velothemonk: Well said. I am glad you brought up the topic of the genetic code. The genetic code is a death blow to evolution theory as well as the big bang theory. Alter2Ego
DaCapoAlCoda: Scientist Stanley Miller and his associate, Harold Urey, attempted to create life SPONTANEOUSLY from non-life, under controlled laboratory conditions in 1953. "They designed an apparatus which held a mix of gases similar to those found in Earth's early atmosphere over a pool of water, representing Earth's early ocean. Electrodes delivered an electric current, simulating lightning, into the gas-filled chamber. After allowing the experiment to run for one week, they analyzed the contents of the liquid pool. They found that several organic amino acids had formed spontaneously from inorganic raw materials. These molecules collected together in the pool of water to form coacervates." The Miller Urey Experiment - Windows to the Universe They managed to produce several organic acids from PRE-EXISTING inorganic raw material. In so doing, they proved that it requires the deliberate intervention of an intelligent being to produce what they were able to produce (Miller and Urey being the intelligent beings who deliberately intervened, in this instance). And they had to use "inorganic raw materials" made from materials that they did not create from scratch. Suffice it to say, Miller and Urey produced nothing resembling life. As far back as 1859, Scientists Louis Pasteur performed laboratory experiments in which he proved that organic life can only result from pre-existing life. So your above claim that, to quote you: "we have created a situation that could suggest organic life could result from non organic life" is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. Alter2Ego
Senenetehfrog86: You are correct when you state we are all going to die. But Jehovah, the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible, offers the opportunity for everlasting life, by means of his son, Jesus Christ (after he resurrects us from the dead). However, there are conditions that one must live up to in order to qualify. Not acknowledging Jehovah's existence, not bringing one's life in harmony with his instructions, and not giving him due honor and respect is the best method for guaranteeing that once we die, we will not be resurrected back to life. "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) Alter2Ego
I am sorry but the last paragraph is not true, you cannot prove life can only come from life, that is an assumption (thus far a reasonable one). There are so many variables in the physical reality humans will never be able to test every possible scenario. Perhaps life can only arise from non-life under certain conditions in a planets life, there may be some optimum that our planet went through and it now passed. I am not claiming that as true, just saying that we cannot say for sure. Depending on how we define 'life' we might say that we have never observed non-life become life, so we might have a low confidence that it is possible/probable. Some believe the whole universe is alive, so life and non-life is ultimately meaningless. We categorize things to try to make sense of the patterns of the universe, but almost no category is without exception. That doesnt mean categories are useless, but we have to be aware of the limits of their usefulness.
Here's the deal, I've stated multiple times evolution is not absolute and proven, that's not really how theory and fact work in science anyways. I've also stated that much of what these things rely on is hubris, the idea that we can actually do and understand the things we would need to, to accurately recreate anything, and form some true, complete picture. I do not believe in the idea that we've evolved from a common ancestor because a scientist said so. Again, in these fields, we can not know the "right" answer, so all of the data hinges on the one interpreting it, and people can interpret things very differently. I've stated why I believe in evolution already in this thread, but the basic reason is that there are more observable things to suggest that, over anything else I've ever heard. I believe we came from the ape, because we are too similar to the ape. But as far as your response, I'm not sure what to think. How do you surmise them simulating conditions we believe would be naturally present proves the need for the deliberate intervention of an intelligent being. You can't honestly be implying that I'm wishfully thinking by saying the very minimal of what something may suggest, yet, you are conservative in claiming an absolute fact (that this proves the need for a creator), based on what? Again, an experiment, created by human beings, who don't have a real guide book here, had simulated a potentially natural environment that produced amino acids. We do not know the precise environment and can not create the exact exterior influences, but, in this very basic experiment, we were able to create what we believe are some of the building blocks to life out of a couple conditions that we believe would have been present. That very greatly suggests that natural conditions could produce these things. That doesn't prove it, how could we without actually know the exact conditions (which we can't), but, it is no longer a baseless claim. I do not understand how saying an experiment that created complex compounds out of some electricity, a few gases, and some salt water, doesn't suggest nature may be able to do the same. Now, there could still be a conscious creator involved, none of this, nor the idea of evolution makes that impossible. But, I simply do not see a reason to believe nor to suggest that this was needed or was present. With Louis Pasteur. What you are talking about is of no relation to what I am talking about. He experimented by putting broth in a couple of flasks, boiled them, then left one exposed to the environment while the other was not. What he showed, was that the things that breed disease and maggots didn't simply come to be because a certain object was present, they came to be through contamination and the flies. The environment had to have these things present. But this does not relate to what we are speaking of. This Earth isn't a sterilized broth, space isn't a sterilized broth. This is like saying the banana proves divine creation and the fact that life doesn't pop out of a sterilized jar of peanut butter every now and then proves evolution a farce. Both arguments I have heard. Again, it's very easy to trash an idea, what is your idea? What is the overwhelming proof of creation that you hold?
NorseMythology: Scientist Louis Pasteur proved in 1859 that biologic life can only result from previously existing life. I suggest you go back and read the entire text that I presented at Post 102. Alter2Ego
DaCapoAlCoda: You are arguing for abiogenesis (life coming to life by itself) with one side of your mouth, while on the other side of your mouth, you inadvertently admit that organic life can only result from preexisting life. The experiment by scientists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey--in which they attempted to spontaneously create life from non-life--required THEIR deliberate intervention. And it required that THEY had to have been intelligent, well trained scientists. Let me remind you, Miller and Urey failed to produce life, despite the fact they were intelligent and despite the fact they deliberately intervened. QUESTION #1 TO DaCapoAlCoda: If Miller and Urey had not been alive, and had not been intelligent beings, would there have even been an experiment? Alter2Ego
No he didn't, he only proved that at that time, under those conditions he was not able to produce life. Do you not believe the entire universe is alive?
I am not arguing for this (as if it's fact), again, I've stated multiple times, I do not know the truth, none of us do, but, if I am going to consider a truth, it has to be more supported than any other truths I am exposed to. When a more compelling truth is presented, I will change my mind. So, a realistic, natural environment, created compounds that were not originally present. This right there, shows that under certain circumstances, that are/have been present in nature, complex compounds could possibly be created, they do not have to have always been there. And there is nothing we know yet, that suggests these events require a conscious creator. Of course there very well may be one, but, nothing we know suggests this with any real likelihood or necessity. And even if there was one, this could very well suggest that the creator didn't necessarily have to create us, but simply natural conditions that could/would have. Is water conscious? It's carved out land simply by flowing, yet we require many many man hours and complex equipment. So using the "if this then that" approach. Man has to use intelligence to move the earth. Therefore, water is intelligent because it also moves earth? This is what I'm hearing you continually saying. Of course one could say a god created the water as a tool to carve the earth, but at some point, we have to understand these are simply convenient premises that have nothing but personal desire/understanding, backing them up. Their experiment didn't require an intelligent being to have the outcome it had, it required an intelligent being to set up the experiment. That is the nature of an experiment, otherwise, it is simply an event. The intelligent being set up the conditions that would have been naturally present. Water, pressure, gasses, lighting, all of these things are inorganic, and all of these things are/were naturally present. If you are going to continually say "if this, then that", you really should stop acting like the people who may disagree with you are somehow leaping so much further than you are. The experimenters life and intelligence is moot, if we did not have the equipment to simulate the environment that can/has been present in nature, and if we did not have the ability to extrapolate early Earth conditions, this experiment could not have been done. But, is Yahweh not an omnipotent being, merely a scientist with some lab equipment? Again, this experiment in no way honestly suggests that creation requires a creator. All this suggest is that certain conditions could be required. Conditions that are/were naturally present. Also, I've already addressed Pastel's experiments, I feel you need to look up what the purpose and findings were. Because you are not citing the outcome correctly.
I know who you are speaking of, he is why I talk to shit to my rice. These are neat ideas, but, there is not enough supporting this, that I know of. His experiment with water may be a little more "complex" to recreate, meaning you'd have to spend a couple bucks on a few things, but the rice is simple. The premise of his work is in the literal and direct effect of consciousness, essentially, or, at least what I know of him. Consciousness very well may effect the world around us (in the way these people are speaking of), or maybe there is some sort of conscious field surrounding all of us that is exploited by conscious beings, or only certain ones, but, there is not enough suggesting this (meaning nothing replicable to any degree to be consider as fact [fact meaning, data supported truths {truths meaning, data supported explanations of events based on our most current understanding of replicable and/or observable events; until proven wrong <proven wrong essential means P<0.05, it doesn't mean absolute, merely, as of yet, based on various commonly accepted and self guided parameters the individual or team decide to set at the time>}]) That was got damned bracket-ception right there. Now, of course a collective force does much more than an individual, that is one way consciousness changes the world around us. If more people get involved, more things happen. If someone dwells on everything that is negative, their life will likely spiral to shit, if they broke that mentality, one could almost garuntee their life would improve significantly, this is a way our consciousness changes the world around us. But, I do not know of enough to believe this. I can entertain the ideas, but, I can't consider it as truth.
NorseMythology: Your denials will not change reality. Go ahead and deny. The fact remains Scientist Louis Pasteur proved in 1859 that biologic life can only result from previously existing life. BTW: I can see why you included the word "Mythology" as part of your user name. Alter2Ego
I don't deny anything he proved, I stated exactly what he demonstrated. Being unable to artificially create life in his rudimentary attempt cannot be extrapolated to suggest that it is therefore impossible. Now, since nobody has been able to demonstrate how non-life can create life, we have to admit we don't know how it happened. You can choose to believe God did it, that is fine, but to use that particular experiment to confirm your belief is disingenuous I think. All you have to say is "no body has produced life from non-life so I am justified in believing God did it". I would say that is fine, but if someone ever did create life from non-life I suspect you would just say "see it takes intelligence to make life". I would agree, but I believe the entire universe is alive and intelligent, as is the Creator, there is no good distinction between life and non-life ultimately, it is just an attempt at man in describing and catagorizing things. Lastly, you don't have any clue why I chose this username nor is it appropriate to try to insult me, it is a reflection who you are.
NorseMythology: You are confirming what I have stated in this thread already, that abiogenesis theory (life coming from non-life by itself) was debunked in 1859 by Louis Pasteur. So your insistence that Pasteur did nothing of the kind has been proven moot by your own words, bolded above in red. Alter2Ego
The thing is, you have also been asked the question of “who created God”, or, for that matter, to provide proof that your God also exists. Hntil either side can provide proof kne way or another, there is no debate. j