zahizahi Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 i ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? you cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 i ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor?you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? you cannot. man you posted in the wrong forum. I think this belongs in the evolution forum, or more appropriately, the pseudoscience forum, becasue you are abviously trying to use a tired creationist strawman about evolution. We have explaned the first living organism, but I urge you to research this information yourself from an evolution website, not one of your creationist sites. By the way, welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Your answer: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2689 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 i ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor?you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? you cannot. how can you be such a comedian? you cannot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 "how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? you cannot." mhm, and guess what. the original atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere composed of water vapor, hydrogen gas, methane and ammonia. amino acids were formed from chemical reactions between these gases, catalyzed by the intense radiation at the time (for lack of an O2/O3 equilibrium in the upper regions of the atmosphere), so yeah. you lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 lets say for a moment that we didn't figure out how the first self-replicating molecule was formed. How would this make the observations we have about evolution false? Sorry, that tired old creationist rhetoric isn't going to fool anyone here, in case you forgot, this is a Science forum. Some people here are PHDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 i ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. I think you'll find that's not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Based on the new thread title, some moderator has a strange sense of humor. Don't you just love how many strawmans we get? I think we need to do something about it... These people need to learn about the SEARCH FUNCTION! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Where is the original poster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deified Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Thats like saying everything we know about physics is false, simply because the Big Bang Theory doesn't make perfect sense. It just doesn't follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Thats like saying everything we know about physics is false, simply because the Big Bang Theory doesn't make perfect sense. It just doesn't follow. in a biblical creationists mind, it does. Fallacy of presupposition is used by them contantly, and seems to make perfect sense to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deified Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 in a biblical creationists mind, it does. Fallacy of presupposition is used by them contantly, and seems to make perfect sense to them. Or at least they REALLY want to believe it makes perfect sense. Why don't they just view science as the study of God's creations? Why do Evolution and Creationism have to be at odds. To me, it's more amazing that a divine being could have set this miraculous (pardon the semantics) chain of events into action, than that God planned everything carefully, and designed things in such a linear and immutable way. I say, creation and evolution together form a more powerful theory than either by itself. (actually I'm an atheist, I just enjoy a good debate and frequently play devil's advocate (again, pardon the semantics)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Or at least they REALLY want to believe it makes perfect sense. Why don't they just view science as the study of God's creations? Why do Evolution and Creationism have to be at odds. To me, it's more amazing that a divine being could have set this miraculous (pardon the semantics) chain of events into action, than that God planned everything carefully, and designed things in such a linear and immutable way. I say, creation and evolution together form a more powerful theory than either by itself. (actually I'm an atheist, I just enjoy a good debate and frequently play devil's advocate (again, pardon the semantics) I agree. I dont think many of them actually think about why they don't like evolution, but they think it's bad becasue someone said so and they agree. If there is a cosmic being of some sort, I don't believe it takes in interest in our lives at all. But it takes only a little stretch of imagination and faith (which, not to be condescending, isn't unknown to religious people) to accept that a deity could still be present and "use" evolutionary mechanisms for changing it's world and creations. It doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apologia Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Or at least they REALLY want to believe it makes perfect sense. Why don't they just view science as the study of God's creations? Why do Evolution and Creationism have to be at odds. To me, it's more amazing that a divine being could have set this miraculous (pardon the semantics) chain of events into action, than that God planned everything carefully, and designed things in such a linear and immutable way. I say, creation and evolution together form a more powerful theory than either by itself. (actually I'm an atheist, I just enjoy a good debate and frequently play devil's advocate (again, pardon the semantics)) Actually, if you take the bible literally as well as put it together, you'll find that evolution caused by God is not consistent with his nature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 i ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor?you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? you cannot. I didn't know there was a first living organism to explain. Maybe it's turtles all the way down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deified Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Actually, if you take the bible literally as well as put it together, you'll find that evolution caused by God is not consistent with his nature I think that when the Bible was written, it was not meant literally. The ideas are what matter. Not to mention that its unfortunate to take a poorly translated document literally. It leads to trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apologia Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 I think that when the Bible was written, it was not meant literally. and you assume this why? The ideas are what matter. Not to mention that its unfortunate to take a poorly translated document literally. It leads to trouble. terrible argument. Old sea scrolls found have matched the modern bible very consistently, except for the spelling of a few words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 I love the way these people make one god awful hit-and-run post, to show us the error of our ways. TAKE THAT SCIENCE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 terrible argument. Old sea scrolls found have matched the modern bible very consistently, except for the spelling of a few words I think that you are missing the point. The old sea scrolls are no closer to the modern English translations, are they? This is true even if you compare the spelling of the words in the old sea scrolls with the spelling of the words in any of the modern English translations. I read the Old Testament in Hebrew and in English. In my opinion, some of the stories lose EVERYTHING in the translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 I love the way these people make one god awful hit-and-run post' date=' to show us the error of our ways. TAKE THAT SCIENCE![/quote'] Yeah where is this guy, zahizahi anyway? Does he care to provide any rebuttle to his guerilla warfare post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 and guess what. the original atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere composed of water vapor, hydrogen gas, methane and ammonia. amino acids were formed from chemical reactions between these gases, catalyzed by the intense radiation at the time You need to update your thinking..... Try nitrogen and carbon dioxide. And look to comets to provide the bulk of the amino acids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deified Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 and you assume this why? terrible argument. Old sea scrolls found have matched the modern bible very consistently' date=' except for the spelling of a few words[/quote'] First of all, I didn't assume it, I THINK that it is true. It is my opinion that it is true. I'm not basing any arguements/theories on it. Secondly, I think that is true because I believe that Jesus was a guy who had some good ideas and realized that the only way to get his ideas across, was to tell the people something REALLY spectacular ("I am the son of God" ) Thats why I believe that the ideas are what matter, not the details. And yes, the ideas are very good ones. In regards to your other point, I don't wish to argue over the Bible because I have not studied it. Cadmus said it very well, the problem is not the source, but the incompatibility of the languages. For example, in Aramaic the word for virgin is the same as the word for young woman. Mary could have just been a teen who got pregnant by the usually method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Is 'old sea scroll' the same as Dead Sea scroll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Is 'old sea scroll' the same as Dead Sea scroll? I was going to ask the same thing. I don't see any way around it, I am taking an Anthropology/Arcaeology class and learning about all the different fossils of all the seperate species found in Africa. There is no "missing link" it makes perfect scientifical sense, evolution explains better than anything how we got here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 For example, in Aramaic the word for virgin is the same as the word for young woman. In Middle English, it hold the same meaning. The Church altered the meaning through association, and the common usage changed as language moved into the 15th century. Consequently it's not the best example of Aramaic mistranslation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts