Originally posted by RJHinds “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”
Charles Darwin
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chro ...[text shortened]... ss forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
Originally posted by RJHinds As I said, I quoted famous scientists because this is the Science Forum and people who are interested in discussing science visit this forum. It is my usual habit to quote those with much knowledge in their field of study that are also in agreement with my own worldview.
Ok but for one difference: The part that says 'that are also in agreement with my own worldview' really means 'that are ONLY in agreement with my worldview'. Other than that, you are right.
Originally posted by sonhouse Ok but for one difference: The part that says 'that are also in agreement with my own worldview' really means 'that are ONLY in agreement with my worldview'. Other than that, you are right.
Not all the scientists have come around to agreeing completely with my worldview. I quote some that agree with various parts of my worldview.
The law of biogensis states that life only comes from other life. Most evolutionists admit that Darwin's theory of evolution does not deal with how the fist life on earth came to exist. That is, evolution can't explain molecules to living cells and it can’t explain the origin of the information in DNA and RNA. The best explantio9n for that is intelligent design by an Intelligent Designer.
Originally posted by FabianFnas If life must come from other life, and this is a fact, then the first life couldn't be created. Not even by your evilutionary god.
I'm so happy that you'e came to your senses. Good boy! 🙂
Originally posted by FabianFnas If life must come from other life, and this is a fact, then the first life couldn't be created. Not even by your evilutionary god.
I'm so happy that you'e came to your senses. Good boy! 🙂
If life must come from other life, and this is a fact, then the first life couldn't be created
That is obviously logically deductively correct and I remember I and others have also pointed this out to him many times in the past. Let me guess, he is making his usual stupid false claim that has been debunked countless times that The law of biogenesis says that that ANY life, and that includes the first life, can only come from life. As I and others have pointed out to him on many occasions, the the law of biogenesis only applies to modern life and life as we know it and thus doesn't apply to the first life. As usual, he just ignores these facts no matter how often you endlessly point them out to him even with reference to web links to demonstrate these plain and known facts. He never learns anything.
In fact, if any and all life without a single exception in the past must come from other life, logically, there cannot ever have been a first life for that would be a logical contradiction because that would mean if there was a first life then no life came before that first life (else it wouldn't be the first life by definition ) therefore it could not come from life because there was no life then which it could come from. And, obviously, if there was no first life, that would logically rule out there being a god to create the first life because there would have been no first life to create! I already explained this to him many times to him but he shamefully chooses to never comprehend this EXTREMELY simple logical concept despite how stupid that makes him appear on these forums -I presume he makes that choice to not comprehend because he knows to comprehend it would mean he would see that it would debunk his religious beliefs -he will forever CHOOSE to stay both ignorant and delusional.
If life must come from other life, and this is a fact, then the first life couldn't be created
That is obviously logically deductively correct and I remember I and others have also pointed this out to him many times in the past. Let me guess, he is making his usual stupid false claim that has been debunked countless times that The law of bi ...[text shortened]... would debunk his religious beliefs -he will forever CHOOSE to stay both ignorant and delusional.
I am glad you realize the Creator was not created. Isn't it also logically reasonable that the Creator has no beginning or ending? Thus, the Creator has always existed, right?
Originally posted by RJHinds I am glad you realize the Creator was not created. Isn't it also logically reasonable that the Creator has no beginning or ending? Thus, the Creator has always existed, right?
That alone falsifies the hypothesis of biogenesis, it dies right at the start since your god allegedly did not come from life.
I would love to see the look on your face when science makes life from rocks or whatever. And to read the subsequent obligatory refutation by you.
Let's see, you could say 'It's not really alive' 'It's just a molecular machine' and countless other worthless refutations you would clearly come up with.
Originally posted by sonhouse That alone falsifies the hypothesis of biogenesis, it dies right at the start since your god allegedly did not come from life.
I would love to see the look on your face when science makes life from rocks or whatever. And to read the subsequent obligatory refutation by you.
Let's see, you could say 'It's not really alive' 'It's just a molecular machine' and countless other worthless refutations you would clearly come up with.
The fact that there is an eternal source of life does not falsify the law of biogenesis. The law of biogenesis denies that life can come from non-life, like a rock, but states that life must always come from life. It does not deny that there must be an eternal source of life.
Science will never make life from rocks because rocks contain no life so that would violate the law of biogenesis.
Originally posted by RJHinds The fact that there is an eternal source of life does not falsify the law of biogenesis. The law of biogenesis denies that life can come from non-life, like a rock, but states that life must always come from life. It does not deny that there must be an eternal source of life.
Science will never make life from rocks because rocks contain no life so that would violate the law of biogenesis.
Originally posted by sonhouse The "LAW" of biogenesis. That's a laugh.
The law of biogenesis in fact prohibits the divine creation. Because every cell has its origin in another cell, meaning that there were no first cell, ever.
Scientists Find Hidden DNA Code
19 Mar '14 05:36
Back to Top