Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[Lion IRC]

We all saw you make the statement.

And I'm asking which one?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The most credible information I can find suggest that the sun is 4.6 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Which doesn't address the issue of what counts as Earth actually forming.

In it's final form, definitely after the sun's ignition. But how much of it constitutes "Earth"? I have seen mention of the Theia impact hitting "Earth" and that radically changed our planet, thus clearly it doesn't need to be in it's final form to be "Earth".

The salient questions would be at what point in time did day and night exist on the proto-Earth and at what point did life first appear on the proto-Earth. I don't have a clue or a source. Do you?

Life unquestionably came later.

1) Growing a planet is a very violent process. If life somehow managed to come into existence earlier it would have been wiped out anyway.

2) Without stellar ignition we wouldn't have the right temperature.

3) Water did not survive the planetary growth process. It came later from cometfalls.

 

[Elixir]

And I'm asking which one?

Who cares? Everything you have posted here is irrelevant to the thread, as well as disingenuous and/or false. Pretending not to understand that “creationists” by definition and common understanding, are believers in creation by the god of the Bible, is just the latest example.

 

[Lion IRC]

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?

Eeeuw

Eeeuw??? That's the best you can muster?

pood says that I raised the following points;

What is the “scientific evidence” that God exists?

What is the “scientific evidence” that God causes good stuff to happen?

All you have to do is quote the post which makes a claim that you want me to justify.

 

[Elixir]

Eeeuw??? That's the best you can muster?

I decline to play chess with pigeons. They just knock over the pieces and shit on the board.
If you desire a more detailed response, answer the many questions you have neglected, preferably in a new thread.

Quit being a pigeon.

 

[lostone]

The most credible information I can find suggest that the sun is 4.6 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Which doesn't address the issue of what counts as Earth actually forming.

In it's final form, definitely after the sun's ignition. But how much of it constitutes "Earth"? I have seen mention of the Theia impact hitting "Earth" and that radically changed our planet, thus clearly it doesn't need to be in it's final form to be "Earth".

The salient questions would be at what point in time did day and night exist on the proto-Earth and at what point did life first appear on the proto-Earth. I don't have a clue or a source. Do you?

Life unquestionably came later.

1) Growing a planet is a very violent process. If life somehow managed to come into existence earlier it would have been wiped out anyway.

2) Without stellar ignition we wouldn't have the right temperature.

3) Water did not survive the planetary growth process. It came later from cometfalls.

I have seen sources that claim primitive life may have come to Earth and been wiped out more than once during the Hadean Eon. Speculation, of course.

 

[Jarhyn]

We all saw you make the statement.

And I'm asking which one?

Like a child that has made a mess and is being told by an adult because the child needs to learn to just admit when they fuck up and move forward.

It was, I believe, quoted or even said as one of the last posts of a page, and I was honestly flabbergasted.

I haven't gone looking for it since.

If you do taunt long enough to make an adult in the room go find it, it will look even worse.

That is what we are saying.

Now, while writing this post, I found where you say scientific evidence for God exists. I know the post number, and I know how to find it again.

Please now either admit you said it and either retract the claim, or produce the evidence.

 

[Lion IRC]

Please now either admit you said it and either retract the claim, or produce the evidence.

Just quote the post where I introduce God and/or the bible and/or evidence for same.
That was the accusation. That I introduced the topic.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Science can and does find plenty of evidence for God.

Bless your heart.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Please now either admit you said it and either retract the claim, or produce the evidence.

Just quote the post where I introduce God and/or the bible and/or evidence for same.
That was the accusation. That I introduced the topic.

You introduced it in post#2. You said that the op article is a win for creationism because you used a false equivalence of how people use the word create and took the whole thing out of the context of self-replicating RNA from an RNA world a gazillion years ago, ignoring many other things like that this would not be 6000 years ago. You can't just claim it's ANOTHER win for an ideology and pretend all those OTHER things you referenced weren't mentioned through this implication...even if you did it out of context of the report.

 

[Elixir]

Science can and does find plenty of evidence for God.

Bless your heart.

Surely someone else said that first! I mean, a good creo Christian wouldn’t prevaricate or fabricate or be perfidious, mendacious or untruthful, right?

 

[Jarhyn]

Please now either admit you said it and either retract the claim, or produce the evidence.

Just quote the post where I introduce God and/or the bible and/or evidence for same.
That was the accusation. That I introduced the topic.

No, the accusation is that you believe evidence for God exists. Post 281. Elixir just posted it.

Science can and does find plenty of evidence for God.

 

[Lion IRC]

I always defer to science.

No you don't.

Yes I do.

So you defer to science when it finds no evidence of God?

Look who introduced the topic of evidence for God.

 

[abaddon]

Look who introduced the topic of evidence for God.

So? Look who said there's scientific evidence for God:

Science can and does find plenty of evidence for God.

 

[Lion IRC]

Look who introduced the topic of evidence for God.

So? Look who said there's scientific evidence for God:

Science can and does find plenty of evidence for God.

If the accusation is merely that I said theres scientific evidence for God, I proudly agree

 

[abaddon]

If the accusation is merely that I said theres scientific evidence for God, I proudly agree

An effort at reason is being asked of you... why can't you answer? Are people wrong to assume you have some reasoning that goes along with the assertion? Or is blind faith belief the only justification?

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm being bombarded with questions about God and theodicy and the bible in a Forum labelled "Natural Science".

And I'm the one being accused of bringing up these (off topic) bait-and-switch points.

Ask Thomas (or the Mods) if its OK to argue about the evidence for God in this thread.

 

[IIDB Staff]

This is a copy of the thread for the religion forum.
The original science thread is cleaned up and stull resides in natural science. If you’d like to discuss the science, go there.

This one is now okay to continue religious talk.

 

[Lion IRC]

Evidence for a Creator- Exhibit "A"

We didn't cause ourselves to exist.
We haven't always existed.
Past-eternal time plus chance can't explain our existence because because that would entail inevitability and the enigma of our prior absence until now.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Evidence for a Creator- Exhibit "A"

We didn't cause ourselves to exist.
We haven't always existed.
Past-eternal time plus chance can't explain our existence because because that would entail inevitability and the enigma of our prior absence until now.