Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Abiogenesis


John

Recommended Posts

We are going in circles, yet again. Let's just get to the point.

 

Are you people actually trying to convince anyone that Darwin formed his theory assumping the presence of God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mr. Neil

    24

  • Ouroboros

    23

  • invictus1967

    17

  • MrSpooky

    15

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I did you the entire quote earlier, I was trying to keep it short and to the point. For whatever reason, you people insist on going in circles and dragging things out to the Nth degree.
That's what happens when a Theist insists on using a strawman... We end up having to refute it to the Nth degree because, until we do, the Theist believes he's won...
I never would have dreamed that Darwin's view of God would have ever been a point to explain to you people.
You aren't though... we're having to explain it to you.
I have overestimated what you know. I am truly sorry for that. It will not happen again.
One moment while I correct this quote for you... you seem to have made a few typos.
I have underestimated what you know. I am truly sorry for that.... NOT! It will happen again.
There, that's better
As for abiogenesis, if we all agree it is full of wholes. Do you people have a point in keeping it "alive" in this thread.

It's got HOLES, yes, but it's also got evidence to back it up. Unlike your "God" argument, which has HOLES and no evidence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did it ever occur to you that someone can make a theory about a phenomenon without having a presumption about the origin of that phenomenon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are going in circles, yet again. Let's just get to the point.

 

The point has been explained to you time and again. That you are too willfully braindead to accept that answer is your problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are going in circles, yet again. Let's just get to the point.

 

Are you people actually trying to convince anyone that Darwin formed his theory assumping the presence of God?

Talk about a loaded question...

 

YOU are trying to convice US that Darwin formed his theory on the assumption that god doesn't exist.

 

WE are showing YOU that he formed his theory on the assumption that we were not created as-is.

 

 

I know that you believe in ID, and that you equate anything that doesn't agree with that as an assumption that God doesn't exist, but that's your problem. If you don't like reality, deal with it... just don't try to drag us into your delusional world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did it ever occur to you that someone can make a theory about a phenomenon without having a presumption about the origin of that phenomenon?

 

 

In the words of Damon Wayons, "Uh.......... Nuh!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are going in circles, yet again. Let's just get to the point.

 

Are you people actually trying to convince anyone that Darwin formed his theory assumping the presence of God?

 

 

Again, the circle started with you and it was a red herring. Evolution is well accepted regardless of what Darwin assumed or didn't assume. It doesn't succeed or fall on that basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please enlighten me.

 

Tell me Darwin's position in regards to God's role (or anything's role beyond environment) within his theory of evolution.

 

That is not a load question at all. It is very simple (not to overestimate) and to the point.

 

Also, please give me any evidence for abiogenesis you may have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me Darwin's position in regards to God's role (or anything's role beyond environment) within his theory of evolution.
Doesn't matter.

 

Evolution doesn't mention what came before. That's the entire point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please enlighten me.

 

Tell me Darwin's position in regards to God's role (or anything's role beyond environment) within his theory of evolution.

 

That is not a load question at all. It is very simple (not to overestimate) and to the point.

Another fucking loaded question...

 

You're assuming that Darwin's position on God had anything to do with ToE and you're asking us to prove that it did.

 

 

Will you listen for once?

 

IT MAKES NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE WHAT DARWIN'S POSITION WAS!

Sooner or later, this will finally get through your thick head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, take it easy on poor Invictus, he is only being obedient to Paulianity.

 

Well, where's the problem? You know, I'm just obedient to the scripture of my faith here... :fdevil:

 

To a friend a man a friend shall prove

and gifts with gifts requite;

but man shall mocking with mockery answer

and fraud with falsehood meet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, I never assumed God had anything to do with Darwin's theory. In fact, I stated the opposite then you guys asked me to prove it. When I gave you his quotes you said it didn't prove a thing. It almost sounded like you are the ones assuming God had a role in his theory. I am now asking you to share with me what that role was.

 

 

I am not asking for Darwin's theory on God's role before evolution. I asked you to (and I quote)-

"Tell me Darwin's position in regards to God's role (or anything's role beyond environment) within his theory of evolution"

 

Again, you are the ones that asked me to prove God was not a part of Darwin's theory.

 

I am letting you and Darwin both assume life was already created, by God or random chance (abiogenesis). Where did Darwin put God in his theory of evolution. That was all I asked.

 

How was that a loaded question?

 

And still waiting on that abiogenesis evidence by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't throwing in Darwin's motivation a bit of a red herring?  Evolution has been well accepted independent of Darwin and what his motivation was or wasn't distracts from the point of the debate.

 

This is not directed at you Mr Neil.  Your response just seemed a good place to inject this.

I have to agree too. Like another poster said earlier, there are Christians that believe in evolution. I did for many years before I became a full time apostate.

 

Actually when I was teaching 15 years ago, one of the teachers was a professor, in what I don't remember. But he traveled to those fancy observatories over the world. Anyway, he was in dispute with our Church over one thing. He believed in God and Jesus and the whole thing, but at the same time a strong believer in evolution and the big bang. That was way before I started to question my own beliefs. This dude was not a dummy, very smart and well respected in the scientific community, he had his beliefs, but he maintained that the evidence for evolution and big bang were way to overwhelming to be denied, and especially be denied based on a book claiming a fanciful story to be the truth.

 

There is not contradiction between Evolution and God.

 

Besides, evolution has evolved since Darwin. So to base all the arguments on Darwin is to base our understanding of cosmos solely on Galileo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you are the ones that asked me to prove God was not a part of Darwin's theory.
Invictus, you're assuming that by having a theory without God, it's a theory opposed to God. Whether or not there's a god is irrelevent. The theory of evolution is saying, "Look, here's something that happens in nature." That's it.

 

Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please enlighten me.

 

Tell me Darwin's position in regards to God's role (or anything's role beyond environment) within his theory of evolution.

 

That is not a load question at all. It is very simple (not to overestimate) and to the point.

 

Also, please give me any evidence for abiogenesis you may have.

 

 

Who knows?

 

But maybe you can tell me, what was St Paul’s opinion about abiogenesis, evolution and black holes?

 

Did he believe in quantum mechanics?

 

If not, why didn't he, it's a known indisputable science?

 

Shouldn't he have known that he couldn't contradict the argument of Schrödinger’s Cat?

 

What's up with that? Huh?

 

I've noticed that the way you argue, is that only if someone have ALL ANSWERS to every knowing friggin problem or question, they would have the right to be an atheists.

So we have to have 110% right answers before we call ourselves Atheist.

 

But at the same time, you think you have the right to be a Theist, without all the answers. How is that? Why do you think that way?

 

 

Evolution and abiogenesis have holes. Yes that is soooooo true.

 

Creationism and ID have MORE holes, a HUGE AMOUNT of it! Yes that is soooooo true.

 

So which one will the Occam's razor cut out?

 

Will it cut the easy to believe one, or the NOT so easy to believe one?

 

Which one requires a huge leap of faith and accepting status quo?

And which one requires faith in science to figure it out?

 

Religion is a roadblock on the road to understanding and knowledge.

Science sometimes make roadblock, but always there is someone that find them and break them and science can go on.

 

Religion has always been the biggest opponent to progress in the scientific field.

That’s why I chose to believe in Science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, I never assumed God had anything to do with Darwin's theory. In fact, I stated the opposite then you guys asked me to prove it. When I gave you his quotes you said it didn't prove a thing. It almost sounded like you are the ones assuming God had a role in his theory. I am now asking you to share with me what that role was.

I am not asking for Darwin's theory on God's role before evolution. I asked you to (and I quote)-

"Tell me Darwin's position in regards to God's role (or anything's role beyond environment) within his theory of evolution"

 

Again, you are the ones that asked me to prove God was not a part of Darwin's theory.

 

I am letting you and Darwin both assume life was already created, by God or random chance (abiogenesis). Where did Darwin put God in his theory of evolution. That was all I asked.

 

How was that a loaded question?

 

And still waiting on that abiogenesis evidence by the way.

 

Sigh. God’s interaction with creation is inconsequential for the argument of evolution. God could have created evolution as the mechanics to maintain and develop life. Why are you so hardcore to all-or-nothing in every statement you do? You really believe in the black vs. white arguments in everything, don’t you?

 

So you see the world these two ways

Belief 1: Believe in God created the universe in 6 days, with life and humans and everything.

Belief 2: Big bang, Abiogenesis, Evolution.

 

There really is nothing in between for you is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I CANNOT help but think that the ONLY reason Invictus is being so insistent is because, drum roll please.........................  he is a LITERAL 6 day creation theorist.  Many Christians believe in evolution BUT only a diehard bible literalist would be this unwilling to see that.  So although, he "says" that he is not trying to prove/disprove belief in biblegod but rather just "god", his arguments are certainly being influenced from a literal 6 day creation point of view.  The arguments uphold biblegod and a 6 day creation, period.

 

I totally agree. He is definitely not a freethinker. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, I never assumed God had anything to do with Darwin's theory. In fact, I stated the opposite then you guys asked me to prove it. When I gave you his quotes you said it didn't prove a thing. It almost sounded like you are the ones assuming God had a role in his theory. I am now asking you to share with me what that role was.
You lying bastard! You have been going on about how Darwin was always denying God IN TOTALITY in his theory.

You've been doing your best to try and make ToE into an Anti-God theory.

 

Don't even fucking dare to turn that around on us.

I am not asking for Darwin's theory on God's role before evolution. I asked you to (and I quote)-

"Tell me Darwin's position in regards to God's role (or anything's role beyond environment) within his theory of evolution"

We answered... IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER!

 

Are you listening now, or are you going to ignore it once more?

Again, you are the ones that asked me to prove God was not a part of Darwin's theory.
Hello? You've been claiming that God was not a part of ToE, we're just asking you to prove it.

On the other hand, we're saying that it doesn't matter.

 

If you'd stop bringing it up, we'd stop beating you over the head with it.

I am letting you and Darwin both assume life was already created, by God or random chance (abiogenesis). Where did Darwin put God in his theory of evolution. That was all I asked.

 

How was that a loaded question?

It assumes that 1) God exists, and 2) that God is needed for ToE.

 

Now pay attention... Whether God exists or not makes no difference to ToE. Whether God created life or Abiogenesis was the cause doesn't matter.

Evolution has got fuck-all to do with what caused life, it's only about what's happened since.

 

You got that through your thick skull yet?

And still waiting on that abiogenesis evidence by the way.

Go and research it. I can't be arsed doing the leg work for an ignorant twerp like you. (even if I did, you'd just ignore it like all the other stuff that's been posted)

 

 

Tell you what Invictus... why don't you just bugger off? We're having to repeat ourselves because you won't bloody well listen and it's getting tedious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I CANNOT help but think that the ONLY reason Invictus is being so insistent is because, drum roll please.........................  he is a LITERAL 6 day creation theorist.  Many Christians believe in evolution BUT only a diehard bible literalist would be this unwilling to see that.  So although, he "says" that he is not trying to prove/disprove belief in biblegod but rather just "god", his arguments are certainly being influenced from a literal 6 day creation point of view.  The arguments uphold biblegod and a 6 day creation, period.

Crap... a YEC :loser:

 

 

Man, YEC's have less brain than Terri had...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To begin with, I do not believe in a literal 6 days. But I don’t believe in evolution either.

 

However, if you could prove evolution, I would say- “Thanks for showing me how God did it”. But I honestly don’t think that will ever happen because it has too many flaws.

 

Whether Darwin believed in God or not, really is a moot point and I have no idea why you guys wanted to make it a point. But as far as atheistic evolution is concerned, there is no more evidence to support it than there is in the belief that God did it all.

 

Atheistic Evolution is riddled with wholes. First, it is totally dependent on the theory of abiogenesis. And that, from a pure scientific perspective, is seemingly impossible. You must surmount insurmountable odds and go to a point in history where there is no data because all known data restricts the theory.

 

The theory of abiogenesis has all but been proven false. It is literally gasping for air. In perfect lab conditions with a known desired outcome, science can’t even come close. Yet, atheist assume that the “ingredients” some how found themselves to all be in the right spot at the right time under the right conditions. They must also assume that when these “ingredients” (with no intelligence) hit on the right combination they stuck, even though they didn’t know what they were trying to create.

 

The odds truly do border on impossible and many scientists argue that you need an infinitely old universe to satisfy these odds. That brings in the whole “Big Bang” theory with its belief in a finite universe.

 

Then there is all of the other “missing links” beyond that of abiogenesis. When a species appears in the fossil record it does so very abruptly. It simply appears. There is no chain of one species evolving into another and into another and so on and so.

 

In fact, when you look at the fossil record, you wonder how anyone ever saw a chain to begin with.

 

In my opinion, to be an atheist requires a much greater leap of faith than it does to believe in God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether Darwin believed in God or not, really is a moot point and I have no idea why you guys wanted to make it a point.
You mean you didn't pay attention to all those times you equated evolution with the denial of God? That would explain why you keep coming out woth the same old crap...
But as far as atheistic evolution is concerned, there is no more evidence to support it than there is in the belief that God did it all.
What the fuck is "Atheistic evolution"?
Atheistic Evolution is riddled with wholes.{Learn to spell will you? It's spelt "holes"} First, it is totally dependent on the theory of abiogenesis. And that, from a pure scientific perspective, is seemingly impossible. You must surmount insurmountable odds and go to a point in history where there is no data because all known data restricts the theory.

 

The theory of abiogenesis has all but been proven false. It is literally gasping for air. In perfect lab conditions with a known desired outcome, science can’t even come close. Yet, atheist assume that the “ingredients” some how found themselves to all be in the right spot at the right time under the right conditions. They must also assume that when these “ingredients” (with no intelligence) hit on the right combination they stuck, even though they didn’t know what they were trying to create.

Well, if we ever wanted proof that you know nothing about Abiogenesis, you've just provided it...

 

Honestly, why do you bother with these debunked strawmen? It's getting old now, so maybe you should get some new material...

The odds truly do border on impossible and many scientists argue that you need an infinitely old universe to satisfy these odds. That brings in the whole “Big Bang” theory with its belief in a finite universe.
The only ones who argue that are the same ones trying to debunk it.

 

Interestingly, those who actually know anything about calculating odds don't agree with you...

Then there is all of the other “missing links” beyond that of abiogenesis. When a species appears in the fossil record it does so very abruptly. It simply appears. There is no chain of one species evolving into another and into another and so on and so.
Missing Link Game®

 

You don't know much about fossils either, do you?

In fact, when you look at the fossil record, you wonder how anyone ever saw a chain to begin with.
When you know something about fossils, you find it hard to believe that anyone could come out with the bullshit you're trying to spread.
In my opinion, to be an atheist requires a much greater leap of faith than it does to believe in God.

Your opinion's worth nothing, since it's based on lies, false assumptions, strawmen, hypocracy, ignorance and an incredible lack of intelligence.

 

People like that used to be put in the circus and laughed at... nowadays, we just let them make a complete moron of themselves on internet forums :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To begin with, I do not believe in a literal 6 days. But I don’t believe in evolution either.

 

However, if you could prove evolution, I would say- “Thanks for showing me how God did it”. But I honestly don’t think that will ever happen because it has too many flaws.

 

Whether Darwin believed in God or not, really is a moot point and I have no idea why you guys wanted to make it a point. But as far as atheistic evolution is concerned, there is no more evidence to support it than there is in the belief that God did it all.

 

Atheistic Evolution is riddled with wholes. First, it is totally dependent on the theory of abiogenesis. And that, from a pure scientific perspective, is seemingly impossible. You must surmount insurmountable odds and go to a point in history where there is no data because all known data restricts the theory.

 

The theory of abiogenesis has all but been proven false. It is literally gasping for air. In perfect lab conditions with a known desired outcome, science can’t even come close. Yet, atheist assume that the “ingredients” some how found themselves to all be in the right spot at the right time under the right conditions. They must also assume that when these “ingredients” (with no intelligence) hit on the right combination they stuck, even though they didn’t know what they were trying to create.

 

The odds truly do border on impossible and many scientists argue that you need an infinitely old universe to satisfy these odds. That brings in the whole “Big Bang” theory with its belief in a finite universe.

 

Then there is all of the other “missing links” beyond that of abiogenesis. When a species appears in the fossil record it does so very abruptly. It simply appears. There is no chain of one species evolving into another and into another and so on and so.

 

In fact, when you look at the fossil record, you wonder how anyone ever saw a chain to begin with.

 

In my opinion, to be an atheist requires a much greater leap of faith than it does to believe in God.

 

 

Do you think like Hitler that if you say it enough times we will start to believe it? How many times are you going to cover the same ground repeating what we have clearly pointed out to you we are in disagreement with?

 

For example, members here have repeatedly refuted your claim that evolution is dependent on abiogenesis yet you turn around and lay down the blanket statement once again with no further explanation. Evolution explains the phenomena of how carbon based life evolves. It does not attempt to explain why they are alive in the first place. It's not that hard. But alas, you will just go ahead and repeat it again and again until you are finally banned for spamming the boards I guess.

 

For the record a theory has HOLES in it, which makes a WHOLE lot more sense than WHOLES don't you think? Think about that for a while as others here have been trying to point this out to you all night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheistic Evolution is riddled with wholes. First, it is totally dependent on the theory of abiogenesis.
There's no such thing as "atheistic evolution". Theists and nontheists alike accept the same damn theory, you moron.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I quote (never trying to twist your words you know)

“There's no such thing as "atheistic evolution". Theists and nontheists alike accept the same damn theory, you moron.”

 

Are you saying there is only evolution that was initiated by God?

 

What does this mean for the abiogenesis crowd?

 

Is that what the whole Darwin/God debate was about?

 

Not trying to twist your words, just asking for some clarification.

 

Oh the hurdles one must jump through to call someone else a moron

----That has a familiar ring to it. Oh well, probably me just being smug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of abiogenesis has all but been proven false. It is literally gasping for air. In perfect lab conditions with a known desired outcome, science can’t even come close. Yet, atheist assume that the “ingredients” some how found themselves to all be in the right spot at the right time under the right conditions. They must also assume that when these “ingredients” (with no intelligence) hit on the right combination they stuck, even though they didn’t know what they were trying to create.

 

 

 

I can't speak about abiogenesis from my own knowledge. I do see that several times on this thread, Mr. Spooky has posted considerable information about a model of abiogenesis. I have not seen any reply from you to his posts. You should go back and refute what he already contributed in answer to your question, or else stop repeating your assertion that abiogenesis has all but been proven false. Mr. Spooky's stuff is in direct contradiction to this assertion of yours. I've learned so far from his contributions that the guy understands what a scientific theory is. I am not convinced that you do. So go back and answer him point by point or else go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.