1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '08 14:22
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    it is the fundamental reason that those who profess a materialistic view of life base their claim, after all is it not?
    No it is not. I have never heard anyone make that claim, I certainly don't and that is sufficient to prove that you are wrong.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '08 14:25
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    the assumption that life has arisen from non living matter, is probably the biggest and most fundamental,
    As always, you fail to answer the question. You claimed that "attempts by others to simulate the so called primitive environment require huge assumptions" and now you say that one of those assumptions is that life has arisen from non living matter. Can you explain how someone requires that assumption in order to try to simulate primitive environments?
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '08 14:27
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    no I have evidently stated and proved that yours is a faith like any other, because you cannot prove anything of which you hold to be realities,
    You say 'no' then proceed to prove that you yourself fit my description. Interesting.
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    18 Oct '08 15:27
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    No it is not. I have never heard anyone make that claim, I certainly don't and that is sufficient to prove that you are wrong.
    oh sorry, i forgot, you are the alpha and the omega, the last word on everything, oh how clumsy of me to have forgotten, thank you for the reminder, ill keep it in mind when not answering anymore of your ahem, posts, because you know everything anyway, lol.
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    18 Oct '08 15:352 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    As always, you fail to answer the question. You claimed that "attempts by others to simulate the so called primitive environment require huge assumptions" and now you say that one of those assumptions is that life has arisen from non living matter. Can you explain how someone requires that assumption in order to try to simulate primitive environments?
    oops couldn't help myself or it seems you, i already have in my post entitled are atheists real, mathematically it is not merely improbable, but almost impossible, and the second reference, which you somehow have managed to overlook is the reducing principle for the criteria which supports the idea of a primitive atmosphere being conducive to the formulation of amino acids, and which, if i may add is one of the tenets of a materialistic view of life, not the principle itself but the logistics involved in creating life, oh sorry didn't mean to use that word, the blind 'chance', occurrence of life, are you sure your an atheist, you sound as if you don't know what you believe, or are uncertain what a materialistic viewpoint is, but how could that be, you know everything already, how silly of me
  6. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    18 Oct '08 15:402 edits
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]…you are in the same boat as the Christians and creationists that you endeavour to discredit.…

    Err…nope. I do not “endeavour” to “discredit Christians AND creationists” -just, maybe, creationists -although it would be far more accurate to say I endeavour to discredit those that argue against reason and scientific method.

    And I am not “in ...[text shortened]... don’t have any problem with that and I have nothing real to quarrel about with them so I don’t.[/b]
    any one who professes belief in the evolutionary process is not a christian, because Christ himself taught otherwise, and if any of you guys would take the time to answer the 'scientific' and 'reasonable' presumption concerning the primitive atmosphere and the existence of free oxygen or otherwise we could perhaps get that cleared up, because as it stands 'the reasonable and scientific truths', which Christians are apparently so adverse to don't seem to make much sense, reasonably or scientifically, do they! why not, because the theory does not fit with observed 'facts', instead what has happened is that the principle was introduced, why, because it had to be seen to fit the original premise, thats why ! and you guys have the audacity to front words like reasonable and scientific, you aught to be ashamed of yourselves.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '08 15:591 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    oh sorry, i forgot, you are the alpha and the omega, the last word on everything, oh how clumsy of me to have forgotten, thank you for the reminder, ill keep it in mind when not answering anymore of your ahem, posts, because you know everything anyway, lol.
    I did not need to know everything to prove you wrong one example was sufficient. As usual, instead of admit that your claim was baseless you try the old 'attack the other guy and refuse to talk' routine that you seem to use every second post or so.
    To bad. 🙁
  8. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    18 Oct '08 16:05
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    any one who professes belief in the evolutionary process is not a christian, because Christ himself taught otherwise, and if any of you guys would take the time to answer the 'scientific' and 'reasonable' presumption concerning the primitive atmosphere and the existence of free oxygen or otherwise we could perhaps get that cleared up, because as it s ...[text shortened]... y to front words like reasonable and scientific, you aught to be ashamed of yourselves.
    Where exactly did Christ teach that evolution cant be right?
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '08 16:06
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    oops couldn't help myself or it seems you, i already have in my post entitled are atheists real, mathematically it is not merely improbable, but almost impossible, and the second reference, which you somehow have managed to overlook is the reducing principle for the criteria which supports the idea of a primitive atmosphere being conducive to the formulation of amino acids,
    Try to at least read peoples posts before responding to them.
    I pointed out that possibility for abiogenesis taking place has nothing whatsoever to do with and attempt to simulate the primitive environment and you respond by repeating your story about abiogenesis.

    and which, if i may add is one of the tenets of a materialistic view of life, not the principle itself but the logistics involved in creating life, oh sorry didn't mean to use that word, the blind 'chance', occurrence of life, are you sure your an atheist, you sound as if you don't know what you believe, or are uncertain what a materialistic viewpoint is, but how could that be, you know everything already, how silly of me
    I am an atheist, and I know what I believe. It appears though that I do not know what you mean by 'a materialistic viewpoint'. Maybe you would care to enlighten me. I do know for a fact that the viability of abiogenesis is not one of the tenets of my atheism. As usual, your attempts at mind reading are not being very successful.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '08 16:09
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    any one who professes belief in the evolutionary process is not a christian, because Christ himself taught otherwise, and if any of you guys would take the time to answer the 'scientific' and 'reasonable' presumption concerning the primitive atmosphere and the existence of free oxygen or otherwise we could perhaps get that cleared up, because as it s ...[text shortened]... y to front words like reasonable and scientific, you aught to be ashamed of yourselves.
    You have claimed that the hypothesis about the primitive atmosphere does not match the observed facts.
    Which observed fact is that? You have not yet as far as I recall presented one that contradict that. So far all I have seen is a claim that it is a presumption. A presumption is not necessarily wrong.
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    18 Oct '08 16:22
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You have claimed that the hypothesis about the primitive atmosphere does not match the observed facts.
    Which observed fact is that? You have not yet as far as I recall presented one that contradict that. So far all I have seen is a claim that it is a presumption. A presumption is not necessarily wrong.
    you tell me, its your belief!
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '08 17:24
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    you tell me, its your belief!
    Where did I say its my belief? I quite clearly disputed it. How could it be my belief? Or are you not reading the posts you reply to again?

    You have claimed
    "the theory does not fit with observed 'facts'"
    I have asked you to present one such observed fact.
    And your answer is that it is my belief? You are getting seriously mixed up here.
  13. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    18 Oct '08 17:253 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    the assumption that life has arisen from non living matter, is probably the biggest and most fundamental, but there are others for example, the presumption that life's early atmosphere was 'reducing', i.e. that it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined oxygen), which as i am sure you are aware, had the opposite been true th ...[text shortened]... and dismantled the organic molecules as they formed, it being highly reactive. is it not so.
    …the assumption that life has arisen from non living matter, is probably the biggest and most fundamental.…

    Given the fact that it is not logically credible that life could have got started in any other way, it is no big assumption. -in fact, it is reasonable to consider it to be a fact that the first life came from non-life. It is true that we do not yet know exactly which way and exactly how is the most probable way it could have happened just like once upon a time know one really knew what caused lightning. But, just as it was never rational to interpret lighting as meaning the gods are angry just because we once didn‘t understand it, it is not rational now to interpret the fact we haven’t yet worked out the details of the most probable way of how life got started as meaning some kind of divine intervention must have something to do with it.

    …but there are others for example, the presumption that life's early atmosphere was 'reducing', i.e. that it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined oxygen)….

    It is not a “presumption” that the early atmosphere of the Earth had little or no free oxygen but rather a scientific fact. There couldn’t have been any significant free oxygen then because plants and blue-green algae with the capacity to photosynthesise and create that free oxygen as well as lock away the excess carbon had not yet appeared in the early Earth and didn’t do so for much of the history of life on Earth.

    If you want some websites confirming this, try these:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035_1.html

    And

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050811104910.htm

    And, just in case you start implying that this is really just about atheism (which it is not), at:

    http://www.answersincreation.org/free_oxygen.htm

    It concludes:

    “An anaerobic atmosphere after the development of the first life form is contrary to the order of creation if one takes the days of creation to mean six twenty-four hour days. However, it is perfectly consistent with a literal reading of Genesis when one considers the days of creation to be long periods of time.”

    -this has NOTHING to do with theism verses atheism but rather it is just basic science and which most Christians wouldn't refute.
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    18 Oct '08 17:36
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    Where exactly did Christ teach that evolution cant be right?
    lol, sure my friend it would be a pleasure, consider the import of these words,

    Mathew 19 verses 3 to 6 'and Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?', In reply he said: “Did you not read that he who CREATED THEM FROM THE BEGINNING made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart,'

    here Christ quotes from the book of Genesis (Genesis 1:27, 5:2) showing that Jesus not only upheld the account and believed it but that he taught it to others as such, setting a precedent for Christians today.
  15. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    18 Oct '08 17:441 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    any one who professes belief in the evolutionary process is not a christian, because Christ himself taught otherwise, and if any of you guys would take the time to answer the 'scientific' and 'reasonable' presumption concerning the primitive atmosphere and the existence of free oxygen or otherwise we could perhaps get that cleared up, because as it s y to front words like reasonable and scientific, you aught to be ashamed of yourselves.
    …any one who professes belief in the evolutionary process is not a Christian, because Christ himself taught otherwise,.…

    LOL.

    As Rajk999 said:

    “Where exactly did Christ teach that evolution can’t be right?”

    The theory of evolution didn’t exist back then. If you had ask Christ or any else back then about “evolution” they wouldn’t have had a clue what you are talking about because probably no such word existed in their language and if, by coincidence, a word with that pronunciation did exist than, it would have had a completely different meaning.
    So how can it be true that “Christ himself taught otherwise” I.e. Christ himself taught that if you believe that there exists an evolutionary process then you are “not a Christian”?
Back to Top