- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Faith in "Science" = "man made religion" (Evolution related)
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:02 am to DawgfaninCa
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:02 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:Yeah, it's a Christian website...
BTW, notice that the word "evolution" is used.
quote:What type of response are you looking for?
If what you say is true than what's your response to this quote by Nobel laureate George Wald?
1
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:03 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:George Wald didn't say that life evolved from non-life. The Christian website that quoted him added that bit. Notice it isn't in quotes.
George Wald made a poor choice in words. If asked to break down his language, he would tell you it is an incorrect usage of terms.
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:36 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Tell any biologist in the world that you think they believe life evolves from non life and you will be laughed out of the room.
Abiogenesis (/?e?ba?.?'d??n?s?s/ ayjen[1]) or [2] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.[3][4][5][6]
I guess none of them believe in in abiogenesis, why are we discussing it
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:39 am to mattloc
Have you read ANYTHING prior to your first post in this thread? 
My goodness
My goodness
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:45 am to Roger Klarvin
I'm watching 3 kids who are not even thinking about going to bed....so....admittedly no, but what is being argued didnt seem to make much sense. I will go back and read, if I can catch these wild young uns
Posted on 7/26/14 at 7:21 am to mattloc
Trees, Sunlight, Dirt, Air, and Water
Man can only study about these simply and essential needs to create and sustain all life.
He can not explain how they came to be nor can he explain the origins of mankind and all animal life. he can only study about them...
Man can only study about these simply and essential needs to create and sustain all life.
He can not explain how they came to be nor can he explain the origins of mankind and all animal life. he can only study about them...
Posted on 7/26/14 at 9:28 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
quote:
You don't understand what it means to evolve, its really that simple.
Sure I do. You just have no evidence that life evolved from non-life.
There are two possibilities - 1) life has always existed or 2) there was a time when life did not exist.
#1 cannot be true as there was a time before our planet, galaxy, elementary particles, etc existed.
#2 by default is true. Logically - if there was a time when life did not exist and today we see that life does exist, then life arose from non-living parts. (ignoring numerous culturally dependent myths and fairy tales).
Posted on 7/26/14 at 11:22 am to ApexTiger
The guy who made this video believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. The arguments he uses are too idiotic to even discuss.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:52 am to Korkstand
quote:
What type of response are you looking for?
A logical and rational response.
I know that's asking a lot from you.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:11 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:100% FALSE!quote:You're right, it doesn't. Every scientist alive agrees with you.
I just find it unbelievable that life could evolve from non-life. It makes no sense at all.
Your retort incorrectly attributes the term evolve solely to theory of evolution. It is a ridiculous position, attempting to partition a theoretical continuum.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:16 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
A logical and rational response.
I know that's asking a lot from you.
I was asking because the guy didn't say what you think he said.Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:28 am to NC_Tigah
quote:In a thread about evolution, is it not preferable to restrict the definition of "evolve" to the process described by the theory?
Your retort incorrectly attributes the term evolve solely to theory of evolution.
quote:Why is it a ridiculous position? Evolution and abiogenesis are two different processes that require two different explanations. Attributing the term "evolve" to abiogenesis is misleading and deceptive.
It is a ridiculous position, attempting to partition a theoretical continuum.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:30 am to RTOTA
quote:
The guy who made this video believes the Earth is 6,000 years old.
You have a link on his beliefs?
Regardless, if you believe in God, is it really a stretch to believe the father in heaven made the earth to look old (while creating it)? Or maybe his day is more like a million?
Who cares how old the earth is...is is, you know what I mean?
What is more ridiculous is scientist claiming a stone is 60 million years old
I don't care how smart people think they are, the guesstimate isn't helpful at all. I mean what if they are off 50 million years.. does it matter?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:31 am to Korkstand
quote:In fact, it is a perfectly accurate term.
Attributing the term "evolve" to abiogenesis is misleading and deceptive
quote:Are you implying an atheistic precept would not involve a continuum between the two? Seriously?
Why is it a ridiculous position? Evolution and abiogenesis are two different processes that require two different explanations.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:32 am to Korkstand
quote:
In a thread about evolution, is it not preferable to restrict the definition of "evolve" to the process described by the theory?
In a theory, yes. In reality, it's called adapting
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:32 am to Korkstand
Double post
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 11:33 am
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:33 am to ApexTiger
quote:
Regardless, if you believe in God, is it really a stretch to believe the father in heaven made the earth to look old (while creating it)?
I believe this is a stretch. This would not be a "test of faith" or anything like that, it would be an outright lie. Why would God give us intellect if that gift would betray us in such a monumental way?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:42 am to TK421
quote:It's beyond a stretch, frankly.
I believe this is a stretch.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:58 am to ApexTiger
quote:
What is more ridiculous is scientist claiming a stone is 60 million years old
You really need to head over to Barnes and Noble and pick up a geology book. These are simple concepts used to age rocks very well understood and very easily understandable to those willing to learn.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Your retort incorrectly attributes the term evolve solely to theory of evolution. It is a ridiculous position, attempting to partition a theoretical continuum.
Just because the ignorant populace has bastardized the term doesn't mean I'm going to allow it to slide in a discussion of the topic.
By definition, life cannot evolve from non life. Evolution requires genetic material for natural selection to act on. Saying life evolved from non life is incorrect, period.
Page 7 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News