09 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzHow am I hamstringing scientific endevours? I am not hampering any ones scientific pursuits. I am merely laughing at them as they try what I consider to be impossible. I am sure you would do the same to someone who tried proving the existence of God, no?
Whilst trying your best to hamstring scientific endeavour.
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by whodeyThe earlier creation myths had the god doing something else to the mudman, wont write exactly what ( family ratings ya know) but it made me laff.
It also says in the Bible that man was made from inorganic matterial. If I recall we were all made from dust. God then "breathed" life into us. I defy any one to try.
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by whodeyI think it'd be more constructive to look at their experimental design and discuss with them how to improve it.
How am I hamstringing scientific endevours? I am not hampering any ones scientific pursuits. I am merely laughing at them as they try what I consider to be impossible. I am sure you would do the same to someone who tried proving the existence of God, no?
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by whodey1. There is a middle ground somewhere in there.
Since nothing has been proven, all we have is belief. On the one hand you have those that favor God and on the other those that favor scientific atheism. There is no proof in either camp. I am only expressing my belief.
2. You need to learn to use "I believe" as a preface rather than making definitive statements such as "we are incapable of". Not only will you get fewer attacks, but you will sound more open-minded.
-JC
09 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by 7ate9I have no problems with science trying to re-create life. I just find it amusing because I believe their is only one that is capable of creating life. The reason that the creationist position is so unsettling to science is that you are saying that an entity, which can not be tested or measured, has created life. Science has no interest in such a being. The only alternative is then to assume that such a being does not exist. This is problematic because the theory of abiogenesis is itself unprovable. It is, however, more comforting contemplating one unproveable fact than two unproveable facts. Thus abiogenesis is the only alternative science has in explaining our origins.
a while ago i spent a few weeks on my knees praying for rain. when a flood came into my home, naturally i consider it to be a miracle from God. i know with more technology it would be possible for man to re-create this, yet this wouldn't take away from the fact that God still sent that flood into my home. in the same regard, i don't see what your problem is with scientists trying to re-create life? i don't understand your problem.
10 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI don't know if it is currently occurring. It is not observed on Earth because there are already living organisms who very efficiently take up the raw materials that would lead to new life.
Those that back up abiogeneisis answer me this. If it exists, where is abiogenesis today in the known universe? If you tell me it is because the known universe outside this planet is incapatible with life then where is it on earth? If it is no longer functioning on earth today then why is it on hiatus?
Also, there's a lot of free oxygen on Earth now. O2 is a very destructive molecule.
11 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseEvolution and natural selection are anything but random, hence the term selection. Just because they are automatic instead of being controlled by an intelligent being doesn't make them random.
Two can play this game: I find it amusing that you believe random undirected forces formed all the complexities (and beauty) of life.
I find it amusing that you can't comprehend the basics of evolutionary theory after the amount of time you have spent in this forum.