EarthScienceguy wrote:
I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.
God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.
In another topic when I asked EarthScienceguy what he believed instead of evolution he wrote back the above. I asked him several times to explin his theory and he incapable of explanation and debate of his theory.
I would like to find from any Christians that believes like EarthScienceguy something about this belief and some proof using known fossils and how these fit in.
How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.
Since this theory uses “kinds of animals� that a lot of creationist do could someone list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?
What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to due with DNA changing? Could someone point out all the articles that support this theory? I would hope that there is a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.
I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.
KINDS and ADAPTATION
Moderator: Moderators
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #131
[Replying to post 128 by DrNoGods]
There is no cause for the universe in your worldview, you simply believe that nature found a way to produce the universe in which we live.
There is no cause for life in your world view. Evolution starts at the assumption of that life exists. When asked about what started life another appeal to a belief in nature finding a way.
Even though any computer programer knows that randomly changing code in a computer program does not produce a new program but simply destroys the program that existed before. Evolution tries to make the case information in DNA can be changed this way. Again an appeal to the the belief that nature will find a way.
Evolution theory itself says explains that duplication and then mutation is the key to producing new information in the genome. And yet that is not what is observed in nature when duplication and mutation occur. Serious deleterious mutations occur through duplication and mutation. And again an appeal to the belief in that nature will find a way.
Out of all of the belief systems out there atheism must be most pitied, because it deceives men into ancient pantheistic belief system all the while convincing them that they are believing some sort of cutting edge technological belief.
Belief that science will one day come up with a solution to origins is nothing more than pantheism a worshiper of nature. You see the enlightenment did not throw society forward but threw society backward.But tell me ... why do creationists such as yourself even bother trying to pretend creationism is compatible with modern science? What's the point? You can never succeed in this because it isn't, and never will be. Science has disproven creationism thoroughly, and without any ambiguity. So why don't you simply drop the futile efforts to claim creationism is compatible with modern science, and just be happy with saying you believe it because it is described in a religious book that you think is divinely inspired and therefore correct? That is a perfectly fine explanation, and avoids all the wasted effort trying to convince people that creationism is compatible with science. I've never understood why you guys even bother making the effort.
There is no cause for the universe in your worldview, you simply believe that nature found a way to produce the universe in which we live.
There is no cause for life in your world view. Evolution starts at the assumption of that life exists. When asked about what started life another appeal to a belief in nature finding a way.
Even though any computer programer knows that randomly changing code in a computer program does not produce a new program but simply destroys the program that existed before. Evolution tries to make the case information in DNA can be changed this way. Again an appeal to the the belief that nature will find a way.
Evolution theory itself says explains that duplication and then mutation is the key to producing new information in the genome. And yet that is not what is observed in nature when duplication and mutation occur. Serious deleterious mutations occur through duplication and mutation. And again an appeal to the belief in that nature will find a way.
Out of all of the belief systems out there atheism must be most pitied, because it deceives men into ancient pantheistic belief system all the while convincing them that they are believing some sort of cutting edge technological belief.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Post #132
[Replying to post 131 by EarthScienceguy]
Yes, because there is no evidence to the contrary.
Right, because there is no evidence to the contrary. Evolution has nothing to say about HOW life came to be, only that it did via some mechanism. That mechanism is not known at the moment, but since the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist, the most rational and reasonable hypothesis is that it was via a natural process. Making up supernatural explanations is certainly not a superior position, or likely to turn out to be the correct mechanism ... again, because the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist.
But evolution is just one subject area where creationists try to twist real science to fit their religious views. My question was why do you bother with the effort at all? If you believe in a god (or gods) that is capable of supernatural feats, then simply say so and there is no need to try and make religious views compatible with science. No need for all the wasted, and futile, efforts.
And atheism is not a belief system ... it is the lack of belief that gods of any kind exist. You seem to not understand the simple defintion of atheism.
There is no cause for the universe in your worldview, you simply believe that nature found a way to produce the universe in which we live.
Yes, because there is no evidence to the contrary.
There is no cause for life in your world view. Evolution starts at the assumption of that life exists. When asked about what started life another appeal to a belief in nature finding a way.
Right, because there is no evidence to the contrary. Evolution has nothing to say about HOW life came to be, only that it did via some mechanism. That mechanism is not known at the moment, but since the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist, the most rational and reasonable hypothesis is that it was via a natural process. Making up supernatural explanations is certainly not a superior position, or likely to turn out to be the correct mechanism ... again, because the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist.
But evolution is just one subject area where creationists try to twist real science to fit their religious views. My question was why do you bother with the effort at all? If you believe in a god (or gods) that is capable of supernatural feats, then simply say so and there is no need to try and make religious views compatible with science. No need for all the wasted, and futile, efforts.
And atheism is not a belief system ... it is the lack of belief that gods of any kind exist. You seem to not understand the simple defintion of atheism.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #133
[Replying to post 132 by DrNoGods]
That mechanism is not known at the moment, but since the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist, the most rational and reasonable hypothesis is that it was via a natural process. Making up supernatural explanations is certainly not a superior position, or likely to turn out to be the correct mechanism ... again, because the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist.
But evolution is just one subject area where creationists try to twist real science to fit their religious views. My question was why do you bother with the effort at all? If you believe in a god (or gods) that is capable of supernatural feats, then simply say so and there is no need to try and make religious views compatible with science. No need for all the wasted, and futile, efforts.
And atheism is not a belief system ... it is the lack of belief that gods of any kind exist. You seem to not understand the simple defintion of atheism.
We are not debating science and religion we are debating two religions.yes, because there is no evidence to the contrary.
Quote:
There is no cause for life in your world view. Evolution starts at the assumption of that life exists. When asked about what started life another appeal to a belief in nature finding a way.
Right, because there is no evidence to the contrary. Evolution has nothing to say about HOW life came to be, only that it did via some mechanism.
That mechanism is not known at the moment, but since the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist, the most rational and reasonable hypothesis is that it was via a natural process. Making up supernatural explanations is certainly not a superior position, or likely to turn out to be the correct mechanism ... again, because the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist.
But evolution is just one subject area where creationists try to twist real science to fit their religious views. My question was why do you bother with the effort at all? If you believe in a god (or gods) that is capable of supernatural feats, then simply say so and there is no need to try and make religious views compatible with science. No need for all the wasted, and futile, efforts.
And atheism is not a belief system ... it is the lack of belief that gods of any kind exist. You seem to not understand the simple defintion of atheism.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #134
[Replying to post 132 by DrNoGods]
Naturalist also have not cause for the universe. They have no clue about the original cause of anything. It is as if the universe and everything in it just appeared in the form that it is currently in.
There are parts of creation that cannot be explained by science. Most of creation week is like that. You have never heard me say science can explain creation week. It cannot. The miracles of Jesus science cannot explain. Or one of the greatest miracles the changing the heart of a man.
1. You have to believe that the universe is an uncaused event of history. Even though we do not see any uncaused events today.
2. You have to believe that life is an uncaused event. Even though for life to spontaneously pop into existence violates laws of biology.
Atheist have to believe in miracles they just do not have anything to cause those miracles to happen. Believing that something does not have a cause is irrational.
This is the problem with the naturalistic worldview. It is an irrational belief system. Not only do naturalist believe that life has not cause and cannot explain why life has no cause.Right, because there is no evidence to the contrary. Evolution has nothing to say about HOW life came to be, only that it did via some mechanism. That mechanism is not known at the moment, but since the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist, the most rational and reasonable hypothesis is that it was via a natural process. Making up supernatural explanations is certainly not a superior position, or likely to turn out to be the correct mechanism ... again, because the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist.
Naturalist also have not cause for the universe. They have no clue about the original cause of anything. It is as if the universe and everything in it just appeared in the form that it is currently in.
For the same reason that Christians started science in the first place. To know God better. Romans 1 informs us that God is evidenced in creation. We can know God by examining His creation. Just like we can know an artist by examining his works of art.But evolution is just one subject area where creationists try to twist real science to fit their religious views. My question was why do you bother with the effort at all? If you believe in a god (or gods) that is capable of supernatural feats, then simply say so and there is no need to try and make religious views compatible with science. No need for all the wasted, and futile, efforts.
There are parts of creation that cannot be explained by science. Most of creation week is like that. You have never heard me say science can explain creation week. It cannot. The miracles of Jesus science cannot explain. Or one of the greatest miracles the changing the heart of a man.
You have to believe all kinds of things if you are an atheist.And atheism is not a belief system ... it is the lack of belief that gods of any kind exist. You seem to not understand the simple definition of atheism.
1. You have to believe that the universe is an uncaused event of history. Even though we do not see any uncaused events today.
2. You have to believe that life is an uncaused event. Even though for life to spontaneously pop into existence violates laws of biology.
Atheist have to believe in miracles they just do not have anything to cause those miracles to happen. Believing that something does not have a cause is irrational.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Post #135
[Replying to post 133 by EarthScienceguy]
Yes ... how convenient. So why do you and others keep trying to make creationism and other biblical myths compatible with science? I've asked this question several times but never received a response. Here you claim that creationism can't be explained by science (which is obvious ... science doesn't deal in myth), then you spend all kinds of time trying to convince people that it is compatible with science. Makes no sense.There are parts of creation that cannot be explained by science. Most of creation week is like that.
This is just more proof that you don't know what atheism even is. Atheism is simply the lack of belief that gods exist. I can be an atheist and have no opinion whatsoever on how the universe came into being, or how life first arose on this planet. There is no connection between these events and being an atheist. Science has some ideas on how the universe may have begun, and ideas on how life may have arisen, and those ideas just don't happen to involve gods of any kind. But that doesn't mean that an atheist has to believe either of the two things you mention above. Why would you think such a thing? I happen to believe that both are unsolved problems and leave it at that, although I think a naturalistic explanation is most likely because that is the correct explanation so far for everything we do have answers for, while supernatural explanations or the existence of gods (any of the thousands humans have invented) have never once proved to be valid.You have to believe all kinds of things if you are an atheist.
1. You have to believe that the universe is an uncaused event of history. Even though we do not see any uncaused events today.
2. You have to believe that life is an uncaused event. Even though for life to spontaneously pop into existence violates laws of biology.
Atheist have to believe in miracles they just do not have anything to cause those miracles to happen. Believing that something does not have a cause is irrational.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #136
[Replying to post 134 by DrNoGods]
Even Humphrey's theory that you do not like explains many observations that naturalistic science cannot. Why is their so much oxygen in the universe and not that much Lithium? Why do objects with mass create an indention into the fabric of space? It even solves the cosmological constant problem. Just wait I predict that his theory on the structure of the universe will become mainstream.
Quote:
You have to believe all kinds of things if you are an atheist.
1. You have to believe that the universe is an uncaused event of history. Even though we do not see any uncaused events today.
2. You have to believe that life is an uncaused event. Even though for life to spontaneously pop into existence violates laws of biology.
Atheist have to believe in miracles they just do not have anything to cause those miracles to happen. Believing that something does not have a cause is irrational.
T
Was Jesus real?
Did Jesus walk the Earth?
Was Jesus raised from the dead?
Is Christianity different than any other religion? Yes and this is how. Every other religion that ever existed depended on what man has to do to get to heaven. Christianity is about what Jesus does to get men to heaven.
Jesus is what makes Christianity different than every other religion. I enjoy science and talking about science and discussing creation science. But anyone's best arguments will not convince a man that Jesus is real. The only thing that will convince a man that Jesus is real is if the Holy Spirit convicts him.
I have no problem with you not believing my arguments. The only way that they will become believable to you is if the Holy Spirit opens your eyes to the sin in your life. That does sadden me because I do enjoy our lively debates.
Oh I understand what people would like atheism to be. But what they would like it to be and what it is are two different thing. Everyone is deceived until the Holy Spirit opens their eyes.
That is not quite true. The only science that is true is that science that is compatible with the Bible. With all of your words and try as you might you did not disprove any of the theories put forth based on Biblical principles.Yes ... how convenient. So why do you and others keep trying to make creationism and other biblical myths compatible with science? I've asked this question several times but never received a response. Here you claim that creationism can't be explained by science (which is obvious ... science doesn't deal in myth), then you spend all kinds of time trying to convince people that it is compatible with science. Makes no sense.
Even Humphrey's theory that you do not like explains many observations that naturalistic science cannot. Why is their so much oxygen in the universe and not that much Lithium? Why do objects with mass create an indention into the fabric of space? It even solves the cosmological constant problem. Just wait I predict that his theory on the structure of the universe will become mainstream.
Quote:
You have to believe all kinds of things if you are an atheist.
1. You have to believe that the universe is an uncaused event of history. Even though we do not see any uncaused events today.
2. You have to believe that life is an uncaused event. Even though for life to spontaneously pop into existence violates laws of biology.
Atheist have to believe in miracles they just do not have anything to cause those miracles to happen. Believing that something does not have a cause is irrational.
T
his is just more proof that you don't know what atheism even is. Atheism is simply the lack of belief that gods exist. I can be an atheist and have no opinion whatsoever on how the universe came into being, or how life first arose on this planet. There is no connection between these events and being an atheist. Science has some ideas on how the universe may have begun, and ideas on how life may have arisen, and those ideas just don't happen to involve gods of any kind. But that doesn't mean that an atheist has to believe either of the two things you mention above. Why would you think such a thing? I happen to believe that both are unsolved problems and leave it at that, although I think a naturalistic explanation is most likely because that is the correct explanation so far for everything we do have answers for, while supernatural explanations or the existence of gods (any of the thousands humans have invented) have never once proved to be valid.
Was Jesus real?
Did Jesus walk the Earth?
Was Jesus raised from the dead?
Is Christianity different than any other religion? Yes and this is how. Every other religion that ever existed depended on what man has to do to get to heaven. Christianity is about what Jesus does to get men to heaven.
Jesus is what makes Christianity different than every other religion. I enjoy science and talking about science and discussing creation science. But anyone's best arguments will not convince a man that Jesus is real. The only thing that will convince a man that Jesus is real is if the Holy Spirit convicts him.
I have no problem with you not believing my arguments. The only way that they will become believable to you is if the Holy Spirit opens your eyes to the sin in your life. That does sadden me because I do enjoy our lively debates.
Oh I understand what people would like atheism to be. But what they would like it to be and what it is are two different thing. Everyone is deceived until the Holy Spirit opens their eyes.
-
rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Post #137
[Replying to post 123 by Still small]
In the grand scheme of things, there is nothing at all special about living organisms in terms of their elementary structure. They still follow all the same laws of physics and chemistry as everything else. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen combine to form a water molecule, whether as a lone microscopic drop of water, or in the bloodstream of an animal.
You are the antithesis of a scientist with this response. You see a mystery and then proceed to worship your own ignorance, worship it like an idol as if to move away from not knowing how to construct living creatures to knowing how is a sacrilege of the highest order.
There have been plenty of things and are that are greatly complicated. I don't know how to build an airplane, but some very smart people out there do know how to. Should they have looked at birds and assumed that it's God magic making birds fly, and proceeded to mock and denigrate the very thought of making flying machines?
God(s) were once thought to be behind all sorts of phenomena. If you asked a Viking, thunder and lightning was Thor throwing his hammer at his enemy, the frost giants. If you asked that same Viking whether a human could use and harness that power, he'd probably tell you an answer of the same theme as you answered me. However...here you are, using and harnessing that power without a second thought. You use it whenever you put on a kettle, or switch on the TV to watch the evening news. Or when you reply here.
For some reason, the thought that what was once thought to be mysterious and the realm of the divine was actually explored and figured out...doesn't jell with you. For some reason, the fact that we humans are capable of learning what was once a mystery, and are capable of doing so again, even those things that are at present day a mystery, doesn't sit well with you.
Tell me, what is stopping humans from figuring out how life formed and maybe doing it again ourselves? I don't want answers on the ethical natures of such an endeavor...I want to understand just what it is you think actually prevents us humans from learning how to do so. Is it always going to remain a mystery, from now until the end of time?
Think of it like cooking. Just dumping a pile of ingredients onto a table isn't going to make a tasty evening meal. One has to go through a whole series of steps and preparations to do so. If I dump the ingredients for spaghetti bolognese on a table and you just look at me blankly, would it make sense for me to then mock you and say only a God can cook dinner?
So, if I were to dump in front of you a 70kg pile of chemicals/elements of the appropriate proportions, for example -
I don't know how to build a car. Even if you dump the precise parts onto the ground in front of me, this doesn't mean that because I, rikuoamero, cannot build a car, that therefore no other human could ever do it, that it takes a god to build cars.- could it be assembled to form a living human?
No?
Ok, you're probably not much of a biochemist, so we'll make it a bit easier. We assemble the elements into the various amino acids, proteins, adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G), even assembling them into DNA strands, haemoglobin, etc. Would you then be able to assemble the 'parts' into a living human?
No?
In the grand scheme of things, there is nothing at all special about living organisms in terms of their elementary structure. They still follow all the same laws of physics and chemistry as everything else. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen combine to form a water molecule, whether as a lone microscopic drop of water, or in the bloodstream of an animal.
You are the antithesis of a scientist with this response. You see a mystery and then proceed to worship your own ignorance, worship it like an idol as if to move away from not knowing how to construct living creatures to knowing how is a sacrilege of the highest order.
There have been plenty of things and are that are greatly complicated. I don't know how to build an airplane, but some very smart people out there do know how to. Should they have looked at birds and assumed that it's God magic making birds fly, and proceeded to mock and denigrate the very thought of making flying machines?
God(s) were once thought to be behind all sorts of phenomena. If you asked a Viking, thunder and lightning was Thor throwing his hammer at his enemy, the frost giants. If you asked that same Viking whether a human could use and harness that power, he'd probably tell you an answer of the same theme as you answered me. However...here you are, using and harnessing that power without a second thought. You use it whenever you put on a kettle, or switch on the TV to watch the evening news. Or when you reply here.
For some reason, the thought that what was once thought to be mysterious and the realm of the divine was actually explored and figured out...doesn't jell with you. For some reason, the fact that we humans are capable of learning what was once a mystery, and are capable of doing so again, even those things that are at present day a mystery, doesn't sit well with you.
Tell me, what is stopping humans from figuring out how life formed and maybe doing it again ourselves? I don't want answers on the ethical natures of such an endeavor...I want to understand just what it is you think actually prevents us humans from learning how to do so. Is it always going to remain a mystery, from now until the end of time?
Think of it like cooking. Just dumping a pile of ingredients onto a table isn't going to make a tasty evening meal. One has to go through a whole series of steps and preparations to do so. If I dump the ingredients for spaghetti bolognese on a table and you just look at me blankly, would it make sense for me to then mock you and say only a God can cook dinner?
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
Post #138
Again, Both Earthunscienceguy and Stillsmallbrained can only try to discredit Evolution and CANNOT begin to discuss there theory of creation by there invisible sky god.
Both have admitted that they cannot even name one KIND and trace it through there ADAPTATION theory. The have no idea what there god crated that ADAPTED (another word of evolved) into modern humans.
These types can only try though there science to discredit real science.
They cannot answer any question about their sky god nor how it created things.
They (CREATIOISTS) have been unable to even come up with a published and reviewed paper that show how any of an original KIND ADAPTED into many different things we have today. They cannot even state what there sky god created that adapted into modern humans. After all, why would god created something like man when it said it created something in the sky gods image. The sys god does not look like a modern human, so what did god create? They don't know. ALL they can do is try to disprove science.
They (CREATIONISTs ) cannot even give a time line when they sky god created things. They have no idea what they need to say that would agree with the bible nd also science. For example it appears god created birds and no dinosaurs, but we know that dinosaurs evolved into birds. So again could the two creationist address this issue?
So, how about responding to the main topic instead of showing your lack of knowledge about your religion with trying to discredit evolution?
Both have admitted that they cannot even name one KIND and trace it through there ADAPTATION theory. The have no idea what there god crated that ADAPTED (another word of evolved) into modern humans.
These types can only try though there science to discredit real science.
They cannot answer any question about their sky god nor how it created things.
They (CREATIOISTS) have been unable to even come up with a published and reviewed paper that show how any of an original KIND ADAPTED into many different things we have today. They cannot even state what there sky god created that adapted into modern humans. After all, why would god created something like man when it said it created something in the sky gods image. The sys god does not look like a modern human, so what did god create? They don't know. ALL they can do is try to disprove science.
They (CREATIONISTs ) cannot even give a time line when they sky god created things. They have no idea what they need to say that would agree with the bible nd also science. For example it appears god created birds and no dinosaurs, but we know that dinosaurs evolved into birds. So again could the two creationist address this issue?
So, how about responding to the main topic instead of showing your lack of knowledge about your religion with trying to discredit evolution?
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #139
BUZZZZZ, any computer programmer who has kept up to date with computer science will tell you otherwise. Evolutionary algorithm is a thing.EarthScienceguy wrote: Even though any computer programer knows that randomly changing code in a computer program does not produce a new program but simply destroys the program that existed before.
-
Still small
- Apprentice
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
- Location: Great South Land
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #140
“What is stopping humans from figuring out how life formed and maybe doing it again ourselves?� The fact that life is more than just a series of chemical and physical processes. I’m not saying that ‘living matter’ does not involve chemical and physical processes, just that life, itself is more than that. Hence the reason why, throughout the entire history of biological science not once has it been observed that life has come from non-life. Life has only ever come from life, no exceptions to this Law of Biogenesis. Whilst some, like yourself, believe and hope that it will eventually be possible to produce life from non-life, that doesn’t make it true or possible. All observations so far are to the contrary. At what point, if it can never be achieved, do you give up your belief?rikuoamero wrote:
Tell me, what is stopping humans from figuring out how life formed and maybe doing it again ourselves? I don't want answers on the ethical natures of such an endeavor...I want to understand just what it is you think actually prevents us humans from learning how to do so. Is it always going to remain a mystery, from now until the end of time?
Or is “the never observed or explained ‘life from non-life’ by natural means but it has to be� just a case of ‘Naturalistic Magic’? That same ‘Naturalistic Magic’ which occurred at the point of the singularity of the Big Bang theory, where/when all the laws of physics breakdown yet “it just has to be by natural means�.
When does one accept that somethings cannot be explained by science because they are beyond the scope of science? Beyond the ‘natural’, which is all science can investigate. Beyond the ‘physical’ and therefore, by definition, the ‘metaphysical’. When does one stop trying to prove that 1+1=3 is possible?
One cannot just say “well it’s here, so it must have happened naturally� because one of the most puzzling questions of science is ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ There are no natural explanations for the very existence of matter, non-living or living.
Have a good day!
Still small
