Jump to content


Photo

The Law Of Biogenesis Has Never Been Overturned


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
33 replies to this topic

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 October 2012 - 02:26 PM

Apparantly for the evolutionist if you can imagine it then it must exist / have happened... This must be why Jonas is confused on the issue of providing real live examples he believes he is by citing imaginary sccenarios given by other evolutionists. It was a common thing in the topics concerning evolution in my degree, they'd give examples of life which was great, but then try and fit that within the framework of evolution via a hypothetical scenario... and then state that because they made up a scenario which seems logical that that must be what happened.... (By the way, this doesn't conform to the scientific method so I do not see why its in a science class)

They fail to realise that anyone can come up with multiple scenarios from their imagination about the same thing, therefore, Jonas how can you possibly believe that the scenarios you cite are the correct ones? Do you see the huge leap of faith you are taking here? This is why I prefer to base my conclusions on the facts that we already know, and what we already know is that life doesn't come from non-life.... You're free to believe otherwise, however you must admit that such a belief goes against the evidence we have at hand and is 100% based on blind faith.

Also still waiting for your replies to posts #16 and #19
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#22 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 October 2012 - 02:53 PM

Gilbo I accidentally clicked the 'unlike' button for your post. It should have been the 'like' button. Sorry.

But it is as I suspected before I posted this thread: a healthy imagination is the best weapon that evolutionists can offer against the Law of Biogenesis.

Best wishes to you, friend.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#23 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 October 2012 - 12:52 AM

No probs Calypsis Posted Image

Yes a healthy imagination is the evolutionists best weapon, what more is that most have the audacity to claim such as science.... I've questioned people studying science (thus people who know what it is), and they agree that science is based on empirical experimentation, yet when I show them that evolution has not one empirical experiment as evidence they'd still claim evolution as science despite what they agreed to before.. This can be summed up as follows..

Premise 1: Science is based on empirical experimentation as veriification of the hypothesis as stated in the scientific method
Premise 2: Evolution has no empirical experiments as evidence
Premise 3: Therefore evolution is not scientific or based on scientific evidence

Good luck to you too friend :D

PS I am honestly considering writing a book or something, it will take a lot of time and effort however I think it would be a fun thing to do. What do you think?
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#24 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 27 October 2012 - 06:51 AM

No probs Calypsis Posted Image

Yes a healthy imagination is the evolutionists best weapon, what more is that most have the audacity to claim such as science.... I've questioned people studying science (thus people who know what it is), and they agree that science is based on empirical experimentation, yet when I show them that evolution has not one empirical experiment as evidence they'd still claim evolution as science despite what they agreed to before.. This can be summed up as follows..

Premise 1: Science is based on empirical experimentation as veriification of the hypothesis as stated in the scientific method
Premise 2: Evolution has no empirical experiments as evidence
Premise 3: Therefore evolution is not scientific or based on scientific evidence

Good luck to you too friend Posted Image

PS I am honestly considering writing a book or something, it will take a lot of time and effort however I think it would be a fun thing to do. What do you think?



Excellent.

A book? By all means. But take several years of research and try to cover all the bases and answer all skeptics questions before it is published. I am sure you will see most of the 'objections' in the responses you get right here on EFF but there are a number of places where you can see healthy debates on the subject that will help you in the matter. Go for it, brother. I'd love to read it. May the Lord bless you in your efforts.

P.S. I'll just ignore the 'like/unlike' button from now on. Actually, I like all your posts.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#25 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:38 AM

Bumping for evolutionist responses :D

#26 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 November 2012 - 09:43 PM

Excellent.

A book? By all means. But take several years of research and try to cover all the bases and answer all skeptics questions before it is published. I am sure you will see most of the 'objections' in the responses you get right here on EFF but there are a number of places where you can see healthy debates on the subject that will help you in the matter. Go for it, brother. I'd love to read it. May the Lord bless you in your efforts.

P.S. I'll just ignore the 'like/unlike' button from now on. Actually, I like all your posts.


Thanks! Yeah my time here has taught me alot but yes I'd need to go and read up more on some of the premiere evolutionist claims and "evidences" though I am sure most of them would be what we've encountered here over the years. Honestly I've never seen an evolutionist "win" a thread about evolution on this forum, either they stop posting after being shown wrong, or revert to getting themselves banned by going against the rules.

My biggest problem with the book would be starting it as well as maintaining my rigor on the project, as sometimes I tend to be somewhat flippant with what interests me at the time, (which annoys me since I'd really like to write this book)

#27 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:50 AM

Bumping for evolutionist responses Posted Image

4. In http://evolutionfair...topic=5250&st=0 post #9, I said:

6. All reactions occur unassisted and spontaneously if the chemical concentration is high enough. So, that is not really a measure of the "level" of complexity that nature cannot build. Since the chemical concentration of reactants is low in the ocean, you now contend that there is no aqueous place on Earth that chemical concentrations build up naturally to a level that can cause chemical reactions to occur unassisted?


In post #11, you replied.

6. No in fact it is, since only via spontaneous reactions can "nature" do things chemically. It sounds like you believe this "nature" fellow to have the power to change things at will without conforming to natural law.... Nature is governed by natural law and in order to achieve these "self replicating molecules" only natural processes (governed by natural law with no intelligent input) can be utilised by the evolutionist. Thereofore only spontaneous reactions can be utilised.


To which I replied in post #14:

6. What "natural law" prevents the self replicating molecules from forming? Name a chemical reaction that is not spontaneous. Wait, don't do that. You will have to give me your definition of spontaneous reaction first. Perhaps it means a chemical reaction that occurs without the reactants in close proximity to each other.


Your claim that the vastness of the ocean automatically prevents the concentration and your unreasoned rejection of the possibility that chemical concentrations can be different in different locations of the ocean led me to believe that you have a different definition of "spontaneous chemical reaction" than I do. I was not claiming that chemical reactions occur without the reactants in close proximity to each other. Most English speaking people would read my last two sentences in that quote as meaning that I believed that you thought spontaneous reactions are chemical reactions that occur without the reactants in close proximity to each other. I don't see any other way to interpret those two sentences when reading them together. You, not surprisingly, managed to interpret them in a way that was completely outside of my intent. Then you felt it was your duty to call me a liar when I pointed out what I meant. While I expected to eventually be called a liar, I did not forsee the extreme resolve to misinterpret my statements so that goal could be reached. Of course everyone who doesn't believe as you do is evil and must be lying. So, I should have been more ready.

And you wonder why the people you vilify don't embrace your salvation message. Strange that.

#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:57 PM

1. Your claim that the vastness of the ocean automatically prevents the concentration and your unreasoned rejection of the possibility that chemical concentrations can be different in different locations of the ocean led me to believe that you have a different definition of "spontaneous chemical reaction" than I do.

2. I was not claiming that chemical reactions occur without the reactants in close proximity to each other.

3. Most English speaking people would read my last two sentences in that quote as meaning that I believed that you thought spontaneous reactions are chemical reactions that occur without the reactants in close proximity to each other. I don't see any other way to interpret those two sentences when reading them together. You, not surprisingly, managed to interpret them in a way that was completely outside of my intent.

4. Then you felt it was your duty to call me a liar when I pointed out what I meant. While I expected to eventually be called a liar, I did not forsee the extreme resolve to misinterpret my statements so that goal could be reached.

5. Of course everyone who doesn't believe as you do is evil and must be lying. So, I should have been more ready.

And you wonder why the people you vilify don't embrace your salvation message. Strange that.


The natural laws that defy any form of spontaneous self-replecating molecule include- chriality, O2 presence / non-presence there are others and there are threads here specifically for them. If you are interested in learning I suggest you have a look.



1. I never said that there can't be different concnetrations of things within the ocean, please stop putting your wrongful interpretations in my mouth. Please share a quote if I said as much. I did say that over time the concentrations of things would be more or less equal however you'd need to allow time, which I mentioned. This is totally different to what you are proclaiming I am saying here...



2. Then why even mention such an absurd concept. Chemical reactions occur via physical contact. If you knew this then you wouldn't have proposed your idea.

3. When did I ever say such a thing? (quote please) You were the first to claim this yet you're saying you now thought I believed in this?

4. Did you or did you not state

You stated that spontaneous reactions don't occur in nature.

In the post that you questioned, I asked you to define spontaneous reaction and sarcastically stated that you probably believed that spontaneous chemical reactions were ones that occurred without the chemical reactants close together.


I never said such a thing, therefore this is a lie.

Additionally you say here that your claim about reactions that occur far away was in jest and was a sarcastic retort... yet above you claim it as a legitimate response... Which is it?

5. When did I ever say that? You really should stop putting words in my mouth.




However all this is a distraction since you haven't demonstrated how the concentrations of the required compounds would be able to react in such a dilute solution, an example- get a drop of acid add it to an olympic pool now get a drop of this water and add it to another pool do this 100 times and that wouldn't even be close to the dilution factor of compounds in the ocean.

Yet all this is based on the assumption that such compounds can arise from nothing. Not once has anyone observed a self-replicating molecule forming naturally with no human guidance.

Chirality is a huge problem for the creation of these molecules. I'll let you research what it is before I go on

Oxygen is not allowable in the "early earth" atmosphere since oxygen would oxidise the proteins, however ozone is required to protect these molecules from UV light..... Paradox....

#29 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:02 PM

The natural laws that defy any form of spontaneous self-replecating molecule include- chriality, O2 presence / non-presence there are others and there are threads here specifically for them. If you are interested in learning I suggest you have a look.



1. I never said that there can't be different concnetrations of things within the ocean, please stop putting your wrongful interpretations in my mouth. Please share a quote if I said as much. I did say that over time the concentrations of things would be more or less equal however you'd need to allow time, which I mentioned. This is totally different to what you are proclaiming I am saying here...



2. Then why even mention such an absurd concept. Chemical reactions occur via physical contact. If you knew this then you wouldn't have proposed your idea.

3. When did I ever say such a thing? (quote please) You were the first to claim this yet you're saying you now thought I believed in this?

4. Did you or did you not state



I never said such a thing, therefore this is a lie.

Additionally you say here that your claim about reactions that occur far away was in jest and was a sarcastic retort... yet above you claim it as a legitimate response... Which is it?

5. When did I ever say that? You really should stop putting words in my mouth.




However all this is a distraction since you haven't demonstrated how the concentrations of the required compounds would be able to react in such a dilute solution, an example- get a drop of acid add it to an olympic pool now get a drop of this water and add it to another pool do this 100 times and that wouldn't even be close to the dilution factor of compounds in the ocean.

Yet all this is based on the assumption that such compounds can arise from nothing. Not once has anyone observed a self-replicating molecule forming naturally with no human guidance.

Chirality is a huge problem for the creation of these molecules. I'll let you research what it is before I go on

Oxygen is not allowable in the "early earth" atmosphere since oxygen would oxidise the proteins, however ozone is required to protect these molecules from UV light..... Paradox....

You have called me a liar again. That seems to be one of the few weapons in your arsenal along with claiming that your writings are being misunderstood by anyone who disagrees with you.

Since you cannot be civil to me, you will receive no further replies from me.

#30 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 November 2012 - 10:12 PM

You have called me a liar again. That seems to be one of the few weapons in your arsenal along with claiming that your writings are being misunderstood by anyone who disagrees with you.

Since you cannot be civil to me, you will receive no further replies from me.


I quoted you stating I said something which I never said, therefore that is a lie.

Feel free to share a quote from me that vindicates that statement, if not then.......

#31 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:55 PM

I quoted you stating I said something which I never said, therefore that is a lie.

Feel free to share a quote from me that vindicates that statement, if not then.......

Not a lie. It was a misunderstanding on my part. Therefore, having admitted that I was incorrect in my statement about what you said, I need supply no quote for vindication.

#32 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:12 PM

Not a lie. It was a misunderstanding on my part. Therefore, having admitted that I was incorrect in my statement about what you said, I need supply no quote for vindication.


No worries :)

#33 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:55 PM

So if we've never observed life arising from non-life we must reject the hypothesis?

So since we've never observed life being created from non-life, we must reject creationism.

#34 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:50 AM

So if we've never observed life arising from non-life we must reject the hypothesis?

So since we've never observed life being created from non-life, we must reject creationism.


How does life not coming from non-life mean we should reject creationism.

Creationism is saying life always come from life, (which is what we observe and fits with the current evidence), its the evolutionist / naturalist who claims some how life arose from non-life.

Yes it should be rejected, that is what happens in science, if you don't have the evidence or the evidence supports the null hypothesis, it is rejected, end of story no ifs no buts thats all she wrote.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users