Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bad wolf9
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 15
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Evolution
quoting
Free04 ...
quoting
Bad wolf9 ...
So...not knowing exactly what your general views might be, maybe you could tell me about them.
Perhaps your views on evolution might be a good start.
Then I'll chip in. 
As I said before, this topic has been beaten to death and may I add without any conclusions as to the aboslute truth in the Theory other than it still remains theory, therefore there is nothing absolute about it. That in itself should tell you something. (We don't have to define theory). Let's start by defining Science....True science deals with facts--observable, testable, and reproduceable under controlled conditions. The origin of things is not observable, not testable and not reproduceable, however science has proven that life only comes from life, therefore the evolutionist does not have science backing their faith that man came from nothing.  What keeps the evolution dogma alive is not scientific evidence at all, but a motivation of anti religion.(my opinion) I can't understand why people take a known scientific theory (proven theory) and accept it as though it is fact!  unless they have an agenda. It is not fact, never has been and never will be. As man becomes more advanced the Theory seems to be devolving. Science does not have an absolute answer for origin of life.(The theory has flaws and science admitts that) Man has failed in his attempt to discover scientically how we came to be and that is scientifically proven.( life only comes from life..Proven) This is simple common sense and I don't feel we need to hash out all of the scientific evidence for or against. (there is plenty of both) The choice we have is to believe that a flawed theory is false/true, or to accept it as fact/truth knowing it is flawed. (notice I said believe not know because we can't know, it's only theory). I personally am not willing to accept something as absolute truth when I KNOW it is flawed. We only have one other choice as of now. Who knows as the post modern era continues we may have other choices and will probably come somewhere around Christmas or easter. 
Boy, the doctrine of evolution is getting old.
Let me begin by saying that the theory of evolution does not even try to explain how life came from non-life, this is a completely different theory altogether, called abiogenesis.
I'm also rather confused with how you keep saying that it has been proven that life can only come from life, where is this proof then?
|
|
11/1/2007, 6:37 pm
|
Link to this post
Send PM to Bad wolf9
|
Order ofMelchizedek
Administrator
Global user
Registered: 07-2006
Location: Here I am
Posts: 1826
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Evolution
quoting
I'm also rather confused with how you keep saying that it has been proven that life can only come from life, where is this proof then?
From Wikipedia:
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that life does not currently spontaneously arise in nature in its present forms from non-life.
quoting
Usually you'd expect to have a funeral, or get cremated or something...
Yeah, and then what?
So you don't believe there is anything else after this, I take it. This life is all there is, there is no meaning, we're all just cosmic accidents. It doesn't add up to me.
Did you know that there has never been an atheist civilization discovered? They might not know the right God, but they know there's something. 
---
I know who saved my soul and I want this world to know, that I was once blind, once lost, Now I'm blood bought, reconciled to God by the blood He shed on the cross. -Eternal M.o.G.
|
|
11/1/2007, 8:44 pm
|
Link to this post
Send PM to Order ofMelchizedek
|
garycg
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 06-2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 551
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Evolution
Heres my 
Biochemist Dr. Arthur Wilder-Smith:
"Life rides upon matter, and matter has to be highly organized to carry life. The materialists say that life, since it's made up of atoms, molecules, and chemical reactions, is just simply chemistry and nothing else and that life originated by chance chemical reactions.
Now, if life consists merely of chemistry, and nothing but chemistry, the best way to understand its real potentialities is to look at some of the chemical substances of life. And we shall see that it is NOT merely a matter of chemistry."
It was the famous French scientist and Creationist, Pasteur, who provided the first scientific evidence that living things are not produced from non-living matter. During the Middle Ages, some people thought non-living matter often gave birth to living things (spontaneous generation). Worms, insects, mice, and other creatures were thought to be created by materials in their environment.
" the idea that living creatures can be produced naturally from non-living substances(spontaneous generation). It is important to note that science has never observed such an occurrence. "
Dr. Stanley Miller and Dr. Sidney Fox were two of the first scientists to attempt laboratory experiments aimed at trying to prove that life could arise spontaneously. They designed a Pyrex apparatus containing methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no oxygen. Through this mixture they passed electric sparks to simulate lightning strikes.
What was the result? No life was produced, of course, but the electricity did combine some atoms to form amino acids.
The mixture of amino acids and other simple chemicals produced is not correct for producing life. All known life uses amino acids which are exclusively of the "left-handed" form.
Left and right handed amino acids.
left-handed molecules: a term used to refer to the "stereochemistry" of a molecule's construction; An amino acid can be chemically "left-handed" or "right-handed" in its orientation. These two forms are identical in their atoms, but opposite in their 3-dimensional arrangement. They are mirror images of each other.
No known life can use any combination of both "right-handed" and "left-handed" amino acids. Adding even one "right-handed" amino acid to a chain of "left-handed" amino acids can destroy the entire chain!
chemist Dr. Wilder-Smith concludes the bottom line on this issue is,
"It is emphatically the case that life could NOT arise spontaneously in a primeval soup of this kind."
Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA.
"At that moment, when the the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt.
…the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today."
Evolutionist Michael Denton:
"The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."
Famed researcher Sir Fred Hoyle is in agreement with Creationists on this point. He has reportedly said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle:
The notion that… the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
Bottom line is most atheists really believe in evolution but a vast majority (atheist/non believers/ppl. who dont want to follow Christ,satanist, etc. etc etc.) only use their title as an excuse as "i can live how i want, i can do what i want and enjoy my life without consequence from a higher being (God) kinda like the Satanism motto of "Do what thou wilt" 
Last edited by garycg, 11/2/2007, 5:17 am
---  |
|
11/2/2007, 4:18 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to garycg
Send PM to garycg
|
Bad wolf9
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 15
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Evolution
quoting
Order ofMelchizedek ...
quoting
I'm also rather confused with how you keep saying that it has been proven that life can only come from life, where is this proof then?
From Wikipedia:
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that life does not currently spontaneously arise in nature in its present forms from non-life.
Ah, I see. This is rather ambigious to me, is it saying life's current forms, or nature's current forms?
I'm thinking it is the latter, and if I am correct, the blanket statement that "life only comes from life..Proven" when thinking of the above law, does not really apply because there is much evidence to suggest that nature indeed WASN'T in it current form, billions of years ago when the earth was forming.
quoting
Usually you'd expect to have a funeral, or get cremated or something... quoting
Yeah, and then what?
So you don't believe there is anything else after this, I take it. This life is all there is, there is no meaning, we're all just cosmic accidents. It doesn't add up to me.
I fail to see how everything can be a cosmic accident, and therefore nothing can have any meaning, am I not able to feel pain when I'm hurt, or fall in love when I meet a lovely girl, purely because I was an accident? 
quoting
Did you know that there has never been an atheist civilization discovered? They might not know the right God, but they know there's something.
Perhaps that is because past civilisations did not have the scientific knowledge or expertise to explain their world correctly, and they had to resort to "God dunnit".
But also, in the past, religious beliefs, were frequently forced onto people to believe, or they were killed; that is worth considering as well.
Oh, and the classic "Religion is the opium of the people".
Besides, I think we are living in the age of atheistic civilisations right now...
|
|
11/2/2007, 8:03 am
|
Link to this post
Send PM to Bad wolf9
|
Order ofMelchizedek
Administrator
Global user
Registered: 07-2006
Location: Here I am
Posts: 1826
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Evolution
quoting
I fail to see how everything can be a cosmic accident, and therefore nothing can have any meaning, am I not able to feel pain when I'm hurt, or fall in love when I meet a lovely girl, purely because I was an accident?
So are you saying that is the extent of your life's meaning? What is your purpose? Merely existing? quoting
Perhaps that is because past civilisations did not have the scientific knowledge or expertise to explain their world correctly, and they had to resort to "God dunnit".
We still cannot explain our world correctly. But get this. When we're in kindergarden, and we read about how a frog becomes a prince, it's called a fairy tale. When we're in high school, the same scenario is called "science." You don't see a problem with that?
quoting
But also, in the past, religious beliefs, were frequently forced onto people to believe, or they were killed; that is worth considering as well.
And don't forget the countless Christian martyrs, killed simply for believing and unwilling to deny Christ.
quoting
Oh, and the classic "Religion is the opium of the people".
I think evolution is. It gives you an explanation (however far fetched) without having to be held accountable for your actions.
quoting
Besides, I think we are living in the age of atheistic civilisations right now...
Not exactly. The majority still believes in a God of some sort.
Now, most atheists have a reason to choose unbelief. It usually comes from one or two of the following:
1. There is some kind of sin in their life that they just refuse to give up. They find it better to deny the very existence of God, than to give up the pleasure of their sin. Unfortunately, that pleasure lasts only a season, while the punishment lasts for eternity.
2. Pride - just the feeling of being at the top of the food chain, unwilling to submit to anyone or anything higher than themselves.
3. This one is most unlikely, but still is worth considering. A person might feel that they've committed a sin so great that God cannot forgive them of it, and so they find it easier to deny His existence than to face reality. This is simply a misunderstanding of God. He is able to forgive all sins.
---
I know who saved my soul and I want this world to know, that I was once blind, once lost, Now I'm blood bought, reconciled to God by the blood He shed on the cross. -Eternal M.o.G.
|
|
11/2/2007, 1:18 pm
|
Link to this post
Send PM to Order ofMelchizedek
|
Free04
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 370
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Evolution
quoting
Bad wolf9 ...
Ah, I see. This is rather ambigious to me, is it saying life's current forms, or nature's current forms?
I'm thinking it is the latter, and if I am correct, the blanket statement that "life only comes from life..Proven" when thinking of the above law, does not really apply because there is much evidence to suggest that nature indeed WASN'T in it current form, billions of years ago when the earth was forming.
Pasteur’s work on what he believed to be the false concept of spontaneous generation (the idea that life arises on its own from nonliving antecedents) provided science “its finest hour” as he discredited the then-popular concept of spontaneous generation.
TThe law of biogenesis plainly teaches that all life comes from preexisting life, and that of its kind. This law was set forth many years ago to dictate what both theory and experimental evidence showed to be true among living organisms—that life comes only from preceding life, and perpetuates itself by reproducing only its own kind or type.
This is a very simple concept, not to mention very logical. Believe me Badwolf, I am not anti science. Where would man be today without science. Science has had a tremendous impact in the world we live in today, but
the origin of life as described by the Theory of Evolution IMO is absurd. Just like the big bang...An explosion that creates order and perfection....Puleeeese
May I ask how you believe man came to exist?
quoting
Besides, I think we are living in the age of atheistic civilisations right now...
Maybe, I think that is subject to opinion. According to world religious statistics Non-religious and agnostic 11.9%, anti-religious and atheist 2.3% of the worlds population. Anti religion is becoming more popular by the day and if it continues (and it will) it will ultimately fulfill prophecy of the Bible.
Last edited by Free04, 11/2/2007, 1:32 pm
---  |
|
11/2/2007, 1:26 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Free04
Send PM to Free04
|
Bad wolf9
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 15
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Evolution
quoting
So are you saying that is the extent of your life's meaning? What is your purpose? Merely existing?
I try to make my own meaning, but I ask you this: why does life have to have any meaning at all?
quoting
We still cannot explain our world correctly. But get this. When we're in kindergarden, and we read about how a frog becomes a prince, it's called a fairy tale. When we're in high school, the same scenario is called "science." You don't see a problem with that?
Why do you use examples that are absurd, there are plenty of reasonable examples you can choose from.
quoting
And don't forget the countless Christian martyrs, killed simply for believing and unwilling to deny Christ.
Yep, all that needless death. 
quoting
I think evolution is. It gives you an explanation (however far fetched) without having to be held accountable for your actions.
Basically you've implied that there is no evidence to support evolution here, to test the theory, and hold it accountable....this is simply not true. I think that is what you are implying anyway...
quoting
Not exactly. The majority still believes in a God of some sort.
Perhaps, but I don't think you can deny that there are now more atheists now, than there ever has been; and also that it has become tolerated far more than it has in the past. Also though, that many countries of the western world especially, have some form of seperation of church of state, and if not that something somewhat close to it.
This is kinda what I'm getting at.
quoting
Now, most atheists have a reason to choose unbelief. It usually comes from one or two of the following:
1. There is some kind of sin in their life that they just refuse to give up. They find it better to deny the very existence of God, than to give up the pleasure of their sin. Unfortunately, that pleasure lasts only a season, while the punishment lasts for eternity.
2. Pride - just the feeling of being at the top of the food chain, unwilling to submit to anyone or anything higher than themselves.
3. This one is most unlikely, but still is worth considering. A person might feel that they've committed a sin so great that God cannot forgive them of it, and so they find it easier to deny His existence than to face reality. This is simply a misunderstanding of God. He is able to forgive all sins.
Okay, I'll begin here by pointing out that you've made the assumption that people believe in God by default (i.e. choose unbelief), and that if they don't they are denying it. Well...speaking from my personal viewpoint, I see people as being atheists by default, in that they have no belief on the existence of God, I do not see myself believing that God does not exist, I see myself as not believing your claim that God exists. You have made that claim, and it is up to you to prove it to me, otherwise I will not believe you.
This is analogous to me claiming there is an invisable pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, it is up to me to prove it to you, otherwise, why would you believe me, it wouldn't make sense for you to. Also note as well, that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person not believing it.
I think this is a better way of thinking of why people are atheists.
There are of course hard atheists, atheists that believe that God doesn't exist, perhaps some burden of proof would lye with them, but I don't place myself with them...
|
|
11/3/2007, 8:08 pm
|
Link to this post
Send PM to Bad wolf9
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
You are not logged in ( login) –
Board's time is: 3/21/2010, 7:55 pm
|
