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.

 

I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

page: 31
8
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I just wanted to salute your integrity and honesty.

What ever it is that you believe in, You have enough faith in yourself and your mind enough so as to not run from uncertainty.

Faith is not a dirty word. I consider it to be a cognitive adaptation to uncertainty. It is NOT hope.

Faith is a will to mastery. Hope is a petition of mercy to ones environment.

both creationists and evolutionists can and should have faith.

Faith in their ability to understand the truth. Faith in others to receive the truth in the spirit it is given.

None should have hope.

They should not have Hope that they are right. They should not have Hope that their loyalty to God and academia alike will suffice for validity and purpose.

Faith is drive and direction to a quest. It is finding the answers and conquering uncertainty.
Hope is the loss and misdirection of purpose. Hope is an act of Hiding from the difficult questions to keep uncertainty hidden.

loyalty is worthless to god and cronies alike.
Be loyal to each other and the search for truth....not concepts and our own pride.

I salute you!

edit on 12 4 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


That's pretty profound and I would concur that a little more faith and a little less hope is in order all around. Just because I'm not a believer doesn't mean I don't have any faith. I've got faith that I will eventually find the answers I've been seeking since I was young. I have faith that science will lead me there. That doesn't mean I rule out empirical evidence that's contrary to my current paradigm and if that faith and those answers lead me to empirical evidence that I've been wrong about god or gods then so be it. To be its about the journey moreso than the destination.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

SisyphusRide
"Abiogenesis is required by evolution as the starting point.

It makes perfect sense for atheistic evolutionists to admit their belief in abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution to occur. However, many evolutionists do not want to admit such a belief too loudly, since such a belief has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. It is a blind faith—a religious dogma."

www.apologeticspress.org...


Humans aren't perfect.


no they are not, try to remember this fact and apply it to your philosophy too



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
AGAIN the order of events are changed around from the first part to the second.


is this a thread about bible stuff, or is it a thread about scientific stuff, and how this scientific stuff is used in the hands of atheistic evolutionists?

I am not certified to answer your questions... You can always start a new thread about it if you are truly interested.


edit on 4-12-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Prezbo369

SisyphusRide


yes... with the Word


Ah yes not vague at all....

Is that your professional 'technical' explanation?

Because it sounds like a child's explanation for their finger-paintings....


John 1 (KJV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth upon ignorance and weak minds; and the ignorance of weak minds comprehended it not.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   

peter vlar
reply to post by tadaman
 


Just because I'm not a believer doesn't mean I don't have any faith. I've got faith that I will eventually find the answers I've been seeking since I was young. I have faith that science will lead me there.


I am of the opinion that not one single person has the innate ability to be objective.
We like to think that we are objective, but belief and faith make it very difficult.
In fact, we are so good at fooling ourselves that we often behave as if our belief in (place random idea here) is THE fundamental universal truth.
Nobody likes a fundamentalist, whether religious or scientific establishment.

However...
Science strives toward objectivity by being built upon the premise that we operate out of ignorance.
This is an easy thing for even the most astute scientist to forget, primarily because we are so eager to understand.
The moment we believe that we have things understood is the very moment that we forget our state of profound ignorance.

That is why the scientific method is... a method.
We have to follow a strict set of protocols to find objectivity because we think and define reality symbolically.
We are irrational creatures that only feel comfortable when we can compartmentalize a subject so that we can understand it, but in reality, it is all just metaphor.
'All that is, is metaphor.' -Robert Anton Wilson
Our big beautiful brain processes only a small portion of the infinity that surrounds us, and we do this so that we can exist comfortably, but truly objective we are not.

If the brain did not operate in this manner, then we would be totally overwhelmed with information.

Fortunately, logic, reason and the scientific method allow us to override this inborn and innate circuitry that defines reality symbolically.
The trivium method in particular allows us to process information that contradicts our symbolic belief construct by giving us a method to find objectivity, but we must never speculate beyond the data, especially when it contradicts any previously held belief.
Without employing a method designed to understand novel contradictory input we tend to rationalize and cling to our original old comfortable beliefs, thus furthering our state of ignorance.
The entire of cognitive dissonance theory is based upon this unfortunate circumstance.

This is why I am skeptical about almost everything.

I have finally learned just how easily I am fooled.


Its about the journey moreso than the destination.


Amen.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
Didn't you write this sentence on the previous page?


I am quite sure not, but my inbox here is weird since the change... I have reply's appearing out of nowhere, then something else shows up when I delete it then log back in again.

sry if I missed you anywhere.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:05 AM
link   

SisyphusRide

Krazysh0t
AGAIN the order of events are changed around from the first part to the second.


is this a thread about bible stuff, or is it a thread about scientific stuff, and how this scientific stuff is used in the hands of atheistic evolutionists?

I am not certified to answer your questions... You can always start a new thread about it if you are truly interested.


edit on 4-12-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)


Fair enough, I will drop this point. I must say, with all the anti-evolution threads that pop up, I was thinking about writing a thread to debunk Creationism. Maybe with this conversation I'll do just that.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


we have plenty of both...

maybe you should try a "how Creationism is used by Theists" style thread?

or "I not longer believe in Creation as it is currently being used"



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Ok, so what does that video prove? I guess you don't understand what I am trying to say. I am not saying evolution didn't happen, its actually still happening. Remember when Darwin would look at a single cell under his weak microscope he saw a pulsating blob. Today we can see the unbelievably complex inner workings of a cell. With components that could never have evolved.

Science has proven that life is only derived from pre-existent life. Protoplasmic life was initiated on this planet by those designated by God hundreds of millions of years ago. Life then begins to unfold and adapt to the environment. Evolution is supervised until a creature with will appears. From that time forward the will creature is responsible for its further development.

The creationism discussed here is the ridiculous fairy tale version passed down from the primitive minds of past ages. The universe is to vast and complex to have just happened without cause. The big bang theory is a joke.

People who slam creationism basically are slamming Christianity. There are other explanations of creation that are not from the Christian Bible.

edit on 6-12-2013 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

UB2120
Science has proven that life is only derived from pre-existent life.


Patently untrue, 'science' has never proven such a claim.


People who slam creationism basically are slamming Christianity. There are other explanations of creation that are not from the Christian Bible.


The Christian creation fairy tale is the only one people are attempting to insert into public schools though, and so is really the only one likely to affect all of our lives.


The universe is to vast and complex to have just happened without cause. The big bang theory is a joke.


So because you can't think of a better explanation, it had to be down to an appropriate agent of some kind? sounds and looks like an argument from ignorance.




posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

UB2120
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Ok, so what does that video prove? I guess you don't understand what I am trying to say. I am not saying evolution didn't happen, its actually still happening. Remember when Darwin would look at a single cell under his weak microscope he saw a pulsating blob. Today we can see the unbelievably complex inner workings of a cell. With components that could never have evolved.

Science has proven that life is only derived from pre-existent life. Protoplasmic life was initiated on this planet by those designated by God hundreds of millions of years ago. Life then begins to unfold and adapt to the environment. Evolution is supervised until a creature with will appears. From that time forward the will creature is responsible for its further development.

The creationism discussed here is the ridiculous fairy tale version passed down from the primitive minds of past ages. The universe is to vast and complex to have just happened without cause. The big bang theory is a joke.

People who slam creationism basically are slamming Christianity. There are other explanations of creation that are not from the Christian Bible.

edit on 6-12-2013 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)


More retroperistaltic ejecta, this time with a bitter after taste of Behe. Care to mention some of the components you claim could never have evolved?

"Evolution is supervised until a creature with will appears...". What mechanism causes evolution to stop? Why should a creature with will (whatever that means) get to be responsible for its own future? Were Neanderthals creatures of will? Were they irresponsible perhaps? Were they chain smoking, drunk driving, recreational drug using, gambling, war mongering, sexually deviant racist hedonists perhaps?

Looking forward to your reply.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 




Patently untrue, 'science' has never proven such a claim.


Actually you are totally wrong on that one.

Link to wiki on biogenesis.

Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.


Okay... So what has science proven.


Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, proved as early as 1668 that higher forms of life did not originate spontaneously, but proponents of abiogenesis claimed that this did not apply to microbes and continued to hold that these could arise spontaneously. Attempts to disprove the spontaneous generation of life from non-life continued in the early 19th century with observations and experiments by Franz Schulze and Theodor Schwann. In 1745, John Needham added chicken broth to a flask and boiled it. He then let it cool and waited. Microbes grew, and he proposed it as an example of spontaneous generation. In 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani repeated Needham's experiment but removed all the air from the flask. No growth occurred. In 1854, Heinrich Schröder (1810–1885) and Theodor von Dusch, and in 1859, Schröder alone, repeated the Helmholtz filtration experiment and showed that living particles can be removed from air by filtering it through cotton-wool.


Interesting. Is that all?
NO.


In 1864, Louis Pasteur finally announced the results of his scientific experiments. In a series of experiments similar to those performed earlier by Needham and Spallanzani, Pasteur demonstrated that life does not arise in areas that have not been contaminated by existing life. Pasteur's empirical results were summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life".

After obtaining his results, Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream").


Like I said. You are wrong. This has been proven and is repeatable. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis with no support.

That is why it is a hypothesis.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

kyviecaldges
reply to post by Prezbo369
 




Patently untrue, 'science' has never proven such a claim.


Actually you are totally wrong on that one.

Link to wiki on biogenesis.

Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.


Okay... So what has science proven.


Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, proved as early as 1668 that higher forms of life did not originate spontaneously, but proponents of abiogenesis claimed that this did not apply to microbes and continued to hold that these could arise spontaneously. Attempts to disprove the spontaneous generation of life from non-life continued in the early 19th century with observations and experiments by Franz Schulze and Theodor Schwann. In 1745, John Needham added chicken broth to a flask and boiled it. He then let it cool and waited. Microbes grew, and he proposed it as an example of spontaneous generation. In 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani repeated Needham's experiment but removed all the air from the flask. No growth occurred. In 1854, Heinrich Schröder (1810–1885) and Theodor von Dusch, and in 1859, Schröder alone, repeated the Helmholtz filtration experiment and showed that living particles can be removed from air by filtering it through cotton-wool.


Interesting. Is that all?
NO.


In 1864, Louis Pasteur finally announced the results of his scientific experiments. In a series of experiments similar to those performed earlier by Needham and Spallanzani, Pasteur demonstrated that life does not arise in areas that have not been contaminated by existing life. Pasteur's empirical results were summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life".

After obtaining his results, Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream").


Like I said. You are wrong. This has been proven and is repeatable. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis with no support.

That is why it is a hypothesis.


Right sweets, let's try and keep this in context.

Biogenesis (in terms of origin), as in that only life can create life, has been totally discarded. It's on par with the flat earth hypothesis.

Abiogenesis, as in life from non-life, is currently a hot topic. While it is still a hypothesis there is certainly considerable evidence in favour of it. Basically, the evidence is mounting.

Personally speaking i'd put money on that abiogenesis will be proven and that it can even occur via multiple biochemical processes.
edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


Theology is the study of the actions and reactions of the human spirit; it can never become a science since it must always be combined more or less with psychology in its personal expression and with philosophy in its systematic portrayal. Theology is always the study of your religion; the study of another’s religion is psychology.

When man approaches the study and examination of his universe from the outside, he brings into being the various physical sciences; when he approaches the research of himself and the universe from the inside, he gives origin to theology and metaphysics. The later art of philosophy develops in an effort to harmonize the many discrepancies which are destined at first to appear between the findings and teachings of these two diametrically opposite avenues of approaching the universe of things and beings.

Religion has to do with the spiritual viewpoint, the awareness of the insideness of human experience. Man’s spiritual nature affords him the opportunity of turning the universe outside in. It is therefore true that, viewed exclusively from the insideness of personality experience, all creation appears to be spiritual in nature.

When man analytically inspects the universe through the material endowments of his physical senses and associated mind perception, the cosmos appears to be mechanical and energy-material. Such a technique of studying reality consists in turning the universe inside out.

A logical and consistent philosophic concept of the universe cannot be built up on the postulations of either materialism or spiritism, for both of these systems of thinking, when universally applied, are compelled to view the cosmos in distortion, the former contacting with a universe turned inside out, the latter realizing the nature of a universe turned outside in. Never, then, can either science or religion, in and of themselves, standing alone, hope to gain an adequate understanding of universal truths and relationships without the guidance of human philosophy and the illumination of divine revelation.

Always must man’s inner spirit depend for its expression and self-realization upon the mechanism and technique of the mind. Likewise must man’s outer experience of material reality be predicated on the mind consciousness of the experiencing personality. Therefore are the spiritual and the material, the inner and the outer, human experiences always correlated with the mind function and conditioned, as to their conscious realization, by the mind activity. Man experiences matter in his mind; he experiences spiritual reality in the soul but becomes conscious of this experience in his mind. The intellect is the harmonizer and the ever-present conditioner and qualifier of the sum total of mortal experience. Both energy-things and spirit values are colored by their interpretation through the mind media of consciousness.

Science is man’s attempted study of his physical environment, the world of energy-matter; religion is man’s experience with the cosmos of spirit values; philosophy has been developed by man’s mind effort to organize and correlate the findings of these widely separated concepts into something like a reasonable and unified attitude toward the cosmos. Philosophy, clarified by revelation, functions acceptably as substitute for metaphysics.

Science must always be grounded in reason, although imagination and conjecture are helpful in the extension of its borders. Religion is forever dependent on faith, albeit reason is a stabilizing influence and a helpful handmaid. And always there have been, and ever will be, misleading interpretations of the phenomena of both the natural and the spiritual worlds, sciences and religions falsely so called.

The highest attainable philosophy of mortal man must be logically based on the reason of science, the faith of religion, and the truth insight afforded by revelation.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

UB2120
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


Theology is the study of the actions and reactions of the human spirit; it can never become a science since it must always be combined more or less with psychology in its personal expression and with philosophy in its systematic portrayal. Theology is always the study of your religion; the study of another’s religion is psychology.

When man approaches the study and examination of his universe from the outside, he brings into being the various physical sciences; when he approaches the research of himself and the universe from the inside, he gives origin to theology and metaphysics. The later art of philosophy develops in an effort to harmonize the many discrepancies which are destined at first to appear between the findings and teachings of these two diametrically opposite avenues of approaching the universe of things and beings.

Religion has to do with the spiritual viewpoint, the awareness of the insideness of human experience. Man’s spiritual nature affords him the opportunity of turning the universe outside in. It is therefore true that, viewed exclusively from the insideness of personality experience, all creation appears to be spiritual in nature.

When man analytically inspects the universe through the material endowments of his physical senses and associated mind perception, the cosmos appears to be mechanical and energy-material. Such a technique of studying reality consists in turning the universe inside out.

A logical and consistent philosophic concept of the universe cannot be built up on the postulations of either materialism or spiritism, for both of these systems of thinking, when universally applied, are compelled to view the cosmos in distortion, the former contacting with a universe turned inside out, the latter realizing the nature of a universe turned outside in. Never, then, can either science or religion, in and of themselves, standing alone, hope to gain an adequate understanding of universal truths and relationships without the guidance of human philosophy and the illumination of divine revelation.

Always must man’s inner spirit depend for its expression and self-realization upon the mechanism and technique of the mind. Likewise must man’s outer experience of material reality be predicated on the mind consciousness of the experiencing personality. Therefore are the spiritual and the material, the inner and the outer, human experiences always correlated with the mind function and conditioned, as to their conscious realization, by the mind activity. Man experiences matter in his mind; he experiences spiritual reality in the soul but becomes conscious of this experience in his mind. The intellect is the harmonizer and the ever-present conditioner and qualifier of the sum total of mortal experience. Both energy-things and spirit values are colored by their interpretation through the mind media of consciousness.

Science is man’s attempted study of his physical environment, the world of energy-matter; religion is man’s experience with the cosmos of spirit values; philosophy has been developed by man’s mind effort to organize and correlate the findings of these widely separated concepts into something like a reasonable and unified attitude toward the cosmos. Philosophy, clarified by revelation, functions acceptably as substitute for metaphysics.

Science must always be grounded in reason, although imagination and conjecture are helpful in the extension of its borders. Religion is forever dependent on faith, albeit reason is a stabilizing influence and a helpful handmaid. And always there have been, and ever will be, misleading interpretations of the phenomena of both the natural and the spiritual worlds, sciences and religions falsely so called.

The highest attainable philosophy of mortal man must be logically based on the reason of science, the faith of religion, and the truth insight afforded by revelation.


"Imagination and conjecture are helpful in the extension of it's borders"??!!! That's actually quite offensive. You ever tried getting results published or know anyone that did?

I can assure you that imagination (other than in terms of experimental design) and conjecture are abhorred by empirical science.

Pffft! This coming from a creationist!, smacks of hypocrisy!



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

helldiver

kyviecaldges
reply to post by Prezbo369
 




Patently untrue, 'science' has never proven such a claim.


Actually you are totally wrong on that one.

Link to wiki on biogenesis.

Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.


Okay... So what has science proven.


Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, proved as early as 1668 that higher forms of life did not originate spontaneously, but proponents of abiogenesis claimed that this did not apply to microbes and continued to hold that these could arise spontaneously. Attempts to disprove the spontaneous generation of life from non-life continued in the early 19th century with observations and experiments by Franz Schulze and Theodor Schwann. In 1745, John Needham added chicken broth to a flask and boiled it. He then let it cool and waited. Microbes grew, and he proposed it as an example of spontaneous generation. In 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani repeated Needham's experiment but removed all the air from the flask. No growth occurred. In 1854, Heinrich Schröder (1810–1885) and Theodor von Dusch, and in 1859, Schröder alone, repeated the Helmholtz filtration experiment and showed that living particles can be removed from air by filtering it through cotton-wool.


Interesting. Is that all?
NO.


In 1864, Louis Pasteur finally announced the results of his scientific experiments. In a series of experiments similar to those performed earlier by Needham and Spallanzani, Pasteur demonstrated that life does not arise in areas that have not been contaminated by existing life. Pasteur's empirical results were summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life".

After obtaining his results, Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream").


Like I said. You are wrong. This has been proven and is repeatable. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis with no support.

That is why it is a hypothesis.


Right sweets, let's try and keep this in context.

Biogenesis (in terms of origin), as in that only life can create life, has been totally discarded. It's on par with the flat earth hypothesis.

Abiogenesis, as in life from non-life, is currently a hot topic. While it is still a hypothesis there is certainly considerable evidence in favour of it. Basically, the evidence is mounting.

Personally speaking i'd put money on that abiogenesis will be proven and that it can even occur via multiple biochemical processes.
edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)


That is some seriously impressive evidence for biogenesis being totally discarded.
All of the none that you presented I mean... seriously impressive.

Right now the only thing that we know that exists that can induce a hypercycle is life.
Until abiogenesis is validated then biogenesis is all that we know, and I would LOVE to see a link to the repeatable experiments that lead to "discarding" biogenesis.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

kyviecaldges

helldiver

kyviecaldges
reply to post by Prezbo369
 




Patently untrue, 'science' has never proven such a claim.


Actually you are totally wrong on that one.

Link to wiki on biogenesis.

Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.


Okay... So what has science proven.


Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, proved as early as 1668 that higher forms of life did not originate spontaneously, but proponents of abiogenesis claimed that this did not apply to microbes and continued to hold that these could arise spontaneously. Attempts to disprove the spontaneous generation of life from non-life continued in the early 19th century with observations and experiments by Franz Schulze and Theodor Schwann. In 1745, John Needham added chicken broth to a flask and boiled it. He then let it cool and waited. Microbes grew, and he proposed it as an example of spontaneous generation. In 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani repeated Needham's experiment but removed all the air from the flask. No growth occurred. In 1854, Heinrich Schröder (1810–1885) and Theodor von Dusch, and in 1859, Schröder alone, repeated the Helmholtz filtration experiment and showed that living particles can be removed from air by filtering it through cotton-wool.


Interesting. Is that all?
NO.


In 1864, Louis Pasteur finally announced the results of his scientific experiments. In a series of experiments similar to those performed earlier by Needham and Spallanzani, Pasteur demonstrated that life does not arise in areas that have not been contaminated by existing life. Pasteur's empirical results were summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life".

After obtaining his results, Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream").


Like I said. You are wrong. This has been proven and is repeatable. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis with no support.

That is why it is a hypothesis.


Right sweets, let's try and keep this in context.

Biogenesis (in terms of origin), as in that only life can create life, has been totally discarded. It's on par with the flat earth hypothesis.

Abiogenesis, as in life from non-life, is currently a hot topic. While it is still a hypothesis there is certainly considerable evidence in favour of it. Basically, the evidence is mounting.

Personally speaking i'd put money on that abiogenesis will be proven and that it can even occur via multiple biochemical processes.
edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)


That is some seriously impressive evidence for biogenesis being totally discarded.
All of the none that you presented I mean... seriously impressive.

Right now the only thing that we know that exists that can induce a hypercycle is life.
Until abiogenesis is validated then biogenesis is all that we know, and I would LOVE to see a link to the repeatable experiments that lead to "discarding" biogenesis.


I'm fine with biogenesis (basically reproduction). Read my post, i did say "in terms of origin" so don't shoot your boots.

In terms of its implications as the only origin of life then it's been discarded. Otherwise we wouldnt be talking about abiogenesis and rna worlds etc.

I would only make an exception to the above for panspermia but only if panspermia brought prokaryotes (i doubt it). Even if that was indeed the case then surely we'd still be talking about abiogenesis as the precursor.
edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

helldiver

UB2120
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Ok, so what does that video prove? I guess you don't understand what I am trying to say. I am not saying evolution didn't happen, its actually still happening. Remember when Darwin would look at a single cell under his weak microscope he saw a pulsating blob. Today we can see the unbelievably complex inner workings of a cell. With components that could never have evolved.

Science has proven that life is only derived from pre-existent life. Protoplasmic life was initiated on this planet by those designated by God hundreds of millions of years ago. Life then begins to unfold and adapt to the environment. Evolution is supervised until a creature with will appears. From that time forward the will creature is responsible for its further development.

The creationism discussed here is the ridiculous fairy tale version passed down from the primitive minds of past ages. The universe is to vast and complex to have just happened without cause. The big bang theory is a joke.

People who slam creationism basically are slamming Christianity. There are other explanations of creation that are not from the Christian Bible.

edit on 6-12-2013 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)


More retroperistaltic ejecta, this time with a bitter after taste of Behe. Care to mention some of the components you claim could never have evolved?

"Evolution is supervised until a creature with will appears...". What mechanism causes evolution to stop? Why should a creature with will (whatever that means) get to be responsible for its own future? Were Neanderthals creatures of will? Were they irresponsible perhaps? Were they chain smoking, drunk driving, recreational drug using, gambling, war mongering, sexually deviant racist hedonists perhaps?

Looking forward to your reply.


Evolution does not stop and won't stop. It will culminate on our planet when, in the distant future, we are so blended to be considered one race and even then it will continue.

What is meant by saying a creature with will, is to indicate that the creature has developed a level of mind that is above that mere instinctual existence. To be more specific on the mind levels, which there are 7, to be considered a will creature the last 2 of worship and wisdom are functioning.

Neanderthals were will creatures, they were just inferior to other races of humans and were wiped out as a separate race.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

helldiver

UB2120
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


Theology is the study of the actions and reactions of the human spirit; it can never become a science since it must always be combined more or less with psychology in its personal expression and with philosophy in its systematic portrayal. Theology is always the study of your religion; the study of another’s religion is psychology.

When man approaches the study and examination of his universe from the outside, he brings into being the various physical sciences; when he approaches the research of himself and the universe from the inside, he gives origin to theology and metaphysics. The later art of philosophy develops in an effort to harmonize the many discrepancies which are destined at first to appear between the findings and teachings of these two diametrically opposite avenues of approaching the universe of things and beings.

Religion has to do with the spiritual viewpoint, the awareness of the insideness of human experience. Man’s spiritual nature affords him the opportunity of turning the universe outside in. It is therefore true that, viewed exclusively from the insideness of personality experience, all creation appears to be spiritual in nature.

When man analytically inspects the universe through the material endowments of his physical senses and associated mind perception, the cosmos appears to be mechanical and energy-material. Such a technique of studying reality consists in turning the universe inside out.

A logical and consistent philosophic concept of the universe cannot be built up on the postulations of either materialism or spiritism, for both of these systems of thinking, when universally applied, are compelled to view the cosmos in distortion, the former contacting with a universe turned inside out, the latter realizing the nature of a universe turned outside in. Never, then, can either science or religion, in and of themselves, standing alone, hope to gain an adequate understanding of universal truths and relationships without the guidance of human philosophy and the illumination of divine revelation.

Always must man’s inner spirit depend for its expression and self-realization upon the mechanism and technique of the mind. Likewise must man’s outer experience of material reality be predicated on the mind consciousness of the experiencing personality. Therefore are the spiritual and the material, the inner and the outer, human experiences always correlated with the mind function and conditioned, as to their conscious realization, by the mind activity. Man experiences matter in his mind; he experiences spiritual reality in the soul but becomes conscious of this experience in his mind. The intellect is the harmonizer and the ever-present conditioner and qualifier of the sum total of mortal experience. Both energy-things and spirit values are colored by their interpretation through the mind media of consciousness.

Science is man’s attempted study of his physical environment, the world of energy-matter; religion is man’s experience with the cosmos of spirit values; philosophy has been developed by man’s mind effort to organize and correlate the findings of these widely separated concepts into something like a reasonable and unified attitude toward the cosmos. Philosophy, clarified by revelation, functions acceptably as substitute for metaphysics.

Science must always be grounded in reason, although imagination and conjecture are helpful in the extension of its borders. Religion is forever dependent on faith, albeit reason is a stabilizing influence and a helpful handmaid. And always there have been, and ever will be, misleading interpretations of the phenomena of both the natural and the spiritual worlds, sciences and religions falsely so called.

The highest attainable philosophy of mortal man must be logically based on the reason of science, the faith of religion, and the truth insight afforded by revelation.


"Imagination and conjecture are helpful in the extension of it's borders"??!!! That's actually quite offensive. You ever tried getting results published or know anyone that did?

I can assure you that imagination (other than in terms of experimental design) and conjecture are abhorred by empirical science.

Pffft! This coming from a creationist!, smacks of hypocrisy!



Science would never grow without imagination and conjecture. I was speaking of experimental design. Apparently you did not understand what I was trying to say. Try rereading it!




top topics



 
8
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join