Proof that life did NOT come from a primordialsoup

[SLNT_FIR]

I am reading a book my mom got for me at the library. It is called "The Case for a Creator". IT gives HEAVY amount of evidence AGAINST old experiments that today's theories are based upon, and brings out NEW findings that PROOVE of a creator.

life did not come from a primordial soup.

1. Miller's experiment (the one about recreating earth's early atmosphere) is bogus. He heavily relied on the atmospheric theories of his doctoral adviser, Nobel laureate Harold Urey. He used the wrong atmosphere. IF you want to know, say so. I have proof.

2. Even if he did use the right atmosphere, he would have gotten Formaldehyde and Cynide. Both VERYVERY toxic "organic" molecules.

-----------------------------------------------------

Another thing is there are many faults in the theory of darwninsm. IT says there are NO SUDDEN CHANGES. Just small mutations. however, in the cambrian age, MANY NUMEROUS multicellular life forms appeared out of single cells. Sponges, jellyfish, BANG! cambrian age. i still have more. but just to let you konw what i have read so far.

 

[Avesther]

There are many great books around, written by Christians and athesits, that poke gapping holes through most of the school taught theories of evolution.

 

[SLNT_FIR]

ah ok. i'm out of date. lol. however, i'm 69 pgs through and this is just an INCREDIBLE book. I suggest DV + mr. bill read it.

 

[Mr.Bill]

DV has spoken about that book quite a bit...and about how it's riddled with logic holes. Of course I myself can't discount the book until I've read it myself, but I am sure DV would have much to say on the subject. Too bad he has a job now. ; )

 

[SLNT_FIR]

well you guys are funny... it makes sense. so according to you, the universe is either eternal or it cannot be real. The latter makes no sense. eternal doesn't make sense. If a bang happens. you say, what made that? i say, :nothing: it just happend.

same idea. if youthink OUTSIDE of the box, there HAS to be a start of the universe. and lots of other logical ideas. you read it. i challenge you to a reading match! jk. read it though...

 

[Avesther]

Be careful to what you challange SA. I've read a massive amount of books on this subject. And there are lot of books that are beyond yours, even my understanding. Before you can even begin to decipher big bang theories vs creation vs anything else, you better have a grasp on scientific theories behind string theory, quantum physics and quantum mechanics.

Start with what is comfortable for you and your knowlege. Find books that challange that and then find more books that challange those challanges. Move sideways and up in easy steps. You will find that you will learn more and you will come to the only logical conclusion there is:

Nobody was there when God laid the foundations of the world. Creation versus string theory vs big band vs the latest and greatest new beginings of it all theories all boil down to faith. Do you beleive in an almighty God who has to power and authority to lay down the foundations of all that is or in some cosmic fluke (for lack of a better word.).

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (SilentAssassin @ Dec. 29 2004,7:07)] well you guys are funny... it makes sense. so according to you, the universe is either eternal or it cannot be real. The latter makes no sense. eternal doesn't make sense. If a bang happens. you say, what made that? i say, :nothing: it just happend.

same idea. if youthink OUTSIDE of the box, there HAS to be a start of the universe. and lots of other logical ideas. you read it. i challenge you to a reading match! jk. read it though...

You're right, there has to be an original 'uncaused cause' to everything, aka 'God' as we commonly call it today, but I do not believe that that uncaused cause is as complex and dramatized as most religious thought proscribes.

 

[Genesis1315]

Quote[/b] ]string theory, quantum physics and quantum mechanics

eyes glazing over...quickly entering mind-numbing....

Mr. Bill that was a whole lotta words.

I really think it is as simple as

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

[l33tben]

Quote[/b] (Genesis1315 @ Dec. 29 2004,10:02)]

Quote[/b] ]string theory, quantum physics and quantum mechanics

eyes glazing over...quickly entering mind-numbing....

Mr. Bill that was a whole lotta words.

I really think it is as simple as

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

well put there gen!

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Mr. Bill and DV are the new Eon?
Interesting.
I miss Eon. I've missed this board.

I know that spouting off a few items regarding one scientist's botching an origins experiment (nevermind that the experiment is printed as proof in biology textbooks around the world) is not nearly enough to convince any thinking mind that there is, indeed, an invisible Creator looking down on the rest of the world.

I wouldn't recommend trying that. It makes you look stupid when someone comes along and absolutely tears the arguments apart. I agree with Peon: start slow, attack slow, defend slow, or else you'll wind up flat on your back.

And it's pointless to argue origins and destination. I've discovered that over many such arguments. What happens happens and what happened happened. You either accept it or you don't. Truly, the only way to wind up in heaven is to be as a child.


As to Mr. Bill:
Could you clarify/expound on your "uncaused cause" you mentioned? As of now it makes no sense to me what it is/was and how it put the universe into motion. What is this uncaused cause? Why does it not deserve religious devotion, et cetera.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ]Proof that life did NOT come from a primordialsoup, and alot more.

And the definition of Proof is...?

As I have stated before, there are many holes in Lee Strobel's works, not just this one.

A quick Google search will list quite a few. ("lee strobel criticism" works quite well)

Finish the book, then look at the other side of the coin to get the complete picture.

As far as the origin or life, the universe and everything goes, three little words are too quickly discounted: I DON'T KNOW. I'd rather say "I don't know" than to make guesses that can't be substantiated or proven.

Quote[/b] ]I really think it is as simple as

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

There are many, many different accounts of creation, what makes this one more plausible than another, like the Enuma Elish?

Quote[/b] ]Be careful to what you challange SA. I've read a massive amount of books on this subject. And there are lot of books that are beyond yours, even my understanding. Before you can even begin to decipher big bang theories vs creation vs anything else, you better have a grasp on scientific theories behind string theory, quantum physics and quantum mechanics.

Better yet, be willing and able to logically back up your assertations with logic, truths and reason.

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

Don't know if anyone has read it but, the book The Case for a Creator is a pretty good book.  Can't remeber who wrote it though sorry.  It's about the author, he talked to a bunch of scientists. Some belived in God but others didn't. They all gave proof of some form of a creator.

IGNORE THIS! SOMEONE ALREADY SPOKE OF IT ABOVE! SORRY!

 

[Genesis1315]

Quote[/b] ]There are many, many different accounts of creation, what makes this one more plausible than another, like the Enuma Elish?

Because this one is from the Bible. The Bible is infallible, making it more plausible than any others.

Gen

ps Good to see you back DV

 

[Dark Virtue]

How is the Enuma Elish fallible?

(And thanks, but I'm only kinda sorta back)

 

[Mr.Bill]

How is the Bible infallible? How can you make such a statement? It deals almost entirely with intangibles.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Mr.Bill @ Jan. 02 2005,9:12)]How is the Bible infallible? How can you make such a statement? It deals almost entirely with intangibles.

I didn't want to go there as this is a whole topic in and of itself.

If assertations are made that the Bible is infallible, what does infallible actually mean and what does it entail? Do all Christians consider it infallible?

 

[Avesther]

[off topic]

Quote[/b] ]Better yet, be willing and able to logically back up your assertations with logic, truths and reason.

Logic = not fool proof
Truth = Subjective
Reason = The logical conclusion of assuming logic is infallible and that truth is objective.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Jan. 03 2005,2:06)]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Better yet, be willing and able to logically back up your assertations with logic, truths and reason.

Logic = not fool proof

This is very true, logic isn't perfect. Logic is defined as, "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning". As human beings, how else are we supposed to prove things in our lives? I'll put stock in logic over unsubstantiated, unproveable guesses any day of the week.

Quote[/b] ]Truth = Subjective

I define truth in this case as, "the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality". How is that subjective? The grass is green, the sky is blue, 1+1=2. There is nothing subjective about the truth.

Quote[/b] ]Reason = The logical conclusion of assuming logic is infallible and that truth is objective.

I don't believe I have ever stated that logic was infallible. Science grows and evolves with better understanding. It isn't a solid, immovable entity. I don't believe you'd find a scientist that would argue that point either. As far as reason goes, it is, "the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways".

So what is the problem with the above?

We, as humans, use these ideals to prove what is around us. Do do otherwise is to be dishonest with ourselves.

Does that mean that science can prove everything right here, right now? Of course not. In fact, scientists have been flat out wrong before. But as I said, when new information comes along, science accepts it and moves on. Without omniscience, that is all that we humans can do.

 

[Avesther]

In the end, you are trying to replace your faith in God with faith in science because, your logic and understanding of truth and reasoning better fit what science says.

Take the conundrom:

There is a God (either singular or as part of a group, mono vs multitheists)
There is no God.

Mutually exclusive statements. Which statement is true? I think I've mentioned this before, what happens if Science can not measure God? Does that mean God doesn't exist? What type of measuring stick could an ant hope to create to measure man, the goals of man or the creations of man, or the potential of man, individually or collectively?

I like the logic that says: After eliminating all possible and probable alternatives, keep looking for other alternatives, no matter how improbable or impossible because a Godlike being is just not allowed to be in the equation what-so-ever, we just can't be anything but on the top wrung of it all.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ]In the end, you are trying to replace your faith in God with faith in science because, your logic and understanding of truth and reasoning better fit what science says.

Actually I am doing nothing of the sort. One should not have faith in science that is the same as faith in God. Just as there are different kinds of love, there are different kinds of faith. The "faith" you have in your car starting in the morning is different than the "faith" you have in God. I don't need the second kind of faith to live a happy life. I didn't take the God portion of the puzzle of my life and throw it away to replace it with science. Science and God are two very different things that can exist simultaneously or independantly of each other.

Simply put, I cannot, in good conscience, believe in something that has no basis in reality. Something that has no proof or evidence.

Quote[/b] ]Take the conundrom:

There is a God (either singular or as part of a group, mono vs multitheists)
There is no God.

Mutually exclusive statements. Which statement is true?

In order for either statement to be considered TRUE, wouldn't you need some evidence or proof either way? I don't say that God doesn't exist, as I don't have evidence to discount God. Nor do I say that God does exist, as I don't have any evidence to proove that He does.

The conundrum is not in making the statements, it's in PROVING them.

Quote[/b] ]I think I've mentioned this before, what happens if Science can not measure God? Does that mean God doesn't exist?

If a being such as God exists, then it may be quite possible that it would exist beyond the scope of our perception. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that its actions, and the consequences thereof, would be imperceptible. If perceptability is an underlying issue, shouldn't one ask WHY this being would hide itself from its creation? Especially since belief in this being means the difference between damnation and eternal bliss.

Quote[/b] ]What type of measuring stick could an ant hope to create to measure man, the goals of man or the creations of man, or the potential of man, individually or collectively?

That's not a very good analogy. The ant is quite conscious of man, perceptible to every ant sense. The same can't be said of God and man.

Quote[/b] ]I like the logic that says: After eliminating all possible and probable alternatives, keep looking for other alternatives, no matter how improbable or impossible because a Godlike being is just not allowed to be in the equation what-so-ever, we just can't be anything but on the top wrung of it all.

In other words, do whatever it takes till you believe in God?

I prefer Sherlock Holmes when he said, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

I would be a fool and a hypocrite not to believe in a god when faced with evidence. Likewise, I would be a fool to believe in a god without said evidence. If you justify your belief in a god, any god, I would assume that you have some evidence to base that belief on. If you can't share that evidence with anyone else, how honest and reasonable and truthful is that evidence?