Alright, since all that has happened in this "evolution-creation debate" is name-calling, maybe it would be more productive to use a point-counterpoint method of debate.

I think it would be appropriate to start with the origin of life.

It is commonly believed (because it is taught in our schools and colleges) that laboratory experiments have proved conclusively that living organisms evolved from nonliving chemicals. Many people believe that life has been created in the laboratory by scientists who study chemical evolution
The famous experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953 is often quoted as proof of this. Yet the results of such experiments show nothing of the sort. These experiments, designed as they are by intelligent humans, show that under certain conditions, certain organic compounds can be formed from inorganic compounds.
In fact, what the intelligent scientists are actually saying is, "If I can just synthesize life in the laboratory, then I will have proven that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the beginning." Their experiments are simply trying to prove the opposite--that an intelligence was required to create life.
If we look carefully at Miller's experiment, we will see that what he did fails to address the evolution of life. He took a mixture of gases (ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor) and he passed an electric current through them. He did this in order to reproduce the effect of lightning passing through a mixture of gases that he thought might have composed the earth's atmosphere millions of years ago. As a result, he produced a mixture of amino acids. Because amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are considered to be the building blocks of living systems, Miller's experiment was hailed as proof that life has evolved by chance on the earth million of years ago.

Do you think Miller's experiment proved the origin of life? Are there any flaws in his experiment? If so, what?

Edit: I noticed Aglicano told me the burden of proof is on me. I guess it is. But my arguments are going to follow a progressive order. You don't need to prove integrals and derivatives to learn addition and subtraction. I will prove the "Bible" when I have established ground first. Of course I could have tried proving the Bible first, but obviously this isn't going to work in this forum.
First off, as you are making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
You seem to be claiming that the experiment could not possibly prove that life came from something inorganic and unintelligent, because the experiment was set up by organic, intelligent human beings.
This does not make much sense - the experiment was not intended to try to produce the building blocks of life through any possible means, but to simulate the actual conditions of the world prior to the existence of life. In other words, the intelligence isn't being used to design experiments which have the best chance of producing life, but to design experiments that accurately represent the conditions on earth at the time.

I'm not sure how this experiment "fail[ing] to address the evolution of life" is relevant. Evolution had already been proven outside of this experiment. Miller's experiment showed that the materials required for a self-replicating lifeform could come into existence, and the theory of evolution by natural selection showed how that lifeform could adapt into the intelligent life that's around today.
Michael2_3B wrote:
Calcuon wrote:
Are you saying he wrote "Answers in Genesis" wholly based on what he believes in the Bible? He both got his degree and taught science in high school.

Having a degree and teaching "science" does not prove you're actually smart. Nothing against people with degrees, but in Ken Ham's case he is just repeating toxic cycles and teaching outdated beliefs.
Further to the point, having a degree is sometimes used by a scammer as a "credential" to bolster a bogus claim.
Religion is a frequent topic of debate. But I don't think Christians should argue vehemently with agnostics and atheists. I think people of faith can be calmer.
MateoConLechuga wrote:
Calcuon wrote:
I'd like someone to actually look at respected Creation scientists

None of them are respected. They all are conmen that take money any peddle a to the people who listen.


Mateo, if you understood history a little bit more you would quickly realize that a good majority of non-Creationist scientists are conmen taking money from everyone. Take a look at the mechanical engineer, Bill Nye, that guy knows precious little about science beyond 11th grade. What you don't realize is that science and medicine wouldn't have gotten where it is right now. https://www.famousscientists.org/great-scientists-christians/

Just take a look at this and anyone will admit that Christian scientists have done a lot more than atheists have.
Religion is ok as long as it's not shoved in my face (I'm fine with religious symbols though) and that it's not used as an excuse to justify hate speech, murder, the mutilation of a graphing calculator other than Lexibook, other violent crimes and the denial of basic human rights to an entire group of people.
commandblockguy wrote:
First off, as you are making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
You seem to be claiming that the experiment could not possibly prove that life came from something inorganic and unintelligent, because the experiment was set up by organic, intelligent human beings.
This does not make much sense - the experiment was not intended to try to produce the building blocks of life through any possible means, but to simulate the actual conditions of the world prior to the existence of life. In other words, the intelligence isn't being used to design experiments which have the best chance of producing life, but to design experiments that accurately represent the conditions on earth at the time.

I'm not sure how this experiment "fail[ing] to address the evolution of life" is relevant. Evolution had already been proven outside of this experiment. Miller's experiment showed that the materials required for a self-replicating lifeform could come into existence, and the theory of evolution by natural selection showed how that lifeform could adapt into the intelligent life that's around today.


But there is something that points to an intelligent creator. DNA, is the long strand of information that is used to build proteins in our cells. If there was no intelligent creator, DNA (if there was any) would be a repeating strand like "thethethethethethe" but, DNA contains code-like information. And any code (as this programmer community would know) is programmed by someone
c4ooo wrote:
Calcuon wrote:
MateoConLechuga wrote:
Religion is for people who don't know any better. If they did; they would realize that they are completely brainwashed.

That's about it. All you have to know is you're supposed to respect brainwashing.


What about intelligent design? Which sounds more plausible: The universe began from the universe exploding itself into existence or a Creator spoke it into being?

Which sounds more plausible? A bunch of dudes living in the near east 2000 years ago just so happened to know the truth about the entire world (and wrote it down to make the bible), or the scientific theories supported by countless observations made by men with modern 21st century equipment?


It was not "a whole bunch of dudes 2000 years ago" It was around 40 people writing and recording for around 4000 years. this has been proven over and over again. Correct if I'm wrong but there is the most ancient manuscripts for the bible than any other manuscript.

If all you guys want to truly see what the evidence says. read this book Case for a Creator
This book is written by a journalist that is an atheist and wanted to prove that Jesus and Intelligent creation is wrong and jesus followers are wrong.

Edit:
I would like this question answered. If Christianity is so obviously wrong why are there still many dramatic conversions all over the world still today 2000 years after jesus died?
IceWorks wrote:
If all you guys want to truly see what the evidence says. read this book Case for a Creator
This book is written by a journalist that is an atheist and wanted to prove that Jesus and Intelligent creation is wrong and jesus followers are wrong.


From a random amazon review:
Quote:
Students, beware of the very enticing subtitle "A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God." That originally got me extremely excited, as I had read "God is Not Great," and "The God Delusion," and I was hungering for another perspective, something scientific and educated.

Yet, my expectations dipped from the moment I took it out of the box. It was a thin book, and with centuries of evidence of God's existence, how can you cram everything in there? However, thinking that he might have some interesting proofs or evidence in there, nonetheless, I cheerfully started reading it. Needless to say, by the middle, I began skimming; I was absolutely horrified.

"The Case for a Creator" is one of those cliched books that claims, "Darwinism can't explain this, THUS intelligent design MUST be behind it." It's absolutely ridiculous. Moreover, another flimsy argument the author tries to make is that "We're so complex that we couldn't possibly be products of naturual selection." That is not a valid argument. This statement is tantamount to asserting that, "Hydrogen is so simple that it HAD to be made by lesser archangel Mr. Fluffy." Additionally, though Lee Strobel claims to be a good journalist, he fails to point out the salient fact that intelligent design ISN'T EVEN a THEORY. It's a hocus-pocus sobriquet. I would have respected him if he had the guts to admit it. I do not have any problem with faith, but to dress up this novel (yep, it's a novel, not non-fiction) as "scientific" is revolting.

I would RECOMMEND this book to anyone who is curious about the arguments that religion makes (or attempts to make), but the reader must take these assertions with a grain of salt, by knowing that this book is NOT scientific AT ALL. This book is NOT RECOMMENDED if for readers searching for empirical evidence of God's existence. I plow on, good netizens!

Sounds enticing.
DJ Omnimaga wrote:


I cannot tell of this is satire or not.
i have the book and thats not what i found. did you read just that one review or the other 15 good reviews. This book isn't the main point just a suggestion. I thought this was about origin of life not arguing about books
IceWorks wrote:
i have the book and thats not what i found. did you read just that one reveiw or the other 15 good reviews

What you found is because you already believe in a Creator. It's a great book if you already believe in one.

If you can show me that Jesus actually rose from the dead then I'll become a Christian.
Read his other book "case for christ" and I wasn't a sure fire christian at that time.
IceWorks wrote:
Read his other book case for christ

I have read it. That doesn't show me anything. His arguments are flimsy and not well reasoned.

Why do you need to argue for Jesus?
Why do you need to argue for evolution? Because people will ask you to prove your worldview
Edit:
Just wondering why did you read it?
IceWorks wrote:
Why do you need to argue for evolution? Because people will ask you to prove your worldview

I'm not arguing for it. I am arguing against teaching creationism. There is a huge difference.

IceWorks wrote:
Just wondering why did you read it?

Because I used to believe in a Creator?
MateoConLechuga wrote:
Calcuon wrote:
Science has not and will not ever be able to pinpoint what happened billions of years ago.

You are wrong. We literally built The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), a large-scale physics experiment and observatory to detect cosmic gravitational waves. These waves emanated directly from the singularity of the universe. This has been established as fact.

We have computed the radiological background radiation of the observable universe. We know pretty much how the universe began 14 some odd billions of years ago.

If you are going to deny something, actually have an understanding of what you are denying before just falling on your incorrect beliefs.

sounds like arguing for evolution to me...

Why don't you anymore. The overwhelming evidence for evolution?
IceWorks wrote:
sounds like arguing for evolution to me...

What you quoted has nothing to do with evolution.

I don't believe anymore because there is no good evidence for believing in gods or the supernatural.
MateoConLechuga wrote:
IceWorks wrote:
sounds like arguing for evolution to me...

What you quoted has nothing to do with evolution.


Yes because christians definitely believe the universe billions of years ago, not the evolutionists

Edit: Sorry for saracism that was uncalled for

Most Christians I know are young-earth creationists
IceWorks wrote:
MateoConLechuga wrote:
IceWorks wrote:
sounds like arguing for evolution to me...

What you quoted has nothing to do with evolution.


Yes because christians definitely believe the universe billions of years ago, not the evolutionists

Most Christians do believe that the universe is billions of years old. You think that atheists are the only astronomers and scientists researching early history?

I would recommend you look into the LIGO project, it is really quite fascinating.
  
Page 2 of 5
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
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

 

Advertisement