RE: The Origin of the Universe
May 8, 2009 at 7:30 pm
(This post was last modified: May 8, 2009 at 7:34 pm by WebChris.)
>>>All of the scientific theories that all of you are pointing at the heart of this discussion are all “intentions” and “predictions” about natural phenomenons. i.e. The non-creationist universe that you all collectively assert as one big accident.
But I like ya'lls tenacity! Love it! (I'm from Arkansas - you may figure) Here is my response,
>>>Tiberius wrote, “Erm, and why exactly is abiogenesis worthy of a "warning". It's a scientific theory that has made valid predictions and has had many aspects confirmed by experiments. Why don't you actually respond to my point rather than dismiss it without even knowing what it entails.”
I challenged this (Adrian’s) view because it implied “Abiogenesis” not “Biogenesis”! Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) is an obsolete theory and Louis Pasteur was no idiot! You either knew little of what I was talking about or you mistyped your response most terribly. (You tried to sell me a lie and didn’t even take a second look in your Atheist’s Theoretical Catalog.)
>We all know that life can’t generate spontaneously from inorganic or inanimate matter. (maggots don't spontaneously generate from dead meat, etc.) You should know better than this!
Although there are several, several theories that are being cooked in “science kitchens” along these lines. (How Ironic!) The question is how did the first nucleic acids arise. Nobody knows the exact sequence of chemical events that led to this. (Saying, “I don’t know,” does sound more honest, but to assert so would be scientifically arrogant and dishonest without a logical hypothesis.) Although there are several, several theories and nothing in the primordial “soup” seems to stick to the ribs, so to speak. Even the oatmeal about these Big Bang Singularities; they stubbornly pose a problem for physicists because of known physical laws that do not apply. (What a shame.)
I conclude this discussion humbly by saying in light of my initial post that; What I am the most concerned about; is this heavy dependence an atheist has on theories intended or predicted to be factual because they seem more probable to just happen from nothing. There’s got to be some kind of strange “faith” in something so elusive as these theories - that atheists use them to dishonestly excuse themselves to a lifestyle of excess and moral irresponsibility. You want to live your life your way - Fine, but don’t use science as an excuse to be immoral or even liberal.
>Holla back if you feelin' me!
But I like ya'lls tenacity! Love it! (I'm from Arkansas - you may figure) Here is my response,
>>>Tiberius wrote, “Erm, and why exactly is abiogenesis worthy of a "warning". It's a scientific theory that has made valid predictions and has had many aspects confirmed by experiments. Why don't you actually respond to my point rather than dismiss it without even knowing what it entails.”
I challenged this (Adrian’s) view because it implied “Abiogenesis” not “Biogenesis”! Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) is an obsolete theory and Louis Pasteur was no idiot! You either knew little of what I was talking about or you mistyped your response most terribly. (You tried to sell me a lie and didn’t even take a second look in your Atheist’s Theoretical Catalog.)
>We all know that life can’t generate spontaneously from inorganic or inanimate matter. (maggots don't spontaneously generate from dead meat, etc.) You should know better than this!
Although there are several, several theories that are being cooked in “science kitchens” along these lines. (How Ironic!) The question is how did the first nucleic acids arise. Nobody knows the exact sequence of chemical events that led to this. (Saying, “I don’t know,” does sound more honest, but to assert so would be scientifically arrogant and dishonest without a logical hypothesis.) Although there are several, several theories and nothing in the primordial “soup” seems to stick to the ribs, so to speak. Even the oatmeal about these Big Bang Singularities; they stubbornly pose a problem for physicists because of known physical laws that do not apply. (What a shame.)
I conclude this discussion humbly by saying in light of my initial post that; What I am the most concerned about; is this heavy dependence an atheist has on theories intended or predicted to be factual because they seem more probable to just happen from nothing. There’s got to be some kind of strange “faith” in something so elusive as these theories - that atheists use them to dishonestly excuse themselves to a lifestyle of excess and moral irresponsibility. You want to live your life your way - Fine, but don’t use science as an excuse to be immoral or even liberal.
>Holla back if you feelin' me!
"Children can be scared of the dark, but some grownups are scared of the light!" ~ the Ethereal Enigma
