IBelieveInGod
Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010
|
| Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 21 2010,08:54) | From the Behe Paper thread on PT;
from Kris
| Quote |
It’s only absurd to people who think they know everything but can’t answer the questions. |
Every question that you or Colin has asked has been asnwered. Whether you like or approve of the answer or not, is not our problem.
| Quote |
And Colin didn’t bring up the comparison to speaking English. He also didn’t ask what sounds or language the first insects made or spoke.
|
You are not getting it, and neither did Colin. You cannot, no linguist can, point to a specific person, or a specific place, or a specific time and say "That is the first instance of English."
Heck, without significant post graduate training it's almost impossible to read English writing or 400 years ago (say Chaucher for example). Is that, therefore not English?
Do you see the problem, English as a language is not fixed. It is a continuum of changes throughout time and space (American English vs. British English for example). Truly, when we say "English" or "insect" normally, we mean what is right now, not the continuum of all versions since there was anything that might be considered English or insects.
The best method for discussing these types of things is cladistics.
Personally, I also find it intellectually offensive, when someone comes in with a non-sensical 'gotcha' question, when merely typing that question into google would result in an answer much more easily than what we provide.
In 15 years of doing this, I have yet to run across a true 'gotcha' question from a creationist.
I do have, however, plenty of gotcha questions for creationists... depending on the flavor of their personal beliefs. And that's exactly because all creationism (including ID) is based entirely on belief, not reality.
| Quote |
You guys use every trick in the book to side-step answering legitimate questions, just like you accuse the creationists of doing. You think you’re really different from them but you’re not.
|
There were no sidesteps. Again, the fact that you don't like the asnwer you get doesn't mean it wasn't answered or the answer given is wrong.
| Quote |
Even though science has some strong evidence or proof of some things, that doesn’t mean it (or you) have all the answers or even any evidence in many cases.
|
And the only people that say this are creationists. The ultimate strawman.
The only reason you think we have all the answers is because your 'gotcha' questions are so pathetic that a guy with a bachelor's degree in Earth Science can handily defeat them.
[QUOTE}
There are lots of things beyond what you or anyone else on Earth can figure out right now, and maybe forever. When you (or anyone else) come across as knowing everything about everything you just look like an arrogant, pompous fool. Yeah, you guys accuse the creationists of that too, and it certainly fits them in some cases, but it also fits most of you too.
|
And no one disagrees with this point, except the pompus fool bit.
Do you honestly think that ANYTHING you have said or any questions you have asked (or Colin asked) are original in any way shape or form? This website is full of people who have arguing with creationists for DECADES.
You are not unique.
IBIG
| Quote |
Abiogenesis isn’t being tested! Science is attempting to actually CREATE life, which would be an example of CREATION, because it would demonstrate that intelligence was needed to create life. I don’t believe that science will ever create life though.
|
It's truly hillarious how creationists think that anything done in a lab is 'designed'. They truly don't understand simple concepts like chemistry.
Batteries are designed, it's true. However, the chemical reactions that produce the electricty are not designed. That chemical reaction will occur, even if the material is found lumped together in the wild with no intelligent agent EVER having been involved (note, I don't say this is likely to happen, I'm just saying that the chemical reaction WILL happen.)
In the same way, the chemical reactions that form the basis for the many hypotheses of abiogenesis happen. If they are chemically possible, then they WILL happen under the proper conditions. If we replicate the conditions of primitive Earth in the lab, then certain chemical reactions happen. If they happen in the lab, then they happened, when (and if) the Earth had those conditions.
It's called Chemistry, and you better hope it always works that way. Otherwise YOU won't work (or anything else in our world for that matter).
As far as creating life in the lab? Perhaps you are familier with the succesful attempts to use a hand made genome to run a bacterial cell?
Please note that the 'creating life' in the lab is a completely seperate practice from abiogensis. Just because humans can do something doesn't mean that all instances of that event were designed by something.
I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.
I know you won't see the difference, because you have epically huge ideological blinders on, but, again, that's not my problem.
Which reminds me, IBIG, I still don't really know why you have those ideological blinders. You obviously (over the last 6 months of dealing with you) don't actually believe in the Bible and what it says, why are you a Christian anyway?[/quote]
Don't tell me that scientists are attempting to replicate the conditions of ancient earth and are watching for Abiogenesis to occur, so they are going to wait a billion years for it to happen? If you think that what is done in a lab isn't designed then let me ask you this. Who decides what the chemical makeup and conditions ie. temperatures, if electricity is used, etc... of these Abiogenesis experiments? Intelligent Life does right? No one knows what the actual conditions, temperatures, etc... were on earth at the moment Abigenesis supposedly occurred.
|
And no, nobody ever calls me MISTER Panda. 
