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.

 

Evidence for God

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Omnipotence,Omnipresence,Omniscience,benevolence, universal creator to mutter but a few


These things are beyond human understanding.


LOL So moses was a christian?????


Sorry, i meant New Testament.


So if anyone doesnt agree with what you believe then they are illogical because of YOUR logic.


This is not just my logic. Anyone who researches Christianity would come up with the
same reasons. But if they dont accept there are reasons that he might exist, then that is illogical.


So its true that man was made from clay/mud/muck/dirt i.e Non carbon????????


If God is God, then he would have no problem doing this.


I believe some of the historical data in the bible like the names of cities and kings etc you know the sane stuff (and some of it is even wrong)


Archaeologists often use the Bible because it is so historically accurate. But you dont believe in any of the God related stuff?




You dont KNOW that god exists . You BELIEVE that god exists (two entirely different things) You cannot know the unknown.


Ok. I believe that God exists just as much as anything i see exists.


Originally posted by shihulud
Yes I might be wrong (very very highly unlikely though) but as I said Why should I look for god when I dont believe? Which god do you worship? Define your god


Because your belief may be wrong. You should check out Christianity first and make an effort to learn about it. Go to a good church, go to a youth group (if young enough, otherwise some adults group). I worship the Christian God.



Originally posted by shihulud
Hmmmm Deja Vu , I've already wrote that last phrase today! Hmmmm and it wasn't you.
Oh I forgot to add that there is no evidence what so ever between healings and prayer. Tell me this - why do you pray to an allknowing god?



Originally posted by LancerJ1
Not evidence as in something you can reproduce at will. If you dont consider someone praying for someone to get better from a life time illness and then they do, nothing much else is going to convince you. In my friends church, some people went for a mission trip to somewhere in Africa. There was this crippled lady who was confined to a wheel chair. The group prayed for her healing and she was able to get out of her wheel chair and walk.


Coincidental nothing more.


I cant believe this! This is not some one off event. It happens often in the Christian faith. What other religion can claim that they can heal others?

By the way, Christians pray to an all knowing God because it builds the relationship with him. It teaches us to trust him. God likes it when we talk to him. He listens.




posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by LancerJ1
Explain to me miraculous healings by those who pray for it on others?

Miracles in the Bible still happen in this age. God is certainly not an idle God.


where are these miracles?

can i get some records of them, and then some evidence that shows that the suppossed miracles are beyond a shadow of a doubt miracles?


These miracles happen everywhere.

I dont know if they are recorded, i guess some would be. Look on the internet. If you want hard scientific evidence then you are not likely to get it.

But once you've seen such miracles, you dont need to write them down for yourself to believe. We have the Bible that tells about many many miracles.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Out of all major world religious leaders, Jesus was the only one who actually claimed to be God, claimed he could give eternal life, claimed he could give forgiveness at a future judgment and claimed that his teaching was for every person of all ages in the world.


How do you know he did? How do you proove that he did actually exist, and is not a book character?


The existence of Jesus is a fact. Either if you believe he is the Son of God or just an ordinary human, you cannot dispute the evidence that there was a man named Jesus. There are historical documents from biblical times from respected non-Christian and anti-Christian writers and scholars that refer to Jesus and his claim he was God.


Why didn't you link this evidence to your post? Saying they exist doesn't mean they do.


Therefore since Jesus’ claim is an undeniable fact, he was either a liar, a madman, or was God. A claim to be God is the biggest claim anyone can make. From the start Jesus taught he was sinless and offered anyone who followed him eternal life. If Jesus was lying he has deceived more people than any other in the world’s history and would be labeled the world’s biggest liar. If Jesus was lying, he died for his lies. Would you die for a lie? Historical records verify that Jesus was crucified and died, of these the Roman pro-consul Tacitus a very highly regarded historian who wrote in Latin. Wouldn’t only a madman carry a lie to the horrible death of crucifixion when he could of got out of it by simply admitting his lie? Psychiatrists and scholars from the past to present conclude from Jesus’ teaching and character his mind certainly was not unstable.


Jesus is far from being the only one that died due to religious beliefs. He was one of many jewish sect leaders and "magicians" that existed at the time. It's mainly because he was crucified that his message spread. And you cannot do a psychanalisis on a a person described in a book.


If Jesus was a madman he wouldn’t come back from the dead. But there were hundreds of people who witnessed his resurrection from the dead


where is your evidence for this?


Many eyewitnesses claimed that Jesus after his resurrection ate meals with them and spoke with them.


same as above. where are your eyewitness accounts?


Paul was beheaded because of his belief. Why would he do all this if it was a lie?


again, how do you determin if this happened or is just a written story?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Couldn't find the IIRC article on worldnetdaily even though i'm a subscriber and read it regularly. Link?

The universe has already been shown to have had a cause (beginning). You may conclude differently as to what caused that beginning but the universe did have a beginning. Beginnings are references to time. Measureable time was also created by God for our benefit (if we choose to use it beneficially). God is not subject to the laws of his constructs.

Has homology or ToE come up with any answers for explaining irreducible complexity or a mechanism for beginning?
Organic molecules are not synonymous with life producing molecules. I believe Miller came up with 3. You're right, Melatonin, in that it's a chemical problem. Even if a few amino acids fell from the sky onto a lifeless earth, they'd still have to get the right amount of the right kinds of amino acids to line up to produce a protein molecule and even then you wouldn't have a living cell. You'd need quite a few protein molecules (all sequenced properly) to make even 1 single-celled organism. And it would all have to be done while preventing harmful or useless material from collecting in the mix. Natural selection CAN'T work at the level of chemical evolution.

Then there's the matter of consciousness. What laws of physics or any aspect of natural laws can cause consciousness to arise from random colliding particles? Lipton's cup-a-consciousness? Just add prebiotic sludge?
"Forces may produce order but they can't manufacture information." (quote by Meyer) In order for anything to replicate itself and pass on it's groovy self the information on HOW to do that would already have to be present. It's the information that makes the molecules into something that actually functions. Information comes from an Informer. Your books didn't just write themselves. Your computer didn't just program itself. An intelligent mind was the cause.

Also, there's the issue of a mechanism. You need more than missing links to demonstrate natural selection. You need to know HOW. Intelligent Design is the simplest answer that addresses all the multitudinous insurmountable odds of how life came to be.

"Wells is full of poopey"? That's as convincing an argument as "Ah come on". It's overridden all of my logic and objections. Well said. Well thought out. Well presented. The "poopey" defense has overcome any reasonable doubt and I am now convinced of the truth of your argument. Well done.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Here's the link...

Wells screed

I'll answer the rest of your post soon, I'm off for a lovely bath and a bit of radiohead



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
thanks for the link melatonin. i read it and it's an article by wells entitled "Why Darwinism is Doomed. i'm not sure how the article supports your point. it's basically saying that taxpayers are funding a creation myth parading as science and that the evolutionists argument is weak which i believe is what I've been saying (apart from the taxpayer thing). sooooo, how does it show that there is no evidence for God? or maybe you were trying to show that wells is "poopey" for holding a different (and more learned) opinion than yours? please clarify. enjoy your bath.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Whitewave you seem to be quite an intelligent person but I am just wondering WHY you associate homolgy and the ToE with complexity and mechanisms of the beginning. No-one knows how life began on this planet and the ToE does not and is not supposed to explain how life arose but to explain how life is the variety of species we have today.
I quite like the Panspermia idea myself.



G



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
The universe has already been shown to have had a cause (beginning). You may conclude differently as to what caused that beginning but the universe did have a beginning. Beginnings are references to time. Measureable time was also created by God for our benefit (if we choose to use it beneficially). God is not subject to the laws of his constructs.


Of course he isn't, that's the beauty of such a concept, it explains everything and nothing.



Has homology or ToE come up with any answers for explaining irreducible complexity or a mechanism for beginning?


Even Behe's mousetrap analogy has been shown to not be a problem for a pseudo-evolutionary process. If he can't get the analogy correct, what chance has he got for selecting truly IC biological systems? Most of his proposed systems have been shown to not be a problem for ToE and the flagellum only has 2 essential proteins that are, so far, unique.



Organic molecules are not synonymous with life producing molecules. I believe Miller came up with 3. You're right, Melatonin, in that it's a chemical problem. Even if a few amino acids fell from the sky onto a lifeless earth, they'd still have to get the right amount of the right kinds of amino acids to line up to produce a protein molecule and even then you wouldn't have a living cell. You'd need quite a few protein molecules (all sequenced properly) to make even 1 single-celled organism. And it would all have to be done while preventing harmful or useless material from collecting in the mix. Natural selection CAN'T work at the level of chemical evolution.


No, but if we are seeking a natural explanation, we would first expect them to be present. We know they exist in space and can readily be produced in various atmospheres. Step 1.

We don't know exactly how the first organism was formed. It could well have been a virus or some such thing. Just because we can't explain it now does not require the need for supernatural intervention. This has occured many times throughout civilisation, science keeps pushing the need for magical powers further and further back. You are invoking a 'god of the gaps' argument, it's not very fulfulling really.


Then there's the matter of consciousness. What laws of physics or any aspect of natural laws can cause consciousness to arise from random colliding particles? Lipton's cup-a-consciousness? Just add prebiotic sludge?
"Forces may produce order but they can't manufacture information." (quote by Meyer) In order for anything to replicate itself and pass on it's groovy self the information on HOW to do that would already have to be present. It's the information that makes the molecules into something that actually functions. Information comes from an Informer. Your books didn't just write themselves. Your computer didn't just program itself. An intelligent mind was the cause.


We can get 'information' from many sources, rocks contain 'information'.

What laws of physics can cause the development of sonar from random colliding particles?

Just more 'god of the gaps' stuff. Consciousness is a function of the brain, we have no reason to doubt the brain evolved.


Also, there's the issue of a mechanism. You need more than missing links to demonstrate natural selection. You need to know HOW. Intelligent Design is the simplest answer that addresses all the multitudinous insurmountable odds of how life came to be.


It is not an answer to anything at this point, it is a 'designer of the gaps' argument.

Natural selection is pretty much a fact.


"Wells is full of poopey"? That's as convincing an argument as "Ah come on". It's overridden all of my logic and objections. Well said. Well thought out. Well presented. The "poopey" defense has overcome any reasonable doubt and I am now convinced of the truth of your argument. Well done.


But he is.

I've already shown you how a lot of his arguments are incorrect, archeopteryx does have bird AND therapod features, it is not simply a bird. Haeckel's pictures are not an issue for ToE, his homology argument has been shown to be wrong. The way he describes Miller's experiment is incorrect, he completely omits the other studies that have completed, Miller's experiment is far from irrelevant. He uses quote-mining and misrepresentation to criticise ToE. I see you ignored most of this though.

Have a read of a criticism of his 'Icons' book...

Icons of Obfuscation

[edit on 8-10-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
thanks for the link melatonin. i read it and it's an article by wells entitled "Why Darwinism is Doomed. i'm not sure how the article supports your point. it's basically saying that taxpayers are funding a creation myth parading as science and that the evolutionists argument is weak which i believe is what I've been saying (apart from the taxpayer thing). sooooo, how does it show that there is no evidence for God? or maybe you were trying to show that wells is "poopey" for holding a different (and more learned) opinion than yours? please clarify. enjoy your bath.


I didn't say the essay from Wells' would suggest a lack of evidence for god. Just that it is laughable piece of writing and is a good illustration of his poopiness.

The article is suggesting something along the lines of;

most americans do not accept the validity of ToE, therefore a democratic vote would show it is not good science (and maybe stop funding it?). There is little evidence, 'look they have only just found the gene related to evolution of the brain'. And 'be afraid, very afraid' (what is he? A troll?).

He is talking more poop. There is reams of evidence for ToE, he seems to have a difficulty actually remembering most it, that which he does, he seems to misrepresent. He is actually criticising scientists for finding evidence and making progress, if this was all we had for ToE, it would still be more than that for ID. The DI has spent $4 million and can't even produce a single decent peer-reviewed scientific article. It's hard to keep a straight-face when an IDer criticises ToE for lacking evidence...

He is wrong anyway, there are half a dozen genes being investigated for brain evolution by Bruce Lahn's research group in chicago, they have published quite a few articles that Wells seems to have completely missed. For someone supposedly 'more learned' than I, he seems to know little of the literature on the brain....

www.hhmi.org...

'Nature' is not just pro-darwinian, it is pro-relativity, pro-quantum mechanics, pro-germ theory, pro-atomic theory.....in fact, it is just pro-science. ToE is a scientific theory, the fact he suggests it isn't is another reason to accept him as King Poopy of Poopistan.

Even if all the non-scientific community in the US decided to stop funding ToE research, the theory would still be vaild and we in europe would just laugh and advance science ourselves. What a precedent that would set, if voters don't like the science, kill it, haha.....eeeek.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Melatonin,
Thanks for taking the time to answer so thoroughly. I'll need to take a while to read the links you thoughtfully provided before I post a response to your many points. Blast this working for a living that prevents me from spending all day posting on ATS!



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Dang dude! There are exactly 240 links on the Icons of Obfuscation! (ironic since with their much speaking they obfuscate the issue thoroughly). I found so many errors in reasoning that I gave up reading after the first page and didn't click on any of the sure-to-be-a-best seller articles about eucaryotes or desotomes. Will expound on them further tomorrow. Good show old man. If I ever want to get rid of some troll on an ATS thread I'll refer them to that site. Chances are I'll never hear from them again if they take the time to read it all.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
Dang dude! There are exactly 240 links on the Icons of Obfuscation! (ironic since with their much speaking they obfuscate the issue thoroughly).


Yeah, damn science and all its evidence.


I found so many errors in reasoning that I gave up reading after the first page and didn't click on any of the sure-to-be-a-best seller articles about eucaryotes or desotomes.


I doubt any of the scientific journals are classed as best-sellers, not really their purpose.



Will expound on them further tomorrow. Good show old man. If I ever want to get rid of some troll on an ATS thread I'll refer them to that site. Chances are I'll never hear from them again if they take the time to read it all.


You don't need to, just focus on the issues raised so far (archeopteryx, homology, Miller-Urey).



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   
DarkSide,

All of this has already been discussed. If you like i will change the title to "Reasons and logic why God exists".

I dont think the ancient manusripts have been transcribed onto the internet. But i gave you 2 links to sites that have researched them. If you like, ask a historian and he/she will verify this.


Jesus is far from being the only one that died due to religious beliefs. He was one of many jewish sect leaders and "magicians" that existed at the time. It's mainly because he was crucified that his message spread. And you cannot do a psychanalisis on a a person described in a book.


But if Jesus' was lying, why would he go through the suffering and death he went through just for a lie? And then there are the hundreds that suffered similar fates because they preached Jesus' resurrection. All of this for a lie?



Many eyewitnesses claimed that Jesus after his resurrection ate meals with them and spoke with them.


same as above. where are your eyewitness accounts?


The Bible. There are other historical documents if you search for them.




Paul was beheaded because of his belief. Why would he do all this if it was a lie?


again, how do you determin if this happened or is just a written story?


The authenticity of the Bible has already been discussed.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1

But if Jesus' was lying, why would he go through the suffering and death he went through just for a lie? And then there are the hundreds that suffered similar fates because they preached Jesus' resurrection. All of this for a lie?

To be a martyr or maybe jesus didnt die on the cross or maybe its just an allegorical story.



The Bible. There are other historical documents if you search for them.

Agreed there are other documents but none of these documents gives definitive evidence.


The authenticity of the Bible has already been discussed. And what did you come up with? That the bible and all thats in it is historically accurate? Well thats wrong for a start.


G



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1

But if Jesus' was lying, why would he go through the suffering and death he went through just for a lie? And then there are the hundreds that suffered similar fates because they preached Jesus' resurrection. All of this for a lie?

To be a martyr or maybe jesus didnt die on the cross or maybe its just an allegorical story.



The Bible. There are other historical documents if you search for them.

Agreed there are other documents but none of these documents gives definitive evidence.


The authenticity of the Bible has already been discussed. And what did you come up with? That the bible and all thats in it is historically accurate? Well thats wrong for a start.


G



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by LancerJ1

But if Jesus' was lying, why would he go through the suffering and death he went through just for a lie? And then there are the hundreds that suffered similar fates because they preached Jesus' resurrection. All of this for a lie?

To be a martyr or maybe jesus didnt die on the cross or maybe its just an allegorical story.



The Bible. There are other historical documents if you search for them.

Agreed there are other documents but none of these documents gives definitive evidence.


The authenticity of the Bible has already been discussed. And what did you come up with? That the bible and all thats in it is historically accurate? Well thats wrong for a start.


G

what other documents talk about this historical figure of jesus?

i agree that we can't bring the bible back in, religious texts aren't going to count as history books UNLESS you worship history as a religion



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1But if Jesus' was lying, why would he go through the suffering and death he went through just for a lie? And then there are the hundreds that suffered similar fates because they preached Jesus' resurrection. All of this for a lie?


As I said, lots of people have died for lies, and not only religious ones.


The Bible.


The bible is not historical evidence. It's a collection of texts written over hundreds of years by unrelated people with no evidence that what is written really happened.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Took a while to wade through all the links. Yes, there were lots of articles but that just points to the fact that there exists a scientific culture of "publish or perish". The "evidence" just obfuscates the issue with its faulty reasoning of which there's an abundance.

"If we are seeking a natural explanation"... which is exactly the problem with your reasoning. You are seeking an answer to fit your pre-conceived opinion.

You also said "organic molecules exist in space and can readily be produced in various atmospheres." Have any of those organic molecules ever produced something LIVING?

If the first organism produced was a virus, it COULD not have reproduced on its own. Viruses need to hijack the reproductive capability of living cells in order to replicate.

ToE is invoking a "god of the gaps argument". ID is the most logical answer that explains all the questions.

Consciousness is more than "just a function of the brain". I've taken care of many patients whose brains SEEMED to be working (acording to EEG readings) but were by no means conscious. There is nothing in randomly colliding particles of embalming fluid (formaldehyde-the "organic molecules Miller produced) to account for production of consciousness (or a brain for that matter).

Natural selection does not apply to humans. We've been sending our most physically fit to die in wars so that the genetically weaker could reproduce and rounding up our brightest minds at every political coup to sacrifice their great (but unpopular) ideas in favor of the moronic masses who are a proliferating herd of barbarians. (That last was my nod to Shihalud's oblique reference to Ayn Rand's famous axion "existence exists.")

The forces that combined intelligently to produce "information" in rocks could not be a product of random mutation or natural selection. Chemicals and gases do not have properties that evolve and are not capable of producing life. Despite whatever atmosphere may or may not have been present in Earth's earliest ages, no explanation is reasonable (except ID) for how a few struggling amino acids could have properly lined up, keeping out ALL harmful influences, to produce A (singular) protein strand capable of the immense variety seen in the Cambrian explosion.

"Explanation of the gaps" is hardly fiting considering that the best minds have been working on the gaping holes in ToE for more than 100 years and many have come to the conclusion that, considering ALL the evidence, Intelligent Design is the best theory that answers all the questions.

Wells shouldn't need to cite a source stating that RNA could not have been a molecular cradle from which early cells developed. You do know how RNA is formed, right? You first need DNA. So you can't have RNA as a precursor to DNA if DNA needs to exist before RNA can be formed. He probably thought he was talking to educated people who would know that. And how could RNA have survived all by its lonesome under early earth conditions? What evidence is there for a "pre-RNA world"? Even if an "NA world" or "lipid world" were a given, it stills begs the question.

Citing "extraterrestrial evidence" just removes the problem of how it all happened to another planet. It begs the question. Again, "organic material" is not synonymous with "life-producing".

The discusssion on Darwin's tree of life was lengthy and, frankly, a little desparate sounding but your source did confess to the tree having a root. Where did the root come from? How did it acquire all this diversity and life within itself as a simple bunch of deadly "organic molecules" in a hostile environment with no information-rich DNA (or RNA) to direct its course? Why this need for evolutions' claim of "survival at all costs; the fittest must survive"? Sounds like a pretty strong WILL to me.

Basically, the entire argument can be summarized as "you can't get something from nothing" which is exactly what ToE attempts to do.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
Yes, there were lots of articles but that just points to the fact that there exists a scientific culture of "publish or perish". The "evidence" just obfuscates the issue with its faulty reasoning of which there's an abundance.


That is just so unbelievably ridiculous, guess you prefer a dark-age mentality.


"If we are seeking a natural explanation"... which is exactly the problem with your reasoning. You are seeking an answer to fit your pre-conceived opinion.


The only alternative is a supernatural explanation, which is untestable, unfalsifiable and therefore non-scientific. Science depends on methodological naturalism, if you don't like it, don't play science. Like you, the ID crew are desperate to change what science is, opening the door to pseudosciences like astrology. But also know we don't ignore the supernatural, there are many studies on things like prayer and the paranormal.



You also said "organic molecules exist in space and can readily be produced in various atmospheres." Have any of those organic molecules ever produced something LIVING?


At one point in the past, no life, later, life. Therefore we know abiogenesis occured.


If the first organism produced was a virus, it COULD not have reproduced on its own. Viruses need to hijack the reproductive capability of living cells in order to replicate.


Yeah, I was very unclear. We are searching for a good first replicator (whilst you give up and invoke magical poofing). It possibly could be virus-like/viral...

www.discover.com...

It is also possible that DNA actually came from viruses...

carlzimmer.com...



ToE is invoking a "god of the gaps argument". ID is the most logical answer that explains all the questions.


Now you're just being silly...

ID can explain everything and anything. Problem is, at this point, it is not science. You should know this by now.


Consciousness is more than "just a function of the brain". I've taken care of many patients whose brains SEEMED to be working (acording to EEG readings) but were by no means conscious.


Without brain function, there is no consciousness. All you're saying is that activity in the lower levels of the brain allows one to survive without consciousness. I can look at a snake and see that. This suggests that higher cognitive processes are required for consciousness, supporting my position. As does the evidence of elements of consciousness in other animals.

Oh, and there are different forms of electrical brain activity, it's not all the same.


Natural selection does not apply to humans.


So wrong. Of course it applies to humans, there are people who possess genes that protects against AIDS, do you reckon they may well do well in AIDS-ridden Africa?


The forces that combined intelligently to produce "information" in rocks could not be a product of random mutation or natural selection...... no explanation is reasonable (except ID) for how a few struggling amino acids could have properly lined up, keeping out ALL harmful influences, to produce A (singular) protein strand capable of the immense variety seen in the Cambrian explosion.


I'm just showing how ambiguous these information arguments are.

Again, ID is not a more reasonable argument at this point it really explains nothing, it has no evidence, it is an argument from incredulity, god of the gaps, a very unsatisfying argument.

You make very strong arguments about how things cannot be, this is why your type of arguments are a dead-end for science. 'It cannot happen, therefore god'.


"Explanation of the gaps" is hardly fiting considering that the best minds have been working on the gaping holes in ToE for more than 100 years and many have come to the conclusion that, considering ALL the evidence, Intelligent Design is the best theory that answers all the questions.


Good try. At least it's an explanation based on real-world evidence and not lack of evidence. It's really only 50 years since we knew about DNA, give us a chance, it took us over a hundred thousand years to get that far, we only had sky-daddy magical explanations for a long time.

ToE is one of the most successful theories in science. ID is not a theory, it has NO, repeat, NO scientific evidence, not a shred, not an iota, it is a mere hypothesis. It is a negative argument, as evidenced by your approach (i.e. it can't happen).


Wells shouldn't need to cite a source stating that RNA could not have been a molecular cradle from which early cells developed. You do know how RNA is formed, right? You first need DNA. So you can't have RNA as a precursor to DNA if DNA needs to exist before RNA can be formed. He probably thought he was talking to educated people who would know that. And how could RNA have survived all by its lonesome under early earth conditions? What evidence is there for a "pre-RNA world"? Even if an "NA world" or "lipid world" were a given, it stills begs the question.


Again, you are just placing your designer in gaps in knowledge, just like the greeks did with Zeus.


Again, "organic material" is not synonymous with "life-producing".


Yeah, I know, but again, organic material is required for abiogenesis. We know the material is present, your god is not required for that, as I said, step 1. If it didn't exist, it would be an issue but it does



The discusssion on Darwin's tree of life was lengthy and, frankly.....
Sounds like a pretty strong WILL to me.


This is just repeating the same arguments from before. At this point we don't know, you can temporarily place your god there if you like, tell her not to get comfortable though...


Basically, the entire argument can be summarized as "you can't get something from nothing" which is exactly what ToE attempts to do.


But something can be changed from one form to another...

Everything you've proposed so far is negative argument against ToE and abiogenesis, do you have any positive evidence for ID?

And I don't mean "hey it's all just sooooo complex".

At least we can see some IDers true colours, you should remember the party line - ID says nothing about the 'designer'...

[edit on 11-10-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave

Took a while to wade through all the links. Yes, there were lots of articles but that just points to the fact that there exists a scientific culture of "publish or perish". The "evidence" just obfuscates the issue with its faulty reasoning of which there's an abundance.
Granted that there is faulty reasoning with some scientific responses but there is also faulty reasoning with the concept of a god. The thing with science is that the reasoning can be rectified.


"If we are seeking a natural explanation"... which is exactly the problem with your reasoning. You are seeking an answer to fit your pre-conceived opinion.
And god is NOT a pre-conceived notion?


You also said "organic molecules exist in space and can readily be produced in various atmospheres." Have any of those organic molecules ever produced something LIVING?
You never know what might happen in other galaxies or whatever.


If the first organism produced was a virus, it COULD not have reproduced on its own. Viruses need to hijack the reproductive capability of living cells in order to replicate.
Granted but who said the first organism was a virus???


ToE is invoking a "god of the gaps argument". ID is the most logical answer that explains all the questions.
No ID is the simplest argument for the existence of life not the most logical. However I have no problem thinking that life on this planet might have had a helping hand just not with a deity.

Consciousness is more than "just a function of the brain". I've taken care of many patients whose brains SEEMED to be working (acording to EEG readings) but were by no means conscious. There is nothing in randomly colliding particles of embalming fluid (formaldehyde-the "organic molecules Miller produced) to account for production of consciousness (or a brain for that matter).


Natural selection does not apply to humans. We've been sending our most physically fit to die in wars so that the genetically weaker could reproduce and rounding up our brightest minds at every political coup to sacrifice their great (but unpopular) ideas in favor of the moronic masses who are a proliferating herd of barbarians. (That last was my nod to Shihalud's oblique reference to Ayn Rand's famous axion "existence exists.")
You have no problem thinking that a supernatural invisible faith based being constructed the universe but have a hard problem thinking that we might just be here because the chances were right


The forces that combined intelligently to produce "information" in rocks could not be a product of random mutation or natural selection. Chemicals and gases do not have properties that evolve and are not capable of producing life. Despite whatever atmosphere may or may not have been present in Earth's earliest ages, no explanation is reasonable (except ID) for how a few struggling amino acids could have properly lined up, keeping out ALL harmful influences, to produce A (singular) protein strand capable of the immense variety seen in the Cambrian explosion.
But you have no problem with the fact that molecules and atoms all line up in order?


"Explanation of the gaps" is hardly fiting considering that the best minds have been working on the gaping holes in ToE for more than 100 years and many have come to the conclusion that, considering ALL the evidence, Intelligent Design is the best theory that answers all the questions.
I'm not saying that the ToE is perfect and I have no problem with the designers being intelligent lifeforms just not deities and not universe creators but what about micro evolution?



Citing "extraterrestrial evidence" just removes the problem of how it all happened to another planet. It begs the question. Again, "organic material" is not synonymous with "life-producing".
Maybe the conditions were better on this other planet, you cant rule this out!


The discusssion on Darwin's tree of life was lengthy and, frankly, a little desparate sounding but your source did confess to the tree having a root. Where did the root come from? How did it acquire all this diversity and life within itself as a simple bunch of deadly "organic molecules" in a hostile environment with no information-rich DNA (or RNA) to direct its course? Why this need for evolutions' claim of "survival at all costs; the fittest must survive"? Sounds like a pretty strong WILL to me.

Basically, the entire argument can be summarized as "you can't get something from nothing" which is exactly what ToE attempts to do.
We will never know what happened to bring life to this planet - we have to make of it what we will, maybe the ToE is not quite right but that doesnt mean that the right answer is ID and deities. The ToE can change but ID cant.
You cant get something from nothing hmmm and what did your ID creator use to build everything????????



G



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join