tcr
sage of six tabs
oh boyI actually studied and reconsidered my view on the debate between creationists and evolutionists.
heres an experiment where Stanley Miller and Harold Urey created amino acids by mimicking Earth's theorized beginning atmosphere. Amino acids are the basis of proteins, which in turn are the basis of life itself.Science - 'the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.' (oxford dictionary definition). Atheists can try as hard as they can to elaborate and explain but they are left with one massive obstacle - how can the first forms of life arose from non-life and how can intelligent life form?
The theory of Spontaneous Generation (what Pasteur was actually studying and experimenting for) is an obsolete theory that says that life can arise from non life at any point, and that such generation was commonplace and routine in society. Obviously this is false, it is a Greek understanding of science. It is not the same thing as abiogenesis is the current understanding of how life can evolve from non-life, and it involves chemical reactions, molecular self-replication, and can only happen under certain conditions. Biogenesis is the concept of life being created from other life, I'm not sure why you even mention this as this has nothing to do with Pasteur's experiment, what he was testing, or the idea of how life can arise from non-life. Simply because biogenesis exists and is observable does not make abiogenesis any less valid thats a child's way of thinking.Louis Pasteur's Biogenesis experiment - Omne vivum ex vivo, the Latin translation for 'all life from non-life', the experiment that debunked the idea that life can arise from non-life or even life within it's own species and breed. Observable? Yes, very. We see humans breed humans, dogs breed dogs and fish lay eggs. Repeatable via experiment? Certainly! I'm alive to be on smogon thanks to my mom and dad. To this day, no scientist has produced a life from non life despite having sooooo many given resources, time and energy and the laws of biogenesis has stood for over a century. (I assure you it will remain that way forever)
lol come on manDarwin's Theory of Evolution - Idea that humans were evolved from Apes and species change and adapt due to the process of 'natural selection'. Observable? Not at all. No one in recorded human history has even remotely witnessed an Australopithecine walking on land nor has seen an ape turn to a non-ape. Nor have we seen dogs turn into non-dogs or any species turn into other species. Not once. Repeatable via experiment? LOL what do you think? Maybe if I give an ape a firestone it will turn into infernape? :hyperthinking:
your presumption rests on the idea that all science has to be done under a controlled lab setting and that it is not possible to actually observe evolution in the first place. I don't think you even attempted to search for an experiment and you're just talking out of your ass. There's an entire field dedicated to experimental evolution where experiments have been done on insects, such as fruit flies, or bacteria. Additionally evolution is observable as domesticating a dog. You seem to have a very incomplete and incorrect grasp on what evolution actually is, and I can only assume you were spoonfed your information by your church camp counselor.
You realize that the idea of evolution does not necessarily cancel out the idea of an intelligent creator? Like the two can coexist quite easily (God sparked the creation of the universe, and akin to a rollercoaster he just let it ride its journey wherever it might take it). I don't think you understand what a theory is in the first place, a theory is not the same thing as a law, such as the law of gravity. Theres a reason its called a theory, and that two contradicting theories can exist is perfectly normal. Not everyone in the science community is rallying behind one another saying "this is right" in fact thats as anti-science as you can get. Most researchers and experimenters are constantly testing the boundaries of pre-established theories, a theory only becomes a law when it is easily repeatable and whether the results are valid and observable. You really seem to be ignorant or at least only shallowly educated on the topic.And then many evolutionists claim creationists are dumb ignorant fools to believe in supernatural beings where they can't even see/detect the presence of a God while on the other hand they have their 'science' to completely debunk the need for an intelligent designer. I simply reply to them - Sir, if you studied biology or a biology textbook, it is very likely that both of these scientific theories are found in the same textbook. Why do you insist the latter is true while the former must have exceptions when you can clearly both observe and experiment for the former but not the latter?
most of this was debunked above but I'd just like to touch on your "intelligent creator" argument. Have you ever once considered that the argument for "the universe is obviously designed, and that designer is God" loops on itself to create God^2, then God^3, and so on, and that in itself is enough to debunk it as circular ill defined logic? "everything has to be created from something else, except God he was always there"Now to the credit for evolutionist and atheist scientists I actually have much respect for them for trying to find evidence and come up with interesting yet creative theories to prove there is indeed a slight possibility that life can come from non life and that there are indeed exceptions to Pasteur's Biogenesis experiment. After all, those who have an Iron Will to succeed are the ones who are most likely to but you know what, it's time for them to admit that both creation and evolution are indeed faith based. No one has observed an intelligent designer nor has experimented. Similarly no one has observed life arising from non-life nor apes turning into non apes. Scientists can claim how single cell molecules formed and bonded and proteins formed during the big bang via abiogenesis or whatever creative theories they can but one sad fact is they will never be able to create a life from non-life let alone intelligent life; and don't even think about intelligent life forming spontaneously.
biogenesis is not a law, pasteur did not write it, and as such there is no need to "re-write" his "law of biogenesis."Don't get me wrong I don't expect this post to convince you an intelligent designer exist. After all I gave no arguments to imply the evidence of one but maybe to convince you maybe the 'science' produced by atheist scientists and evolutionists actually are just as faith based as creationists if not more.
But hey that's all I'll say. Demonstrate and repeat via observable experimentation how intelligent life can arise from nothing and I'll make sure all biology textbooks in the science education departments all around the world to completely re-write Pasteur's law of biogenesis. In fact since science claimed to have already found the solution yet they are making ZERO efforts to rewrite Pasteur's law of biogenesis. Hmmmm sound strange?
Prove me wrong! >:)
tl;dr
A said:After all I gave no arguments
Last edited: