Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[b]With anyones brain switched on or off, abiogenesis is a load of nonsense...

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 cr ...[text shortened]...

[b]Science can mean various stuff, not JUST evolution.

Well done on that one, anyway.[/b]

Oh yeah, i forgot there are minors on this site like yourself which dont understand a thing we're discussing...hence your child like comment...

Originally posted by Nicksten
Oh yeah, i forgot there are minors on this site like yourself which dont understand a thing we're discussing...hence your child like comment...

I am flattered by your appraisal of my age, my learned friend.

Originally posted by Nicksten
From what i read it looks like you want to compare apples with oranges....scientific behaviour i geuss.

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 ...[text shortened]... o infect humankind with the lie of evolution which includes the start of it...abiogenesis.

The point I was making, and you have spectacularly failed to grasp, is that a website run by people trying to discredit an idea
is not the best place to find out what that idea is.

Irrespective of whether you agree with an idea.
If I want to find out what Christians think (or what a particular subset of Christians think) I would ask them, not a Muslim or Hindu
(or atheist who was never a member of that religion)

I don't agree with what you believe, but to find out exactly what it is you believe I should ask you not someone else.

Thus my example about asking a Muslim on his opinion about the bible and Christianity.

You identified with the fact that that is absurd. Why would you ask a Muslim about Christianity... you wouldn't.

well done...

but what you failed to spot is that by asking people who don't believe in, and are trying to discredit, science in general and evolution
in particular, to find out about science and evolution, you are doing the exact same thing.

These people are either mistaken or are lying (as in the website RJHinds linked that started this off) about what evolutionary theory is.
So by using them as your source of information about what it is (not whether it is true or you should believe it, but about what it actually is)
You are getting erroneous information.
So you land up arguing against a position or idea that your opponent doesn't actually hold (a straw man argument).

It would be like me claiming the bible says the moon is made of cheese, we've been there, it isn't, thus Christianity is wrong....


I am saying that if you want to know what people who don't think and believe like you think, so you can argue against it or whatever,
you have to actually ask the people who hold the idea what it is, not other people who are trying to shoot it down.



My light bulb argument was simply pointing out the logical fallacy of claiming that because you only see life coming from life in the world around
you that life is the only source of life. It might be, but the simple observation that you have only seen life coming from other life doesn't prove
that life can only come from other life.

Since then dasa has clarified (I think) that his real argument is that life requires spirit and that only life or god can create this.
Which while an unjustified statement of faith is at least a logically consistent one.

Originally posted by Nicksten
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.

The point I was trying to make, and get you to understand, is that evolutionary theory,
does not contain, cover, or deal with, how life formed in the first place.

Regardless of what you think about how life can or can not come into existence.
And regardless of whether you believe in evolution by natural selection.

Evolutionary theory does not say how life formed.
Because as I said, several times, evolution by natural selection applies to life forms.
Something has to self replicate, and make (slightly inaccurate) copies of itself for the process
of evolution to apply.
If something is not self replicating it can't be life and can't evolve.
Thus when people claim that the formation of life should be explained by evolution they are
wrong regardless of whether evolution is right or not.

I am not trying to make you believe in evolution, I am not stupid enough to think that is likely
enough to be worth trying. I am trying to get you to understand what the theory is, and what
it is not.

So that at least the thing you don't believe in is actually evolution, and not some creationists
half baked ideas about what it is.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I was not talking about semantics but knowledge and what you can infer.

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 e the existence and necessity of spirit then your argument has no
evidentiary foundation.

Bodies do not replicate in and of themselves.

The soul (the life principle) enters the womb by way of the particle of semen - and because the soul is the life giving principle the body develops.

The body is just chemicals - and without the soul the chemicals can do nothing.

Without the soul the body is dead.

In fact - death is when the soul has left the body.

If the body can live without the soul - then science could get those same chemicals and make a living body (like Frankenstein) but science cannot do this.

Science cannot detect the soul with material apparatus.

The soul is detected by purified intelligence.

The symptom of the soul is consciousness.

NO soul ............then no consciousness.

Can science produce consciousness?.................NO

Consciousness comes from the soul.

You are consciousness and awareness............this is what you are.

You are not that rotting material body.

Science that does not have this knowledge - is pseudo science.

Originally posted by Dasa
Bodies do not replicate in and of themselves.

The soul (the life principle) enters the womb by way of the particle of semen - and because the soul is the life giving principle the body develops.

The body is just chemicals - and without the soul the chemicals can do nothing.

Without the soul the body is dead.

In fact - death is when the soul has left ...[text shortened]... usness and awareness............this is what you are.

You are not that rotting material body.

"Bodies do not replicate in and of themselves.

The soul (the life principle) enters the womb by way of the particle of semen - and because the soul is the life giving principle the body develops.

The body is just chemicals - and without the soul the chemicals can do nothing."


Chemicals (+energy) do stuff all the time, without anything but the laws of physics guiding their actions.

You make several assertions of fact here, and I want to know what your evidence is that they are true, or your reasoning for asserting they are true.



"If the body can live without the soul - then science could get those same chemicals and make a living body (like Frankenstein) but science cannot do this."

Science can't yet do this.
Everything science can do or know today once could not be done or was unknown.
The fact that we can't do something yet does not mean it can't be done ever.

There are some things that can't be done ever because they contravene the laws of physics.

If you want to convince me that your claim that science can't ever build a person (or any life form,
as once you can build a simple one the rest is just scaling up the complexity) from scratch, then
you need to show me a logical argument or evidence to show that it is not just 'not currently possible'
but contravenes the laws of physics and can't ever be done.

I wont accept simple assertions of fact, because it's possible to claim anything.

Evidence and reason must be employed.



"Science cannot detect the soul with material apparatus.

The soul is detected by purified intelligence.

The symptom of the soul is consciousness.

NO soul ............then no consciousness.

Can science produce consciousness?.................NO

Consciousness comes from the soul.

You are consciousness and awareness............this is what you are.

You are not that rotting material body."


Again you make more assertions that you don't back up with reasons.
You just state things as true with no rhyme not reason as to why.

If you want to convince me that what you say here is true, then you need to provide
evidence and/or good sound logical argument for why those assertions are true.

If you want to make a claim, such as life needs spirit, then you need to back that up with
a reason for why it is true.
I am not just going to buy it because you (or anyone else) say so.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]"Bodies do not replicate in and of themselves.

The soul (the life principle) enters the womb by way of the particle of semen - and because the soul is the life giving principle the body develops.

The body is just chemicals - and without the soul the chemicals can do nothing."


Chemicals (+energy) do stuff all the time, with ...[text shortened]... it is true.
I am not just going to buy it because you (or anyone else) say so.[/b]

Just read the Holy Bible, which talks about the body, soul, and spirit
of man. It may not happen exactly like he says, but he is closer than
your idea of how life began from a bunch of chemicals struck by
lightening or whatever you believe. You can't back up yor claim with
absolute proof either. So stop your dishonesty.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The point I was making, and you have spectacularly failed to grasp, is that a website run by people trying to discredit an idea
is not the best place to find out what that idea is.

Irrespective of whether you agree with an idea.
If I want to find out what Christians think (or what a particular subset of Christians think) I would ask them, not a Mus ...[text shortened]... .
Which while an unjustified statement of faith is at least a logically consistent one.

Okay, I get it, a bit slow on my side, but only now understand your argument.

The way we both look for sources will be at the place we think we'd find it best at that point in time. Me following the Christianity path will follow studies done by Christians (most of the time) and you would follow your path. It however is sad if I think that someone can't see God at the start of this all....not only there, but God is still here, some just can't see or feel Him.

Look, parts of science is great and I don't even think that Dasa will disagree, but we disagree on the fact that parts science are making claims , without evidence, stuff like "life formed from non-life". I totally agree with Dasa that life can not exist without a soul, but this is obvious that a plant life will not have a soul. I don't know about the animals - this is another argument.

i am sure that science can maybe take something alive and make another living thing, for example mixing eggs and sperm of animals to get a different species of animals, but science will not be able to do this with dead cells/sperm/eggs. As I said, parts of science is excellent, not the part if it playing the role of God though.

Originally posted by Dasa
Bodies do not replicate in and of themselves.

The soul (the life principle) enters the womb by way of the particle of semen - and because the soul is the life giving principle the body develops.

The body is just chemicals - and without the soul the chemicals can do nothing.

Without the soul the body is dead.

In fact - death is when the soul has left ...[text shortened]... ot that rotting material body.

Science that does not have this knowledge - is pseudo science.

Bodies do not replicate in and of themselves.
Dasa, I have to disagree. My body heals itself after being sick or even after a scratch. Just those simple examples provided enough evidence that we "replicate" or if some want to get technical "heal". The base is that we've automatically replaced skin etc. Also, as we speak, millions of cells in your body is dying and replaced by newer cells...

There is a very fine line here....

But... I agree, bodies can not replicate themselve.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Just read the Holy Bible, which talks about the body, soul, and spirit
of man. It may not happen exactly like he says, but he is closer than
your idea of how life began from a bunch of chemicals struck by
lightening or whatever you believe. You can't back up yor claim with
absolute proof either. So stop your dishonesty.

If only it would be that easy to get people reading the Bible...and then believing in it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]"Bodies do not replicate in and of themselves.

The soul (the life principle) enters the womb by way of the particle of semen - and because the soul is the life giving principle the body develops.

The body is just chemicals - and without the soul the chemicals can do nothing."


Chemicals (+energy) do stuff all the time, with ...[text shortened]... it is true.
I am not just going to buy it because you (or anyone else) say so.[/b]

My comments and statements are from the Authority the Veda.

The Veda is eternal and gives us spiritual knowledge which cannot become available from speculation.

You may speculate for a trillion years and never come to the platform of true knowledge.

When science tells us they can create life.........this is called the BIG BLUFF.

Originally posted by Nicksten
[b]Bodies do not replicate in and of themselves.
Dasa, I have to disagree. My body heals itself after being sick or even after a scratch. Just those simple examples provided enough evidence that we "replicate" or if some want to get technical "heal". The base is that we've automatically replaced skin etc. Also, as we speak, millions of cells in your bo ...[text shortened]...
There is a very fine line here....

But... I agree, bodies can not replicate themselve.[/b]

But why does the body heal itself?

Because the soul which is intelligent and creative and aware and conscious has power.........spiritual power.

The soul is the healing principle.

A dead body cannot heal itself.

The cells are dying and being replace by the direction of the soul and the super soul - and they are not doing this under their own volition.

Chemicals cannot arrange themselves into functional useful arrangements - without the spiritual principle acting.

Nothing in this universe can act without the sanction of the spiritual principle.

Originally posted by Dasa
My comments and statements are from the Authority the Veda.

The Veda is eternal and gives us spiritual knowledge which cannot become available from speculation.

You may speculate for a trillion years and never come to the platform of true knowledge.

When science tells us they can create life.........this is called the BIG BLUFF.

ohhh, and you were doing so well.

The vedas are not proof of anything other than their own existence.
You know I know this, which Is why you agreed to debate without mentioning them.

Oh well back to square one.

Looks like you can't restrain yourself.

Or create a logical argument.

Originally posted by Dasa
But why does the body heal itself?

Because the soul which is intelligent and creative and aware and conscious has power.........spiritual power.

The soul is the healing principle.

A dead body cannot heal itself.

The cells are dying and being replace by the direction of the soul and the super soul - and they are not doing this under their own voliti ...[text shortened]... ple acting.

Nothing in this universe can act without the sanction of the spiritual principle.

I agree but, God is the true healer. The soul can not heal itself nor the body unless it is God's will at that point in time - this is my opinion.

Originally posted by Nicksten
I agree but, God is the true healer. The soul can not heal itself nor the body unless it is God's will at that point in time - this is my opinion.

Yes God is the true healer - because the Super Soul (God) and the individual soul (you and me) - are eternally connected to God - and this is why the individual soul can never be destroyed and has the power of life that it does have.

Its like the sun-rays of the sun are permanently connected to the sun - and the sun-rays would not ever exist independently from the sun.

So in this way the individual soul can never exist independently from God and is always connected to God but always remains individual.

Understanding this - is wonderfully powerful and liberating......and it is absolutely true.