Selectedmarksman wrote:I don't have to do a thing, the global scientific community is already in agreement with me. You are the one at odds, here. Again, to follow your line of reasoning, Alchemy and Chemistry are similar concepts. That doesn't mean they are the same. Chemistry gets us plastics, alloys, batteries, medicines, and other useful thing. It works.

Interesting tactic with the feelings bit, doesn't change the facts though.

Also, I was saying it appears that you reject the scientific process (as you cling to Spontaneous Generation and fail to separate it from theories 2,500 years more advanced). That kind of mentality would result in no progress, thus the lack of the fruits of the scientific process. If you equate 'medicine' as practiced in the middle ages with modern medicine, feel free to get bled next time you develop a cold.

Dude, I don't "cling" to Spontaneous Generation. This is a strawman. If you can't tell, I believe in the direct creation of life by God.

Medicine has been proven to save lives and is based on hard science- my wife just underwent rabies prophylaxis treatment for a bat bite. Modern medical treatment is not an unproven theory with it's only observable "evidence" being a few nonliving self-replicating molecules. Nor does modern medicine owe anything to the unproven theories of SG/Abiogenesis. You said- "The origin of the Universe has absolutely nothing to do with Abiogenesis." Arguing from this standpoint of yours...if the origin of the Universe has nothing to do with Abiogenesis, then Modern Medicine has even less to do with unproven Spontaneous Generation/Abiogenesis theory. Spontaneous Generation and Abiogenesis hold certain similarities- THIS is the point that I was trying to argue. From my perspective they seem to be based on the implausable and the unbelievable.

No hard feelings. Honestly. I've read alot of your posts on here that show viewpoints which I happen to agree with. The idea that SG/Abiogenesis are unrelated theories, however, I vehemently disagree with.



--

Ah, it looks like we actually have been agreeing on more than I thought the whole time. Yes, I view the Spontaneous Generation as a strawman against which many argue to try to discredit Abiogenesis. If you had issue with modern Abiogenesis theories that would be one thing, and could lead to a very interesting discussion. I thought you were equating modern Abiogenesis with the theory formally named "Spontaneous Generation", which is dramatically different.

The production values of this video suck, but this guy makes a lot of the same points I've been trying to make. As a warning, if you thought I was getting upset talking about this then this guy will seem a bit over the top. It is clear he has grown very tired of having to explain basic science to people over and over so he lashes out against Relgions a bit. Skip to about 2:40 to avoid his rant.

When he finally gets around to talking about Spontaneous Generation and Abiogenesis (separate theories) his facts are good. You can cross-check them with other sources, which I highly encourage. That's what I love about Science: Claims must be testable and falsifiable, therefore they are independently verifiable to anyone willing to take the time. I think once you're more familiar with Abiogenesis, the differences between it and Spontaneous Generation will be more obvious. Ultimately, there is no substitute for actual study and experimentation but this is sort of condensed, broad-sweeping summary.

Instead of getting hung up on the SG thing, what do you consider more probable than organic compounds forming naturally, replicating molecules developing from them, protocells forming from those, and so on?

ick wrote:Since Hawking is so popular and quoted above.... and most atheists are shocked by the information…

I forget which book it was... it was not "Universe in a Nutshell"... but Hawking does not deny the existence of God.

Hawking is not forthright on the topic and from what I understand will not answer a reporter's question of God directly... but he had a chapter specifically dedicated to the question of the existence of God.

Not only does he suggest that there is ample room for God in scientific questions but to make a long story short he argues a creator is likely required.

Do a quick google, summaries of his thoughts are everywhere.

I would type a quote of some of it from that chapter... but I purchased the book in audio format.

First, argument from authority (Hawking) = Logic fail (logical fallacy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Second, if you read his writing on the subject (e.g. Universe in a Nutshell), his idea of god is a sort of vague notion of the elegance of cosmology and the laws of physics. This is very similar to the "God" Einstein "Believed in" but is nothing like the personal god that most people think of when discussing the god question.

Selectedmarksman wrote:Ah, it looks like we actually have been agreeing on more than I thought the whole time. Yes, I view the Spontaneous Generation as a strawman against which many argue to try to discredit Abiogenesis. If you had issue with modern Abiogenesis theories that would be one thing, and could lead to a very interesting discussion. I thought you were equating modern Abiogenesis with the theory formally named "Spontaneous Generation", which is dramatically different.

Instead of getting hung up on the SG thing, what do you consider more probable than organic compounds forming naturally, replicating molecules developing from them, protocells forming from those, and so on?

I think you can tell and I'm sure you've noticed- I have issue with Abiogenesis theory. I don't believe in it or Spontaneous Generation and I see them both as being equally fallacious. This is why it is so hard for me to separate the two theories and their base doctrine from each other. I mean this with no disrespect to those who are adherents of said theories.

As for what I consider to be more probable than the aforementioned...I believe that we were created by God using some of the same simple materials that our physical realm was made with- carbon, iron, oxygen, etc. As the Genesis account says, we were formed with "dust from the earth".

jdj wrote:First, argument from authority (Hawking) = Logic fail (logical fallacy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Second, if you read his writing on the subject (e.g. Universe in a Nutshell), his idea of god is a sort of vague notion of the elegance of cosmology and the laws of physics. This is very similar to the "God" Einstein "Believed in" but is nothing like the personal god that most people think of when discussing the god question.

I'll see your argument from authority to raise you a strawman and comprehension fail. What was ick's statement?

"Not only does he [Hawking] suggest that there is ample room for God in scientific questions but to make a long story short he argues a creator is likely required."

Ick's post did not argue that a personal God exists. He argued exactly what he said... that Hawking (note: the same scientist who believes that "everything"-including life- came from "nothing") believes in the possibility of a Creator. What you draw from this fact is yours to take.

I really like these two sister blogs: http://www.idthefuture.com/ and http://www.uncommondescent.com/

solitary.phoenix wrote:As for what I consider to be more probable than the aforementioned...I believe that we were created by God using some of the same simple materials that our physical realm was made with- carbon, iron, oxygen, etc. As the Genesis account says, we were formed with "dust from the earth".

This helps, it tells us you believe in one of the various forms of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God. What leads you to believe that these creation stories (the two, contradicting stories in Genesis) are more probable than any of the other creation stories of other Relgions.

Also, to show there's no hard feelings, here's the King James version in mp3 available for free online. I regard the KJB as one of the worst versions to go with, but it's pleasant to listen to. Also, have you heard the James Earl Jones reading of the King James New Testament? It's pretty awesome. I bought it but felt ripped off because the packaging was covered with "The Bible" and "James Earl Jones reads The Bible" but it was New Testament only. Hello...Y'shua, your Lord and Savior, was a scholar of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). People who pass out those little bibles that are new testament only piss me off.

Selectedmarksman wrote:... People who pass out those little bibles that are new testament only piss me off.

Ditto. May as well pick and choose which individual scriptures you want to subscribe to as well.

not that god exist, but if you believe in god... yea.

Damn Trey. Digging up an almost 2 year old thread?
Must be really bored.

bakerjw wrote:Damn Trey. Digging up an almost 2 year old thread?
Must be really bored.

He resurrected it.

Notice it was longer than three days and didn't require a miracle.

I have no doubt here. God exists.

To funny

I still have yet to vote on my own poll.

Laughing at your sig...
"Lamentation of the Women" is the Bluetooth & WiFi AP name of my cell phone.

MV10 wrote:Laughing at your sig...
"Lamentation of the Women" is the Bluetooth & WiFi AP name of my cell phone.

Cut it out ,

Conan the barbarian is where I got that from, ha ha

Some might find this interesting.

'A story that would make me believe in God'
Exclusive: Drew Zahn reviews stunningly spiritual 'Life of Pi'

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/a-story-that ... diversions

Howdy,

ick wrote:
I have no doubt here. God exists.

+1!

I always thought it was kinda funny how a hard core, die hard atheist would start begging for God to save them when his life is on the line.

Paul

stengun wrote:I always thought it was kinda funny how a hard core, die hard atheist would start begging for God to save them when his life is on the line.

Sounds like you don't actually know any actual atheists.

That is my thought too. I used to say that very few atheists make it to their death bed. But then the wife of a friend died and made no appeals to God.

Tru dat!

I believe there are a lot of atheist posers just as there are a lot of poser believers.

In fact, I think there are more people pretending to belive who don't than claim not to belive but doubt themselves. It takes a certain level of intellect to be honest with yourself and most people don't have it. I can't even say I'm honest with myself 100% of the time, it's a work in progress.

is self creation possable ?

lilfuzzybuny wrote:is self creation possable ?

Basic self-awareness doesn't even exist until you're about 12 to 18 months old, on average.
(Look up "rouge test"...)

stengun wrote:Howdy,

ick wrote:
I have no doubt here. God exists.

+1!

I always thought it was kinda funny how a hard core, die hard atheist would start begging for God to save them when his life is on the line.

Paul

when i was laying on the ground dying from a gunshot, that took out my lung and spine, the only thing i could think about is if i had a good life, and was it worth it. not to be saved, by god or anyone.

bakerjw wrote:That is my thought too. I used to say that very few atheists make it to their death bed. But then the wife of a friend died and made no appeals to God.

You said that because you are Theist. Were you Atheist you would see it differently. Nothing more pathetic than someone who surrenders his lifelong system of beliefs for a little last minute grovelling at the foot of a God he doesn't believe in. Ive been shot at on several occasions but never hit and Ive been in some pretty horrific car wrecks that I walked away from unscratched. Healthy as a horse with a beautiful wife and kids that arent that dumb. Good job with the respect of my peers. I've lived a blessed life according to some Theists I know but to me Ive just been pretty lucky considering my hitherto reckless lifestyle.

doubloon wrote: I can't even say I'm honest with myself 100% of the time, it's a work in progress.

I'm honest with myself 100% of the time. That doesnt mean I'm completely honest with anyone else even a fraction of that amount.

YugoRPK wrote:

doubloon wrote: I can't even say I'm honest with myself 100% of the time, it's a work in progress.

I'm honest with myself 100% of the time. That doesnt mean I'm completely honest with anyone else even a fraction of that amount.