Originally posted by IDScience
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
There is intelligent design.
Collapse
X
-
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostNot just because evangelical apologists say so, there isn't.
It's not a scientific law if scientists don't use it.
Oh, you've checked the entire universe, have you?
But the amusing part is your hypocritical stance on this subject. You reject God because there is no "observable" evidence for him, and demand observable evidence from theists in order to believe, and then turn around and break your own set of observational rules when it comes to abiogenesis. Have some integrity please.
Nope, that's not how science works.
No, that is not the foundation of evolutionary theory.
So says your dogma. Not so says science.
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)
Comment
-
Originally posted by IDScience View PostAny observable reality that has no evidence to the contrary will be a law until proven otherwise. The laws of physics were considered absolute "laws" until contradictions arose.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYou need to define how you are using 'law' here. In science 'law' results from consistent falsification of theories and hypothesis over time, ie Laws of thermodynamics. Nothing above fits this use of the concept of 'law' in science.
One from wiki "A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world"
From our experimental observations, life only comes from life, we have no observable experimental evidence that life from non-life is yet possible
"Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation"
Biogenesis does not posit an original mechanism (other than God, which science rejects) and we never observe a contradiction to it
From Oxford "An observable law relating to natural phenomena:"
Biogenesis is an observable natural phenomenon, what makes it a "law" is that its never observed to be contradicted, therefore until it is contradicted, it remains a law by proper definition
And biogenesis can be falsified by the observation of abiogenesis, and only by the observation of abiogenesis
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostThis is a pretty basic idea for you to have gotten horribly wrong. Things aren't laws until proven otherwise. They become laws after having been proven repeatedly.
Thats a good one, are your telling me biogenesis has not been proven repeatedly? Thats all we observe in nature despite atheistic science's on going attempts to prove otherwise
And your incorrect, if we find contradictions to an observable phenomenon that have been established as a law (by being proven repeatedly), they no longer are considered immutable laws
Comment
-
Originally posted by IDScience View PostAny observable reality that has no evidence to the contrary will be a law until proven otherwise.
Originally posted by IDScience View PostThe laws of physics were considered absolute "laws"
Originally posted by IDScience View PostAtheistic science will blatantly and knowing lie before they let that happen.
Originally posted by IDScience View PostDo you think the egos in science want to wake up to the headline news "THE CREATIONISTS WERE RIGHT THE WHOLE TIME"? I think not
Originally posted by IDScience View PostAnd science is established on observation and testing.
Originally posted by IDScience View PostBut the amusing part is your hypocritical stance on this subject. You reject God because there is no "observable" evidence for him, and demand observable evidence from theists in order to believe, and then turn around and break your own set of observational rules when it comes to abiogenesis. Have some integrity please.
Originally posted by IDScience View PostTry reading my posts a bit slower next time, I said evolutionary "science", (in which abiogenesis is the foundation). I did not say evolutionary "theory" which starts with a single cell
Comment
-
Originally posted by IDScience View PostThats a good one, are your telling me biogenesis has not been proven repeatedly? Thats all we observe in nature despite atheistic science's on going attempts to prove otherwise.
Originally posted by IDScience View PostAnd your incorrect, if we find contradictions to an observable phenomenon that have been established as a law (by being proven repeatedly), they no longer are considered immutable lawsI'm not here anymore.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 08:31 AM
|
12 responses
49 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 03:19 PM
|
||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
145 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
Yesterday, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
101 responses
539 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 01:57 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
154 responses
1,016 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
04-12-2024, 12:39 PM
|
Comment