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.
Why does he have to prove his point but you do not? And why is it that if he cannot prove his point it makes it view the only acceptable one?
If J cannot prove his view whyis not the Blackfoot or Australian aborgine orgin story the correct one rather hthan the Chrisian/ Jewish one?
And if you cannot prove your creation story may we call it a fairy tale? And th Bible is not proof .
There is always double standards, special pleading, god of the gaps, etc, with the fundies!
03-29-2022, 04:55 PM
xd4t5gv
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
You're conflating the origin of life, which even by Biblical accounts came from existing materials, and the creation of matter itself. Just as the theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life, the abiogenesis hypothesis does not address the creation of the universe.
By saying that abiogenesis is possible and suggesting it as the mechanism of life coming into being, the hypothesis does not claim either that it is easy to reproduce nor does it even posit the exact mechanism.
There's a now empty and nearly unused building near me called the Cornell High Volt Plasma Lab. It is where the first research into controlled nuclear fusion was done back in the 1970s. That was difficult enough that we are just now starting to see some viable proofs of concept over half a century later. Back when this research started at Cornell, MIT and elsewhere, no one was going around saying "if controlled nuclear fusion is possible, just do it, and if you can't, it's just a fairy tale". That's not how science works.
Yes, Genesis 1 teaches creatio ex materia. Quiet don't tell them that.
Given that we already have matter/energy existing, and no creationist denies such, we are already 1 step ahead of them since the existence of their god or any god for that matter has not been so demonstrated.
Nothing has been demonstrated, as related to alleged 14 billion years ago. Everything in that aspect is only theories. As in - everything. Materialistic, religious, no matter what - it is all product of human fantasy. Assumptions, called hypotheses. All people do is pick on whatever suits their fancy and cling to it. As people are many, many of theories are catered for them.
Yes, Genesis 1 teaches creatio ex materia. Quiet don't tell them that.
Given that we already have matter/energy existing, and no creationist denies such, we are already 1 step ahead of them since the existence of their god or any god for that matter has not been so demonstrated.
How exactly do you know that the existing energy/matter is NOT evidence of God????
03-29-2022, 09:05 PM
xd4t5gv
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
How exactly do you know that the existing energy/matter is NOT evidence of God????
Because the God of creationists is not matter/energy. I know you think God=matter/energy. You are free to do so but confusion and reification of terms/ideas/concepts is a pit I fall not into.
So prove it. If it's possible, do it. It's really that easy. Until then, it's a fairy tale. It's an atheistic miracle!
We have proven all the immediate steps are possible. As I have said, the various hypotheses are all based on things we have proven to happen. Pick any hypothesis about abiogenesis, and they will all be based on actual scientific findings. So there is no reason to pretend abiogenesis is impossible, or that it is a miracle (accepted by both atheists and rational, honest theists).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Oh, and start with creating your own matter from nothing.
Explain how your god can do this. Not just assert he has special powers we do not understand, explain the how. If you can not, all you have is a fairy tale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
It's cheating to use the matter and space that already exists.
Maybe matter has always existed. If your immaterial god could, why not 'matter and space'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Until then, the only possible explanation has to be that there was a Creator.
So prove it. Prove there is an intelligent, immaterial creator. Do not shift the burden of proof, do not ask us to do what you also can not do. Provide the evidence for your position that is better than our evidence that we already have.
Nothing has been demonstrated, as related to alleged 14 billion years ago. Everything in that aspect is only theories. As in - everything. Materialistic, religious, no matter what - it is all product of human fantasy. Assumptions, called hypotheses. All people do is pick on whatever suits their fancy and cling to it. As people are many, many of theories are catered for them.
That's about it.
Hypotheses are not assumptions, they are proposed explanations and candidates for testing.
The age of the earth has been so thoroughly demonstrated and substantiated that it has long send graduated from a hypothesis and forms the basis of an explanatory scientific framework over 150 years old and every bit as established as the theories of gravity or electromagnetism.
You can call that fantasy if you want, but you're just projecting.
One of the missing pieces of evidence for this theory is that we have not been able to replicate this process in the lab. However, this may now have been achieved, as reported in a study published in Nature Communications. Project Assistant Professor Ryo Mizuuchi and Professor Norikazu Ichihashi at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Tokyo, and their team, carried out a long-term RNA replication experiment in which they witnessed the transition from a chemical system towards biological complexity.
“We found that the single RNA species evolved into a complex replication system: a replicator network comprising five types of RNAs with diverse interactions, supporting the plausibility of a long-envisioned evolutionary transition scenario,” said Mizuuchi.
Here we perform long-term evolution experiments of RNA that replicates using a self-encoded RNA replicase. The RNA diversifies into multiple coexisting host and parasite lineages, whose frequencies in the population initially fluctuate and gradually stabilize. The final population, comprising five RNA lineages, forms a replicator network with diverse interactions, including cooperation to help the replication of all other members. These results support the capability of molecular replicators to spontaneously develop complexity through Darwinian evolution, a critical step for the emergence of life.
Once again, because you have not provided the extra evidence that it is. Must I explain the logic to you again?
In order to demand that I provide MORE evidence, YOU have to substantiate that your current assessment is NOT evidence of God. You can't just assume it is not without justifying why it is not. Nothing is STATIC at the level of quanta so why is that NOT evidence that it is alive. What do you propose is the source of this constant and ubiquitous activity if NOT life?????
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.
