"Creationism is not science"

[PostmodernProphet]

I think the experiment you brought up here is evidence that life began or "sparked" naturally. I don't think you can cite this as an example of "proof of life's divine nature." On the contrary, I think it shows proof that we have all the ingredients for making life already at our disposal. You can't say it shows the opposite simply because it's incomplete. If Edison had stopped trying after his first dozen or so failures at making the lightbulb, we'd all still be reading scrolls by candlelight (someone else probably would've invented it eventually, but you get the idea.)
Physics teaches us that all things organize themselves naturally so-to-speak in our universe. Given factors like geo-pressure, temperature, chemistry, physics, etc. I think we'll figure out the secrets to life's beginnings and I don't think we'll find that they're in any way "divine." We keep finding that life can survive almost anywhere on this planet, from the most icy deeps of the Arctic ocean, to the most boiling-hot magma fissures on the ocean floor. I think Pale's comment earlier about "water" appearing magically is not-well-thought-out. Hydrogen and Oxygen are two of the most abundant elements in the universe. We already know it exists on atleast three other celestial bodies within our own solar system including our moon. And knowing what we know about the vitality of organic life and it's uncanny ability to survive the most inhospitable environments, I think it's totally plausible that the chemically, gaseous, volcanic early-Earth is the perfect place for it to have sparked and/or taken hold.

First, I did not bring this experiment up, you did...

second, it is ridiculous to say it is evidence that life began naturally, when the guy who conducted the experiment specifically states the experiment is making something which is NOT alive....

third, I have not cited this experiment as "proof" of life's divine nature....I do not believe that such is susceptible to proof, any more than I believe your position is susceptible to proof....

fourth, yes, we have all the ingredients for life at our disposal....yet surprisingly according to your assumptions those ingredients have only produced "life" once in the billions of years of earth's existence.....why didn't those ingredients spring into "life" last Thursday, or in 1235 AD.......

fifth, yes all nature seems to have a tendency to organize itself....according to certain natural laws......where did those laws come from?......did gravity come into being with the Big Bang or did it precede it?.....has pi always been pi?......were there laws governing matter before there was matter?.....

sixth, "Hydrogen and Oxygen are two of the most abundant elements in the universe.".....why?.....why aren't Nitrogen and Helium the most abundant, why not lead and chromium......

[PostmodernProphet]

Why would life be any different?

because while science has been able to experimentally reproduce the condensation of gases, they have NOT been able to reproduce life.......nor, despite their claims, are they close to it.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Simple.

cool, do it again.....and while you are at it, throw in some life.....

[Immanuel]

second, it is ridiculous to say it is evidence that life began naturally, when the guy who conducted the experiment specifically states the experiment is making something which is NOT alive....

Just a quick point of observation here... even if the product of this experiment were alive, it still took a somewhat intelligent being to induce the experiment and to create life. It didn't spark naturally.

Immie

[Pale Rider]

(shrug) In my opinion it is simple. In space, mass has gravity. Gravity pulls things towards it. If there's a gas nebula floating in space (as we know there is in developing solar systems because it can be seen in telescopes plus it's essential to the formation of stars) it'll be pulled toward the gravitational field produced by the developing planetoid and gobbled up as will other floating debris in the planetoid's orbital path. Voila, oceans. Simple.

- - alrighty Hag... you should have been a scientist, although I think if you were, you'd be disappointed more often than not.

[Missileman]

would that be contrasted with the belief that the supernatural controls natural events and forces without being invoked?......if so "magic" would not be involved in religion......

A being using it's supernatural abilities to control natural events and forces fits the definition of magic. I've no idea why some of you are so loathe to admit it.

[Missileman]

ig·no·rant /ˈɪgnərənt/ Pronunciation Key
–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

For someone who whines like a fucking little girl about personal attacks, you sure do like to engage in it. Maybe it's not possible to have a reasonable debate with you. Seems every time you start not doing so well you resort to insults and lies, I assume to end things before a total defeat.

[PostmodernProphet]

A being using it's supernatural abilities to control natural events and forces fits the definition of magic. I've no idea why some of you are so loathe to admit it.

because your definition implies primarily that we control the supernatural being, which would NOT fit the understanding of Christianity......

[Chessplayer]

In space, mass has gravity. Gravity pulls things towards it. If there's a gas nebula floating in space (as we know there is in developing solar systems because it can be seen in telescopes plus it's essential to the formation of stars) it'll be pulled toward the gravitational field produced by the developing planetoid and gobbled up as will other floating debris in the planetoid's orbital path. Voila, oceans. Simple.

Sorry, but you are referring to Gravity, also known as the "Theory of Gravity."

[Missileman]

because your definition implies primarily that we control the supernatural being, which would NOT fit the understanding of Christianity......

It implied no such thing, you did.

[PostmodernProphet]

It implied no such thing, you did.

/shrugs.....I don't think it is much of a stretch to suggest that saying "invoking the supernatural" is a bit different that saying that the supernatural acts on it's own......

[Missileman]

/shrugs.....I don't think it is much of a stretch to suggest that saying "invoking the supernatural" is a bit different that saying that the supernatural acts on it's own......

The magician (God) invokes the supernatural, not the audience...so yeah, it was a long stretch.

[Hagbard Celine]

Sorry, but you are referring to Gravity, also known as the "Theory of Gravity."

Jesus...H....can't breathe....due..to...thickness of.....stupidity in the room...*gasp*....

[hjmick]

Sorry, but you are referring to Gravity, also known as the "Theory of Gravity."

Actually, gravity is a scientific law, not a theory.

[SpidermanTUba]

I think it's absolutely against anything remotely related to common sense to think all this - how our universe works - happened by luck and random chance or accident. It's silly. Macro Evolution is a JOKE. Absolute lunacy.

'common sense' ? LOL!

If all we needed was 'common sense' there would be no need for science in the first place. Your saying 'evolution is wrong because my common sense says so' is enough to refute mountains of evidence to the contrary?