Doesn't make it any more correct just because you get it from 5 books instead of 1.Originally Posted by pharm_teg
So one needs to formulate his own theory, which takes funding and years of rigorous testing, to agree with the findings of another? Interesting concept. I'm sorry, which college did you do your research? That's the last personal attack I promise.. The fact that the only source of data for Creationists is the bible, IS not logical. Science can at least attempt to reference other sources. We don't have just ONE source to draw from.
That was the point. Sufficient data is a subjective term. It's an open ended and open to interpretation, let's ride the fence, statement.Hmm, sounds a lot like Creationism to me. Hard to believe but I am very open-mined. I am willing to consider any point as long as sufficient data exists.
The ole "warm soup" theory, eh?Metalman's examples have been discussed many times over. Read any Creationist website. I assume you've read those before you posted? It's the same argument. They use "unreliable" science to refute "unreliable" science. Makes no sense to me. Hey, if he wants to discuss coelacanths, newts, abiogenesis, evolution, theory of gravity, and etc that's fine by me. It just becomes a tiresome debate. It takes time to post detailed explanations regardless of which side you are on. BTW, are we talking about ABIOGENESIS or EVOLUTION?
Isn't that the platform from which Evolutionists support most of their "origin of life" theories? There is plenty of research, by noted scientist that are quick to point out are NOT Creationists, to show that Abiogenesis is not possible.
Again, it's been pointed out a million times that not one single scientist has to this day been able to spontaneously and randomly and by "chance" been able to reproduce LIFE from a single celled organism. It has been tried many times. Never succeded. It is easy to microdisect what "life" needs, i.e. amino acids and proteins. But much like a single brick is to a fully finished house, it takes combination of many other things to get the final product correct. A single brick is no more a house you can live in, than a single cell is to a fully grown human.
How about this quote from a Scientist that holds 7 degrees in Biology, Psychology, evaluation and research; is a professor of biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy; AND is also a leading researcher in the field of cancer genetics........He says:
"In spite of the overwhelming empirical and probabilistic evidence that life could not originate by natural processes, evolutionists possess an unwavering belief that some day they will have an answer to how life could spontaneously generate. Nobel laureate Christian de Duve (1995) argues that life is the product of law-driven chemical steps, each one of which must have been highly probable in the right circumstances. This reliance upon an unknown “law” favoring life has been postulated to replace the view that life’s origin was a freakish accident unlikely to occur anywhere, is now popular. Chance is now out of favor in part because it has become clear that even the simplest conceivable life form (still much simpler than any actual organism) would have to be so complex that accidental self-assembly would be nothing short of miraculous even in two billion years (Spetner, 1997). Furthermore, natural selection cannot operate until biological reproducing units exist. This hoped for “law,” though, has no basis in fact nor does it even have a theoretical basis. It is a nebulous concept which results from a determination to continue the quest for a naturalistic explanation of life."
Go try and argue with him now......
Science, as mentioned above, has been shown to be wrong many many many times.Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?
Remember, a little more than 500 yrs ago, "Scientists" assured everyone that they KNEW the Earth was flat.
#1. Established by whom? You?Creationists are questioning established science, so the burden of proof is on their shoulders. Do you really think, given the history of this debate, anything would just disappear? Would you understand why Creationists lobby to eliminate the teaching of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? No matter the evidence provided, Creationists will dismiss it b/c it does not conform to their agenda.
#2. Scientists themselves have made theories, only to later recant those theories when the experiments they conducted didn't pan out the way they perceived it on paper.
#3. Thermodynamics has nothing to do with CREATING life. It is yet another theory about the displacement of energy rather than destruction of energy. What's that got to do with the CREATION of life?
I clearly said I don't need any proof. So I have no idea where you are getting this from.Why do YOU need proof if you have faith? Isn't faith in your heart and mind? Shouldn't matter whether your eyes are open or shut.
You are absolutely right. They absolutely can co-exist. They have for all of man's history. You are also right in that being an atheist or being religious does not automatically put you on one side or another, although the vast majority is parted down those lines.Not everyone that opposes Creationism is atheist/agnostic and not everyone that opposes Evolution is religious. Can they co-exist?
Reply With Quote
