abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

reply to post by rhinoceros


A hit to the right place on a computer completely changes the way it muight compute also. It has nothing to do with weather or not that computer possesses a soul. Tho we both agree it does not. Computers aren't carbon based beingd tho are they.

So Rhino appears to have answered the question with no fear of consequence or any consequence. Kudos to you.

reply to post by randyvs

You didn't answer my simple question. Why? Does your personality mirror your soul? Yes or no?

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I think this answers your question in the simplest of fashions.
Though it seems your repeating the same argument in multiple threads irrespective of the question posed.

OK - got one for you:



And BTW - are you aware that Evolution Theory had changed several times already? Everytime it gets challenged and proved wrong, proponents of it (like you) start changing what it means and how it works? And then when ask why, will say - ah but that's how science works.

Then they go around preaching on top of their voices proclaiming - "see evolution theory has been proven to be true more than a century now". They ignore the fact that the meaning is no longer the same as it was originally thought of.

First it was Darwinian Evolution, then microevolution, then macroevolution, then punctuated equilibrium, then change of the alleles. What's next - alien gene?

Just like I said - it's like pinning the tail on donkey's ass. Hard to pinpoint where the "ass" is at - they keep moving the target while they blindfold you with silly ideas.

Funny thing though is EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.

For example whether you're aware of it or not, most of the evidence they cite is from living organisms. They point to similarities in skeletal structure of different animals as proof that such animals are related. They say, dude this is evolution by direct descent, a descent from a common ancestor. In fact they will say such things as;

'in the early stages of development from the egg cell, the embryos of “higher” animals resemble those of “lower” ones. Looki here - if you analyze the blood plasma or the chemical structure of hemoglobin you can see that these different species are close or related to each other or to their more distant relatives.'

They claim that such comparisons lead inevitably to the conclusion that all animals have a common ancestry. They say they cannot conceive of any other explanation.

Of course, why not? Having first ruled out the possibility that all have the same Designer and Maker, they cannot accept that as an alternative explanation.

But when challenge further they start ridiculing those with opposing POV while at the same time hiding the fact that they don't know what the heck they're talking about.

Here's a textbook example. When shown to them that such proof is not complete because "the existence of homologous resemblances, of parallelisms in embryonic development, and of graded degrees of chemical relationship between organisms does not in itself prove that evolution has occurred. -- Man and the Biological World"

They will just ridicule and fall back on paleontology. Hey, we have evidence of evolution thru fossil records.

But when you counter them with opposing views and findings made by other paleontologists they will revert to:

Oh, a quote from authority, an appeal to authority. They will destroy the authority then launched on a nonsensical stuff like "argument from ignorance". While all along they are the ones arguing from ignorance - hiding again from the truth by admitting "we don't know".

They switch to another topic - like I said they keep moving the target. Geeewhizzz!!

So do you still subscribe to the Darwinian Evolution Theory?

tc

later...not much time today.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Yes I belive it does. That's why somethings hurt me deep with'in. However you migfht try and explain that mechanically, chemically. I feel it goes much deeper than all that. And believing I have a soul is exactly why I fear nothing. Save black widows and sharks. and fire.
But when ever death smiles at me I'll be sure to smile back.

reply to post by edmc^2

Indeed Evolutionary theory has changed over time. It has evolved. Along with all scientific study.
Since I am currently enjoying posting pictures. I will allow this one to cover the rest of my reply:



Though I must add : Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution are ID terms to try and make it appear like legitimate science.

reply to post by Noncompatible


Science is just mans attempt to elevate himself above God. And it doesn't ever work. Just think of a relationship with the Creator if we still had one. All the trial and error that would be saved. All the failed experiments you could cast aside. If you just had the source of all knowledge to go to with what ever we might need or want to know.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

Science is just mans attempt to elevate himself above God. And it doesn't ever work. Just think of a relationship with the Creator if we still had one. All the trial and error that would be saved. All the failed experiments you could cast aside. If you just had the source of all knowledge to go to with what ever we might need or want to know.

edit on 5-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Nonsensical answer.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

– Epicurus, Greek philosopher (341 BCE – 270 BCE)

Substitute provide and knowledge with prevent and evil...............
Here I will do it for you.

Is God willing to provide knowledge, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh Knowledge (the science you despise)?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

– Paraphrase

Incidentally, judging by modern vaccines alone, science seems to be working just fine actually

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Yes I belive it does. That's why somethings hurt me deep with'in. However you migfht try and explain that mechanically, chemically. I feel it goes much deeper than all that. And believing I have a soul is exactly why I fear nothing. Save black widows and sharks.

and fire.

edit on 5-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

So what you're saying is that physical harm to the body can basically instantly radically change the very essence of a soul (like the personality change I mentioned). And this thing is supposed to be eternal and derives from a super natural source? Ok. Personally I believe (yes believe) that "me" derives from consciousness, which is an emergent property of the brains. It's like picture related or a tornado, and probably life itself. Order arising from chaos and all that At this point, I sometimes wonder if something rising from chaos was planned, but then fall back to the more comfortable "no" position, because for it to be planned, everything would be infinitely more complex (origins of how this came to be). This is the kind of stuff religion should IMO deal with. From this to magic stuff and denial of rather obvious facts is such a downer..

reply to post by randyvs


Yeah we would still have slaves... and be murdering gay people... females would be in the kitchen and out of jobs that only men can do right.

Your so right Randy... that doesnt sound patheticly stupid at all.

The Uncreate indirectly creates the universe. Being uncreated it has no tangents to the universe, but being uncreated it preexists the created objects. The created objects are born from priors, with the first being indirectly created or "virgin" birth, seeming to come out of nothing, but actually out of the eternal need of the uncreate emptiness, which manifests a first, a God, which contains all spiritual attributes and virtues. Emptiness creates Fullness indirectly because the Uncreate contains nothing, meaning it can hold everything.The nature of God is Emptiness, which allows Him to contain everything while also not being shaped by it, imminent yet transcendent.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to [url= by Noncompatible[/url]

 

Science is just mans attempt to elevate himself above God. And it doesn't ever work. Just think of a relationship with the Creator if we still had one. All the trial and error that would be saved. All the failed experiments you could cast aside. If you just had the source of all knowledge to go to with what ever we might need or want to know.

edit on 5-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

And here we have the crux of the problem, religious folk do not want to think, they do not want to use their brains

They want to be told what to think

reply to post by Noncompatible


Evil comes from man forgetting God and focusing on Creation. Creation is Good because God created it, perfect even, but when man forgets this he believes things are good and evil.

Evil is a state of mind, nothing is scientifically evil, there is no such thing classified as evil, everything simply is objectively what it is, good and evil being a subjective judgement. Enlightened people know everything is good,and thus no reason to classify things as good or evil, just is. Normal people classify things as good and evil, or good and bad, because they do not see God in all.

Originally posted by Lord Jules

Evil comes from man forgetting God and focusing on Creation. Creation is Good because God created it, perfect even, but when man forgets this he believes things are good and evil.

Yeah I think about how perfect creation is everytime I pop a zit, everytime I dig out an ingrowing hair

Evil is merely a concept we use to describe actions carried out by others that we find to be abhorrent

reply to post by Prezbo369

Yeah I think about how perfect creation is everytime I pop a zit, everytime I dig out an ingrowing hair

Some tetracycline might help that !

reply to post by Prezbo369


From the perspective of God, creation is perfect, because God does not have a corruptible body to get pimples and in grown hairs. Now if pimples cause death then it would be an imperfect world.

Originally posted by Lord Jules
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

Evil comes from man forgetting God and focusing on Creation. Creation is Good because God created it, perfect even, but when man forgets this he believes things are good and evil.

Evil is a state of mind, nothing is scientifically evil, there is no such thing classified as evil, everything simply is objectively what it is, good and evil being a subjective judgement. Enlightened people know everything is good,and thus no reason to classify things as good or evil, just is. Normal people classify things as good and evil, or good and bad, because they do not see God in all.

Thank you for missing the entire point of the post.
I will respond to your point about creation being perfect however. If this planet is your gods idea of perfection. I am glad I have no god.
Enlightened people? Hardly. There is no "god" in the act of murder, there is also no good in it.

reply to post by Noncompatible


Don't 'thank' someone for missing the point when you did just that. I did not say this planet was perfect, I said creation, meaning the entire universe was perfect, especially from the perspective of God. Earth is a portion of the universe so it can not equal the perfection of the universe, but being envisioned by God, it like everyhing else is perfect at the core/soul. Only a small amount of divinity is lost, mostly from human ignorance and not anything to do with nature.

Originally posted by Lord Jules
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

Don't 'thank' someone for missing the point when you did just that. I did not say this planet was perfect, I said creation, meaning the entire universe was perfect, especially from the perspective of God. Earth is a portion of the universe so it can not equal the perfection of the universe, but being envisioned by God, it like everyhing else is perfect at the core/soul. Only a small amount of divinity is lost, mostly from human ignorance and not anything to do with nature.

Thank you again. Now reread the original post. It was not about good and evil. The original quote was used to anchor the paraphrase.
Gotta tell ya, I get called arrogant for not seeing any evidence of the existence of deities.
That however pales in the full force of presuming the there is an omnipotent being and then presuming to know its mind and intentions.
Which in turn pales in the face of trying to comprehend that you believe you can envisage the entire universe. Can you really comprehend the scale? I suspect not.
For if you could you would have no need for an imaginary friend .

Well played sir, well played indeed. I am humbled by your arrogance.

reply to post by Noncompatible


I never said I could comprehend all of the unverse but I do know the light in the mind is the best proof of God. All I really know is that my soul is the same substance as the origin and creator, and consequently also the same nature as the end/death/transcendence. I am eternal, that is my true nature, not this body which changes everyday.

The universe can be comprehended one thought at a time, moment to moment, through human reasoning. Experiencing the universe all at once is the same as experiencing God since He is the All.


You call me arrogant because you have never experienced the light of meditation. Have you ever meditated? Have you ever had a transcendenal experience? I don't assume to know everything about plumbing but if I have experience and knowledge than that is my power, arogance is irrelevant.

reply to post by edmc^2


Everything in that image you posted is factually incorrect