Origins of life

[damien james]

Wow, that is old argument. Haven't seen that one pulled out in a while.

[alextemplet]

If only I had a nickel for every time I heard that argument!

[bpv]

I think, the above repetition will definitely occur again and again because the truth will never remain hidden under the debris for long. At constant intervels I think it will come up similarly.

My intention was not to argue but only, try to share some truth that I realized. Or even you can take it as a confession of a late atheistic evolutionist. Sorry I think, if I go deep it may go off topic.

I think throughout the tread we have discussed much.


Please check the URL's

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.creationresearch.org/
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/main.html
http://www.talkreason.org/

[alextemplet]

I've seen all of those websites before, and forgive me for saying so but I find them to be of rather poor value as to the authenticity and accuracy of their information, AIG being one of the worst.

[mith]

All have been rebutted at talkorigins.org. Maybe it's time you updated your sources?

[Linn]

All have been rebutted at talkorigins.org. Maybe it's time you updated your sources?

But rebuttel does not mean that one is right. Its still each persons views and theories, one which happens to be more popular.

Rarely, have I any thing new with the rebutltes either. So your right guys/gals same old same old.

remember theory may be proven wrong either way eventualy. Or maybe there is some truth to each?

PS the best opins are from the physicists and cosmologists. I think.
These people are REALLY deep thinking brainy people.

[alextemplet]

You're right, Linn, there is probably a little truth to both sides, but there are certain viewpoints that, I think, simply do not deserve to be taken seriously. The AIG website, as I mentioned before, is basically 99% mythology and does not in any way deserve to be treated as serious scientific material.

One thing discussion in this forum has taught me is how important it is to keep an open mind, but such a practice should be balanced against a desire to learn and appreciate truth, so viewpoints that are clearly untruthful do not need to be tolerated.

If I said that all known existence was just a television drama put on by a bunch of super-intelligent mice, and the "real world" includes such oddities as singing dolphins and pre-fabricated planets, it might very well be true, but who will actually believe it?

[mith]

I don't think it's a popularity contest, in many cases the creationism claims are either clearly false or have no scientific backing.

For example when I searched in the answersingenesis.org archives, I found this article
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... namics.asp

Considering the rebuttal, perhaps creationists still don't understand physics, let alone biology.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_3.html

[alextemplet]

Or geology, either. AIG is one of those young-earth groups, and we all know what that means! They actually believe dinosaurs and man coexisted, and that it's somehow possible to see galaxies millions of light years away that were only created a few thousand years ago. But I'm not going into that again.

[Linn]

Considering the rebuttal, perhaps creationists still don't understand physics, let alone biology.

In all Fairness lets not forget that many creationists ARE pysicists and biologists.

[alextemplet]

Methinks I doth see the origins of yet another bout of debateth.

[Linn]

Methinks I doth see the origins of yet another bout of debateth.

I feareth you speaketh the truth Sir.