Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sadly, yet another thread degerates into ridicule by the atheists.
I read up on the subject of OP before I posted. Hoping to get some real discussion. Oh, well. (Perhaps I should start a thread asking why some atheists have to resort to ridicule and personal attacks)
This thread is done as far as I am concerned
How would you expect a "real discussion" when you theists won't even accept scientific facts? Where the facts lead can be discussed rationally, but when the facts are ignored completely, all that's left is ridicule.
No you didn't. We know you too well to fall for that one. You had no intention of being 'educated' on the subject and that's why the 'old timers' here don't take you seriously any more.
This thread was no different to all the other threads you have started in order to have a go at atheists and atheism. Like these...
All the above threads are having a dig at atheists or atheism in some way or other, either openly or in some 'back-handed way' ...and that's with just a quick whiz through the first 120 threads out of the 216 threads you have started.
A few good adjectives to describe the fundamentalistá Christian's positions!
Quite so, mike.As we've all predicted so often, he now runneth away, yowling that we're unfair and insulting with our combative retributions, when in fact we're asked for straight-forward answers and simply provided them!
Tell me, Mr5150, where I went so very wrong. First, as requested, I provided short, then shorter, but then a bit longer answer, since you kept expanding the question. What, can't you keep it down to a dull roar?
You are too predictable. Imagine that huh guys? A predictable fundy Christian acolyte!
____________________________
PS: I'll assume that you now do, indeed, understand the obvious differences between "Abiogenesis - the initial biochemical origins of life" as I defined it, and Evolution, which is the obvious and easily observed means for all species diversification. And as well, exactly what Abiogenesis is in our terms, We define it, not you. You don't get to "re-define" it, btw. Not your prerogative, just to alter it's meaning so you can claim some sort of insupportable intellectual "victory". What a joke!
Btw, there's absolutely no evidence that we all arose from just one simple type of single-celled pond-scum organism, as is always portrayed by the desperate fundies in their hasty retreat from logic and understanding. The statistical chances are that there were quite likely many MANY different original types of single, double or multiple-cell-based organisms that then led to a rapidly expanding family.
All of them with original DNA or RNA lineage links, thus expanding into a wide, climate- and niche-controlled variety of new organisms. All of them competing, or in some cases, joining up to form even better and more complex organisms as those millions of years and gah-zillions of test opportunities clocked along. Even through the miss-understood Cambrian Explosion which C-fundies insist means it all happened in one explosive week. How shortsighted and ill-read!
But please... do go on; it's all so very predictable, as I've said so many times now.
This expansion of species diversity and organization has also now been well-observed and documented in the lab. Indeed for example, we know that the mitochondria was once a stand-alone organisms with some very useful energy-aligning biochemical specialities it could donate to the ongoing organization that was Abiogenesis.
So... You got it now? Or are you just waiting in the wings once again to shout that "it's all just biased and unethical speculation, all just a "theory", and only we Christians know it for sure!"!!!"
(Note: " the word theory" being always improperly defined as the mutts continuously like to do to it, in knowing error!
What does that sort of behavior tell us and you, Mr5150? Desperation? Denial? Deflection? Personal spiritual immaturity and dishonesty within one's own ethics? OMG!!...)
From what I've read up it appears to be a repackaging of the medieval idea of spontaneous generation.
Middle Greek, not Medieval (the early Greeks were actually smarter and more knowledgeable than later Greeks -- like the idiot Aristotle).
Spontaneous generation was an Aristotelian view adopted by christians, just like the Flat Earth, Earth-centric Solar System, Colored Gases (as a cause of disease) etc, were Aristotelian. christians brutually tortured and murdered people for even considering the possibility of thinking about the possibility of an alternative view.
Having fun? All the braggadocio and wit defending your BELIEF in spontaneous life (abiogenesis) will NOT remove the unalterable reality that . . . IF life is an inherent potentiality of the fundamental "stuff" of the universe . . . then life IS the fundamental constituent of reality. All OUR efforts to understand it FROM the perspective of extant life skews our understanding. We automatically distinguish between life and non-life AS IF they are fundamentally different . . . when they are merely different stages of the "stuff" of reality. What would you have to call a universe that is itself LIFE??
There are so many more perspectives in this area that its impossible to give the one popular stern atheist perspective even a sliver of credibility.
I read this last night and thought I would give my mind a little time for organization. There are so many other real doors to open and look through it would be wounding to list them all at once.
If I have an understood value in my lawnmower, take it all apart and put it in the shed, it will never in billions of years re-assemble itself and be ready and willing for operations.
Therefore it cannot be denied that whatever is in effect, in the ultimate creation, and obviously something is in effect because it is here, the very fabric in the environment which allows the creation and mentioned effect, affords a value to the outcome in the evolution of life.
This I think is an assembly issue. If the experts were to come to know something different only with time, the assembly and perception in observation and suggestions in assembly would be dramatically different. For example,
If everything was on fast forward and right up to the moment a person was born since the BB and it only took 2 seconds, the observation in assembly complaint falls apart at the seams, the allowable inference for this then becomes...oh..ok there must be a God or something because I poofed into existence .
So this is an assembly perspective error, in thinking that an 'outside effort or outside effecting source-origin' would be confined to poofing things into reality and that...what we know in science and the unfolding realities causing great amounts of time in assembly, somehow creates a monkey wrench to any idea in objective value and underlining base cheif objective in a discernible graspable, effect initiative in all.
So the problem is to do with complaining about time from a whole perspective, not an individual reality because there is no time before a person is born, a person does poof into existence relative to themselves. This is a birds eye view aligned to an individual view, so there is a contradiction in comparing and contrasting the two, in the end product analysis. In all its more complimentary in recognizing a grand assembly in operations. I'm not so sure the word operations can be tossed.
So whats left is this idea of massive contribution and the requirement of probability and odds and outcome , out of a massive amount of required ingredients. Maybe and obviously that has something to do with the nature of what is ultimately real. There would seem to be a need for something to be ultimately real. Right down to all the galaxies which apparently doesn't look too much different then a huge on-going snowfall of events. But, in earth or possibly others there is greater participation in events and contribution, which reasonably suggests an achievement as per their expressing and complying balance including participation, showing more definition, alongside the laws. The initiative effect proposal would seem to be in a measurable notice for an expression of achievement. Besides if granny puts a cake in the oven, she gets it ready with all the ingredients including the end dissolved berries in the cake for the tasty treat. Granny Gazzer never ever was seen to pull the cake out of the oven in the middle of the cooking and take the cake apart, and put the berries dissolved into the dough in the half baked cake.
Last edited by stargazzer; 05-06-2013 at 03:00 PM..
Having fun? All the braggadocio and wit defending your BELIEF in spontaneous life (abiogenesis) will NOT remove the unalterable reality that . . . IF life is an inherent potentiality of the fundamental "stuff" of the universe . . . then life IS the fundamental constituent of reality. All OUR efforts to understand it FROM the perspective of extant life skews our understanding. We automatically distinguish between life and non-life AS IF they are fundamentally different . . . when they are merely different stages of the "stuff" of reality. What would you have to call a universe that is itself LIFE??
We ALL know. Now, altogether, "GOD!!". Everything is god, my dog is god, my house is god. Anything I want to call God is god. Satisfied?
I can easily name a dozen religious people whom post regularly that are always treated respectfully by atheist and agnostics.
.
OK list them. I don't think that is the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
I wonder how long it will be before he starts yet another thread that he leaves after one page.
When page two (as in this thread) becomes drivel and ridicule...why post? And yes I do sleep at night so when I awoke and saw what happened to this thread the next morning by page three I signed out. The great majority of posts on this thread have nothing to do with discussion, but much to do with arrogance and ridicule by several atheists. True a sad commentary, but that's how it goes.
Even despite the fact that I believe in evolution and a 4 Billion year old earth, which I find interesting. And still you attack and ridicule. Telling, actually.
When page two (as in this thread) becomes drivel and ridicule...why post? And yes I do sleep at night so when I awoke and saw what happened to this thread the next morning by page three I signed out. The great majority of posts on this thread have nothing to do with discussion, but much to do with arrogance and ridicule by several atheists. True a sad commentary, but that's how it goes.
Even despite the fact that I believe in evolution and a 4 Billion year old earth, which I find interesting. And still you attack and ridicule. Telling, actually.
So then share with us how you think life began...If not abiogenesis, then what started it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A few good adjectives to describe the fundamentalistá Christian's positions!
