Originally posted by whodeyYes it have.
What do you mean by testable hypothosis? Do you mean that a living cell has been observed as having formed from nonliving matter or otherwise?
I already said so, and provided the links somewhere.
Life does only come from life -> STUPID SENTENCE... it sounds good, but it's false. Because the world is SO complex you can never understand it. Doing a science degree helps, though.
Originally posted by jaywillIt probably does exist in science fiction which is where it belongs. As a creationist, it is probably habitual for you to mix fiction and science; but the rest of us know the difference between entertainment and inquiry.
Oh really?
Well let's see. If such a thought as I express about the possible future of the Evolution process is not seriously entertained in scientific journals it certainly lies in the imagination of popular science fiction.
Why else do New Agers, SETI types, and UFO buffs always hope that some great superior civilization is up there somewhere among ...[text shortened]... is the belief in a natural process that goodness is what comes next.
(Not his exact quote).
Also, though I'm sure you've read (i.e. ignored) it before, I'll write it again for other onlookers. Evolution does not imply a universal direction. Species are not becoming "higher." The "direction," if you must use the word, of evolution within a population is directed by the population's environment. Modern fruitflies are just as evolved as humans and chimps; they have just evolved for their environment rather than ours.
New Agers are a whole class to themselves, when it comes to astrobiology, just as kooky as creationists. I could careless why they wish to find highly intelligent extraterrestrial life. SETI types look for it as a scientific matter. Some people think it's a waste of money. I'm more ambivalent about it.
C.S. Lewis was a decent English professor and a better children's storyteller. He is dead wrong in his assessment of evolution. Certainly a reflection of his complete ignorance of the subject.
Originally posted by jaywillOne has to try very hard to misunderstand a theory as badly as you do evolution.
Well, I see your point. However, I think they also have a hard time proving that a non-human one day gave birth to a human.
The art work employed on behalf of the theorists usually depicts the creature [b]N as something like an ape and creature N+1 as a human being.
You just stretch the matter out over millions of years to lessen the impact of the idea behind an elongated gradualism which you hope will be more plausible.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillMaybe you should read more than the title of the book before deciding what he means.
So one poster rebukes me that science cannot conclusively prove that God did not create man.
So what is the implication of Evolutionist Richard Dawkins announcing the [b]"God Delusion" to the thousands who buy his book?
What's the implication? I think it is that Dawkins' "science" has made a belief in an Intelligent Creative God obsolete and del ...[text shortened]... unce to the world that it is now "delusional" to hold a belief in a creating God.[/b]
Anyway, I'm done with your laziness. Have a good life, and don't hurt your kids too much.
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoWell as for your links I have looked at one thus far entitled countdown to a synthetic lifeform. Do notice the words "countdown". I will be awaiting with baited breath until they actually succeed. As for the other articles I am looking into them and will get back to you. However, I would think that if one did create a living cell that much publicity would have surrounded such an event and of to date I have heard nothing in that regard.
Yes it have.
I already said so, and provided the links somewhere.
Life does only come from life -> STUPID SENTENCE... it sounds good, but it's false. Because the world is SO complex you can never understand it. Doing a science degree helps, though.
Edit: As for your belief that a virus is a living organism, this may be controversial within the scientific community but those that I know who are educated in science also flatly reject such a notion as well do I.
3 edits
Originally posted by telerionAdios, Old New and Improved Judas Iscariot.
Maybe you should read more than the title of the book before deciding what he means.
Anyway, I'm done with your laziness. Have a good life, and don't hurt your kids too much.
Good luck on your career as a backslidder's consultant.
A few more Xs before your name might bolster up your shock value a little more though.
"Look at me boy! I'm the X X X X X X Xian!"
Originally posted by whodeyNo, but various steps in the hypothesized model have been done. For example, it's been proven that vesicles spontaneously form under conditions thought to be on pre-life Earth. Rocks show an increase in oxygen which coincides with the hypothesized origin of plants. There's the Miller-Urey experiment, experiments that prove that there are self replicating molecules, etc etc etc.
What do you mean by testable hypothosis? Do you mean that a living cell has been observed as having formed from nonliving matter or otherwise?
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoI'd like to see those links. They don't seem to be in this thread.
Yes it have.
I already said so, and provided the links somewhere.
Life does only come from life -> STUPID SENTENCE... it sounds good, but it's false. Because the world is SO complex you can never understand it. Doing a science degree helps, though.
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoYou sound like some of the nutjob Christians, but on my side of the fence instead of theirs.
Yes it have.
I already said so, and provided the links somewhere.
Life does only come from life -> STUPID SENTENCE... it sounds good, but it's false. Because the world is SO complex you can never understand it. Doing a science degree helps, though.
Because the world is SO complex you can never understand it. Reading the Bible and talking to God helps, though.
That being said, I agree with you - except when you say life's been synthesized.
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou know that there are quite a few Christian zealots who argue against the validity of carbon dating, don't you?
[b]Science, also, cannot prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that The Hobbit isn't true.
How about carbon dating J. R. R. Tolkien's remains? If his remains aren't prehistoric, then you can pretty well conclude that the Hobbit isn't true. 🙂[/b]
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt cannot be just people that argue against it, but "Christian zealots"?
You know that there are quite a few Christian zealots who argue against the validity of carbon dating, don't you?
It isn't even arguing against as much as pointing out the weaknesses
of them that I do, simply calling them into question is enough to be
zealot in your opinion?
How do you define a "Christian zealot" by the way incase I am reading
your point wrong?
Kelly
Originally posted by whodeyI am sorry if the term "creation myth" is offensive.
The creation myth? Why not say the abiogenesis myth? You either view life as being created from a source of directed intellegence or without it. Either way you are talking about mysterious forces that we cannot fully comprehend. It simply makes us feel better about ourselves by leaving the "God" term out of the equation because it diludes us into thinkin ...[text shortened]... or form evolving from nonliving matter, however, they can neither observe it nor duplicate it.
Is "theological creation chronicle" satisfactory?
regarding abiogenesis -this thread is about the origin of the species, not the origin of life. I belive that you should open a thread about the origin of life if you wish to discuss it.
Originally posted by jaywillI have not read "The God Delusion" as yet ; in any case I belive it is a sociological/anthropological work, rather then a biological(/evolutionary) one.
So one poster rebukes me that science cannot conclusively prove that God did not create man.
So what is the implication of Evolutionist Richard Dawkins announcing the [b]"God Delusion" to the thousands who buy his book?
What's the implication? I think it is that Dawkins' "science" has made a belief in an Intelligent Creative God obsolete and del ...[text shortened]... unce to the world that it is now "delusional" to hold a belief in a creating God.[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJaySomeone who makes hypotheses based primarily on the Bible and then refuses to acknowledge when the hypothesis is demonstrated incorrect.
It cannot be just people that argue against it, but "Christian zealots"?
It isn't even arguing against as much as pointing out the weaknesses
of them that I do, simply calling them into question is enough to be
zealot in your opinion?
How do you define a "Christian zealot" by the way incase I am reading
your point wrong?
Kelly