|
Science, or miracle, or both?
|
Replies: 128
| visibility 3,201
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Science, or miracle, or both?
3
Feb 14, 2024, 8:46 AM
|
|
I once heard a guy propose that given the proper elements and conditions, life isn't really a miracle, it's simply inevitable. Sort of like if you mix yellow and blue you will get green, every time, everywhere in the universe. His idea was that water plus whatever chemicals will eventually lead to life, every time.
That doesn't necessarily speak to the existence or absence of God directly, but if there is one, it might speak to how his machine works. That is, it could be on auto-drive.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/charlotte-stingray-no-male-companion-232457706.html
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 8:46 AM
|
|
mispost 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 11:28 AM
|
|
You'll get much better action in here...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [566]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 6276
Joined: 8/30/14
|
Theory unproven due to lifespan time..
Feb 15, 2024, 2:57 AM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
constraints. Extrapolations are speculation. Forget empirical data, there's no anecdotal evidence suggesting or lending credence to our accuracy in predicting futures over a millenia and beyond—
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
11
11
Feb 14, 2024, 10:00 AM
|
|
If you can't create life in a laboratory with intelligent design...Then how could you possibly believe life could form in nature without intelligent design?
In a laboratory, you know what is needed to sustain life, to have life, and can manipulate the environment to make sure it happens (intelligent design)...yet it can't happen! Even when you change the structure to include conditions that are known to never have happened in nature, it can't happen. It is not a case of not having found the right combination of chemicals to have it happen, because you still have the left and right handed amino acid problem to overcome (nature forms both types of amino acids, but life only uses left hand molecules...and there is no way for nature to separate them), and the absence of enzymes. It just can't happen!
The current studies that are trying to show how RNA is the NEW BUILDING BLOCK for life, is still flawed because that RNA still does not form without first solving the presence of the right handed amino acids! Even the studies that show the self replicating lipids as the new building block, still has the amino acid problem.
ANY proposed building block that they try to come up with has the very simple, but insurmountable obstacle of not having a cell membrane around the newly formed building block to protect it from the environment (UV rays would quickly break it apart...put pond water in a plastic bottle, seal it, place in direct sun, and within hours, all life will be killed, even though those organic molecules have cell membranes to protect it), which means once it were to form, it would degrade immediately! It just can't happen!
And then, the greatest of obstacles to overcome...since evolutionists keep trying to say that building blocks eventually evolve into life...Guess what, evolution can't occur without life! Yes! That is the missing link to their missing link! Without DNA to mutate/reproduce, there can't be evolution! It does not matter if they form any building block, if it can't reproduce before it degrades...It can't reproduce without DNA/genes...so...IT JUST CAN'T HAPPEN! Science does not support the creation of life from non-life in any way possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6397]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3907
Joined: 12/4/18
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 10:38 AM
|
|
What are you going to say when scientists solve abiogenesis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 11:14 AM
|
|
Scientists can't solve abiogenesis. It is impossible. If it weren't, it would already be done! The most possible way would be if all of the building blocks for life were present before some "shock" would allow it to come to life...but we all know that the "Frankenstein" example is impossible, and laugh at it!
Every attempt to make precursors to life have failed. Even the Miller-Urey experiment failed! They set up an experiment to make amino acids, and formed them by circulating "primordial soup" through an electrical charge to mimic lightening. Amino acids were formed, but as they circulated it, the amino acids broke up in the electric chamber, so they decided to extract the amino acids and concentrate them (could not happen in nature)...The amino acids then just sat there, did nothing and did not react with each other.
The reason nothing happened is because both left hand and right hand "isomers" of the amino acids formed. Life only uses left hand isomers, and nature has no way to isolate and congregate the left hand ones to further the chance of life forming. And, the amino acids that were formed are not the ones used by life! There are over 500 amino acids, but only 22 of them are used in life!
Without this first step of amino acids in the right type and isomer, then no other building blocks can form, including proteins, lipids, RNA, DNA or any other organic compound that could lead to life.
Even when scientists develop left hand amino acids to use in the laboratory, they use enzymes to create them...enzymes are a very large organic molecules that have many amino acids in them, which can't form in nature. And those scientists have isolated left hand amino acids and tried to get them to form other building blocks in the laboratory, and have not been able to get past the protein stage. Since the proteins have no cell membrane to protect them, even with them blocking UV rays, the protein degrades as the medium the protein is in destroys it through osmosis and other mechanisms. Since the proteins can't move, they can't come in contact with other proteins to react together, and even if they did, those "conglomerates" can't reproduce to pass on their "advances" prior to being destroyed.
Taking into account that scientist are knowingly violating conditions that could have possibly existed in nature, and manipulating conditions to make these reactions occur, and still can't get any building blocks to form, it kind of proves that life can't form from non-life, doesn't it?
All of this is off the top of my head, so hopefully it makes sense...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 11:26 AM
|
|
Who/what created the creator?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 11:43 AM
|
|
Why ask a question like that? It is simple to show that anything goes by the same principle...for the evolutionists...who created the first life? For atheists, who created the "nothing" that exploded in the big bang? The answer, of course, is that God always has been, He was not created.
The thing that you need to understand, you asked: Who created the Creator...so even you assume all things are created, which precludes atheist thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 11:48 AM
|
|
Who said I was an atheist first of all?
Second, it is much more believable that simple life formed from non life, than it is to believe a being with the power to create the universe just happened to exist.
So I’ll ask again, if all living things have a creator, what created the creator?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 12:44 PM
|
|
Since you can't explain how life formed from non-life, you are being dishonest to say that it did! You just believe it did, proving your religion! You want me to answer your question, without answering mine, how abiogenesis occurred.
God was not created, He was the Creator. So your question is nonsense. Since you do not believe in God (and you don't, because you do not think it makes sense for Him to create everything), to say who created Him is not based on your belief, thus nonsense.
And, Since God created all of the Laws of nature and science, He can exist outside those laws.
If scientists ever were to somehow form life from non-life, then that would prove Intelligent Design! Since there is absolutely no argument for life to form from non-life without intelligence, then your position is a no-win situation.
As to life forming in the first place, there are only two ways it can happen...natural, or supernatural. Natural requires life to form from non-life, which has been tested thousands of times and proven not possible. Since there are only two possibilities for how life started, and one has been proven impossible, then the other has to be true. Thus, God exists!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5683]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2714
Joined: 2/10/22
|
Well... You are the first to bash anyone who posts about God
2
Feb 14, 2024, 2:08 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
Also on a side note, all of your takes, whether it be about God or Clemson football, are beyond ban-worthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Well... You are the first to bash anyone who posts about God
1
Feb 14, 2024, 2:18 PM
|
|
I simply asked a poster a question who was bashing those who don't follow his religion.
If anybody here should be banned it should be him but of course christians are always the victims.
The fact that a simple question like "who created god" bothers you people so much should tell you something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5683]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2714
Joined: 2/10/22
|
Yet again, another dumb post
1
Feb 14, 2024, 2:21 PM
|
|
You should be the one that should be banned for being a coot. Aside from your religious posts, your posts about Clemson sports are extremely coot-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
^ COOT***
Feb 14, 2024, 3:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31315]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9128
Joined: 8/31/15
|
Re: Well... You are the first to bash anyone who posts about God
1
Feb 14, 2024, 7:28 PM
[ in reply to Re: Well... You are the first to bash anyone who posts about God ] |
|
I simply asked a poster a question who was bashing those who don't follow his religion.
If anybody here should be banned it should be him but of course christians are always the victims.
The fact that a simple question like "who created god" bothers you people so much should tell you something.
Bashed? He did nothing that came close to bashing. You came across with a question and he answered it.
He just put a speed bump in your circular reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22398]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7158
Joined: 8/31/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: I'll answer your question.
Feb 14, 2024, 9:06 PM
|
|
I gave him that answer, but he would not accept it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1047]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1212
Joined: 11/19/05
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
2
Feb 14, 2024, 5:35 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
An eternal being can have no beginning and therefore no creator, but all temporal things, living and non living must have a creator. The eternal existence of a creator is visible in the wisdom of design throughout all creation (even the atom has the appearance of wisdom and design).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31315]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9128
Joined: 8/31/15
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 7:17 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
Who said I was an atheist first of all?
Second, it is much more believable that simple life formed from non life, than it is to believe a being with the power to create the universe just happened to exist.
So I’ll ask again, if all living things have a creator, what created the creator?
Because most people that read your post are not naive. Your post oozes atheism. Wasn’t too hard to figure that out. Then you ask who created the Creator when the Bible clearly states He has always been. It’s called faith. I chose to believe in a something bigger than myself.
Morality? Why does it matter? Where did it come from?
I’m not meaning to come across as argumentative but the questions atheist asked can be turned around and asked about your belief system as well. Again it’s called faith. You have faith that we evolved from whatever the latest theory is and I believe it’s a bit more complex. Human body is an amazing thing and there is nothing else in this world that comes close in comparison.
Just my thoughts I do not expect to change your mind because I know my own self and there is nothing you could say to change mine. Just 2 different worldviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [292]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 511
Joined: 6/5/15
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 11:52 AM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
It is possible to believe in a God and evolution at the same time you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 12:27 PM
|
|
Not really...there is no plausible "gap theory" in the Bible. Assuming you are talking about the Christian God, then they are not compatible beliefs. I know, because I used to be there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [292]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 511
Joined: 6/5/15
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 12:38 PM
|
|
We can agree to disagree on that. I simply don’t see it that way. There is no recipe in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 12:51 PM
|
|
It was six literal days. All of this speculation that a day was longer than 24 hours, or that there was any gap is just speculation with no Biblical basis. God did not trick us or deceive us. He deliberately took six days and rested on the seventh to set up our keeping the sabbath holy. Look at Genesis 1 as a historical record, and Genesis 2 as a genealogical record. Genesis 2 is not part of the timeline, it is a rehash of Genesis 1. Genesis 2 begins with the simple point "Thus, the heavens and earth were finished, and all the hosts of them". "Creation" ended at that point! It was time to rest (not that He needed it, but to set the precedent for keeping the sabbath).
A day was a 24 hour period. Any other interpretation is not correct, given that each day ends with the comment "and the evening and the morning was (first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth) day. You can't have thousands of years with only one evening and morning.
Anyone using the later verses where they are talking about God's existence outside of time by saying a day is like a thousand years to God, and applies that to Genesis 1 is misapplying Biblical scriptures. Everywhere that the Bible talks about the creation week, such as Exodus 20:11, It says 6 literal days. And to top it all off, Jesus himself said that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6). Since Jesus was the Creator, and since He said Adam and Eve were created during creation week, that is good enough for me to declare any other interpretation wrong.
Also
So, what you are saying is that God made the plants and some animals and just froze them, since they would not be able to reproduce or grow for long periods of time, while He waited for some period of time, when He could do all of it in the blink of an eye? The plants would obviously not be able to live 500 years without sunlight, and the evening came first! Do you see what you are trying to say makes no sense? I understand that God is all powerful, but I always think of it as God could have done everything in the first minute, but He deliberately took 6 days and rested on the seventh, just as He said in Exodus 20:11 " For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that are in them, and rested the seventh. He set the example for us to follow.
And, again in Exodus 31:17, it says "It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”
And, again, in Mark 10:6 Jesus said that Adam and Eve were made "at the beginning of Creation" Which means the days had to be literal, otherwise, if they were a thousand years, it would have taken 5000 years to get to Adam, which would mean Jesus would be wrong to say Adam was at the beginning of creation!
If those three versus were not available, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but I take those as being definitive reasons to interpret the way I have said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:14 PM
|
|
Did a snake literally talk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6397]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3907
Joined: 12/4/18
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
2
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:27 PM
|
|
The Book of Genesis is just silly to begin with.
Light (day 1), water and vegetation (day 2) were all created before the Sun, Moon and the stars (day 3).
It refers to the Moon as a light... It's not
Then Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other in their creation narratives, clearly written by two different authors.
Then it states that a 600 year old man built a giant wooden boat that fit two or seven "kinds" of animals on it. Of course, this was done because because God killed all other life in a flood.
It's pretty shocking that adults believe the Book of Genesis is a literal account of creation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:44 PM
|
|
Abiogenesis is silly! It goes against laws of science.
Making the plants one day before the light or insects is not a problem, and you know it. The moon does light up the night, through reflection, it is not a problem to refer to this as light. People use mirrors to reflect light all day long, and can say the source of the light is the mirror reflecting other light.
Genesis 1 is the creation. It states in the last verse that creation was finished. Then it starts giving the life of Adam and his descendants in Genesis 2, thus no contradiction, no other author.
It took that 600 year old man, who was healthier than either of us at our age, over 100 years, with lots of help, to build that ark, so, yeah! He lived to age 950, so he was in his prime at 600!
I noticed that rather than trying to prove me wrong on any science I gave, you decided to attack the Bible...typical! You tell us we can't believe in the Bible because it is just stories, yet, you want to attack it rather than talk about science! But you say science is on your side (it isn't)!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:57 PM
|
|
Ok you got us. There are literally no problems with a man floating around in space snapping the sun and moon and stars into existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 2:04 PM
|
|
Thanks for admitting it! I notice that you did not use any science in anything here...I thought your side always said follow the science? If science was supportive of your view, you would have used it! Since you did not use it, that pretty much means there is no science to support you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6397]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3907
Joined: 12/4/18
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 7:03 PM
|
|
Yes! When God made Adam, his genetic structure was perfect. He was made to live forever! It was not until sin happened that God degraded the DNA, which took years to affect the DNA to shorten life spans. Then, after the flood, God said He would shorten our ages even more...Most think He did this through the UV rays that now came through the atmosphere, since the flood removed the protective layer in the sky (source of some of the water). So, there is a scientific explanation of why the first men lived for so long!
By the way, this also is another thing that contradicts evolution...the genetic drift that has been proven to occur in our, and other animals DNA...If evolution is true, then we would be having our DNA getting better, not worse! And before you balk at this thought, remember, according to your belief, we evolved from an amoeba...are you saying that human DNA is not more evolved than an amoeba? Well, then per your belief, man would have to be continually getting better DNA for evolution to be true! Again, if that is not true, then how could man evolve?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [953]
TigerPulse: 53%
Posts: 1494
Joined: 6/24/17
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1047]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1212
Joined: 11/19/05
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 5:45 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
I know from many of your posts that you are a smart person, but the statement that the Bible is silly doesn’t hold up due to the many great men who held it to be valuable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:37 PM
|
|
lol, ok so this is where you exit any scientific discussion.
You can’t show that a snake actually talked but you believe it. You’ve demonstrated that your standard of evidence is quite bad. Just say “I believe it” and move on because that’s all that’s happening here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:47 PM
|
|
Just like Trotsky, you can't talk science about anything else I said, so you attack the Bible, then think you win! No! Either prove that anything I said about abiogenesis is false, or give up on the conversation! You say science is on your side, but now you are depending on the Bible for your argument, and you can't see a problem with that!
You can't prove abiogenesis, so your religion is abiogenesis and atheism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6397]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3907
Joined: 12/4/18
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 3:14 PM
|
|
We have no problem admitting that we don't know where life came from.
You are the one claiming that abiogenesis is impossible. And your "proof" is that scientists haven't proven it yet in a lab lol.
You also believe in 950 year old men with no proof either.
We aren't the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 7:05 PM
|
|
Thank goodness we are not the same...I understand science, you do not...
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:49 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
And I have an eyewitness account that is written that a snake(satan) talked, you don't have anything like that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:57 PM
|
|
Who is this eyewitness?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 2:06 PM
|
|
It was written in the Book of Adam, and further included by Moses
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 2:16 PM
|
|
Are you aware of the reliability of eyewitness testimony?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 2:22 PM
|
|
Are you aware there are no eyewitnesses that ever saw evolution or abiogenesis occur? At least we have witnesses to depend on, what do you have? Not science, since you refuse to debate that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 3:58 PM
|
|
Show me these eyewitnesses
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 7:14 PM
|
|
See how you refuse to talk about science? You keep attacking the Bible...Why not use science to support your views? Because you can't!
Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and many more wrote about it in the Book of Adam. Adam could talk in person to Noah's father! Noah gave it to Abraham! Abraham gave it to Joseph! Who had grandsons who could know Moses. Since all of this is written word, it is still evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1589]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 556
Joined: 11/26/18
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 2:09 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 2:17 PM
|
|
Ok, that’s a claim. Where’s the supporting evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 2:30 PM
|
|
As I said earlier:
As to life forming in the first place, there are only two ways it can happen...natural, or supernatural. Natural requires life to form from non-life, which has been tested thousands of times and proven not possible. Since there are only two possibilities for how life started, and one has been proven impossible, then the other has to be true. Thus, God exists!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 4:18 PM
|
|
It hasn’t been proven impossible. That’s now how it works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [292]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 511
Joined: 6/5/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1377]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1815
Joined: 1/2/20
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:48 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
So if I walked up to you and said a snake talked to me. It was the devil. You would believe me? Or what if I told you God literally spoke to me. Like I heard his voice. Would you believe me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:51 PM
|
|
Depends on the context. In most cases, I would avoid you.
But, this has nothing to do with the topic or science! Why are you on this and not trying to prove science, or at least trying to pick apart the science I gave? It is because you can't and know it! Does that not make you think? You people always say believe the science! Science says abiogenesis is impossible!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [292]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 511
Joined: 6/5/15
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 2:56 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
That’s your interpretation, you were not there. The Bible also talks about time in heaven not being the same as on earth. We don’t truly know if the time frame was the same. So you believe that the earth is roughly 2-3 days older than humans? That’s pretty extreme. I don’t share your beliefs in that realm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 7:35 PM
|
|
If you will notice, Jesus said in Mark 10:6 that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of Creation...I don't know about you, but that is pretty authoritative! The passages where a day is related to a thousand years has nothing at all to do with creation week...and if you think it does, then this is how it would sound, since every day in Genesis one ends with the words: and the evening and the morning was the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth day... So if a day was a thousand years, then there would have been about 500 years of dark (evening) and 500 years of daylight (morning)...How do you think the plants would survive that? How could the plants reproduce without insects to pollinate them?
Why did God say in Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day..."
And again, in Exodus 31:17, God says "It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”
Luke 11:50-51: "…that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel" If there was any kind of a gap, then how could Abel be associated with the foundation of the earth?
Romans 1:20: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Notice the word "perceive"...who or what would "perceive, ever since the creation of the world" if there were a recreation before any one could perceive anything? The context is for humans to perceive (thus, no excuse), so there could not have been millions of years after creation before humans appeared. The author of this passage clearly shows that man has been present since the creation of the world, so no gap is permitted.
That is not extreme, that is what the Bible says...I thought like you for over 34 years, it was not until someone asked me the simple question: "so you believe in evolution? Then how does that make sense, since there was no death before Adam sinned?" I knew evolution well enough to teach it, but that question really stuck with me...
When God made the world, it was self-sustaining, and no death of animals occurred. All animals were vegetarian. Man was not told they could eat meat until after the flood! There was no prey or predators. This allowed the animals and plants to further populate the planet quicker. So, per the Bible, man was created before there was death of any animals. For millions to billions of years of evolution to take place in a world where there was no death (think about that, perfect DNA, no death, environment not changing, no natural selection, why would evolution occur?), that would put animals "mutating" to new forms while the old forms were still there! That would mean that the new forms would have been interbreeding with the old, which would have delayed evolutionary progress! This pretty much violates all known processes required for evolution to occur at the levels postulated by evolutionists. For this reason, you can't believe in an old earth, and evolution, and still believe in the Bible...That was one of my major turning points!
The other point to be made, and the more obvious reason to not believe in evolution; is this...man, and all the animals, had perfect DNA, it was not degenerating, and there was no mutations or bad transcriptions, thus evolution could not have occurred before the fall. After the fall, entropy was introduced to the universe, and mutations, and bad transcriptions of DNA started...but since the timeline here is only 7 thousand years or so, it is impossible for evolution to contribute to speciation.
DNA was perfect before Adam sinned; thus, no mutations or natural selection happened or was needed. Perfect DNA negates evolution from ever occurring, and since man is at the top of the evolutionary process per the evolutionists, evolution did not occur!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [166]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 123
Joined: 7/8/21
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Genesis ain't a science book, man. It explains the why's not the how's
Feb 14, 2024, 7:40 PM
|
|
The Bible is the ultimate science book! It gives how things were created, developed methods to reduce the spread of diseases prior to man knowing why the diseases got transmitted (clean vs unclean), said the earth was circular before it was standard knowledge, used incredible math to built the Ark of the covenant and the Ark of Noah. Gave methods of metallurgy. Set up the calendar... many many more examples! So, you look at the Book of Leviticus, and don't think the Bible tells you how to do anything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31315]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9128
Joined: 8/31/15
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 7:22 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
We can agree to disagree on that. I simply don’t see it that way. There is no recipe in the Bible.
It’s pretty clear in the Bible. So I would say we just disagree!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22398]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7158
Joined: 8/31/03
|
Red herring.
2
Feb 14, 2024, 8:56 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
You believe nothing created the universe and you get frustrated when someone asks you "Who created the universe?"
Who says the creator of the universe must have been created? Why do you believe that?
The creator of the universe is the uncreated Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [65620]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33292
Joined: 12/3/03
|
I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
2
Feb 14, 2024, 11:35 AM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
being I know of who can pull it off.
And to those who will inevitably say that humans create life when we make babies, I say, who made the first humans? Or the first birds, dinosaurs, fish, etc?
Man will never understand the mind of God, because He exists on a plane that is beyond our understanding altogether. Only when we cross over to eternal life, will we know how it all fits together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 11:49 AM
|
|
What proof do you have that this god exists?
I am equally perplexed by the existence and complexity of the universe, but that’s not evidence of a creator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [528]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 325
Joined: 10/14/17
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
1
Feb 14, 2024, 12:51 PM
|
|
What proof do you have that he doesn't exist? It works both ways. 😀
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 12:59 PM
|
|
No it doesn’t. You can’t prove there isn’t a planet full of rubber ducks in andromeda. Doesn’t mean there is good reason to assert there is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 1:08 PM
|
|
Exactly! You can't prove that abiogenesis happened, so you can't assert that it did! See how that works both ways?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 1:12 PM
|
|
Who asserted it did? You can’t even argue correctly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 1:13 PM
|
|
But you have observations that prove that the likelihood of them existing is very small, since no one has ever been proven to have seen them. You also do not have any observations of abiogenesis ever occurring, and can't postulate any scientific experiment that could form a basis for it to ever have occurred! That is the point! Yet, you believe abiogenesis occurred! That is your religion!
And, of course, you don't have any proof that God doesn't exist either! People always ask us to prove God exists, then we say prove that He doesn't exists...but you never do that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 1:24 PM
|
|
Prove Allah doesn’t exists.
You can’t do it. So you now see how silly your argument is right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 2:02 PM
|
|
I don't believe in Allah, thus have no reason to prove he doesn't exist. On the other hand, you believe in abiogenesis, thus should prove that it is possible. So, my argument is not silly, and the simple fact that you are arguing about this, and not about the science, proves that you can't give any science to demonstrate any way for abiogenesis to occur!
You have not proven God doesn't exist, even though you asked me to prove God exists! You don't believe in God, thus your basis for arguing with me should be science, not whether God exists.
Why do you revert to this subject, when my original topic was just abiogenesis and the science involved in that? It really is typical, you can't prove what you say, so you attack God and the Bible, Petty and useless!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 6:03 PM
|
|
>I don't believe in Allah, thus have no reason to prove he doesn't exist.
Oh neat, then I have no reason to prove yours doesn't numnuts.
>On the other hand, you believe in abiogenesis, thus should prove that it is possible.
You have no idea what I believe because you didn't event ask lol. You just assume.
I didn't assert that I know how abiogenesis happened, so no, I don't have to explain anything. I think it's the most _likely_ scenario because we have a good understanding of the evolution of the universe and of organisms, thus there is no reason to suddenly insert god into the middle of it.
>You have not proven God doesn't exist, even though you asked me to prove God exists!
Well yes, that's how making claims work. You should be able to do so if you are going to claim it. Heck, i'm not even asking for "proof", just any convincing evidence at all.
> You don't believe in God, thus your basis for arguing with me should be science, not whether God exists.
as i've said, you are REALLY bad at this. lol.
>Why do you revert to this subject,
oh buddy, you are too all over the place to be claiming that
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 7:48 PM
|
|
You said:
Me>You have not proven God doesn't exist, even though you asked me to prove God exists!
You>Well yes, that's how making claims work. You should be able to do so if you are going to claim it. Heck, i'm not even asking for "proof", just any convincing evidence at all.
You have to claim abiogenesis since it is the only option for not believing God did it. You admit it is the only option you have. So, per you, if you are going to "claim it", then you have to prove it!!!!
Well, as you said: "Heck, i'm not even asking for "proof", just any convincing evidence at all." that abiogenesis happened! Funny, how just by you saying it, it is true! Science does not work that way!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 2:20 PM
|
|
There are no observations of evolution ever occurring. There are a lot of mythical works that attest to evolution, but there is even more science that says it is not possible. Just in the last 40 years or so, we have discovered the epigenetic system, which controls what DNA is read and used for everyday functions. We just discovered two years ago that epigenetics corrects bad mutations in core genes to prevent the mutations from being passed on the future generations...this proves one of the cornerstones of evolution (random mutations, being passed to offspring) is not true!
I don't need to prove God exists! All I need to do is prove that abiogenesis is impossible, which makes God the only choice for how life started! All I have to do is prove that evolution did not happen, which is really easy to do through the epigenetic system.
This link is from an evolutionist site that questions how Darwin's finches could change the beaks of all the offspring in one generation (keep in mind, they still call all of it evolution, erroneously)...Yes, you read that right...they proved that an entire population of finches changed the beak sizes of their immediate offspring in one generation! If you know anything about evolution, then you know this proves that the finches did not evolve! And, the offspring can switch the genes back to change the beaks back to the same size as the parents in the next generation, because epigenetics changes are reversible, also impossible in mutations!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/2017/09/06/how-do-darwins-finches-respond-so-quickly-to-environmental-changes/?sh=6e6c72325810
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 6:05 PM
|
|
>There are no observations of evolution ever occurring.
false
>There are a lot of mythical works that attest to evolution, but there is even more science that says it is not possible.
false
>Just in the last 40 years or so, we have discovered the epigenetic system, which controls what DNA is read and used for everyday functions. We just discovered two years ago that epigenetics corrects bad mutations in core genes to prevent the mutations from being passed on the future generations...this proves one of the cornerstones of evolution (random mutations, being passed to offspring) is not true!
lol false
>I don't need to prove God exists!
I mean, you can't so it's really not a problem but the onus is indeed on you to do so if you are claiming he exists.
>Yes, you read that right...they proved that an entire population of finches changed the beak sizes of their immediate offspring in one generation! If you know anything about evolution, then you know this proves that the finches did not evolve!
lol false
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 7:56 PM
|
|
You obviously did not read the link about the finches... The title said how could they change so quickly (because evolution does not allow that).
Please give us an observation of evolution occurring...and this needs to include a species change to satisfy the criteria of new species forming. And the new species cannot have the ability to mate with the old (evolutionists tend to name new species, even though the "new one" is still the old one, just with a new name (you do know that almost all species of ducks can, and do, mate and have viable offspring, right?) Man just calls them different species, even though they are not).
For your perusal...another evolutionary paper that says that the epigenetic system shows that random mutations to core genes are corrected by epigenetics...
https://www.livescience.com/non-random-dna-mutations
Message was edited by: JPRICH Top Paw®
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 11:55 AM
[ in reply to I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the ] |
|
But atheists do not try to understand God, so you must show them that their belief is not true from a science perspective! And, since science says abiogenesis is impossible...the actual law of science is "Biogenesis" which is life begats (forms) life..., which proves abiogenesis, which is life formed from non-life, is impossible.
Since abiogenesis is impossible through science, then to believe that abiogenesis did happen proves the atheist has faith in it happening, which then means that their belief is a religion...as the USA courts have ruled several times. Once you understand that it is a religion, then most of their arguments against God, also apply to their own religion.
When an atheist says: "prove God exists", then all you have to say is "prove abiogenesis happened", and they lose their argument, since they can't.
As to the arguments that humans create life when we make babies, "of course" is the answer! That is life from life! Which is not a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 12:07 PM
|
|
Wrong and borderline dishonest.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Abiogenesis is a theory based on the information available.
What evidence is there that god exists?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 12:14 PM
|
|
What evidence is there that abiogenesis happened?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 12:29 PM
|
|
I never said it did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 12:57 PM
|
|
As I said earlier:
As to life forming in the first place, there are only two ways it can happen...natural, or supernatural. Natural requires life to form from non-life, which has been tested thousands of times and proven not possible. Since there are only two possibilities for how life started, and one has been proven impossible, then the other has to be true. Thus, God exists!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 1:04 PM
|
|
It hasn’t been proven impossible…
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 1:25 PM
|
|
Sure it has! Thousands of times! If you test a theory, trying to manipulate the conditions to make them perfect for your theory to be proven, and your theory is never proven, then you have proven it can't happen.
You do realize that if you take all the building blocks for life in a bucket, everything that is needed for a cell to be formed into a living creature, absolutely every part of a living being, that is not alive...there is absolutely no way to all of a sudden induce life into the bucket? That is the "Frankenstein" argument, which we all know is impossible, and laugh at...yet, atheists think that organic molecules could congregate and get life without any of that! See how ridiculous that sounds now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 1:32 PM
|
|
So if something hasn’t been demonstrated yet, that means it’s impossible?
So far, you haven’t made a good argument yet, i guess ill assume it’s impossible for you to do
I agree, your example does sound ridiculous because it is. Nobody is saying that’s how it might have happened
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 2:34 PM
|
|
Wait, so I said that the bucket had everything in it for life to form...everything, even what we don't know about! And you agree that the stuff in the bucket can't come alive by any means? Think about what you are saying! Because we scientifically and confidently can say that there is absolutely no chance that all the things for life to form ever existed on this planet before life ever formed! In other words, you are agreeing that abiogenesis is impossible! Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 6:07 PM
|
|
>Wait, so I said that the bucket had everything in it for life to form...everything, even what we don't know about! And you agree that the stuff in the bucket can't come alive by any means?
Oh look, another dishonest religious person. How surprising.
> Because we scientifically and confidently can say that there is absolutely no chance that all the things for life to form ever existed on this planet before life ever formed!
It's weird how scientists don't say this but morons on forums do.
>In other words, you are agreeing that abiogenesis is impossible! Thank you!
This is very entertaining. How wacky does it get? Let's find out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: I believe that I will leave that whole creating life thing to God. He is the
Feb 14, 2024, 7:58 PM
|
|
As always, when an evolutionist realizes that they can't talk science to prove any points, or can't prove me wrong, they just resort to name calling! Congratulations, you are well trained to talk about evolution!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [292]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 511
Joined: 6/5/15
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 11:49 AM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
Sorry but that’s like saying if humans can travel to mars they would have already done it. There are millions of things we don’t know 100 years ago that we don’t know now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 12:08 PM
|
|
No, it is not! We have not tried to travel to Mars, so that argument does not apply. We have tried thousands of times to create life from non-life, and all have failed. Scientists are not even trying to go from the amino acid stage to life anymore, because they can't duplicate it is laboratories, and can't think of any mechanism to test how it could happen. They simply state that since we formed amino acids, we have proven that life can form, even when they know it can't. They have skipped this necessary stage and gone straight to RNA, lipids and other stepping stones, and still can't get life to form.
You do realize you defeated your own argument, right? You said: "There are millions of things we don’t know 100 years ago that we don’t know now." I agree! We don't know how to form life without life already existing, which we tried to do 100 years ago, and are still try to do, but can't!
As to what you meant to say, there are many things we now know, which we did not know 100 years ago, and I agree. And as we learn more, we see that evolution is becoming even a more remote possibility, because we now know that epigenetics controls the DNA, and actually has mechanisms in it which prevents mutations from occurring randomly and being expressed in offspring! In other words, one of the bedrocks of evolution, randomly occurring mutations leading to new species, has now been proven improbable per epigenetics! Even the changes that Darwin saw in the finches of Galapagos were epigenetic, not mutations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6397]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3907
Joined: 12/4/18
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 11:58 AM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
How do you know that abiogenesis is impossible? Can you prove it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 12:13 PM
|
|
Yes! It has been tried thousands of times by people who believe in it, and have manipulated the conditions to those that could not have possibly existed ever on the earth, and they have still not been able to produce one building block that could be used to create life! And that is just a building block, not life!
There is a biological law that is the Law of Biogenesis, which states that all life is from other living things.
So, since there is a "LAW" that says that abiogenesis is impossible, then I will accept it as fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 12:33 PM
|
|
You are laughably bad at this
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 12:52 PM
|
|
So, prove anything I have said is false! Using science, not assumptions!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:09 PM
|
|
As i said, you are laughably bad at this. This onus is not on me to disprove your claim, you are the one making the claim and not backing it up
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [528]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 325
Joined: 10/14/17
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 12:55 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
There is a "Law" that says how fast you can drive as well. Do you abide by it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 12:59 PM
|
|
Not even a viable question, it has nothing at all to do with biology or physics...Ask Louis Pasteur about about the Law of Biogenesis, that is how long that law has been around...
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6397]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3907
Joined: 12/4/18
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:16 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
You just stated that it has never been demonstrated in a lab. But that is not proof that it is impossible. There's many things in science that we do not know/understand yet. It seems pretty foolish to say that we will never discover something just because we haven't discovered it yet.
Thomas Edison tried and failed over 1,000 times to invent the lightbulb. By your logic, you could have "proven" that lightbulbs are impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22398]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7158
Joined: 8/31/03
|
I will make two comments.
2
Feb 14, 2024, 8:53 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
Scientists today aren't even close to creating life from non-life.
If scientists ever do I will say, "So it takes an intelligent being to design and create even a simple life form. How intelligent must the being be to create the universe and everything in it?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3576]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2985
Joined: 9/17/22
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:04 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
The argument presented contains several misconceptions about abiogenesis and the scientific understanding of the origin of life:
1. Life in a Laboratory vs. Nature: The comparison between creating life in a laboratory and life forming in nature is flawed. Laboratory experiments aim to simulate early Earth conditions and explore the plausibility of abiogenesis, but they do not necessarily involve "intelligent design" in the sense of a guiding intelligence deliberately creating life. Abiogenesis research seeks to understand how life could have arisen through natural processes, not through deliberate intervention.
2. Complexity of Laboratory Experiments: Laboratory experiments exploring abiogenesis are complex and multifaceted, involving simulations of early Earth conditions, the synthesis of organic molecules, and investigations into self-replicating systems. While scientists have not yet produced life from non-life in a laboratory, this does not imply that abiogenesis is impossible. Abiogenesis research is ongoing, and progress is made incrementally as scientists learn more about the processes involved.
3. Left and Right-Handed Amino Acids: The assertion that the left and right-handed amino acid problem poses an insurmountable obstacle to abiogenesis overlooks research into chirality and potential mechanisms for biasing the selection of one handedness over the other in prebiotic environments. Scientists have proposed various hypotheses, including asymmetric environments or catalytic processes, to explain the prevalence of one-handedness in biological systems.
4. Cell Membrane Formation: The claim that newly formed building blocks lack cell membranes and would degrade immediately overlooks research into protocells and lipid vesicles, which are membrane-like structures capable of enclosing and protecting molecules. Laboratory experiments have demonstrated the spontaneous formation of lipid vesicles under simulated prebiotic conditions, suggesting a plausible pathway for the emergence of primitive cell-like structures.
5. Evolution and the Origin of Life: Evolution is a separate process from abiogenesis. While life must exist for biological evolution to occur, the origin of life itself does not depend on evolution. Abiogenesis explores how the first living organisms could have arisen from non-living matter, while evolutionary theory explains how life diversified and changed over time through mechanisms such as natural selection.
The mention of left-handed amino acids in the context of abiogenesis is related to understanding the origins of homochirality, which refers to the predominance of one handedness (chirality) of molecules over the other in living organisms. In nature, amino acids found in proteins are predominantly left-handed, while sugars in nucleic acids are predominantly right-handed. This phenomenon is known as the "handedness" or chirality of biomolecules.
The presence of homochirality in living organisms raises questions about how this asymmetry arose and whether it played a role in the origin of life. One of the challenges in abiogenesis research is explaining how this homochirality emerged from an initially racemic mixture of left and right-handed amino acids (and sugars) that would have been present in the prebiotic environment.
The argument about the handedness of amino acids suggests that the presence of both left and right-handed amino acids in nature poses a challenge to the idea that life could have originated spontaneously from non-living matter. The implication is that if natural processes cannot selectively produce only left-handed amino acids, then it would be difficult for life to emerge.
However, scientists have proposed various mechanisms to explain how homochirality could have arisen, such as asymmetric environments, chiral catalysts, or selective adsorption on mineral surfaces. While the exact mechanism remains uncertain, ongoing research aims to elucidate the origins of homochirality and its significance for the emergence of life.
Regarding the ability of life to exist elsewhere, the presence of homochirality in living organisms on Earth suggests that similar principles may apply to life elsewhere in the universe.
Message was edited by: ROYBus10®
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 11:26 PM
|
|
Just saw this one, sorry I did not reply earlier.
1&2) The problem is, when the expected result does not occur in the lab, thew scientists will change the experiment to try to get the result, even though they know the change was not possible in nature. The classic example is the Miller-Urey experiment, where they altered the stream to remove the amino acids prior to having them break apart after they formed...then to try and concentrate them to get them to further react (they didn't). Also, I guarantee you that no lab experiment trying to form amino acids (or anything else) has bombarded the medium with UV rays from the sun during the experiment! They know this would degrade anything formed immediately. The Miller-Urey is the most quoted experiment, even though it failed its purpose, and it was done in 1953! So, for 70 years, no experiment has done any better than they did!
3) So, now we have some outside force that is going to cause the amino acids to come together? Yo are saying some "catalyst"? Where did that come from? How did it come into contact with the amino acids. What energy source was used to cause any type of reaction? What medium are the organic molecules suspended in that allows them to move about to find catalysts and other amino acids? What stops osmosis from destroying the organic compound? And those dreaded UV rays (usually the sunlight is the only proposed energy source for any reactions)?
4) Wait, don't lipids have to have amino acids to form? Now, the building blocks still have to get by the amino acid isomer problem! And, now we have two different chemical pathways, that still have to find a way to converge, while neither of them can have any kind of movement! And just how long do these compounds have to exist to go to a logical next step, before they degrade due to the natural tendencies in nature like osmosis? and what do they eat while they hang around?
5) Darwin is one of the first to come up with the primordial soup to explain how life started. Pasteur and Darwin were at odds with each other over this very thing (abiogenesis). Since all atheists believe in evolution, and since most old age earth people believe in evolution, and Since most Christians do not believe in evolution (and those who do, would see how improbable it is that God used evolution to create everything if they knew the Bible better), then yes, evolution is the only theory that evolutionists can use for how life started. It was not until scientists could not formulate any method for abiogenesis to occur, that evolutionists have tried to separate the two, which acknowledges that they know abiogenesis is not possible!
I agree with these statements you said, because they agree with what I have been saying...other than the implication of outside influences to get abiogenesis started:
"The mention of left-handed amino acids in the context of abiogenesis is related to understanding the origins of homochirality, which refers to the predominance of one handedness (chirality) of molecules over the other in living organisms. In nature, amino acids found in proteins are predominantly left-handed, while sugars in nucleic acids are predominantly right-handed. This phenomenon is known as the "handedness" or chirality of biomolecules.
The presence of homochirality in living organisms raises questions about how this asymmetry arose and whether it played a role in the origin of life. One of the challenges in abiogenesis research is explaining how this homochirality emerged from an initially racemic mixture of left and right-handed amino acids (and sugars) that would have been present in the prebiotic environment.
The argument about the handedness of amino acids suggests that the presence of both left and right-handed amino acids in nature poses a challenge to the idea that life could have originated spontaneously from non-living matter. The implication is that if natural processes cannot selectively produce only left-handed amino acids, then it would be difficult for life to emerge."
No matter where abiogenesis occurs in the universe, it still has the same problems!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8278]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3928
Joined: 9/11/08
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 10:30 AM
|
|
Both, since science is the study of the universe and the Creator of life is also the creator of the universe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 12:34 PM
|
|
What is the evidence for there being a creator?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:00 PM
|
|
Again:
As to life forming in the first place, there are only two ways it can happen...natural, or supernatural. Natural requires life to form from non-life, which has been tested thousands of times and proven not possible. Since there are only two possibilities for how life started, and one has been proven impossible, then the other has to be true. Thus, God exists!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:10 PM
|
|
Lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8278]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3928
Joined: 9/11/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
1
Feb 14, 2024, 2:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8278]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3928
Joined: 9/11/08
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
2
Feb 14, 2024, 2:36 PM
|
|
Righteous moves. Which one are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1119
Joined: 8/18/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5089]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5926
Joined: 11/28/12
|
Re: Somebody Hit The Jackpot.... ---
1
Feb 14, 2024, 10:56 AM
|
|
......on the bag of gummies .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3576]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2985
Joined: 9/17/22
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 12:48 PM
|
|
It depends on what perspective you take on abiogenesis
There are three perspectives in regards to abiogenesis; Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological because this involves religion.
1) Scientific
Of course this is the perspective that includes the scientific method. In case everyone is not aware, the method includes observation, hypothesis, test hypothesis, gather data, and make conclusions based off of gathered data and everything else. While significant progress has been made in understanding abiogenesis, many details remain uncertain, and ongoing research seeks to fill in these gaps. Overall, from a scientific perspective, abiogenesis is considered the most plausible explanation for the origin of life given the available evidence, but it is still a topic of active investigation.
2) Philosophical
Some philosophers see abiogenesis as evidence of the naturalistic processes governing the universe, suggesting that life emerged as a result of chemical and physical interactions without the need for supernatural intervention. Others view abiogenesis as compatible with the existence of a higher power, seeing the natural emergence of life as part of a broader design or plan. The accuracy of abiogenesis in a philosophical context depends on one’s worldview and beliefs about the relationship between science, philosophy, and religion.
3) Theological
Some religious interpretations embrace abiogenesis as part of a divine creation process, suggesting that a higher power orchestrated the conditions necessary for life to emerge naturally. Others may view abiogenesis as conflicting with their religious beliefs, particularly if they adhere to creationist interpretations that posit a supernatural origin of life. The accuracy of abiogenesis in a theological context depends on how it aligns with a particular religious worldview and interpretation of sacred texts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:07 PM
|
|
1) scientists have used scientific thought and theory to try and produce anything above the amino acids level of building blocks to life, and have failed. They have failed thousands of times, and are actually farther away from proving it happened than when they started. That pretty much takes care of this possibility.
2) yes, it is a perspective issue as far as philosophy goes. But, for the atheist, it is just as impossible to get abiogenesis and to prove it, as it is for the Creationists to prove God, thus the philosophies cancel each other out.
3) God did not create through abiogenesis. God is life! Anything alive that He created is life from life, not non-life! This, from a theological perspective, then abiogenesis is still impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:08 PM
|
|
How do you know god is a he?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8278]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3928
Joined: 9/11/08
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:36 PM
|
|
Based upon how he has revealed Himself in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 1:42 PM
|
|
And how do you know he wrote/inspired it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8278]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3928
Joined: 9/11/08
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 4:27 PM
|
|
Individual and personal affirmation is the way he confirms the authorship. He doesn't do book signings or TV interviews. He's more interested in souls than royalties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 6:07 PM
|
|
So, no evidence you can share?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 8:00 PM
|
|
Why should he give evidence about anything, when you will not give any for anything you say? All you do is attack and call names!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3576]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2985
Joined: 9/17/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10346]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12804
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:09 PM
|
|
Yeah a bunch of #### exploded and created brains eyeballs and the human race. Yeah I will have some of what you are smoking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:11 PM
|
|
Misinformed or lying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 2:03 PM
[ in reply to Re: Science, or miracle, or both? ] |
|
Yeah magic sky daddy snapped his finger and created the universe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18798]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12827
Joined: 11/30/95
|
The answer is:
1
Feb 14, 2024, 1:26 PM
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5683]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2714
Joined: 2/10/22
|
Wrong bored moran!
2
Feb 14, 2024, 2:03 PM
|
|
No touchdowns, No interceptions, No Dabo, No TU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155984]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65845
Joined: 5/6/13
|
LEMME TELL U SOMETHIN MR FILOSOPHUR
2
Feb 14, 2024, 3:38 PM
|
|
FIRST OFF YOU CAINT SPELL FORTUNITE RIGHT SO MAYBE YOU BEST NOT BE QUIZZING GOD.
SECOND I TRUST DABO A LOT MORE THAN I TRUST YOU AND HE SAID GOD DONT MAKE MISTAKES BUT I KNOW AUTOPILOT MAKES MISTAKES CAUSE ALL THEM TESLAS CRASHING SO GOD AONT ON NO AUTOPILOT
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1047]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1212
Joined: 11/19/05
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 5:17 PM
|
|
They say so, but they’ve been mixing mush for a long time trying, but can’t find conditions that produce life. That life would have to have a digestive, elimination system, and a reproductive system to be viable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6882]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6108
Joined: 5/5/15
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 6:04 PM
|
|
Try this. Cut up the Webster's dictionary. How many times do you have to throw it up in the air for it to land and arrange itself into War and Peace?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1416
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
Feb 14, 2024, 6:24 PM
|
|
This is honestly a tired and frankly embarrassing argument. Nobody is claiming that’s what happened.
You are arguing against a position nobody is making
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Science, or miracle, or both?
1
Feb 14, 2024, 9:04 PM
|
|
Everybody who does not believe in God, believes in abiogenesis, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it! That is the only alternative that has ever been put out there for life forming without God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22398]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7158
Joined: 8/31/03
|
Abiogenesis.
2
Feb 14, 2024, 8:50 PM
|
|
If you look at the scientific evidence it clearly points to the virtual certainty that life did not begin by random chance.
But, if your premise is there is no God, then you are left with believing the random chance argument even though there is strong scientific evidence to contradict that belief.
As someone said years ago, "You believe that somehow, someway by random chance with no outside intelligence directing it, some ameno acid that came from somewhere we don't understand, mixed together and formed proteins in just the right proportion so that these proteins somehow created DNA molecules and these molecules directed the cells to have the ability to reproduce. And, through millions of small random changes, with no intelligence directed them, evolved so that some becaem grasshoppers, and soem became grass, and some became trees and some became fish, some become horses and some became horseradishes, and some became human beings with the ability to think and reason and make moral judgments. And all that happened by chance with no outside intelligence directing it. Man, I admire your faith. I could never have that much faith. I would need at least some evidence to support the that claim. I could never have that much faith."
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 5/5/19
|
Re: Abiogenesis.
1
Feb 14, 2024, 9:20 PM
|
|
And, of course, they believe that those proteins "evolved" to become life...but wait, what mechanism can cause an organic blob to evolve, when it has no DNA to mutate, no reproduction to pass on the changes? That really is the kicker to everything! These organic molecules can't evolve into life until life is formed and they have reproduction and DNA!
And then the fact that the molecules would degrade immediately on formation without a cell membrane! They want the process of abiogenesis to happen over millions of years, when science says it has to be instantaneous, since they can't evolve until life is formed!
If you take pond water, put it in a plastic bottle and place it in full sunlight for a few hours, all life in the water will be killed by the UV radiation! And all of that life in that pond water had a cell membrane around each cell, and repair systems already in place to protect it!
So, they want these organic molecules to hang around for millions of years, without a way for them to eat, move, reproduce, grow, get rid of waste, use energy, produce energy, etc....but of course, since abiogenesis had to of happened, then those molecules had to exist without eating or reproducing for millions of years! LOL!
Message was edited by: JPRICH Top Paw®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 128
| visibility 3,201
|
|
|
|
50
