Faith Freedom International :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Attention: Year 2009 is here Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.

Of course god exists
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> God

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

piggy

Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana

Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:57 am Post subject:

Psycho Bunny wrote:

You've gone back to bold again. I feel I should be answering in some colour.

The fact that we have not created life and are so far unable to create life is not of itself an argument in favour of God.

But it is in itself an argument in favour of creation of life, as opposed to to 'it just happened'.

And one does wonder where the elements came from .......... would you suppose the 'void'?

Hallelujah praise the void.

Last edited by piggy on Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:21 am; edited 2 times in total

piggy

Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana

Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:17 am Post subject:

kereng wrote:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

Max4001 wrote:

and why is is so difficult to explain origins from non-life to achieve the high level of informational content involved in living systems...if that leap from non-life to life is as easy as you have prescribed?

What makes you imagine that is difficult to explain?

It's not.

It is explained quite well in this 10 min video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

One statement that stands out on the Youtube video is 'it's simply chemicals' ............. if that is true, then what's stopping scientists from making new life simply with chemicals?

Was it that the chemicals in the past were 'old' chemicals?

Rebel

Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 75

Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:28 am Post subject:

piggy wrote:

kereng wrote:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

Max4001 wrote:

What makes you imagine that is difficult to explain?

It's not.

It is explained quite well in this 10 min video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

oh please..

Even if the scientists somehow managed to "create" life by mixing a few chemicals, wouldn't you just take that as an evidence that life needs to be created by someone (Ie scientists in this case)

Set your case right.What exactly would prove to you that god didn't create the universe ?

Here's what would prove to me that he/she/it did.Nah I won't ask him to do hallaballu stuff impossible to be done just to deny him/her/it.
Here's a simple test for your so called god, the creator of the universe.Have him create an egg and cheese sandwich for me out of thin air.Slightly grilled and easy on the pepper

kereng

Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 292

Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject:

piggy wrote:

what's stopping scientists from making new life simply with chemicals?

Would you please define life?
Maybe the scientists have already made new life.

Nick Matzke wrote:

If we lived in a world where it actually looked like the first living things were as complex or more complex than life today, or where the last common ancestor contained absolutely no evidence of an evolutionary history, or where big obvious puzzles like the interdependency of DNA/RNA/protein had no hint of solution, or where the building blocks of life were completely unrelated to those produced in prebiotic experiments – all of these things would be true, say, on a robotic planet without microscopic life, where robots were replicated by macroscopic assembly performed by other robots, and powered by hooking up to a grid of fusion-fueled power plants – then we could say “science is still in the dark” on the origin of this robotic biosphere. But instead, we have numerous lines of evidence all pointing towards the notion that current life descends from a relatively simple ancestor, and that ancestor descends from a series of even simpler ancestors. Why should any of this evidence exist, if life was poofed into existence all in one step, which is what the creationists/IDers think happened even when they won’t admit it, because they are not brave enough to defend what they actually think? Additionally, why should the remaining puzzles, particularly about the origin of the first replicator, cause any unusual amount of discomfort for scientists? Whether or not that puzzle is solved, the gap between prebiotic experiments and the first replicators (or better yet, pseudoreplicators with statistical inheritance) is a drastically reduced vestige of a gap compared to what the gap looked like in, say, 1950. When you think about it, the creationists’ attempt to insert miraculous divine intervention into this tight little gap which is left is actually pitiful, and a pretty sad commentary on the state that creationism/ID has been reduced to. The verse “And God said, let the NA precursors link together into a short noncoding kinetically favored chain and pseudoreplicate approximately statistically after their kind” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

from http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html

crazy canuck

Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391

Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject:

piggy wrote:

Psycho Bunny wrote:

Dear Piggy,

only religious nuts belive that big bang means everytrhing came out of void. Void without anything, not even ions, hydrogen, nothing.

Elements did not come from void.

Define void firstr of all?

Big bang is the starting point to understand the universe as we see it today.

All elements came ultimately from hydrogen in supernova furnace.

Our own sun makes helium out of hydrogen plus energy.God must be telliong sun not to make anthing heavier than helium.

Simple bacterial code is deciphered . Virus can be made from non living stuff.

I have a challange for both creationist and evolutionists..

1. To Creationists: I will give them all chemicals all sterilized and let them pray to their god to make bacteria . Actually their god should make it out of nothing..Or their god should make an elephant in a giant testube. to surprise nonbelivers

2.To Evolutionists, I will give them all chemicals requires and all sterilized. They should be able to make all chemicals essential to sustain life and lot more like simple virus or bacteria to begin with.

Afterall thats all they believe that elephants were not there after earth cooled down. They are humble folks.They think that life in the beginning was bacterial in nature. Where as creationist belive that humans were first on this earth.

See how simple it is to settle the whole issue.

C.C.

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:38 am Post subject:

piggy wrote:

But it is in itself an argument in favour of creation of life, as opposed to to 'it just happened'.

Oh?

Please.... outline for us that argument.

piggy wrote:

And one does wonder where the elements came from .......... would you suppose the 'void'?

Assuming that you are using the word "elements" correctly, there is no mystery as to where they came from. The elemental cascade of stellar fusion is extremely well understood.

No "void" is required as part of the explanation.
_________________
Nullius In Verba

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:43 am Post subject:

piggy wrote:

One statement that stands out on the Youtube video is 'it's simply chemicals' ............. if that is true, then what's stopping scientists from making new life simply with chemicals?

The same thing that's stopping us from mass produced hydrogen fuel cell automobiles. We understand the technology, we just aren't there yet.

Give it a couple years.
_________________
Nullius In Verba

piggy

Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:38 am Post subject:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

piggy wrote:

One statement that stands out on the Youtube video is 'it's simply chemicals' ............. if that is true, then what's stopping scientists from making new life simply with chemicals?

The same thing that's stopping us from mass produced hydrogen fuel cell automobiles.

It is not a matter of mass production ......... as I understand hydrogen fuel cell automobiles have been produced, but not one single life has been created from chemicals .......... by man or animal.

THHuxley_redux wrote:

We understand the technology,

But not enough to create life

THHuxley_redux wrote:

we just aren't there yet.

I noticed.

THHuxley_redux wrote:

Give it a couple years.

Take all the time you like......... I won't be holding my breathe.

Psycho Bunny

Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 7620
Location: Apologies to Ali but to everyone else: I'M BACK!!!!

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:49 am Post subject:

The thing is Piggy - this desire to see proof that life can be made in a laboratory makes me think. Are scientists expected to reproduce everything in the Universe? How about planets? We all know they exist. Are scientists expected to create planets? And if not, then why do you feel they should create life? And if scientists do create life, do you think it would be the duty of the Catholic church to point out to these scientists that they have no right to "kill" the life that they created? _________________ The Pagaal Chamar Bhangi Khargosh rules!! Love, bunny-style ________________ Last edited by Psycho Bunny on Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:50 am; edited 1 time in total

piggy

Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:50 am Post subject:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

piggy wrote:

But it is in itself an argument in favour of creation of life, as opposed to to 'it just happened'.

Oh?

Please.... outline for us that argument.

A. Life was created by an unknown creator/'god' and it is not a foregone conclusion that life subsequently resulted from the nothing/void that supposedly 'existed' to result in a 'Big Bang' nor is it a fore gone conclusion that life had a beginning or has an end.

A(a). Life is 'god'

B. it just happened.

THHuxley_redux wrote:

piggy wrote:

And one does wonder where the elements came from .......... would you suppose the 'void'?

Assuming that you are using the word "elements" correctly, there is no mystery as to where they came from.

It is to me .......... just briefly, where did they come from?

THHuxley_redux wrote:

The elemental cascade of stellar fusion is extremely well understood.

No "void" is required as part of the explanation.

The 'elemental cascade of stellar fusion' must have resulted from something or it must have always been existent ........ which is it?

Do you say that 'Big Bang' did not result from 'void'?

piggy

Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:03 am Post subject:

Psycho Bunny wrote:

The thing is Piggy - this desire to see proof that life can be made in a laboratory makes me think.

Are scientists expected to reproduce everything in the Universe? How about planets? We all know they exist. Are scientists expected to create planets?

And if not, then why do you feel they should create life?

And if scientists do create life, do you think it would be the duty of the Catholic church to point out to these scientists that they have no right to "kill" the life that they created?

I don't expect anything.

The point is that life already exists and it may well be that it always existed........ it has not been proven that life had a beginning or has/will have an end.

The mad part is that if scientists happen to eventually 'create' life from chemicals etc. then how can they be sure that they actually created the life, given the fact that life already exists, (from a 'starting-point' we know not of) it may be that in this 'creative' event, that all the scientists did was create an environment for life to embody some chemicals etc that the scientists assembled and that the life was already 'hovering' around ready to pounce in to the 'body' of matter that the scientists assembled.

It still would not prove that science can create life, but rather merely observe life taking-on embodiment.

Psycho Bunny

Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 7620
Location: Apologies to Ali but to everyone else: I'M BACK!!!!

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject:

piggy wrote:

The mad part is that if scientists happen to eventually 'create' life from chemicals etc. then how can they be sure that they actually created the life, given the fact that life already exists, (from a 'starting-point' we know not of) it may be that in this 'creative' event, that all the scientists did was create an environment for life to embody some chemicals etc that the scientists assembled and that the life was already 'hovering' around ready to pounce in to the 'body' of matter that the scientists assembled.

With that I am in agreement. To create life from scratch, one would need a life-free environment - and one that stayed sterile for a prolonged period. Life is ubiquitous in temperate regions, and extremophiles live in ultra-high and ultra-low temperatures.
Copying exactly the life-free circumstances that were around when earth's life began would be hard, and there is always the likelihood that the probes used to test for life could introduce life.
_________________
The Pagaal Chamar Bhangi Khargosh rules!!

Love, bunny-style
________________

kereng

Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 292

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject:

kereng wrote:

Would you please define life?

piggy wrote:

A(a). Life is 'god'

piggy wrote:

The point is that life already exists and it may well be that it always existed........ it has not been proven that life had a beginning or has/will have an end.

The mad part is that if scientists happen to eventually 'create' life from chemicals etc. then how can they be sure that they actually created the life, given the fact that life already exists, (from a 'starting-point' we know not of) it may be that in this 'creative' event, that all the scientists did was create an environment for life to embody some chemicals etc that the scientists assembled and that the life was already 'hovering' around ready to pounce in to the 'body' of matter that the scientists assembled.

It still would not prove that science can create life, but rather merely observe life taking-on embodiment.

Now I see more need that you give us a definition of what you think is life.
I think when matter can grow and replicate with small mutations then we call it living.
You seem to think of a soul or some magic substance that is added to matter to make it living.

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject:

piggy wrote:

It is not a matter of mass production ......... as I understand hydrogen fuel cell automobiles have been produced, but not one single life has been created from chemicals .......... by man or animal.

Who said it was?

The issue is the current state of technology versus the technological aspiration. We have made huge progress towards fabrication of a living organism, just as we have made huge progress towards the fabrication of a mass producible hydrogen fuel cell automobile. That we are not capable of either yet is a measure of state of the art, not the impossibility of the end goal.

piggy wrote:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

We understand the technology,

But not enough to create life

Not enough to mass produce hydrogen fuel cell automobiles either.
_________________
Nullius In Verba

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject:

piggy wrote:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

piggy wrote:

But it is in itself an argument in favour of creation of life, as opposed to to 'it just happened'.

Oh?

Please.... outline for us that argument.

I see no argument there. Instead I see three (or is it 2.5? It's hard to tell) potential options, none of which are argued either for or against. Would you please actually outline the argument you are claiming exists in there somewhere?

piggy wrote:

The 'elemental cascade of stellar fusion' must have resulted from something or it must have always been existent ........ which is it?

The specific elemental cascade fo which we personal exist came from the Big Bang. The Big Bang came from the universe that preceded it.

piggy wrote:

Do you say that 'Big Bang' did not result from 'void'?

Yes.
_________________
Nullius In Verba

Display posts from previous:

	Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> God	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 5 of 6

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum