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: 19
42
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

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.







What was the guiding agent in this experiment?




posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

nature... through random selection, trial and error, coincidence...whatever reason we will one day conclude..but it was nature/universe.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   

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

nature... through random selection, trial and error, coincidence...whatever reason we will one day conclude..but it was nature/universe.



And you believe it.

What great faith you have.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

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.







What was the guiding agent in this experiment?



Dr. Venter and his team.

I wish atheist can be consistent with their claim when it comes to origins.

That is, if nature did it, then nature should do it alone without intelligence from people conducting the experiments.

This way, it matches what they believe.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
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





"Well the UNIVERSE is UNCREATED because I said it."

Problem with your statement is we have evidence of a beginning of the Universe. Remember big-bang?

Surely you and your buddies are aware of this? Yes?

It's basic cosmology 101 ya know.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
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


Oh my. If you need a dictionary to define what life is, you'll end up defining everything as life.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

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.







What was the guiding agent in this experiment?



Dr. Venter and his team.

I wish atheist can be consistent with their claim when it comes to origins.

That is, if nature did it, then nature should do it alone without intelligence from people conducting the experiments.

This way, it matches what they believe.



So how would you setup an experiment to see nature do it?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull
Let me address this first since it's related to the OP.



I haven't seen you present any scientific evidence, I've seen some attempts at logic and some re-interpretation of what the Bible says but no scientific evidence. You've made lots and lots of ASSERTIONS and claims but you've not proved any aspect of Creation as far as I can see. Casting doubt on Krauss and Hawking and insisting that a God is the best explanation isn't evidence.

You still have yet to explain how your argument - All life must come from life so there must be a God doesn't involve a big ol' special pleading fallacy in order to get God out of needing to have come from a previous life. And the thing is you can't just say "God is uncaused/uncreated" because you can't possibly know that for sure. Sure the Bible says God is the Alpha and Omega but just because the Bible says it doesn't make it so. You can't rule out the idea that God might have an even bigger more incomprehensible UBER GOD as his creator and saying "God is a lifeform that doesn't need a creator" is violating the whole premise of your argument.


OK, Let's make this simple as possible. Starting with this:

Logic and science shows that ONLY a living thing can and will produce life.

a fact or not?

I say it's a fact but if you say no, why?

On the other hand logic and science shows that you can't produce life from non-living things.

a fact or not?

I say it's a fact but if you say no, why?

but if it's a fact on both counts, what then can we infer based the evidence?

This: that there MUST be by necessity life for life to emerge. And that life MUST by necessity pre-existing, always existing to be able to impart life. There must be by necessity UNCREATED life to begin with.

This is the ultimate evidence. Otherwise, the alternative is: to accept that "nothing" created everything including life. There was no life to begin the creation of life.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
Why I'm not a proponent of Creationism:


Creationism is the religious belief...SNIP...Theistic evolution, also known as Evolutionary Creationism, is an attempt to reconcile religion with scientific findings...en.wikipedia.org...

Incredible job on this thread edmc...


Some of the best I've seen in fact.

The Wikipedia quote I have to disagree with though.

Notice that it says: "Creationism is the religious belief..."

Ironically, the same is true of Darwinism, even more so in fact...

One of many reasons I no longer consider Wiki to be a credible source.

A few citations that talk about this:


Modern media often refers to the creation/evolution debate as a conflict between “science and religion.” In fact, there is no science to support evolution. The word science refers to knowledge gained through observation. A scientist (through experimentation) observes events as they happen, and then chronicles the details of those events.

The evolutionist has faith that these things happened, but he has not seen them and neither does he have any way of proving them. Therefore, the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not a matter of science vs. religion – but rather, religion vs. religion.

DARWIN DEBUNKED

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science.

Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Cult of Evolutionism

“… the general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth …” ~ Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld

"What is it evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." ~ Arthur N. Field.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor

"Most of what is being taught in university classrooms today, in biology, and also in physics and mathematics, is actually not science at all, but essentially a variety of religious cult, whose immediate roots can be traced, among other things, to the Cathars and Bogomils of the medieval "dark ages"!

True, this cult, which controls much of our educational system and scientific community, naturally does not advertise itself openly as a fanatic form of irrationalist belief; rather, it calls itself "the scientific establishment"; it typically brands those who refuse to accept its most egregious doctrines, as "unscientific." Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever.

Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

By refusing to acknowledge God, evolutionists have unwittingly created their own religion. In their eagerness to remove God and to rely on distant and suspicious circumstantial evidence—Chemical Evolutionists have created a religion that requires far more faith than to simply accept the facts and acknowledge the Creator.

Indeed, the "Religion of Chemical Evolution" requires:

1. Faith (to convince oneself the impossible happened),
2. Doctrines (e.g., teachings about aliens and the like),
3. Preachers (evolutionists, educators, and news media),
4. Bibles (college textbooks and numerous books on evolution),
5. Churches (school classrooms across the world where millions of students are required to listen to and accept evolutionary theories),
6. "gods" (some believe advanced aliens are trying to communicate with us, and that alien life seeded earth with nucleotides), and finally,
7. Miracles (in believing the natural laws of Thermodynamics and mathematics can be suspended).

In pursuit of the Chemical Evolution religion, some experts have ventured so far away from the scientific method (which suggests only actual fact and hard evidence should be utilized in science) that they have essentially reverted to the days of the Greeks and Romans, primitive scientists who embraced the notions of both Spontaneous Generation and "gods" from other realms.

The "religion" of Chemical Evolution?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

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.







What was the guiding agent in this experiment?



Dr. Venter and his team.

I wish atheist can be consistent with their claim when it comes to origins.

That is, if nature did it, then nature should do it alone without intelligence from people conducting the experiments.

This way, it matches what they believe.



So how would you setup an experiment to see nature do it?



OK, let's give you a leg up and a head start - I'll let you gather the best minds in science and have them gather all of the necessary "ingredients for life - building blocks" in nature, then let them mixed it up as best as they can in the best labs of the world - then sit back and let nature take its course. Observe what happens next.

What do you think will happen? Life or nothing living will come out of it?

BTW - nature didn't have the best minds as claimed by evolution scientists, so it's a bonus here.

Also, I know you're fully aware of the vital steps on how a single living cell is made.

But just to highlight some, here's a list of the cell parts and their funtions:


cell membrane - the thin layer of protein and fat that surrounds the cell. The cell membrane is semipermeable, allowing some substances to pass into the cell and blocking others.

centrosome - (also called the "microtubule organizing center") a small body located near the nucleus - it has a dense center and radiating tubules. The centrosomes is where microtubules are made. During cell division (mitosis), the centrosome divides and the two parts move to opposite sides of the dividing cell. The centriole is the dense center of the centrosome.

cytoplasm - the jellylike material outside the cell nucleus in which the organelles are located.

Golgi body - (also called the Golgi apparatus or golgi complex) a flattened, layered, sac-like organelle that looks like a stack of pancakes and is located near the nucleus. It produces the membranes that surround the lysosomes. The Golgi body packages proteins and carbohydrates into membrane-bound vesicles for "export" from the cell.

lysosome - (also called cell vesicles) round organelles surrounded by a membrane and containing digestive enzymes. This is where the digestion of cell nutrients takes place.

mitochondrion - spherical to rod-shaped organelles with a double membrane. The inner membrane is infolded many times, forming a series of projections (called cristae). The mitochondrion converts the energy stored in glucose into ATP (adenosine triphosphate) for the cell.

nuclear membrane - the membrane that surrounds the nucleus.

nucleolus - an organelle within the nucleus - it is where ribosomal RNA is produced. Some cells have more than one nucleolus.

nucleus - spherical body containing many organelles, including the nucleolus. The nucleus controls many of the functions of the cell (by controlling protein synthesis) and contains DNA (in chromosomes). The nucleus is surrounded by the nuclear membrane.

ribosome - small organelles composed of RNA-rich cytoplasmic granules that are sites of protein synthesis.
rough endoplasmic reticulum - (rough ER) a vast system of interconnected, membranous, infolded and convoluted sacks that are located in the cell's cytoplasm (the ER is continuous with the outer nuclear membrane). Rough ER is covered with ribosomes that give it a rough appearance. Rough ER transports materials through the cell and produces proteins in sacks called cisternae (which are sent to the Golgi body, or inserted into the cell membrane).

smooth endoplasmic reticulum - (smooth ER) a vast system of interconnected, membranous, infolded and convoluted tubes that are located in the cell's cytoplasm (the ER is continuous with the outer nuclear membrane). The space within the ER is called the ER lumen. Smooth ER transports materials through the cell. It contains enzymes and produces and digests lipids (fats) and membrane proteins; smooth ER buds off from rough ER, moving the newly-made proteins and lipids to the Golgi body, lysosomes, and membranes.

vacuole - fluid-filled, membrane-surrounded cavities inside a cell. The vacuole fills with food being digested and waste material that is on its way out of the cell.


www.enchantedlearning.com...

That should do it.

Point to remember - many of these parts must work together side by side otherwise no work will be done. Also if one part is missing the cell structure will collapse. For example, information is needed to pass from one cell part to another to relay instructions. So instructions must have a carrier - RNA. So if there's no RNA no information. No information no DNA. But RNA and DNA can't exist without a membrane. But a membrane needs instructions from the RNA to be built. So if one is missing nothing will work.

Now let's sit back and let "nature" do its wonder.

What do you think? Will IT create life - a living cell?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: edmc^2
Why I'm not a proponent of Creationism:


Creationism is the religious belief...SNIP...Theistic evolution, also known as Evolutionary Creationism, is an attempt to reconcile religion with scientific findings...en.wikipedia.org...

Incredible job on this thread edmc...


Some of the best I've seen in fact.

The Wikipedia quote I have to disagree with though.

Notice that it says: "Creationism is the religious belief..."

Ironically, the same is true of Darwinism, even more so in fact...

One of many reasons I no longer consider Wiki to be a credible source.

A few citations that talk about this:


Modern media often refers to the creation/evolution debate as a conflict between “science and religion.” In fact, there is no science to support evolution. The word science refers to knowledge gained through observation. A scientist (through experimentation) observes events as they happen, and then chronicles the details of those events.

The evolutionist has faith that these things happened, but he has not seen them and neither does he have any way of proving them. Therefore, the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not a matter of science vs. religion – but rather, religion vs. religion.

DARWIN DEBUNKED

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science.

Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Cult of Evolutionism

“… the general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth …” ~ Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld

"What is it evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." ~ Arthur N. Field.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor

"Most of what is being taught in university classrooms today, in biology, and also in physics and mathematics, is actually not science at all, but essentially a variety of religious cult, whose immediate roots can be traced, among other things, to the Cathars and Bogomils of the medieval "dark ages"!

True, this cult, which controls much of our educational system and scientific community, naturally does not advertise itself openly as a fanatic form of irrationalist belief; rather, it calls itself "the scientific establishment"; it typically brands those who refuse to accept its most egregious doctrines, as "unscientific." Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever.

Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

By refusing to acknowledge God, evolutionists have unwittingly created their own religion. In their eagerness to remove God and to rely on distant and suspicious circumstantial evidence—Chemical Evolutionists have created a religion that requires far more faith than to simply accept the facts and acknowledge the Creator.

Indeed, the "Religion of Chemical Evolution" requires:

1. Faith (to convince oneself the impossible happened),
2. Doctrines (e.g., teachings about aliens and the like),
3. Preachers (evolutionists, educators, and news media),
4. Bibles (college textbooks and numerous books on evolution),
5. Churches (school classrooms across the world where millions of students are required to listen to and accept evolutionary theories),
6. "gods" (some believe advanced aliens are trying to communicate with us, and that alien life seeded earth with nucleotides), and finally,
7. Miracles (in believing the natural laws of Thermodynamics and mathematics can be suspended).

In pursuit of the Chemical Evolution religion, some experts have ventured so far away from the scientific method (which suggests only actual fact and hard evidence should be utilized in science) that they have essentially reverted to the days of the Greeks and Romans, primitive scientists who embraced the notions of both Spontaneous Generation and "gods" from other realms.

The "religion" of Chemical Evolution?


Thanks Murgatroid. I got what you're saying and thanks for the links. I'll add them to my collection. They are much better than the wiki. Actually, I don't really have a good reason why I choose wiki. Fact is, I don't use it in my research since it can be tampered with. But I think you covered the vitals. Also, the other reason why I don't subscribe to Creationism is that it was coined originally by Darwin. Then adopted by evolution proponents to throw at Creation proponents.

Anyway thanks again.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I think Venter did exactly that - my question to you is how would you setup an experiment that observes nature in the act of creating life?

You're dancing around the main issue - specifically your own question as the OP. I know how the Venter experiment works. It was explained to you in my previous post. Your response was that human intelligence can't be involved in the experiment. Yet, in your most recent post you suggest that I gather all the greatest scientists in the world to design the experiment - how does that fit in with your position?

All I'm asking you to do is think clearly how you would design an experiment around the natural process of nature?




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



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

FYI, he didn't "create life". He used existing genetic material in his experiments. This will no doubt be construed as supporting "life can only come from pre existing life"... But then I ask you, what pre existing life does this god come from?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Phantom423

FYI, he didn't "create life". He used existing genetic material in his experiments. This will no doubt be construed as supporting "life can only come from pre existing life"... But then I ask you, what pre existing life does this god come from?


I think you misunderstood the experiment. They sequenced the genetic code of the Mycoplasma. The sequence was coded into a computer. Then they synthesized the DNA from the code and that's the DNA that was inserted into the shell.

If they used original genetic material it would be more like a clone. But the DNA that they used was synthesized from a computer program which was based on the code of the Mycoplasma. That's why it's synthetic. It's like taking the code for a human, translating it into C++ code and then running that code and out pops a human. That's a very different process than inserting DNA from one organism into a suitable environment where it can develop.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Even you know this list is debunked more then once (some in list lived more then 100 years ago) you still post it?!

Seems like you have agenda here, to spread lies, even you know, knowingly spreading wrong/false information is against rules of ATS?!



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2



a fact or not?


We don't know. We haven't figured out exactly how life originated from non-living chemicals but we do know that life is just complex chemical interactions. There need not be a designer when we're dealing with something that is perfectly consistent with the natural interactions of chemicals. We have no reason to assume that in order for primitive microorganisms to evolve on Earth we would need some kind of intervention. The FACT is that life on Earth began as basic single-celled organisms which eventually gave rise to every extant species we see around us. That suggests that, even if a God was somehow involved, that God started out small, with single-celled organisms, for some reason. The most consistent hypotheses with the facts are those which state that life originated here, on Earth, arising from purely natural processes.



On the other hand logic and science shows that you can't produce life from non-living things.


Not YET. But human beings are made of non-living elements, we're made of the same stuff that Earth is made of, most of our bodies are composed of WATER and water is a non-living thing. Also this question will likely come up once we develop intelligent AI and we have to ask ourselves what the definition of life is, whether we might include some fast-thinking self-replicating machine as alive.



And that life MUST by necessity pre-existing, always existing to be able to impart life.


Not only is this a bizarre non-sequitur but its a logically fallacious statement. The entire premise of your argument is that life needs to come from life. You immediately throw this out the window by inventing a new kind of life, an UBER ORGANISM which you identify as the God of the Bible.

It's not evidence, it's not even a logically sound argument and I definitely think you can do better.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Evolution by Nature is happening right before your eyes.Stars being born...stars dying..plant & animal changing and adapting.It is not faith based, look and you will learn...



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

We have evidence of the universe ...HERE and NOW. The big bang basically describe a change not a beginning plus if these was "concrete" evidence of this we would not be having this debate. Events of black holes, galaxies etc exploding and expanding is continuously happening.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

"This: that there MUST be by necessity life for life to emerge. And that life MUST by necessity pre-existing, always existing to be able to impart life. There must be by necessity UNCREATED life to begin with."

You do not see that this is an impossible PARADOX..."pre-existing" or "always existing" do not excuse your statement...it is still life.. so if life can only come from life where did the original/first life come from????



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: edmc^2
Why I'm not a proponent of Creationism:


Creationism is the religious belief...SNIP...Theistic evolution, also known as Evolutionary Creationism, is an attempt to reconcile religion with scientific findings...en.wikipedia.org...

Incredible job on this thread edmc...


Some of the best I've seen in fact.

The Wikipedia quote I have to disagree with though.

Notice that it says: "Creationism is the religious belief..."

Ironically, the same is true of Darwinism, even more so in fact...

One of many reasons I no longer consider Wiki to be a credible source.

A few citations that talk about this:


Modern media often refers to the creation/evolution debate as a conflict between “science and religion.” In fact, there is no science to support evolution. The word science refers to knowledge gained through observation. A scientist (through experimentation) observes events as they happen, and then chronicles the details of those events.

The evolutionist has faith that these things happened, but he has not seen them and neither does he have any way of proving them. Therefore, the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not a matter of science vs. religion – but rather, religion vs. religion.

DARWIN DEBUNKED

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science.

Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Cult of Evolutionism

“… the general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth …” ~ Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld

"What is it evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." ~ Arthur N. Field.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor

"Most of what is being taught in university classrooms today, in biology, and also in physics and mathematics, is actually not science at all, but essentially a variety of religious cult, whose immediate roots can be traced, among other things, to the Cathars and Bogomils of the medieval "dark ages"!

True, this cult, which controls much of our educational system and scientific community, naturally does not advertise itself openly as a fanatic form of irrationalist belief; rather, it calls itself "the scientific establishment"; it typically brands those who refuse to accept its most egregious doctrines, as "unscientific." Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever.

Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

By refusing to acknowledge God, evolutionists have unwittingly created their own religion. In their eagerness to remove God and to rely on distant and suspicious circumstantial evidence—Chemical Evolutionists have created a religion that requires far more faith than to simply accept the facts and acknowledge the Creator.

Indeed, the "Religion of Chemical Evolution" requires:

1. Faith (to convince oneself the impossible happened),
2. Doctrines (e.g., teachings about aliens and the like),
3. Preachers (evolutionists, educators, and news media),
4. Bibles (college textbooks and numerous books on evolution),
5. Churches (school classrooms across the world where millions of students are required to listen to and accept evolutionary theories),
6. "gods" (some believe advanced aliens are trying to communicate with us, and that alien life seeded earth with nucleotides), and finally,
7. Miracles (in believing the natural laws of Thermodynamics and mathematics can be suspended).

In pursuit of the Chemical Evolution religion, some experts have ventured so far away from the scientific method (which suggests only actual fact and hard evidence should be utilized in science) that they have essentially reverted to the days of the Greeks and Romans, primitive scientists who embraced the notions of both Spontaneous Generation and "gods" from other realms.

The "religion" of Chemical Evolution?


Only when it comes to religion that people tend to ''Brand" someone for non-belief. What is the non-belief in Santa Claus called? or the non belief in aliens. You chose to believe something that others chose not to. There is no religion with that...if your belief had no impact on our daily lives most persons would not give a crap in what christians, muslims, Hindus etc believe. But unfortunately you have radical groups like ISIS, boko haram, the crusade, The Spanish Inquisition, Hitler etc who murder innocents because of their belief. So it now becomes our duty to humanity to educate and enlighten you guys before it is too late...



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join