ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[Nathon Detroit]

How would someone who supports this guy's "point" define life? For the argument to remain in tact (i.e. life only from life), then you have to define life in such a way that it includes the simplest of organisms to the most complex organisms, and to God himself.

Even the simplest organisms do not arise from non-living matter.

And what about this argument based on the same logic: Life with a genome has only ever been observed coming from life with a genome. Thus, unless God has a genome, the creationist argument is defeated from the outset. (Note that I do not think this argument has any merit, but it is constructed around the same logic as the "life only from life" argument.)

Johnny.... :rotfl: did you know that God is defined as being SUPER-natural? Were you aware of that? By definition the SUPERnatural is not bound by the natural. That's why we add the "SUPER" to the title. The SUPER could also mean "outside" or "not of". What you are doing is trying to place the SUPERnatural under the same constraints as the natural, and by doing so you are exposing that you haven't really thought this through very well.

 

[SUTG]

How would someone who supports this guy's "point" define life? For the argument to remain in tact (i.e. life only from life), then you have to define life in such a way that it includes the simplest of organisms to the most complex organisms, and to God himself.

And what about this argument based on the same logic: Life with a genome has only ever been observed coming from life with a genome. Thus, unless God has a genome, the creationist argument is defeated from the outset. (Note that I do not think this argument has any merit, but it is constructed around the same logic as the "life only from life" argument.)

I was thinking the same thing. If a creationist wants to claim that sheep only come from other sheep, dogs only beget dogs, etc. then he is sawing off the very branch he is sitting on.

 

[SUTG]

Even the simplest organisms do not arise from non-living matter.

Evidence?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I was thinking the same thing. If a creationist wants to claim that sheep only come from other sheep, dogs only beget dogs, etc. then he is sawing off the very branch he is sitting on.

And in the words of Mike White's girlfriend.....

"Oh my God, he is an idiot!"

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Evidence?

The entire body of scientific evidence to this point in history.

Now lets see your evidence to the contrary.

Remind me again who has the greater faith.

 

[Woodbine]

The puddle of water represents the "whatever" environment/situation that atheistic evolutionist's put their faith into for creating life.

It's just a figure, don't get too distracted by it.

Ahhhhhh okay.......now I get it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Evidence?

I wonder if I can get the authors of this article to change the title of it.

They could change it from.....

The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859)

To....

The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859) Excluding of course a few idiots who still reject scientific facts.

 

[Johnny]

How would someone who supports this guy's "point" define life? For the argument to remain in tact (i.e. life only from life), then you have to define life in such a way that it includes the simplest of organisms to the most complex organisms, and to God himself.

Even the simplest organisms do not arise from non-living matter.

How would you define life?

Johnny.... did you know that God is defined as being SUPER-natural? Were you aware of that? By definition the SUPERnatural is not bound by the natural. That's why we add the "SUPER" to the title. The SUPER could also mean "outside" or "not of". What you are doing is trying to place the SUPERnatural under the same constraints as the natural, and by doing so you are exposing that you haven't really thought this through very well.

Thank you kindly for your lesson, dear Knight, but consider for a moment that I actually have thought this through.

Can God do something illogical -- like know the future without violating free will? Can He be irrational? Consider that if your answer is "no", then you have classified inductive reasoning as weak logic. And in doing so you have classified the inductive position that life only comes from life as weak logic. In the very act of supernatural creation, the inductive pattern is violated. If inductive reasoning were sound logic, then God could not violate this logic even supernaturally (if you answered "no" to the above question, you've already conceded that God cannot do something illogical or irrational). It is absolutely necessary that you view inductive reasoning as weak logic, because inductively we would assume that life began naturally -- as we assume all natural phenomenon have a natural cause. My point to you was that inductive patterns are not absolute patterns, and unless we've considered every possible pattern and every possible combination, they are simply inductive trends. We have only ever observed life with genomes from life with genomes, but you have just told me that there is a case in which this inductive pattern is invalid. It doesn't matter whether the phenomenon that violates the inductive conclusion is supernatural, or magical, or unsupportable, or supportable, or faith-based, or not faith-based, or empirical, because in any case violation of the inductive principle demonstrates that it is inherently weak.

 

[zoo22]

Okay, this may be a stupid question, but does the "a watched pot never boils" theory also apply to genesis of life in a peanut butter jar? 'Cause I've been watching this thing for hours now, and so far, nothing.

Wait, is that... No, never mind. Well, actually... No, darn, it's hard to say... This science experiment is tough stuff. What would this peanut butter life look like anyway? A small cat or something? Like a little hamster? Argh, I'm so confused.

PS: If life does spontaneously form, what should I feed it? Peanut butter? Or would it be sick of it by that point? Maybe a banana?

 

[fool]

My point to fool was spot on in every way. Fool is sure that life cannot arise in a jar of peanut butter yet is also sure scientists don't know what conditions need be present for such an event.

Actually AHarvey was right.
You asked if it was impossible.
And I said no.
As in not impossible.
Which isn't saying possible.
Just saying not impossible.

 

[SUTG]

The entire body of scientific evidence to this point in history.

Really?

Now lets see your evidence to the contrary.

I only provide evidence for claims I actually make.

Remind me again who has the greater faith.

That would be you.

 

[GuySmiley]

Actually AHarvey was right.
You asked if it was impossible.
And I said no.
As in not impossible.
Which isn't saying possible.
Just saying not impossible.

That confuses me . . . for real. It seems to me that something not impossible would have to then be possible. Doesn't the 'not' and the 'im' cancel out to just leave 'possible'?

 

[Vision in Verse]

Fair enough.... so why is it when when scientists combine all the necessary compounds and the most favorable conditions... still no life from non-living matter. :idunno:

There are the precursors of life, organic compounds.

Wouldn't you think that it would be far more likely to create life from non-living matter via a controlled scientific experiment using all the intelligence and wisdom of the finest scientists than it would in a puddle?

"Lab experiments demonstrate that protobionts could have formed spontaneously from abiotically produced organic compounds."

In other words..... you are not sure that a jar of peanut butter has what is necessary to create life from non-living matter, but yet you ARE SURE that a puddle of water DOES have the necessary ingredients to create life from non-living matter. Remind me again which one of us has the greater faith? :think:

Wrong. I am sure that there are conditions in which protobionts can form, and I am sure that there are conditions where protobionts can join together into primordial prokaryotic cells consisting of RNA and a lipid bilayer. Also, I am sure that life must have come from somewhere, and seeing as I don't believe in the supernatural, I think this is much more likely.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Actually AHarvey was right.
You asked if it was impossible.
And I said no.
As in not impossible.
Which isn't saying possible.
Just saying not impossible.

Hmm.... it does appear that is true.

I guess I owe you an apology on that one.

As for aharvey he can stay on vacation, his act has worn thin.

So.... you DO believe it is possible that life MIGHT form in a jar of peanut butter?

 

[Johnny]

Knight, #168.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Really?

Really!

Spontaneous generation has been utterly debunked for over 100 years.

I only provide evidence for claims I actually make.

Take a stand you limp wristed fruitcake!

That would be you.

If you say so.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, #168.

Dude.... take it easy!

I am trying to respond to about 8 different people and also get work done today.

I was actually typing out my response to you but now I think I will put that on hold. If I only had more time!!!! Can I borrow your time machine?

 

[SUTG]

Take a stand you limp wristed fruitcake!

I'd much rather admit when I don't have an answer than make one up.

 

[Johnny]

Dude.... take it easy!

I am trying to respond to about 8 different people and also get work done today.

I was actually typing out my response to you but now I think I will put that on hold. If I only had more time!!!! Can I borrow your time machine?

Gotcha! Just didn't want it to get lost in the fray. The time machine will cost a ton to ship -- and it only goes forward!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

There are the precursors of life, organic compounds.
"Lab experiments demonstrate that protobionts could have formed spontaneously from abiotically produced organic compounds."
Wrong. I am sure that there are conditions in which protobionts can form, and I am sure that there are conditions where protobionts can join together into primordial prokaryotic cells consisting of RNA and a lipid bilayer. Also, I am sure that life must have come from somewhere, and seeing as I don't believe in the supernatural, I think this is much more likely.

Do you believe that protobionts actually existed?

They are merely a theory, you realize that right?

And if protobionts existed at some point in the past why don't they exist today? Why don't we find protobionts in jars of peanut butter or on dead animal carcases? And if science can't make a living cell don't you think they could at least create a protobiont???

Where oh where have all the protobionts gone? Oh where oh where have they gone???

Remind me again who has the greater faith?