I don't get it. What's your objection?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
snip for if there was true honesty, given the scandalously improbable chance of life having arisen from non living matter snip

I've never understood the theistic objection to "life arising from non-living matter". Isn't that precisely what Genesis 2:7 states? So, the authors of Genesis, ignorant of biology, and unable to form a theory based on anything other than oral folklore, come up with this idea. "It was Holy magic".

In what way is the Genesis explanation different than current scientific hypotheses on abiogenesis? Other than the fact that the Genesis "theory" is unalterable, despite the input of any new data. Maybe I'm missing something.

Originally posted by David C
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]snip for if there was true honesty, given the scandalously improbable chance of life having arisen from non living matter snip

I've never understood the theistic objection to "life arising from non-living matter". Isn't that precisely what Genesis 2:7 states? So, the authors of Genesis, ign ...[text shortened]... theory" is unalterable, despite the input of any new data. Maybe I'm missing something.[/b]

Try to see that most people through the last 3000-4000 years were not as well educated as they are today. Genesis had to explain things in a way that people of the past could understand. 😏

my dear sir, there is a chasm of difference between a conscious and deliberate act of creation and a completely random and chance occurrence. the main objection of theists is, that the components which make up proteins, the very building blocks of life are far too complex to have arisen by chance, for not only do they need to be of the right type, but they also need to be in the correct sequence. like having a huge pile of jelly beans of differing colours, sticking you hand in and pulling out only red ones in a specific sequence, highly improbable i think even the most ardent atheist would agree, this coupled with the fact that eminent french scientist Louis Pastuer demonstrated that life cannot arise in a sterile environment and the concept of irreducible complexity of the living cell which relies on all of its components to function, have convinced some, that life simply could not have arisen by chance. plus there have been various experiments since then to try to recreate the so caled primitive atmoshphere, most notably Stanly miller in the 1950s?, which assumes that the atmosphere was a reducing one (for if oxygen was present in high quantities, apparently this is not conducive for the forming of amino acids as the ultra violate rays from the sun would have destroyed them (it is therefore ASSUMED that it was reducing i.e. not a lot of free oxygen), all make it quite improbable, no let me rephrase that, impossible that life has arisen as a matter of chance, thus we are forced to conclude it was a direct act of creation. you may not agree, but that ok, the reasons are good enough for me.

please note that i am not a scientist, but a humble artist, therefore there may be some inaccuracy, but they represent the basis for the ideas as far as i understand them!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my dear sir, there is a chasm of difference between a conscious and deliberate act of creation and a completely random and chance occurrence. the main objection of theists is, that the components which make up proteins, the very building blocks of life are far too complex to have arisen by chance, for not only do they need to be of the right type, b ...[text shortened]... may be some inaccuracy, but they represent the basis for the ideas as far as i understand them!

You are an artist in what way?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...like having a huge pile of jelly beans of differing colours, sticking you hand in and pulling out only red ones in a specific sequence...

Now imagine you get 1 billion tries to get 'all reds'.

what do you mean, in which discipline or capacity, or what is the nature of the art or an artist, its a very broad subject, for musicians are considered artists, as are chess players, there are conceptual arts which deal primarily with the intellect and arts which are aesthetically pleasing. my main goal of describing art as opposed to science is based on the idea that art is intuitive and an innate experience, an expressive medium which does not necessarily have to be bound by a rigid framework, whereas science tends to deal with quite definitive and constant entities, such as physical laws etc etc.

but if you must know i draw and paint, well used to.

as i understand it the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3655792/I-don%27t-believe-in-Richard-Dawkins.html

yes but not only do you have to get all the reds, you have to get them all in the correct sequence!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what do you mean, in which discipline or capacity, or what is the nature of the art or an artist, its a very broad subject, for musicians are considered artists, as are chess players, there are conceptual arts which deal primarily with the intellect and arts which are aesthetically pleasing. my main goal of describing art as opposed to science is ba ...[text shortened]... cience tends to deal with quite definitive and constant entities, such as physical laws etc etc.

😴






A musician is an artist. A chess player is not. Are you involved in any recognized artistic field, or are you just blathering on in a semi-coherent fashion?

why is a chess player not an artist?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why is a chess player not an artist?

I will just assume you're not an artist in any meaningful sense of the word.

why not most of your other drivel is based on pure assumption, hey, why change the habits of a lifetime!

Originally posted by rwingett
😴






A musician is an artist. A chess player is not. Are you involved in any recognized artistic field, or are you just blathering on in a semi-coherent fashion?

Oh some chess players are artists, for they have sharpened to the hilt their natural ability to create quite new formations out of abstract ideas thanks to their feelings, their mind, their skills and their fantasy.
While we study games of those players we feel in touch with a seemingly supernatural existence -the Human Mind at its best😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as i understand it the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard.

With all due respect to Dr. Craig (and none whatsoever to your other source of apologetics, Kirk & Ray), this is and has always been, a terrible analogy. It's enough to state that a) Jumbo jets are not biological in nature and b) an hurricane is not hundreds of millions of years in duration.

Art is the summation of all disciplines.

An artist is one who incorporates all he knows into his craft, and his life.