Originally posted by Eladar As long as evolution is taught as could be wrong when it comes to origins, that is great. The problem is that it is not. It is taught as truth. Anyone who would believe that our origins is of a super natural source is mocked.
If you deny this, then you are either blind, a liar or a hypocrite.
As long as evolution is taught as could be wrong when it comes to origins, that is great.
No, that would be absolutely terrible! Because evolution is proven correct thus people would be taught lies if they were taught it credibly could be wrong. Given the evidence, the possibility of it being wrong is comparable to the possibility of all our memories being false and the Earth is just one day old -in other words, the probability of it being wrong can only rationally be regard to be vanishingly small and thus it is permissible in everyday language to simply say it is true.
The problem is that it is not. It is taught as truth.
is not a “problem” because it IS the truth. We have evidence that it is the truth -where is your evidence that it is false?
Anyone who would believe that our origins is of a super natural source is mocked.
For very good reason -what stupidity!
If you deny this, then you are either blind, a liar or a hypocrite.
Originally posted by C Hess Since you are the one trying to assert an age of the earth that contradicts the evidence
collected so far (by several different scientific disciplines), you are the one that needs
to supply evidence for your point of view. There's ample support for the old earth
theory, and none for your young earth. We're still waiting for a creati ...[text shortened]... ntific hypothesis, it can't be
tested, so stop trying to pass it off as science, I beg of you.
Originally posted by DeepThought If the life-giver is non-living then the creation of life counts as abiogenesis. If you want to extend your definition of life to include immaterial things then that is fine; but I think we are entitled to know what you mean by life.
The Life-Giver must be living because of the Law of Biogenesis. Life is difficult to define exactly, so we can only give an approximate definition. Life includes something that is immaterial, like a soul, that is able to animate something that is material.
Originally posted by RJHinds Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PY0zzh8G3c
That's not evidence. That is exactly the kind of rhetoric and logical fallacies I asked you not
to repeat. To be fair, you honoured my request by letting some other dimwit repeat all of
Hovind's long since debunked "arguments".
And some of what he said did give me a laugh, so thank you for that.
Originally posted by RJHinds The Life-Giver must be living because of the Law of Biogenesis. Life is difficult to define exactly, so we can only give an approximate definition. Life includes something that is immaterial, like a soul, that is able to animate something that is material.
There is no scientific evidence for the soul. Spirituality is that a way. -->>
As long as evolution is taught as could be wrong when it comes to origins, that is great.
No, that would be absolutely terrible! Because evolution is proven correct thus people would be taught lies if they were taught it credibly could be wrong. Given the evidence, the possibility of it being wrong is comparable to the possibility o ...[text shortened]... ny this, then you are either blind, a liar or a hypocrite. [/quote]
Nope, just being honest.
The odds of living things on the earth arising by chance is too great to have ever happened. Something that was already alive had to help it out in accordance with the Law of Biogenesis. Even if we start with the simplest living thing known, the suggestion it could evolve into man by chance is ridiculous.
Originally posted by C Hess There is no scientific evidence for the soul. Spirituality is that a way. -->>
However, there is evidence for immaterial things, like consciousness and mind. "Soul" is just a dictionary word to represent that part of a living being that science has not discovered. "Life" is also a similar word for the same purpose.
Originally posted by RJHinds However, there is evidence for immaterial things, like consciousness and mind. "Soul" is just a dictionary word to represent that part of a living being that science has not discovered. "Life" is also a similar word for the same purpose.
If soul and life are synonyms, why not stick with life? I am curious though, does that mean
bacteria have souls, or that bacteria is not alive? Also, conciousness can only occur in
beings with brains, and most life on earth doesn't even have nervous systems.
Originally posted by C Hess There you go again. 🙄
It would be like winning the lottery every day in a row for 15 billion years. It could never happen, therefore it must have been by design. That is the only logical and reasonable conclusion of a sane person.
Originally posted by RJHinds It would be like winning the lottery every day in a row for 15 billion years. It could never happen, therefore it must have been by design. That is the only logical and reasonable conclusion of a sane person.
That is just what the programmers of your brain WANT you to think. They want to deny any idea that could lead to the discovery of chance NOT playing a part because the molecules are set up to latch up under the right conditions and that is NOT chance. There are certain types of clays that make mimics of membranes and inside those little molecular factories things go WAY beyond just chance.
You are just so deeply programmed to believe this Egyptian 6 day creation myth you can't use your own brain any more. Which is befitting a tenth century man. You REALLY need to find a time machine and go back to the tenth century where you would really feel at home, because you could burn people like me at the stake for daring to suggest otherwise.
Originally posted by sonhouse That is just what the programmers of your brain WANT you to think. They want to deny any idea that could lead to the discovery of chance NOT playing a part because the molecules are set up to latch up under the right conditions and that is NOT chance. There are certain types of clays that make mimics of membranes and inside those little molecular factories ...[text shortened]... eel at home, because you could burn people like me at the stake for daring to suggest otherwise.
However, the laws of chemistry had to come about by design and for a purpose in my opinion.
Originally posted by RJHinds However, the laws of chemistry had to come about by design and for a purpose in my opinion.
That is another story line entirely. One that science cannot refute at this time, that the laws were set in place at the big bang to allow life to exist. You can project gods or other supernatural beings into it if you wish if you also accept that the universe is 14 odd billion years old.
It still has not been objectively proven there even WAS a big bang, but the evidence points to BB theory as the only one that explains what astronomers see looking at the time machine that is our universe.
Originally posted by sonhouse That is another story line entirely. One that science cannot refute at this time, that the laws were set in place at the big bang to allow life to exist. You can project gods or other supernatural beings into it if you wish if you also accept that the universe is 14 odd billion years old.
It still has not been objectively proven there even WAS a big bang ...[text shortened]... he only one that explains what astronomers see looking at the time machine that is our universe.
The scientists say there are many evidences that limit the age of the universe and the earth to less than billions of years. The evolutionists are always wanting to use the maximam time for the age of the earth, however, that is not logical.
Life origins: Metabolism before life began:
10 May '14 17:07
YouTube
Back to Top