Just don't try to dodge God's responsibility for creating genes that cause cancers in children and young mothers.
That's right, f you are going to claim an allmighty God then it can be held accountable for anything.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abiogenisis
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Then why do you think you can argue against what scientists conclude?
OK, this is a claim. What other domain is there, and show us it exists in reality, not in human imagination.
Right, actual evidence. Objectivity. Minimal assumptions. Reality.
Do any of these suggest a problem?
What box are we supposed to come out of? What exists outside this metaphorical box that can be confirmed to exist objectively? You created a bold challeneg here, you are accusing thinkers of some fault, so you had better have actual evidence to back this up, otherwise it is just a bluff.
What is the mistake?
Blind to what, excactly? If there was something there, science would be using it in work, so show us facts that science is missing, and it had better not be religious belief.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That works. But some Christians are bound and determined to tell God how he had to make the world rather than seeing what God's creation says about that.
If you hear the atheists are trying to "disprove God" with abiogenesis that person has no clue. And if you hear an atheist say "Abiogenesis disproves God" that atheist also has no clue.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Yes, because mine is much more uninformed
nPeace
Veteran Member
nPeace
Veteran Member
Oh. I didn't know. You spoke as if you were informed. Now I know.Yes, because mine is much more uninformed
nPeace
Veteran Member
Then you obviously did not read the information. I suggest you do.
It was peer reviewed and others attempted to verify by experiments.
If you have no data supporting your claims, I suggest you stop babbling.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
On the origin of life? If that's what you're asking about....
My view is that at present, it's a mystery, which is why it's still being investigated. But I'm also fairly (but not absolutely) confident that the first life on earth arose via natural means. My reasons are: 1) no matter where we've looked on earth and in the universe all we see are natural processes at work, so by obvious inference it's reasonable to figure the origin of life was no different; 2) we have very good evidence to conclude that the first life forms were single-celled organisms, and no matter what unicellular organisms we study today, everything we see going on inside them is natural chemistry, which supports the notion that life first arose via natural chemistry; and, 3) as it stands (and has stood for a long time) there are no viable alternatives.
Put together, I feel those are good justification for my position.
Now of course I also acknowledge I could be wrong. Maybe tomorrow I'll wake up to a headline saying that the James Webb telescope has captured images of gods at work, or that paleontologists have found a fossil of a modern human that's 4 billion years old, or some other massive game-changing discovery that flips everything on its head.
But as it stands, no such discoveries have been made nor do they seem to be looming on the horizon.
Agreed.
That's always possible, but IMO isn't very likely.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Are you talking about spontaneous generation? I am very sure that it was never peer reviewed. Peer review for all of the sciences is a rather recent standard. It became one during the twentieth century, even though there were instances of it before then. But if you are going to make that claim that spontaneous generation was peer reviewed you need to link the article.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Science details earths mass history first.
Seeing you are standing on a planet applying human only theories...not universal terms ever.
Reason. The mass you changed was formed by law of the whole universe. Messed with your head by feedback you caused machine transmitters only earth scientists built use. When you opened spaces sun sin holes in earth mass.
Self mind of science possession historic.
Man says....earth was attacked by its mass. First position I think about the sun. Why earth owns gas light.
Mass trying to replace itself sun mass versus cold mass earth left bored out holes tunnels in earth. Did not replace any mass.
Thesis said it's how I explained a sun mass does not replace in laws. Intent human. Sun owned no intent. Humans always express intent.
Warned you don't talk on behalf of mass as if it's conscious. Yet you did.
Science knew. The sun Trying to replace earths position had removed earths position.
Conversion you said.
So you said water flooding a law saved earths mass as it applied cooling as it rained and rained until all indentations were filled up including flat land.
As flat land owned seas too.
Not science terms in any condition of a human thinking. Not science.
So then you wanted science.
To practice.
Man wasn't a researcher first. He was a theist.
Theism direct to build his God type a machine. Is exact science as human only terms. The destroyer warning.
So not God his machine.
Using machine only conditions as man does not own mass. He caused fall out above and below.
He made sin holes open in earth it began leeching chemical substances as proven.
Water with masses of living biology already including our own enters into the unsealing of earth. So life had not preceded that event. Of substance changes.
Your life had preceded the event. As the substance hadn't existed first. Yes man says science can cause natural substance change. You actuated it scientist. Is what you lie about today
Claimed the flood over mountain mass disintegrating saved life on earth. In full knowledge you changed earths Alchemy yourselves. Living water saved all things.
So when you remove chemistry of course in living water which you live within the microbes water historic owned are still there. Having preceded your science caused Alchemy.
Which you were already told.
Seeing you are standing on a planet applying human only theories...not universal terms ever.
Reason. The mass you changed was formed by law of the whole universe. Messed with your head by feedback you caused machine transmitters only earth scientists built use. When you opened spaces sun sin holes in earth mass.
Self mind of science possession historic.
Man says....earth was attacked by its mass. First position I think about the sun. Why earth owns gas light.
Mass trying to replace itself sun mass versus cold mass earth left bored out holes tunnels in earth. Did not replace any mass.
Thesis said it's how I explained a sun mass does not replace in laws. Intent human. Sun owned no intent. Humans always express intent.
Warned you don't talk on behalf of mass as if it's conscious. Yet you did.
Science knew. The sun Trying to replace earths position had removed earths position.
Conversion you said.
So you said water flooding a law saved earths mass as it applied cooling as it rained and rained until all indentations were filled up including flat land.
As flat land owned seas too.
Not science terms in any condition of a human thinking. Not science.
So then you wanted science.
To practice.
Man wasn't a researcher first. He was a theist.
Theism direct to build his God type a machine. Is exact science as human only terms. The destroyer warning.
So not God his machine.
Using machine only conditions as man does not own mass. He caused fall out above and below.
He made sin holes open in earth it began leeching chemical substances as proven.
Water with masses of living biology already including our own enters into the unsealing of earth. So life had not preceded that event. Of substance changes.
Your life had preceded the event. As the substance hadn't existed first. Yes man says science can cause natural substance change. You actuated it scientist. Is what you lie about today
Claimed the flood over mountain mass disintegrating saved life on earth. In full knowledge you changed earths Alchemy yourselves. Living water saved all things.
So when you remove chemistry of course in living water which you live within the microbes water historic owned are still there. Having preceded your science caused Alchemy.
Which you were already told.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I was looking at this article, and here are some takeaways.
Oh, in case you think this was written by a layman... it was written by an astrophysicist.
Takeaways:
- Models and theories in science, are representations and approximations of reality as scientist see it. Not truth.
- Scientific theories change with time. New information and data, updates current beliefs. How can a belief be true if it is subject to change at a moment's notice? It is not truth.
- Interpretations of observations are flawed and subject to bias and experimental uncertainty. Some observations can be flat out wrong. Far from the truth.
- Science is not truth.
I'm interested in truth. What are you after.... explanations that may be wrong; are uncertain; can change, and continue changing even after you die, so that what you died believing to be true, actually wasn't?
Well, keep living in the box, if you are happy with that.
I'm not.
I'm happy with truths that can be proven every single day, and will not change.
I'm happy with the fact that living with that in mind, and acting on that knowledge, gives me a title deed *(ὑπόστασις - hupostasis (assured expectation)) - a guarantee to realities, though not seen at present - Hebrews 11:1. So that if I should die, I didn't die believing in explanations that were far from the truth, but in truths which hold with it, a reality beyond death.
Regardless, of the future reality, I am happy with the truth now, because it brings tremendous benefits now.
Here are some examples of benefits that come from those truths, which science can never, and does not ever attempt to address. Perhaps I shouldn't say 'does not even attempt'. If, or when they do they fail.
:smallbluealmond: Living by Bible standards makes one a better person.
Romans 12:17-21
More than a third of the world’s adults are worried or stressed, according to a new poll that’s found 2018 to be a record year for negative emotions.
And we're losing our temper more than ever - 22% of adults admitting they feel angry, a record since Gallup started collecting data in 2005.
And we're losing our temper more than ever - 22% of adults admitting they feel angry, a record since Gallup started collecting data in 2005.
1 Corinthians 6:18
A high number of sexual partners in a person's life usually means they are at a higher risk of sexually transmitted infections and life-threatening cancers. These costs largely pertain to the dramatic consequences to physical and mental health. The physical health risks mainly consist of the sexually transmitted disease risks, such as HIV and AIDS, that increase as individuals have develop sexual partners over their lifetime. The mental health risks typically associated with promiscuous individuals are mood, and personality disorders, often resulting in substance use disorders and, or permanent illness. These effects typically translate into several other long-term issues in people's lives and in their relationships, especially in the case of adolescents or those with previous pathological illnesses, disorders, or factors such as family dysfunction and social stress.
Promiscuity in adolescents
Adolescent birth rate per 1000 women, 2007–2012
The prevalence of promiscuity, in the case of adolescents, is known to be a root cause for many physical, mental, and socio-economic risks. Research has found that adolescents, in particular, are at a higher risk of negative consequences as a result of promiscuity.
In sub-Saharan Africa, adolescents engaged in promiscuous activities face many health and economic risks related to teenage pregnancy, maternal mortality, labor complications, and loss of educational opportunities.
Promiscuity in adolescents
Adolescent birth rate per 1000 women, 2007–2012
The prevalence of promiscuity, in the case of adolescents, is known to be a root cause for many physical, mental, and socio-economic risks. Research has found that adolescents, in particular, are at a higher risk of negative consequences as a result of promiscuity.
In sub-Saharan Africa, adolescents engaged in promiscuous activities face many health and economic risks related to teenage pregnancy, maternal mortality, labor complications, and loss of educational opportunities.
I could list about a dozen, or more, and extend it to further evidence, which involves observations, which can be, and are verified, by others.
It's not simply personal experience, in other words.
Christians don't actually need science to point out things which everyone can observe, and even experiment with for themselves.
These lead to truth.
Oh, and we are not responsible for the blindsided - those who wear blinkers, and stick their head in a box.
A principle is a fundamental truth, which cannot change.
I live by Bible principles, and the results are 100% verifiable. If anyone has doubts, the objections or questions are 100% testable.
Science cannot tell me how to live, and which way of life results in meaningful and lasting benefits.
The Bible does.
*
HELPS Word-studies
5287 hypóstasis(from 5259 /hypó, "under" and 2476 /hístēmi, "to stand") – properly, (to possess) standing under a guaranteed agreement ("title-deed"); (figuratively) "title" to a promise or property, i.e. a legitimate claim (because it literally is, "under a legal-standing") – entitling someone to what is guaranteed under the particular agreement.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oooh! Look at all of the straws that I gathered while ignoring all of the flaws of religious beliefs especially the flaws of a religion that meets most of the benchmarks for a cult.
I do not think that anyone will be impressed with this "reasoning".
Notice that the article asks what Truth is, but never answers it. Just like faith the word truth has numerous definitions. What the author means by his usage is philosophy and theology, both are subjective truth, not objective truth. Because this usage of truth is subjective, and non-factual, it is irrelevant to science. This article was written to confuse believers like yourself, and tyo bolster a prejudice against science. The author might be a scientists but I suspect he is a fervent believer. My uncle was a chemist and also a creationist. He was able to do research because he learned the science, but he had confused beliefs about reality. Michael Behe is a biologist and a creationist, and he has lost jobs due to his religious beliefs. These fringe scintists are irrelevant in the big picture. But they are a sort of laughing stock among critical thinkers.
So you say you are interested in truth? Your posts back you up. You are interested in your religious truth that is not objective or factual, and in many ways contradicts facts and science. So to say you are interested in truth is ironic, because you are actually interested in your belief, not having an understanding about what is true about reality. Your bullet points above betray your true intent, and it isn't knowledge.
I have a lot of obsolete science books and it is fun to see what they report of science back in the 50's or 60's. Science is the best source of knowing what is true about the universe, and it gets more accurate and vrecise over time. It's not like a Quran and goes unchanged for centuries (I would have said the Bible but it has suffered through edits and additions over the last 2000 years). Oddly your religion has changed and transformed as well, so your "truth" is not as stable as your believe. It has changed a great deal over the many centuries, in cluding buring people alive for witchcraft, so be careful.
More irony. You are in a religious box that you wont question. The science literate understand science gets more accurate over time as it gathers more facts, data, and better instruments. That requires an open mind. You don't even accept evolution, so what sort of closed mind does that require? A religious one.
You work harder to justify your religious beleif than you do to understand science.
No, science and reason is based on evidence, faith is based on personal whim.
No they don't. Scientists have to work within a strict methodological standard that eliminates any personal desires or bias. Science has ethical standards, religion does not. Science has to use facts and all the data it collects, religion doesn't care about either.
More misleading misrepresentations that illustrates how little you know about science. You don't even care to learn.
A straw man, nPeace?It probably did happen, because it could have happened. There. There is your evidence.
No! The point is, it "probably happened" because it DID happen, life appeared on a lifeless planet. We both seem to agree on that.
Life from lifelessness is abiogenesis, by definition. Both the religious and the scientific believe in abiogenesis, the only question is mechanism.
Science is exploring a promising mechanism. Religion is not.
Religion claims God did it, but God is not a mechanism, it's an agent. Religion is trying to compare apples and oranges.
Only science is researching mechanism. Religion is researching... nothing.
Creationists attempt to bolster creationism's a priori beliefs by undermining science and the scientific method; attacking science's methodology, premises, minutiae of research findings, and character. It offers no objective evidence in support of its own claims of God and magic.
The religious have difficulty in recognizing that science is fundamentally different from religious faith. They seem to see it as a competing, faith-based religion.
And here is an example of religion's attempt to undermine science by mischaracterizing the claims, reasoning and assumptions of science. nPeace has here constructed another straw man.
Last edited:
Brian2 said: ↑
And that would happen when science succeeds in making artificial life.
Artificial cell - Wikipedia
Protocell - Wikipedia
And that would happen when science succeeds in making artificial life.
Scientists are already creating artificial life forms, to explore the various proposed structural models, physiological functions and replication mechanisms of proto-life.
Artificial cell - Wikipedia
Protocell - Wikipedia
We Never Know
No Slack
Good. Then the whole arguement is over. Its time to move on
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Maybe for you. Others, as you can see on this page, still do not get it.
QUOTE="PureX says:
And what's this 'unknown chemistry'? Are you proposing 'what if' scenarios in which Goddidit is a reasonable mechanism, or alternative chemistries and laws of physics where current biological findings don't obtain?
I think all we're saying is that the scientific method has proved the best and most productive research modality ever discovered. Are you trying to undermine the findings of science or laws of physics/chemistry in an effort to bolster some itself-unevidenced alternative mythology?
Not following... what sort of alien intelligence? A God? Trans-dimensional mice?
And what's this 'unknown chemistry'? Are you proposing 'what if' scenarios in which Goddidit is a reasonable mechanism, or alternative chemistries and laws of physics where current biological findings don't obtain?
But who's proposing that science has all the answers? Where is this "scientism?"
I think all we're saying is that the scientific method has proved the best and most productive research modality ever discovered. Are you trying to undermine the findings of science or laws of physics/chemistry in an effort to bolster some itself-unevidenced alternative mythology?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Man's basis of his science claim.
Historic.
Man existed.
He was healthy man natural man knew what mutual balances were.
No machine. No idea machine thesis machine as a design machine to claim science.
Just himself in his owned experience.
Burning star mass not suns origin burning mass came.
Heated above water gases alight burning into its falling fell onto his body. Void vacuum law one way infinite took away the suns attack.
Science calls that condition enlargement in his seeing bio status.
Why how do you think his natural brain knew? He uses machines now to enlarge to look.
The in between causes attacked allowed him awareness of the suns origin mass attack. How to convert mass. Whilst surviving without ground mass actually converting.
The advice lied to him.
As his origin life he lived was within cold gases cooled water said ice.
So he states beyond science today ice was earths saviour.
Yet space vacuum void...old terms it's womb saved earth. Man hence said infinite plus ice...being God typified by a man thinking and it's saviour Inheritor.
For a biologies self advice only.
Isn't any type statement a pre power that changed to be the base energy of anything.
Instead the base energy of everything was mass destroyed leaving various residues as what is left.
Why it's varied.
As space owned why any type form is present. Yet space the condition keeps it separated.
Very holy men. Natural men. Suffering men stated legally no man is God.
Meant what they stated by correlated studied facts.
Historic.
Man existed.
He was healthy man natural man knew what mutual balances were.
No machine. No idea machine thesis machine as a design machine to claim science.
Just himself in his owned experience.
Burning star mass not suns origin burning mass came.
Heated above water gases alight burning into its falling fell onto his body. Void vacuum law one way infinite took away the suns attack.
Science calls that condition enlargement in his seeing bio status.
Why how do you think his natural brain knew? He uses machines now to enlarge to look.
The in between causes attacked allowed him awareness of the suns origin mass attack. How to convert mass. Whilst surviving without ground mass actually converting.
The advice lied to him.
As his origin life he lived was within cold gases cooled water said ice.
So he states beyond science today ice was earths saviour.
Yet space vacuum void...old terms it's womb saved earth. Man hence said infinite plus ice...being God typified by a man thinking and it's saviour Inheritor.
For a biologies self advice only.
Isn't any type statement a pre power that changed to be the base energy of anything.
Instead the base energy of everything was mass destroyed leaving various residues as what is left.
Why it's varied.
As space owned why any type form is present. Yet space the condition keeps it separated.
Very holy men. Natural men. Suffering men stated legally no man is God.
Meant what they stated by correlated studied facts.