Monday, June 16, 2008 9:35:23 AM
"We do know that the first life would had to have been a replicating molecule"
One that would have died billions of years ago from all of the mutations it was bombarded with. How can you assume mutations will help a species when there is no given rule to it's existence?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008 7:26:11 AM
"How then can something even more complex than a simple building, such as the creation of life on earth, have just occurred naturally?"
This is the infamous argument from incredulity and it comes about from not adequately understanding what scientists are saying. For one, get rid of this notion that life started out being complex. Primitive life was very, very basic, as it would have had to have been. Nothing starts out being complex. A building, for instance, starts out with a cement matrix for a foundation, into which the precursors of a steel skeleton are drilled, and it only goes up from there. Ventilation systems and electrical wiring, the finer details that make a building more complex, are added later.
We do know that the first life would had to have been a replicating molecule, one that could reproduce itself in the environment by virtue of its chemical structure. All the add-ons are just there to help it be a better replicator.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008 7:00:55 AM
"I believe that you can feel the creator with your senses, you just have to be open about it."
There is no "feeling" the creator that I can be open about without also being open to lying to myself. I can't see a creator; I can`t hear a creator; I can`t touch a creator; I can`t taste a creator; and I can`t smell a creator. There is nothing that exists outside of our thoughts that suggest the presence of a deity.
"So then you must believe that ancient monuments, like Stonehenge, must have just evolved then."
Again you`re having a hard time distinguishing between evolution and origins. Evolution does not address the origin of of anything but rather how existing things evolved.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:46:41 AM
I would say the reason you think abiogenesis is ridiculous is because you still don't have an understanding of what it is. Despite it being explained numerous times, you have been saying that spontaneous generation is abiogenesis, which is not true at all. Besides, when you say it`s too ridiculous (for no reason other than your inability to understand it), it`s just a God of the Gaps argument. "I don`t see how this could`ve happened, so it must have been God."
Quite the contrary about Stonehenge. While its origins are a bit shady, we have a good idea of where it came from due to old excavation records and such.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:43:14 AM
I believe that you can feel the creator with your senses, you just have to be open about it. I've listened and considered to all the arguments on abiogenesis and decided through reason that it`s too ridiculous for me to believe in. Also, what about ancient monuments with unknown origins? According to your logic, You can`t see the creator, talk to him (or them), or find blueprints for it. So then you must believe that ancient monuments, like Stonehenge, must have just evolved then.
T-Shirts
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
