Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

Why? There was nothing wrong with the little bit that you quoted. Did you not understand it? I can help you if you ask questions.

Mate.....learn to quote the portions of a post you intend to address. If you see that the post is lost under the "click to expand" it means that you didn't post it correctly. Do you need lessons?

If you'd like to fix the post, I will respond to it. Perhaps it got subducted?

As for the rest.....

The universe as we know it began with the Big Bang. As of now we can't see any evidence for anything before the Big Bang. In fact "Before the Big Bang may be a nonsensical phrase, though not all physicists seem to think so.

So just magically there was a massive explosion and the whole universe just 'poofed' itself into existence with nothing to explain how it happened or where all the matter came from? Amazing fairy story. More far fetched than the need for a powerful Creator.

You do realize that the universe coming from "nothing" does not violate any of the laws of physics, don't you?

I don't know...the old adage "nothing comes from nothing" springs to mind. Do you believe that something can come from nothing? Name me something, then prove it.

There is no need for a creator to make the universe. If a creator was needed then you need an even more powerful creator to make that creator etc. and so on.

And you know this for a fact, do you? It seems as if you science buffs like assumptions better than facts. You base your whole theory on it. Is it hard for you to tell the difference?

It is better to work with what we can see and measure than to create an endless series of creators to explain it.

I don't need an endless series of Creators....one will do quite nicely thank you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So just magically there was a massive explosion

The big bang wasn't an explosion.

and the whole universe just 'poofed' itself into existence with nothing to explain how it happened or where all the matter came from?

The big bang merely describes the process by which the Universe came to be in its current state.

Amazing fairy story. More far fetched than the need for a powerful Creator.

It doesn't mention a creator, or lack of one. Also, how can it be more far-fetched than a creator that also "poofed" itself into existence with no explanation as to where it came from?

 

[Deeje]

That's not what you wrote earlier. You said the rule was "All life comes from pre-existing life" and that "The Creator is the lifeform from which all other life originated", implying that the creator is a lifeform and therefore subject to this rule.

Why did you change it?

Because that scientific rule pertains to lifeforms on earth. Is this seriously all I get from the peanut gallery?

I ask for proof of macro-evolution that does not include adaptation, inference, assumption of belief...and all I get is nit-picking distractions.

Where is all this "overwhelming" evidence...C'mon show us the proof that evolution ever happened. Put this issue to bed once and for all. Please don't use jargon...just plain English should describe the whole process with corroborating evidence to back up the assumption. Should be a piece of cake...right?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because that scientific rule pertains to lifeforms on earth. Is this seriously all I get from the peanut gallery?

But that's not what you wrote. You also said God was a lifeform. Hence, you changed the rule. Why did you change it?

I ask for proof of macro-evolution that does not include adaptation, inference, assumption of belief...and all I get is nit-picking distractions.

I'm just pointing out that your own logic is extremely poor and self-defeating, hence why you had to change the rule when I pointed out it contradicted itself - and it still doesn't even make sense.

So, tell me, if all biological life on earth came from pre-existing biological life, where did the first biological life form come from?

 

[Altfish]

I wasn't aware that special pleading was necessary. I was making the point that earthly life has to spring from an already existing life.....do you deny this?

Science appears to be starting to prove that that assertion is incorrect; the jury is still out but life starting from non-life appears to be possible.
So, yes, I deny it. But I am happy to be proved wrong...with evidence though, not through assertions and arguments from incredulity.

 

[Deeje]

The big bang wasn't an explosion.

The big bang merely describes the process by which the Universe came to be in its current state.

I usually associate the word "BANG" with an explosion....silly me.

It doesn't mention a creator, or lack of one. Also, how can it be more far-fetched than a creator that also "poofed" itself into existence with no explanation as to where it came from?

"It doesn't mention a creator, or lack of one.".....What is "it"?.....

Since nothing comes from nothing, I'll take the the position that science already knows....life cannot arise by chance.
What exhibits design and purpose indicates intelligence in the outworking. I don't see mindless chance producing anything of value let alone all of the different kinds of life that exist on this earth.

Lets refer back to the stones on the beach...why has no one addressed this? It is simple logic. If you see stones on a beach that spell out the word "HELP.... your immediate response is not to assume that those stones just happened to arrange themselves on that beach by chance. The fact that others seeing that word on the beach, understand what it means, and respond to it is not a chance happening either...yet you insist that all lifeforms on this planet are the product of a series of fortunate accidents. Our natural response to them is an accident too. It is clear that the earth is designed for the life that inhabits it.

I know who has the fairy story.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"It doesn't mention a creator, or lack of one.".....What is "it"?.....

The big bang theory. (The scientific one, not the show...)

Since nothing comes from nothing, I'll take the the position that science already knows....life cannot arise by chance.

That's a misnomer. Life doesn't have to come from "nothing" and, as far as we are currently aware, we're unsure as to whether or not "nothing" is even a viable concept.

What exhibits design and purpose indicates intelligence in the outworking. I don't see mindless chance producing anything of value let alone all of the different kinds of life that exist on this earth.

All biological processes are seemingly mindless.

Lets refer back to the stones on the beach...why has no one addressed this? It is simple logic. If you see stones on a beach that spell out the word "HELP.... your immediate response is not to assume that those stones just happened to arrange themselves on that beach by chance.

But what if you happen to see a random pile of rocks? To you, the random pile may have no significance, but there is a chance that this pile may actually spell out "help" in the language of the distant alien race. So, what's the difference in recognizing one or the other as inherent markers of design? Statistically, there is no difference between a royal flush and a high card in poker - any hand of five cards has just as much odds of any others. The difference is the significance we assign to certain patterns, but that doesn't mean the patterns themselves have a specific, inherent significance independent of our viewing of them. There is no difference in a pile of rocks that spells out "help" to an alien than there is in a very specific arrangement of rocks that spells out "help" to us at an intrinsic level.

 

[Deeje]

Nope, even Christians believe in abiogenesis, though they do not realize it.

We believe in Genesis.....abiogenesis is not getting very far in spite of a pressing need for science to create life in a lab. Science can't even make a blade of grass.

It is just a matter if one thinks that natural abiogenesis was the cause or magic. I will go with a natural cause.

What does "natural" even mean? It is "natural" for an intelligent mind to ask "who is the artist?" when they come across a beautiful work of art. Think of all the creatures that exist in this world and how magnificent so many of them are.....

Look at all those fortunate accidents of nature.....

If you think that evolution adequately explains them, then I believe that there is something deficient in the minds of people who are not moved to give thanks to the artist who created them.....it isn't Mother Nature.

 

[Deeje]

Science appears to be starting to prove that that assertion is incorrect; the jury is still out but life starting from non-life appears to be possible.

LOL...science is good at making things "appear" to be possible. They have built their entire theory on it.

Make sure you let us know when they have accomplished the production of life from something non-living though, won't you?

So, yes, I deny it. But I am happy to be proved wrong...with evidence though, not through assertions and arguments from incredulity.

When science can do that, I'll be listening....

 

[Altfish]

LOL...science is good at making things "appear" to be possible. They have built their entire theory on it.

Make sure you let us know when they have accomplished the production of life from something non-living though, won't you?

Yes, science is never sure, never certain because new evidence may come to light. This is one of the key differences with religion who always seem to be certain.
I will again quote Bertrand Russell, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.".

When science can do that, I'll be listening....

Listening maybe, but I doubt it will change your mind.

 

[FearGod]

Sorry, but this claim of yours makes no sense at all.

Try again.

You have to explain why, I had explained mine, why it doesn't make sense to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mate.....learn to quote the portions of a post you intend to address. If you see that the post is lost under the "click to expand" it means that you didn't post it correctly. Do you need lessons?

If you'd like to fix the post, I will respond to it. Perhaps it got subducted?

Okay I missed that. I made an error on using {quote} or a closing. The post was still understandable.

As for the rest.....



So just magically there was a massive explosion and the whole universe just 'poofed' itself into existence with nothing to explain how it happened or where all the matter came from? Amazing fairy story. More far fetched than the need for a powerful Creator.

And that is projection on your part. You believe in magic and fairy tales, not me. If you do not understand the science then you should ask politely a properly.

I don't know...the old adage "nothing comes from nothing" springs to mind. Do you believe that something can come from nothing? Name me something, then prove it.

You need to define "nothing". Matter can come from no energy, there are tests that show this. Are you unaware of them? Tell me have you heard of virtual particles? Though the word "virtual" is used it turns out that they are real.

And you know this for a fact, do you? It seems as if you science buffs like assumptions better than facts. You base your whole theory on it. Is it hard for you to tell the difference?

Actually since you are the one that tends to claim one is necessary the burden of proof is upon you. What I said is that no need of a creator has ever been found. It appears that you are trying to twist what I said.

I don't need an endless series of Creators....one will do quite nicely thank you.

Actually you do, if you don't want to engage in the logical fallacy of special pleading.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because that scientific rule pertains to lifeforms on earth. Is this seriously all I get from the peanut gallery?

I ask for proof of macro-evolution that does not include adaptation, inference, assumption of belief...and all I get is nit-picking distractions.

Where is all this "overwhelming" evidence...C'mon show us the proof that evolution ever happened. Put this issue to bed once and for all. Please don't use jargon...just plain English should describe the whole process with corroborating evidence to back up the assumption. Should be a piece of cake...right?

You have demonstrated that you do not understand the nature of evidence. That makes your demand a bit disingenuous. And "adaption" is part of evolution. You can't say that a key part of evolution cannot be used.

I gave you some articles on the nature of evidence. Did you read them? Perhaps you should.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have to explain why, I had explained mine, why it doesn't make sense to you?

No, that was a poorly written post that made no sense as written. There was no explanation.

But I am feeling generous. You made an unsupported and clearly false premise:

"First the organism should work perfectly before being able to survive and to pass the genes
to the next generations, "

There is no reason at all to believe that. If you want to make the claim that life had to be that way the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We believe in Genesis.....abiogenesis is not getting very far in spite of a pressing need for science to create life in a lab. Science can't even make a blade of grass.

This is incorrect. The study of abiogenesis is continually making new advances. And as I pointed out you do not understand that Genesis advocates abiogenesis. By your own claim it advocates it.

What does "natural" even mean? It is "natural" for an intelligent mind to ask "who is the artist?" when they come across a beautiful work of art. Think of all the creatures that exist in this world and how magnificent so many of them are.....

Look at all those fortunate accidents of nature.....

If you think that evolution adequately explains them, then I believe that there is something deficient in the minds of people who are not moved to give thanks to the artist who created them.....it isn't Mother Nature.

Once again you use the false argument of "accident". No one on the evolution side claims that life is an accident. And yes, the theory of evolution does explain all of them, but since you won't even bother to learn the basics how do you expect to understand advances studies? Evolution is not an "accident" any more than the profit that Prudential makes on insurance is an accident. "Accidents" occur to individuals. The profits of Prudential and the evolution of life is based upon populations. Do you understand the difference?[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Profound Realization]

Yes, science is never sure, never certain because new evidence may come to light. This is one of the key differences with religion who always seem to be certain.
I will again quote Bertrand Russell, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.".


Listening maybe, but I doubt it will change your mind.

Are laws, certain?

Can you elaborate on why you're so certain, as in certain enough to want another to adapt your way of thinking/change their mind? Can you be certain that you're not in the "fool" and "fanatic" category? New evidence may come to light.

Weren't people naturally selected to believe in "God?"

 

[Thief]

At some point (as Genesis tells us) there was no Earth as we know it. It was a "formless waste" in its early history and God prepared the land and the oceans for habitation. There is no deeper place to go than the beginning. Even the universe had a beginning...so there was once a time that the universe did not exist....but the Creator did.



If the same powerful Creator used the same raw materials to construct life in all its various forms, it is no surprise that we are similar in our basic structure to other life forms. Matter came into existence by the power of the Creator. He formed matter into all that we can see.

But we are not accidents of evolution....we are purposefully made with all the traits and characteristics that make us who we are among the myriads of living creatures on this planet. We alone possess the Creator's qualities and can exercise our free will using our unique brains to imagine and plan and conceptualize the future. We are not pre-programmed like the animals....who operate largely by instinct....we can choose a course in full knowledge of possible consequences. No other living thing can do that.

Our planet is perfect in its positioning from the sun, the speed of its rotation, the tilt of its axis and in the makeup of the gases that form our atmosphere. Vegetation breathes out, what we breath in and vice versa. All the things that make Earth the "Goldilocks" planet were not accidental. They were planned and beautifully executed. It is humans who have messed things up....

Everything we see in nature suggests the work of an Intelligent Designer.

no doubt you are familiar with other postings I've done over the years

at this crossroad......we agree on several facets

 

[Profound Realization]

This is incorrect. The study of abiogenesis is continually making new advances. And as I pointed out you do not understand that Genesis advocates abiogenesis. By your own claim it advocates it.



Once again you use the false argument of "accident". No one on the evolution side claims that life is an accident. And yes, the theory of evolution does explain all of them, but since you won't even bother to learn the basics how do you expect to understand advances studies? Evolution is not an "accident" any more than the profit that Prudential makes on insurance is an accident. "Accidents" occur to individuals. The profits of Prudential and the evolution of life is based upon populations. Do you understand the difference?

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Accident as in,
an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate/intentional cause.

 

[Profound Realization]

No, that was a poorly written post that made no sense as written. There was no explanation.

But I am feeling generous. You made an unsupported and clearly false premise:

"First the organism should work perfectly before being able to survive and to pass the genes
to the next generations, "

There is no reason at all to believe that. If you want to make the claim that life had to be that way the burden of proof is upon you.

Since you're being generous, and since evolution theory explains everything... as you've stated, perhaps you can tell why organisms were/are informed to carry out specific actions/motions. The game of life is to survive and pass on genes, perhaps you can tell where these rules of life came from and what informs organisms as actor's acting this all out.

Evolution theory says it has to be that way, survive and pass on genes....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Accident as in,
an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate/intentional cause.

Life arising isn't necessarily determined by chance or without cause.