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.

 

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

page: 21
26
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Is there a reason that most of the sources in your posts above are from the early 80s?

You do realize that the early 80s were about 30 years ago. Are you aware that we have made scientific progress since then?

Maybe you should look for some more current sources. You can find several in this thread alone.

I must warn you. Some of them will go against what you want to believe.

Correction: Some of your sources are from the mid to late 70s and I saw one from the late 50s.



[edit on 27-8-2010 by iamcamouflage]


you should read my post more carefully - see my reply to peter vlar. He asked this q already and the latest findings are in that post.

--- here's a snipit:


In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years

“no empirical evidence support the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction” How Life Began - Evolution's Three Genesis, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008 pp. 30, 33, 45.
-
With regards to the Miller-Urey experiment, Robert Shapiro from New York University says:

“Some writers have presumed that all life's building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller- type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.” Scientific American - “A Simpler Origin for Life by Robert Shapiro, June 2007 p 48.



ty,
edmc2




posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DARKCYDE_CROWLEY
Okay. Since this thread is apparently here to bash what some people think....

I can also say Christianity is based on illogical reasoning.

A guy in a diaper who got crucified says there is some all knowing being living in the sky that wants us to love him and people actually believe this?

Attack and expect retaliation.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by DARKCYDE_CROWLEY]


Thanks for chimin' in DARKCYDE_CROWLEY.

ty,
edmc2



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Abiogenesis is not evolution.
Evolution does not need abiogenesis to be accurate.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Still saying evolution relies on "chance"...you should really read at least the wiki page about evolution before making statements like that


Oh, and every fossil we found so far fully backs up the theory. You might wanna check your sources


Nice of you to chime in MrXYZ, sorry if you did not read my post on chance and probability (I'll snipit here).

Anyway I will not use wiki – but use one of the best recognized evolutionist alive today: The Selfish Gene by Prof. Richard Dawkins. Any idea why the title?

Here's a brief summary of the book:

'He speculated that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dr. Dawkins’ (here it is, I'll bold it for you)

“a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”



So the Prof said there was a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.'

So life according to the Doctor, life originated by “ACCIDENT”.
I know, you will say but the word “ACCIDENT” is not the same as “Chance”.

I dunno, but common sense tells me that accident = chance.

But if you are not yet convinced, here's another:

“We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures . . . We may yearn for a ‘higher’ answer—but none exists.” ---Stephen Jay Gould

“Perhaps the human species is just a ghastly biological blunder.” – Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin.

Nobel laureate Jacques L. Monod, used this chance-equals-cause line of reasoning. “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution,” he wrote. “Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance.”

Note he says: ‘BY chance.’ Monod does what many others do—he elevates chance to a creative principle. Chance is offered as the means by which life came to be on earth.

Unless these science don't know what you know – then you sir are a 'genius'.

Do you think they are mistaken? Or mybe the theory got changed again! Please let me know - i wanna know.


Ty,
edmc2



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
what your saying is:
humans created stuff so we have to be created by someone else.

in truth:
thats your opinion and you didnt give any proof we were created by higher beings.


by the way, maybe were not the ones with illogical reasoning.


[edit on 28-8-2010 by platipus]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Abiogenesis is not evolution.
Evolution does not need abiogenesis to be accurate.


dejavu again - this sounds familiar.

Found it: here's a snipit of my post about "abiogenesis".

--may suggest to read my post so that I won't keep reapeating myself.


Just to be sure:

Abiogenesis


In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis...”



So Thain, am I correct then to assume that what Prof. Dawkins was referring to is “abiogenesis” when he said “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident” that started life in an “organic soup”. And according rnaa “evolution” on the other hand “is about the changes in life over time. It has nothing what-so-ever to say about non-life. Non-life does not 'evolve'.”

Is it correct to assume then that “abiogenesis” is a modern way of defining/describing “spontaneous generation” (a 17th century theory – a much older theory than Darwin's evolution theory).

Here's a wiki statement – see source citation:

“Spontaneous generation refers to both the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents and to the theories which explained the apparent phenomenon. The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter. This should not be confused for the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and diversified. The second version is heterogenesis (sometimes called xenogenesis), in which one form of life emerges from a different form.[2]”

[1]^ Miller-Urey Experiment: Amino Acids & The Origins of Life on Earth

[2]^ Philip P. Wiener, ed (1973). "Spontaneous Generation". Dictionary of the History of Ideas. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. xtf.lib.virginia.edu.../uvaBook/tei/DicHist1.xml;chunk.id=dv4-39. Retrieved 2009-01-22.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Then there's also these competing theories about the origin of life:

> The deep sea vent theory.
> Fox's experiments.
> Eigen's hypothesis.
> Wächtershäuser's hypothesis.
> Radioactive beach hypothesis
and so on...the search continuous.

Bottom line, going back to my original question:

In addition to the of these competing / differing theories, can you offer scientific evidence of “abiogenesis” - where life emerged from non-living matter - by chance?

Also, do you know if the Louis Pasteur's 19th century experiment was ever 'debunky' – that life can't come from non-life?

BTW rnaa, it seems like one needs to take a "leap of faith” watching the video made/based on Dr. Jack Szostak “The Origin of Life – Abiogenesis”. Currious though, are you willing to rest your faith on such an outrageously remote probability?

Now, which one is more logical to believe and which one is truly scientific?

1) That life came from life (Creator). Therefore an always existing source of life (a foundation – a purpose).

2) That life came from non-living matter (abiogenesis/evolution). Therefore a product of chance / accident (no foundation – no ultimate purpose).

Logical reasoning: a building with a weak foundation or w/o any foundation will collapse.

Illogical reasoning: a probability of 1 out 10^50, 1 out of 10^113 or 1 out of 40,000* chance will produce life.

*Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying:
“These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.” pp 30, 31.



No wonder even physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds against a spontaneous origin for life, said:
“evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” – Physics Bulletin, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” by H. S. Lipson, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.



Notice also the following comments:

Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists:
“All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.” – The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 68

.....


I wish evolutionist are consistent about their theory.


ty
edmc2



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Abiogenesis is not evolution.
Evolution does not need abiogenesis to be accurate.


dejavu again - this sounds familiar.

Found it: here's a snipit of my post about "abiogenesis".

--may suggest to read my post so that I won't keep reapeating myself.

I wish evolutionist are consistent about their theory.


ty
edmc2


Just because biologists talk about abiogenesis doesn't mean it's suddenly part of evolution.

Evolution works without abiogenesis.

Hell, aliens could have seeded life on earth, but we still know that the life they seeded EVOLVES.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by hippomchippo]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by platipus
what your saying is:
humans created stuff so we have to be created by someone else.

in truth:
thats your opinion and you didnt give any proof we were created by higher beings.


by the way, maybe were not the ones with illogical reasoning.


[edit on 28-8-2010 by platipus]


simpe logic to you sir. Which one is logical:

1) Life begets life.
2) Nonlife begets life.

ty,
edmc2



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why are you using Logic to defend the Existence of a Being that no evidence can possibly be produced for?


How would you Test God's Omniscience?

How would you distinguish that from an advanced alien intelligence?


How would you Test God's Omnipotence?

How would you be able to PROVE that the display of power came from *GOD*, as opposed to anouther possibility?



Do you have God in a petri Dish?



You cannot Preform "Science" on God.... because "God" is All Knowing....

That means, for a PUNY HUMAN to be able to KNOW of Gods Omniscience... They would have to be Omniscient themselves.


Logic cannot be used to defend creationism, or religion.


-Edrick



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why are you using Logic to defend the Existence of a Being that no evidence can possibly be produced for?


Scientific and Logical evidence shows that: Life can only come from life. Thus we exist because an always-existing, all powerful Creator made it happen. Unless you truly believe that we came from nothing and that which produce us is blind chance. -- edmc2



How would you Test God's Omniscience?


What's the point of this test in relation to the illogic of evolution?


How would you distinguish that from an advanced alien intelligence?


????



How would you Test God's Omnipotence?


What's the point of this test in relation to the illogic of evolution?


How would you be able to PROVE that the display of power came from *GOD*, as opposed to anouther possibility?


E=mc2


Do you have God in a petri Dish?


????What??? please can you be more logical?


You cannot Preform "Science" on God.... because "God" is All Knowing....


Preform or perform science on God? What's that like?


That means, for a PUNY HUMAN to be able to KNOW of Gods Omniscience... They would have to be Omniscient themselves.


???


Logic cannot be used to defend creationism, or religion.


Creation is Logic! As for religion, I'll leave that aside.



-Edrick


Edrick - one thing is puzzling me. Are u an agnostic, an atheist, evolution theist, bhuddist, evolutionist?

ty,
edmc2

ps.

time is running out to find the truth. u need to hurry up if u want to survive the end of the system of things (matt24:14).



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why are you using Logic to defend the Existence of a Being that no evidence can possibly be produced for?


Scientific and Logical evidence shows that: Life can only come from life. Thus we exist because an always-existing, all powerful Creator made it happen. Unless you truly believe that we came from nothing and that which produce us is blind chance. -- edmc2


Not much of a point here... unless you are calling *GOD* a living biological entity... then you have clearly destroyed your own argument.

And How *EXACTLY* do you go from "Life comes from life" to "So it must have been *GOD* who done it."

No, seriously... I want you to explain that Leap of Retarded logic to me.


How would you Test God's Omniscience?


What's the point of this test in relation to the illogic of evolution?


You are trying to spell out a case for Creationism being Logical... I am refuting this stupidity with GUSTO.

Try to keep up.


How would you distinguish that from an advanced alien intelligence?


????


Prove that *GOD* was the one who parted the Red sea for moses... as opposed to an Advanced Alien Civilization.

DO IT.



How would you Test God's Omnipotence?


What's the point of this test in relation to the illogic of evolution?


Look, Dude... you are trying to prove that the world works on FAIRY MAGIC that comes from your stupid book of Stories, Fairy Tales, and outright LIES.

And this ANGERS ME!


I don't care WHAT you believe, but when you go trying to *PROVE* that your invisible man in the sky that you only KNOW EXISTS because someone threw a bible at you when you were too young to know the difference between fantasy and reality, is LOGICALLY PROVABLE.....

Then, my friend... Logic WILL confront you.... and not ONE part of your "Story" has ANY BASIS ON REALITY AT ALL.


DEAL WITH IT.


How would you be able to PROVE that the display of power came from *GOD*, as opposed to anouther possibility?


E=mc2


This reply means nothing.

What you are trying to do, is claim more knowledge and intelligence than you actually posess, by throwing out Einsteins mass energy equivalence formula, that... I might Add... has absolutely NOTHING to do with my question.


Do you have God in a petri Dish?


????What??? please can you be more logical?


How do you *KNOW*, as opposed to "Believe" that your God is Real?

Can you prove that it is Real?

Can you make it do Tricks to amuse us?


You cannot Preform "Science" on God.... because "God" is All Knowing....


Preform or perform science on God? What's that like?


What is wrong with you?


That means, for a PUNY HUMAN to be able to KNOW of Gods Omniscience... They would have to be Omniscient themselves.


???


Oh, you didn't understand that one either, eh?

I guess I'm not surprised.


Logic cannot be used to defend creationism, or religion.


Creation is Logic! As for religion, I'll leave that aside.


I'm Sorry.... did you say that the story of a magic sky man, wishing the universe into being... is *LOGICAL?*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Oh, you are funny.


Edrick - one thing is puzzling me. Are u an agnostic, an atheist, evolution theist, bhuddist, evolutionist?


I really don't feel like telling *YOU* honestly...


-Edrick


[edit on 30-8-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
For Your Consideration:

The 13 Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism (By AronRa)

(A Logical Argument)


































-Edrick



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
hey - i have posted this before - but " logical creationists " never answer


can you explain logically the origin of your " creator " ?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
hey - i have posted this before - but " logical creationists " never answer


can you explain logically the origin of your " creator " ?


Hey - i_a, thanks for reminding me but I’ve given an answer to this often repeated typical question already. Anyway, just for you. Here’s it is again.

I don’t know what answer you are looking for, but if you are looking for a physical evidence of God ala Edrick - in a “petri dish”- sorry to disappoint you but that is like taking a (pin size) particle of the sun and putting it on a bottle here on earth. It is incomprehensible. It’s similar to explaining the colors of the rainbow to a person born without eyesight.

But if the answer you are looking for is something that we “PUNY-HUMANS” can comprehend, then there’s a logical answer. Simply put – He has no origin. He always existed. He always was!

For if we say that he had an origin, then the next question is, who created the creator of God and on and on ad infinitum – a favorite Q amongst evolutionist.

Now, is this answer ‘He always existed’ logical and scientific? Of course but so far I’m puzzled why many of the evolutionists here can’t seem grasp this concept. I hope you do ignorant_ape (I don’t know why you picked this name – very degrading, I hate even to mention it).

Yet simple folks like me are able to grasp it. Can you / do you grasp the concept? If you can’t then look at it this way (I keep repeating myself). I’ll give you four examples to illustrate the concept.

Infinity – do you believe that it exists? If yes, can you please explain to me what it is?

Space – do you think it exists? If yes, does it have a beginning and an ending?

Sun – do you know how hot the core of sun is? If you do, can you please explain to me what the temperature is like? What can you compare it to in human terms / experience?

Milky Way is so great that a beam of light traveling at over 186,000 miles per second would require 100,000 years to cross it. How long is a 100,000 years in human terms?

If you are able to explain clearly what these things are, how they operate, then you sir are a “genius” and not an “ignorant_ape”.

But IF you are not able to, then you are in the same boat as I am. But just because we don’t or can’t fully comprehend these things doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. We believe and are fully convinced because of circumstantial evidence and deduction we use to establish their existence.

The same is true with the existence of God. -- Romans 1:19, 20, John 1:18

Which is more reasonable / logical—that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator?
Or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction?


“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” -- Sir Isaac Newton


--- Edrick,
Thanks for providing the videos, I’ll take a look at all of them then be back as time permits.

btw, If I made you mad, my apologies, not my intention.

Ty,
Edmc2

p.s,
i_a: If you think these logic does not make sense, then you are left with no alternative but to accept that life came from nothing and has no ultimate meaning and purpose.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Summary of all evolution threads on ATS





posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



I don’t know what answer you are looking for, but if you are looking for a physical evidence of God ala Edrick - in a “petri dish”- sorry to disappoint you but that is like taking a (pin size) particle of the sun and putting it on a bottle here on earth. It is incomprehensible. It’s similar to explaining the colors of the rainbow to a person born without eyesight.


Then why try to argue for the existence of something that you cannot prove? and Cannot offer any Evidence FOR?


But if the answer you are looking for is something that we “PUNY-HUMANS” can comprehend, then there’s a logical answer. Simply put – He has no origin. He always existed. He always was!


You do of course realize, that this is in no way, shape, or form, Logical.... right?


I could clearly state that God does not Exist.... and there is just as much evidence backing my claim as yours.



Now, is this answer ‘He always existed’ logical and scientific? Of course


No, it is not.

Not in the slightest.


You do not know how to *DO* logic...


Yet simple folks like me are able to grasp it.


Simple people also used to believe that the Sun was 7 miles across, carried through the sky on the chariot of a God.



But just because we don’t or can’t fully comprehend these things doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.


I am partial to Chtulu, actually...

He is even LESS comprehensible, and by your logic, More Plausible because of it.



Seriously, you are stating that something MUST be true, because you are unable to comprehend it?


Honestly?


This is called a Failure at Logic.


More Specifically, An Appeal To Ignorance...


OBSERVE:


Logical Fallacy:
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy; it asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient data and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.


This is known as FAILING LOGIC.


And, since your entire thread was ABOUT using Logic to defend Creationism (Or, slander Evolution) It would seem that you have removed yourself from the Running in the capacity of Credibility.


Which is more reasonable / logical—that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator?
Or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction?


The latter is actually the more logical explanation, because the Former implies that GOD does not need a Cause, but can yet ACT AS a cause.

This goes against Logic, and Causality.... and as such, is illogical.


--- Edrick,
Thanks for providing the videos, I’ll take a look at all of them then be back as time permits.


You are Welcome.


btw, If I made you mad, my apologies, not my intention.


I know that it was not your intention....

But you are using the word "Logic" in a way that is COMPLETELY OPPOSITE of its intended meaning, and yet you wish to capitalize on the prestige of the word, while not adhering to any of it's tenants.

You cannot CLAIM to have a logical explanation, and then just spew out the same old emotional hyperbole that we have all heard for DECADES... because that would be HYPOCRITICAL.

AND WRONG.


If you do not know how to USE logic, then PLEASE REFRAIN from even speaking the word.

Thank you for your cooperation.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



Logic implies REASON.....


What is your *REASON* for believing in the Existence of a Supernatural Creator of the universe?

Is it an Emotional and Subjective Reason?

Or do you have what Logic Requires?

Do you have PROOF as your reason for belief?



Because if you do NOT, then your belief is ILLOGICAL.


And that is how Logic *WORKS*

-Edrick (I'm only here about the words that you are misusing....)



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 



And, since your entire thread was ABOUT using Logic to defend Creationism (Or, slander Evolution) It would seem that you have removed yourself from the Running in the capacity of Credibility.



As believer of Creation (not creationism) I will defend it to the best of my ability which means logically disproving evolution. As for slandering evolution, if that's how you see it then so be it, I'm happy to disprove and show what truly it is; a set of belief that is based on distortion of the facts and illogical reasoning masquerading as science.


And for credibility, I'm puzzled; if my points and logic are not credible why reply to them? And if they are not credible why be offended by them? So I take it that what I've been saying then have merit and credibility. Of course I consider evolutionist to be credible about their belief thus I engage all in a discussion.

But if one wants to be respected and be held credible, reasonable, one should refrain (if all possible) from throwing insults, like “Retarded ...logic, etc...”.


Now back to the OP.


I would like to thank you Edrick for confirming my OP. That evolution is based on illogical reasoning and desire on every level.


How?


It is by confirming the intent of this thread. Here it is again. In my reply to 'ignorant_ape' I asked this question:



Which is more reasonable / logical—that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator?
Or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction?



You said:


The latter is actually the more logical explanation, because the Former implies that GOD does not need a Cause, but can yet ACT AS a cause.

This goes against Logic, and Causality.... and as such, is illogical.



In other words, to evolutionist, it is logical to believe that:

a) The Universe must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction.

b) Because to believe otherwise is to believe in the existence of God which “implies that GOD does not need a Cause, but can yet ACT AS a cause”.

c) And as you say “This goes against Logic, and Causality.... and as such, is illogical” according to evolution.

Am I clear on this one? Did I get it right?


Now, is this logic universal to all evolutionists? Do ALL evolutionists believe what you just said? I'm curious.

Anyway let's reason on it.

If you believe that the universe and all life that's in it 'must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction, how do you reconcile this belief then with the scientifically accepted and universally known facts?


That:
a) Life begets life.
b) Non-life cannot produce life.
c) Life can’t arise simply by chance without intelligent direction.

Unless you know something that top scientist didn’t know.

I’ll site some here as evidence. Please let me know if what they said is incorrect (past and present).


“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” -- Sir Isaac Newton




“To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.






In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years

“no empirical evidence support the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction” How Life Began - Evolution's Three Genesis, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008 pp. 30, 33, 45.




Dr. Carol Cleveland a member of NASA says:
“The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low”

She continuous:
“Yet, most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of the proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions the coordination will somehow take care of itself”

As for the current theories of how these building blocks could have arisen by chance, she says:
“None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”




“As of 2010, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. ..... – snipit from wiki link provided below.


www.sciencenews.org...


IMHO one can only go against these facts if one blindly ignores them and substitute another reality that is based totally on illogical reasoning and blind desire.


To put it in scientific terms:


Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have begun by itself. But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility that we will consider. So it is necessary to bend the arguments to support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously.


Or else how can one believed that:


a) Non-life begets life.
b) That chance and chance alone without intelligent direction caused life to exist.


Am I correct so far?


Strip down to its very core, the evolution theory stands on a foundation of NOTHINGNESS.


And logic says that a building with a weak foundation will be not be able to stand for a long time how much more if one has no foundation.


But judging from your reply you are confident to stand on such foundation. Correct? Are you confident though to defend (with GUSTO) such logic however unscientific and illogical it is?


COnt...



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
...

So again by your admission, you believe:

a) That non-life begets life.
b) That chance and chance alone without intelligent direction caused life to exist.


Question is, can you prove it?


What say you Edrick?


(Note: questions are not meant to insult you, make you mad, nor question your belief or doubt your intellect but to reason out the logic of your belief).


On the other hand, since life begets life, therefore the logical conclusion that one can arrive at is that there must be a Creator that is always-existing with potential, unlimited power to move and transform energy into matter (Newton's First Law / E=mc2) and the ability and capability to beget (impart) life (reminds me of the laws of thermodynamics).


I’m sure you know what I mean by E=mc2. I’m not just throwing it here just to as you put it “claim more knowledge and intelligence than you actually posess.” No, it actually explains the fundamental mechanism that unlocks the secrets of the universe. I’m sure you’ve heard of the terminology called “singularity” - again, I’m not throwing the terminology here so as to sound as you put it “claim more knowledge and intelligence than you actually posess”. It is based on scientific fact (I'm sure you know that already). But any idea how much energy it took to create or start the “singularity”? And then put the forces in motion and control them? Well sir, since you are quite intelligent and my logic is “retarded” as you put it; I’ll leave it to you to figure it out. I bow to your supreme intellect.


(google is a great tool to do research: in addition to E=mc2/singularity/Newton's Law, there's also nuclear fusion/fission, point particle, thermodynamics, etc)


Btw, any idea what are the four fundamental physical forces that binds the universe? Did these forces according to the laws of physics appear by chance, by accident? Or were they put in place by an always existing Entity with the power to put them in motion? My as you put it “retarded” logic and my very limited mathematical and scientific knowledge won’t allow me to assume that they appear by means of what evolutionist call the all powerful, all intelligent “chance” (just kidding, everyone knows “chance” is not ‘all powerful, all intelligent’ of course – unless you believe it to be so).


So, to boil it down to its very basic (logic), CREATION fits the fact that life come only from life by an Intellect!


What say you Edrick? Do you think the statements above are truthful and factual or are they as you put it “Retarded logic”?


What about the following?


Now, I know you don't believe in the Bible but I hope you reconsider, if not then these quotes are for those who have open eyes and ear to listen.


“For with you is the source of life; By light from you we can see light.” (Psalm 36:9)


“In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)





Then you said this:


How do you *KNOW*, as opposed to "Believe" that your God is Real?



Of course He is real. He is real not [just] because of what I (and millions^2) know and what I (and millions^2) see but because of what the Greatest man who ever lived on earth the Lord Jesus Christ said about him.


“Therefore Jesus cried out as he was teaching in the temple and said: “YOU both know me and know where I am from. Also, I have not come of my own initiative, but he that sent me is real,..” –John 7:28. Jesus said that God who sent him is a “real” person.



“For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.” -- Hebrews 9:24


“God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.” -- John 4:24


“If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one.” -- 1 Corinthians 15:44


In other words GOD (YHWH –Jehovah/Yahweh) is a spirit being (invisible to the naked eye)!
Since angels are spirit creatures, they are able to see God.


(more info here about the Lord Jesus)



But of course in order to continue your illogical reasoning (of evolution theory) you’ll also have to deny the existence of Jesus Christ, deny the existence of his followers, deny the existence of the first century Christians, that they were all figments of imagination, going back deny the existence of the patriarch such Abraham, Moses and others. And most of all deny the Holy Scriptures as the word of God.


There's so many proof and evidence that God exist but I'll have to show them next time around.


Ty,
edmc2


Btw, I noticed that when something evolutionists can't grasp (like the concept of Eternal God) they will always use the word 'magic' to explain it. Is this common to all evolutionists? Magic this, magic that. Are evolutionist’s sorcerers by any chance, able to conjure up something from nothing as if by magic – like evolution?


As a believer of Creation, I don't believe in 'magic'. Matter of fact it is condemned by God and any who make a practice of it will be destroyed. — Leviticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 18:9-14; Acts 19:18, 19.


[edit on 3-9-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



As believer of Creation (not creationism) I will defend it to the best of my ability which means logically disproving evolution.


Evolution is a Logical Observation of Reality.

Your Cells are dividing, as we speak... and as they are doing this, they are mutating because Photons Go through Matter, and Occasionally they Hit your DNA.


Do you know what Half Value Thickness is?


it is the thickness of a material that reduces a certain frequency of radiation by one half its intensity.

I.E. half the photons get through.


This is Dependant upon both the frequency of the photon (its energy) and the material composition of the object in question.


In Question.... your Skin, Muscle, Bone, Sinew, Blood, Fat, and hair.


The photons intersect with matter.... but they ALSO intersect individual Atoms.


Even the Atoms that are contained within your DeoxyriboNucleicAcid.



Sometimes this happens During Cellular Mitosis... when the cell is reproducing.



Since your genetic structure Regulates the creation of proteins and enzymes that shape the very structure of your Physical Body......


A "Copy Error" would change a random function of how your Body works.


Like how much of a certain enzyme is produced in a given cell.

Or how the Cell divides during Mitosis...




In any given population, in any given environment, mutations that are beneficial to the individual are passed on more frequently than those that are not.



This is all Physics.



It is quite a well studied phenomenon.





As for slandering evolution, if that's how you see it then so be it, I'm happy to disprove and show what truly it is; a set of belief that is based on distortion of the facts and illogical reasoning masquerading as science.


Yeah... about that.



Science is based upon what we can prove.


Not what we believe.



We have PROOF of evolution.


All you have are arguments.




And for credibility, I'm puzzled; if my points and logic are not credible why reply to them?



Because you hold in your mind (or at least appear to) a belief in several different things, simultaneously.... That are mutually exclusive.


I'm trying to help you.



And if they are not credible why be offended by them?


Because they are insulting to my intelligence.



So I take it that what I've been saying then have merit and credibility.



Evolution is not Illogical.

We have seen it Occur.

We have studied the phenomenon...


IT exists.



Of course I consider evolutionist to be credible about their belief thus I engage all in a discussion.


It's not a belief.


It is knowledge.


Which is the English word for "Science"



But if one wants to be respected and be held credible, reasonable, one should refrain (if all possible) from throwing insults, like “Retarded ...logic, etc...”.


I guess it's lucky that I don't care about Credibility.


Oh, and just FYI... quoting out of context belongs in your list as well.



I would like to thank you Edrick for confirming my OP. That evolution is based on illogical reasoning and desire on every level.



You are hilarious.



You are Changing at this very instant.


We *ALL* ARE.


What makes you think that a species will always and *FOREVER* look the same.



Causality Defeats your argument... because we don't look exactly like our parents.



Which is more reasonable / logical—that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator?
Or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction?



Then what created the creator...?

And if the creator is timeless, then why can't the UNIVERSE just be the timeless thing instead.


You introduce too many unnecessary variables into the equation of understanding our place in the universe.


This is not logical.


You are not trying to simplify your understanding of reality.

You are attempting to superimpose a human-like personality onto what your brain cannot comprehend.


*THE INFINITE*



You say that We must have been created for a Reason, because your EGO is what has kept you (humanity) alive for all this time.


Reason, and rational... and Logic, are relatively NEW to the human experience.


And by that I mean to say....


when humans first started asking questions about themselves...


"Why am I here"

"Why was I made"



Humans invented "Human Like Personas" to fill the void of empty ignorance of the reality of reality.


God is not Human.



But we paint God *AS* human... because it is all that we could comprehend.


Why would God bother making Natural Laws, if he just circumvents them?


Why not make the universe run on Unicorn Farts and Rainbows?


Or, the Wishes of Fishes....?



When we LOOK AT THE REALITY THAT SURROUNDS US.


We see things Changing.



Adaptation.




What makes you think that GOD needs to "Abracadabra" humanity into existence?


I mean, You think that God is All powerful, All knowing.


Wouldn't he just make everything happen by the *NATURAL PROCESSES* that *HE DESIGNED?*


Hence... Evolution... which we have *OBSERVED*




You are trying to tell me that Up is Down.


And you are Wrong.



In other words, to evolutionist, it is logical to believe that:

a) The Universe must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction.


Nope... the universe is Eternal, Forever Recreating itself by Quantum fluctuation Inversions that expand at the speed of light, as reality breaks down to a different mode of organization.


Like the cascading effect of sand... or "Ice IX"



Why do you always have to put a human face upon God?


Or Human Motivation behind the Universe?



c) And as you say “This goes against Logic, and Causality.... and as such, is illogical” according to evolution.

Am I clear on this one? Did I get it right?


I don't think so.



Evolution is a Process by which successive generations of a species slowly change their attributes.


We have Seen it Happen.


It Exists.



Now, is this logic universal to all evolutionists? Do ALL evolutionists believe what you just said? I'm curious.



Ok.... I don't know that one.



Anyway let's reason on it.

If you believe that the universe and all life that's in it 'must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction, how do you reconcile this belief then with the scientifically accepted and universally known facts?


That:
a) Life begets life.


Yes, it does.

Are you talking about Self Replicating Deoxyribonucleic Chains... or a more "Mystical" kind of "Life"?


b) Non-life cannot produce life.


And this, is the interjection of a statement, *AS AXIOM* that does not belong on the list.


It is a OVERSIMPLIFICATION of an Extremely Complex subject of Chemistry...


And you are calling it "Mice From Straw"

This is a VERY CLEVER Strawman.



c) Life can’t arise simply by chance without intelligent direction.



Then how do Sea Lions Beget More Sea Lions....?


Are you implying that they are Intelligent?



Your logic is practically NON-EUCLIDEAN in its construction.


Unless you know something that top scientist didn’t know.


Oh wow... you didn't research this subject at all, did you?



You went from *EVOLUTION* to *ABIOGENESIS*


You are no longer Arguing Against the Theory of Evolution....


You are Arguing against Chemical Biology now.


Evolution is not the same thing as Abiogenesis.


Please stay on Subject.



“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” -- Sir Isaac Newton


The funny thing, is that you think that this is proof of god.



“To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.


The sad thing, is that you think that this is proof of God.



In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years

“no empirical evidence support the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction” How Life Began - Evolution's Three Genesis, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008 pp. 30, 33, 45.



Are you claiming Supernatural, or Extraterrestrial origin of life?



Dr. Carol Cleveland a member of NASA says:
“The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low”



And what are the odds that A balloon containing hydrogen will AUTOMATICALLY assemble with oxygen in a perfect 2:1 ratio if the temperature is great enough when the balloon pops?

Well, if we determine this STATISTICALLY... then the odds are nil.

However, if we remember that Chemistry is a Force of Nature, and that given certain conditions, certain atoms will form certain molecules with other certain atoms....

Then we will understand that Life, as it were, is an emergent chemical process.


Why cant you just *LOOK* at my perspective for One Second?



What if God designed the Universe so that Humanity would Arise through Evolutionary Means?

The Evolutionary Means *THAT WE OBSERVE OCCURRING IN REALITY*

What if God is SMARTER than to:

A: Make Entire Universe.

B: *THEN* Put Life In IT.


What if he just Designed the Entire Universe, in order for Life to Arise Naturally?

Through Natural Means?


Continues......



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


....Continued


“As of 2010, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. ..... – snipit from wiki link provided below.


No one has Yet Tested whether or Not *GOD* can reach down from his throne in heaven, and Speak Life Into Existence.


IMHO one can only go against these facts if one blindly ignores them and substitute another reality that is based totally on illogical reasoning and blind desire.


Yeah... Tell me about it.


To put it in scientific terms:


Oh, you are too cute.

LOL!


Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have begun by itself.


That statement is WAY to vague to have any actual meaning.



But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility that we will consider.


It's the only possibility that Fits with how reality works, I'm afraid.


So it is necessary to bend the arguments to support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously.



Not in the slightest.


And you are not talking about Evolution anymore anyways... you are talking about chemistry.


There are two possibilities here.


1. You are talking about a supernatural entity.

2. You are talking about Aliens.



If (1), then: what caused the Supernatural Entity?
If (Timeless, Self Caused) then: Why can't the universe be self caused then?


If (2), then: Where did THEY come from?
If (God), Goto (1)
If else................



Or else how can one believed that:


a) Non-life begets life.
b) That chance and chance alone without intelligent direction caused life to exist.


Beget is not a word that you want to use here.... it reveals your biblical perspective a little too much.

Chance is not a word that you want to use here either, unless you are implying that the odds of Helium forming a Covelant bond with anouther Helium atom are 50/50


Chemistry is not CHANCE, and Evolution is not CHANCE.

IT is deterministic.


In the exact same way that you have a 100% chance of falling *TOWARDS* the earth, as opposed to AWAY FROM IT.



Am I correct so far?



So... Far... from..... correct.



Strip down to its very core, the evolution theory stands on a foundation of NOTHINGNESS.



...... You shouldn't be using Einsteins visage as your avatar... unless you do it for Ironic Reasons.

Which would be hilarious, I might add.


And logic says that a building with a weak foundation will be not be able to stand for a long time how much more if one has no foundation.


So, you are using Analogies of Buildings to describe your inability to understand what Evolution Means?

And chemistry?



But judging from your reply you are confident to stand on such foundation. Correct? Are you confident though to defend (with GUSTO) such logic however unscientific and illogical it is?



Are you saying that You are ATTACKING me then?


Is it Challenge?




Fine.


Prove that Humans Were Intelligently Created.




I'm not going to dignify the rest of your diatribe with a response.

-Edrick



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join