Skip to main content

Hi to my Forum Friends,

Thank you, TNT, for posting the video: http://kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html on Fish's discussion, Extreme Nerd Rap. It is very well done and useful for teaching.

I was not surprised to see Fish respond with the atheist YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

So, let's all take a moment to evaluate Fish's entry into this discussion titled: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

The following excerpt is taken from this video, which is not really a video, but instead is an atheist blackboard lesson in laughable theorizing and silly suppositions. It tells us:

The theory of evolution is NOT a theory of life's origin. It is a theory of how one form of life changes over time through mutation and natural selection, into another form.

You obviously confuse the theory of evolution with the theory of abiogenesis, a common creationist mistake.


Okay, for now, I will buy that. Evolution, in their mind, is not about how life began. They suggest we look at another theory called abiogenesis. So, let's take a look at what scientists tell us about abiogenesis.

The following excerpts are from from the Bio-Medicine web site: http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Abiogenesis

Excerpt one:

Abiogenesis, in its most general sense, is the hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter. Today, the term is primarily used in the context of biology and the origin of life. Some confusion exists on this topic, because early concepts of abiogenesis were later proven to be incorrect. These early concepts of spontaneous generation (referred to here as "Aristotelian abiogenesis" for clarity) held that living organisms could be "born" out of decaying organic substances, et cetera, which we now know does not occur.

The first step in the scientific refutation of the theory of Aristotelian abiogenesis was taken by the Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1668, proved that no maggots were bred in meat on which flies were prevented by wire screens from laying their eggs. From the 17th century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, spontaneous generation did not occur, but that omne vivum ex ovo, every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing.

The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals. This is a significantly different thing from the concept of Aristotelian abiogenesis, which postulated the formation of complex organisms. Different hypotheses for modern abiogenetic processes are currently under debate; see, for example, RNA world hypothesis, proteinoid, Miller experiment.


Excerpt two:

Information theorist Hubert Yockey argued that chemical evolutionary research begs the question:

Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.


BILL'S COMMENT: In other words, the theory has absolutely been accepted authoritatively. Now, let's see if we can prove what we already believe to be fact. Duh!

One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written. (Yockey, 1977. A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377–398, quotes from pp. 379, 396.)

In book he wrote 15 years later, Yockey argued that the primordial soup theory is a failed paradigm:

Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions. …

The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it.


So, my dear atheist Friends, since the theory of abiogenesis has been disproved by scientists -- please answer one question:

How did life begin? How did life evolve, or poof, or pop out of non-living material?

I will concede, for the sake of this discussion, that evolution is not talking about the origin of life. But, let's move back to that question: What is the origin of life?

I know what I believe: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:10) -- but, I sincerely await your serious, considered answer. What is the origin of life?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net

Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Hi Fine,

Even our resident atheist Friends could have given a better answer than that. If you cannot answer the question; don't knock us for asking. Just admit that you have no answer and we will wait for someone to give a serious response.

It is no crime to not know; but, it is a shame when one has to resort to profanity and ridicule just because you have no answer.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
Bill
I'll tell you what -

You tell me where "god" came from and I will tell you the origin of life.

Both are equally IMPOSSIBLE to answer.

YOU are the one that NEEDS there to be a beginning. Where did your god BEGIN?

I'll give you a hint - in the minds of goat herders.

Aside from your "book" what do you use as proof of this magic universe maker?
quote:
So, my dear atheist Friends, since the theory of abiogenesis has been disproved by scientists -- please answer one question:

How did life begin? How did life evolve, or poof, or pop out of non-living material?


Bill,

I've answered this question a dozen times for you and the answer is still the same:

We don't know how life began.

Let me state that differently in case you didn't understand that statement: WE DO NOT KNOW HOW LIFE BEGAN.

You are spreading false information by saying that scientists have proposed some de facto Theory. That is so far from the truth that one may safely call it a lie.

What science has demonstrated is that fossilized life forms become simpler and simpler the farther we look back in time. It takes the imagination of a first grader to surmise that if life gets simpler the further back you go, then life must have once been Very Simple Indeed. Once could further surmise that there was a point where some sort of primordial goo gained the ability to replicate, respirate and metabolize. Once one single molecule learned that trick, life would have spread madly.

Insert your metaphorical Genesis right where the first bits of RNA learned how to replicate itself. That's how I kept my faith for as long as I did until fundamentalist bozos like you forced me to choose something more rational.

So, again, while we do not "know," we do have some very good ideas that are supported by mountains of evidence. That evidence decidedly contradicts your "scientific theory" that every life form in existence was zapped into existence by Supergod 6000 years ago.
quote:
Where did your god BEGIN? I'll give you a hint - in the minds of goat herders.


Actually, there is a recent theory on that. In short, god may have literally been cooked up over a camp fire.

The theory is that the invention of fire gave us an abundance of calories that allowed us to devote brain cells to other non essential uses such as art and religion.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/080811-brain-evolution.html

Excerpt:

"For a long time, we were pretty dumb. Humans did little but make "the same very boring stone tools for almost 2 million years," he said. Then, only about 150,000 years ago, a different type of spurt happened — our big brains suddenly got smart. We started innovating. We tried different materials, such as bone, and invented many new tools, including needles for beadwork. Responding to, presumably, our first abstract thoughts, we started creating art and maybe even religion.

To understand what caused the cognitive spurt, Khaitovich and colleagues examined chemical brain processes known to have changed in the past 200,000 years. Comparing apes and humans, they found the most robust differences were for processes involved in energy metabolism.

The finding suggests that increased access to calories spurred our cognitive advances, said Khaitovich, carefully adding that definitive claims of causation are premature.

The research is detailed in the August 2008 issue of Genome Biology.

The extra calories may not have come from more food, but rather from the emergence of pre-historic "Iron Chefs;" the first hearths also arose about 200,000 years ago. "
Hello Mr Bill, I hope you don't mind another veiw on this. See the web site for more documentation. Remember, hubby was raised Catholic.


http://www.catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

Creation and Genesis


Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.
quote:
Even our resident atheist Friends could have given a better answer than that.


Not even a nice try, Mr. Bill.

Not "even"? As if our opinions and arguments mean nothing? We've handed you your ass for over a year now, in every discussion we've chosen to enter. Some were too vapid to even bother ourselves with.

DNA is life. Before it was RNA. Both compounds are made of simple elements abundant on Earth. Abundant in the Universe, for that matter. Life may exist on billions of planets, we don't know, but the intelligent and curious among us are looking. The mentally-stifled and satisfied fundy idiots don't even want to know.

I won't go into a detailed explanation; intellect is wasted on you. But, your taking a superior, holier-than-thou attitude because you have chosen ignorance and superstition over knowledge is howlingly, barking funny.

Tell us more about the 6000 year old Earth, Mr. Bill. Go ahead, in detail.

DF
I know the Bible doesn't get too specific about cosmic things, but I do wonder what fundamentalists believe about the universe.

Bill, do you believe scientists' conclusion that the Earth revolves around the Sun (which is central to out Solar System) and that they are, depending on the position of the Earth in its orbit, 91-94.5 million miles apart?
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
So, my dear atheist Friends, since the theory of abiogenesis has been disproved by scientists -- please answer one question: How did life begin? How did life evolve, or poof, or pop out of non-living material?
Bill,

I've answered this question a dozen times for you and the answer is still the same: We don't know how life began.

Let me state that differently in case you didn't understand that statement: WE DO NOT KNOW HOW LIFE BEGAN.

You are spreading false information by saying that scientists have proposed some de facto Theory. That is so far from the truth that one may safely call it a lie.
Hi Fish,

Thank you for being honest. You tell me that you do not know how life began. Yet, I have the answer for you: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Since you, in your secular circle do not know how life began -- how can you say that God did not create life?

You tell me, "You are spreading false information by saying that scientists have proposed some de facto Theory."

Fish, I did not write that information; those are not my words. They came straight from a science web site. I copied that information directly from the science web site: Bio-Medicine http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Abiogenesis

So, are you now telling me that I should NOT believe science web sites? If so, that only leaves only the Biblical world view; which is fine by me. After all, when He created the heavens and the earth -- He also created science.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
quote:
Originally posted by littlemeanmama: Hello Mr Bill, I hope you don't mind another view on this. See the web site for more documentation. Remember, hubby was raised Catholic.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

Creation and Genesis

Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.
Hi LittleMama,

It is true that we can find folks in the Christian community who believe in young earth and others who believe the old earth theories. You will find that among those of us who believe in "sola scriptura" -- Scripture Only -- most will believe in the young earth age teaching. There are those who will argue with "sola scriptura" because this negates their tradition; which they give as much or more importance than Scripture. And, if one sets aside "sola scriptura" -- then tradition can say anything about creation or any other part of the Bible; for to them, the Bible is not the sole authority on spiritual matters.

There is strong support in the Bible for the six day creation being just that -- six literal 24 hour days. I personally believe in the literal 24 hour days of creation. The only question should be: Why did it take God six days to finish creation?

Since He is the Creator; He could have finished creation in seconds. God had a purpose; it was to set a precedence, or a standard, for man. God is perfect; God is almighty. Man, even in his pre-Adamic-fall days, was still a finite, mortal being. Man was created in the image of God; but, man was not created as God. God, in His omniscience, knew that man would need to have days of rest. So, He established that man should work six days -- then rest one day. He, Himself, set the example by doing the Creation in six days -- and resting on the seventh. He established this for both man and for the earth. Man should work his fields for six years; then give them one year to rest. Remember, God does not do anything just for folly; when He moves, He has a purpose. This was His purpose for the six 24 hour days of Creation.

To me, Genesis 1:1 is the foundation stone of the Bible; just as Jesus Christ is the foundation stone of Christianity. Therefore, if the Bible says it -- I believe it.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill
Hi Deep,

You tell us, "DNA is life. Before it was RNA. Both compounds are made of simple elements abundant on Earth. Abundant in the Universe, for that matter. Life may exist on billions of planets, we don't know, but the intelligent and curious among us are looking. The mentally-stifled and satisfied fundy idiots don't even want to know."

So, please, tell us: What is the origin of life? Where did the very FIRST LIFE come from?

You tell us that it was first RNA, then DNA -- but, where did RNA and DNA come from? Did it just "poof" into existence? Did it just evolve into existence? Did it just boil in the primordial swamp for billions of years until the "soup" was ready -- then, whammo! -- there is life! If this is what you are saying -- then, many highly respected scientists disagree with you. Check the web page in my original post.

So, my very Deep Friend -- WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE?

Simple question. If you need help; take a peek at Genesis 1:1, "If the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
quote:
Originally posted by dialectic.:
I know the Bible doesn't get too specific about cosmic things, but I do wonder what fundamentalists believe about the universe.

Bill, do you believe scientists' conclusion that the Earth revolves around the Sun (which is central to our Solar System) and that they are, depending on the position of the Earth in its orbit, 91-94.5 million miles apart?

Well, I don't know if you were insulted by that question, or just found it boring. Frowner

I mean to say, do you buy science's take on the general layout and size of our Solar System?
Last edited by dialectic.
Hi Dialectic,

You say, "I know the Bible doesn't get too specific about cosmic things, but I do wonder what fundamentalists believe about the universe. Bill, do you believe scientists' conclusion that the Earth revolves around the Sun (which is central to our Solar System) and that they are, depending on the position of the Earth in its orbit, 91-94.5 million miles apart? Well, I don't know if you were insulted by that question, or just found it boring. I mean to say, do you buy science's take on the general layout and size of our Solar System?"

No, Dialectic, I do not find your question insulting or boring. I am always interested in sincere questions about the Bible and Christian beliefs.

First, let me say that God never intended the Bible to be a text book on science. He gives us enough that we can know His work in the universe; He proves the validity of the Bible by over 1800 prophecies which have been proven to have happened just as prophesied. What we do not know now; we will know in eternity to come. The Bible is intended to give us what we need to know to have salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

When God tells us in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" -- that is not a scientific explanation; that is a spiritual, faith statement. We know it is true; because the Bible has been proven to be valid. Was Creation done in six solar days of 24 hours? I believe this; for the word day in Hebrew is "yohm" and is used 1541 times in the KJV Bible. In the vast majority of these usages it is very obvious that the writer is speaking of a solar day; especially when he ties the word "yohm" with a numerical value, i.e., "And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day" (Genesis 1:8)

What do I believe about the universe and more specifically, our galaxy? I know that God aligned our galaxy with such precision that our earth spins in a 24 hour cycle giving us day and night; it revolves around the sun giving us the four seasons and our twelve month year. The earth is aligned at a specific tilt from the sun -- and the earth is exactly the right distance from the sun to allow life to exist on earth. If the earth were any closer to the sun; we would burn to death. If the earth were any farther from the sun; we would have a planet covered with ice.

Yes, Dialectic, I believe God fine tuned the universe; especially our galaxy to allow life on earth -- and, I do not believe there is human type life on any other planet in the universe. I believe we are God's special creation -- and I know that those who believe in Jesus Christ will spend eternity with Him in glorious happiness. But, those who do not put their faith in Him will spend eternity in a place much less desirable.

Keep in mind that when the Bible tells us in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" -- part of that creation is science and the laws of science. So, in that respect science is a subset of the Bible.

I pray that I have answered your question. If not, let's continue the dialogue.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB
quote:
Fish, I did not write that information; those are not my words. They came straight from a science web site. I copied that information directly from the science web site: Bio-Medicine http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Abiogenesis

So, are you now telling me that I should NOT believe science web sites?


First, I'd tell you that I am proud that you are educating yourself on the histroy of life and appear to be distancing yourself from the stupidity of a 6000 year old earth.

But, no Bill, I'm suggesting that you do not have the education necessary to understand what the article is saying. Read your own article again. Here, I'll help: It is entitled "History of abiogenesis hypotheses ."

(Before we begin, it is important that you know that a "hypothesis" carries much, much less weight than a scientific theory. While a hypothesis is essentially an untested idea, a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested so thoroughly that is has become accepted as THE explanation of a phenomenon. Germ theory, atmoic theory and Evolution is an example of that.)

So, your (interesting) article compared what we used to believe with current ideas. The is the beautiful thing about science: It readily changes its mind based on new evidence.)

The article states, "Different hypotheses for modern abiogenetic processes are currently under debate. See, for example, RNA world hypothesis, proteinoid, Miller experiment." What you are proposing is simply another hypothesis called "The Biblical hypothesis."

Now, for your hypothesis to be seriously considered, you must simply provide some evidence. Otherwise, you are just another kook with an agenda. So, lets see the evidence, Bill.
Hi Fish,

You tell us, "So, your (interesting) article compared what we used to believe with current ideas. The is the beautiful thing about science: It readily changes its mind based on newevidence."

I am happy you noticed that about science. What is today's current belief in science? I don't know; what time is it? Okay, today our guru is (add the name of whoever is your hero today) and this is what he teaches us. Duh!

Fish, that is the difference between science and the Bible. As you said, science changes with the weather. The Bible has never, and will never, change. God's Word is set in concrete; it is immutable, it is unchangeable -- what was said 2000 years ago is still true today -- and will be true tomorrow.

Now, which would you rather build your house upon -- the shifting, moving sand of science -- or the Rock Solid Word of God?

Fish, thank you for pointing this out for us.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
quote:
Hi Miami,

Sorry, once again your team missed the basket. You would be better off with Kobe on you team that some feeble old English professor. Kobe can put you in three point range.

His talk was titled "Origin of Life" -- but, everything he talked about was already existing life. He said it had form, it had heredity, etc.

In other words, he talks about what proves that a thing lives -- but, he does not talk about where that life comes from; what is the origin of life?

His talk is so typical of atheistic rhetoric. It tells you that it will give you specific information -- but, then talks a mile a minute around that information without telling us anything.

Why can't you at least be as honest as Fish and admit that you have no idea about the origin of life? Then, I can show you the absolute answer: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
quote:
Originally posted by fineazell1:
A Christmas Carol was written in 1843 and it is still the same unchanged story it was when it was written.

That totally proves that Charles Dickens was god.

Thanks for clearing that up Bill.

BTW, what is the origin of god?
Hi Fine,

I sure am happy that your Atheist Team is not representing America at the Olympics. You guys will pick at lint in your pockets trying to come up with an intelligent response -- to no avail.

I do believe that Dickens presented his story as fiction -- just as God presented His Word as the absolute truth. No conflict there.

So, if I can once again attempt to keep our poorly manned Atheist Team on track: You answer my question on the origin of life -- and then I will answer your questions about God.

You can shift it from hand to hand, try to hide it behind your back, even bury it with the lint iint in your pocket -- but, the question does not go away: What is the origin of Life?

Either you can answer it -- or you cannot. Fish is honest; he cannot. How about you? Are you going to keep huffing and puffing until you mess your diaper like Deep -- or can we get back to the real world?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Baby-I-Pooped-TEXT
quote:
you asked where did God come from!


I am not Bill but I am going to paste soemthign that explains the answer you are looking for.

the web site is = Gotquestions.org and they explain it as follows.

Question: "Who created God? Where did God come from?"

Answer: The atheist Bertrand Russell wrote in his book "Why I am Not a Christian" that if it is true that all things need a cause then God must also need a cause. He concluded from this that if God needed a cause then God was not God (and if God is not God then of course there is no God). This was basically a slightly more sophisticated form of the childlike question, "Who made God?" Even a child knows that things do not come from nothing, so if God is a "something" then He must have a cause as well, right?

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, "What does blue smell like?" Blue is not in the category of things that have odor, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created, or come into existence, or are caused. God is uncaused and uncreated - He simply exists.

How do we know this? Well, we know that from nothing, nothing comes. So if there was ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence then nothing would have ever come to exist. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been existing. That ever-existing thing is what we call God.
Wow Braylan

That is the dumbest answer ever. Why don't you just say "I don't know".

It is the christian that tells me abiogenesis can't be correct because nothing can come from nothing but your god comes from nothing if nothing existed before him.

Basically as you have known all along, god is a fictional character in a fictional book. Much like the Charles Dickens Christmas Carol. At least Mr. Dickens was honest about making up his story.
quote:
Originally posted by fineazell1: Actually Bill I have answered, I said I don't know. Your turn.

quote:
Originally posted by fineazell1: Bill, I'll tell you what - Both are equally IMPOSSIBLE to answer.
Hi Fine,

Since you admit that you have no idea about the origin of life -- how can you say that God did not create it?

We go back to, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

You see, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind about the origin of life: God.

Where did God come from? He has always existed; hard to grasp, but true. You may not believe this; but, that does not invalidate the fact that God is preexistent.

Can you explain infinity? Yet, you believe that infinity exists. Can you give an exact value of the mathematical term pi? No; but you believe that pi exists.

By the same token, I cannot, in my finite human mind, fully grasp the immense totality of eternity -- yet, I know, by faith, that it exists. Can you get your mind around eternity? Secular science talks about a universe and an earth which is billions of years old; yet, that is a drop in the bucket, only a breath of time, when compared to eternity. Take a number and put as many zeroes behind it as you can write -- that number is still small when compared to eternity. My mind cannot grasp eternity; but, by faith, I know it exists -- and, I know that God, too, is preexisting.

On the other hand, time does not exist in heaven. So, in heaven, today is as yesterday, yesterday is as tomorrow. I once heard the statement, "When you die, you will arrive in heaven at the same time as Abraham and Moses -- because time does not exist in heaven." When you think about it; this is true -- when time does not exist.

Time is a part of the creation; created for finite man, to set a limit on finite man. Man is born, lives in linear time, dies, and goes into eternity -- where God has always been waiting.

No, Fine, God is not impossible to explain -- nor is the origin of life. Both answers come in the same package: GOD!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
Hi Fine,

You tell Braylan, "It is the christian that tells me abiogenesis can't be correct because nothing can come from nothing but your god comes from nothing if nothing existed before him."

That is not true. The debunking of abiogenesis comes from a science web site. If you will read my original post in this discussion; you will find that I tell you:

The following excerpts are from from the Bio-Medicine web site: http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Abiogenesis

And, in those excerpts, this science web site goes on to quote respected scientists who refute this theory of abiogenesis.

Once again, you in the atheist camp attempt to take what was said and twist it. Sorry, Fine, no cigar!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Baby-Bored-1a
Hi Fine,

Your original post, to which I responded, was:

Wow Braylan, That is the dumbest answer ever. Why don't you just say "I don't know".

It is the christian that tells me abiogenesis can't be correct because nothing can come from nothing but your god comes from nothing if nothing existed before him.

Basically as you have known all along, god is a fictional character in a fictional book. Much like the Charles Dickens Christmas Carol. At least Mr. Dickens was honest about making up his story.


Now, you post:

Bill, In your self indulgence you assumed that the "christian" I was referring to was you. Unfortunately (I wish you were) you are not the only christian in the world.

Read along. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html


Fine, I am not sure what your point is -- or, maybe you have confused yourself with your different posts. However, thank you for posting this web site URL -- which tells us:

Let us look at the origin of life. There are only two possibilities for the existence of life:

1. Spontaneous assembly of life from chemicals -- or,
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

If you deny the existence of a Creator, scientific studies demonstrate that you must believe each of the following things about the origin of life:


Then, this web site goes on to quote many scientist who tell us that there is no way, period, that life could have originated through abiogenesis or any other chemical mutation. You have just validated what I have been saying. Thank you.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
I'm not arguing abiogenesis - you are. I've never said abiogenesis is or isn't the origin of life.

What I have said is christians say "something can't come from nothing" but turn around and say god just exist - no explanation needed.

At least with believing what we now know as "life" came from billions of years of change from a universe that "just exists" makes more sense than a 6 thousand year old earth made from dirt by a supernatural being that was simply bored.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Hi Miami,

Sorry, once again your team missed the basket. You would be better off with Kobe on you team that some feeble old English professor. Kobe can put you in three point range.

quote:
Hi Bill, hope all is well. I wasn't aware that you had put me on a team. Why do you feel the need to do so? And the feeble old English professor is the recipient of the Copley Medal, it is a scientific award for distinguished achievement in any field of science established by the Royal Society of London in 1731. It is the Society's highest and oldest award and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences. Also he was awarded the Kyoto Prize, it is the Japanese equivalent of the Nobel Prize. I'd say he has earned some respect for his contributions to society, wouldn't you agree?


His talk was titled "Origin of Life" -- but, everything he talked about was already existing life. He said it had form, it had heredity, etc.

In other words, he talks about what proves that a thing lives -- but, he does not talk about where that life comes from; what is the origin of life?

His talk is so typical of atheistic rhetoric. It tells you that it will give you specific information -- but, then talks a mile a minute around that information without telling us anything.

quote:
While I can respect a dissenting opinion, I noted the time of my post 10:39 AM and yours 10:56 AM. That's 17 minutes, including your time to type the post. There is about an hour of video in that series. It would appear that you didn't watch the material. That would explain a lot. I'm wondering, how you would expect to gain any knowledge without experiencing it....


Why can't you at least be as honest as Fish and admit that you have no idea about the origin of life?


quote:
I offered to answer the question. I never stated anything, one way or the other. I have stated before to Braylan that this is an unknowable question. You or I certainly don't know. However, I offer some of the best possible evidence based information we currently have, and you offer an ancient tribal story with magic and zero evidence. If you're concerned about honesty please start with yourself.

Sincerely, miamizsun
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Hi Miami,

Sorry, once again your team missed the basket. You would be better off with Kobe on you team that some feeble old English professor. Kobe can put you in three point range.

quote:
Hi Bill, hope all is well. I wasn't aware that you had put me on a team. Why do you feel the need to do so? And the feeble old English professor is the recipient of the Copley Medal, it is a scientific award for distinguished achievement in any field of science established by the Royal Society of London in 1731. It is the Society's highest and oldest award and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences. Also he was awarded the Kyoto Prize, it is the Japanese equivalent of the Nobel Prize. I'd say he has earned some respect for his contributions to society, wouldn't you agree?


His talk was titled "Origin of Life" -- but, everything he talked about was already existing life. He said it had form, it had heredity, etc.

In other words, he talks about what proves that a thing lives -- but, he does not talk about where that life comes from; what is the origin of life?

His talk is so typical of atheistic rhetoric. It tells you that it will give you specific information -- but, then talks a mile a minute around that information without telling us anything.

quote:
While I can respect a dissenting opinion, I noted the time of my post 10:39 AM and yours 10:56 AM. That's 17 minutes, including your time to type the post. There is about an hour of video in that series. It would appear that you didn't watch the material. That would explain a lot. I'm wondering, how you would expect to gain any knowledge without experiencing it....


Why can't you at least be as honest as Fish and admit that you have no idea about the origin of life?


quote:
I offered to answer the question. I never stated anything, one way or the other. I have stated before to Braylan that this is an unknowable question. You or I certainly don't know. However, I offer some of the best possible evidence based information we currently have, and you offer an ancient tribal story with magic and zero evidence. If you're concerned about honesty please start with yourself.

Sincerely, miamizsun
Hi Miami,

You keep talking about answering the question: What is the origin of Life? -- but, none of you do it. And, neither did your professor.

I did watch the video for a while -- and all he talked about was existing life; not what brought about that life.

That is my question to you and all atheists: What is the origin of Life?

And, please do not give me a bunch of URL links, etc.

Tell me in your own words: What is the origin of Life?

I'll give you a hint. It is found in Genesis 1:1 of the Bible.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
Bill, please reread my post and take appropriate measures. The last section of my post, in green, address your question about me and my thoughts. Secondly, how would you know, really, how would you know what is in the video if you didn't watch it? I find it ironic that you benefit and use today's science and technology in every aspect of your life, yet you are dogmatic with ancient tales and beliefs.

Regards, miamizsun
quote:
Originally posted by littlemeanmama:
http://www.catholic.com/librar...tion_and_Genesis.asp

Creation and Genesis


Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.


I'll go along with this theory. We don't know how long a day is to God, or what his process was for forming life. I believe he did create the heavens and earth, and life. The timeline is not important to me.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×