There is no evidence of Abiogenesis

[Learner]

The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Its called progress. Human curiosity drives us to better our understanding of the world, to both slake our thirst for knowledge and understanding, and to produce technological advances that better the lot of our species.

Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too.

Thee is no progress here — not for you, anyway. Not a single person here has denied that ID is a hypothesis. Here’s another hypothesis: Santa Claus comes down the chimney each Christmas and delivers presents. Another: the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn. Another: Donald Trump is a decent man.
Do you notice what all these have in common?

There is a scientific interest... and there are theories which can overlap into the Intelligent design direction. Intelligent design can consist of a variety of theories, other than the biological (Behe's theory which is often debated ).

There is the curiousity to further expand and inquire concepts like: the Computer Universe Theory, Digital Physics Theory and Information Theory which are all part of the big progress. (Unfortunately your santa analogy is shyly feeling out of place here. You could however use the santa analogy to example the pink-unicorn)

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

Yes, I used the hypothesis term....but Intelligent design is known as a theory anyway?

 

[steve_bank]

Well Learned, a case of theology over science.

You ignore archeology that shows dinosaurs died out well before humans appeared in favor of a line in an acetone text of unknown authorship that says a behemoth had a big tail.

And of course translation issues. Some translator used the word behemoth. No oje knows what the ordinal Hebrew words were and what they meant, and if it was added by a translator.

The human fossil tree.

Hominins first appear by around 6 million years ago, in the Miocene epoch, which ended about 5.3 million years ago. Our evolutionary path takes us through the Pliocene, the Pleistocene, and finally into the Holocene, starting about 12,000 years ago. The Anthropocene would follow the Holocene.Jan 3, 2024

Fossils and DNA suggest people looking like us, anatomically modern Homo sapiens, evolved around 300,000 years ago. Surprisingly, archaeology – tools, artefacts, cave art – suggest that complex technology and cultures, “behavioural modernity”, evolved more recently: 50,000-65,000 years ago.Sep 9, 2020

Human Family Tree

humanorigins.si.edu

Creationism by a god to whom we are subservient does nothing for me. Feeling connected to all life through evolution does.

I believe it is the Abrahamic Genesis perceptive that we humans are special favored creations of god is what keeps us from recognizing that we are part of the ecosystem.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Ignore above, accidentally included in quotes for this post, and can't remove.

e.g. They've found the physical City of David. It existed after all.

And IF that's true, and IF that was the only claim made in the Bible, you would have a point.

A scientific paper doesn't include methodologies for testing some of its claims; It includes methodologies for testing them all (which is why each paper tends to make only very limited claims).

Am I to take it that the ONLY things from the Bible that you believe are those with archaeological evidence that you can go and look at for yourself?

Or are you kidding yourself that a handful of verifiable facts, in a big book, imply that every claim in that book must be the truth?

The physical city of Troy (Ilium) has been discovered; that doesn't mean that the Greek gods exist.

The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Its called progress. Human curiosity drives us to better our understanding of the world, to both slake our thirst for knowledge and understanding, and to produce technological advances that better the lot of our species.

Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too.

Thee is no progress here — not for you, anyway. Not a single person here has denied that ID is a hypothesis. Here’s another hypothesis: Santa Claus comes down the chimney each Christmas and delivers presents. Another: the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn. Another: Donald Trump is a decent man.
Do you notice what all these have in common?

There is a scientific interest... and there are theories which can overlap into the Intelligent design direction. Intelligent design can consist of a variety of theories, other than the biological (Behe's theory which is often debated ).

There is the curiousity to further expand and inquire concepts like: the Computer Universe Theory, Digital Physics Theory and Information Theory which are all part of the big progress. (Unfortunately your santa analogy is shyly feeling out of place here. You could however use the santa analogy to example the pink-unicorn)

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

Yes, I used the hypothesis term....but Intelligent design is known as a theory anyway?

Intelligent design might be called by some a theory, but it is not a scientific theory, and this was confirmed in court by a Christian judge in Kitzmiller vs Dover.

 

[pood]

If Christians put all that imagination and thought on region towards things more productive they could actually accomplish something useful.

They have. Again... they've introduced hospitals, charities for the poor and hungry and contributed as pioneers to science.

Cmon Learner. did the ancient Jews rub elbows with dinosaurs? A my aunt used to say, 'tell the truth and shame the devil'.

Interestingly, according to Genesis there were great behemoths. Tails that were as large as Ceders.

You also mentioned the flood. You’re a young earth creationist?

Science can not disprove ID?
You'll have to debate that one with our friend pood.

No, pood did not say that.

For example: God will not suddenly put million of dollars in your account if you keep praying. The atheist thinks there's an argument to be made here.

No, the atheist doesn’t think this is an argument against god.

. so he emphasises on the argument that prayers don't help you when you are penniless etc.

But then science can not disprove leprechauns in Ireland.

Nor intelligent life forms on other planets, despite there being uncountable solar systems of every possible environment. Undetectable by current means!

ID fails logically not scientifically. ID theory does not explain whee the designer came from.

Not knowing where the designer comes from is not a logical issue.

You may know... if the designer tells you. He would still be the designer even if he refuses to tell you, or... he does tell you but you aren't able to comprehend.

Designer is an obvious code word for god.

Yes it is. Whether there is a real interest to ponder or investigate with the view that we are 'not the only ones' in the universe,that
we are not uniquely alone (an interesting discussion itself). That older beings many thousands years more advanced would be god-like to humans, is a conversation that could hint God yes of course.

Not being bothered about atheists who debate Christians (and ID) is all that matters to those curious individuals who think it might be possible.

And Learner, why are there no biblical reports of dinosaurs with humans in the bible r anywhere else??

Surely you're not going do the 'exact word fallacy" as atheists often do. Do you know when the word dinosaur started appearing? (It was the1800s. The word 'dinosaur' was an invention accredited to biologist Richard Owen)

Dragons, Behemoths, leviathan and great beasts could be contenders for dinosaurs.

Those ancientt hums must have been able to run really fast.

Did Humans Live with Dinosaurs?

Did Humans and dinosaurs live together?

creationmuseum.org

View attachment 47739

So When Did Dinosaurs Go Extinct?

We can see that dinosaurs still existed during the time of Noah’s Flood because we find dinosaur fossils today that were formed when conditions were right during the global Flood. Dinosaurs could have gone extinct any time after the two of each kind got off the Ark, just like many other animals have gone extinct since the Flood.

1. No scientific evidence of a global flood.

Ok, but It sure looks like it - the evidence of sea-life on every mountain, the 'not so hard to believe it's plausible' by the fact that 70% of the earth is covered with water. The built ruins under the oceans.

Yuppers, you’re a YEC. Oh, dear. In any event we have always coexisted with dinosaurs. They fly and have feathers.

 

[pood]

The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Its called progress. Human curiosity drives us to better our understanding of the world, to both slake our thirst for knowledge and understanding, and to produce technological advances that better the lot of our species.

Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too.

Thee is no progress here — not for you, anyway. Not a single person here has denied that ID is a hypothesis. Here’s another hypothesis: Santa Claus comes down the chimney each Christmas and delivers presents. Another: the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn. Another: Donald Trump is a decent man.
Do you notice what all these have in common?

There is a scientific interest... and there are theories which can overlap into the Intelligent design direction. Intelligent design can consist of a variety of theories, other than the biological (Behe's theory which is often debated ).

There is the curiousity to further expand and inquire concepts like: the Computer Universe Theory, Digital Physics Theory and Information Theory which are all part of the big progress. (Unfortunately your santa analogy is shyly feeling out of place here. You could however use the santa analogy to example the pink-unicorn)

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

Yes, I used the hypothesis term....but Intelligent design is known as a theory anyway?

Uh, no … I did not say that. I said just the opposite.

You’re the one who made a big to-do about ID being accepted as a hypothesis is “progress.” But it’s not progress, because ID is a hypothesis by definition. It is not, however, a scientific theory, I think you mentioned somewhere Behe’s “theory.” Behe does not have a theory. ID does not have a theory. I’ve already explained what they do have. I’m not going to waste time repeating myself.

 

[steve_bank]

Ok, Christians build hospitals. So do others. Does not mean Christens are inherently different than others

No one disputes that ancient Jews existed. That there is archeological evidence of ancient Jews does not mean god exists and the supernatural stories are true.

That we find tombs of ancient Egypt ion pharaohs does not men their rebellious beliefs are true.

 

[Elixir]

You’re the one who made a big to-do about ID being accepted as a hypothesis is “progress.” But it’s not progress, because ID is a hypothesis by definition. It is not, however, a scientific theory, I think you mentioned somewhere Behe’s “theory.” Behe does not have a theory. ID does not have a theory. I’ve already explained what they do have. I’m not going to waste time repeating myself.

It is a waste of time trying to get a person who calls themself by a misnomer, to learn. Creationists believe it’s okay to lie for Jesus. The difference between an hypothesis - which can be any kind of speculation - vs a theory - which must have predictive and explanatory power while being falsifiable - is just rhetorical to creos. Even the ones that know better (e.g. Dembski, Behe) continue to try to get people to conflate them for their own personal gain.
These discussions with someone who is unable and/or unwilling to LEARN the truth about the best supported theory in all of science, is an utter waste of time.
As such, it is truly Creationism in its superstitious nutshell.

 

[Janice Rael]

I opine that if *I* am the one who made Michael Behe jump up and abandon a teenager at an actual hearing about an ID bill in Pennsylvania in 2006, because when I read from The Wedge Document, he knew he was wrong, then, therefore, everyone on the internet should bring it up and ask him why he LEFT that hearing while I was reading about his Jesus plans. If he's a professional and I am not, then why was I right, hmm? ASK HIM.

He slammed his laptop shut and stormed out!

 

[Janice Rael]

Hey @Elixir , why the roll eyes emoji at my post? What do you think is wrong about confronting Behe?

 

[Elixir]

I opine that if *I* am the one who made Michael Behe jump up and abandon a teenager at an actual hearing about an ID bill in Pennsylvania in 2006, because when I read from The Wedge Document, he knew he was wrong, then, therefore, everyone on the internet should bring it up and ask him why he LEFT that hearing while I was reading about his Jesus plans. If he's a professional and I am not, then why was I right, hmm? ASK HIM.

He slammed his laptop shut and stormed out!

Unsurprising. I wish I had saved a conversation I had with Billy Dembski on ARN… what an absolute scumbag. These guys are real big on counting their fingers, coming up with eleven and invoking “God’s grace” for rectifying the situation.
Billy knows his specified complexity is bullshit just like Behe knows his irreducible bullshit is bullshit, but the rubes keep on coughing it up …

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Unsurprising. I wish I had saved a conversation I had with Billy Dembski on ARN… what an absolute scumbag. These guys are real big on counting their fingers, coming up with eleven and invoking “God’s grace” for rectifying the situation.
Billy knows his specified complexity is bullshit just like Behe knows his irreducible bullshit is bullshit, but the rubes keep on coughing it up …

Many of these guys could be actual scientists so one is left wondering why they peddle woo instead. Others are unable to understand what science actually is and so simply embrace magic. These I can understand because we were all kids at one time and explanations for things that were not explanations at all seemed satisfying given our limited knowledge. So why does someone like Behe still peddle woo when he could do actual science instead?

Clearly it's much easier to peddle woo so maybe a Behe is just lazy or maybe suffers from something like ADHD. Maybe he really doesn't have the ability to do scientific work but has enough familiarity with the field to appear scientifically capable when he isn't. That would be my guess.

The Dover trial was interesting partly because the judge wasn't a scientific person. He had to learn what was being argued and did a good job of it.

 

[pood]

Unsurprising. I wish I had saved a conversation I had with Billy Dembski on ARN… what an absolute scumbag. These guys are real big on counting their fingers, coming up with eleven and invoking “God’s grace” for rectifying the situation.
Billy knows his specified complexity is bullshit just like Behe knows his irreducible bullshit is bullshit, but the rubes keep on coughing it up …

Many of these guys could be actual scientists so one is left wondering why they peddle woo instead. Others are unable to understand what science actually is and so simply embrace magic. These I can understand because we were all kids at one time and explanations for things that were not explanations at all seemed satisfying given our limited knowledge. So why does someone like Behe still peddle woo when he could do actual science instead?

Clearly it's much easier to peddle woo so maybe a Behe is just lazy or maybe suffers from something like ADHD.

Or maybe he likes selling books.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Is Learner actually here to learn or are they going to keep repeating the same mindless and basic mistakes like "evolution is just a theory!"

 

[Elixir]

Is Learner actually here to learn or are they going to keep repeating the same mindless and basic mistakes like "evolution is just a theory!"

Most creos think Jesus wants them to proselytize. Facts be damned.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is Learner actually here to learn or are they going to keep repeating the same mindless and basic mistakes like "evolution is just a theory!"

Evolution is a theory, complete with evidence and observations. Gods, on the other hand, are just emotional claims.

 

[steve_bank]

Way back there was a steady stream of theists disputing evolution on the science forum.

Someone commented it was probably a right of passage. Doing battle in god's name.

Learner is hear to shore up his faith and preach.

 

[Elixir]

Learner is [here] to shore up his faith and preach.

Certainly not here to learn. Seems to have already got all the larnin’ a person could want jest from readin’ God’s Word.

 

[Learner]

Learner is [here] to shore up his faith and preach.

Certainly not here to learn. Seems to have already got all the larnin’ a person could want jest from readin’ God’s Word.

I have certainly learnt at least, that like the example of both quotes in the above: These 'discussion fillers' often set-off-a-floating about in the air, often pretends it has the "same weight" as a proper weighted argument.

Educational expertise that you have in this area (as shown in the quotes above). With respect, I think I will continue to do most of my learning (if not all) outside of the forum if that's ok?

 

[Learner]

Is Learner actually here to learn or are they going to keep repeating the same mindless and basic mistakes like "evolution is just a theory!"

I like to learn about you as individuals, the topics of discussions and of course the subject of debates regarding faith, being that is what this Religion section is about.

I am going to be just as arrogantly grandiose as posts that thinks that I "should be learning here" as if this was some sort of leading academic centre.
(I didn't even get a prospectus before joining)

Let's say in a like-wise grandiose manner i.e. the language you speak, so to speak:
I come here sometimes to correct you (plural) when you (plural) purposely distort the bible narratives.

 

[pood]

Is Learner actually here to learn or are they going to keep repeating the same mindless and basic mistakes like "evolution is just a theory!"

I like to learn about you as individuals, the topics of discussions and of course the subject of debates regarding faith, being that is what this Religion section is about.

I am going to be just as arrogantly grandiose as posts that thinks that I "should be learning here" as if this was some sort of leading academic centre.
(I didn't even get a prospectus before joining)

Let's say in a like-wise grandiose manner i.e. the language you speak, so to speak:
I come here sometimes to correct you (plural) when you (plural) purposely distort the bible narratives.

Except instead here you parroting ID nonsense without knowing anything about it, and showing you don’t even know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory.