• 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!

For Danmac - Abiogenesis

Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
Architects draw up blueprints and contractors build the design. God is both architect and contractor.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. Let me know if you're ever interested in learning about Intelligent Design. It actually has a very specific meaning, like most things.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
Interfering adds intelligent design. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

As usual, this response did not address the question I asked you. Oh, and it's gibberish.

I think you know by now I get tired of repeating my questions for you. It got old a long time ago. I'd appreciate it if you'd do me the courtesy of just ANSWERING THEM.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
The point of both these experiments is not to prove how life did emerge but to show that it is POSSIBLE to start with simply molecules and produce more complex ones through purely natural processes. It is POSSIBLE that the introduction of electricity through electrical storms COULD lead to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is POSSIBLE that the energy released by an asteroid impact COULD cause chemical reactions leading to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is a work in progress and it doesn't prove anything yet. But it does support the idea that natural processes may have been sufficient for the emergence of life without God's direct intervention.

These words of yours in red are speculative words. There could just as easily be a God that created all things. Why should your speculation have merit and mine not?
Click to expand...

OMIGOD I may scream.

Let's go back to kindergarten, and find out whether you've learned anything.

Danmac: What does science say about God?

What is the relationship between God and science?
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
The point of both these experiments is not to prove how life did emerge but to show that it is POSSIBLE to start with simply molecules and produce more complex ones through purely natural processes. It is POSSIBLE that the introduction of electricity through electrical storms COULD lead to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is POSSIBLE that the energy released by an asteroid impact COULD cause chemical reactions leading to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is a work in progress and it doesn't prove anything yet. But it does support the idea that natural processes may have been sufficient for the emergence of life without God's direct intervention.

These words of yours in red are speculative words. There could just as easily be a God that created all things. Why should your speculation have merit and mine not?
Click to expand...

SCIENCE DOES NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER GOD DID ANYTHING. SCIENCE IS ABOUT HOW.
HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO. HOW.
Please recite these words to yourself until you grasp their meaning. If necessary, tattoo them on some part of your body.

What is it about this concept that is so hard for you to grasp?

The other thread was about evolution. This one is about abiogenesis. Neither of them is about God vs. atheism. That is yet another subject, and you may want to start another thread to discuss that.

However, you said you wanted to discuss abiogenesis. What was it you wanted to go into about it?
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
Start a thread
Click to expand...

Just for a moment, try to turn off the noise in your head and think, O.K.? I think you'll find it a refreshing change of pace.

Yes, God could have created the first life. And science can still study how. God could have created all living things, and science can still study how. A discussion of abiogenesis is NOT a discussion of whether God did it, or not. It's a discussion of how.

HOW.Now, is there something you wanted to say about HOW life started?

I guess your hypothesis again would be magic poofing? Is that what you're trying to say?
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
Autodidact said:
Just for a moment, try to turn off the noise in your head and think, O.K.? I think you'll find it a refreshing change of pace.

Yes, God could have created the first life. And science can still study how. God could have created all living things, and science can still study how. A discussion of abiogenesis is NOT a discussion of whether God did it, or not. It's a discussion of how.

HOW.Now, is there something you wanted to say about HOW life started?

I guess your hypothesis again would be magic poofing? Is that what you're trying to say?
Click to expand...

Yes, mine is magic poofing. Now I will ask you the same question.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Danmac said:
Yes, mine is magic poofing. Now I will ask you the same question.
Click to expand...

Reactions of chemical compounds in early earth environments.

We have tests that show that this is very possible. Can you produce any evidence whatsoever that magic poofing has an equal possibility?
 
Runlikethewind

Runlikethewind

Monk in Training
Danmac said:
The point of both these experiments is not to prove how life did emerge but to show that it is POSSIBLE to start with simply molecules and produce more complex ones through purely natural processes. It is POSSIBLE that the introduction of electricity through electrical storms COULD lead to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is POSSIBLE that the energy released by an asteroid impact COULD cause chemical reactions leading to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is a work in progress and it doesn't prove anything yet. But it does support the idea that natural processes may have been sufficient for the emergence of life without God's direct intervention.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to make it clear that these words are mine not Danmac's. He was quoting me but somehow this part of my post didn't make it into a quote box. Just wanted everyone to know that so as to avoid any confusion. These are my thoughts. Mine. Me.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Danmac said:
If evolution is true nothing is safe.
Click to expand...

Evolution is as true as gravity, atoms and germs.

In fact, it has more evidence in favor of it than any of the above theories. Now, in what way does that fact mean "nothing is safe"? Did you ever stop to think that this ridiculous belief you have about evolution is the sole cause of your rejecting of it - and that therefore you have no rational basis to do so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top