-
Features
Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion
- Thread starter Tharmas
- Start date
To denote the thread has been moved
Elixir
Made in America
I suggest that none of Lion’s posts have anything to do with the subject of the OP.
It’s just his elaborated “goddidit”, interjected into what was a link to science.
Perhaps his posts should be split off, for discussion of how his god is the origin of life.
Elixir
Made in America
Yeah that!! Sorry - didn’t see it before I posted.
Lion IRC
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 4,978
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
Nope. Go back and read carefully to see who introduced "all these other things"
Lion IRC
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 4,978
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
No. The topic is humans creating stuff in test tube - which I think is great.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,691
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
No, the topic is humans creating test tubes and stuff in test tubes and that stuff creating the final product in a way only as controlled as the constraint that keeps our environment out of the tube environment.
Yet again, you are conflating and equivocating different intents and usages of the utterance "create".
Elixir
Made in America
Reading not your strong suit, eh
Humans don’t create “stuff” they only rearrange matter and energy. In doing so they are converging on knowledge of specific viable pathways to life, starting with primordial plasma, hydrogen and a little helium.
You don’t like it, come up with some science, and get over the fact that “goddidit” is not science.
Last edited:
To put one issue raised here to rest, the matter/atoms of which the earth is composed is no older than the matter of which the sun is composed. Both are composed of elementary particles which have existed since the Big Bang. But the sun formed first
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
In other words, you are accusing atheists of trolling.
Nope, no one said that because it said A and B that A happened before B. People said because it said A happened on day N and B happened on day N+1, that A happened before B.
Your religious text doesn't say that the sun wasn't named the sun yet. It says the sun was created:
You are claiming this:
I am responding to your accusations of trolling. No one is trolling here. The closest thing is you derailing the thread and then saying that the Bible is saying things it doesn't say and you are in here saying people are saying things they haven't said. But that isn't trolling either. It's just an entitled feeling to think you can derail the thread because you think your religion is so important you have to bring it up. It probably also stems from an assumption that when someone is talking about life's origins in a scientific context that you assume it's an automatic invitation to debate creationism rather than a technical bit of info directed to likeminded people who want to know about the latest biology. Needless to say it happened that you derailed, brought everyone along, and are now here making accusations of trolling rather than making accurate calls about what your religious text says and what people say in the thread.
Let there be light is not the creation of the sun since the creation of the sun happens on day 4.
What was your contribution?
"You guys are ridiculous. The sun is older than the earth"
"Right....so a day was 24 hours before the sun existed."
Yes, and I was right as your claims are ridiculous.
It doesn't say there is a sun. The sun was created on day 4. So my chronology argument is not over at all.
You have some splaining to do!
Indeed. I have pointed out how moronic your claim was. If the biblical story could be reduced to a bunch of timeless and's as opposed to and's within the contexts of each day of 7, then the alleged sabbath could have occurred anywhere in time within the creation events. Instead, it is made clear that the creations were over and the rest was done on the 7th day.
KJV, Genesis 2
And this shows how much the days have chronological meaning just like they do in common usage. That's very, very different from your pretense that people were making claims based merely on timeless and's.
Last edited:
pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,331
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
You did. In the very first response to the OP.
Disagree.
The sun is mostly hydrogen. Protons, paired with electrons. That is truly primordial.
However, everything above that has neutrons. Some neutrons were created in the big bang but most of them were created later (fundamentally, proton + electron => neutron, but not necessarily by a direct path.)
And I certainly haven't seen any real attempt to address my point about exactly when they formed. It is pretty clear that some degree of formation of the Earth predates stellar ignition. At what point do we say Earth was "formed"? If we are comparing it to the "pro-life" community I would say the Earth formed first--but in the sense that they consider a blastocyst to be a person.
Lion IRC
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 4,978
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
I don't see the word God or bible anywhere in there
pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,331
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
You, who a self-identified “Biblical theist,” refer to “Team Creationists,” and what do you think most people here, who are atheists, are going to take that to mean, given that the word “creationist” is quite commonly used across many venues to refer either to theism or at least ID?
Is it even possible for you to stop being so slippery and disingenuous? Can you please address the following points that YOU raised?
What is the “scientific evidence” that God exists?
What is the “scientific evidence” that God causes good stuff to happen?
If God exists and causes good stuff to happen, why, according to you, does he NOT cause bad stuff to happen, like brain cancer in children? Please recall that it’s not enough for you to blithely assert that there is no scientific evidence that God causes brain cancer. That is true, but highly misleading. It’s misleading because there is no scientific evidence that God exists at all. But you say you have such evidence, so please present it.
Lion IRC
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 4,978
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Creationist - a person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of their God, as in a literal interpretation of Genesis from the Bible
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
He doesn't need to use the quote function. This is the Natural Science forum so it is normal to ask for scientific evidence.
Elixir
Made in America
Eeeeuw. Smarmy.
.. and then denies trying to drag GOD and BIBLE crap into a natural science thread…
Just … Eeeeuw.
pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,331
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
Use the quote function? Is there no end to your prevarication? Are you denying that you said there is scientific evidence that God exists? Also, why did you fail to quote the rest of what I wrote? Are you denying that you said there is no evidence that God causes brain cancer in children, while also failing to note that there is no such evidence because there is no evidence that God exists? Is this slippery crap the best you can do?
Elixir
Made in America
In nearly thirty years of calling out creationists, never have I come across one who apologizes for their disingenuous, slimy argumentation. The closest to it was a creationist making apology for another’s sliminess.
I wonder if that kind of dishonesty is a matter for confession, or if they think it’s just S.O.P. When you’re on A Mission From God.