Apologetics is bad for Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2014, 10:57 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 10:14 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Eh, he did the same thing after asking for evidence of Abiogenesis in the Probability thread.

As soon as it was provided, he read an AiG article, giggled, and ran for the hills.
I would suggest everyone read that thread and click on the link provided, as rampant's version is fantasy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:30 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 10:57 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 10:14 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Eh, he did the same thing after asking for evidence of Abiogenesis in the Probability thread.

As soon as it was provided, he read an AiG article, giggled, and ran for the hills.
I would suggest everyone read that thread and click on the link provided, as rampant's version is fantasy.

It's quite forgivable, at least he didn't bring up the part where you asked how hydroCARBON formation had anything to do with abiogenesis, which talks about the formation of CARBON based life. That's plain ignorance, man.

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 11:30 AM)le_bard Wrote:  It's quite forgivable, at least he didn't bring up the part where you asked how hydroCARBON formation had anything to do with abiogenesis, which talks about the formation of CARBON based life. That's plain ignorance, man.
Since you won't let it go, here's the link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v41...6522a.html
And the abstract:
Quote:Natural hydrocarbons are largely formed by the thermal decomposition of organic matter (thermogenesis) or by microbial processes (bacteriogenesis). But the discovery of methane at an East Pacific Rise hydrothermal vent1 and in other crustal fluids supports the occurrence of an abiogenic source of hydrocarbons2, 3, 4. These abiogenic hydrocarbons are generally formed by the reduction of carbon dioxide, a process which is thought to occur during magma cooling5 and—more commonly—in hydrothermal systems during water–rock interactions, for example involving Fischer–Tropsch reactions and the serpentinization of ultramafic rocks6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Suggestions that abiogenic hydrocarbons make a significant contribution to economic hydrocarbon reservoirs2 have been difficult to resolve, in part owing to uncertainty in the carbon isotopic signatures for abiogenic versus thermogenic hydrocarbons4, 10. Here, using carbon and hydrogen isotope analyses of abiogenic methane and higher hydrocarbons in crystalline rocks of the Canadian shield, we show a clear distinction between abiogenic and thermogenic hydrocarbons. The progressive isotopic trends for the series of C1–C4 alkanes indicate that hydrocarbon formation occurs by way of polymerization of methane precursors. Given that these trends are not observed in the isotopic signatures of economic gas reservoirs, we can now rule out the presence of a globally significant abiogenic source of hydrocarbons.
Pretend all you like, but the fact is it's about energy reserves, not the beginning of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 12:31 PM
Apologetics is bad for Christianity
Got it, you do not consider organic compounds to be life, and need things literally spelled out to understand them.

Have you come up with any evidence to support your claims yet?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 12:34 PM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 12:31 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Got it, you do not consider organic compounds to be life,
Do you consider organic compounds to be life?!? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 12:35 PM
Apologetics is bad for Christianity
When discussing the origin of life, organic compounds are the building blocks of life.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims:

<God exists>
<God created life>

Consider

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 12:35 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Consider
No, and I never said I did. Now to repeat, do you consider organic compounds to be life? Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 12:40 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2014 12:45 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Apologetics is bad for Christianity
So you're presenting arguments with zero supporting evidence as an alternative to arguments with supporting evidence? Is that correct?

For the umpteenth time:

"If a chicken sandwich did not create life, a ham sandwich created life" is not a valid logical format.

"If Abiogenesis did not create life, God created life" is equally invalid.

Except in this example, there is significant evidence behind Abiognesis, and you admit to having zero evidence to support either:
<God exists>
or
<God created life>

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 12:49 PM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 12:40 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  So you're presenting arguments with zero supporting evidence as an alternative to arguments with supporting evidence? Is that correct?
Do you consider organic compounds to be life?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 03:43 PM
Apologetics is bad for Christianity
Do you consider:
1. An hypothesis with a lack of supporting evidence for even the premises

Superior to:

2. An hypothesis with supporting evidence for the premises and conclusion?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: