Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

An opinion is an opinion. Science is science.

I don't understand how that's difficult to understand.

Asfor your "moving target" comment? I've not moved any targets. I've said fromthe get go that you haven't based this thread and your conclusions on logic. What you have done is redefine definitions of words and completely avoid anything that contradicts you with putting your fingers in your ears and going "goddidit! goddidit! G
goddidit!"

You know what? I'm done with this thread. There's no point in trying to counter someone who is so biased they have to ignore facts.

Buh-bye.

buh-bye then and thank you for participating.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TerryDon79

THE ability to speak is one unique trait that separates us from the animals. Sadly, some people misuse this privilege.
...
“There exists the one speaking thoughtlessly as with the stabs of a sword,” says the Bible.—Proverbs 12:18.
...
The Bible provides a good strategy, namely, to love our neighbor. (Matthew 7:12; Luke 10:27) Genuine concern and love for neighbor will motivate us always to use words that heal. The Bible says: “Let a rotten saying not proceed out of your mouth, but whatever saying is good for building up as the need may be, that it may impart what is favorable to the hearers.”—Ephesians 4:29.

Source: Avoid Speech That Injures: Awake!—2003

Is that better? Didn't feel like linking something behind a pdf download (no direct link) that I already linked before several times and some people apparently have little difficulty in finding or recognizing where it's from anyway.

Philippians 4:5:

Let your reasonableness become known to all men. The Lord is near.

Microbiologist Radu Popa does not agree with the Bible’s account of creation. Yet, in 2004 he asked: “How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?”13 He also stated: “The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible.”14

13. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, by Radu Popa, 2004, p. 129.
14. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, pp. 126-127.

Fact: The extraordinarily complex molecules that make up a cell—DNA, RNA, proteins—seem designed to work together.
Question: What seems more likely to you? Did unintelligent [chemical] evolution [a.k.a. abiogenesis by natural processes alone, a.k.a. chemical evolution followed by biological evolution, a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life", a.k.a. "self-organizational scenarios", etc., i.e. philosophical naturalism, 'nature did it'] construct the intricate machines depicted [in the many videos I shared in this forum about that subject], or were those machines the product of an intelligent mind?
Fact: Some respected scientists say that even a “simple” cell is far too complex to have arisen by chance on earth.
Question: If some scientists are willing to speculate that life came from an extraterrestrial source, what is the basis for ruling out God as that Source?

Source: The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking

is that the only book on your shelf? good grief, man, expand your library. i assure you there are other compelling works of literature if you only dared to leave the comfort of your monastery.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Now you're just trolling. And badly at that.

No. Just pinning this down because you're a moving target. You seem to change your opinion when something goes against it.

Now, I already know according to Noinden it's Dr. Hawkings opinion - in the category of Pop Sci. So how do you view it?

Scientific or not?

just a question. what are you scared of?

i think you only know your ideas of hawkings ideas (a critical differentiation there) because your presence on a conspiracy forum versus a lectern at a university seems to imply a certain armchair quality to your grasp of professor hawkings work. and then you pose your limited comprehension as being on level footing with a book you barely glanced through, let alone getting your hands dirty and following up on the years of research and collaboration that lead to its publication. but by all mean, keep posing. its clearly working.

a reply to: TzarChasm

But reading books is hard (looks at sagging shelves and Amazon Orders due .... oops) /sarc

Just remember we are dealing with people who rely on a single book as the only source they value, despite it being translated through several languages, and edited to the stone age and beyond.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

But reading books is hard (looks at sagging shelves and Amazon Orders due .... oops) /sarc

Just remember we are dealing with people who rely on a single book as the only source they value, despite it being translated through several languages, and edited to the stone age and beyond.

the only thing holy about that book is its plot.

...meh heh. ಠ_ರೃ

a reply to: TzarChasm

It has a plot? It has more editors than modern pop songs have writers

a reply to: TzarChasm

i think you only know your ideas of hawkings ideas (a critical differentiation there) because your presence on a conspiracy forum versus a lectern at a university seems to imply a certain armchair quality to your grasp of professor hawkings work. and then you pose your limited comprehension as being on level footing with a book you barely glanced through, let alone getting your hands dirty and following up on the years of research and collaboration that lead to its publication. but by all mean, keep posing. its clearly working.

quite to the contrary. I've been at this for years. So I'm well aware of what you're saying. But to my point, I'm specifically interested in the Ultimate Origin of the Universe. And since Dr. Hawkings is a well-recognized personage in this arena, his writings proved to be helpful but doesn't address the ultimate question head on.

And since you and your buds seem to know about this more than Dr. Hawkings, then why be defensive about it?

I fail to see it. YOU should be up for the task and explain why my position is not logical rather than just throwing meaningless words at me.

a reply to: edmc^2

quite to the contrary. I've been at this for years. So I'm well aware of what you're saying. But to my point, I'm specifically interested in the Ultimate Origin of the Universe. And since Dr. Hawkings is a well-recognized personage in this arena, his writings proved to be helpful but doesn't address the ultimate question head on.

And since you and your buds seem to know about this more than Dr. Hawkings, then why be defensive about it?

I fail to see it. YOU should be up for the task and explain why my position is not logical rather than just throwing meaningless words at me.

"his writings proved to be helpful but doesn't address the ultimate question head on." so? he is doing the best he can with the tools at his disposal. he could be posting petty threads on a conspiracy forum. good thing he did something constructive with his genius.

70+ pages tells me you are not ready to hear anything that doesnt confirm your hypotheses. you dont want to learn, you want an audience.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

quite to the contrary. I've been at this for years. So I'm well aware of what you're saying. But to my point, I'm specifically interested in the Ultimate Origin of the Universe. And since Dr. Hawkings is a well-recognized personage in this arena, his writings proved to be helpful but doesn't address the ultimate question head on.

And since you and your buds seem to know about this more than Dr. Hawkings, then why be defensive about it?

I fail to see it. YOU should be up for the task and explain why my position is not logical rather than just throwing meaningless words at me.

"his writings proved to be helpful but doesn't address the ultimate question head on." so? he is doing the best he can with the tools at his disposal. he could be posting petty threads on a conspiracy forum. good thing he did something constructive with his genius.

70+ pages tells me you are not ready to hear anything that doesnt confirm your hypotheses. you dont want to learn, you want an audience.

What?

70+ pages and all you did is attack, attack and haven't presented any logical argument to counter my premise.

Always Existing Vs Nothing - which?



Part du - coming.

originally posted by: edmc^2
70+ pages and all you did is attack, attack and haven't presented any logical argument to counter my premise.

Actually, many people have, you just seem unable to grasp it.

a reply to: daskakik

Shhhh his reality is the interior of a mirrored sphere.

In all seriousness, the Pee Wee Herman approach of "I know what you are, but what am I?" approach to these arguments wears thin. I've yet to see why Creation is the only logical explanation of anything. I've admitted (topics and topics ago, not even this one) it is an explanation, but not the only one.

So lets try again. Where are those references edmc^2,

originally posted by: Barcs

Just because we haven't seen life originate, doesn't mean it can't happen. There is no logical connection between not seeing it, and it being impossible or unlikely.

Figured you were going to continue changing the fact that was spoken of and then responding to that. It doesn't say that it's impossible. It says ""all scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter". That's what I'm observing (including the very same experiments that you interpret the other way around). I'm not talking about what I'm not observing being automatically impossible, I never made that argument. That's why it's called a straw man argument.

The verb "indicates" is also not a synonym for "proves". And just because others like yourself interpret the research differently is not going to change the reality that I'm observing when studying the results from these experiments (and others where the word "abiogenesis" or similar terms aren't even mentioned in the so-called "peer reviewed" articles) and the opinions and philosophies that get published right along with it in the same "peer reviewed" holy Scriptures.

a reply to: whereislogic

Citations please

originally posted by: whereislogic
I'm not talking about what I'm not observing being automatically impossible, I never made that argument. That's why it's called a straw man argument.

Maybe you can explain that to the OP.

a reply to: Noinden
Read the rest of the article about "The Origin Of Life..." that I linked later, the references are listed at the end of the pdf. Or try my thread in this forum for a small sample. You know, the stuff I haven't gotten a response to yet...around the time when it became quiet in my thread and I became the only one left talking (making comments).

Btw, I have yet to see anyone put forward any scientific research that indicates that life can spring from nonliving matter, and yes, I've already seen the stuff that Barcs and others have put forward in this forum so far, it didn't qualify. Perhaps that's why he's not sharing any of it again to show how wrong my evaluation of this scientific research is. Cause I tend to respond to it by seperating facts from fiction, and perhaps that's the reason why he pretends I don't respond to it. That's not a promise I'm going to do it again, so I'd say, go for it, it always looks good and works well in a propagandistic manner when someone likes me gets tired of responding with what my issues are with the fiction that sometimes even gets published as so-called "peer reviewed" science.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

quite to the contrary. I've been at this for years. So I'm well aware of what you're saying. But to my point, I'm specifically interested in the Ultimate Origin of the Universe. And since Dr. Hawkings is a well-recognized personage in this arena, his writings proved to be helpful but doesn't address the ultimate question head on.

And since you and your buds seem to know about this more than Dr. Hawkings, then why be defensive about it?

I fail to see it. YOU should be up for the task and explain why my position is not logical rather than just throwing meaningless words at me.

"his writings proved to be helpful but doesn't address the ultimate question head on." so? he is doing the best he can with the tools at his disposal. he could be posting petty threads on a conspiracy forum. good thing he did something constructive with his genius.

70+ pages tells me you are not ready to hear anything that doesnt confirm your hypotheses. you dont want to learn, you want an audience.

What?

70+ pages and all you did is attack, attack and haven't presented any logical argument to counter my premise.

Always Existing Vs Nothing - which?



Part du - coming.

This thread doesn't need a part two anymore than you need a second mouth. Remember what I just said about doing something constructive instead of posting petty threads?

a reply to: whereislogic

So you are claiming this is a comprehensive list of the subject? I am of the opinion you are inferring something beyond what science has said.

a reply to: Noinden
Back to the 'are you saying'-game? I wonder how can you twist " a small sample" to the terminology "comprehensive list" and still think you're having an honest rational conversation (or would like others to think so).

Scientists say things. Science/knowledge is just a familiarity with facts, things that are factual/absolute/certain/conclusive/currect, without error.

a reply to: whereislogic

Again you've yet to prove your creation theory is the only logical answer. Why should I beleive anything else you post, when you can't cite it.

a reply to: Noinden
Your 'holy peer-reviewed Scripture' is not my holy Scripture. And your gurus are not my teachers. Comments like yours are unlikely to change that. It just demonstrated further to me what the issue is here. An unwillingness to properly evaluate these so-called "peer reviewed" articles, includig using it as a magic 'stick of truth' (that is actually not certain/absolute/true/correct, without error, and even presented with that contradiction).

a reply to: whereislogic

See and there we go. You can't prove something. So you attack it. Y'all can't use science as evidence, and attack science at the same time.

Also I have my own holy books thanks, I'm a polytheist.