C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I have already been through this, having the will to live gives animals a selection advantage and is thererfore propagated throughout a species.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
I have already been through this, having the will to live gives animals a selection advantage and is thererfore propagated throughout a species.
Was it the will to live, as you put it, that caused inorganic matter to become organic matter?
Was it the will to live, as you put it, that caused inorganic matter to become organic matter?
T
tjm190
Guest
I see the topic has swayed from evolution to abiogenesis?I have already been through this, having the will to live gives animals a selection advantage and is thererfore propagated throughout a species.
Was it the will to live, as you put it, that caused inorganic matter to become organic matter?
F
Fran65
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
tjm190
*I see the topic has swayed from evolution to abiogenesis? *
There would be no evolution without abiogenesis, would there?
So are you saying that the “will to live” was programmed into the first living cell? That is, not only the will to live, but also the will to live by replicating? And that this will to live was programmed into all successive life forms on the tree of evolution?
Why was the first living cell programmed with the **will to live **and replicate itself?
Oops! An accident!!!
*I see the topic has swayed from evolution to abiogenesis? *
There would be no evolution without abiogenesis, would there?
So are you saying that the “will to live” was programmed into the first living cell? That is, not only the will to live, but also the will to live by replicating? And that this will to live was programmed into all successive life forms on the tree of evolution?
Why was the first living cell programmed with the **will to live **and replicate itself?
Oops! An accident!!!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
“Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared.”
* Sir Isaac Newton in "A Short Scheme of the True Religion".
W
wanstronian
Guest
And STILL the question goes unanswered. I’ll take that as a ‘no’ then. You can’t quote modern scientists to support your view. And WHADDYAKNOW - instead of answering the question you’re just attacking a point of view that your opponent hasn’t expressed!! Would you please point me towards my post in this thread where I express the opinion you have ascribed to me? I seem to have forgotten typing it…Wanstronian
Charlemagne, I repeat a question I asked you in another thread, that you never answered:
Can you quote any current contemporaries of your treasured trio, that support your view? That is, people who have the benefit of up-to-the-minute scientific technique and equipment?
**I’ll bet you’re still quoting that great up-to-date Miller-Urey experiment from the 1950s that was supposed to prove life could start up by chance.
Can you give more recent -up-to-date data that proves it?
Remember, if you take a position, you must have scientific proof for that position.
How is it that the first complex life on the planet began by accident rather than by design, and began with coded instruction to replicate itself?**
Let me make this clear yet again, that I haven’t expressed a position, I’ve simply challenged yours. You are clearly unable to respond to this challenge with anything other petulant straw man arguments. Why do you bother - do you really think you’re acquitting yourself well?
W
wanstronian
Guest
Da-daaaaa!!! There he is! I knew it wouldn’t be long before Newton put in an appearance on the Charlemagne “Wall of evidence!” Wait for it folks - selective quote from Albert Einstein is doubtless on its way!!!
G
geometer
Guest
The video does not dispute that fact. You should watch all of the videos. They are about scientific studies which nullify evolutionary claims…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Wanstronian
You asked for it!
**Da-daaaaa!!! **
"The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is that, in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say, then, that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend. On the contrary, I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, the generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite members of man who have existed through all time, they have believed in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis.” Thomas Jefferson
“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” Albert Einstein
Max Born: Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”
Max Planck: Father of Quantum Physics
“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”
J.J. Thompson: Discoverer of the Electron
“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”
Werner Heisenberg: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”
Arthur Compton: Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist
“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence – an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered – ‘In the beginning God.’”
Does it ever occur to you that Richard Dawkins might not even be in the same class with these thinkers?
Or do you think they are not in the same class with you? :tsktsk:
By the way, we are all waiting breathlessly for your scientific paper proving that abiogenesis happened by pure chance.
You do know, of course, that scientific papers are required for such a position.
You asked for it!
**Da-daaaaa!!! **
"The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is that, in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say, then, that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend. On the contrary, I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, the generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite members of man who have existed through all time, they have believed in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis.” Thomas Jefferson
“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” Albert Einstein
Max Born: Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”
Max Planck: Father of Quantum Physics
“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”
J.J. Thompson: Discoverer of the Electron
“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”
Werner Heisenberg: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”
Arthur Compton: Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist
“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence – an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered – ‘In the beginning God.’”
Does it ever occur to you that Richard Dawkins might not even be in the same class with these thinkers?
Or do you think they are not in the same class with you? :tsktsk:
By the way, we are all waiting breathlessly for your scientific paper proving that abiogenesis happened by pure chance.
You do know, of course, that scientific papers are required for such a position.
D
Detales
Guest
Charlemagne, I realize that while you are busy with arguing an supporting either/or, you are neglecting both/and. In that regard, and since you have insistence on scientific papers, I will recommend to you read the following:
The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object by Franklin Merrell-Wolff, and A Brief History of Everything by Ken Wilber
I’m sure you may be loath to read them, considering the source of the recommendation, but do the do. You might even be happy you did. At least you will be aware on a more informed level of what some of us are trying to impart here.
The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object by Franklin Merrell-Wolff, and A Brief History of Everything by Ken Wilber
I’m sure you may be loath to read them, considering the source of the recommendation, but do the do. You might even be happy you did. At least you will be aware on a more informed level of what some of us are trying to impart here.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Detales
*
The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object by Franklin Merrell-Wolff, and A Brief History of Everything by Ken Wilber*
Do either of these books prove that abiogenesis and evolution happened by chance?
I don’t think so.
There are laws of nature that set down the behavior of animate and inanimate beings. Who set down those laws. No one? These laws just accidentally arrived on their own?
If that’s a scientific statement, please prove it.
*
The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object by Franklin Merrell-Wolff, and A Brief History of Everything by Ken Wilber*
Do either of these books prove that abiogenesis and evolution happened by chance?
I don’t think so.
There are laws of nature that set down the behavior of animate and inanimate beings. Who set down those laws. No one? These laws just accidentally arrived on their own?
If that’s a scientific statement, please prove it.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Dear me. Can anyone here open a book???I have already been through this, having the will to live gives animals a selection advantage and is thererfore propagated throughout a species.
Was it the will to live, as you put it, that caused inorganic matter to become organic matter?
D
Detales
Guest
Yes, for my part I can open a book. or many of them. It is one of my favorite things to do.
And Charlemagne, you again misread my intention. I myself don’t think that any genesis happened in the way that Creationists, IDers, or Scientists say it did. I was trying to encourage you away from the either/or stance of looking at anything, including your particular pet scheme. Why on Earth would I want to try to prove chance abiogenesis or evolution??? After all our exchanges, I’m surprised!
And Charlemagne, you again misread my intention. I myself don’t think that any genesis happened in the way that Creationists, IDers, or Scientists say it did. I was trying to encourage you away from the either/or stance of looking at anything, including your particular pet scheme. Why on Earth would I want to try to prove chance abiogenesis or evolution??? After all our exchanges, I’m surprised!
B
Benadam
Guest
scientists don’t say much of anything concerning the genesis of the universe that I know of. I doubt you believe the universe has a beginning
E
eggsbenedict
Guest
I would like to tackle this comment even before reading the rest of this thread (which I will do afterwards).
Physics and Chemistry ARE STUDIES OF REALITY. Emotions are mental states induced by hormones.
Evolution (Natural Selection) is the study of how beneficial traits prevail in nature.
Immune systems suggest that there are conflicting goals and competition amoungst different life forms.
There is no need to transcend physical reality to explain physics and chemistry as they are based on the observable.
Is it your mission to seek the truth, or attack mainstream Science to make your self feel better about that which you do not understand?
F
Fran65
Guest
Eggs,
I suggest you read the thread.
I suggest you read the thread.
E
eggsbenedict
Guest
For example, I could ask why does the protein attach to the membrane at that point. You will then give me a description or a technical term of that process. I will then ask you why that process occurs and you will then give me another description.
So your game is that you will keep asking questions until someone gets tired. Then you will plant down your flag and say that God did it. Of course two could play at that game. I could ask you how good came into existence. You could say he was always there. I could ask another question. And on, and on it goes.
So your game is that you will keep asking questions until someone gets tired. Then you will plant down your flag and say that God did it. Of course two could play at that game. I could ask you how good came into existence. You could say he was always there. I could ask another question. And on, and on it goes.
E
eggsbenedict
Guest
I doubt you believe the universe has a beginning
Do you believe God has a beginning?
Do you believe God has a beginning?
B
Benadam
Guest
- Status