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.

 

The Ignorance of Creationists

page: 11
35
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life.


We haven't seen it happen yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't impossible. We have evidence to support that it did happen though. You can't definitely say that abiogenesis has never spawned life.



Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began.


Because that's not the purpose served by the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution explains evolution, not the origin of life.


Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life.


Just because we have yet to create life does not mean it's impossible. Was man-made, powered flight impossible before the Wrights brothers? Absolutely not, it had just not been achieved yet.
edit on 9-1-2011 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)


Ummm....Since you seem really confused about what a fact is or in this case isn't - Here's a quick definition of the word "fact":

"The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality." - wiki

No where in this definition does it use the word possible or impossible or about future events - you are trying to confuse the two.

So just to help you out, let's go over what I said and how you responded inaccurately each time.

I SAID:

"FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life."

YOU SAID:

"We haven't seen it happen yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't impossible. We have evidence to support that it did happen though. You can't definitely say that abiogenesis has never spawned life."

With the actual definition of fact you now have, can you easily see how completely inaccurate you were?

I never said it was impossible, I said it was a fact that abiogenesis has never created life. Which is in fact, a fact - it never has. Therefore I am 100% right in my statement.

Here's the next fact I stated: "FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began."

You responded by, well, saying the exact same thing. Why did you do that?

Here's what you said, "Because that's not the purpose served by the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution explains evolution, not the origin of life."

Why did you repeat what I said?

So I guess you agree with me that, "FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began."

I guess I'll move on to fact #3, "FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life."

You responded by using the same incorrect reasoning while referring to my first point, so I will save you the embarrassment of repeating it again.

You obviously did not read the previous posts by myself and others that were posted directly before these last few posts. Because if you did, you would know that I was pointing out what the facts were vs some of the posters incorrect beliefs.




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



"The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality." - wiki


FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life.


The issue, I think, is that what you are presenting as fact is not verified, nor is it presented as objected reality.

Think of the response you would give if I wrote

"FACT #1 No deity has ever created life."

I cannot prove this. I cannot find any evidence to support it. And nor, with your "fact", can you.
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





A while back there was a thread "The Gullibility of Evolutionists"


Wow And to think that I get accused of trolling.
That's really in bad taste and straight out I don't blame you for trolling back at all. Please take note we're not all
at this level of trollerization.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Well, sorry to burst your bubble there, but given that science has to follow scientific method and backup its theories and claims with EVIDENCE, science actually states facts...at the very least to an extent FAAAAAAR above anything religious believers provide, which amounts to pretty much zero


Yes. You are 100% right.

FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life.

FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began.

FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life.



FACT 1: ...or at least we haven't figured out how yet.

FACT 2: Exactly. It tells us that we have a common ancestor with monkeys and that we evolved over thousands of years.

FACT 3: This has to be the weirdest statement ever


And I don't take sides when it comes to how life started. There's only one correct answer to our knowledge, and that is "WE DON'T KNOW". Anything else is either a hypothesis that's being tested, or total blind belief. What I DO know is that the genesis account is 100% wrong...


I'M GOING TO USE SOME OF MY PREVIOUS RESPONSE TO RESPOND TO YOU TOO BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO BE JUST AS CONFUSED.

Ummm....Since you seem really confused about what a fact is or in this case isn't - Here's a quick definition of the word "fact":

"The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality." - wiki

No where in this definition does it use the word possible or impossible or about future events - you are trying to confuse the two.

So just to help you out, let's go over what I said and how you responded inaccurately each time.

I SAID:

"FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life."

YOU SAID:

"or at least we haven't figured out how yet."

With the actual definition of fact you now have, can you easily see how completely inaccurate you were?

I never said it was impossible, I said it was a fact that abiogenesis has never created life. Which is in fact, a fact - it never has. Therefore I am 100% right in my statement.

Here's the next fact I stated: "FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began."

You responded by, well, saying the exact same thing. Except you added a little unnecessary comment. Trying to push your own agenda a little I guess.

Here's what you said, "Exactly. It tells us that we have a common ancestor with monkeys and that we evolved over thousands of years."

You said exactly and then added in extra. There was no need for extra after agreeing with me.

So I guess you agree with me that, "FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began."

I guess I'll move on to fact #3, "FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life."

YOU RESPONDED BY SAYING:

"FACT 3: This has to be the weirdest statement ever."

Your answer was the weirdest answer ever but I guess you agree with my fact since you never actually tried denying it.

You then finish your comments by stating:

"And I don't take sides when it comes to how life started. There's only one correct answer to our knowledge, and that is "WE DON'T KNOW". Anything else is either a hypothesis that's being tested, or total blind belief. What I DO know is that the genesis account is 100% wrong... "

At least you admit to not knowing.

But then you contradict yourself by saying Genesis account is 100% wrong.

If you don't know how life started why say one account is 100% wrong?

Were you there when life started?

If not, then in fact, you do not know how it started, do you?

So please, use your own scientific thinking and stick to the facts and quit trying to pawn off your own limited beliefs on the rest of us.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



"The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality." - wiki


FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life.


The issue, I think, is that what you are presenting as fact is not verified, nor is it presented as objected reality.

Think of the response you would give if I wrote

"FACT #1 No deity has ever created life."

I cannot prove this. I cannot find any evidence to support it. And nor, with your "fact", can you.
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)


You are incorrect.

I can verify that abiogenesis has never created life - because in fact it has not. I can talk to the scientists involved and read their findings and find out for a fact that they have not created life.

You, however, can not prove that a deity has not created life because you can talk to a Deity or read His findings because a Deity has neither been proven to exist or not exist.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Piekeep




Just because we have yet to create life does not mean it's impossible. Was man-made, powered flight impossible before the Wrights brothers? Absolutely not, it had just not been achieved yet.


That's funny I thought cloning was pretty much creating life .WTF I'm lost.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
Piekeep




Just because we have yet to create life does not mean it's impossible. Was man-made, powered flight impossible before the Wrights brothers? Absolutely not, it had just not been achieved yet.


That's funny I thought cloning was pretty much creating life .WTF I'm lost.


Are you talking about:

"Reproductive cloning is a technology used to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal. Dolly was created by reproductive cloning technology. In a process called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT), scientists transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed. The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a female host where it continues to develop until birth."

If you are, then no, cloning is not creating life.


edit on 9-1-2011 by mrvdreamknight because: forgot a k



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


Yes thank you for helping me out there. I was talking about Dolly . Science agrees to this? It is not creating life? Seems very odd to me HUH!

FnS for the thread .
edit on 9-1-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


MISINFORMATION ALERT!!!

Scientists not creating life through abiogenesis DOES NOT MEAN that life was not created through abiogenesis. As I said earlier, if anyone (i.e. God) was there at the SINGLE ACCEPTED ORIGIN OF LIFE, he ain't telling how it went down.

Geddit?

also as i said earlier

LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR IS NOT EVIDENCE AGAINST,

which, as a theist, you should identify with.

(and I agree, cloning isn't creating life, it is merely a method of propogating pre-existing life, as is sexual reproduction. At no point do the cells cease to be alive, and if life is not absent at any point, life cannot be added)
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


MISINFORMATION ALERT!!!

Scientists not creating life through abiogenesis DOES NOT MEAN that life was not created through abiogenesis. As I said earlier, if anyone (i.e. God) was there at the SINGLE ACCEPTED ORIGIN OF LIFE, he ain't telling how it went down.

Geddit?

also as i said earlier

LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR IS NOT EVIDENCE AGAINST,

which, as a theist, you should identify with.

(and I agree, cloning isn't creating life, it is merely a method of propogating pre-existing life, as is sexual reproduction. At no point do the cells cease to be alive, and if life is not absent at any point, life cannot be added)
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



I respond with facts and you respond with big bold letters about misinformation?


Do you even read what you write?

QUOTE:

"Scientists not creating life through abiogenesis DOES NOT MEAN that life was not created through abiogenesis."

Ummm...Yes...Yes...that's exactly what it means.

I have evidence of abiogenesis not creating life. PERIOD.

You do too - it's called a quick internet search.

Heck, in fact, you admit they have not.

Why are you insisting on making a complete fool out of yourself by harping on a completely indefensible position?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


I know the genesis account is wrong because science has clearly debunked some crucial parts of it...



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


It seems we are talking at crosspurposes. I shall try one more time, although any further and we shall both be pulling our hair out.

Abiogenesis does not rely upon scientists creating life.

Is this understood?

Laboratory abiogenesis has, thus far, been unsuccessful.

However, there is no basis in evidence to dismiss the possibility that life on earth happens to be here as a result of an abiogenesis event, predating humans and thus human attempts to recreate such an event.

For abiogenesis to have definitively never created life, we would have to have solid evidence that the origin of life on earth was not abiogenesis.

Which we don't have. We only have solid evidence that WE have not been able to create life (yet) through abiogenesis.

We equally lack solid evidence that a deity did or did not create life.

Thus, it is irresponsible, and I would go so far as to say ignorant, to present a dismissal of either as fact.

as to this:


Why are you insisting on making a complete fool out of yourself by harping on a completely indefensible position?


I return it to you in its original condition, for you to do with it what you will.

edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


I know the genesis account is wrong because science has clearly debunked some crucial parts of it...


Some of it?

So that makes it 100% wrong? Because science clearly has debunked some crucial parts of it?

Really?

Since when does 'some' mean 'all' ?

You said, "What I DO know is that the genesis account is 100% wrong."

So is Genesis 100% wrong or 99% wrong, or 75% wrong? or...

You get my point?

Please, I'm not here to prove you both wrong, I am here to just make the facts clear.

You two keep putting your 'feet' in your mouth.

It's really no big deal to me on how completely incorrect you both are, just admit my facts are correct and move on.

By trying to defend your incorrect positions is quite pointless. All it is doing is making you both look ignorant.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


Well, the parts that are clearly wrong are so crucial to the whole hypothesis, it doesn't really matter whether the rest is correct or not


For starters, we know for a fact humans didn't just pop up on earth in their current form. Kind of a crucial part of the genesis account



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


It seems we are talking at crosspurposes. I shall try one more time, although any further and we shall both be pulling our hair out.

Abiogenesis does not rely upon scientists creating life.

Is this understood?

Laboratory abiogenesis has, thus far, been unsuccessful.

However, there is no basis in evidence to dismiss the possibility that life on earth happens to be here as a result of an abiogenesis event, predating humans and thus human attempts to recreate such an event.

For abiogenesis to have definitively never created life, we would have to have solid evidence that the origin of life on earth was not abiogenesis.

Which we don't have. We only have solid evidence that WE have not been able to create life (yet) through abiogenesis.

We equally lack solid evidence that a deity did or did not create life.

Thus, it is irresponsible, and I would go so far as to say ignorant, to present a dismissal of either as fact.

as to this:


Why are you insisting on making a complete fool out of yourself by harping on a completely indefensible position?


I return it to you in its original condition, for you to do with it what you will.

edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



LMAO

So now you try changing what we were talking about?

Of course we are talking about science creating life through abiogenesis.

Hello? Where have you been?

Did you read any of the earlier posts?

Did you not read my third fact?:

FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life.

It went with the other 2 facts.

Now if you want to give God credit for creating life through abiogensis than by all means just come out and say so.

I'd love to hear it.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


Well, the parts that are clearly wrong are so crucial to the whole hypothesis, it doesn't really matter whether the rest is correct or not


For starters, we know for a fact humans didn't just pop up on earth in their current form. Kind of a crucial part of the genesis account


Unless we were there, at the point of creation, we don't know anything for a fact.

For future reference, I want your opinion in writing, that if any part of evolution is proven wrong, then all of it is wrong.

Oh wait, hasn't evolution evolved over the years because certain aspects were proven wrong?

So, no, even someone as smart as you, can not be 100% certain that the entire Genesis story is 100% wrong.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


No, I'm not changing what I'm saying.

Abiogenesis has not been performed by scientists.

However, it is perfectly plausible that it occurred naturally.


If you had written:

"FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis"

Then you would have had a fact. All the evidence that you have suggested would support this statement.

As it was, you said that abiogenesis had never created life. You have no evidence to support this.


There is no evidence pertaining to God's involvement. As such, there are no facts pertaining to God's involvement.


Three times.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


The entire Genesis account involves god dumping humans on earth in their current form. We know for a FACT that this hasn't happened, which basically means, the arguably most crucial part of the account is WRONG.

Are you claiming the genesis account is correct?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


The entire Genesis account involves god dumping humans on earth in their current form. We know for a FACT that this hasn't happened, which basically means, the arguably most crucial part of the account is WRONG.

Are you claiming the genesis account is correct?


I am neither claiming it is or isn't.

I am only pointing out that your statement about it being 100% wrong is 100% incorrect.

Even if "arguably most crucial part of the account is WRONG - is indeed a fact. It does not make the entire account false. Therefore your statement about it being 100% wrong is indeed 100% wrong.

Geesh. Just admit it and move on.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Regardless of the theory you choose to adhere to, none of them have been able to explain how something came out of nothing, and test that theory by creating something out of nothing. In fact, no one knows for sure whether there ever was "nothing", or even if we are seeing the entire universe in all of its dimensions. A Neanderthal would have a better chance of recreating a 747 by examining a paper coffee cup from it, than mankind has of explaining the universe(s), life and "nothingness".



"It is much easier to recognize error than to find truth; for error lies on the surface and may be overcome; but truth lies in the depths, and to search for it is not given to everyone."

Goethe had it right.
edit on 9-1-2011 by ProfEmeritus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
35
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join