Life From Dirt?

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense......you said, "Spontaneous generation is actually a creationist belief that modern small "simple" creatures, some would even include mice, arose spontaneous". arose? from where? something LIVING or NON-LIVING, which one?

101G.

Where do you think that belief came from? It was definitely not from atheists. And the last half of your post as usual makes no sense..

 

[101G]

Where do you think that belief came from? It was definitely not from atheists. And the last half of your post as usual makes no sense..

I can careless where it came from I just asked you a question.

101G

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, possibilities: the imagination of man runs wild. Some think a massive explosion that they name the Big Bang actually created something. Have you seen an explosion create something?

BB = Not an explosion

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No intelligence for our find-tuned universe ?
Even if one tours a control room that has hundreds of dials and labels each means something.
Move a dial or move or re-move a label and that can quickly add up to destruction.
The 'huge universe' has purposeful design. The Big Bang did Not create chaos but purposeful design.
What about our 'puny universe' aka each 'cell' with its purposeful design.
Design shows a Designer, a designer shows intelligence, intelligence shows a mind, a mind shows a person and a person shows a personality.
Survey around the Earth and it all points to a purposeful super-natural supreme mind or being.

Classic teleological fallacy.

"look at how this universe is great for us to live in, surely it was made specifically for us!"

Now imagine 2 frogs by a random pond saying the same thing about said pond.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Big Bang is a model, it hasn’t been proven to have happened and it postulates going from absolute chaos to order, similar to an explosion creating something.

First of all, no model / theory in science can be proven or is ever considered proven.
Theories / models can only be confirmed / supported by evidence.

And the BB model makes a whole bunch of very specific predictions about what evidence should be found if the model is accurate.
And most of those predictions have been confirmed with amazing precision and accuracy.
The most famous one likely being the discovery of CMB radiation in the 60s.

When you have explanatory models that account for the facts and which provides you with accurate and detailed predictions that can be confirmed, then you have a model with great explanatory power.

To replace it with another one, you would require a model that accounts for the facts AND which provides you with even more accurate and detailed predictions that can be confirmed. The explanatory power of the new model should thus be superior to the old model.

This is how Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics.
It does everything Newtonian physics did + increases accuracy when dealing with extreme speeds and gravity, which is where newtonian physics failed.

So................................ to conclude...

If you wish to replace BB theory with the "god dun it" model, then you will have to present your god model in such a way that it actually provides greater explanatory power then BB theory.

But that's not gonna happen, is it?

Finally, the Christian God is the living Creator God and the evolution theory is bunkum, man did not originate from apes.

Even if evolution theory turns out "bunkum" (???), humans being apes and sharing ancestry with other apes (and mammals and etc) would remain genetic facts.
Any theory or model that would replace a falsified evolution theory would have to account for, and explain, those genetic facts

So... if you wish to propose another "god dun it" model here as an alternative for evolution... You have your work cut out for you to provide us with a model with even greater explanatory power then good ol' evolution theory.

How, for example, does your "god model" explain the genetic fact that humans and chimps genetically share ancestry?
What testable predictions does your "god model" make?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can careless where it came from I just asked you a question.

101G

"I can care less" is a rather vague claim. So you say that it matters to you. Okay, so what?

And I answered your question. When you ask poorly formed questions you are apt to get answers that you do not like.

 

[Apostle John]

BB = Not an explosion

No, it’s more of a fantasy. Something supernatural that has never been seen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it’s more of a fantasy. Something supernatural that has never been seen.

You should learn what is and what is not evidence since the Big Bang is well supported by evidence. The problem with understanding the concept of evidence is that one quickly realizes that reading the Bible literally is a big mistake if one wants to believe in God.

 

[Apostle John]

You should learn what is and what is not evidence since the Big Bang is well supported by evidence. The problem with understanding the concept of evidence is that one quickly realizes that reading the Bible literally is a big mistake if one wants to believe in God.

So demonstrate it then. I for one would like to see atoms magically make themselves. And while you’re trying to confirm you’re not speaking babble also demonstrate the evolution theory by putting two couples of apes under the kind of stressed conditions in the field to show they can form a new species through their progeny.

 

[Yazata]

Maybe life sprang from dirt 3.5 billion years ago though abiogenesis

I don't think that anyone has proposed that "life sprang from dirt". It probably didn't spring forth at all, but rather appeared as the result of a whole succession of steps. Many of those steps probably involved the formation of a whole assortment of organic precursers.

But bottom line is that nobody currently knows how it happened.

but I’m beginning to seriously doubt it.

Fine with me. I celebrate intellectual diversity.

The God theory is sounding more and more plausible.

The trouble that I have with the "God theory" is that saying that life just appeared magically: "Poof! And there it was!" isn't really an informative explanation at all. We still have the problem of the nature of the magic, along with a whole new mystery to be explained and understood: God.

Compounding mysteries doesn't explain them.

Of course that observation isn't really an argument against God's existence or even God's involvement in biogenesis, neither of which depend on our ability to explain things informatively. It just explains my own reservations with the divine creation hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So demonstrate it then. I for one would like to see atoms magically make themselves. And while you’re trying to confirm you’re not speaking babble also demonstrate the evolution theory by putting two couples of apes under the kind of stressed conditions in the field to show they can form a new species through their progeny.

We can't demonstrate it, but we can show evidence for it. It is rather odd that you believe in magic and yet demand that others demonstrate magic when they made no such claims.

 

[Apostle John]

We can't demonstrate it, but we can show evidence for it. It is rather odd that you believe in magic and yet demand that others demonstrate magic when they made no such claims.

Don’t bother showing it, it’s daft. Regarding the evolution theory why cannot zoos prove it by producing an early hominid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don’t bother showing it, it’s daft. Regarding the evolution theory why cannot zoos prove it by producing an early hominid.

Why is it daft? I have found that when a person makes claims like that which they cannot support, that the pejorative that they used almost always applies to them. In fact your last sentence indicates that is the case.

If you descended from 16 great great grandfathers then why cannot zoos prove it by producing even one of them?

 

[Jimmy]

I don't think that anyone has proposed that "life sprang from dirt". It probably didn't spring forth at all, but rather appeared as the result of a whole succession of steps. Many of those steps probably involved the formation of a whole assortment of organic precursers.

But bottom line is that nobody currently knows how it happened.



Fine with me. I celebrate intellectual diversity.



The trouble that I have with the "God theory" is that saying that life just appeared magically: "Poof! And there it was!" isn't really an informative explanation at all. We still have the problem of the nature of the magic, along with a whole new mystery to be explained and understood: God.

Compounding mysteries doesn't explain them.

Of course that observation isn't really an argument against God's existence or even God's involvement in biogenesis, neither of which depend on our ability to explain things informatively. It just explains my own reservations with the divine creation hypothesis.

That’s y he’s god

 

[Apostle John]

Why is it daft? I have found that when a person makes claims like that which they cannot support, that the pejorative that they used almost always applies to them. In fact your last sentence indicates that is the case.

If you descended from 16 great great grandfathers then why cannot zoos prove it by producing even one of them?

Your comment proves you babble and will carry on doing so. I haven’t evolved into a new species and neither have zoos made a new hominid species to prove the evolution theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your comment proves you babble and will carry on doing so. I haven’t evolved into a new species and neither have zoos made a new hominid species to prove the evolution theory.

LOL! Your poor understanding of evolution just proved my point. You can believe whatever you want, But you should realize that there could be consequence of what you believe. You seem to think that others would be in trouble for not believing in your God. Would a person that declared this your God was a liar be in trouble too?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s y he’s god

He does not seem to know either.

 

[Apostle John]

LOL! Your poor understanding of evolution just proved my point. You can believe whatever you want, But you should realize that there could be consequence of what you believe. You seem to think that others would be in trouble for not believing in your God. Would a person that declared this your God was a liar be in trouble too?

Evolution theory, don’t twist it to evolution. Yes if you declared God a liar you would be in trouble.

 

[101G]

I don't think that anyone has proposed that "life sprang from dirt". I

it never did. but life was "breathed" into dirt..... (smile).

101G.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution theory, don’t twist it to evolution. Yes if you declared God a liar you would be in trouble.

Then you are in big trouble. Evolution is a fact. You do not seem to realize that scientific theories explain scientific facts. You should try to learn how we know that we are the product of evolution. The fact of evolution does not refute God. It just refutes some of the myths of Genesis.