maguschris Posted January 17, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 73 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 17, 2007 See, even the scientists can't agree. Although I've heard the argument that if you don't believe in evolution, you can't be a "real" scientist. Wow and you are no different from them, just on the other end of the scale. Christians cant agree either! "You have to be baptized to be saved", "No you dont God weighs our heart not our actions".....and so forth. And I've heard many-a-christian say that if you aren't baptized you cant be a real christian. Or if you dont go to church every week or if you agree with any "secular"idea of the world, so on and so on. Basically my point is, you are showing your ignorance by being just as extreme as the people who believe religion is evil and that there is no God. "Can't we all just get along" Good enough quote for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdrehfal Posted February 13, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 207 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/12/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) Creationism (in all of it's forms) is also only a theory. (Scientifically - it is what it is folks, don't throw darts at me please smile.gif ) I personally believe in God as the creator of everything. Jesus is my Lord and Savior as well; but in order to be honest, I have to admit that Creation is as much a "Theory" as any other. The problem with creationism is that you cannot rule out the Creator using any alternative methods to bring about the evidences we see today. The hypothesis cannot therefore be falsified and is unscientific. Ok, enough. We can falsify the creator if we can find something in nature that creates a code (organized information) by itself. If you can find a code that doesn't derive from intelligence you can falsify the creator's existence. DNA is a code. No, it's not like a code, anologous to a code, or related to as a code. It is a code, period. Information Theory would define DNA as a code. Every code comes from a will or mind, hence a creator. Find me a code that doesn't come from a will or mind and you can falsify my hypothesis. I predict by my hypothesis that you will not find a code that doesn't come from at least some form of intelligence. To make things clear, a code would be organized information that serves a purpose which can exist independent of the medium used. The information in the DNA can exist this way, because that's what it is: information. And do not try to argue that information is not real, because it produces real effects. Information even though it is not "tangible", is most certainly real. What are you reading right now? Words. You're not reading LCD pixels, electron-to-phosphrous beams or any such thing, you're reading real words and you can speak them and write them down on paper and represent them in binary by ASCII code and they're still real words because they produce real effects. Your response to this post would be a real effect, and it would be the same if i wrote it to you verbatim and you mailed me back a letter. I want a code that doesn't come from intelligence. Edited February 13, 2007 by tdrehfal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Quit attacking the guy. It's his theory we're worried about. The issue we're wrestling with here is just a tad bit more important then theories! Sheep or goat? "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:" "And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:" "And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left." (Matthew 25:31-33) Home, Home at last! "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:" (Matthew 25:34) Everlasting is a very long time. "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" (Matthew 25:41) Left or Right? "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matthew 25:46) A thought for you to consider, systemstrike_7, what kind of friend would stop folks from fighting to keep a human out of the lake of everlasting fire? "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15) If you think I do not care about you, you are wrong! "The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace." (Numbers 6:26) Love, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaturnV Posted February 14, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 156 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 14, 2007 By the standards of his time, Darwin was rather egalitarian. Keep in mind these were the days of Colonialism and "The White Man's Burden." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdrehfal Posted February 14, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 207 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/12/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) Darwin's Theory of Evolution is still only a theory. Just so you know, a scientific theory has a very different meaning from the everyday use of the word theory. Click me. I cringe whenever I hear some say "just a theory" or "only a theory," because 99% of the time it means that person does not understand what a scientific theory is. (If you can't see where I'm coming from; imagine someone says Christianity is just a religion!) Cite any evidence you have for this theory having moved from the status of theory into fact please. The general consensus is that evolution by natural selection is both a theory and a fact. I'll be the first to admit a scientific theory is what you stated if people will admit that abiogenesis is merely a hypothesis. It's tough when people keep redifining words by filtering them through what appears to be The Ministry of Truth (if you're not familiar with 1984, it's a good read!)... This would be the correct definition of theory, but there are people on here now saying that a theory is a theory just because a lot of people accept the idea. That's not true. Like you've already said, a theory is supported by evidence and not just the fact that people like or accept a hypothesis. The "Brights" movement would be a nice example too. So I guess im a "Dim". The brights, the dims, the "polits" the "proles"... what on earth is this country turning into. You must think in newspeak. That's "goodthought". We don't want to be a "badthinker". Badthinkers are prone to thought crime and need to be eliminated by the Thought Police. Don't challenge the Brights! Edited February 14, 2007 by tdrehfal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdrehfal Posted February 14, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 207 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/12/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 14, 2007 Darwin was indeed a racist. (Nearly) all whites were back then. By your standards, we can compare most contemporaries of Darwin to be Hitler. Countless Christian Hitlers. Hitlers in the preisthood. Hitlers everywhere. What's worse, many of these people used the Bible to justify their racism. Slaveholders all over the antebellum South drew on Bible to "morally" justify their trade. Do you want to see some of their favorite passages? I could go on, but I don't think it would be respectful to you or your faith. Just like it's pretty disrespectful of you to liken a dead man to Hitler, ignoring the fact most people in his society held such views. And it's even more ridiculous to use such insults to discredit his work in science. Read up on your history. And show a little respect for the dead. I will concede that bad Bible Study has been used to justify their racism/slavery. If they read what Jesus taught at all it should not have happened that way. But we must also say that evolution has been used to justify racism. Hitler thought that the Jews were "pure ape" and I think he considered black people to be "mostly apes"... Not that he had any proper understanding of evolution, he was, however, using an improper understanding of it much like an improper use of the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaturnV Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 156 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 15, 2007 I'll be the first to admit a scientific theory is what you stated if people will admit that abiogenesis is merely a hypothesis. Abiogenesis isn't just one hypothesis-it's several different ones. There's plenty of argument out there as to whether RNA was formed before plasma membranes, whether metabolism originated along with the first genome, what conditions were present when life first emerged, and so forth. When you refer to Abiogenesis as a hypothesis, I'm almost tempted to ask which hypothesis you're referring to. They all have their evidence and their flaws, which is why there's still little consensus about the origins of life. I subscribe largely to the "RNA world" model since RNA has been shown to autocatalyze in the laboratory, and many viruses have RNA-based genomes instead of DNA-based ones. But, I'll probably end up changing my mind in some way once more experiments are done on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdrehfal Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 207 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/12/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 15, 2007 (edited) I'll be the first to admit a scientific theory is what you stated if people will admit that abiogenesis is merely a hypothesis. Abiogenesis isn't just one hypothesis-it's several different ones. There's plenty of argument out there as to whether RNA was formed before plasma membranes, whether metabolism originated along with the first genome, what conditions were present when life first emerged, and so forth. When you refer to Abiogenesis as a hypothesis, I'm almost tempted to ask which hypothesis you're referring to. They all have their evidence and their flaws, which is why there's still little consensus about the origins of life. I subscribe largely to the "RNA world" model since RNA has been shown to autocatalyze in the laboratory, and many viruses have RNA-based genomes instead of DNA-based ones. But, I'll probably end up changing my mind in some way once more experiments are done on the matter. Yeah, i've read about the "RNA world" a little bit. No matter how you try to justify abiogensis, however it is not a theory it is still a hypothesis even if there are many. Bascially abiogensis is garbage. Evolution at least has some scientific evidence to back it up, but abiogensis is simply rediculous. You can't get information, like DNA, from nothing. It's not possible. We should not throw out Information Theory or the Law of Biogensis because of biased views. Even someone studied in evolutinoary biology would probably back me up if he's not biased. Scientists simply do not know how life could ever come from non-life ... Edited February 15, 2007 by tdrehfal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaturnV Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 156 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 15, 2007 I have said many times that we don't yet know how life originated. We're trying to find out, and current hypotheses are the best explanations based on the available evidence. Invoking divine intervention gets us nowhere closer to understanding the physical processes that led to the origin of life. If you'd like to use God to explain "why," please do, but the "how" is what I want to know. Please keep in mind that just because we do not yet know, that does not mean we will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdrehfal Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 207 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/12/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 15, 2007 (edited) I have said many times that we don't yet know how life originated. We're trying to find out, and current hypotheses are the best explanations based on the available evidence. Invoking divine intervention gets us nowhere closer to understanding the physical processes that led to the origin of life. If you'd like to use God to explain "why," please do, but the "how" is what I want to know. Please keep in mind that just because we do not yet know, that does not mean we will never know. Fortunately, I already know how it originated. But thank you for admitting that you don't know. The "how" would be hard for anyone to understand, if, God, being divine is quite a bit more intelligent than we are, so the "how" may or may not ever be figured out. Those hypotheses are not good explanations at all, and I don't know what available evidence you're referring to. I think people that believe abiogensis need to listen to Yockey's arguments because they are scientifically sound. Edited February 15, 2007 by tdrehfal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts