29 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow does your comment relate to the quote of mine you used?
[b] In addition, we know from present day meteorites that such meteorites often cary such simple organic molecules with them...
When all else fails, there's always the 'evolution works in mysterious ways' card upon which to fall.[/b]
29 Apr 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf we can't find what we need here in order to accomodate the requirements of life, we simply move the solution to another parenthetical part of an increasingly long formula.
How does your comment relate to the quote of mine you used?
Evolution relies on gaps. Very, very, very wide insurmountable gaps. Kinda like the whole creationist formula that had:
(and then, a miracle happened)
right in the middle of an otherwise sound argument.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
29 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI believe the idea that AThousandYoung was explaining (and I'm pretty sure he's explained this before as well) is called panspermia. Panspermia is another theory to account for life on this planet but in the end we still need abiogensis to occur in order to produce the life in the first place. Evolution is not pertinent to any discussion on evolution- they are two different theories.
If we can't find what we need here in order to accomodate the requirements of life, we simply move the solution to another parenthetical part of an increasingly long formula.
Evolution relies on gaps. Very, very, very wide insurmountable gaps. Kinda like the whole creationist formula that had:
(and then, a miracle happened)
right in the middle of an otherwise sound argument.
Secondly, you say that we "move the solution". Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it still be a solution?
29 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCorrect. That is the scientific method, AFAIK. Hypothesize. Test. Verify. Re-test. Discover new methods of testing and verifying via technological advancements. Incorporate and share new data when available, such as the composition of meteors and comets, and modify theories when applicable.
If we can't find what we need here in order to accomodate the requirements of life, we simply move the solution to another parenthetical part of an increasingly long formula.
Evolution relies on gaps. Very, very, very wide insurmountable gaps. Kinda like the whole creationist formula that had:
(and then, a miracle happened)
right in the middle of an otherwise sound argument.
Are you honestly suggesting that a meteor strike which could have introduced previously unknown elements into the atmosphere on Earth qualifies as "miraculous"?
29 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzJust having some fun with you guys. Honestly though, in my mind I find evolution somewhat plausible. I find Abigenesis much less plausible and even laughable. I find the origins of matter absurd and undefendible from a scientific standpoint. It seems to me that assuming their is no God opens a can of worms that gets harder and harder to defend after talking about evolution. Then you merely get a beileif system based soley on speculation. Then you get statements saying that the universe need not have a begining. The universe may have not had to have a begining but the very deminsion of time in which in exists demands that it have a begining. The only answer in my mind is that time had to have a begining. In other words, God created the deminsion of time for the universe to exist in. I know, I know, we have been over this a thousand times and there is no need in rehashing the same material. You have your beleifs system and I have mine. I just can't help but feel that Abigenesis seems a litlle abinormal. Now the word abinormal brings back a memory. Remember the movie Young Frankenstien with Gene Wilder? Gene Wilder played the mad scientist who sent his dimwitted assistant Marty Feldman to go retrieve a brain from the laboratory. However, he could not find the brain Gene told him to bring back. When Gene realized there probably was an error after Frankenstien was resurrectied from the dead and acted crazy, he asked him the name of the person's brain he had placed in Frankenstien. The reply was, "I think his name was Abbey.........yes Abbey Normal was his name. Now that was a funny movie. Wait a minute. Putting a dead brain into a dead body and bringing the dead cells back to life using the power of static electricity...........it could work!!!!!!!!!!!
You're an idiot whodey. Maybe given enough evolutionary time christians will abort their brains physically as well.
29 Apr 06
Originally posted by David CWhen the natural selection folk got to the end of their 'maybes' here on earth, they were left with still another speculation. Beginning with a premise disguised as a hypothesis, their initial search was fruitless so they added time--- lots of time.
Correct. That is the scientific method, AFAIK. Hypothesize. Test. Verify. Re-test. Discover new methods of testing and verifying via technological advancements. Incorporate and share new data when available, such as the composition of meteors and comets, and modify theories when applicable.
Are you honestly suggesting that a meteor strike which could have ...[text shortened]... introduced previously unknown elements into the atmosphere on Earth qualifies as "miraculous"?
Because they couldn't live with the results, the 'premothesis' was expanded to allow an outside agent into the pool of possibilities. The original hypothesis did not crack the code, yet instead of scrapping it when its lead agent (Time) was revealed as ineffective in bringing about the necessary changes, hard-core evolutionists refused to adhere to science. This is when their hypothesis was exposed as a premise. How? Instead of admitting the hypothesis was flawed, they simply kept the formula the same and brought in another ringer: meteors from outer space. They couldn't (and can't) stand the thought that the idea itself was (and is) flawed.
Are you honestly suggesting that a meteor strike which could have introduced previously unknown elements into the atmosphere on Earth qualifies as "miraculous"?
Are you honestly suggesting that the fortuitous strike of said meteor, with said unknown elements (in exact purportion, mind you), at the precise moment when all the indigenous elements were in perfect balance, is anything short of miraculous?
29 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhen you say we can "infer the conditions from..." is this an
KellyJay,
If you mean was I there personally, then no I wasn't. Does that matter? No, I don't think it does. Can we infer the conditions from the available evidence? Yes, we can. We can analyse rocks which were there at the time, look at their chemical properties and infer the conditions prevalent in the oceans and the atmosphere. Physicists c ...[text shortened]... "fact", quite whatever one of those is, but it certainly doesn't make it wrong either.
admission that we are again moving in the realm of faith as
far as man is concern? I'm not saying you are not going there
with anything other than 'a lot of confidence' in your beliefs
on how your deciding what is reality or not, but there are huge
assumptions taking place one on top of another here.
We can examine rocks (rocks being in the here and now) with
your assumption being "...which were there at the time... and
now you move on to "look at their chemical properties and
infer the conditions..." Which all seems quite reasonable, but
again you have the here and now only, and you want to place
certain items at certain places in time, and by looking at them
in the now you are telling me that you know what the conditions
were billions of years ago. The only real thing you do have
knowledge about those rocks is the chemical composition of the
rocks in the here and now, all other points you ‘infer’ are
assumptions one on top of another a chain of faith. There is
a lot of faith involved in your knowledge, I don’t see why you
believe your faith is some how different than another’s faith in
God.
Kelly
29 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KDid you mean evolution is not pertinent to any discussion on
I believe the idea that AThousandYoung was explaining (and I'm pretty sure he's explained this before as well) is called panspermia. Panspermia is another theory to account for life on this planet but in the end we still need abiogensis to occur in order to produce the life in the first place. Evolution is not pertinent to any discussion on evolution- they ...[text shortened]... ou say that we "move the solution". Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it still be a solution?
abiogenesis?
Kelly
29 Apr 06
Originally posted by whodeyIf life were nothing but chemicals in the right order, why wouldn't it
Just having some fun with you guys. Honestly though, in my mind I find evolution somewhat plausible. I find Abigenesis much less plausible and even laughable. I find the origins of matter absurd and undefendible from a scientific standpoint. It seems to me that assuming their is no God opens a can of worms that gets harder and harder to defend after talki ...[text shortened]... d cells back to life using the power of static electricity...........it could work!!!!!!!!!!!
work?
Kelly
29 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, I read on some evolutionary web site that according to evolutionary sceintist, it appears we have stopped evolving...........I coulda told them that.
You're an idiot whodey. Maybe given enough evolutionary time christians will abort their brains physically as well.