1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '08 06:50
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    swings and roundabouts, just swings and roundabouts!
    Or in other words, your claim is false, you know its false, but you cant admit its false.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '08 06:55
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    because you cannot re create life from non-living matter, they cannot prove the existence of God, nor the atheists categorically deny such.
    What does the ability or lack thereof of creating life from non-living matter, have to do with the ability to prove the existence or non existence of God?
    If I do manage to create life, what will it prove?
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    18 Oct '08 08:05
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    What does the ability or lack thereof of creating life from non-living matter, have to do with the ability to prove the existence or non existence of God?
    If I do manage to create life, what will it prove?
    ummm, nothing, but has everything to do with a materialistic view of the conception of life as every view scientific philosophical or otherwise hangs on this premise, and as it cannot be proven it in a truly scientific way, i.e. by experiment, observation and analysis, you must take it upon trust from the theories of others that this is the case, i thought this was self evident.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '08 08:12
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    ummm, nothing, but has everything to do with a materialistic view of the conception of life as every view scientific philosophical or otherwise hangs on this premise, and as it cannot be proven it in a truly scientific way, i.e. by experiment, observation and analysis, you must take it upon trust from the theories of others that this is the case, i thought this was self evident.
    I still don't get it. What cannot be proven in a scientific way? What is the premise that every view scientific philosophical or otherwise hangs on?

    And if we must "take it upon trust from the theories of others that this is the case" then where did they get it from? Are you saying that someone necessarily invented it?
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    18 Oct '08 10:49
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I still don't get it. What cannot be proven in a scientific way? What is the premise that every view scientific philosophical or otherwise hangs on?

    And if we must "take it upon trust from the theories of others that this is the case" then where did they get it from? Are you saying that someone necessarily invented it?
    ok, back to the beginning, you cannot recreate life from non-living matter, can you? infact Louis Pasture demonstrated that you cannot get life from a sterile environment, life begets life, but that is another matter, therefore as you cannot create life from non-living matter, it cannot be established with any certainty that this was actually the case, in other words it cannot be demonstrated to have occurred this way, therefore it remains in the realms of theory, and unless you actually set up a primitive atmosphere and charge it with electricity and get the amino acids to form into the basic building blocks of life then it must remain in the realms of theory, not purported as if it was some type of established fact. furthermore because you cannot demonstrate this to be the case which is the basis of all evolutionary theory, i.e that life is nothing more than material, then the basis of anything furthermore is simply based on an assumption, and will remain so until it is unequivocally proven to be otherwise, thus you have taken it upon trust that life originated in this way, its in other words its an act of faith on your part, the same as the Christians and any others.
  6. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    18 Oct '08 10:56
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    ummm, nothing, but has everything to do with a materialistic view of the conception of life as every view scientific philosophical or otherwise hangs on this premise, and as it cannot be proven it in a truly scientific way, i.e. by experiment, observation and analysis, you must take it upon trust from the theories of others that this is the case, i thought this was self evident.
    I would like to ask you exactly the same obvious questions as twhitehead, especially the first two.

    …you must take it upon TRUST from the theories of others that this is the case…. (my emphasis)

    But “TRUST” is not why I and, I am sure, many others believe some of these theories are probably true. I, along with many others, think with a critical and independent mind and never believe a theory purely because some other people made some theory and said “this is so” no matter how much I “TRUST” them! If somebody that I “trust” says there is a Santa, I still will not believe there is a Santa. If somebody that I did NOT “trust” says we evolved, I still will believe we evolved. -so “trust” has nothing to do with it.

    Sometimes we can rationally conclude that an unproven hypothesis is “probably” true simply because there is no reasonable alternative hypothesis to explain whatever that first hypothesis explains.

    For example, I believe that it is probably true (almost certain actually) that “other minds exist” other than my own. This is despite the fact that I cannot read nor directly observe other minds. But this is still a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to believe is probably true because there is no reasonable alternative to explain certain behaviour in others that are similar to mine and which, at least in myself, I am directly aware that my own mind causes that behaviour of mine.

    For example, when something sharp sticks into me, I may yell in pain and be directly aware of the fact that the behaviour of “yelling” was caused by the mental attribute of being in pain. Then I may observe something sharp being stick into somebody else and then I observe that person immediately yell -it begs the question what caused that person to yell -the only hypothesis that fits well is that they are able to feel pain and this is what caused them to yell was pain because that is the only thing that I know of that can cause such a response. But the point I am making here is that the reason I believe that hypotheses is probably true is NOT because it is a hypotheses that somebody else stated that I “trust”. Exactly the same is true for the reason why I believe we almost certainly evolved and that the big bang happened etc.
  7. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    18 Oct '08 11:014 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    ok, back to the beginning, you cannot recreate life from non-living matter, can you? infact Louis Pasture demonstrated that you cannot get life from a sterile environment, life begets life, but that is another matter, therefore as you cannot create life from non-living matter, it cannot be established with any certainty that this was actually the ca ...[text shortened]... its in other words its an act of faith on your part, the same as the Christians and any others.
    …infact Louis Pasture demonstrated that you cannot get life from a sterile environment…

    he demonstrated (well -sort of) that you cannot get life from a sterile MODERN environment.
    The simulation of the conditions and chemistry of early Earth was NOT even part of his demonstrations.
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    18 Oct '08 11:07
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]…infact Louis Pasture demonstrated that you cannot get life from a sterile environment…

    Correct - he demonstrated that you cannot get life from a sterile MODERN environment. The simulation of the conditions and chemistry of early Earth was NOT even part of his demonstrations.[/b]
    correct, but even attempts by others to simulate the so called primitive environment require huge assumptions and remain at best theoretical.
  9. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    18 Oct '08 11:103 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    correct, but even attempts by others to simulate the so called primitive environment require huge assumptions and remain at best theoretical.
    Exactly what “huge assumptions” are you referring to?

    Science has told us much about the early conditions about the Earth so there is very little “assumption” made about that part at least.
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    18 Oct '08 11:11
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    I would like to ask you exactly the same obvious questions as twhitehead, especially the first two.

    [b]…you must take it upon TRUST from the theories of others that this is the case….
    (my emphasis)

    But “TRUST” is not why I and, I am sure, many others believe some of these theories are probably true. I, along with many others, think with a c ...[text shortened]... rue for the reason why I believe we almost certainly evolved and that the big bang happened etc.[/b]
    i think you have answered my question for me, it remains a hypothesis, a theory, not an established 'fact', as many would have us believe, therefore as far as i can see you are in the same boat as the Christians and creationists that you endeavor to discredit.
  11. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    18 Oct '08 11:231 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    i think you have answered my question for me, it remains a hypothesis, a theory, not an established 'fact', as many would have us believe, therefore as far as i can see you are in the same boat as the Christians and creationists that you endeavor to discredit.
    …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 the same boat” as “Christians AND creationists” but rather I am “in the same boat” as evolutionists and those majority of Christians that do not reject reason nor the basic scientific facts.

    I have met many Christians and when the evidence point to, say, evolution, they don’t have any problem with that and I have nothing real to quarrel about with them so I don’t.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '08 11:491 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    ok, back to the beginning, you cannot recreate life from non-living matter, can you?
    I have not done so, but I will not rule out the possibility that I can. You certainly have not provided any evidence or whatsoever that I cannot.

    infact Louis Pasture demonstrated that you cannot get life from a sterile environment,
    Not true. He may have demonstrated that it is exceedingly uncommon to find life in a previously sterile environment but he certainly did not demonstrate that it was not possible to do so.

    life begets life, but that is another matter, therefore as you cannot create life from non-living matter,
    Where do you get that from? I don't see the reasoning at all.

    it cannot be established with any certainty that this was actually the case, in other words it cannot be demonstrated to have occurred this way, therefore it remains in the realms of theory, and unless you actually set up a primitive atmosphere and charge it with electricity and get the amino acids to form into the basic building blocks of life then it must remain in the realms of theory, not purported as if it was some type of established fact.
    Oh, so we are talking about the idea of abiogenesis here are we? You didn't make that clear before.
    I disagree that it must be necessary to duplicate abiogenesis in order to prove it possible. There are many many accepted scientific facts that are not based on duplication in the lab. In this case it is even more complicated as duplicating abiogenesis would only prove that it is possible it would not prove whether it happened that way or not.

    furthermore because you cannot demonstrate this to be the case which is the basis of all evolutionary theory,
    Abiogenesis is not the basis of evolutionary theory.

    i.e that life is nothing more than material,
    I thought we were talking about abiogenesis. What are you talking about? Are you saying life is more than material? What do you mean by that? What do you define as life anyway? Are virus' 'more than material'?

    then the basis of anything furthermore is simply based on an assumption and will remain so until it is unequivocally proven to be otherwise, thus you have taken it upon trust that life originated in this way,
    And how do you know what I think about how life originated? And if I took it on trust, then who was I trusting, and where did they get it from?

    its in other words its an act of faith on your part, the same as the Christians and any others.
    Can we apply your argument to anything? Since Newtons laws are clearly based on the assumption that objects in motion are material, we are taking them on trust equivalent to your Christian faith?
    And why did you pick on abiogenesis? Why not just talk about the belief that the computer in front of you exists? Surely that is just an act of faith the same as the Christians have about God? What a long winded highly convoluted argument which says nothing more than "we can never know everything with 100% certainty therefore all belief is equivalent"

    I dispute your claim. Not all 'acts of faith' are equivalent. If you have evidence for something, your belief is justified to a greater extent than if you don't, and quantity and validity of evidence are important too.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '08 11:53
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    And I am not “in the same boat” as “Christians AND creationists” but rather I am “in the same boat” as evolutionists and those majority of Christians that do not reject reason nor the basic scientific facts.
    Every Christian rejects some amount of reason and basic scientific facts.
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    18 Oct '08 12:403 edits
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    Exactly what “huge assumptions” are you referring to?
    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 then it would have proven devastating to the formation of amino acids as had oxygen been present it would have quickly combined with and dismantled the organic molecules as they formed, it being highly reactive. is it not so.
  15. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    18 Oct '08 12:445 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Every Christian rejects some amount of reason and basic scientific facts.
    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, and until you can i suggest that you realistically look at your 'evidence', with an open mind until such times, or perhaps you can site these 'facts', that we too may put faith in their incontrovertible nature, and here we are not talking about the physical laws of the universe which are evident. why pick on 'biogenesis', why not? it is the fundamental reason that those who profess a materialistic view of life base their claim, after all is it not? and until you can prove otherwise i will continue to do so until you admit that you have taken these things upon trust and it is a faith like any other.

    lol, your 'reasonable', statement like every christian holds the same truths to be self evident, its such a broad generalization it merits laughter , heeeeeheeeeeheeee
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree