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.
You mean like the RNA that was produced in lab tests? I've posted links to that before. Science has demonstrated how RNA can be produced, with no magic needed.
OK? So? Is that life?
Quote:
Yes, and you close your mind every time you are shown to be wrong.
Never seen you prove me wrong.
Quote:
BTW, science has NOT proven that life comes from nothing. However, unlike you, I am open minded to the possibility I am wrong.
You are? So why are you refusing to believe the only logical thing -- that there was SOMETHING that created life?
Quote:
So, in the spirit of that openmindness, kindly provide at least on citation to a peer reviewed scientific paper that substantiates your perspective.
Thanks in advance.
Wow...that's big of you. You want me to provide a scientific paper written by and/or approved of by scientists that don't believe in a Creator, and could not measure said Creator using natural science, which only measures the creation, not the creator.
Wow...that's big of you. You want me to provide a scientific paper written by and/or approved of by scientists that don't believe in a Creator, and could not measure said Creator using natural science, which only measures the creation, not the creator.
You use science in your argument when it's convenient but when someone asks you to use science to backup your claims, you say science could not measure a creator.
Oh, those poor YEC! Once again, their myths have been shattered, as scientists step back even further in time to find evidence of life's origin on earth. No magic needed!
Before you toot that horn to loud, you need to look into the problems with All radio-metric dating. Without reading the article I will guarantee they offered on real scientific evidence, but that never stops evos from jumping on the wagon that has all of its wheels missing.
Do you really not know that no fossil is evidence of the origin of life. I can guarantee you of one more thing; they did not say what this fossil was before it was whatever it was and they will not say what it evolved into.
Now I an going to read the article and see if I need any water to wash crow down with.
I read it and I won't need any water. They also did not provide any evidence that earth was at one time like mars.
The idea that life comes from nothing has been disproven.
Nobody is suggesting that life started from "nothing." Scientists are trying to figure out how life may have started from non-living matter. Nobody yet knows how this may have happened, but that does not mean it has been disproven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
We know that SOMETHING had to have created life. The ONLY alternative that works is that there was SOMETHING that caused life to exist.
Most likely, life was created by the laws of physics.
{The laws of physics create all kinds of amazing things like stars, planets, galaxies, mountains, sunsets, clouds, hurricanes, tornadoes, snowflakes, raindrops, and even human emotions. Scientists are trying to figure out how the laws of physics may have created the first life forms. It's important to remember that the boundary between "life" and "non-life" would have been somewhat blurry at the earliest stages. Perhaps the first "life" was some kind of self-replicating molecule. Nobody knows yet, but that's what makes science exciting. Instead of giving up and saying "Goddidit", science keeps exploring, while preachers continue to bamboozle their followers.}
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
We've been over this too many times to count.
That's because you keep repeating the same refuted arguments over and over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I realize that you guys really aren't interested in actually thinking about it...but that's what logic requires. If you have 2 alternatives, and 1 is disproven, the other is automatically true by default. It's called an antonymic pair.
You call it an "antonymic pair*". I call it a false dilemma based on a false premise. The false dilemma goes like this:
1) Either life arose from non-life, or the Christian God created life.
(this is the false dilemma; both could be false)
2) Life did not arise from non-life.
(this is the false premise; we don't yet know either way)
3) Therefore the Christian God created life.
(conclusion based on false dilemma)
*I Googled "antonymic pair" since I was unfamiliar with the term. The first page was mainly links to literary arts websites. The next page had two links to Matt Slick's CARM website.
Last edited by Freak80; 09-02-2016 at 11:23 AM..
Reason: Added numbers for clarity.
the further back means the faster it appeared. It probably was alive at the moment it went bang.
no omni dude. no literal bible. But "alive" is more reasonable than "not alive" the further back we go. Its the patterns, "alive" is seen in the patterns.
Anyone who thinks a fossil, no matter how old, explains he origin of life, is nieve, gullible or both. Anyone who hinkswht they found means the earth was one like mars, is , well you know.
The idea that life comes from nothing has been disproven. We know that SOMETHING had to have created life. The ONLY alternative that works is that there was SOMETHING that caused life to exist.
Right. So which one from the list of creator gods linked above?
Quote:
If you have 2 alternatives, and 1 is disproven, the other is automatically true by default. It's called an antonymic pair.
...but there are more than two alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
You are? So why are you refusing to believe the only logical thing -- that there was SOMETHING that created life?
Because it ISN'T the only logical thing. Do you have any evidence that life 'started' as opposed to having always existed in some form or other and in different places elsewhere in the universe?
Quote:
Wow...that's big of you. You want me to provide a scientific paper written by and/or approved of by scientists that don't believe in a Creator, and could not measure said Creator using natural science, which only measures the creation, not the creator.
What about all those 'Christian' scientists out there. Surely at least one of them has submitted a peer-reviewed paper on how the only possibility for life is an eternal, non-created being??
Of courses "god" doesn't, but "God" does. Since lifeless elements can't produce life, God did it , is still the best answer. If you have a better one, why not express it to us.
And what's the scientific name for imaginary friends?
Delusion? Do I get a cookie?
Maybe "figment of a deluded person"
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.
