(November 3, 2014 at 12:07 pm)Heywood Wrote: Some cars don't have combustion chambers. Some Lawnmowers do have them. What is your point?

That asserting that one has no connection to the other is patently ridiculous.

(November 3, 2014 at 11:41 am)Heywood Wrote:

(November 3, 2014 at 11:34 am)Stimbo Wrote: Of course not, but it does show that a god isn't a requirement for it to happen.

Negative.

For it to happen you have to have unchanging Laws of Nature. Laws of Nature are about something other than themselves. The law of conservation of momentum is about conserving momentum and not about conserving itself. In order for the Law of conservation of momentum to be conserved, something must exist which conserves it. That something could very well be God.

The laws of nature are man-made descriptions of the observations of reality. There is no law giver, your gobbledygook notwithstanding.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:35 am)Rob216 Wrote: I like how this post has turned into, for the most part, people just telling me how stupid I am.

We get a lot of low-quality visitors who don't stick around, but I don't believe you're one of them. Part of the reason for your reception is how many times we've been burned, which doesn't excuse it, but I hope it helps you understand why some of us have become cynical about new theist visitors over the years. It IS possible to earn our respect, and we have several long-time members who are theists...but a few of us are going to be snarky no matter what.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:35 am)Rob216 Wrote: Also, as I stated in the original post, this was not meant to be a religious debate yet somehow my beliefs are being attacked even though nobody here actually knows what my beliefs are. If you disagree with what I said or think that I'm not educated enough on the topic that's fine because the point of debating is to bring arguments to the conversation to enlighten your opponents. Yet somehow this has turned into the classic "You don't believe what I believe so you're stupid" party. Thanks to the few people on here that actually made good points so I can continue to expand my knowledge on the topic.

We're more a discussion than debate forum, though I admit it's a somewhat subtle difference. I think you're doing well so far.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:35 am)Rob216 Wrote: Actually I have a 7 week old son and a full time job so I don't have 24 hours a day to keep checking posts.

Again, I'm afraid you're suffering from the impression that hundreds before you have made...and it isn't fair, it's just the way it is. Most of us can learn to trust that you're on the up-and-up if you stick with it.

(November 3, 2014 at 12:38 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Ok, I am making a claim that the results of the experiment indicate no deific involvement is required for amino acids to polymerise under conditions thought to simulate those of the primaeval Earth.

As evidence for this claim, I submit the results of the experiment.

The conserved laws of nature are a requirement for amino acids to polymerize under conditions thought to simulate those of primeval Earth. I submit that until you show there is no deific involvement required for the conservation of the laws of nature, it follows you cannot credibly claim the results of the experiment indicate no deific involvement.

If A is a requirement of B and B is a requirement of C, then A is a requirement of C.

A = Deific Involvement
B = Conserved Laws of nature
C = Results of the Experiment.

Until you show A is or is not a requirement of B, you can't say anything about whether C requires or does not require A. Your claim has no foundation.

(November 3, 2014 at 11:41 am)Heywood Wrote: In order for the Law of conservation of momentum to be conserved, something must exist which conserves it. That something could very well be God.

Thats a non-sequitur and wrong.

Conservation of momentum is a byproduct of translational invariance. No one has to inforce it. Look up Noether's theorem before you spout nonsense about physical laws.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:39 am)Rob216 Wrote: I'm not trying to minimize my response so I apologize for being vague but I estimate that I literally have about 5 minutes to get this response in. In general, I love opposing views so I'm not gonna slam anyone for their objections. I think a lot of people got off track because I do believe that evolution occurs in all species. I thought my objections were to Darwin, but perhaps I need to do some more research on Biogenesis because honestly this post was the first time that I've heard that term. Also, going back and reading my original post, I did a poor job in wording what I was actually trying to say. What I meant to say in a nutshell is that there is no evidence of species changing kinds. By which I mean in the lineage of any species there is no link (that I know of anyways) over the timeline of a species existence that shows that it could've changed from bacteria to fish to a amphibian etc etc that it has just been theorized. I really just want someone to show me that there is proof somewhere of that link in a species lineage. Any species. If somebody did and I accidentally passed it up then I apologize but I'll go back and read all the posts when I have time. But I really do want proof I'm not just saying that to poke at people. I'm not gonna stand in the face of something tangible and choose not to believe it just because I believe in God. My belief is that I should be open to believing everything.

Oh, and thanks for the congrats!

I second those congrats.

I'm glad you bring up 'kinds', because I've long thought it's an unnecessary objection. It's not clear what a 'kind' corresponds to scientifically, but often believers describe it as being roughtly equivalent to a taxonomic family: all bears, all cats, and so on. The modern evolutionary synthesis predicts that evolution of a new family will take place on a time scale quite beyond human history. For all practical purposes, 'kinds' do not change in that we have never seen it happen and likely our civilization won't last long enough to see it happen in the future.

In addition, the slight variation of each generation never amounts do a 'kind' giving birth to another 'kind' and that is what the modern evolutionary synthesis predicts as well.

So it seems to me that evolution is entirely reconcileable to a fairly literal interpretation of Genesis on the matter of kinds reproducing after their kind. It was a simple and obvious observation of the time, and evolution does not contradict that observation. I think fundamentalists are looking for contradiction where there doesn't have to be any on this particular issue.

Fuck off, Woodie. You don't get to assert your god and then insist we disprove it.

Produce evidence for your absurd claim or STFU.

(November 3, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 3, 2014 at 12:38 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Ok, I am making a claim that the results of the experiment indicate no deific involvement is required for amino acids to polymerise under conditions thought to simulate those of the primaeval Earth.

As evidence for this claim, I submit the results of the experiment.

The conserved laws of nature are a requirement for amino acids to polymerize under conditions thought to simulate those of primeval Earth. I submit that until you show there is no deific involvement required for the conservation of the laws of nature, it follows you cannot credibly claim the results of the experiment indicate no deific involvement.

If A is a requirement of B and B is a requirement of C, then A is a requirement of C.

A = Deific Involvement
B = Conserved Laws of nature
C = Results of the Experiment.

Until you show A is or is not a requirement of B, you can't say anything about whether C requires or does not require A. Your claim has no foundation.

Do we also have to prove no leprechaun involvement? Sprite involvement? Pixie involvement?

No, Heywood, that is not the way it works.

(November 2, 2014 at 6:00 am)Rob216 Wrote: Louis Pasteur is popularly known as the "father of microbiology". He is responsible for crushing the doctrine of spontaneous generation.

The doctrine of spontaneous generation is not the abiogenesis hypothesis. It was the belief that certain organisms derived spontaneously from inanimate matter, like maggots from corpses.

That notion based on naive observation has nothing to do with the possibility of a self-replicating molecule forming under certain conditions and evolving into life. Pasteur disproved a common superstition, not abiogenesis.

---

(November 2, 2014 at 8:01 am)Brian37 Wrote: Nope. Political correctness does not help anyone. It is not a matter of oppressing people because they make stupid claims. Our species progress has always depended on questioning social norms.

Basic courtesy is political correctness now?

(November 3, 2014 at 11:41 am)Heywood Wrote: In order for the Law of conservation of momentum to be conserved, something must exist which conserves it. That something could very well be God.

It could very well be space aliens from an alternate Universe, currently holed on the planet Skyron, where an ordinary cup of drinking chocolate costs $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and crotchless panties are practically unobtainable at ANY price.

It could very well be Thor.

It could very well be a friend's cat.

It could very well be none of these things.