What's The Point in the 'god' now?

Threedee said:
People produce new life all the time via copulating. Was that taking away from God?
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between reproduction and abiogenesis.

God of the gaps, explaining phenomenon by using god, was hanging on to the last thread of its existence, the origin of life itself, as its last refuge.

That refuge has now gone.
 
Not really. Abiogenesis does not by any means explain the universe magically coming into existence. It assumes the existence of small strands of DNA to begin with, rather than something coming from absolutely nothing...
 
Threedee said:
Not really. Abiogenesis does not by any means explain the universe magically coming into existence. It assumes the existence of small strands of DNA to begin with, rather than something coming from absolutely nothing...
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis is the bringing together of chemicals to form proteins that go on to form DNA. This was done in the lab years ago. That life can be created in a higher form in a lab is simply sealing the pot.

Is god of the gaps really only hanging on to the idea that because the origins of the universe aren't absolutely explained it must be the work of 'god'?

With all we know about the universe it takes far more to explain its origins as coming from god than by current natural explanations.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Abiogenesis is the bringing together of chemicals to form proteins that go on to form DNA. This was done in the lab years ago. That life can be created in a higher form in a lab is simply sealing the pot.

Is god of the gaps really only hanging on to the idea that because the origins of the universe aren't absolutely explained it must be the work of 'god'?

With all we know about the universe it takes far more to explain its origins as coming from god than by current natural explanations.
Click to expand...

Why not spout your childish crap on an English board? We don't want you here.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Abiogenesis is the bringing together of chemicals to form proteins that go on to form DNA. This was done in the lab years ago. That life can be created in a higher form in a lab is simply sealing the pot.

Is god of the gaps really only hanging on to the idea that because the origins of the universe aren't absolutely explained it must be the work of 'god'?

With all we know about the universe it takes far more to explain its origins as coming from god than by current natural explanations.
Click to expand...

Right, we had proteins and small compounds. For there the be a universe, however, they have to have existed. It didn't simply construct itself from nothing.
 
AnyOldIron said:
There is a huge difference between reproduction and abiogenesis.

God of the gaps, explaining phenomenon by using god, was hanging on to the last thread of its existence, the origin of life itself, as its last refuge.

That refuge has now gone.
Click to expand...
perhaps you didn't notice, but they didn't actually create life at all....they implanted this synthetic DNA in an already living cell....you still have all the gaps you had before.....
 
AnyOldIron said:
Abiogenesis is the bringing together of chemicals to form proteins that go on to form DNA. This was done in the lab years ago.
Click to expand...
it is true that mankind discovered organic chemistry long ago, and has been able to create organic compounds.....it is also true that they have mapped DNA, altered it and implanted it into a living organism......

That life can be created in a higher form in a lab is simply sealing the pot.
Click to expand...
what they have not done, and never will, is create life...
 
Threedee said:
Right, we had proteins and small compounds. For there the be a universe, however, they have to have existed. It didn't simply construct itself from nothing.
Click to expand...

If we are saying that the origin of the universe needed to be created by a god, then the god, by definition, must be way more complex and would have needed a creator of its own. (same argument against ID).

Most religious people usually explain this by saying that god always existed, but that is obscurum per obscurius, explaining the obscure by the even more obscure.

In short, it takes more explanation to use the god theory than natural phenomenon.
 
AnyOldIron said:
If we are saying that the origin of the universe needed to be created by a god, then the god, by definition, must be way more complex and would have needed a creator of its own. (same argument against ID).

Most religious people usually explain this by saying that god always existed, but that is obscurum per obscurius, explaining the obscure by the even more obscure.

In short, it takes more explanation to use the god theory than natural phenomenon.
Click to expand...

No, you're just appealing to materialism. I am appealing to God and science on their own terms, and nothing more.
 
AnyOldIron said:
I have been here many years before you showed your face. If you have a point to make, make it, if you haven't then back off.

You are getting boring.
Click to expand...

When I find someone boring I don't respond to them.

My point is this: this is America. You are not American. We do not welcome your opinions on our internal affairs.

Understand?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it is true that mankind discovered organic chemistry long ago, and has been able to create organic compounds.....it is also true that they have mapped DNA, altered it and implanted it into a living organism......


what they have not done, and never will, is create life...
Click to expand...

We have put together the chemical makeup available in the early Earth and produced replicating proteins, the origins of life.

Now we have artificially created speciation.

The gap explained by god is now so small, you can't put a Rizla in it.

It doesn't explain the species on Earth, nor does it explain the originating first few steps. What is left?
 
Southern Woman said:
When I find someone boring I don't respond to them.

My point is this: this is America. You are not American. We do not welcome your opinions on our internal affairs.

Understand?
Click to expand...

This isn't America, this is the internet.

And who made you the spokesman for all America?

I understand you. You still bore me. Find a bone to chew on.
 
AOI, just ignore legion (southern woman et al).

As for god, that presumes the belief in an Judeo-Christian god. God could easily be a much more advanced life form than us. Like the great lord C'Thulhu.
 
AnyOldIron said:
We have put together the chemical makeup available in the early Earth and produced replicating proteins, the origins of life.

Now we have artificially created speciation.

The gap explained by god is now so small, you can't put a Rizla in it.

It doesn't explain the species on Earth, nor does it explain the originating first few steps. What is left?
Click to expand...

lol, you've watched molecules being made (in the way God created them to)......you've read the map of DNA (which God created)......you've copied that blueprint and made a minor modification (possible only because of the way God created it)......you've taken that modification and inserted it into a living cell (which formed the way God created it) and watched that modification automatically adapt itself into the living cell (performing exactly the way God designed it).......what was your part in this again?.....ah yes, you intelligently copied what the Intelligence designed....

you don't have a prayer of duplicating what God has already done, let alone creating an independently operating parallel......

and, even if you could, you would only succeed in showing that all of creation HAD to be intelligently designed.....

this small gap you refer to is nothing less than the difference between a pile of inert chemicals and a living, reproducing creature.....though it may only be observable with a microscope, it's hardly a small gap......
 
Last edited:
satisfy my curiosity, though....given the fact that it's obvious this experiment came no where near 'creating' life, why are the seculars so quick to lie about it in print?.....is it desperation?.....envy?.....if God doesn't exist, who are you envious of?......as Satan said in the garden, if you eat of the tree you will be like God.....if you think he doesn't exist, why are you trying to be like him?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
satisfy my curiosity, though....given the fact that it's obvious this experiment came no where near 'creating' life, why are the seculars so quick to lie about it in print?.....is it desperation?.....envy?.....if God doesn't exist, who are you envious of?......as Satan said in the garden, if you eat of the tree you will be like God.....if you think he doesn't exist, why are you trying to be like him?......
Click to expand...

i understand your point....however....they don't believe in satan or god

thus, they are not trying to be "like" him...

it is not up to us to change their hearts or minds, only the holy spirit can do that....

IMO...too often men have tried to crack the skull of those who do not wish to believe....jesus let the rich young ruler walk away. if someone doesn't want to believe....nothing you say or do will ever change that. jesus didn't change the rich young ruler...how is you think you will change any of the posters here who choose not to believe?

if they don't want to believe, that is their choice
 
PostmodernProphet said:
satisfy my curiosity, though....given the fact that it's obvious this experiment came no where near 'creating' life, why are the seculars so quick to lie about it in print?.....is it desperation?.....envy?.....if God doesn't exist, who are you envious of?......as Satan said in the garden, if you eat of the tree you will be like God.....if you think he doesn't exist, why are you trying to be like him?......
Click to expand...
And the award for dumbest argument on the month goes to.....


POSTMODERNPROPHET!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top