[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]orion wrote:<<< Absence if proof is not proof of absence. [/quote]No, absence of proof means believing anyway is faith.[/quote]Yeah, but noone does that in this case. [/quote]Probability in a logical vacuum void of certainty is meaningless. Without faith that is.
[/quote]
I dont even know what that means. [/quote]
You’re not alone. Me either.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]orion wrote:<<< Absence if proof is not proof of absence. [/quote]No, absence of proof means believing anyway is faith.[/quote]Yeah, but noone does that in this case. [/quote]Probability in a logical vacuum void of certainty is meaningless. Without faith that is.
[/quote]
I dont even know what that means. [/quote]
You’re not alone. Me either.[/quote]
Cool.
We are the two dumb blonds of this here forum.
Lets giggle a bit and then go to the restrooms together.
[quote]Cortes wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Probability in a logical vacuum void of certainty is meaningless. Without faith that is.[/quote]This short 14 word statement contains the absolute essence of truth. It actually obliterates most of the arguments that have been made so far in this thread. And it will be skimmed over and then ignored by the very people who most need to read it. [/quote]You will always have a special place in my heart. I was rereading some of those old threads the past few days and despite our glaring differences? You have always been a most worthy and substantive conversationalist Cortes.
When I read responses from you like this one. I wanna get on a plane, fly to wherever you are over there, give you a big hug and a kiss (on the cheek =] ) and then shake you mercilessly by the shirt while begging you to THINK about what you have just agreed to. Yes. The foundations of thought itself is where EVERYBODY goes wrong. They PRACTICE rock hard certainty every second they breathe while INTELLECTUALLY denying it right at it’s root at the very same time. All the while not even realizing it =] You DO see that. It is my job, in the grace and humility (a struggle for me) of the Lord our God to help THEM see it. Whether they do or not is not up to me. It is also not up to me to compromise the message to make it more attractive. I’m simply commanded to tell them. The Holy Spirit does the rest as He may or may not see fit.
[quote]orion wrote:<<< Lets giggle a bit and then go to the restroom together.[/quote]LOLOLOL!!! This is your best one since the dog and lamp post zinger LOL!!!
It’s all in that document I linked Matty to guys. I really don’t try to be an ass around here. I am however unshakably certain of what I’m talkin about. I’ve been talkin about it for well over 20 years and that’s about when I heard my last new argument against it. Cortes can explain too if he gets back and is so inclined. I have chest tri’s and shoulders and some errands.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
We are the two dumb blonds of this here forum.
[/quote]
Sorry, Joe, but I’ve been to the Nav reservation and no blondes were present to behold.[/quote]
Lies, I am from the lost Navajo tribe that secretly sailed to Europe.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
And how is “scientists are still working on it” any different from “God did it”? That is the epitome of blind faith.[/quote]
To admit that you dont know and probably never will is the epitome of blind faith?
For your reading pleasure:
[/quote]
No. To believe something is true in spite of contradictory observations while hoping that scientists will answer the problem in the future is blind faith.
In this case we have never observed spontaneous formation of life and we have the law of biogenesis to overcome.
[/quote]
Absence if proof is not proof of absence. [/quote]
I agree. In this case however, there is no absence of proof. Every time we see life originating it comes from existing life. So the argument for abiogenesis goes against the evidence.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
And how is “scientists are still working on it” any different from “God did it”? That is the epitome of blind faith.[/quote]
To admit that you dont know and probably never will is the epitome of blind faith?
For your reading pleasure:
[/quote]
No. To believe something is true in spite of contradictory observations while hoping that scientists will answer the problem in the future is blind faith.
In this case we have never observed spontaneous formation of life and we have the law of biogenesis to overcome.
[/quote]
Absence if proof is not proof of absence. [/quote]
I agree. In this case however, there is no absence of proof. Every time we see life originating it comes from existing life. So the argument for abiogenesis goes against the evidence.
[/quote]
Every time we see means almost never.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And I just noticed, you’re talking about abiogenesis. That’s separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t break down if abiogenesis does. And scientists are still working on abiogenesis. This has been discussed in the thread already.[/quote]
It is not separate from evolution. That is a convenient, self serving, excuse served up so that evolutionists can ignore the obvious problem.
[/quote]
No, that is the very real idea of trying to figure out how thinks work without knowing how it started.
You can do physics just fine without knowing where it all came from, the same id true for biology. [/quote]
Agreed. However, in this case we are debating where it all came from so the question is valid.
[quote]orion wrote:
You are operating under the assumption that science works similar to religion - it does not.
It is not supposed to provide final answers, it is not supposed to make you feel good, it is supposed to provide answers for very specific problems. [/quote]
Nonsense. If science doesn’t provide final answers then it can’t be used to refute religion, can it.
[quote]orion wrote:
How did this whole thing came to be - is one problem…
How does it work now that it is here - is quite another one and incidentally the one the theory of evolution is trying to answer.[/quote]
Rubbish. The theory of evolution is a secular attempt to explain our origins. Again, this means that an explanation for chemical evolution is required, in spite of your objections.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And I just noticed, you’re talking about abiogenesis. That’s separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t break down if abiogenesis does. And scientists are still working on abiogenesis. This has been discussed in the thread already.[/quote]
It is not separate from evolution. That is a convenient, self serving, excuse served up so that evolutionists can ignore the obvious problem.
[/quote]
No, that is the very real idea of trying to figure out how thinks work without knowing how it started.
You can do physics just fine without knowing where it all came from, the same id true for biology. [/quote]
Agreed. However, in this case we are debating where it all came from so the question is valid.
[quote]orion wrote:
You are operating under the assumption that science works similar to religion - it does not.
It is not supposed to provide final answers, it is not supposed to make you feel good, it is supposed to provide answers for very specific problems. [/quote]
Nonsense. If science doesn’t provide final answers then it can’t be used to refute religion, can it.
[quote]orion wrote:
How did this whole thing came to be - is one problem…
How does it work now that it is here - is quite another one and incidentally the one the theory of evolution is trying to answer.[/quote]
Rubbish. The theory of evolution is a secular attempt to explain our origins. Again, this means that an explanation for chemical evolution is required, in spite of your objections.
[/quote]
I was not aware that we did. In that case, I dunno.
No, it cannot. Your point?
No its not. It is used that way often, but I am hardly responsible for people who turn science into an ersatz-religion.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
And how is “scientists are still working on it” any different from “God did it”? That is the epitome of blind faith.[/quote]
To admit that you dont know and probably never will is the epitome of blind faith?
For your reading pleasure:
[/quote]
No. To believe something is true in spite of contradictory observations while hoping that scientists will answer the problem in the future is blind faith.
In this case we have never observed spontaneous formation of life and we have the law of biogenesis to overcome.
[/quote]
Absence if proof is not proof of absence. [/quote]
I agree. In this case however, there is no absence of proof. Every time we see life originating it comes from existing life. So the argument for abiogenesis goes against the evidence.
[/quote]
Every time we see means almost never. [/quote]
Huh? There were 4 million births in the US last year. All of them (100%) show that life originates from life.
From Wikipedia “Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.”
Science can refute certain types of religious beliefs. When we found out what makes volcanoe do what it does, science refuted the idea that Vulcan caused volcanic eruptions. Now as far as first causes go, science has nothing on that.
So you don’t need final answers to refute certain religious positions. Religion just shouldn’t be used to explain natural phenomena or were back to the stone ages with beliefs like that one about Vulcan or Sun gods and that kind of thing if deny rationality and observability to the physical world.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
And how is “scientists are still working on it” any different from “God did it”? That is the epitome of blind faith.[/quote]
To admit that you dont know and probably never will is the epitome of blind faith?
For your reading pleasure:
[/quote]
No. To believe something is true in spite of contradictory observations while hoping that scientists will answer the problem in the future is blind faith.
In this case we have never observed spontaneous formation of life and we have the law of biogenesis to overcome.
[/quote]
Absence if proof is not proof of absence. [/quote]
I agree. In this case however, there is no absence of proof. Every time we see life originating it comes from existing life. So the argument for abiogenesis goes against the evidence.
[/quote]
Every time we see means almost never. [/quote]
Huh? There were 4 million births in the US last year. All of them (100%) show that life originates from life.
From Wikipedia “Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.”
[/quote]
As I said, almost never.
On an entirely different note that would at best prove that humans come from humans.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And I just noticed, you’re talking about abiogenesis. That’s separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t break down if abiogenesis does. And scientists are still working on abiogenesis. This has been discussed in the thread already.[/quote]
It is not separate from evolution. That is a convenient, self serving, excuse served up so that evolutionists can ignore the obvious problem.
And how is “scientists are still working on it” any different from “God did it”? That is the epitome of blind faith.[/quote]
This is just wrong. Evolution is not dependent on origin of life theories, it stands on it’s own. Evolution also is observable and has been observed.[/quote]
Of course evolution is dependent on OOL theories. Without a reproducing life form evolution is dead before it starts.
Can you give an example of evolution being observed? It needs to be of one animal evolving into another not simply speciation.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And I just noticed, you’re talking about abiogenesis. That’s separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t break down if abiogenesis does. And scientists are still working on abiogenesis. This has been discussed in the thread already.[/quote]
It is not separate from evolution. That is a convenient, self serving, excuse served up so that evolutionists can ignore the obvious problem.
And how is “scientists are still working on it” any different from “God did it”? That is the epitome of blind faith.[/quote]
This is just wrong. Evolution is not dependent on origin of life theories, it stands on it’s own. Evolution also is observable and has been observed.[/quote]
Of course evolution is dependent on OOL theories. Without a reproducing life form evolution is dead before it starts.
[/quote]
Pish posh.
Sorry guys, he forced my hands.
And now your getting definitions and vocabulary confused. Spontaneous generation was the idea that everything just poofed into existence. Nothing really transforming into anything, just that it happened.
Abiogenesis as opposed to biogenesis is the idea that first life came from the inorganic. It’s not as much a stretch of the imagination if you look at the evolution of the cosmos. You did get the biogenesis definition right at least. Scientifically, spontaneous generation of life has been disproven again and again. Abiogenesis is being tested using the scientific methods of biology and chemistry and perhaps other fields.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
And how is “scientists are still working on it” any different from “God did it”? That is the epitome of blind faith.[/quote]
To admit that you dont know and probably never will is the epitome of blind faith?
For your reading pleasure:
[/quote]
No. To believe something is true in spite of contradictory observations while hoping that scientists will answer the problem in the future is blind faith.
In this case we have never observed spontaneous formation of life and we have the law of biogenesis to overcome.
[/quote]
Absence if proof is not proof of absence. [/quote]
I agree. In this case however, there is no absence of proof. Every time we see life originating it comes from existing life. So the argument for abiogenesis goes against the evidence.
[/quote]
Every time we see means almost never. [/quote]
Huh? There were 4 million births in the US last year. All of them (100%) show that life originates from life.
From Wikipedia “Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.”
[/quote]
As I said, almost never.
On an entirely different note that would at best prove that humans come from humans.
[/quote]
Huh? Did you even read the post? How is every time equal to almost never?
The example given in the Wikipedia piece was spiders so your last point is refuted immediately.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And now your getting definitions and vocabulary confused. Spontaneous generation was the idea that everything just poofed into existence. Nothing really transforming into anything, just that it happened.
Abiogenesis as opposed to biogenesis is the idea that first life came from the inorganic. It’s not as much a stretch of the imagination if you look at the evolution of the cosmos. You did get the biogenesis definition right at least. Scientifically, spontaneous generation of life has been disproven again and again. Abiogenesis is being tested using the scientific methods of biology and chemistry and perhaps other fields. [/quote]
I haven’t got anything confused. I was pointing out that the faith placed in finding an answer to abiogenesis is contrary to our observations. It is blind faith.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Scientifically, spontaneous generation of life has been disproven again and again. [/quote]
Not even once.
Specific ways might have been.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
…Evolution also is observable and has been observed.[/quote]
Define the evolution you speak of.
Then define the evolution of which you do not speak.
Don’t fail to make the distinction between the two. If you are unsuccessful in your attempt to make the requisite distinction you will have a serious credibility problem on your hands.[/quote]
The evolution I speak of is
[quote]Descent with modification; the idea that living species are descendants of ancestral
species that were diffcrent from the present-day ones; also defined more narrowly as the change in the genetic composition of a population from generation to generation.[/quote]
from Reece biology.
I can’t define what the evolution I don’t speak of is, as it could be an infinite amount of things.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
And how is “scientists are still working on it” any different from “God did it”? That is the epitome of blind faith.[/quote]
To admit that you dont know and probably never will is the epitome of blind faith?
For your reading pleasure:
[/quote]
No. To believe something is true in spite of contradictory observations while hoping that scientists will answer the problem in the future is blind faith.
In this case we have never observed spontaneous formation of life and we have the law of biogenesis to overcome.
[/quote]
Absence if proof is not proof of absence. [/quote]
I agree. In this case however, there is no absence of proof. Every time we see life originating it comes from existing life. So the argument for abiogenesis goes against the evidence.
[/quote]
Every time we see means almost never. [/quote]
Huh? There were 4 million births in the US last year. All of them (100%) show that life originates from life.
From Wikipedia “Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.”
[/quote]
As I said, almost never.
On an entirely different note that would at best prove that humans come from humans.
[/quote]
Huh? Did you even read the post? How is every time equal to almost never?
The example given in the Wikipedia piece was spiders so your last point is refuted immediately.[/quote]
Because every time of all the things you pay attention too means jack shit in the grand scheme of things.
So, you observed like 0,0001 of all new life that came into being.
Whoopdeedoo…