"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"
Discussion
IainT said:
plasticpig said:
bikemonster said:
It's a straight question, Gilbert, so I do not expect any kind of answer, but what is it that you have read that you do not find convincing?
This is a matter of rationality, not, as you keep insisting, a matter of faith.
Those of us who are convinced that life on our planet began spontaneously and evolved from there do not subscribe to articles of faith: we have found no better explanation and so that is the one we retain.
The instant that any of the claims made by evolutionists are refuted, they need to be replaced. And refuted does not mean gainsaid by a bible scholar, I mean refuted in a proper peer-reviewed, credible academic journal.
Which requires another point: academia is not some cosy club for bright guys with appalling dress sense and scruffy beards. While that may indeed be true at a given university, where the leading lights in each field are often revered, their opposite numbers at other universities are doing their damnedest to knock over their findings.
Abiogenesis is not fact though. Something which creationists seem to cling to when defending their beliefs.This is a matter of rationality, not, as you keep insisting, a matter of faith.
Those of us who are convinced that life on our planet began spontaneously and evolved from there do not subscribe to articles of faith: we have found no better explanation and so that is the one we retain.
The instant that any of the claims made by evolutionists are refuted, they need to be replaced. And refuted does not mean gainsaid by a bible scholar, I mean refuted in a proper peer-reviewed, credible academic journal.
Which requires another point: academia is not some cosy club for bright guys with appalling dress sense and scruffy beards. While that may indeed be true at a given university, where the leading lights in each field are often revered, their opposite numbers at other universities are doing their damnedest to knock over their findings.
The posited arguments for the origins of life are pretty solid though with lab experiments supporting many pre-requisites and processes.
The origin of life is everything to do with the evolutionary process because without this basis, natural selection has nothing on which to work. It's anchored to nothing. Literally, no thing. Dawkins would seem to invoke the laws of chemistry kick starting something, which then raises the question where did these very laws come from which enable us to do repeatable, testable experimentation........? Out of a massive explosion, perhaps?
What temperatures were alleged to have been reached at this Big Bang anyway. Would not all matter have been comprehensively sterilised by this said event?
To argue that there are lab experiments to back up the evolutionary model only goes to highlight the irony that you can't get intelligence out of the picture. All such research and testing, including RNA experiments, requires intelligent laboratory and chemistry engineers to carry them out. It won't happen without intelligent agents being actively involved.
The origin of life is just as much to do with the origin of information, a fundamental component of life itself. Our repeated and uniform experience tells us that coded information doesn't come from undirected processes. With reference to causes now in operation, the basis of all scientific reasoning, the cause of digital code is what?
S13_Alan said:
Quite.
What I don't get is if people like the guy above know so much, and know with so much certainty that science, and people such as Dawkins are wrong... then why the f
k aren't they challenging them to a debate, not bhing about atheists on forums.
It's OK. Enioldjoe cited Lane Craig earlier in these threads, but has still to this day not even spoken about what these things are, instead just linking to a video or 2. Like GG they tend to say stuff but not actually stick around to discuss the points raised. What I don't get is if people like the guy above know so much, and know with so much certainty that science, and people such as Dawkins are wrong... then why the f
k aren't they challenging them to a debate, not bhing about atheists on forums.enioldjoe said:
Creationists don't need to 'cling' to this argument. They merely need to point to what repeated and tested scientific experimentation demonstrates without any exception, that life does not come from non-living dead matter. Hence it being a law of science.
Completely wrong. There is not a single experiment that demonstrates that life does not come from non-living matter, any more than up until 300 years ago there was an experiment to demonstrate that no force accounts for things falling to earth.enioldjoe said:
The origin of life is everything to do with the evolutionary process because without this basis, natural selection has nothing on which to work. It's anchored to nothing. Literally, no thing. Dawkins would seem to invoke the laws of chemistry kick starting something, which then raises the question where did these very laws come from which enable us to do repeatable, testable experimentation........? Out of a massive explosion, perhaps?
Quite possibly, yes.enioldjoe said:
What temperatures were alleged to have been reached at this Big Bang anyway. Would not all matter have been comprehensively sterilised by this said event?
Stop, please, it's painful. Your misunderstanding of anything connected to the big bang is so huge I honestly don't know where to start. Why not actually do some research before you post?enioldjoe said:
To argue that there are lab experiments to back up the evolutionary model only goes to highlight the irony that you can't get intelligence out of the picture. All such research and testing, including RNA experiments, requires intelligent laboratory and chemistry engineers to carry them out. It won't happen without intelligent agents being actively involved.
Again, where do I start with such an absurd statement? What possibly connection is there between observing evolution (and yes, it can be observed to occur over the period of a human lifetime) and the fact that people happen to be alive? It sounds like you've fleetingly heard some anthropomorphic or quantum observational theory without understanding what it means and now you're trying to apply it to evolution. It's nonsense.enioldjoe said:
The origin of life is just as much to do with the origin of information, a fundamental component of life itself. Our repeated and uniform experience tells us that coded information doesn't come from undirected processes. With reference to causes now in operation, the basis of all scientific reasoning, the cause of digital code is what?
What are you talking about?enioldjoe said:
More bks about 'laws' and 'codes'.
This level of argument is just patheticks about 'laws' and 'codes'."Some sorts of laws are made by intelligent beings, therefore anything we call a law has to have been a product of intelligence"
and
"Intelligent beings can perceive order in naturally-occcuring phenomena, therefor that order must have been produced by intelligence"
FFS.
I think it is time to post these again, to save anyone the bother of actually arguing with a creationist...
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
Part 1 of many.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
Part 1 of many.
TheHeretic said:
I think it is time to post these again, to save anyone the bother of actually arguing with a creationist...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
Part 1 of many.
Fixed for non mobile usershttp://youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
Part 1 of many.
carmonk said:
enioldjoe said:
The origin of life is just as much to do with the origin of information, a fundamental component of life itself. Our repeated and uniform experience tells us that coded information doesn't come from undirected processes. With reference to causes now in operation, the basis of all scientific reasoning, the cause of digital code is what?
What are you talking about?The fundamental problem with this is that the "information" in information theory has nothing to do with meaning or function. It is merely a measure of complexity or a measure of certainty.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
cmoose, while I agree with your points, I think that you are raising a dangerous notion - that some sort of qualification is necessary to debate the rightness or wrongness of a branch of science. This is tantamount to replacing priests with scientists.That said, if anybody feels that any branch of science is incorrect, they really ought to read up on it before deciding that it is a load of tosh. And yes, Gilbert, that means reading up on evolutionary theory and understanding it before rejecting it. Further, if you want to claim that a branch of science is wrong, you need to be able to propose a better alternative.
And if you can do that, you should be able to get tenure at the university of your choice.
Thing on BBC 4 now called Catholics, following a a bunch of little primary school kids in a catholic school. The poor little gits are literally getting brainwashed with a load of fairy tales and religous babble that is being put across to them as fact. It's actually painful to watch what they are doing to these kids. It's hardly surprising the religious are so deeply ensconced in their belief. It really is disgusting.
chim said:
Thing on BBC 4 now called Catholics, following a a bunch of little primary school kids in a catholic school. The poor little gits are literally getting brainwashed with a load of fairy tales and religous babble that is being put across to them as fact. It's actually painful to watch what they are doing to these kids. It's hardly surprising the religious are so deeply ensconced in their belief. It really is disgusting.
Just be thankful they're not your kids, and will be at a disadvantage when competing against your kids in the future...unless all the bosses also believe in skypixy stuff as well.
enioldjoe said:
Creationists don't need to 'cling' to this argument. They merely need to point to what repeated and tested scientific experimentation demonstrates without any exception, that life does not come from non-living dead matter. Hence it being a law of science.
The origin of life is everything to do with the evolutionary process because without this basis, natural selection has nothing on which to work. It's anchored to nothing. Literally, no thing. Dawkins would seem to invoke the laws of chemistry kick starting something, which then raises the question where did these very laws come from which enable us to do repeatable, testable experimentation........? Out of a massive explosion, perhaps?
What temperatures were alleged to have been reached at this Big Bang anyway. Would not all matter have been comprehensively sterilised by this said event?
To argue that there are lab experiments to back up the evolutionary model only goes to highlight the irony that you can't get intelligence out of the picture. All such research and testing, including RNA experiments, requires intelligent laboratory and chemistry engineers to carry them out. It won't happen without intelligent agents being actively involved.
The origin of life is just as much to do with the origin of information, a fundamental component of life itself. Our repeated and uniform experience tells us that coded information doesn't come from undirected processes. With reference to causes now in operation, the basis of all scientific reasoning, the cause of digital code is what?
Really? Is that absolutely the best you can do? Citation needed for the scientific law that states life cannot come from a non-living source. A proper one, not a mumbo-jumbo creationist propaganda site.The origin of life is everything to do with the evolutionary process because without this basis, natural selection has nothing on which to work. It's anchored to nothing. Literally, no thing. Dawkins would seem to invoke the laws of chemistry kick starting something, which then raises the question where did these very laws come from which enable us to do repeatable, testable experimentation........? Out of a massive explosion, perhaps?
What temperatures were alleged to have been reached at this Big Bang anyway. Would not all matter have been comprehensively sterilised by this said event?
To argue that there are lab experiments to back up the evolutionary model only goes to highlight the irony that you can't get intelligence out of the picture. All such research and testing, including RNA experiments, requires intelligent laboratory and chemistry engineers to carry them out. It won't happen without intelligent agents being actively involved.
The origin of life is just as much to do with the origin of information, a fundamental component of life itself. Our repeated and uniform experience tells us that coded information doesn't come from undirected processes. With reference to causes now in operation, the basis of all scientific reasoning, the cause of digital code is what?
You also utterly miss the point regarding evolution and the origin of life. There is absolutely nothing in evolutionary process and theory that says that god didn't kick it all off but the simple fact is that evolution is a certainty.
Still, it's worth watching the confused get it all wrong.
Heretic got it right old joe. You fail hard.
plasticpig said:
carmonk said:
enioldjoe said:
The origin of life is just as much to do with the origin of information, a fundamental component of life itself. Our repeated and uniform experience tells us that coded information doesn't come from undirected processes. With reference to causes now in operation, the basis of all scientific reasoning, the cause of digital code is what?
What are you talking about?plasticpig said:
The fundamental problem with this is that the "information" in information theory has nothing to do with meaning or function. It is merely a measure of complexity or a measure of certainty.
Indeed. The resemblence of complexity to artificial constructs in this instance seems to give people the wrong impression.A relatively old experiment that shows just how things can change, depending on the situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_exp...
Note the starting chemical, and what results. Over 20 different types of amino acid. As the splurge says, amino acids are the building blocks of life, and chains of them make proteins. Similar experiments have been done under high pressure to simulate deep oceanic vents, etc.
Continuing this experiment on, as it has done, has given us quite a glimpse into how things can be transformed from one thing to another using only natural phenomena, as well as that dreaded creationist enemy, time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_exp...
Note the starting chemical, and what results. Over 20 different types of amino acid. As the splurge says, amino acids are the building blocks of life, and chains of them make proteins. Similar experiments have been done under high pressure to simulate deep oceanic vents, etc.
Continuing this experiment on, as it has done, has given us quite a glimpse into how things can be transformed from one thing to another using only natural phenomena, as well as that dreaded creationist enemy, time.
S13_Alan said:
TheHeretic said:
Fail.
Quite.What I don't get is if people like the guy above know so much, and know with so much certainty that science, and people such as Dawkins are wrong... then why the f
k aren't they challenging them to a debate, not bhing about atheists on forums.GilbertGrape said:
Another question you could ask would be, Why won't Dawkins *really* debate William Lane Craig. Hitchens did.
You mean this isn't enough of an answer?http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/2...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff