a straw, just a simple q.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
When you say intelligence cannot be part of the equation, I presume you mean human intelligence. And that's entirely possible because under the right conditions, the DNA will self assemble and replicate without any outside intervention.
Just because we observe it in the lab doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in nature.
Observation in the lab is the only way we know about anything. To observe it in nature would be virtually impossible because it's a very small molecule in a very big world! Where would you look?




edit on 8-10-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2






First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world's smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats, and stored the information on a computer.
Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a "watermark" so it was distinguishable from the original natural one.

Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code.

The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life.

Dr Venter compared his work with the building of a computer. Making the artificial DNA was the equivalent of creating the software for the operating system. Transferring it to a cell was like loading it into the hardware and running the programme.

"This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer," said Dr Venter.


The synthesized DNA was placed into a shell - i.e. a bacterium that had all its DNA removed - so there was only an envelope into which the synthesized DNA was inserted. The synthetic chromosome began to replicate - which is the definition of being "alive".

I understand what you're driving at - and it's a valid point. But if we think of DNA as a code which self-assembled and can replicate, that's all we really need to create "life" synthetically. And that suggests that this is how it began as well.




Hence, they call it "synthetic life".

More like a designer gene.

But to be a truly 1:1 experiment, nature will have to do it on its own.

No guiding agent required because once intelligence is introduced, it's a whole new ballgame, a whole new equation.

Only way to prove it happened - that way.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
Same question to you:

If life emerged from non-life unguided in nature, who are the " team of chemists" in nature?

it's not a straw, just a simple q.



Lab environment is set as earth in early stage of its existence, no handy work of scientist, just observing and recording.

Seems you don't really know how it was tested before, unsuccessfully.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: toktaylor

All you have described is proof of the existence and reality of the UNIVERSE not proof of a supernatural being.



OK, let me put this in another way.

Since pre-existing life according to scientific evidence is the source of life, thus I INFER based on the evidence, Life MUST then come from God.

That is, since the Living God is UNCREATED, therefore he can impart life.

Note the the word INFER.



You have no evidence for the "source of life" or that God is "uncreated" (that's a new one- congratulations!)

What's your evidence?



Glad you're watching Phantom.

This not to put you on the spot but ...

If there's NO evidence of life emerging from non-life but we have evidence for life coming from pre-existing life, where did life then - come from?








Ah, but there is evidence of life forming from non-life - remember self-assembly? And Craig Venter's experiment? But even if that wasn't valid, if life was formed from pre-existing life, then there still had to be a first event even if it was done by a creator.

Biologically, life is anything that can reproduce without any outside intervention. Even viruses are considered "alive" now. DNA can replicate itself. When this first happened is unknow. It may have been multiple events. We don't know. But there's more evidence for self replication of DNA independently than there is for some pre-existing life form who required intervention (i.e. a God) to exist.



If I'm not mistaken, Craig Venter's experiment was based on an existing specimen. I believe it was a certain type of bacterium. It wasn't based on a non-living material. So that experiment is not a good "evidence of life forming from non-life"

Subsequently any DNA replication/manipulation/re-engineering is still based on a living specimen, so my point continue to be valid 100%.

Also, since atheist posit that there was no guiding agent when life was created, thus any experiment done by PEOPLE today is invalid.

To really show that life can emerge from non-life unguided, intelligence must not be part of the equation/process.







Soon you will have to find different straw...

phys.org...

A team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK believes they have solved the mystery of how it was possible for life to begin on Earth over four billion years ago. In their paper published in the journal Nature Chemistry, the team describes how they were able to map reactions that produced two and three-carbon sugars, amino acids, ribonucleotides and glycerol—the material necessary for metabolism and for creating the building blocks of proteins and ribonucleic acid molecules and also for allowing for the creation of lipids that form cell membranes.


Same question to you:

If life emerged from non-life unguided in nature, who are the " team of chemists" in nature?

it's not a straw, just a simple q.



Self-assembly is self-guidance. The DNA molecule is a code and that code translates into self replication.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join