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 tried to convince me. Versus fishbrain saying "just because you say it, doesn't make it so." Errm, yea, but saying nothing doesn't make it not so either. Actually, fishman, it does make it so. Because I have personal experience to back it up, rather than some third-hand account of a scientist with his hand too heavily into politics.
I don't buy "Creationism". Creationism typically also ascribes to a seven 24-hour day cycle, and refuses the proven fact that things do in fact adapt and grow (evolution is real, guys). I don't agree with survival of the fittest evolution (or there would be alot less couch potatoes alive today), but rather adaptive evolution. The Koreans have extremely dry sweat, because they live in a cold climate; people of African descent have extremely moist sweat, because they live in hot climates. Europeans have somewhere in between. Whether those who survived are fittest or not is subjective, the point is that adaptation naturally happens. What don't buy is most abiogenesis, except as noted below.
All things arise from a source. Whether this source is simpler bio-material, inert matter that somehow comes alive (doubt it, or the streets would also be crawling with zombies), or something else, everything comes from somewhere. If you say, "given these conditions, life arises," I say sure, but if you say "given no conditions, life arouse from nowhere," I would say that you're scamming me. This is a fact. I know this, not because "Gawd" told me so. I have experience as a writer, a programmer, an artist, an extremely crappy musician. Either I do the job, or someone else does the job. If neither one happens, it does not get done. It's called very basic observation and common sense.
I would prescribe that religion and science did a lot more of this sort of thinking, and we would get actual sane theories. I've seen scientific theories, where they "now know" what people 20 years ago could have told them. And I've seen scientific results that get swept under the rug, because they don't help the people in charge.
Geology exists. Palentology exists. I also know God exists. How do I know this? Because nothing comes from nowhere. Whatever explanation for source exists, this is the reason God exists, because I define God as source and existence. Easy. I'm a pantheist, so all I have to do is look at plants growing, things doing their thing, stuff there, and I know better. Even if reality weren't real, I would still know God exists. Not believe, know (since atheists are in the habit of asserting their beliefs as things they "know").
Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 09-14-2015 at 12:18 PM..
Meanwhile, you appear to assume that someone is a fundamentalist.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's most likely a duck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Maybe I have you pegged.
Not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Neither does saying that, without any proof to the contrary. I see the same exact thing, with different packaging, and you've done nothing to convince me otherwise.
This is beyond comical. You post links of a no name author who wrote a book in the 1940's which has no acclaim to it at all.
Life Lesson #1 You can't believe everything that you find on the internet or that someone wrote a book about.
Life Lesson #2 Always always Always look up all information about the author or source of information to see if the sources are credible.
The links that you posted in trying to slander Pasteur are of a basically unknown author. Check out all of his Pasteur books on Amazon and you will not find one single review nor any information about the author.
Hello does that tell you anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Either it was true then, or it's not true now. If we accept abiogenesis, we should reconsider the rantings of this crackpot (I mean, our beloved Pasteur, from whom we have mandated cooked milk all over this country despite its danger being massively distorted (and subsequent milk intolerance from cooking away the enzymes that allow digestion of lactose).
Go to the bottom of that poorly written article written by the acupuncturist crackpot and most comments sum up the article nicely.
Not knocking all alternative acupuncture guys but a lot of them are some of the biggest crackpots you will ever come across.
Calling Pasteur a crackpot shows your lack of science history education. Lewis Pasteur's education and scientific contribution trump anything the 2 bozos that you posted links by have done or will ever do.
Read up on his history and hopefully realize that you have lost all credibility in calling him a crackpot and then posting links written by an unknown author and an acupuncturist crackpot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
It's a trade-off if we don't want to be hypocrites.
What you have demonstrated in this post is that you are the hypocrite.
If anyone bothered to read Crick or Watson, it isn't possible for life to have originated on Earth, for several reasons, in particular the time-line.
Other factors include trace metals not accessible.
No one disputes that the Earth has copper. What is disputed is access to copper deposits.
Both Crick and Watson concluded independently, that life came to Earth pre-packaged, either from within our own Solar System or from another.
Who cares. Whether the building blocks of life stated on earth, or started elsewhere and seeded the earth, doesn't matter. At some point, somewhere, life started. Doesn't matter whether it was here or next door.
You tried to convince me. Versus fishbrain saying "just because you say it, doesn't make it so."
I never said that my simple statement was the end of things. I was simply refuting you.
Check back earlier in the thread. I noted two facts. A very long time ago there was no life on the planet (let's call this A), and now there is (for the sake of argument, B). To get from A to B, life has to start. We call that start abiogenesis. I don't know how it happened, but it obviously did.
Quote:
Geology exists. Palentology exists. I also know God exists. How do I know this? Because nothing comes from nowhere. Whatever explanation for source exists, this is the reason God exists, because I define God as source and existence. Easy. I'm a pantheist, so all I have to do is look at plants growing, things doing their thing, stuff there, and I know better. Even if reality weren't real, I would still know God exists. Not believe, know (since atheists are in the habit of asserting their beliefs as things they "know").
I have taken the liberty of bolding a portion of your statement.
Where did god come from?
09-14-2015, 08:05 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
I never said that my simple statement was the end of things. I was simply refuting you.
Check back earlier in the thread. I noted two facts. A very long time ago there was no life on the planet (let's call this A), and now there is (for the sake of argument, B). To get from A to B, life has to start. We call that start abiogenesis. I don't know how it happened, but it obviously did.
I have taken the liberty of bolding a portion of your statement.
Where did god come from?
Wait for the special pleading! God is the only thing that does not need to come from somewhere.
Who cares. Whether the building blocks of life stated on earth, or started elsewhere and seeded the earth, doesn't matter. At some point, somewhere, life started. Doesn't matter whether it was here or next door.
That's correct. I am rather reserving credibility on the case for panspermia as I did (rightly, as it turned out) on Behe's I/C as I can see plenty of ways in which trace elements could certainly have been lying around on the surface. But even if Panspermia has merits as an origin of life theory, it makes no difference to evolution theory which solely addresses the mechanism through which species came about after life had appeared.
Where life came from is a totally different subject in Evolution, science and indeed in the religion debate and is no more than genesis apologetic goalpost moving when they lose the debate on the fossil record.
A: Intelligence has always existed and it created matter.
B: Matter has always existed and some of it randomly became intelligent.
And since we have evidence that matter without intelligence does exist, and we have no evidence of intelligence unassociated with matter, the conclusion is pretty straightforward...
And since we have evidence that matter without intelligence does exist, and we have no evidence of intelligence unassociated with matter, the conclusion is pretty straightforward...
-NoCapo
That pretty much decides that issue.
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.
