<admin edit: mud-slinging is a type of
Oh so now you call it an 'explosion' instead of an explosion? That somehow makes up for your mistake? Inflation and explosions are not the same. If you persist to call it an explosion, you are only losing credibility like I stated to Ron. It is a mistake that takes about 5 minutes to investigate. If you do not even bother to do that, why would I assume you have researched anything else?
ad Hominem abusive. and will not be allowed in this forum, Further , dragging your mistake from one post to another only exacerbates a bad situation by compounding your mistake> Ron
So that we can all be clear, can you give us a short version of the “Big Bang” as you understand it. Then we can examine it and see if it passes muster.
On the contrary, the first law and second law do not disprove the Big Bang in any way. It only does if you use the wrong version of the Big Bang where the universe came from nothing instead of a singularity, which would once again be a mistake that takes about 5 min to look up. I already granted you that the singularity isn't well known. In fact we cannot know much about it. But the theory most certainly does not propose the universe came from nothing.
I will postpone answering this until I received your answer to what exactly you believe about the Big Bang.
I'm still reading your two posts and I will reply to them. Just that I want to respect your work (took probably some time to write all that). And formulate a decent answer.
Our dialogue has become long and takes much work to answer. I appreciate your taking the time to evaluate my posts and answer them.
You confuse me. I stated that abiogenesis is exactly that: getting life from non-life (or the research to do so).
Perhaps I misunderstood. If so, I’m sorry.
Athelas, I am astonished that you can’t see this simply truth. When you were typing, “getting life from non-life” why did you not ask yourself if that is even possible. Suppose that I posited to you that it’s possible to get one from zero. Would you waste your time pondering this concept? I say no! You would dismiss it out of hand (and rightly so) and deem me a foolish man, not worthy of Don Corlone’s respect even.
The (homo)chirality issue. Three words were enough to say what you wanted to say ;-)
I’m showing here the impossible hurdles that evolution has to overcome. Please tell me this is not your best rebuttal.
This did pose a lot of problems but they are finding solutions for this problem.
What solutions? If you are trying to do math and you erroneously believe that two plus two are five, can you ever reach truth? No! I submit that scientist can study abiogenesis until they’re cross-eyed. If the basic premise is false, the conclusion will always be false.
That's one of the good things about the research in the field of abiogenesis that even if it isn't at all possible, we are getting a lot of information regarding many different topics, including chirality of amino-acids. In fact, it almost seems like they are finding too many solutions (radioactive decay, starlight, polarized light, absorption by certain crystals) for this problem in order to pin it down to one cause. I'm not sure that chirality is really such a good argument against abiogenesis anymore.
Amino acids that are otherwise identical come in two distinct structural forms--left-handed and right-handed. In life-forms, essentially all amino acid bio-molecules are of the left-handed form while sugars are right-handed. The problem for the evolutionist is that all conceived ways of producing amino acids “accidentally” (i.e., as was thought to have happened on the primordial earth) yield both left- and right-handed amino acids simultaneously. Not only does this not explain the exclusivity of left-handed amino acids in life, but also, when the two forms interact directly, the result is toxic to life. Thus, any process producing the amino acids required by life would seemingly have doomed life as well. So why are you not sure that “chirality is really such a good argument… anymore”? Getting all left-handed forms by random chance would be the equivalent of going to Las Vegas and rolling 1,000 sevens in succession. After the first twenty, two very large security persons would immediately take you to a room in the basement for interrogation.
I'm not a theist nor an atheist for a reason Teejay: that reason is because I'm sceptical towards both.
Athelas, so you’re skeptical of both. But shouldn’t you be skeptical of being skeptical of both? The only two choices you have are evolution or creation. Since they are contradictory, both can’t be true. Right? So if you are skeptical of both, you can never, never, never reach truth.
Recall that in our previous dialogue, I pointed out to you that if your worldview is false, your interpretation of reality will be flawed. Refresher: A worldview is a set of presuppositions through which you view any evidence presented to you. For example, there is no way that the evolutionist (who dismisses a Creator God) can justify the immaterial laws of logic in his worldview. The laws of logic are immaterial, invariant, and universal. Now the atheist evolutionist uses logic, but when he does so, he is inconsistent with his worldview. He uses God’s laws of logic to argue that God does not exist. This is like denying the existence of air while breathing in air to make the argument. The atheist worldview is irrational, illogical, and arbitrary.
What one side is asking the other, being conclusive empirical data, is also missing on the other side.
All knowledge is not obtained by empiricism (observation). If empiricism is your ultimate standard by which all truth claims are tested, I must ask how you know this to be true. This claim itself is not something that the empiricist can observe. Since knowledge can’t be seen, how could anyone possible know that empiricism itself is true, if all things are indeed known by observation? And if empiricism is proved in some way other than by observation, then it refutes itself.
There is simply no reason to accept either abiogenesis and macro-evolution nor Creation based on data alone, even though the truth is that we must've come from somewhere. We aren't eternal beings so we had an origin.
Athelas, please consider what you posit here. First you state that there is no reason to accept either. But these are your only two choices. A cursory reading of your posts would not render you a creationist by any stretch. You have countered every theistic/creationist argument presented to you—whether it be logical, biological, cosmological, teleological, scientific, theological, and Texas horse-senseical—with an atheist/evolutionist argument. In light of this, am I to believe you when you post, “There is simply no reason to accept abiogenesis and macro evolution nor Creation”?
“…the truth is that we must've come from somewhere. We aren't eternal beings so we had an origin.
Careful, Athelas! You’re getting dangerously close to the Truth. While you’re not an eternal being past, you are an eternal being future. You will eternally exist—with your Creator God or apart from Him. But it’s your choice. But for you to exist now and eternity future, there has to be an Entity who has always existed. You are not to first to ponder and conclude that you had to come from somewhere and had to have an Origin. C. S. Lewis, who was an atheist philosopher, started his quest for truth with the same question. I will quote his conclusion:
“If you can even for the moment, endure the suggested picture of Nature, let us now consider the other factor—the Reasons, or instances of Reason which attack her. We have seen that rational thought is not part of the system of Nature. Within each man there must be an area (however small) of activity which is outside or independent of her. In relation to Nature, rational thought goes on ‘of its own accord’ or exists ‘on its own’. It does not follow that rational thought exists absolutely on its own. It might be independent of Nature by being dependent on something else. For it is not dependence simply but dependence on the non-rational which undermines the credentials of thought. One man’s reason has been led to see things by the aid of another man’s reason and is none the worse for that. It is thus still an open question whether each man’s reason exists absolutely on its own or whether it is the result of some (rational) cause—in fact, of some other Reason. That other Reason might conceivably be found to depend on a third, and so on; it would not matter how far this process was carried provided you found Reason coming from Reason at each stage. It is only when you are asked to believe in Reason coming from non-reason that you must cry Halt, for, if you don’t, all thought is discredited. It is therefore obvious that sooner or later you must admit a Reason which exists absolutely on its own. The problem is whether you or I can be such a self-existent Reason.
“This question almost answers itself the moment we remember what existence ‘on one’s own’ means. It means that kind of existence which Naturalists attribute to ‘the whole show [matter only]’ and Supernaturalists attribute to God. For instance, what exists on its own must have existed from all eternity; for if anything else could make it begin to exist then it could not exist on its own but because of something else. It must also exist incessantly; that is, it cannot cease to exist and then begin again. For having once ceased to be, it obviously could not recall itself to existence, and if anything else recalled it it would then be a dependent being.” C.S. Lewis, Miracles, p.p. 41 & 42
The chirality issue was conclusive evidence once to dismiss abiogenesis. I must credit those people for coming back strong with a range of possible answers. That also tells me to be cautiounous to dismiss a possibility on the absense of evidence alone.
You’re forgetting yourself. Above you posted that there was no good reason to accept “either” position. But, again and again, on all your posts, you argue against creationism and for evolution.
Odds makers in Las Vegas and mathematicians would be the first to tell you the chirality is a conclusive argument. If you deem yourself to be one of the “undecided” or “unconvinced,” why do you always, always, always side with atheist/evolutionism and argue against creationism? Rather than answer me, I would rather you answer yourself—truthfully. Remember Jesus said that “man’s heart is deceitful above all things.” Also remember what Paul added to this: Romans 1:18-22.
Before one can find Truth, one has to want to know and accept Truth.