I have a question for those who hate creationism

[M.D. Rawlings]

If you can't adequatley defend your position on a message board. . . .

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biological science, states that "all [biological] life comes from [biological] life." Therefore, Intelligent Design states that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. Hence, ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, i.e., the construct of irreducible complexity in scientific terms as applied to prebiotic research. The theory is valid, falsifiable and currently stands.



Are you going to explain how ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry is not scientific or not?

You'll have to complete the "theory" by telling me how this process occurred if it didn't occur naturally.

No I don't, and you know that, no more than the Pasteurian law of biogenesis need explain the ultimate origin of life.

The theory is falsifiable.

You are refuted.

 

[geauxtohell]

If you can't adequatley defend your position on a message board. . . .

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biological science, states that "all [biological] life comes from [biological] life." Therefore, Intelligent Design states that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. Hence, ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, i.e., the construct of irreducible complexity in scientific terms as applied to prebiotic research. The theory is valid, falsifiable and currently stands.



Are you going to explain how ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry is not scientific or not?

You'll have to complete the "theory" by telling me how this process occurred if it didn't occur naturally.

No I don't, and you know that, no more than the Pasteurian law of biogenesis need explain the ultimate origin of life.

The theory is falsifiable.

You are refuted.

If you want to simply restate Pasteur's "laws", then there is nothing to refute.

If you want to claim Pasteur's laws say something they don't, then I've already responded.

If you have the intestinal fortitude to actually tell us what your theory is or at least what you believe, then we can proceed.

Otherwise, stop wasting my time.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If you want to claim Pasteur's laws say something they don't, then I've already responded.

No. You lied. Remember? You insinuated that prebiotic chemistry and post-biotic speciation were the same thing, that ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry addresses speciation after life began, and of course, that's a lie. A big fat whoppin' lie. An obvious lie. A silly lie. A sick, insane lie. The lie of a pathetic, lying ass dog.

Tell me, have you discovered the metaphysics of science and the metaphysics of your theory whose name you will not speak yet? Still lying about these things, too?

Behold what the rabid, barking mad evolutionist does when he's cornered.

 

[geauxtohell]

If you want to claim Pasteur's laws say something they don't, then I've already responded.

No. You lied. Remember? You insinuated that prebiotic chemistry and post-biotic speciation were the same thing, that ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry addresses speciation after life began, and of course, that's a lie. A big fat whoppin' lie. An obvious lie. A silly lie. A sick, insane lie. The lie of a pathetic, lying ass dog.

Tell me, have you discovered the metaphysics of science and the metaphysics of your theory whose name you will not speak yet? Still lying about these things, too?

Behold what the rabid, barking mad evolutionist does when he's cornered.

Like I said. Come back when you are serious. Until then, you are wasting my time.

 

[JohnA]

What if that God is the Islamic God?

The odds would be much greater than a hundred million lottery winners. But that's only if you presume that this pathway was the only pathway and that there are no similar worlds elsewhere in the Universe. Statistically, there is most likely life elsewhere in the Universe, perhaps all over the Universe, but it could look very different from what we have on Earth.

What if he is? Well, for one thing, I don't think I will qualify for the 72 virgins.

I don't think finding life on other planets would shake my faith. Hell, I don't understand the entire Word of God that I have in front of me. This would simply be something else that I want explained after entering those "pearly gates".

Immie

My point is that the attack on Evolution does not generally come from scientists. It comes from religious people. Why? Because it challenges their belief system on the origins of the universe, and implicitly, their belief in God as explained by their religion. This does not mean that the Theory of Evolution is necessarily correct, and most scientists know this. Instead, Evolution as a theory on the origins of man is one that best fits our understanding of the world around us through the scientific method. If a better explanation comes along, Science will abandon Evolution.

But (most) Creationists aren't interested in discovering the origins of the universe. They are interested in promoting their religion. Their agenda is to tear down the edifice of Evolution so that their explanation is the only one remaining by default.

I, like everyone else, cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. And perhaps God did initiate the Big Bang, I don't know. But if He did, it is highly likely that God is something very different than the one described in the Christian bible, or any of the holy books for that matter.

im a atheist cus that to me it seems the most likely truth ,with all of the facts we have to prove evolution and absolutely no proof at all of g-d (any g-d ) religion relies on faith alone ... you either have it or you dont .

even if in the future we find some proof of a supreme being there is no guarantee he fits the mold of christianity or any other organized religion .
possibly he will have no
RELIGIOUS BIAS AT ALL. its possible he didnt mandate the following of any particular moral code or that he created any particular race as superior .or that he cares or controls or knows what or how we live or even when or how we die .


one of the religions could be right or NONE of them .there are so many differant faiths alive now and there has been many more in the past .all of them have some artifacts and books . many have prophesied the end of the world all wrong . all religions are pretty much the same base story line altered to suit the individual belief

with atheism its only one belief system *there is no g-d *....no artifacts no books no prophecies .to back it up ,just reality

 

[FA_Q2]

Really!! 2011, come on..

 

[Douger]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

It didn't. It's all an illusion.

 

[nitroz]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

There are theories, but nobody knows for sure.

Any evidence of creationism before man came along?

 

[ipMems]

if all animals was created, then why they are all made typically, by one scheme? for the Creator it's more easier and better to make different schemes of body construction... but we see, that all animals seemed to be born from one branch... and thinking logically, we must come to decision, that all life forms have the one primitive Father in past, but this is not your loved Creator

 

[Foxfyre]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

There are theories, but nobody knows for sure.

Any evidence of creationism before man came along?

Wouldn't this be one of those "if a tree falls in the forest and there is nothing to hear it, does it make a sound" questions?

Certainly any evidence of creation would have existed before man came along if evidence of creation exists after man got here. The question remans, however, given that nobody has any means to verify or prove either the scientific or the religious or the rationalized theories or explanations of Creation, whether any one has more or less credibility than another.

It is reasonable to me to explore all as to their origins and processes to arrive at any given conclusion re Creation or concepts of intelligent design that exist outside of religious or scientific theories.

What is stupid is to denigrate and insult people because they are capable of thinking about these things and giving consideration based on logic and reason rather than on some prescribed doctrine dictated by the religionists be they Christian or some other faith or Atheist.

 

[kowalskil]

I don't hate creationism, people can believe what they want to believe, there is no law against it. .... The problem comes in when creationists want creationism taught in public schools. The church is the place to teach religion based creationism. The home is the place to teach religion based creationism. Public schools are not the place to teach religion based creationism.

That is what most people think, including myself. As I wrote earlier, God is not a material entity. God's existence cannot possibly validated by empirical data. Big bang, by contrast, is theory based on empirical data. Which experimental data conflict with the big bang theory?

Ludwik Kowalski