I am definitely in the "I don't know bucket", and I'd put you and Knight in the same bucket, even though you would deny it yourselves.
I also do want to know, but wouldn't include you guys in that bucket.
Quote:
Now that you are (hopefully) aware of the law of biogenesis, do you accept it as valid?
Depends on how you phrase the law and what you beleive it means. Wikipedia says "They showed that life does not spontaneously arise in its present forms from non-life in nature." Well, I don't believe that life in its present forms spontaneously arises from non-life, so I guess I can agree with that. (as do almost all evolutionists)
If I remember correctly, Pasteur left out some old meat testing whether maggots formed and discovered they did not. If your version of logic allows you to conclude"life only comes from life" from this, than I can design an experiment to 'prove' almost anything.
Slogan/motto:
If you say it loud enough, you'll always sound precocious.
Reputation:
April 2nd, 2007, 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vision in Verse
Okay. You seem like you want to discuss it. Tell me, is the idea that life originated from the supernatural an assumption or not? Is the idea that life originated from non-life an assumption or not?
Two different questions ... supernatural or from non-life?
I would say that both are posited, but only one is workable, though not calculatable. Neither are proven in the scientific lexicon.
Now, instead of changing the subject because it is uncomfortable, would you care to go back and address what I was speaking about?
A 'touchy-feely' CNN reporter, while interviewing an Army sniper asked, "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?" The Soldier shrugged and replied..... "Recoil."
Slogan/motto:
Without Love, We are Birds with Broken Wings
Reputation:
April 3rd, 2007, 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApologeticJedi
Two different questions ... supernatural or from non-life?
I would say that both are posited, but only one is workable, though not calculatable. Neither are proven in the scientific lexicon.
What can really be "proven?" I learned that theories can only be supported by evidence, but never proven. Which one one is workable and why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApologeticJedi
Now, instead of changing the subject because it is uncomfortable, would you care to go back and address what I was speaking about?
Oh.. I'm sure we'll get there. I stress that a certain continuity is imperative for the argument to be understood correctly.
"You do realize that proximity matters?
That life can come from non-life is a very unsupportable theory. Even Atheist Nobel prize winners like Dr. Crick (for DNA) completely rejected it. The burden of proof is clearly on someone trying to argue for it. Why should we believe it anymore than believing aliens left life here? Statistically, it is impossible." I'll keep this here for the sake of easier access.
I think the first video (the Chuck Missler video) makes a good point don't you?
It's kind of like saying that, since placing pieces of quartz and other minerals in a jar and shaking the mixture has never produced granite, therefore granite could never have been formed out of quartz and other minerals.
Quote:
You do agree that life only comes from life right?
Since there is plenty of scientific research being conducted in this area, it would be entirely premature and irrational to conclude that life could never come from nonlife.
Are you certain that life cannot come from nonlife? If so, what is the empirical basis of your certainty?
Simply because we have never observed it does not mean that it could not happen under the right circumstances. ... Most scientists would agree that those circumstances are unlikely to ever be found in a jar of peanut butter.
The Bush Lies: "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
I noticed that apart from the vitriolic reaction to the peanut butter argument, nobody could refute it. The banana one was hopefully meant to be amusing but missed its mark and didnt really make its point - it was more embarrasing than anything else and was illogical
I noticed that apart from the vitriolic reaction to the peanut butter argument, nobody could refute it. The banana one was hopefully meant to be amusing but missed its mark and didn't really make its point - it was more embarrassing than anything else and was illogical
Although it is absurd, the banana video is meant to be serious. It's not a joke. It's from a pro-creationist video by Kirk Cameron. And btw, it wasn't only illogical, it was outright wrong; deceptive (or uninformed) as to the history of banana as we know it.
IMO, the peanut butter jar "experiment" idea is silly enough that it's not even worth discussing, although for the sake of science, I'm giving it my very best shot.
Frankly, I'm exhausted from it, it's wearing me down ... And in all honesty, the best I've been able to come up with is a serious appetite for peanut butter.
I've eaten at least 20 PB sandwiches since the inception of this thread, no kidding. This is no joke. I have peanut butter on my mind a good part of every waking day. I may go have one right now as a matter of fact. I've eaten it on English muffins, on whole grain bread, on potato bread (good, btw), on white bread, with honey, bananas, with jellies, jams... For the past two days I've been eating it with apricot jam, which is pretty good. Not overly sweet, unless you use too much.
I've learned a lot.
As far as it being an "experiment" to disprove evolution, I think most would agree it's silly.
But we might as well have some fun and enjoy life, have a good laugh, enjoy something as simple and wonderful as a peanut butter. For that, I thank Missler.
He's brought some joy to my life, and put a smile on my face.
Yeah for sure on toast, melting; very, very good. But I will say that through this journey, I've discovered that while I don't usually eat white bread, PB on white bread *untoasted* is pretty good. ...Also toasted though, yeah, very good... PB melting over toast.
Slogan/motto:
Without Love, We are Birds with Broken Wings
Reputation:
April 6th, 2007, 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vision in Verse
What can really be "proven?" I learned that theories can only be supported by evidence, but never proven. Which one one is workable and why?
Oh.. I'm sure we'll get there. I stress that a certain continuity is imperative for the argument to be understood correctly.
"You do realize that proximity matters?
That life can come from non-life is a very unsupportable theory. Even Atheist Nobel prize winners like Dr. Crick (for DNA) completely rejected it. The burden of proof is clearly on someone trying to argue for it. Why should we believe it anymore than believing aliens left life here? Statistically, it is impossible." I'll keep this here for the sake of easier access.
That life can come from non-life is a very unsupportable theory.
It's not a theory, but a hypothesis. Evidence is slowly growing in support of the hypothesis.
Quote:
Why should we believe it anymore than believing aliens left life here?
That just postpones the question: Where did the first life in the universe come from?
If the first life forms in the universe came from non-life, then it seems more likely that it could have come from non-life on several occasions, rather than just once. Since the conditions across the universe appear homogeneous, there is no reason to suspect that an alleged natural process (life from non-life) could not happen more than once. Given the multitude of chance factors that would be involved if aliens had deposited the first life forms on Earth, I think it is more probable that life on Earth first came from non-life via natural processes..
Quote:
Statistically, it is impossible.
Based upon what evidence?
How can you be certain that scientists will not someday discover how life can naturally come from non-life? Doesn't the possibility of such a discovery remain? How can you be certain that such a scientific discovery could not happen within the next few thousand years?
The Bush Lies: "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Although it is absurd, the banana video is meant to be serious. It's not a joke. It's from a pro-creationist video by Kirk Cameron. And btw, it wasn't only illogical, it was outright wrong; deceptive (or uninformed) as to the history of banana as we know it.
IMO, the peanut butter jar "experiment" idea is silly enough that it's not even worth discussing, although for the sake of science, I'm giving it my very best shot.
Frankly, I'm exhausted from it, it's wearing me down ... And in all honesty, the best I've been able to come up with is a serious appetite for peanut butter.
I've eaten at least 20 PB sandwiches since the inception of this thread, no kidding. This is no joke. I have peanut butter on my mind a good part of every waking day. I may go have one right now as a matter of fact. I've eaten it on English muffins, on whole grain bread, on potato bread (good, btw), on white bread, with honey, bananas, with jellies, jams... For the past two days I've been eating it with apricot jam, which is pretty good. Not overly sweet, unless you use too much.
I've learned a lot.
As far as it being an "experiment" to disprove evolution, I think most would agree it's silly.
But we might as well have some fun and enjoy life, have a good laugh, enjoy something as simple and wonderful as a peanut butter. For that, I thank Missler.
He's brought some joy to my life, and put a smile on my face.
A smile smeared with peanut butter.
Hmm, this is probably completely irrelevant to the subject at hand but such an experiment would be an impossibility for me to attempt, I cant STAND peanut butter, what intrigues me (and probably nobody else) is why I cant stand it, I dont have a nut allergy, its supposed to be fairly nutritional so why is it that its such an abhorrence? Does my pallette have to evolve to appreciate the nutty delight that many others can seemingly bask in, or am I just nuts?
Linear Mode
