Merged: Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

i believe in special creation from God. I do not believe that evolution, chance, or physical necessity, can account for the arise of life. With " all at once " i did not want to say, that i believe, that God created everything in just a instance of time.

so God the Trickster?

God made the world to look like it is five billion years old and the universe if 13.7 billion years old just on a lark?

So some bishop could say that the world is 7,000 years old and God is testing us?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

fact is, Abiogenesis is a failed hypotheses, the reasons are manyfold. the advance of science has only deepened the problem, rather than solve it.


http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-...arise-on-earth

"There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment."

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Does it make sense to you, that our universe could have come into existence from absolutely nothing ?

what makes sense to you ?

"We don't know" does not equal "nothing"

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

You should check my track record. I try to respond almost to all posters. When i don't, its because i have only a short time. But i understand that YOUR tactic is adhom attack, because you have nothing reasonable and rational on hand for your case.

So:
How many values for X

mass electron> X >2x mass electron?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

there are many problems with that hypotheses, as already said in this thread.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t20-...lid-hypotheses







So you believe, that from absolutely nothing, something can arise ?

We don't know does not equal nothing.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

fact is, Abiogenesis is a failed hypotheses, the reasons are manyfold. the advance of science has only deepened the problem, rather than solve it.


http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-...arise-on-earth

I'm just going to sigh, first of all, and point you back to the link that I provided regarding abiogenesis and offer to point you at simpler explanations again. Secondly, I'm going to point out that your presented arguments are flawed. To answer them out of order, I'll start with the last. The 4th one, especially is a bad argument to use given how very many times it's already been addressed in this thread. Incidentally, though, you realize that there's a kind of ameoba (which has a total of one cell) that has over 200 times the amount of "information" as a human?

Regarding the argument involving chirality, the wikipedia article on homochirality is far more informative on the matter than the rhetoric you put forth.

Regarding the first one... shall I point out that I have no proof that you exist, by the standards that creationists have very, very often used the term?

Regarding the second, the 'early conditions' section of the abiogenesis wiki page already dealt with that sufficiently to answer it. This wiki page deals with it a bit, too, and allows for further exploration of the topic.

[bruto]

Gibhor, you seem to have enough time to write very long and detailed answers to many questions, but you have not yet addressed my one, very simple, very terse question: do you actually not even know the meaning of the term "emergent behavior?"

That seems to me a very important question by which to judge the seriousness of the arguments in this thread. Can you not answer it?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by bruto

Gibhor, you seem to have enough time to write very long and detailed answers to many questions, but you have not yet addressed my one, very simple, very terse question: do you actually not even know the meaning of the term "emergent behavior?"

That seems to me a very important question by which to judge the seriousness of the arguments in this thread. Can you not answer it?

yes , i know its meaning. So ?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Aridas

I'm just going to sigh, first of all, and point you back to the link that I provided regarding abiogenesis and offer to point you at simpler explanations again. Secondly, I'm going to point out that your presented arguments are flawed. To answer them out of order, I'll start with the last. The 4th one, especially is a bad argument to use given how very many times it's already been addressed in this thread. Incidentally, though, you realize that there's a kind of ameoba (which has a total of one cell) that has over 200 times the amount of "information" as a human?

So what ?

Quote:

Regarding the argument involving chirality, the wikipedia article on homochirality is far more informative on the matter than the rhetoric you put forth.

please show how the problem has been solved. Because i have yet to see a reasnable answer.

Regarding the first one... shall I point out that I have no proof that you exist, by the standards that creationists have very, very often used the term?

Quote:

Regarding the second, the 'early conditions' section of the abiogenesis wiki page already dealt with that sufficiently to answer it. This wiki page deals with it a bit, too, and allows for further exploration of the topic.

Ok, Wiki dealt with it. Which is the explanation that convinced you my presented argument is flawed ?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

We don't know does not equal nothing.

does that mean, that you have no clue, if from absolutely nothing, something can arise ? i usually really amuse myself on the answers of atheists of this one

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

So:
How many values for X

mass electron> X >2x mass electron?

Sorry, but i am bad on math formulas.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

so God the Trickster?

God made the world to look like it is five billion years old and the universe if 13.7 billion years old just on a lark?

So some bishop could say that the world is 7,000 years old and God is testing us?

Do you believe the principle of uniformitarism is a valid one ? and if so, why ?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Wrong, there are theories for the development of the cell walls and self catalyzing sets, there are theories for the development of RNA/DNA, the first cell was not the eukaryote, it was likely a bubble of self catalyzing chemicals that supported a lipid bilayer.

So you have structure that supports a self sustaining bubble of lipid bilayer, what is so complex about that?

there are also theories of the spiderman , superman, and the sphaghetti monster......

Quote:

BTW, why are there viruses and prions?

I don't know. Do you ?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by joobz

I invite you to prove me wrong.
Address the following..

I don't have to adress you anything. YOU are invited to present a compelling worldview, based on naturalism. So far, you have not......

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

there are also theories of the spiderman , superman, and the sphaghetti monster......

And the theory of god which comes in the same category.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

does that mean, that you have no clue, if from absolutely nothing, something can arise ? i usually really amuse myself on the answers of atheists of this one

Where is this region of quote "absolutely nothing"?

The book you quoted from Tipler did not claim it was absolutely "nothing", did it? On the contrary, Tipler said the vacuum Energy was not really "nothing".

So why are you talking about anyone claiming the universe came from "absolutely nothing"?

[joobz]

You wrote:

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

You should check my track record. I try to respond almost to all posters. When i don't, its because i have only a short time. But i understand that YOUR tactic is adhom attack, because you have nothing reasonable and rational on hand for your case.

I responded:

Originally Posted by joobz

Adhom is to say "you are ugly, therefore you are wrong"
I am saying, " you are ignorant of the topic you are discussing and don't realize how wrong you are."
That isn't an adhom, it is a clear and conclusive statement of your position.

I invite you to prove me wrong.
Address the following.
1. How do you explain emergent behavior?
2. How do you explain RNAi and the change in "the written code" that arises from this?
3. How do you explain epigenetics and the strong impact it has on subsequent generations? Impacts that isn't "written into the code"?
4. If the genetic code was written by a creator, how does the existence of genetic disease not show him to be malevolent?
5. What new insights has "god created the " provided us? I have given a list of insights and technologies science(by extension, naturalism) has achieved in 2012. Do you care to actually provide counter evidence?


You haven't even begun to address these points. My suspicion is it is because you are ignorant of these topics. Creationism will always be behind the curve. It must first learn what science learns and THEN retrofit a story to claim creationism explains it.

You hid.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

I don't have to adress you anything. YOU are invited to present a compelling worldview, based on naturalism. So far, you have not......

Thank you for proving me correct.
A compelling world view based upon naturalism has been presented.
The data coming from science supports it.
You are ignorant of the data and are therefore unqualified to make any claims as to the veracity of this position.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

The old tired RNA World escape......

http://nevada-outback-gems.com/Origi...origins_04.htm

Quote:

Although it is definitely the leading theory in its field, there are a number of serious unresolved problems with the RNA world concept.

You seem to misunderstand something fundamental to science. We are learning MORE about DNA through these investigations. Regardless of their historic accuracy. And, incidentally, that accuracy improves over time, as we obtain more data.

RNA-World, from 10 years ago, was probably less informative and historically plausible than the versions of the theories accepted today.

10 Years from now, the form accepted abiogenesis takes (RNA-world or otherwise), will be even more informative and historically plausible. MORE details will have been ironed out. And MORE of the problems you identified will have been resolved.

In that same 20 year time span, Intelligent Design will have gotten nowhere, at all! NO progress made, in the realm of understanding RNA at a deeper level, coming from ID. NO progress made in unraveling details of its origins, from those in ID.

I want you to answer this question:

What is wrong with scientists saying this: "I wonder what MORE can we learn about DNA by experimenting with abiogenesis.", if doing that is interesting and informative for them?

If you have time, I would also like you to address these two questions:

1. You declared that it is impossible for life to come from "dead rocks" as you called them, from a natural process. Your response to RNA-World seems to contradict that: You acknowledge that it is possible, but take issue with its historic relevance, and specific issues to be ironed out. You are NO LONGER arguing that it is impossible, when you take that stance. Does this mean statements such as "therefore it had to be a Designer" can now be tossed out the window?

2. Explain the concept of emergent behavior, in your own words, and provide examples. Since a lot of naturalistic ideas depend on emergent behavior, I think we should asses your understanding of it, before we can assess your opinions of naturalistic explanations.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by IanS

Where is this region of quote "absolutely nothing"?

The book you quoted from Tipler did not claim it was absolutely "nothing", did it? On the contrary, Tipler said the vacuum Energy was not really "nothing".

So why are you talking about anyone claiming the universe came from "absolutely nothing"?

It's just him thinking that the cosmological argument actually works. Either way, he's been called on that point repeatedly.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

So what ?

Heh. Pick pretty much any measure that you've put forward that isn't utterly and completely wrong and apply it to the ameoba's DNA, and you'll find that your arguments will end in places that you don't like. But then, hey, if I wanted to present an argument that I consider at roughly the same level, I'd likely start trying to argue about how God loves ameobas far more than humans because, for starters, of the care that he put into lovingly selecting each and every base pair in their DNA. There's honestly nothing particularly special about the amount of "information" that's supposedly in our DNA.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

please show how the problem has been solved. Because i have yet to see a reasnable answer.

And I honestly doubt that we share the same definition of reasonable. That said, I doubt that you read and understood the article, whether it would meet your standards or not. Could you translate what you think it says on the subject into your own words?

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Ok, Wiki dealt with it. Which is the explanation that convinced you my presented argument is flawed ?

First, an important point. This argument was answered during the previous activity of this thread. For example, the point was made that there are quite a few locales on our planet, even today, that are devoid or as good as devoid of oxygen. Second, it's scientists who have found and applied what evidence they can to the atmospheric conditions throughout our planet's history and these conditions would have to be taken into account when presenting theories that would currently count as reasonable. Third, your argument is trying to say that it can ONLY be one situation or the other, both of which would fail. I'm much less certain, given that I'm fairly certain that a number of the presented models do not suffer from that particular flaw. The source for this claim is questionable, at best, as well. Going by a number of other claims I've seen, chances are good that the claim's been lifted from one or more scientific sources and twisted into something significantly different than its intended meaning while keeping it worded somewhat similarly. Creationists are quite infamous for quote mining and failing to understand what's actually said in scientific literature, after all, or more specifically, a couple dishonestly represent what is said and spread it around as if it were fact while most of the rest just let their confirmation bias run rampant. Either way, once again, I very much doubt that you read and understood the links. Given its nature, though, all that's needed to demonstrate that your argument's flawed is to show that it's not absolute, regardless, which the articles very much do.

Incidentally, given the wording and concepts cited, it feels like the argument itself was initially formed as an attempt to discredit the usefulness of the Miller-Urey experiment and what was learned from it, and has since been attempted to be applied as a catchall to all theories about abiogenesis, even when it's obviously not relevant. Smoke and mirrors, in short, but that's just me going on a slightly tired tangent.

[deaman]

Originally Posted by dafydd

So do you. Where did your god arise from?

Ka-BOOM!

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by deaman

Ka-BOOM!

Is it a bird, is it a plane? It's Captain Universe! Able to create moral paradoxes at a single bound! See how he drowns almost the entire population of the World in a fit of pique! Watch as he sits on his bahookie and allows innocent children to die of cancer! Behold in amazement as he creates famine and disasters! Prepare to be stunned by people who believe that he actually exists!

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Is it a bird, is it a plane? It's Captain Universe! Able to create moral paradoxes at a single bound! See how he drowns almost the entire population of the World in a fit of pique! Watch as he sits on his bahookie and allows innocent children to die of cancer! Behold in amazement as he creates famine and disasters! Prepare to be stunned by people who believe that he actually exists!

He will teach you that He exists. The hard way. He will teach you by remaining invisible while Satan tortures you eternally in hell. You will know God exists then, because you will know that Satan did not pop unbidden out of the void. Someone created Satan. Too late, you will know Who that Someone is.

You could have learned the easy way, by taking GIBHOR's word for it. He Who Made Satan will not be so merciful.

It's odd how that works. You either take His humble messengers' word for it, or you learn the hard way. He talks to some people, but doesn't talk to others. You have apparently not been fortunate in that respect. So all men are not created equal after all.

[Wowbagger]

Here is the general gist of these types of conversations, thus far:

Creationist: It is IMPOSSIBLE for the ingredients of life to come about through a natural process.

Scientist: Ah, but the Urey-Miller, and other similar experiments show that it IS possible!

Creationist: But, the Urey-Miller experiment is flawed. It does not reflect what really happened.

Scientist: But, it DOES reflect that it IS POSSIBLE for the ingredients of life to come about through a natural process, even if the exact historic process has yet to be worked out.

Creationist: But, those ingredients do not form cells, or DNA, or any of the complex mechanisms we see in life forms!

Scientist: Well, here are some MORE EXPERIMENTS showing how cells, DNA, and complex mechanisms could have come about through natural processes.

Creationist: All of those experiments are flawed! They do not reflect what really happened, historically.

Scientist: Ah, but they do show that it is POSSIBLE for all of those things to come about through natural processes, at least. And, we are still learning a lot more about them, from these investigations, than we would otherwise.

Creationist: Yeah, but that still doesn't explain where the Big Bang came from.

Scientist: Well, here is a series of papers showing us what we do know about the Big Bang, and what implications it has for the physics you use every day in your favorite technologies.

Creationist: That doesn't explain where the Big Bang came from. Therefore, ultimately, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the ingredients of life to come about through a natural process!!

Scientist: What is your answer, then?

Creationist: God.

Scientist: What new, detailed, empirical information can we acquire about the origins of life and the Universe from God?

Creationist: God is eternal, and all-powerful. Those things do not matter. Scientists do not have a theory as complete as God. Since their views are so limited and incomplete, it is proven that it is impossible for the ingredients of life to come about through a natural process.

Scientist: If God is soooo All-Powerful, how come the arguments that support Him have to be based on such blatant logical fallacies?

Creationist: You have to have faith.

Scientist: I rest my case.

[Toontown]

Creationist: You lose, evil atheistic case-rester!

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Creationist: You lose, evil atheistic case-rester!

Scientist: Small victory. I can risk losing this "game" of yours, since I get to have a better understanding and more control over these ingredients of life, than you do. You can keep your faith. And, I'll keep my ability to make progress in medical research and other scientific endeavors. Deal?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

yes , i know its meaning. So ?

So now we know that you were not telling the truth when you said you did not, and perhaps it will be possible to ask you again how your view that complex behavior requires an intelligent cause coexists with the evidence of emergent behavior, in which quite complex behavior patterns can result from the basic rules of survival.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by dafydd

And the theory of god which comes in the same category.

present a better explanation than God for our existence. Have any ?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

present a better explanation than God for our existence. Have any ?

The Big Bang and later on, evolution. Far more likely than goddidit. No need for the emoticon, we know that you are confused about this subject.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

present a better explanation than God for our existence. Have any ?

God(s) are idiotic explanations. Anything is better than the mindless option of god(s). Did you have a god explanation that makes sense?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by IanS

Where is this region of quote "absolutely nothing"?

The book you quoted from Tipler did not claim it was absolutely "nothing", did it? On the contrary, Tipler said the vacuum Energy was not really "nothing".

So why are you talking about anyone claiming the universe came from "absolutely nothing"?

see dancing davids post no.3603.....

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by dafydd

The Big Bang and later on, evolution. Far more likely than goddidit. No need for the emoticon, we know that you are confused about this subject.

thats it ? what cause the big bang ? what mechanism fine tuned the universe ? how did life arise on earth ? how do you explain the origin of sex ? consciousness ? the sense of morality ? free will ? what came first, the egg, or the chicken ? why do men have beards, and women don't ?

some more questions :

http://www.designinference.com/docum...estions_Ev.pdf

According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms “is the most obvious and
gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” What new fossil finds, if any,
have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago?

According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, the “evidence of evolution reveals a universe
without design.” Yet he also states, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give
the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” How does Dawkins know that
living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

You seem to misunderstand something fundamental to science. We are learning MORE about DNA through these investigations. Regardless of their historic accuracy. And, incidentally, that accuracy improves over time, as we obtain more data.

RNA-World, from 10 years ago, was probably less informative and historically plausible than the versions of the theories accepted today.

10 Years from now, the form accepted abiogenesis takes (RNA-world or otherwise), will be even more informative and historically plausible. MORE details will have been ironed out. And MORE of the problems you identified will have been resolved.

In that same 20 year time span, Intelligent Design will have gotten nowhere, at all!

No kidding. And you are so sure about that how exactly ??!! I don't see anything else than wishful thinking here. Its actually not understandable why atheists so dearly wish a creator not to exist. Our world without God existing would be a terrible, unjust world, where evil wins over the good, since sin would never find a just punishment. But, back to the issue : in the last few years, where i dedicate myself to find out more about evidence that leads to the existence of God rationally, and with scientific evidence, i have found overwhelming evidence , which makes me think : how is it possible that so many people do not realise the same as i do ?!! the bible gives the answer :2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe.

Quote:

What is wrong with scientists saying this: "I wonder what MORE can we learn about DNA by experimenting with abiogenesis.", if doing that is interesting and informative for them?

well, there are enough scientists which adhere to philosophic naturalism, and try at any cost to find evidence for their case, even if its a lost case.....

Quote:

1. You declared that it is impossible for life to come from "dead rocks" as you called them, from a natural process. Your response to RNA-World seems to contradict that: You acknowledge that it is possible,

actually, no, i have not.

Quote:

2. Explain the concept of emergent behavior, in your own words, and provide examples. Since a lot of naturalistic ideas depend on emergent behavior, I think we should asses your understanding of it, before we can assess your opinions of naturalistic explanations.

just bring the arguments, if i don't understand something, i will do my research, or ask.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by bruto

So now we know that you were not telling the truth when you said you did not

who told you that i did not make my homework in the interval ?

Quote:

, and perhaps it will be possible to ask you again how your view that complex behavior requires an intelligent cause coexists with the evidence of emergent behavior, in which quite complex behavior patterns can result from the basic rules of survival.

and..... complex behavior can also produce the information stored in DNA ??

[tsig]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

present a better explanation than God for our existence. Have any ?

The universe works in mysterious ways.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

and..... complex behavior can also produce the information stored in DNA ??

Yes.
Have you figured out anything about epigenetics yet?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

thats it ? what cause the big bang ? what mechanism fine tuned the universe ? how did life arise on earth ? how do you explain the origin of sex ? consciousness ? the sense of morality ? free will ? what came first, the egg, or the chicken ? why do men have beards, and women don't ?

some more questions :

http://www.designinference.com/docum...estions_Ev.pdf

According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms “is the most obvious and
gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” What new fossil finds, if any,
have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago?

According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, the “evidence of evolution reveals a universe
without design.” Yet he also states, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give
the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” How does Dawkins know that
living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?

Why do fingers have prints?

Why do our eyes just happen to work in the visible spectrum

Why are are legs long enough to reach the ground

[yomero]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

SNIP.... Scientists cannot explain how the cell came to be in a step by step manner. ...SNIP

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

The old tired RNA World escape......SNIP

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Of course not. We do have all data on the table, know how the cell works and functions. That data demonstrates clearly that a step by step evolution of the first cell is not possible, therefore special creation is the only plausible explanation.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

SNIP...

No. Thats why i believe in special creation, where God created all needed parts all at once.

which was referring to the irreducible complexity in the cell.

There are several competing hypotheses on the origin of life. Any of them demonstrates that the first organisms on earth could arise by entirely natural means. One is the very legitimate ''RNA World'' explanation, accepted today by a large number of scientists. On the Sept. 2009 issue of Scientific American there is an article by Alonso Ricardo and Nobel prize winner J.W.Szostak titled ''The Origin of Life on Earth.'' Google ''Ricardo and Szostak origin of life on earth,'' it should come as the first result. The article is so well written and easy to read that a layman may understand it. Thus, I feel emboldened to attempt a summary.

In other posts Gibhor has correctly pointed out that proteins are essential for DNA's functioning. Those proteins are manufactured acccording to sequences in DNA. This apparent circular paradox disappears when we consider that another genetic molecule, RNA, can form spontaneously. RNA can replicate, carry genetic ''information'' and act as a catalyst.

RNA consists of a long string of nucleotides composed of a sugar (ribose), a phosphate and a nucleobase (A,G,C and T). Although ribose and the nucleobases can independently assemble spontaneously, there is a problem in that an independent ribose molecule is unstable. It won't combine with a phosphate and a base to form a nucleotide. John Sutherland et al found in 2009 a possible solution to ribose's inestability. Rather than attempting to combine a separate ribose, a separate base and a phosphate, they started by mixing cyanide, acetylene and formaldehyde along with phosphate. This produced a small stable molecule, 2-aminooxazale which can be considered as a fragment of a nucleobase combined with a fragmment of a sugar. An accumulation of those molecules and further chemical reactions would form a molecule with a complete sugar and a complete base. This process will form nucleotides of different varieties, but exposure to UV light destroys the ''incorrect'' types, leaving the ''correct'' ones. Minerals present in clay would then facilitate the linking of these nucleotides leading to the formation of long strands of RNA.

When a strand of RNA is free from the clay, it and water are encapsulated by a membrane formed by fatty acids. This can be considered a proto-cell. On a relatively cool environment, the chain of nucleotides inside the proto-cell forms its complementary chain from free nucleotides entering it. The double helix is now formed. By convection, the proto-cell reaches a warmer enviroment. Heat causes the strands of RNA to separate. The membrane increases its volume as it incorporates new lipid molecules, and divides into 2 daughter proto-cells, each with its copy of RNA. A portion of RNA will not go to form the helix. Some of it will fold into complex shapes and act a a catalyst (ribozyme) to speed up reproduction, to facilitate the intake of nutrients and to strengthen the membrane.

The next step would be the formation of proteins according to ''instructions'' present in the sequence of nucleobases on RNA. Ribosymes could have catalyzed those reactions. (My opinion: A sequence that codifies for a more efficient protein that aids in the survival of the proto-cell will reproduce more, and pass on that ''information'' to its daughters.) Proteins are more efficient catalysts than ribozymes and took over their work. These proteins are then able to control the manufacture of DNA which is more stable than RNA.

The result would be a modern cell with DNA ''codifying'' for proteins and capable of mostly faithful replication; proteins carrying out the cell's functions and a selective membrane enclosing the cell.

The authors do not claim that this is the absolute truth. They present one hypothesis of how the origin of life could have started. None of the steps mentioned was pulled from a magician's hat, all of them have been shown to be possible naturally. Perhaps this wasn't the way life started. But this article proves there are natural paths that could lead to the origin of life.

[yomero]

In contrast to a naturalistic origin of life, there is the supernatural explanation: God did it.

The mechanism is described in the Bible. According to Gen. 1:11 it was act of divine will which created grasses and trees. That happened before the creation of the sun and the moon. Gen 2:7 explains that man was manufactured in his present form from dust; and woman (Gen. 2:21) from one of man's ribs.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

thats it ? what cause the big bang ?

We don't know. We may never know. That won't stop us from looking. Well, except for the diehard theists, who would stop all advancement, and just say 'god did it'.

Quote:

what mechanism fine tuned the universe ?

The universe is fine tuned.. for what? For life? If so, life adapted to its current environment. Not the other way around.

Quote:

how did life arise on earth ?

We have some pretty good ideas for Abiogenesis. We'll keep looking. Well, except for the diehard theists, who would stop all advancement, and just say 'god did it'.

Quote:

how do you explain the origin of sex ? consciousness ?

I don't know, really. Others may know. But that doesn't mean I'm going to say a magic man in the sky did it. Because that would halt advancement.

Quote:

the sense of morality ?

Society.

Quote:

free will ?

I decided to post this. You decided to ignore it, and say 'goddidit'.

Quote:

what came first, the egg, or the chicken ?

Egg. Eggs existed a lot longer before chickens did.

Quote:

why do men have beards, and women don't ?

This was answered. Hormones.


some more questions :

Quote:

http://www.designinference.com/docum...estions_Ev.pdf

According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms “is the most obvious and
gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” What new fossil finds, if any,
have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago?

Multitudes. New fossils are found all the time. That said, the environment needed to produce fossils seems to be pretty specific, and rare. We will likely never find everything.

Quote:

According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, the “evidence of evolution reveals a universe
without design.” Yet he also states, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give
the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” How does Dawkins know that
living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?

Because we're full of errors, and if designed, really, really, really poorly designed. Like testicles. Like the nerve that extends from the brain, to the larynx... only it goes down the neck to the heart, around an artery, and back up the larynx. Leftover from our very distant fish ancestors. Not to mention putting the 'playground next to the sewer pit'.


I will also say.. I could very much be wrong about some or all of the above. Science corrects. Theism does not. What causes thunder and lightning? Is it.. a god? Or is there a more.. naturalistic explanation?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by yomero

In contrast to a naturalistic origin of life, there is the supernatural explanation: God did it.

The mechanism is described in the Bible. According to Gen. 1:11 it was act of divine will which created grasses and trees. That happened before the creation of the sun and the moon. Gen 2:7 explains that man was manufactured in his present form from dust, and woman (Gen. 2:21) from one of man's ribs.

Sounds legit.