In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

Originally posted by SoulReaper
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

It is truly laughable that you think Living Organisms springing from non living matter has been proven in a lab.

First off, nobody said that. And second, the idea that life spontaneously generates hasn't been believed in almost 300 years, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Organic molecules, including RNA, can and do spontaneously assemble. So can peptide structures and microspheres. That's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and isn't even up for debate.

Just because we don't know the answer for sure yet doesn't automatically mean life was created. You're falling into the trap all creationists fall into.

Even in the lab tests they are doing their best to provide the "goldilocks" conditions that they think need to be present to conceive Life out of non living matter. Thier efforts represent outside intervention and direction and would not mimic the environment of a completely untouched system being governed by random collisions of chemicals.

We've observed the formation of organic molecules in space. If they can form in those temperatures, they can form anywhere, spontaneously. All that's needed is for any protein structures to be able to hold their shape.

Even with thier best efforts at creating the perfect circumstances... there is absolutly no evidence that what they claim to have happened... could ever have happened. It is blind belief in non-scientific speculation.. in short it is faith in the impossible.

Nobody said anything about "perfect" conditions. There's no such thing. What they tried to do is replicate, with the knowledge available, what the early Earth might have been like. Without a time machine, there's no way to know for sure so they may not have been entirely correct in that--but no matter which set of experiments you point to, regardless of the proposed atmosphere and heat source, organic molecules and even amino acids formed spontaneously from the mix.

You need to do some reading. Read the experiments of Eigin, Miller and Urey, Oro, Fox, Haldane, Shapiro, Aristotle. Learn what they did and did not think. Learn about what they've done and about how far we've come in just a few short years.

I think we're going to find that wherever life can be, it is. Life finds a way to exist and survive. Just today it was announced that they've found microorganisms in one of the harshest environments on Earth, the Atacoma Desert. They've also been found, along with fungi and lichens, in Antarctica. They've been found in our atmosphere and on the space station.

I also have Faith in what according to science is impossible, that our Universe was Created out of nothing. I simply have Faith in a God who is able to make the impossible, possible. At least I am honest and open minded.

So, if the universe was created and something can't come from nothing, who created God?

You run and hide from the argument.

You hide behind "its already proven science" or "its already been discussed"

You are deathly afraid of your nonsense theory being exposed for what it really is.

No, we're laughing at your stupidity and gullibility, your paranoia and your delusion.

Your attitude is "I don't want it to be true therefore it isn't." That's a child's view of the world. It's sure not a scientific one.

reply to post by SoulReaper


Wow, after all that, after ducking all of my questions, you come along with the tired old (and utterly refuted) "god of the gaps" argument? I knew I could smell it coming

"If you can't beat 'em, just make it up as you go along"

Bottom of barrel, meet SoulReaper. SoulReaper, meet bottom of the barrel. I'm sure you'll get along just swell. Happy scraping!

One last thought: who created god, eh? And if you answer "he always existed" then I can just turn around and say "life always existed". It most likely hasn't, but at least we have evidence for life, unlike god. There, occam's razor just removed god from the equation.

Originally posted by SoulReaper
God is not on trial here, and cannot be put on trial via Science. Science is not able to dis prove God and never will be able to. After all science is merely discovering what God has created and how it works. The mechanisms present in Creation cannot possible prove that they were not indeed created.

And religion is able to prove God does exists?

There is no reason to prove/disprove God, but let's see what religion said for synthetic cell research:

However critics, including some religious groups, condemned the work, with one organisation warning that artificial organisms could escape into the wild and cause environmental havoc or be turned into biological weapons. Others said Venter was playing God.

Source: Guardian.co.uk

Originally posted by SoulReaper
God is not on trial here, and cannot be put on trial via Science. Science is not able to dis prove God and never will be able to. After all science is merely discovering what God has created and how it works. The mechanisms present in Creation cannot possible prove that they were not indeed created.

the nonsense of big bang/ abiogenesis/evolutionary rise of humans is on trial via the Scientific method and logical deduction. It has been found untenable, unworkable, and not credible.

Soul

So, you don't believe what progressive men that have created such wonderful things such as heart transplants and cellular regeneration have to say about biology, and the beginning of man using machines created from our continued research into the very reality of existence..

..but some text written thousands of years ago by people that believed in VAMPIRES is somehow more credible to you.

Interesting theory.

Originally posted by SuperFrog
Couple years back my cousins wife had interesting talk with her fellow employee about St. Nicholas, where girl in her 20's was offended by someone who said that St. Nicholas does not exist and yet she has proof, all the gifts she got from him...

Tell me, is that normal for someone who is 20-some years old?

There is no education/medication that can help that young mind.

The St Nicholas example is not the same as believing in God- we know that we invent Santa Claus as we actually leave the presents lying under the tree- there is no such proof either way for God

Originally posted by SoulReaper
I suggest you do something that Atheists are deathly afraid of. EDUCATE yourself on the discoveries of modern Biology.

Why do you assume we're all atheists? Atheism =/= Science. That's almost an ad hominem. Also, I am studying biology. I don't think you have, though.

Originally posted by SoulReaper
You have no ability to provide even a basic explination for how life could spring from non living matter.

That's exactly what the video I posted shows. A theoretical model for the beginning of life. It explains how, through natural processes, self-replicating cell-like structures could come into existence. You did watch it, right?

Originally posted by SoulReaper
Life is complex, even so called "simple" organisms are more complex then anything man has been able to create. So its not suprising that you are incapable of doing what I ask

That's a fallacy. We couldn't create nylon until the 1900's. Does that mean that nylon was impossible? No, it simply means we hadn't achieved it yet. Just because we haven't done something doesn't mean that it's impossible. We make discoveries every day.

Originally posted by SoulReaper
NAME one.. I dare you... you can't come up with one example of a scientific discovery that cannot be shown to work hand in hand with a creator. Your all bark with nothing behind it.

This isn't a real question. Intelligent Design basically implies that god has a hand in every process. Depending on your definition of "creator", your challenge may be irrefutable in the first place. It's simply not a fair question.

You guys are a real riot,.

You all still run and hide from the facts of modern biology. A living Organism is not just a jumbled together mess of randomly organized chemicals.

Its amazing that you actually think observing simple chemical reactions occurring spontaneously gives legs to abiogenesis as a theory/ hypothosis (i really don't care what you want to call it).

Nobody is denying that chemicals interact and molecules join together in an observable and thus in a some what predictable manner on their own without direction.

The process of how those Chemicals managed to find themselves in the complex structures found in even the smallest self sufficient living organisms is what must be explained by the anti-theist for their fairy tale to even be considered credible.

And they are not even close to providing any kind of cohesive thought on this matter.

You people actually believe that all the information, structure and mechanisms found in the living cell arose out of MUTATIONS...

That is the God of the anti-theist... Mutations make the impossible, all of a sudden possible with no further explanation or evidence needed.

You guys have Faith that an abnormality which almost always cripples or kills life.. somehow magically got it right millions of times even though this cannot be proven. In fact they can't even theorize on paper what kind of order the mutations could have taken to "Evolve" the first simple cells into thriving well engineered complex organisms that we see today.

It doesn't work to develop one system within the living cell one at a time slowly... The CELL DIES if all its necessary mechanisms are not functioning as designed.

This sort of interdependent complex system such as what is found in the living cell is the DEATH of the non-theist fairy tale.

You can sit there in denial all day and spout off the typical Atheist cop outs such as

" well you believe in God so your an idiot"
" well science has already proven Evolution(I assume you peeps mean in the limited scope that I believe in) so we don't have to prove anything else"
" I am so much smarter and more educated and more intelligent then you are... so what I think is always right just because I think it."

Or any other manner of insult and mockery that you guys use to take the attention away from the fact that your favorite secular fairy tale has been exposed and laid to waste by modern discoveries in science and biology.

I still have not heard an intelligent, cohesive alternative for God with regards to two questions. First the Origin of matter, energy, time, and space. Secondly, an alternative to the Origin of Life if not the direct design of God.

It just so amuses me that you guys are so insistent that Science has provided an alternative answer for these questions that is actually plausible and can withstand the rigors of observation and logical thinking.

As of right now Your belief that there was something OTHER then God as the source for all things and life in particular is born out of complete Faith that there must be some other explanation.

It is not in any way born out of what science has Proven.

I'd be very impressed with the Non-theist who can man up and admit that their current worldview is based on Faith without Proof.

As of right now, God is a viable Faith based explanation as the Origin source. The fact that the non-theist so struggles to admit this is a tell tale sign of commitment to Dogma. There just can't be a God... it is an unacceptable idea, thus they will rest their faith in whatever alternative is presented to them by secular society, no matter how incredible that alternative might be.

Open your eyes and see the world for what it really is. Don't be afraid to keep your mind open to all possibilities. I am certainly open to your ideas.. honestly I am... but if you keep trying to tell me that the complexity of the Living Organism arose out of a chemical soup on the back of millions of "fortunate" mutations... I'm afraid I'll just have to keep laughing at your delusions.

Really that can't be the best that secular society can come up with.. or is it??

Soul

Originally posted by SuperFrog


SR, did you note that all references in your link are old (mostly 60's and 70's and few newer ones). 13 years is long period in science, don't you think so?

Amazing isn't it... The theory has been on life support for such a long time and yet secular society just refuses to pull the plug and let it die.

You know why people still buy into this delusion? Its because they can't come up with anything better... They are at a complete loss to provide explanations for what they have found without acknowledging Gods hand in it.

And acknowledging that God may exist is not an option.

It is like a famous Atheist once said.. "If it comes down to believing in God or believing in the impossible, I choose to believe in the impossible."

Can't remember who said that, but I remember reading it somewhere.

I'd say that sums up the non-theist attitude quite nicely.

Soul

Originally posted by SoulReaper

The process of how those Chemicals managed to find themselves in the complex structures found in even the smallest self sufficient living organisms is what must be explained by the anti-theist for their fairy tale to even be considered credible.

Yes, the video on Szosatak work is still light years from even the simplest cell. Also it must be noted that Szostaks favoured hypothesis "The RNA world hypothesis" has recently taken a blow to it's credibility.

The whole chicken and egg argument is as strong as ever. Looks like proteins were already on the scene. This completely undermines the proposed mechanisms in that video.
phys.org...

"I'm convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct," Caetano-Anollés said. "That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins."

Back to the drawing board I'm afraid.

reply to post by SoulReaper

As of right now, God is a viable Faith based explanation as the Origin source.

So to sum up your entire post:

1) You don't consider abiogenesis true...which is the same opinion scientists have. That's why they call it a HYPOTHESIS in the first place. It isn't a proven theory. Yet for some funny reason the fact that it hasn't been fully proven somehow makes you really angry because you're not satisfied with the evidence they have so far.

2) You call a belief in god a "faith based explanation"...ergo something that has no objective evidence as backup. But somehow, that's perfectly ok all of a sudden.

Hypocrite much?

Poe's Law in 3... 2... 1...

2nd line

Originally posted by SoulReaper
You guys are a real riot,.

You all still run and hide from the facts of modern biology. A living Organism is not just a jumbled together mess of randomly organized chemicals.

How do you know? Have you ever had your hands inside of a dead human body?

Its amazing that you actually think observing simple chemical reactions occurring spontaneously gives legs to abiogenesis as a theory/ hypothosis (i really don't care what you want to call it).

It's amazing that you think a God did it.

Nobody is denying that chemicals interact and molecules join together in an observable and thus in a some what predictable manner on their own without direction.

I was excited when I read this..

The process of how those Chemicals managed to find themselves in the complex structures found in even the smallest self sufficient living organisms is what must be explained by the anti-theist for their fairy tale to even be considered credible.

.. then I read this.

Yeah, the guy professing that God did it is telling me what is and isn't a fairy tale. Well played.

And they are not even close to providing any kind of cohesive thought on this matter.

No cohesive thought..

You people actually believe that all the information, structure and mechanisms found in the living cell arose out of MUTATIONS...

.. a wild cohesive thought appears.

That is the God of the anti-theist... Mutations make the impossible, all of a sudden possible with no further explanation or evidence needed.

Yeah, funny how we discovered genetics and mutations and then just never did any more study into it ever again. Like we simply rely on a single book to tell us everything we need to know about it..

You guys have Faith that an abnormality which almost always cripples or kills life.. somehow magically got it right millions of times even though this cannot be proven. In fact they can't even theorize on paper what kind of order the mutations could have taken to "Evolve" the first simple cells into thriving well engineered complex organisms that we see today.

I know, right?! That abnormality that almost always cripples or kills.. it's like mutation could never be beneficial.. and if it were.. it's not like it could happen over only a few generations, right?

en.wikipedia.org...

It doesn't work to develop one system within the living cell one at a time slowly... The CELL DIES if all its necessary mechanisms are not functioning as designed.

Sure, it does now... do you know how long it might take to develop that kind of system through mutation and chemical reaction alone? Hundreds of millions of years, I would guess.




You tried, mate, you really tried.