• 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!

Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You were not there with Moses , but you belive..
I am just applying your logic ;)

I don't know why do you insist on 'they weren't there' when we know that Science does not function like that..
Scientists know they were not there when so-called abiogenesis occurred. They comment anyway as to how it may have happened. When you say science doesn't function that way, please notice the wording in the article I quoted from..."How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory." I didn't make that up. Did you look at the link? It's information published by a science organization.
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
It seemed pretty simple to an uneducated dumb Aussie.

He said there is no such thing as species then said the species homo sapien went extinct after the tower of babel.
I've noticed that contradiction a number of times along with a few others. There was one in this last batch of posts. I noted it, but now I can't recall it. It was a different one. The posts are all over the place and double back, so it is sometimes difficult to find things. You get a quote of what someone has posted, but the response doesn't have anything to do with the quoted material.

If I tried to make it confusing on purpose, I don't think I could do so good a job.
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
Scientists know they were not there when so-called abiogenesis occurred.
There is evidence that shows that at one time there was no life on Earth. Then later, there is evidence of life.
They comment anyway as to how it may have happened.
Scientists want to understand what they observe. Do you think that is wrong?
When you say science doesn't function that way, please notice the wording in the article I quoted from..."How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory." I didn't make that up. Did you look at the link? It's information published by a science organization.
I didn't see the article, so I cannot respond meaningfully about that.

What I can say is that if abiogenesis becomes reproducible in the laboratory, there is no guarantee that it will be by the mechanism by which it occurred in nature or that we would know this. In the event it happens, all that will be known then will be that there is a way it can happen.

Also, there are many things that are known to exist that cannot be repeated in the lab. Failure to replicate something in the lab can be a hurdle, but it need not be a death sentence to learning, discovery and the acquisition of knowledge.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Scientists know they were not there when so-called abiogenesis occurred. They comment anyway as to how it may have happened. When you say science doesn't function that way, please notice the wording in the article I quoted from..."How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory." I didn't make that up. Did you look at the link? It's information published by a science organization.

Dang those dang scientists for being honest
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
It means we are not understanding you at even a basic level
Are you denying life is part of reality? Or are you denying there is life in reality?
Is this dichotomy supposed to be meaningful.
Perhaps I'm wrong that most biologists will agree but I do get around some and have spoken to biologists. Perhaps I misunderstood them.
Perhaps you don't recognize eye-rolling?
So free will and consciousness must exist...
That is a claim of many, so?
All life is conscious.
That will depend on you giving a definition of consciousness that is appropriate to everything that can be called life.
(of course just like my other assumptions this must be taken axiomatically)
And axioms are only accepted when there is reason for all to accept them. Thus far this may be a source of the miscommunication. It appears that you may be assuming axioms that have not been mutually accepted.
If we don't know we're confused well take our beliefs as ending points rather than starting points.
Is this one of your axioms or what? Is this part of circularis?
The simplest definitions and fewest axioms win.
Might be an interesting starting point for a discussion but not sure of relationship to winning
and losing since they probably rely on some unspecified axioms.
And this goes a thousand fold over when it is supported by experiment and the ability to make prediction.
And here we are wondering why this mathematical relationship is applied to a word that has not been mutually defined such as experiment.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
So what are you complaining about?

As a side note... what the heck does "somewhat therein" mean?
I am only saying that scientists cannot say for certain what the first cell was, or where it came from.
 

Dimi95

Χριστός ἀνέστη
Scientists know they were not there when so-called abiogenesis occurred. They comment anyway as to how it may have happened.
Abiogenesis is highly probable , if you follow the 'chain' of science.

When you say science doesn't function that way, please notice the wording in the article I quoted from..."How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory." I didn't make that up. Did you look at the link? It's information published by a science organization.
These are just definitions that don't have any relevance.If you lead a discussion based on definitions , then i don't know what to say.
When you speak about Science , you need to be well aware that evidence matters.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
You make a lot of claims. People ask you for references, evidence and explanations and you don't provide them. You respond. With what looks like gobbledygook and claims that you have provided everything everyone has asked for like billions of times.

Do you dispute that experiment shows we see what we believe. I've googled this for people before and posted the results.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Scientists don't know how the first cell or cells came about. But I appreciate the idea they are honest in that the article mentions they don't know.

So you keep saying. You seem to be complaining about not appreciating it.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Abiogenesis is highly probable , if you follow the 'chain' of science.


These are just definitions that don't have any relevance.If you lead a discussion based on definitions , then i don't know what to say.
When you speak about Science , you need to be well aware that evidence matters.
The article speaks for itself. I really can't see why there's an argument about it since it's a statement of science. No one knows how the first cell came about.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Except that there are evidence that microorganisms from the domain Bacteria and from the domain Archaea, have flourished for 3 billion years prior to the earliest evidence of eukaryotes during the Cryogenian period (720 to 635 million years ago) existed in the sea, were main planktons (of protists, protozoans; various earlier algae), with the protozoans being the most basal form of animals. The Cryogenian was then follow by diversity radiation of more complex marine animals, earliest multicellular animals, the sponges, in the Ediacaran period (635 to 538 million years ago), and then in Cambrian (538 to 485 million years ago).

Through these 3 periods, marine invertebrates flourished in the last 2. There are trace evidence that even as in movements on lands, by some unknown arthropods in the late Cambrian.

The points are there were no plant life on dry land, yet when marine life flourished in these periods. When biologists or paleontologists talk of “flora” in the Ediacaran or in the Cambrian, they are not talking of any land plants, but of algae, like green algae that we commonly see them as seaweed.

Your position on about water, plants and then animals are wrong, inaccurate. There were no plants growing on land, period to Ediacaran sponges, as I said, the earliest multicellular marine animals. Marine arthropods, like the trilobites from middle Cambrian predated the earliest land flora.

The earliest terrestrial plants didnt reproduce by seeds, but by spores. These were more like mosses, non-vascular and spore-reproducing plants, from the Ordovician period. Vascular plants (like ferns) didn’t appear until the Silurian period, but these plants still reproduce by spores, not by seeds.

Seed plants (or spermatophyte), didn’t appear until the Devonian period, the earliest appearance around 319 million years ago...and these earliest didn’t produce flowers nor fruits until the Cretaceous period.

The earliest fishes were jawless fishes, and they have been around as early as the late Cambrian. So land plants actually didn’t predated these jawless fishes.

jawed fishes appeared in the Silurian period, and the earliest fishes with bony skeletal structures around 425 million years (also in Silurian).

The earliest land animals weren’t vertebrates, but were invertebrates like arthropods, like insects, possibly as early as 400 million years ago.

the point is that marine animals actually existed before there were land plants, and no land plants produced seeds until much later.
Oh don't go all science on her, give her credit for producing the first claim in her mind as to how life on earth formed. :)
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
It seemed pretty simple to an uneducated dumb Aussie.

He said there is no such thing as species then said the species homo sapien went extinct after the tower of babel.
The species or all species? maybe it was a knock on effect of words no longer having any meaning due to God causing this pile to be created.

Sorry to tax your Aussie brain. :)
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
And axioms are only accepted when there is reason for all to accept them. Thus far this may be a source of the miscommunication. It appears that you may be assuming axioms that have not been mutually accepted.

Give that man a cigar!!!

I am describing a new simpler paradigm to explain the last 75 years of experiment as well as the first 500 years.

That will depend on you giving a definition of consciousness that is appropriate to everything that can be called life.

And I've done so. You couldn't see it.

Is this one of your axioms or what? Is this part of circularis?

The latter.
 
Top