Slogan/motto:
Hola, amigos, I know it's been a long time since I rapped at ya...
Reputation:
March 27th, 2007, 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight
Why are you so afraid to simply address the points I am making?
Can you list them?
Here are mine:
1) When Chuck Missler says ""if evolution was viable then we would find new life in jars of peanut butter" this shows he is lying, ignorant, or has an extraordinarily low IQ.
Slogan/motto:
Without Love, We are Birds with Broken Wings
Reputation:
March 27th, 2007, 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight
You do agree that life only comes from life, don't you?
You keep saying that. I, for one, believe that life could not have existed 13.7 billion years ago, and I believe that life does exist now. So yes, life must arise from things that are not alive.
Look at living things. Plants. They take in sunlight, water, and minerals (all non-living things) and use them to live. We take dead things in to keep our lives going. We also know that organic molecules can form without life. We know that phospholipids can form without life. The only thing stopping a primordial prokaryotic cell from forming is time. Time + organic molecules + steady input of energy = life, eventually.
Is that really scientifically possible? (without supernatural help of course)
It's only a mechanism to make a point.
I probably wouldn't use that example but I still think it is a reasonable way to make a point that even you can't seem to disagree with.
Hmm, so why can't one use that same example to refute the notion that life had a supernatural origin? I'm quite confident that any processes that would have led to abiogenesis would have more trouble generating life spontaneously in a jar of peanut butter than would a supernatural agent that could have created a fully functional universe in a matter of days.
That is, life spontaneously appearing in a jar of peanut butter could not possibly be explained by evolutionary theory, whereas it could easily be explained by the existence of a supernatural creator.
Thus, the absence of spontaneously generated life in a jar of peanut butter could not possibly illustrate anything about evolutionary theory, but if you insist on defending this bonehead example, you should realize that logically it makes a stronger case against supernatural creation than it does evolutionary theory.
1) When Chuck Missler says ""if evolution was viable then we would find new life in jars of peanut butter" this shows he is lying, ignorant, or has an extraordinarily low IQ.
Again, for the 10th time.... it seems to me he is simply making a point that we never ever (no not once) can scientifically demonstrate life coming from non-life (i.e., the presentation at the beginning of the video about only pre-existing life forming in the peanut butter container).
Life only comes from life.
Personally I think a better example would be dead animals but I do get the point about peanut butter as well.
You keep saying that. I, for one, believe that life could not have existed 13.7 billion years ago, and I believe that life does exist now. So yes, life must arise from things that are not alive.
Look at living things. Plants. They take in sunlight, water, and minerals (all non-living things) and use them to live. We take dead things in to keep our lives going. We also know that organic molecules can form without life. We know that phospholipids can form without life. The only thing stopping a primordial prokaryotic cell from forming is time. Time + organic molecules + steady input of energy = life, eventually.
Ugh.
Where to start....
Plants only come from other plants, that is a scientific fact you will just have to deal with it. People and other living creatures only come from other living creatures. While plants and animals use non-living matter to sustain themselves they never arise from non-living matter.
Slogan/motto:
Without Love, We are Birds with Broken Wings
Reputation:
March 27th, 2007, 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight
Ugh.
Where to start....
Plants only come from other plants, that is a scientific fact you will just have to deal with it. People and other living creatures only come from other living creatures. While plants and animals use non-living matter to sustain themselves they never arise from non-living matter.
What about primordial prokaryotic cells? Do they "only" come from primordial prokaryotic cells?
Hmm, so why can't one use that same example to refute the notion that life had a supernatural origin? I'm quite confident that any processes that would have led to abiogenesis would have more trouble generating life spontaneously in a jar of peanut butter than would a supernatural agent that could have created a fully functional universe in a matter of days.
That is, life spontaneously appearing in a jar of peanut butter could not possibly be explained by evolutionary theory, whereas it could easily be explained by the existence of a supernatural creator.
Thus, the absence of spontaneously generated life in a jar of peanut butter could not possibly illustrate anything about evolutionary theory, but if you insist on defending this bonehead example, you should realize that logically it makes a stronger case against supernatural creation than it does evolutionary theory.
I don't get it.
Your point is only going to appeal to numbskull's who aren't really trying to understand it.
Atheistic evolution says life comes from non-life.
How?
Valid question.
Don't know.
Much like looking at a Roman arch, you can see how it works once it's there, but how did it get there? The sides would fall in way before the keystone could be put in place.
The Theist with the God of the gaps bend would say God did it.
Until you show them a drawing of one being built with a scaffold.
So, where is this scaffold of life?
What does it look like?
What does it build?
Don't know.
If we find it will you stop believing in Yaweh?
The Theist with the God of the gaps bend would say God did it.
Until you show them a drawing of one being built with a scaffold.
Actually, the theistic interpretation would be that men built the arch.
Let me explain....
Theists don't claim that God made the peanut butter, instead they claim that God made the life (if any exists) that forms in the peanut butter if you expose it to mold or flies or whatever.
And why?
Because scientifically there is no alternative. Science fills gaps.
Quote:
So, where is this scaffold of life?
What does it look like?
What does it build?
Don't know.
If we find it will you stop believing in Yaweh?
Linear Mode
