Abiogenesis is science,s current offering to save the face of science with regards to their belief that life comes from non-life.
Life can never come from non-life.
Never, never, never.
Everywhere is the cosmos we see life coming from life.
Why does the science person not see this?
They do see this - but they are trying to create a belief system that denies this.
They do this to support their atheism.
Science that is biased by atheistic beliefs is not science at all.
True science MUST not be biased.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DasaI see light coming from a light bulb, does this mean that light can come from light bulbs?
Abiogenesis is science,s current offering to save the face of science with regards to their belief that life comes from non-life.
Life can never come from non-life.
Never, never, never.
Everywhere is the cosmos we see life coming from life.
Why does the science person not see this?
They do see this - but they are trying to create a belief system ...[text shortened]... e that is biased by atheistic beliefs is not science at all.
True science MUST not be biased.
The fact that life is self replicating does not mean that life can't form from non-life it just means that life is self replicating.
The reason you don't see non-life forming into new life today (it might be happening, we just haven't detected it) is a selection effect.
We can't see it because the signal is swamped by all the life that is currently around getting in the way.
In the same way that while our theories say that we should be many more small stars than big ones, we can see more
big stars than small... because the small ones are dim and hard to spot, and the big ones are brilliant and hard to miss.
You said you would debate me with logic and reason alone with no reference to your holy books...
So,
How do you justify your leap from "we see life making more life" to "life can only come from life"?
Originally posted by DasaLife can come from non-life. It's called Creation. It's not something (glossing over Dr. Frankenstein) mankind can do because we are not the Creator.
Abiogenesis is science,s current offering to save the face of science with regards to their belief that life comes from non-life.
Life can never come from non-life.
Never, never, never.
Everywhere is the cosmos we see life coming from life.
Why does the science person not see this?
They do see this - but they are trying to create a belief system ...[text shortened]... e that is biased by atheistic beliefs is not science at all.
True science MUST not be biased.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo need to get bogged down in semantics.
I see light coming from a light bulb, does this mean that light can come from light bulbs?
The fact that life is self replicating does not mean that life can't form from non-life it just means that life is self replicating.
The reason you don't see non-life forming into new life today (it might be happening, we just haven't detected it) is a select ...[text shortened]... justify your leap from "we see life making more life" to "life can only come from life"?
Life cannot spontaneously come into being without there being life to begin with.
Atheistic science is saying life came from non life.
They say it came from a primordial soup of chemicals after a lightning bolt struck.
Chemicals by themselves cannot produce life.
Life is a spiritual phenomena and not material.
1 edit
I think you guys need to understand the difference between phenomenon and neunomenon.
A phenomenom is manifested whereas the neunomenon is like a super conducter, where the energy is held as potential energy within the "thing",(described as a circular energy flow not unlike the ourouborous) , but has no measurable energy being released.
Everything that science can detect is manifested.
"god" is unmanifested.
Hope this clears things up.
Originally posted by karoly aczelNo we don't need to understand that.
I think you guys need to understand the difference between phenomenon and neunomenon.
A phenomenom is manifested whereas the neunomenon is like a super conducter, where the energy is held as potential energy within the "thing",(described as a circular energy flow not unlike the ourouborous) , but has no measurable energy being released.
Everything ...[text shortened]... t science can detect is manifested.
"god" is unmanifested.
Hope this clears things up.
Originally posted by RJHindssemantics.
I beg your pardon. Life does not come from non-life.
Life comes from the life-giving Spirit, God.
we were created from the dust of the Earth. yes, it required God to do it, and He has life. but my point was God, in order to create life, does not require that He have anything to start with. God speaks things into existence and does not require certain ingredients to make them. I think we're on the same page.
Originally posted by sumydidThat's right God has life within Him. So the "dust of the earth" would still
semantics.
we were created from the dust of the Earth. yes, it required God to do it, and He has life. but my point was God, in order to create life, does not require that He have anything to start with. God speaks things into existence and does not require certain ingredients to make them. I think we're on the same page.
be the "dust of the earth" if God did not give life to it. It does not come to
life by lightning striking it as Dasa pointed out. Dasa is not as crazy as
many of us have thought.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DasaI was not talking about semantics but knowledge and what you can infer.
No need to get bogged down in semantics.
Life cannot spontaneously come into being without there being life to begin with.
Atheistic science is saying life came from non life.
They say it came from a primordial soup of chemicals after a lightning bolt struck.
Chemicals by themselves cannot produce life.
Life is a spiritual phenomena and not material.
You said that we see always life coming from life.
And then argued this meant life could only come from life.
I said that no, what this meant was that self replicating life is self replicating.
It doesn't follow that because life can self replicate that doesn't mean that life
can't be formed by something other than life.
There are a host of posited scenario's under which life might have formed,
some of which include lightning.
Ah now we get to the heart of your position.
You are claiming (and correct me if I understand this wrong) that life has a spiritual
element that animates the otherwise dead matter and makes it live.
And because only life (or god) can create the spirit that that is why non-life can't
form into life.
My response is prove the existence of the spirit.
No test has ever demonstrated the existence of spirit (or souls)
and there is plenty of evidence that our experience of the world is entirely due to the
workings of our brains.
Your argument seems to hang entirely on the assertion that life needs spirit.
Until you can prove the existence and necessity of spirit then your argument has no
evidentiary foundation.
Originally posted by googlefudgeLOL trust me, you're far more insane in thinking life can come from non-life. I am defending the logic that it can not be, and you are trying to convince me other wise, that is crazy stuff.
If you don't want to be classed in the same group as dasa, stop saying such intensely inane things.
Originally posted by googlefudgeWith anyones brain switched on or off, abiogenesis is a load of nonsense, even a person with no brain can tell that lie.
You are talking complete gibberish.
Read my posts again with your brain switched on.
Evolution is something LIFE DOES.
Thus if you are trying to explain how NON LIFE became life it can't be part of evolution because you are not talking about life.
As soon as life does form however then it can and does start evolving.
Non-life becoming life is not part of evolution. It never has been.
Get over it.
All this talk is making me realize that people believing in science are all damn crazy. Science can mean various stuff, not JUST evolution.
Originally posted by NickstenWith anyones brain switched on or off, abiogenesis is a load of nonsense...
With anyones brain switched on or off, abiogenesis is a load of nonsense, even a person with no brain can tell that lie.
All this talk is making me realize that people believing in science are all damn crazy. Science can mean various stuff, not JUST evolution.
You can switch your brain on and off? Why don't you... er, no, never mind.
...even a person with no brain can tell that lie.
I hesitate to ask how you know this...
All this talk is making me realize that people believing in science are all damn crazy.
Ah. Erm... golly.
Science can mean various stuff, not JUST evolution.
Well done on that one, anyway.
Originally posted by googlefudgeFrom what i read it looks like you want to compare apples with oranges....scientific behaviour i geuss.
I see light coming from a light bulb, does this mean that light can come from light bulbs?
The fact that life is self replicating does not mean that life can't form from non-life it just means that life is self replicating.
The reason you don't see non-life forming into new life today (it might be happening, we just haven't detected it) is a select ...[text shortened]... justify your leap from "we see life making more life" to "life can only come from life"?
Nothing can compare to "life can come from non-life". YES life is self replicating heck else we would not have been here today and yes cells clone themselves like we wouldn't even know.
Life could not have just come from nothing/non-life. It is just at this point where the argument is googlefudge...this is where your brain stops to think just that one little thought.....who created life, not what. It is at this point where science wants to play god in saying crazy stuff like "life comes from non-life"... Science in itself is amazing, you are just to blind to see the real truth behind all the lies...
Would you for example think it a good idea for me to find a Muslim to find out more about the bible and Christianity?
Do you think the picture of Christianity i would get from this person would accurately reflect what you believe/say?
Good question but i must say poor effort! You are obviously a good person to have a debate with but now my question is...why the heck ask a muslim to explain you Christianity? You are purposely trying to find inaccurate data. To find out about Christianity ask a Christian, to find out stuff about science, ask a scientist who is a Christian... I can go on but i think you get the picture.
There will be NO TRUE CHRISTIAN that believes in abiogenesis nor evolution thus there will be no need for me to ask a scientist anything about those subjects because it is in conflict with our believes, if i do ask, i am asking fools and if i believe what they're saying is true, i become a zombie........trying to infect humankind with the lie of evolution which includes the start of it...abiogenesis.