Originally posted by serigadoAgain, what do you call "life"? What is your definiton? You must prove that such "life" has been created to make the claim that life can be made from "non-life" minus the need for a God. You have yet to do this. All that I see are scientists playing around with the building blocks. Thats great, only what of the master planner?
It has. You may not call it life. That depends on each ones definition of life.
Life can be made from "non-life", no god needed.
Reading the bible helps you create a mental model that suits an explanation of the world, if you are wiling to make some logic leaps. I do not allow logic leaps in my reasoning. Everything has to be explainable by everyday experience.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe only difference between the Abiogenic position and my position is that my position says that God is required to create a living entity. What is both agreed on is that man was made, or at least in a physical sense, out of non-living matter. After all, the Bible states that man was formed from the "dust" of the earth. To be honest if I were an atheist the question as to why it cannot be duplicated or observed in nature or in a lab would bother me a great deal.
Does it bother me? No. Does it weaken the abiogenesis position? Yes, a little bit.
Originally posted by whodeyI'm not a biologist, but I could say life his some kind of system that can somehow reproduce itself and take advantage from its surrounding environment to its own benefit.
Again, what do you call "life"? What is your definiton? You must prove that such "life" has been created to make the claim that life can be made from "non-life" minus the need for a God. You have yet to do this. All that I see are scientists playing around with the building blocks. Thats great, only what of the master planner?
You see scientists playing around with the building blocks (non-living) creating unicellular organisms. I can't understand why this goes against your religion. If I was a Christian, I would say something like "god created life from zero, created matter from nothing, and men are only making life from existing god-created matter".
The only thing science can't explain is from where did the universe come, how can something exist since ever. But this is more due to our incapacity to understand multi variable, non constant dimensions. How can't you accept the overwhelming evidence provided by nature itself, and must go after what an old book made by some pre-historic men says?
Originally posted by whodeyWhat is your exact definition of life? Which part of that definition is specifically impossible without Gods input?
The only difference between the Abiogenic position and my position is that my position says that God is required to create a living entity. What is both agreed on is that man was made, or at least in a physical sense, out of non-living matter. After all, the Bible states that man was formed from the "dust" of the earth. To be honest if I were an atheist th ...[text shortened]... to why it cannot be duplicated or observed in nature or in a lab would bother me a great deal.
If you were an atheist and had some basic scientific knowledge you would not make statements like "it cannot be duplicated or observed in nature or in a lab". The only basis you have for making such a statement is your faith in the Bible which oddly enough doesn't even make that claim.
Or do you know of some research results that have shown that it is impossible?
Originally posted by serigadoI never said it goes against my religion. I just find it amusing that science indicates that life came about via natural causes, or minus intelligent intervention, yet they cannot duplicate it themselves. What does that make them?
. I can't understand why this goes against your religion. If I was a Christian, I would say something like "god created life from zero, created matter from nothing, and men are only making life from existing god-created matter".
In fact, you are correct. If they did create life nothing is heretical per sey in terms of my faith. I simply said that if I were an atheist the fact that scientists are unable to create life would bother me greatly.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am only speaking of the scientific definition of life from which I was always taught that a cell is the smallest form are most simple form of life known. The Bible, on the other hand, is not a book of science and, as a result, does not define life in such a way.
What is your exact definition of life? Which part of that definition is specifically impossible without Gods input?
If you were an atheist and had some basic scientific knowledge you would not make statements like "it cannot be duplicated or observed in nature or in a lab". The only basis you have for making such a statement is your faith in the Bible wh ...[text shortened]... e that claim.
Or do you know of some research results that have shown that it is impossible?
I have already been shown research articles on this thread that shows that they are and have been trying to create a synthetic cell. Yet they are unable.
Originally posted by whodeyI didn't ask about the Bibles definition. I asked which part of the scientific definition do you believe cannot be created without Gods input? Do you believe that there is a biological molecule that cannot be made? Do you believe that scientists cannot put all the molecules in the right place? What is the thing they cannot do?
I am only speaking of the scientific definition of life from which I was always taught that a cell is the smallest form are most simple form of life known. The Bible, on the other hand, is not a book of science and, as a result, does not define life in such a way.
I have already been shown research articles on this thread that shows that they are and have been trying to create a synthetic cell. Yet they are unable.
You are confusing "have not succeeded so far" with "unable" and "impossible".
Can you cite any research article that concludes that synthetic life is impossible?
Originally posted by whodeyDo you also find it amusing that scientists believe that stars came about via natural causes but have not yet duplicated the creation of a star?
I just find it amusing that science indicates that life came about via natural causes, or minus intelligent intervention, yet they cannot duplicate it themselves. What does that make them?
And while were at it, how many mountains, have scientists made recently?
50 years ago you would have been amused that no one had succeeded in making something as simple as a diamond. Do you think that diamonds also need Gods input? Nobody's made a working AIDS vaccine, maybe only God can do that. We must hurry and tell all those scientists and everyone spending large sums of money on the effort that they are wasting their time, whodey knows better, only God can do it.
Originally posted by whodeyA cell is so much complex, is has billions of proteins. Scientist were ABLE to create these cells from non-living parts. Some of this parts are not 100% synthetic and are taken from some dead cells, but the point is: it's possible to create life from non-living components.
I am only speaking of the scientific definition of life from which I was always taught that a cell is the smallest form are most simple form of life known. The Bible, on the other hand, is not a book of science and, as a result, does not define life in such a way.
I have already been shown research articles on this thread that shows that they are and have been trying to create a synthetic cell. Yet they are unable.
As to they were not able to do a 100% synthethic cell, that's ok to me. It's not lack of intelligence, it's only lack of knowledge. They are progressing to do it, they think they can do it, and there's nothing against that possibility. It's SO complex, it's absolutely incredible they can do it.
Originally posted by serigadoYes, I believe you guarantee it, it is something you believe
I have to test all thing before i take them as true as well. Even then I admit they can be wrong.
Carbon testing is arguable, but within reasonable error, accurate. The only (main) reason it is argued is because it goes against some holy-book made assumptions of the world.
I guarantee you all that the world is a lot older then holy-book assumptions.
completely. You accept it, you know it could be wrong, but you believe
you have the limits down to where you cannot be wrong by much. You
feel the need to belittle the reason it may be wrong as well, as if just
thinking that way is some how 'of a different faith/religion' than yours,
and for good reason, it is. When ever I have ever talked to you about
this I try to never bring up my scriptural beliefs, since I know you do
not share them, but give you my concerns, it doesn't matter you and
others drag my religion into it anyway.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayFaith / religion is not a reason why it may be wrong and he did not say that either. He said the only reason why some people disagree with it was assumptions in a Holy book, he did not say that it was a valid reason.
You accept it, you know it could be wrong, but you believe
you have the limits down to where you cannot be wrong by much. You
feel the need to belittle the reason it may be wrong as well, as if just
thinking that way is some how 'of a different faith/religion' than yours,
and for good reason, it is.
You are implying that it is a valid reason and that his understanding of the accuracy of carbon dating is based on his faith/religion. Yet if presented with all the evidence, and if you looked at it with an open mind, you yourself would have to admit that the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the world being millions of years old. The reality may be different, the earth may be only 6000 years old, but even you should be honest enough to admit that there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to support that claim and that the only reason you could have for believing it would be faith/religion and something written in a holy book.
Originally posted by jaywillwhat! that is so off topic!
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm going to assume you do not believe the tooth fairy exists...now prove that it does not exist.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you think that a belief in an intelligent creative law giver behind the natural laws that govern the universe and a tooth fairy who allegedly puts a dime under children's pillows w ...[text shortened]... hope to demonstrate that both ideas are equally qualified to be dismissed by the thinking man?[/b]
1. Why pay the kid when she can slit his/her throat when hes out of teeth?
2. Where is herr castle? Its gotta pretty big after like millions of mouthfuls.
3. Fairys dont exist.
4. when I was a kid I put fakes under the pillow nothing happens. cause i didn't tell my dad.
5. She would fall.
Originally posted by KellyJaytwhitehead got a good answer, I couldn't post it better.
Yes, I believe you guarantee it, it is something you believe
completely. You accept it, you know it could be wrong, but you believe
you have the limits down to where you cannot be wrong by much. You
feel the need to belittle the reason it may be wrong as well, as if just
thinking that way is some how 'of a different faith/religion' than yours,
and for ...[text shortened]... ve you my concerns, it doesn't matter you and
others drag my religion into it anyway.
Kelly
Please, give me the reasons you think why carbon dating is wrong. Until now I couldn't see any argument except because it goes against your belief. Is that all? If it is, I can't argue anymore.
3 edits
Originally posted by Sargent Carpface5. She would fall for it.
what! that is so off topic!
1. Why pay the kid when she can slit his/her throat when hes out of teeth?
2. Where is her castle? Its gotta pretty big after like millions of mouthfuls.
3. Fairys dont exist.
4. when I was a kid I put fakes under the pillow nothing happens. cause i didn't tell my dad.
5. She would fall.
6. Osama would try to catch The tooth fairy and kill her.
7. Obviously the tooth fairy isn't very bright, shed rather have a tooth than a quarter or more? Shes a fabrication. What dipstick made that story up anyway?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is all the same evidence, there isn't a 'scientific' pile of evidence and
Faith / religion is not a reason why it may be wrong and he did not say that either. He said the only reason why some people disagree with it was assumptions in a Holy book, he did not say that it was a valid reason.
You are implying that it is a valid reason and that his understanding of the accuracy of carbon dating is based on his faith/religion. Yet ...[text shortened]... on you could have for believing it would be faith/religion and something written in a holy book.
and a 'faith base' pile of evidence. I do try to look at it with an open
mind, it does not matter to me according to my religion how old the
universe is, my religion does not come into play, my complaint is the
unknown. I can stress devices and cause them to appear to age and
measure the results, I can also just grab devices that just aged and
set them side by side, they will behave the same way! I cannot look
at a the results of a test and know the difference, I have to know the
history of the device! My point has always been we do not know, you
want to assume that because of tests all done in the here and now
that gives us clear understanding of the past, it does not necessarily
mean that, to assume it does is pure faith, to reject all complaints
about it as religious base is prejudiced and unwise to say the least.
Kelly