All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled"

[IROC]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

One more thing to what dewolf said, count me as one who does not rule out a creator or creators - it's certainly possible.

But, I am not about to throw up my hands and proclaim that we were created by something else just because we have no answer today.

Geeze, humans just figured out radio just over 100 years ago!

Take care,

Kurt

I agree completely. In some ways, I wish a benevolent, all loving god existed. That would be nice.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

It sounds like Rick is saying that any scientific hypothesis is on par with "god did it" until it becomes theory or fact. Am I reading this correct, Rick?

BTW, I would be interested in your beliefs.

Best,

Kurt

No, what I am saying is that the leap that one has to make in abiogenesis from "We can see simple molecules being formed in sulfur vents" to "thus life began" is the same size leap one must make to believe there is a supernatural creator. Neither can be proven and both require extraordinary leaps of faith.

[nostatic]

I believe that many would argue that the leaps are not the same size. If you assume the same end state (thus life began), your starting point for abiogenesis at least has some empirical data. The supernatural creator has no empirical data. Therefore the delta for abiogenesis would be smaller.

If you want to make them equivalent, whatever works for you. But you could see how a reasonable person would think otherwise...

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by the

I take it I have now proven to you otherwise.

I saw your post.
It's inconclusive.

I'm not going to respond to it in this thread, however.

You are welcome to pose the question and produce your evidence in another thread and I will engage you...


KT

[Nathans_Dad]

Nostatic I could see that, but I would say that both sources start with the same substrate. The same molecular soup would occur whether God caused those molecules to coalesce or not. The environment is the same, the issue is what caused the non-living soup to form a living being. I would say a creator set that in motion, abiogenesis people would say...well they would probably toss around a few different scenarios.

So the leaps are the same to me, same soup, same molecules. The question is what caused life to form in that soup?

[the]

Originally Posted by trekkor

I saw your post.
It's inconclusive.

I'm not going to respond to it in this thread, however.

You are welcome to pose the question and produce your evidence in another thread and I will engage you...


KT

Wow, that's a pretty lame response.

You asked for evidence, in this thread. I gave it to you. It is irrefutable. Now, after you have been silent on it for over a day, the exact same evidence needs to be produced again - in another thread?!?

You said no man could prove that the Bible is not ONE HUNDRED PERCENT accurate. I proved it (and, only gave a few of the errors in the Bible, there are countless others). Whoever taught you to believe that the Bible is 100% accurate was WRONG. Game over.

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by the

Wow, that's a pretty lame response.

That's very likely the same response you would give if I refuted you here as well.

You are very predictable.



KT

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Nostatic I could see that, but I would say that both sources start with the same substrate. The same molecular soup would occur whether God caused those molecules to coalesce or not. The environment is the same, the issue is what caused the non-living soup to form a living being. I would say a creator set that in motion, abiogenesis people would say...well they would probably toss around a few different scenarios.

So the leaps are the same to me, same soup, same molecules. The question is what caused life to form in that soup?

How many different ID theories are out there? Are we talking about the same thing?
Which one are you talking about?
1. Intelligent extra-universe deity sets our universe's "fine constants", lights the fuse of the Big Bang and steps back (designed for emergent complexity).
2. Intelligent agent lights fuse of Big Bang then meddles with the mud puddles of an obscure planet in an obscure galaxy of an infinite universe after waiting 10 billion years.
3. Intelligent agent sets off the Big Bang and then meddles with the mud puddles of an obscure planet and continues to guide the development of life today.
4. Intelligent agent creates the universe in one fell swoop 6000 years ago including "designing" life, the earth, and the universe to appear to be very old and evolved.

[trekkor]

The 6,000 year part is only man...

Everything else is really old. Simple enough?


KT

[the]

Originally Posted by trekkor

That's very likely the same response you would give if I refuted you here as well.

You are very predictable.



KT

But it would be different if it occurred in a different thread?!?

You have a supposed response to my proof, but you won't give it because . . . why?

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by trekkor

The 6,000 year part is only man...

Everything else is really old. Simple enough?


KT

Oh no, I'm off your ignore list. How did this happen?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by sjf911

How many different ID theories are out there? Are we talking about the same thing?

Well, you seem to have assumed that I fall into the category of people that espouse the ultra-religious 6,000 year old earth, literal Bible, Noah's Ark version. I do not.

You know what happens when you assume...

Intelligent Design simply says that the universe as we can observe it today is too complex to have occurred by chance alone. It says that if life did not come from nothing, then it must have come from something. It does not state what that something is. Many of the "leaders" of the ID movement are Christians so often times they implicate the Christian God. This is similar to abiogenesis proponents using the theory of evolution to further their cause. They use an idea that does not apply to their agenda and morph it into what they want. I think that's dishonest on both parts.

The actual method by which the intelligent designer may have helped along life on earth and to what extent the designer helped is up for debate and a matter of personal belief.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

No, what I am saying is that the leap that one has to make in abiogenesis from "We can see simple molecules being formed in sulfur vents" to "thus life began" is the same size leap one must make to believe there is a supernatural creator. Neither can be proven and both require extraordinary leaps of faith.

Thanks.

I can't speak for the whole of science, but it is my opinion that most scientists won't take that leap until there is evidence, thus any one of the particular abiogenesis hypotheses remains a hypothesis until that discovery.

Pieces of the abiogenesis puzzle are being put in place, IMO, while the ID crowd doesn't appear to be having much success, but claiming so - many (most?) have already taken the leap.

2¢

Best,

Kurt

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by the

But it would be different if it occurred in a different thread?!?

You have a supposed response to my proof, but you won't give it because . . . why?

I told you I'd engage you in another thread.

This thread is about evolution and 'that movie', not proving the authenticity of the Bible.


KT

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Thanks.

I can't speak for the whole of science, but it is my opinion that most scientists won't take that leap until there is evidence, thus any one of the particular abiogenesis hypotheses remains a hypothesis until that discovery.

They shouldn't take that leap if they adhere to the rules and ideas of science, but many do.

Personally I think that science should simply stay out of discussions of the origins of life until there are scientific hypotheses that can be tested and proven or disproven, just like science stays out of discussions of theology and the existence of God.

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Thanks.

I can't speak for the whole of science, but it is my opinion that most scientists won't take that leap until there is evidence, thus any one of the particular abiogenesis hypotheses remains a hypothesis until that discovery.

Pieces of the abiogenesis puzzle are being put in place, IMO, while the ID crowd doesn't appear to be having much success, but claiming as much - many (most?) have already taken the leap.

2¢

Best,

Kurt

It's like that post Frogger made about the ' Intelligent Falling Theory', lol. What a croc. So I guess the fact that the Sun pulls things toward it must be the 'Intelligent Pulling Theory'.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

The higher power thing is belief, Rick. It's certainly a possibility, but to date, there is no evidence to support that. If that changes, well, that'll be something, now won't it?

There is no evidence to suggest that life can evolve from goo either.

[frogger]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Personally I think that science should simply stay out of discussions of the origins of life until there are scientific hypotheses that can be tested and proven or disproven, just like science stays out of discussions of theology and the existence of God.

I would propose that the religious keep their belief system out of public education, most notably science education, and in lawmaking.

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by sjf911

Oh no, I'm off your ignore list. How did this happen?

I occasionally look at what you post.
I usually regret it...

You're still on it.

You dish insults like a madman.
I got tired of it.


KT

[kstar]

Rick:

I just wanted to say that despite my disagreement with many of your opinions (I'm sure the feeling is mutual!) it is refreshing to have what I think is a reasonable discussion.

Best,

Kurt