Darwin's Theory is False

[smallaxe0217]

So when you say life comes from matter, energy and time, do you mean that if you throw enough matter and energy together and give it all time to percolate, then life will eventually start?

But where is the proof of that?

I say this not to rag on you, but to show that in the same way that I have faith in God creating life, you have faith in matter, energy and time creating life. Neither of us can go back in time and prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, because I can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that life has been created in a test tube from matter and energy.

 

[qwerty mob]

You appear so incredibly uninformed, illogical, and indoctrinated, that there is no possibility of discussing matters with which you aren't yet even basically familiar.

Good day.

 

[smallaxe0217]

No need to attack me personally my friend! I have no ill-will against you.

 

[qwerty mob]

Likewise, I have nothing against you personally- and I'm not saying that I believe you are "incapable of learning"- you seem to ask alot of questions, and that's normally good... when the questions are logical or coherent.

That we have no common ground is a fairly objective assessment.

Peace.

 

[smallaxe0217]

I didn't come here expecting to find common ground; I'm a Christian on a forum where Christians seem to be a minority. I can live with that.

But beyond the comments you made about me, you still did not address the simple conclusion I made except to call it "sheer nonsense" without any supporting commentary. A person either believes that life came from a pre-existing life force, or that it came from random chance using large amounts of matter, energy and time. I see nothing illogical in either one of these conclusions.

I asked a simple question: Has life been created by anyone using matter, time and energy? Has the origin of life as postulated by Darwin been re-created in a laboratory environment? The honest answer is: no.

This does not mean that creationism is right. Indeed, there is a lot of scientific evidence for Darwinism. There is a lot of evidence for creationism as well. My point was just that when it comes to the basic question of "How did life on Earth begin?" evolutionists need to recognize that they rely on faith just as much as creationists do. One either has faith that matter, energy and a long period of time led to a spontaneous generation of life here, or one has faith that a self-existent life form created life and put it here.

To attack me or ridicule me does not make what I said any less true or false. I do not "challenge" you or anyone anyone else to prove me wrong, but I hardly feel that what I said was illogical or incoherent. Still, to each their own.

Peace.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings smallaxe0217,

A person either believes that life came from a pre-existing life force, or that it came from random chance using large amounts of matter, energy and time.

Firstly,
this is not a good description of the origin of life.

Creationists always attribute it to "random chance" - showing a poor understanding of the issues. The laws of chemistry are not random, even though the behaviour of an individual atom cannot be predicted.

Random chance plays a part in these processes, but some un-informed critics ignore all the other non random parts, and protest about it being all random !
This is dishonest.

I asked a simple question: Has life been created by anyone using matter, time and energy? Has the origin of life as postulated by Darwin been re-created in a laboratory environment? The honest answer is: no.

You mis-understand.

Darwin said nothing about the origin of life - his book was about the origin of species.

The origin of life is a field of study called abiogenesis - which happened once a long time ago - it is not well understood (it could have been started in various ways - we are not sure, but we have some ideas, including time +chemistry +energy -> self-replicating molecules.) We have done some experiments which suggest some ways it could have happened.

However,
after that, the changing of life over time into many different species is the field of evolution.

Darwin did not postulate anything about the origin of life.


Then,
you seem to think something must be re-created in the lab to be true - which is nonsense.

Have we made a moon orbit an earth in the lab?
No.
Do you think this means the moon does not orbit the earth?

We conclude the moon orbits the earth from our observations, not because we did it over in the lab.

Can we create a tornado in the lab?
No.
Does that mean tornadoes are not created in nature?
Of course not.

We know a lot about tornadoes from our studies of them, not because we re-create them in the lab.

This argument is false.

But,
let me point out that we do see evolution in the lab every day (and in the wild.)

Biology students routinely create new species of microbes in a petri dish.

Scientists regularly discover new species in nature - such as the London underground mosquito.

Looking for beneficial human mutations is big business - such as the village in Europe which has a cholesterol lowering mutation (IIRC.)

Many aspects of evolution are observed and studied in the labs every day.

Indeed, there is a lot of scientific evidence for Darwinism. There is a lot of evidence for creationism as well.

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Every single test of evolution, from every single scientist, in every country - agrees with evolution.

Not one single test or experiment, of the 100s of 1000s that have been done - have disagreed with evolution.

But,
there is no evidence for creation.

The only people who believe it are the religious faithful.

There has never been a scientific paper published with evidence of creation.

My point was just that when it comes to the basic question of "How did life on Earth begin?" evolutionists need to recognize that they rely on faith just as much as creationists do.

We do not know how life started - correct.

But that has nothing to do with evolution, which is about how life changed after it started.

But,
we do know a great deal about evolution - it is one of the most succesful theories of all time. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.


Iasion

 

[qwerty mob]

To reiterate, that commentary which you insist is missing:

The Modern Synthesis (also referred to as Neo-Darwinism although little of Darwin's actual original theories remain) is based on actual, objective, imperical research, and is a theory which is accepted as "contingently-true" until a better theory fits the objective facts. That's how the Scientific Method works. Think that over.

I couldn't give less of a shit about anyone's beliefs, but I'll gladly correct demonstrably false notions of Evolutionary Biological Science.

To address your rather singular line of inquiry more directly- when you understand that the three primary criteria for life are that proto-life can (1) replicate (2) repair and (3) react, and therefore, evolve, you can see that viruses, viroids, virusoids, and prions are all examples of this type of proto-life; depending on the sizes of their genomes they qualify as "life."

Inorganic compounds aren't "nothing"- as I have indicated, they are matter. The interaction of these compounds with energy (such as the sun's radiation, geothermal, electrical, etc) can indeed produce organic compounds. Experiments such as The Urey-Miller experiment (1953) demonstrate that organic compounds can indeed come from inorganic ones. The vanguard of this inquiry is two-fold right now; mapping other genomes and investigating the LUA hypothesis.

So, now that we have accounted for matter and energy, the only variable for Science to adequately explain "rocks to proto-life to mammals to man" is time; and even now, it is only a matter of academic precision. One profound philosophical implication of this objective and reverifiable line of inquiry is that "life was inevitable." (But remember, such statements are PHILOSOPHY, not Science)

...

To answer two inevitable Creationist objections: Speciation, the basis for explaining observed diversity and rise of genomic isolation (thus genetic identity) in evolutionary biology has been observed in both laboratory experiments with protozoa, and (arguably) even in the field between generations of moths (proving only that decent with modification is but one factor in adaptation for cellular life; there are elastic environmental and genomic cofactors as well)- confirming microevolution.

That there are multiple factors in macroevolution (an important one of which we have established is time) means one can only EVER HAVE indirect evidence for it; only the rapid rates of reproduction of bacteria, etc. are sufficently short to observe speciation (the process vital to macroevolution) directly.

Objectively this means that "macroevolution has been observed" in simple lifeforms, WHILE no mechanism was observed or has been characterized to explain why this ought not be true for more complex lifeforms.

...

All the best to you

 

[Huwy]

Here is something I wrote in 1st year biology:

In 1953, American chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey carried out experiments
at the University of Chicago that showed that some amino acids can be chemically produced from ammonia and methane.

http://www.biologiateorica.it/organiccodes/cap5/p119.htm

The experiment produced many amino acids and enabled Miller to explain how they had formed. (Orgel, 1994)
In the years since Miller's work, many variants of his procedure have been tried, and virtually all the small molecules that are associated with life have been formed.

Orgel, L. The Origin of Life on Earth,
Scientific American Page 52, October 1994
Retrieved at http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/Hawking/early_proto/orgel.html

 

[Huwy]

I just don't understand how anyone could take the bible literally.
And if you can concede that some of it isn't true, then doesn't that indicate the possibility that most of it isn't true?

for example, if the bible claims we were all descendants of adam and eve, and eve was created from adams rib - which is obviously a load of BS,
then isn't it possible that the "god created everything in 7 days" argument also obviously BS?
and then isn't it quite easy to see that "God" (whoever that is supposed to be) "created the universe" is just a primitive, human, mythical, way of trying to understand how it is that we exist?

Even if, as an agnostic, I accept the possibility that some form of supreme entity could have created the energy/matter for the universe, it still reduces christianity, judaism, and islam to a load of crap.
At best, the bible is a large collection of well intended myths written by people who lived a long time ago.
After being translated through at least 4 or 5 languages, a lot of it can be interpreted nicely, with a lot of nice messages on how to be a good person, like Jesus was.
Its also got quite a lot of content which by today's standards are offensive.
Any woman who values the bible obviously hasn't read some parts of it.

Pardon me anyone if I have offended you, but I find many religious beliefs offensive to logic, and logic and science are things that I value greatly.

I feel that the important thing Jesus taught us was to be "good" Humanists, well that's what he and many others have reminded me of.
For that I have a lot of respect for him, and hope all the positive things he tried to teach us are always remembered.

 

[Woody]

smallaxe said:

But beyond the comments you made about me, you still did not address the simple conclusion I made except to call it "sheer nonsense" without any supporting commentary.

lol

Welcome to sciforums, home of narrowminded trolls like qwerty mob, that just can't handle it -- resorting to personal attacks when they can't twist your arm into agreeing with them. Oh, and by the way if you even mention the bible, you are automatically branded unintelligent by the simpletons.

I just put them on my ignore list.

The subject you are trying to broach here is called: abiogenesis

There hasn't been a lab experiment to initiate life, and don't insult their god (Darwin), by including his name in a rational discussion about it (who made that hypothesis about primordial goo on the bottom of the ocean anyway? It was an evolutionist that came after Darwin).

Once both sides recognize the importance of faith to BOTH SIDES and once mutual respect is established, then a proper dialogue can be entered. That's my opinion, at any rate...

Yes, I agree, it's the way civil society behaves, unfortunately the majority of the atheists here don't make the cut. You can show them respect (as you have done), but they will never return the favor -- you are the mortal enemy you see.


Iason said:

Then,
you seem to think something must be re-created in the lab to be true - which is nonsense.

Have we made a moon orbit an earth in the lab?
No.
Do you think this means the moon does not orbit the earth?

No, it's not nonsense, it's non-science to think otherwise. That is what science is about -- proving a hypothesis.

It is not neccessary to prove the moon orbits the earth when it can be clearly observed and fits within the law of gravitation.

A molecular level event (origin of life) is on a little smaller scale, and should be observable in a laboratory -- given the right conditions which nobody can come up with.

So I propose an easier experiment - how about bringing something back to life that's been dead for a while? OOPs-- I'm starting to talk religion.

Smallaxe, By the way this is NOT a religion forum -- just ask your friendly neighborhood atheist. I know you thought it is a religion forum -- you looked at the link you came in on and thought it was -- like any other rational person would assume. But this is really a fantasy land for atheists to comfort one another in denial, as you have already witnessed (quickly I might add).

 

[qwerty mob]

[...] narrowminded trolls like qwerty mob [...] -- resorting to personal attacks [...]

I apologize if my criticisms are unwelcome, or that my assessments are sometimes unpleasant, but it's rather illogical of you to denounce "personal attacks" while displaying them.

 

[Ophiolite]

Woody, I would point out that you were the one who gloated over us non-believers facing an eternity in the fires of hell.
You were the one who offensively declared I was an atheist, when I had clearly explained I was very deliberately and consciously agnostic.
You were the won who persisted in using strawman arguments to support your case.
I really don't think it wise for you to be lecturing any of us on respect.
And before you jump in, no I don't respect you and I believe I have made that very clear on earlier posts. The reasons for that lack of respect are noted above.

Smallaxe, there are a number of us these forums who, like myself are agnostic. I was raised in a Christian setting. Then, and now, I see no conflict between Christianity and evolution. If the Christian God (or any supreme being) exists he could readily have set the Universe in motion with a set of laws that would lead inevitably to us - I guess that's the benefit of being omnipotent.

What Iasion has expressed very clearly in his post is a) some of the errors in thinking that you may have picked up along the way b) and the importance of evidence in the thinking of a scientist. Without evidence ideas are speculation only.

I hope we can continue the discussion in a similar measured and respectful manner, but please remember it is not the goal of science to disprove God or Christianity. Were I a Christian I would say it was sciences role to uncover the wonders of his creation, including that magnificent cornerstone, evolution.

Ophiolite

 

[Sarkus]

It takes faith to believe in either Darwinism or Creationism.

The question is whether you will believe that life began out of nothing, or whether life began from a self-exisiting life force. Neither can be proved, either must be taken on faith.

This is utter twaddle (note the highly scientific adjective! )

Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis, and doesn't even try to.
Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the origins of life.

It is a common misunderstanding that really should not be part of a scientific forum such as this.
There is no matter of faith in evolution - it is fact.
It is based on evidence. It has been observed.

I don't think any atheist or any scientist will claim knowledge of the origins of life. It is a mystery that has as yet been unexplained. If someone (scientist or otherwise) believes they know the answer, without the evidence to support that claim, then that is purely a matter of faith - and any claim is as baseless and worthless as any other - be it "God did it" or "Aliens did it" or even "This chemical reaction did it". Without evidence there is nothing but conjecture.
Claims without evidence are just "faith" and not part of science, and not part of rational thought.

Once both sides recognize the importance of faith to BOTH SIDES and once mutual respect is established, then a proper dialogue can be entered. That's my opinion, at any rate...

I won't disagree that someone's faith (be it religious or otherwise), in as much as it could be the cornerstone on which someone builds their personality / ethics / morals should be treated with the greatest respect.
But these same people should also have the decency to accept that the rational people on this forum have no need for faith, and only accept things on the basis of evidence.

If you can not provide evidence then you are merely arguing about 2 non-existent ideas - each of which is as meritless and as irrelevant as the other.

 

[SnakeLord]

I would like to ask Smallaxe to do me a quick favour and define "life". I'm curious to see where you place the border between life and non-life.

 

[smallaxe0217]

Greetings smallaxe0217,

Greetings to you too.



Firstly,
this is not a good description of the origin of life.

Creationists always attribute it to "random chance" - showing a poor understanding of the issues. The laws of chemistry are not random, even though the behaviour of an individual atom cannot be predicted.

The randomness of which I speak is not about the established laws of chemistry, but of the probability of a given reaction occuring at a given time under given circumstances. An acid will always react with a base to produce a salt and water, but that depends on whether the acid and/or base are actually available to react with each other.


Random chance plays a part in these processes, but some un-informed critics ignore all the other non random parts, and protest about it being all random !
This is dishonest.

You mis-understand.

Darwin said nothing about the origin of life - his book was about the origin of species.

The origin of life is a field of study called abiogenesis - which happened once a long time ago - it is not well understood (it could have been started in various ways - we are not sure, but we have some ideas, including time +chemistry +energy -> self-replicating molecules.) We have done some experiments which suggest some ways it could have happened.


The randomness is the entire hinge of the origin of life in this situation. I admit that I assumed that all evolutionists were abiogenists (sp) and if that is not the case, my apologies.

However.

If evolution is NOT focused on the ORIGIN of life (which is kind of strange, since Darwin's treatise was "Upon the Origin of Species), then why the hostility towards creationism, which IS all about the origin of life? If evolution is not speaking about how life began, only about how it is evolving, and if it claims to not have any opinion on how life actually began, there is no innate conflict with creationism which isn't talking about how life has increased/decreased since its inception, but which is concerned with whether or not this life came from a Creator.

I recognize your statements, and I appreciate that you say that the experiments SUGGEST it could happen. To me, that is a more important question (How did life begin?) than the question of whether or not man is evolving or not. Life exisists; that is a fact. How did this life start? I assume that you believe in the time+chemistry+energy model of life's origin, and I respect that; I am just pointing out that all you have to go on that is your faith that that is how it went down, since the experiments you stated only SUGGESTED it, not proved it. The same faith I have in a Creator is the same faith you have in time+chemistry+energy.





However,
after that, the changing of life over time into many different species is the field of evolution.

Darwin did not postulate anything about the origin of life.


If he did not, then evolution should have no conflict at all with creation, since they are talking about two different things.

Then,
you seem to think something must be re-created in the lab to be true - which is nonsense.
Have we made a moon orbit an earth in the lab?
No.
Do you think this means the moon does not orbit the earth?

We conclude the moon orbits the earth from our observations, not because we did it over in the lab.

Can we create a tornado in the lab?
No.
Does that mean tornadoes are not created in nature?
Of course not.

We know a lot about tornadoes from our studies of them, not because we re-create them in the lab.

This argument is false.

The whole point of science is that things can be proved either by direct observation or by recreating the scenario in the laboratory. We have not created a moon orbiting the earth, but we HAVE created models that show how the moon orbits the earth; and we have directly observed it by going to the moon and studying it. But for other things which are more localized, the importance of labwork for understand processes is obvious. Who would go to a university that claimed to teach the sciences but refused to have any laboratories to investigate the processes that are to be studied? I mean, look at the controversy surrounding that South Korean cloning biologist. If you claim to have done something scientific, an important part of proving your claim is being able to reproduce what you did, either by observation or by labwork. I disagree with your conclusion of a false argument.

But,
let me point out that we do see evolution in the lab every day (and in the wild.)

I do not disagree with evolution in the sense of animals adapting to their environment. I disagree with Darwinism and macro-evolution, but micro-evolution is a biological fact.


Biology students routinely create new species of microbes in a petri dish.

That doesn't sound very random to me!

Scientists regularly discover new species in nature - such as the London underground mosquito.

And there are many more species that are still to be discovered...but that's doesn't say anything for or against evolution or creationism.

Looking for beneficial human mutations is big business - such as the village in Europe which has a cholesterol lowering mutation (IIRC.)

Many aspects of evolution are observed and studied in the labs every day.

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Every single test of evolution, from every single scientist, in every country - agrees with evolution.

Not one single test or experiment, of the 100s of 1000s that have been done - have disagreed with evolution.

Of course there is evidence for evolution; I never said there was not. There is also evidence for creation too. Evidence is not proof, evidence can be interpreted based upon what viewpoint a person has in looking at that evidence.

But,
there is no evidence for creation. The only people who believe it are the religious faithful. There has never been a scientific paper published with evidence of creation.

Given that creation refers to the origin of life, the greatest evidence of creation is the fact that no one has been able to create life out of nothing; anything that is alive on this earth began as a part of another living thing (and I realize that I have not defined life as yet; I soon will).


We do not know how life started - correct.

But that has nothing to do with evolution, which is about how life changed after it started.

But if you do not know how life started, then why are you so against creationism which is ALL ABOUT how life started? Again I state that if evolution is not at all about the origin of life, then it has no innate conflict with Creationism.

But,
we do know a great deal about evolution - it is one of the most succesful theories of all time. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.

Intelligent Designers may disagree with you, but that's a whole new kettle of worms.

Peace.
Iasion

This is written just so that the thread will post

 

[smallaxe0217]

I would like to ask Smallaxe to do me a quick favour and define "life". I'm curious to see where you place the border between life and non-life.

To me, a living thing is something that can reproduce, shows a clear cycle from inception to death, reacts to its surroundings, requires food and water for its survival, is organic...

I admit that this may not be that satisfactory, but greater minds than mine have been baffled by it as well. All I know is, "i knows it when I sees it."

 

[smallaxe0217]

To reiterate, that commentary which you insist is missing:



To address your rather singular line of inquiry more directly- when you understand that the three primary criteria for life are that proto-life can (1) replicate (2) repair and (3) react, and therefore, evolve, you can see that viruses, viroids, virusoids, and prions are all examples of this type of proto-life; depending on the sizes of their genomes they qualify as "life."

Inorganic compounds aren't "nothing"- as I have indicated, they are matter. The interaction of these compounds with energy (such as the sun's radiation, geothermal, electrical, etc) can indeed produce organic compounds. Experiments such as The Urey-Miller experiment (1953) demonstrate that organic compounds can indeed come from inorganic ones. The vanguard of this inquiry is two-fold right now; mapping other genomes and investigating the LUA hypothesis.

So, now that we have accounted for matter and energy, the only variable for Science to adequately explain "rocks to proto-life to mammals to man" is time; and even now, it is only a matter of academic precision. One profound philosophical implication of this objective and reverifiable line of inquiry is that "life was inevitable." (But remember, such statements are PHILOSOPHY, not Science)

So in other words, Science can't explain everything. You have faith that science will adequately explain it.

There's nothing wrong with that, mind you.

...

To answer two inevitable Creationist objections: Speciation, the basis for explaining observed diversity and rise of genomic isolation (thus genetic identity) in evolutionary biology has been observed in both laboratory experiments with protozoa, and (arguably) even in the field between generations of moths (proving only that decent with modification is but one factor in adaptation for cellular life; there are elastic environmental and genomic cofactors as well)- confirming microevolution.

That there are multiple factors in macroevolution (an important one of which we have established is time) means one can only EVER HAVE indirect evidence for it; only the rapid rates of reproduction of bacteria, etc. are sufficently short to observe speciation (the process vital to macroevolution) directly.

Objectively this means that "macroevolution has been observed" in simple lifeforms, WHILE no mechanism was observed or has been characterized to explain why this ought not be true for more complex lifeforms.


All the best to you

Thus, based on the lab observations of micro-evolution (which is a fact; I do not doubt that micro-evolution occurs), you postulate ON FAITH that macro-evolution also occurs, even though you haven't seen it.

Nothing wrong with that either, long as you realize that you're standing on faith in the same way that I am. I'm not here to convice you that creationism is true and evolution is false. I am just saying that faith is not something to be scorned, ridiculed or undervalued. We all have faith in SOMETHING and the best way to understand each other is to realize that. If you disagree with my faith in creation/God, it is not incumbent upon me that I'm some ignorant fundie who doesn't agree with science. I just want to point out that science has its limits, and evolution has its own articles that require FAITH.

That's all I said in my initial post in this thread.

 

[smallaxe0217]

Here is something I wrote in 1st year biology:

In 1953, American chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey carried out experiments
at the University of Chicago that showed that some amino acids can be chemically produced from ammonia and methane.

http://www.biologiateorica.it/organiccodes/cap5/p119.htm

The experiment produced many amino acids and enabled Miller to explain how they had formed. (Orgel, 1994)
In the years since Miller's work, many variants of his procedure have been tried, and virtually all the small molecules that are associated with life have been formed.

Orgel, L. The Origin of Life on Earth,
Scientific American Page 52, October 1994
Retrieved at http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/Hawking/early_proto/orgel.html

Hello Huwy,

I know of those experiments. I note how you said that all of the small molecules associated with life have been formed in these experiments (which was actually an intelligent design of a propsed theory of what conditions on earth millions of years ago were) but those were amino acids that were formed; not proteins. A protein is made up of a specific sequence of amino acids. Were any proteins formed in those experiments?

 

[smallaxe0217]

I just don't understand how anyone could take the bible literally.
And if you can concede that some of it isn't true, then doesn't that indicate the possibility that most of it isn't true?

for example, if the bible claims we were all descendants of adam and eve, and eve was created from adams rib - which is obviously a load of BS,
then isn't it possible that the "god created everything in 7 days" argument also obviously BS?
and then isn't it quite easy to see that "God" (whoever that is supposed to be) "created the universe" is just a primitive, human, mythical, way of trying to understand how it is that we exist?

Even if, as an agnostic, I accept the possibility that some form of supreme entity could have created the energy/matter for the universe, it still reduces christianity, judaism, and islam to a load of crap.
At best, the bible is a large collection of well intended myths written by people who lived a long time ago.
After being translated through at least 4 or 5 languages, a lot of it can be interpreted nicely, with a lot of nice messages on how to be a good person, like Jesus was.
Its also got quite a lot of content which by today's standards are offensive.
Any woman who values the bible obviously hasn't read some parts of it.

Pardon me anyone if I have offended you, but I find many religious beliefs offensive to logic, and logic and science are things that I value greatly.

I feel that the important thing Jesus taught us was to be "good" Humanists, well that's what he and many others have reminded me of.
For that I have a lot of respect for him, and hope all the positive things he tried to teach us are always remembered.

[FONT=Garamond[SIZE=3]]Hi again,

I take no offense. I value logic and science as well (I am a hydrologist by profession, did geology and computer science in college). However, logic and science can only take us so far. Science can tell us how to clone a human, but it cannot tell us whether or not we should. Logic tells us that to put the survival of someone else over our own survival is totally wrong and foolish; but yet most parents will gladly give their own life to save their child's life, and many soldiers have willingly given up their lives for their comrades. Where is the logic or science of that?

Logic and science are limited in telling us WHY things exist. You and I are coming from totally different viewpoints, so for me to even attempt to tell you why I believe in the literal creation story would be an illogical attempt for both you and I.

But what the hey, at the very least you guys will get a good laugh at my expense; I can live with that just humor me for a second.

I would just say that if God exists, and if He is omipotent, why COULDN'T He create man from the dust, and woman from the man's rib? Think about it. Any God worthy of the title would be able to manipulate elements at the subatomic level, right? I mean, if we humans can fuse hydrogen into helium, even if we can't control the reaction, then God (if He exists) must be able to do more than that. So if God has a pile of dirt in front of him, with all these lovely carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and whatever other atoms of elements in front of him, what's to stop him from organizing those elements into amino acids, and then those acids into proteins, and then those proteins into cells, and those cells into various organs, and then he knits it all together, and voila! A man is on the ground. A man with no life, but still a man. THEN, God breaths into him whatever it is that makes living things alive, and thus we have a human.

Of course it sounds stupid; I don't blame you if you think it sounds like I'm on a major high. That doesn't mean that it's not possible. If you were to tell Issac Newton that in the future, you would be able to speak directly to someone on the other side of the world via a cell phone, what would he think of you? If you were to tell me 5 years ago that I wouldn't ever use my cassette walkman again because I would have an MP3 player that could hold the equivalent of 600 CDs, I would have said you're crazy.

If you think that the events of the Bible are BS, then that is your right and your opinion; but just because one cannot imagine that something can happen doesn't mean that it can't happen. We call things magical and supernatural just because we don't understand them; once we DO, it's not magic or supernatural anymore.

Peace.

p.s. the Bible is actually the most verifiable of ancient manuscripts available. If you are interested in seeing how accurate the translations are, take a look at the Bible entry at wikipedia, or any respected Biblical site.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[smallaxe0217]

smallaxe said:



lol

Welcome to sciforums, home of narrowminded trolls like qwerty mob, that just can't handle it -- resorting to personal attacks when they can't twist your arm into agreeing with them. Oh, and by the way if you even mention the bible, you are automatically branded unintelligent by the simpletons.

I just put them on my ignore list.

The subject you are trying to broach here is called: abiogenesis

There hasn't been a lab experiment to initiate life, and don't insult their god (Darwin), by including his name in a rational discussion about it (who made that hypothesis about primordial goo on the bottom of the ocean anyway? It was an evolutionist that came after Darwin).



Yes, I agree, it's the way civil society behaves, unfortunately the majority of the atheists here don't make the cut. You can show them respect (as you have done), but they will never return the favor -- you are the mortal enemy you see.


Iason said:



No, it's not nonsense, it's non-science to think otherwise. That is what science is about -- proving a hypothesis.

It is not neccessary to prove the moon orbits the earth when it can be clearly observed and fits within the law of gravitation.

A molecular level event (origin of life) is on a little smaller scale, and should be observable in a laboratory -- given the right conditions which nobody can come up with.

So I propose an easier experiment - how about bringing something back to life that's been dead for a while? OOPs-- I'm starting to talk religion.

Smallaxe, By the way this is NOT a religion forum -- just ask your friendly neighborhood atheist. I know you thought it is a religion forum -- you looked at the link you came in on and thought it was -- like any other rational person would assume. But this is really a fantasy land for atheists to comfort one another in denial, as you have already witnessed (quickly I might add).

Thanks for your welcome whether or not comfort is to be found; we will see.