It is ok to use the word “design”!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 a lieved it but that he taught it to others as such, setting a precedent for Christians today.

I don’t see the word “evolution” mentioned there.

This is your interpretation of the verses -I am sure many other Christians may give it another interpretation because verses can usually be interpreted in more than one way and I am sure there are plenty of Christians that have read those verses and many others and still believe that evolution is real and see no logical conflict -and they are still Christian!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…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 tha ...[text shortened]... erses atheism but rather it is just basic science and which most Christians wouldn't refute.[/b]

haha, so you are saying that because there is nothing else, or in your own words life could not have stated in any other way, is nothing short of an admission of preconception and assumption, thank you for your honesty! that it is feasible, reasonable and scientific to conclude that life came from non life even though this is mathematically highly improbable and unable to be demonstrated in the laboratory, and your eventual admission that this is in fact the case is all that i endeavored to ascertain, it is a matter of faith, period, and the sooner that you and others except this, the more reasonable and scientific you will become.

As to whether the primitive atmosphere was reducing or otherwise is also NOT A SCIENTIFIC FACT, consider the words of stanley miller himself if you will, in a classic paper published two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: “These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed NO DIRECT EVIDENCE HAS YET BEEN FOUND, - Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955.

Was evidence ever found? Some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported: “Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions - little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it. - technology review, April 1981.

and since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: 'over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere....suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere....such an atmosphere (carbon dioxide and nitrogen) would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life,'

why, then, do many still hold that earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, containing little oxygen?

In Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: the atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, 'laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution...would be largely inhibited by oxygen' and because compounds such as amino acids 'are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen,'

Any reasonable and scientifically minded person would ask themselves is this not circular reasoning? the early atmosphere was a reducing one, it is said, because spontaneous generation of life could otherwise not have taken place. but there actually is no assurance that it was reducing, as has been evidently stated from the admissions of eminent scientists quoted above, none more so than miller himself

so what are we to conclude other than STOP PRESENTING SCIENTIFIC DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS AS IF THEY ARE UNDENIABLE FACTS, THEY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT and quit berating others by insisting that they are unreasonable and unscientific when they question the validity of the data, you are entitled to your faith, and others are entitled to theirs.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I don’t see the word “evolution” mentioned there.

This is your interpretation of the verses -I am sure many other Christians may give it another interpretation because verses can usually be interpreted in more than one way and I am sure there are plenty of Christians that have read those verses and many others and still believe that evolution is real and see no logical conflict -and they are still Christian!

rather than giving your attention to what is not there, try giving it to what is actually is there.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 a ...[text shortened]... lieved it but that he taught it to others as such, setting a precedent for Christians today.

An evolutionary process is totally consistent with creation unless you believe like those fanatical creationists that the earth was created in six consecutive 24hr periods. I could have been, but you cant know for for sure. You cannot know if the word 'day' meant a 24hr period or an unspecified period of time. The creation could very easily have been over six 1,000,000 year periods of time.

Originally posted by Rajk999
An evolutionary process is totally consistent with creation unless you believe like those fanatical creationists that the earth was created in six consecutive 24hr periods. I could have been, but you cant know for for sure. You cannot know if the word 'day' meant a 24hr period or an unspecified period of time. The creation could very easily have been over six 1,000,000 year periods of time.

dude its is elementary that Christ held the creation account to be true, whether it was a literal twenty four hour day is also unscriptural, therfore it is entirely consistent to believe in the import of Christs words and the integrity of the ancient creation account, and what is more, at some time in the future, i will prove this to be the case. i know, i can hardly wait myself. yawn!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I don’t see the word “evolution” mentioned there.

This is your interpretation of the verses -I am sure many other Christians may give it another interpretation because verses can usually be interpreted in more than one way and I am sure there are plenty of Christians that have read those verses and many others and still believe that evolution is real and see no logical conflict -and they are still Christian!

how can they be christian, when they deny the teachings of Christ, i dunno, this is just getting more unreasonable and unscientific as time goes on!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude its is elementary that Christ held the creation account to be true, whether it was a literal twenty four hour day is also unscriptural, therfore it is entirely consistent to believe in the import of Christs words and the integrity of the ancient creation account, and what is more, at some time in the future, i will prove this to be the case. i know, i can hardly wait myself. yawn!

So one minute you accept the literal words of Christ to be true but when it suits your argument you dont.

What do you have to say about Christ' story about the Rich man and Lazarus. The rich man went to eternal torment. Christ spoke several times of eternal torment and eternal fire.

But ... forget it .. I know your type.

Tell the Pakistani wifey I said Hello. Our ancestors are from the same region. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
haha, so you are saying that because there is nothing else, or in your own words life could not have stated in any other way, is nothing short of an admission of preconception and assumption, thank you for your honesty! that it is feasible, reasonable and scientific to conclude that life came from non life even though this is mathematically highly im e validity of the data, you are entitled to your faith, and others are entitled to theirs.

…haha, so you are saying that because there is nothing else, or in your own words life could not have stated in any other way, is nothing short of an admission of preconception and assumption,…

You don’t appear to understand logic. If there is no credible alternative hypothesis to explain X other than hypothesis Y then yes it is an “assumption” but it is an “assumption” that, if we are to be rational, we should assign a high probability to hypothesis Y and we should assign a vanishing small probability to hypothesis Y being false until if and when either there is some credible alternative hypothesis Z to hypothesis Y or if and when there is sufficient evidence against hypothesis Y.

…thank you for your honesty! that it is feasible, reasonable and scientific to conclude that life came from non life even though this is mathematically highly improbable….

Where did I say it was “mathematically highly improbable”?
I assume that when the right conditions are right for it then it would happen.

… As to whether the primitive atmosphere was reducing or otherwise is also NOT A SCIENTIFIC FACT,...….

Wrong.

…we do not know that the earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed NO DIRECT EVIDENCE HAS YET BEEN FOUND..…

This is a quote from a totally out of date scientific journal (year 1955) -sorry! - science evolves and moves on -and a maintain of evidence has since been found.

… laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere....suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere..…

Yes, of course, in the atmospheric. What about in the oceans and in pools of murky water? UV rays don’t penetrate far there and that is where it is generally thought life most likely began (and NOT in the atmosphere).

…why, then, do many still hold that earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, containing little oxygen?

In Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: the atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, 'laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution...would be largely inhibited by oxygen' and because compounds such as amino acids 'are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen,'

Any reasonable and scientifically minded person would ask themselves is this not circular reasoning?
. …

But that is not the reason why scientist think that earth’s early atmosphere containing little oxygen. The reason why is because there was no oxygen making plants -no “circular argument" there! There is also plenty of other evidence to confirm this:

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

Quote:

“ There is a variety of evidence that the early atmosphere did not have significant oxygen (Turner 1981).

Banded iron formations are layers of hematite (Fe2O3) and other iron oxides deposited in the ocean 2.5 to 1.8 billion years ago. The conventional interpretation is that oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere for the first time in significant quantities beginning about 2.5 billion years ago when photosynthesis evolved. This caused the free iron dissolved in the ocean water to oxidize and precipitate. Thus, the banded iron formations mark the transition from an early earth with little free oxygen and much dissolved iron in water to present conditions with lots of free oxygen and little dissolved iron.
In rocks older than the banded iron formations, uranite and pyrite exist as detrital grains, or sedimentary grains that were rolling around in stream beds and beaches. These minerals are not stable for long periods in the present high-oxygen conditions.
"Red beds," which are terrestrial sediments with lots of iron oxides, need an oxygen atmosphere to form. They are not found in rocks older than about 2.3 billion years, but they become increasingly common afterward.
Sulfur isotope signatures of ancient sediments show that oxidative weathering was very low 2.4 billion years ago (Farquhar et al. 2000).

The dominant scientific view is that the early atmosphere had 0.1 percent oxygen or less (Copley 2001).

Free oxygen in the atmosphere today is mainly the result of photosynthesis. Before photosynthetic plants and bacteria appeared, we would expect little oxygen in the atmosphere for lack of a source. The oldest fossils (over a billion years older than the transition to an oxygen atmosphere) were bacteria; we do not find fossils of fish, clams, or other organisms that need oxygen in the oldest sediments.
”

-so to deny this would to deny the known existence of the evidence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how can they be christian, when they deny the teachings of Christ, i dunno, this is just getting more unreasonable and unscientific as time goes on!

…how can they be Christian, when they deny the teachings of Christ…

How do you know that your particular interpretation of the teachings of Christ is the “correct” one?

What non-arbitrary criteria do you use to judge which interpretation is the “correct” one?

How do you know that their interpretation cannot be the “correct” one and yours must be?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…haha, so you are saying that because there is nothing else, or in your own words life could not have stated in any other way, is nothing short of an admission of preconception and assumption,…

You don’t appear to understand logic. If there is no credible alternative hypothesis to explain X other than hypothesis Y then yes it is an “assumpt ...[text shortened]... st sediments.
”

-so to deny this would to deny the known existence of the evidence.[/b]

look Andrew there are so many holes in these arguments that it makes black beetles socks look downright respectable, you have dismissed the very words of the originator of the experiment as being outdated when quite clearly i gave you a progressive chronological summation of the conclusions of eminent scientists, you have switched the location now from the atmosphere, which formed the very basis of his original experiment to the oceans because it did not fit the criteria of your presupposition which now forms the basis for the rest of your argumentation, you have effectively switched the goal posts. alright so be it, the oceans it is!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…how can they be Christian, when they deny the teachings of Christ…

How do you know that your particular interpretation of the teachings of Christ is the “correct” one?

What non-arbitrary criteria do you use to judge which interpretation is the “correct” one?

How do you know that their interpretation cannot be the “correct” one and yours must be?[/b]

what is there to interpret in the passage that i quoted?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have switched the location now from the atmosphere, which formed the very basis of his original experiment to the oceans because it did not fit the criteria of your presupposition which now forms the basis for the rest of your argumentation, you have effectively switched the goal posts. alright so be it, the oceans it is!

Can you cite one single scientist, or one single poster in this thread who said that life might have started in the atmosphere? Or is this 'switching' you refer to, all in your head?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have dismissed the very words of the originator of the experiment as being outdated

Are we talking about
1. an experiment,
2. or are we talking about the likely contents of the primitive earths atmosphere,
3. or are we talking about the origin of life,

because you cant seem to make up your mind. You always seem to use a criticism of one of them to try and put down another. That is just plain illogical.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you cite one single scientist, or one single poster in this thread who said that life might have started in the atmosphere? Or is this 'switching' you refer to, all in your head?

yes, the originator of the experiment that Mr Hamilton, a fine Scottish name that, and i were having a discussion about, Stanley Miller (you may want to do some research on his 'classic', experiment), oh and all the other scientists and writers that also previously were quoted, i hope i wont have to remind you again.

and whats the matter, don't you feel comfortable when someones pokes around and tests the validity of the tenets of your 'faith', why , that's a little surprising considering it is a practice you yourself are well versed in.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what is there to interpret in the passage that i quoted?

Why assume that all verses are necessarily supposed to be taken with there most literal meaning?

Many Christians must have read that passage and they STILL think we evolved and see no logical conflict. I wouldn’t like to hazard a guess to EXACTLY how they normally interpret a particular verse -does it matter EXACTLY how?
I assume most of them generally think verses shouldn’t be taken too literally because they think they do not necessarily represent “hard facts” about reality but rather, as in a bit like in poetry, many verses are supposed to only give a vague “feeling” for what reality is all about -at least that is what I assume -can a Christian confirm this?

Can you state the premise for your belief that ALL verses are necessarily supposed to be taken with there most literal meaning?

In 1 Kings 7:23 clearly implies that a circle 10 cubits in diameter has a circumference of 30 cubits (look it up for yourself). This gives a value of pi of 3. This is mathematically incorrect and can be mathematically proven to be so. Would you insist that this verse should be taken laterally? The most natural interpretation of those lines is that it is saying that there was a circle 10 cubits in diameter has a circumference of 30 cubits -you could give it a different “interpretation” that is not mathematically absurd but that would only confirm one of the things I am saying here which is verses can have more than one interpretation which brings me back to my original questions of:

What non-arbitrary criteria do you use to judge which interpretation is the “correct” one?