(October 13, 2013 at 6:03 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(October 13, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: The creation of life in the bible is INTENTIONAL and caused by a sentient Creator.
And that is NOT spontaneous appearance of life from non-life.

Etymologically-speaking, which part of the word 'abiogenesis' indicates spontaneity?

Hey, if you're willing to concede that abiogenesis might have been the intentional result of a designer, then my work here is finished.

If a team of scientists in a lab were able to (deliberately) replicate life from non-life, the intelligent design folks would be cheering!!!

(October 13, 2013 at 7:06 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: If a team of scientists in a lab were able to (deliberately) replicate life from non-life, the intelligent design folks would be cheering!!!

Why would they cheer? If an iron-clad version of Miller-Urey were to be accomplished, it would flatten them.

And we ARE very close to this- Craig Venter & co (among others) constructed a minimal (mostly) synthetic genome and are fairly close to getting it to work in a living minimal cell. Synthetic biology is a hopping field.

(October 13, 2013 at 7:13 pm)Zazzy Wrote: Craig Venter

Unrelated but did you know that Craig Venter disagrees with common descent?

(October 13, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Just out of curiosity, are there any forum members who now identify as atheists but used to believe YEC claims about scientific evidence and Biblical interpretation?

I was a YEC, since JWs believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Well, "literal" still allows room for interpretation. JWs do not believe that the world is 6,000 years old. They believe it is approximately 42,000 years old, because they claim that each "day" in Genesis is 6,000 years long. Because if you're going to interpret some ancient book of fairy tales, why not double down?

In any case, YEC is based on a rejection of a lot of settled or established science and scientific knowledge. Grace is being pretty obvious here in regards to that; she betrays a near-total ignorance of evolution and she openly rejects any science that she cannot use to promote her beliefs. Scientific research and understanding has progressed too far, IMO, for YEC to be a subtle approach.

(October 13, 2013 at 12:19 pm)snowtracks Wrote: the guy throw out some odds, and no rebuttal to those odds came forth. instead we get bats not classified correctly in the bible, questions does life begin at the atomic level, or where?
what odds do the atheist have? by the way, the 'God the gap' responds only has a limited shelf life.

Asked and answered.

Atoms are not living things. Arrangements of atoms can be.

(October 13, 2013 at 7:19 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Unrelated but did you know that Craig Venter disagrees with common descent?

I heard about this, but only from the ID faction. Venter doesn't seem to want to expound on some weird remarks he made about some bacterial DNA (Mycoplasma, which is indeed a strange little family). I've heard him referred to at conferences as "Darth Venter," so I know he's a real asshole, but unless you have a better source than the ones I saw, I'd say the jury's out. The Discovery Institute does love to spin anything.

(October 13, 2013 at 5:28 pm)daandaan Wrote:

(October 13, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: The creation of life in the bible is INTENTIONAL and caused by a sentient Creator.
And that is NOT spontaneous appearance of life from non-life.

yeah we know, everything thats irriducably complex, NEEDS a creator..


now, god , himself a creator...is even more irraducably complex,,,,SO NEEDS A CREATOR..

now, please tell us who r gods mommy and daddy ??

Would you please post in English?

---

(October 13, 2013 at 7:19 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

(October 13, 2013 at 7:13 pm)Zazzy Wrote: Craig Venter

Unrelated but did you know that Craig Venter disagrees with common descent?

Citation, please.

(October 13, 2013 at 10:29 pm)Zazzy Wrote:

(October 13, 2013 at 7:19 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Unrelated but did you know that Craig Venter disagrees with common descent?

I heard about this, but only from the ID faction. Venter doesn't seem to want to expound on some weird remarks he made about some bacterial DNA (Mycoplasma, which is indeed a strange little family). I've heard him referred to at conferences as "Darth Venter," so I know he's a real asshole, but unless you have a better source than the ones I saw, I'd say the jury's out. The Discovery Institute does love to spin anything.

Here is the panel discussion where Venter made the comments in question. The comments in question start around the 8 minute mark. Some have interpreted his statement as he believes there are a handful of known organisms that have a genetic code sufficiently different from most know organisms to have a different origin. I am not aware of any attempts by Venter to correct that interpretation.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/th...life-panel

(October 13, 2013 at 7:06 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Hey, if you're willing to concede that abiogenesis might have been the intentional result of a designer, then my work here is finished.

Yeah, you'd have to be as stupid as you are to draw that conclusion from my post.

Quote:If a team of scientists in a lab were able to (deliberately) replicate life from non-life, the intelligent design folks would be cheering!!!

Of course they would, because it takes people that retarded to cheer a development that does absolutely nothing to prove their assertions.

(October 13, 2013 at 10:28 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 13, 2013 at 12:19 pm)snowtracks Wrote: the guy throw out some odds, and no rebuttal to those odds came forth. instead we get bats not classified correctly in the bible, questions does life begin at the atomic level, or where?
what odds do the atheist have? by the way, the 'God the gap' responds only has a limited shelf life.

Asked and answered.

Atoms are not living things. Arrangements of atoms can be.

so a day goes by after the gauntlet was thrown down about the odds that had to overcome and we get nothing (that's the new theory the atheist have attached themselves to) relevant. one even said not up to them to provide a defense. so will have to conclude that the are odds truly are near infinity and the micro-evolutionary biologist are on the longshot side; a chink in the armor has been exposed.