Creationism and abiogenesis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2016, 09:11 PM
Creationism and abiogenesis
Creationist have a massive hate complex for abiogenesis i can't count how many times i heard the dumbest objections to stuff like.

"If life is just the result of chemicals surly you can fill a swimming pool with chemicals gases and light and show us life if not magic done it" .Oh yeah a swimming pool is such a good stand in for the dynamics of a fucking planet .Plus even if we know how something or how it happens doesn't mean one can replicate it .

Or

"We only see life come from life " .This is stupid because this speaks of life in it's current state not it's origins .Not to mention i could just as easily say chemistry creates chemistry unless there going to deny the reproduction is biochemical .

Or sometimes

"Some scientists believed in souls god whatever therefore" .Therefore until they have scientific evidence it's just there personal opinion nothing else.

Or even

"You have not figured out life therefore whatever make believe i think up gets to be a "possibility" till you do ". Nope your myths are still myths. And there was time no one knew how to fly we do now.


If this is the best they can think up i hate to see there worst Facepalm

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like OrdoSkeptica's post
11-10-2016, 03:21 PM (This post was last modified: 11-10-2016 03:25 PM by Grasshopper.)
RE: Creationism and abiogenesis
(08-10-2016 09:11 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  Creationist have a massive hate complex for abiogenesis i can't count how many times i heard the dumbest objections to stuff like.

"We only see life come from life " .This is stupid because this speaks of life in it's current state not it's origins .Not to mention i could just as easily say chemistry creates chemistry unless there going to deny the reproduction is biochemical .

I like to turn this one around and use it against them. Unless life has always existed (and both science and the Bible claim otherwise), it must have "come from non-life" one way or another. And what is more plausible: that normal chemical reactions produced simple single-celled life at some point (what science claims), or that entire adult plants and animals just suddenly poofed into existence (what the Bible claims)?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Grasshopper's post
11-10-2016, 04:39 PM
RE: Creationism and abiogenesis
(11-10-2016 03:21 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(08-10-2016 09:11 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  Creationist have a massive hate complex for abiogenesis i can't count how many times i heard the dumbest objections to stuff like.

"We only see life come from life " .This is stupid because this speaks of life in it's current state not it's origins .Not to mention i could just as easily say chemistry creates chemistry unless there going to deny the reproduction is biochemical .

I like to turn this one around and use it against them. Unless life has always existed (and both science and the Bible claim otherwise), it must have "come from non-life" one way or another. And what is more plausible: that normal chemical reactions produced simple single-celled life at some point (what science claims), or that entire adult plants and animals just suddenly poofed into existence (what the Bible claims)?

Not a bad strategy

But they will usually counter that god was always alive therefore it's still life coming from life .However we can counter but there is a difference between life being created from scratch and life via reproduction . one is an extension of chemistry. the other is a baseless claim of magic which by there own admission no intelligence known can do.

BTW
Sorry for being so abrasive in the other thread

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
11-10-2016, 04:46 PM
RE: Creationism and abiogenesis
(11-10-2016 04:39 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 03:21 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I like to turn this one around and use it against them. Unless life has always existed (and both science and the Bible claim otherwise), it must have "come from non-life" one way or another. And what is more plausible: that normal chemical reactions produced simple single-celled life at some point (what science claims), or that entire adult plants and animals just suddenly poofed into existence (what the Bible claims)?

Not a bad strategy

But they will usually counter that god was always alive therefore it's still life coming from life .However we can counter but there is a difference between life being created from scratch and life via reproduction . one is an extension of chemistry. the other is a baseless claim of magic which by there own admission no intelligence known can do.

BTW
Sorry for being so abrasive in the other thread

My counter would be that even if God did it, he could just as easily have done it in a way that makes scientific sense as in a way that didn't. Why would he do things one way, and then plant evidence in favor of having done it a different way? Is God a trickster?

No problem on the other thread. You obviously have strong feelings on that subject. It's an inherently touchy subject, and statements are also easy to misinterpret. So no hard feelings on that.

Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
11-10-2016, 04:51 PM
RE: Creationism and abiogenesis
We had an entire planet as a laboratory of random chemical events. Small minds can't fathom the scale of that lab. (Try driving from Nome to Punta Arenas.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gawdzilla's post
11-10-2016, 04:51 PM
RE: Creationism and abiogenesis
Tell them to read Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth and learn something about evolution before running their fucking mouths.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
13-10-2016, 11:14 AM
RE: Creationism and abiogenesis
I've yet to talk with a creationist that even understands that abiogenesis and evolution aren't the same thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ResidentEvilFan's post
13-10-2016, 11:16 AM
RE: Creationism and abiogenesis
(11-10-2016 04:51 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Tell them to read Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth and learn something about evolution before running their fucking mouths.

First they have to be able to read something besides the Bible. Facepalm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
13-10-2016, 11:35 AM
RE: Creationism and abiogenesis
(11-10-2016 04:46 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 04:39 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  Not a bad strategy

But they will usually counter that god was always alive therefore it's still life coming from life .However we can counter but there is a difference between life being created from scratch and life via reproduction . one is an extension of chemistry. the other is a baseless claim of magic which by there own admission no intelligence known can do.

BTW
Sorry for being so abrasive in the other thread

My counter would be that even if God did it, he could just as easily have done it in a way that makes scientific sense as in a way that didn't. Why would he do things one way, and then plant evidence in favor of having done it a different way? Is God a trickster?

No problem on the other thread. You obviously have strong feelings on that subject. It's an inherently touchy subject, and statements are also easy to misinterpret. So no hard feelings on that.

Smile

Because some theists take a translation of a translation of a translation of a book (that's Hebrew to Greek to Latin to King James English), disregard the author's notes, and believe it in the most literal sense of the word.

The bible doesn't state the mechanism by which the universe came into existence. It's open to interpretation, and it makes no sense what so ever to assume that the evidence found all over the place which points to a slow evolution is somehow planted there to trick us. If the universe was poofed into existence in a very short period of time, and it was really important for us to believe that, then all signs would point there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
13-10-2016, 11:50 AM
RE: Creationism and abiogenesis
(13-10-2016 11:35 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 04:46 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  My counter would be that even if God did it, he could just as easily have done it in a way that makes scientific sense as in a way that didn't. Why would he do things one way, and then plant evidence in favor of having done it a different way? Is God a trickster?

No problem on the other thread. You obviously have strong feelings on that subject. It's an inherently touchy subject, and statements are also easy to misinterpret. So no hard feelings on that.

Smile

Because some theists take a translation of a translation of a translation of a book (that's Hebrew to Greek to Latin to King James English), disregard the author's notes, and believe it in the most literal sense of the word.

The bible doesn't state the mechanism by which the universe came into existence. It's open to interpretation, and it makes no sense what so ever to assume that the evidence found all over the place which points to a slow evolution is somehow planted there to trick us. If the universe was poofed into existence in a very short period of time, and it was really important for us to believe that, then all signs would point there.

Right. I'm mostly aiming my argument at fundamentalist Christians who insist that their literal reading of a 3rd or 4th generation translation is the only way to read it. Even when I was a Catholic, I found this view ridiculous. I don't have any real problem with the concept that God may have created the universe -- but if so, he did it in a way that's consistent with the evidence.

RE: translations, my brother once tried to tell me that the translation that his church (some evangelical Protestant sect) used was "the best one". Never mind that the concept of a "best" translation is problematic in any case -- I asked him how he could possibly know that this translation was "the best". Well, because his pastor said so! I guess that settles it...

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: