• 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!

Yes, but how did it all get started in the first place?

K

Kerr

Well-Known Member
Tiapan said:
True but the OP is



So I believe Abiogenesis is relevant, since that is exactly what it addresses.

Cheers
Click to expand...
He also said:
It is mathematically impossible. As that's the case, the case for evolution is pretty much closed isn't it?
Click to expand...
Which sounds to me he is saying that since it is mathematically impossible that, I assume, life arise without the involvement of a higher power then evolution is impossible. If I have not misunderstood what he was saying (which is fully possible), then his argument falls as that is abiogenesis and not the Theory of Evolution that his argument could be agianst. On the other hand if he want to discuss abiogenesis, sure, I am just picky :p.
 
Last edited:
MSizer

MSizer

MSizer
Why is it that those who argue against evolution are always the same ones who haven't a clue what it's about?
 
MSizer

MSizer

MSizer
Atruthseeker said:
...My argument is that it is mathematically impossible for life to have arisen unaided and by itself. Therefore what other option is there? Having a designer of life is not the same as resorting to magic is it?...
Click to expand...

There's a bit of a problem with your argument - it's unsupported. That's not normally considered OK in a debate. Your claim is contingent on abiogensis being "mathematically impossible" (as you say, which is actually not the same thing as "impossible" but we'll let that one slide). Until you prove that abiogenesis is "mathematically impossible" (or even argue it at all) your overall argument is fallacious. The ball is in your court.
 
A

Atruthseeker

Active Member
MSizer said:
There's a bit of a problem with your argument - it's unsupported. That's not normally considered OK in a debate. Your claim is contingent on abiogensis being "mathematically impossible" (as you say, which is actually not the same thing as "impossible" but we'll let that one slide). Until you prove that abiogenesis is "mathematically impossible" (or even argue it at all) your overall argument is fallacious. The ball is in your court.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that it's not supported. Galileo wasn't. And someone mentioned the Urey/Miller experiment. That didn't prove anything, other than even man with his control of a lab, putting in the ingredients and not adding other stuff and controlling things, still couldn't create life. And they have tried since and failed. Oh, and the other example of the 10 different types of Finches...they were still Finches! Woop Woop! You are all wrong, face up to it.
 
T

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
Atruthseeker said:
Evolution has everything to do with origins, as that's the main point non-creationists contest. If we didn't evolve, if life didn't come about by itself and by an unaided process then the theory, which by definition can not be a fact, falls down. And it sounds to me like you are confusing micro and macro evolution.
Click to expand...

Evolution has nothing to do with origins. Evolution simply explains what happens to life after it has originated. Theory and facts are two different things, evolution is a theory, but it is also a fact. Theories in science often explain the observable facts. Like the theory of gravity explains the phenomena of why we're not floating in the air. The explanation can be wrong of why this is happening, but the fact that it happens is a "fact."
 
Baydwin

Baydwin

Well-Known Member
Atruthseeker said:
It doesn't matter that it's not supported.
Click to expand...
And there we have it. There is no point in discussing this subject with you as your opinion is based entirely on faith, and any evidence anyone provides to the contrary is instantly dismissed.
 
A

Atruthseeker

Active Member
Baydwin said:
And there we have it. There is no point in discussing this subject with you as your opinion is based entirely on faith, and any evidence anyone provides to the contrary is instantly dismissed.
Click to expand...
Oh...dear...not nice when the shoe is on the other boot?
 
Baydwin

Baydwin

Well-Known Member
Atruthseeker said:
Oh...dear...not nice when the shoe is on the other boot?
Click to expand...
I don't have faith in abiogenesis, I acknowledge that I simply don't know the processes that got life started. What I do know is that if science can't yet give us conclusive answers to the matter, a bronze age myth certainly won't.

Also, if you were a real "truth seeker" you wouldn't have faith in anything, to seek truth is to look with an open mind and unclouded eye. If you've already told reality what it must be in order to conform to your pre-conceived mythology, you will never be able to accept the truth even if you do find it.
 
MSizer

MSizer

MSizer
Atruthseeker said:
...It doesn't matter that it's not supported. Galileo wasn't...
Click to expand...

Yeah, it does matter. You made the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

I won't be participating in this thread any longer as I can see that it will be absolutely futile. Go ahead. You win. You're the first person to show that evolution is utterly false. Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Wendy Wright, Kirk Cameron, Michael Behe & Ken Hovind have all failed, but you've pulled it off. Congratulations. Have fun in fantasy land. If you develop the common sense necessary to recognize that your claims have to be supported, I'll be happy to demonstrate the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Until then, you might want to consider that comparing yourself to Galileo is a bit ambitious. Then again, I guess ignorance is bliss.
 
Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Atruthseeker, some time ago, on a much less friendly forum, I started a thread asking why I should accept abiogenesis. Theologically, it makes perfect sense to me, but the science didn't seem to add up.

After much flaming, someone finally pointed out to me that abiogenesis is not a theory, like evolution. Rather, there are several competing hypotheses.

So, what does this mean? Well, it means we don't know how it happened yet.

I can live with this.
 
K

Kerr

Well-Known Member
Atruthseeker said:
And so it is with the theory of evolution. The "fact" is life exists, just your explanation is wrong. :D
Click to expand...
The fact is that life does change and evolve. We have for example seen new species come to life. The theory is why, and that was what Darwin laid the foundation for. There has been other theories to explain this, such as Lammarckian evolution, but they did not hold.
 
A

Atruthseeker

Active Member
MSizer said:
Yeah, it does matter. You made the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think the burden is on you. If something looks like a dog, walks like a dog, barks like a dog, it is probably a dog. The same goes for observable design in nature. Come on now.

MSizer said:
I won't be participating in this thread any longer as I can see that it will be absolutely futile. Go ahead. You win. You're the first person to show that evolution is utterly false. Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Wendy Wright, Kirk Cameron, Michael Behe & Ken Hovind have all failed, but you've pulled it off. Congratulations.
Click to expand...
Thank you! Now go repent! ;)

MSizer said:
If you develop the common sense necessary to recognize that your claims have to be supported, I'll be happy to demonstrate the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Click to expand...
The support is there in everything we see in nature. It speaks for itself.


MSizer said:
Until then, you might want to consider that comparing yourself to Galileo is a bit ambitious.
Click to expand...

I was giving an example of someone who went against the accepted scientific view of the time.
 
A

Atruthseeker

Active Member
Storm said:
Atruthseeker, some time ago, on a much less friendly forum, I started a thread asking why I should accept abiogenesis. Theologically, it makes perfect sense to me, but the science didn't seem to add up.

After much flaming, someone finally pointed out to me that abiogenesis is not a theory, like evolution. Rather, there are several competing hypotheses.

So, what does this mean? Well, it means we don't know how it happened yet.

I can live with this.
Click to expand...

Thanks, seems you are right. I did a quick goole on abiogenesis and found a lot of "could have", "may have", "is thought to have". No definites, yet so many stick to it like glue. Anything to give them some hope that they are right....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top