Moderator: Moderators
-I posed the following question to the writer of a letter to the
Times about creationist material being sent to schools. Which of
these two statements is the more rational?
1 Nothing created everything from nothing.
2 Something created everything from nothing.
Or to reduce them even further,
1 Nothing created everything.
2 Something created everything.
Jack wrote: 1 Nothing created everything from nothing.
Ian Lowe wrote:Jack wrote: 1 Nothing created everything from nothing.
Welcome to the BCSE Forums, Jack.
Can I ask what you are referring to here? it does not sound like any scientific theory of the origins of makind or the universe that I am familiar with?
It certainly isn't an accurate representation of Evolution, or, for that matter, Big Bang Theory.
Please, explain what you mean.
Ian.
The point I am making is that I am trying to extrct from someone a rational statement concerning origins.
You are assuming that it is a case of 'either/or'. First, remove anySo which of the two statements is the most rational?
Jack wrote:
1 Nothing created everything.
2 Something created everything.
Jack wrote:
There appears to be only 2 scenarios to explain the origin of everything.
1 Nothing became something unaided by nothing. Put another way, first there was nothing, then it exploded. By default this has to be the atheist evolutionist's view.
2 Nothing became something by a first cause. The creationist's view.
But number 1 is irrational! They only way you can try and get round it is likely to be by semantics.
Jack
mcowan32 wrote:There is no mechanism for the abiogenesis of the complex macromolecules of living organisms.
Protein synthesis, for example, is irreducibly complex, requiring DNA, a suitable transcription mechanism to form m-RNA, up to 20 different t-RNA molecules stereospecifically designed to select only the L-enantiomers of the optically active amino acids (19 of them!) plus a medium in which to carry this out. But DNA itself requires proteins for its own synthesis!!
Spontaneous generation was debunked (grin) by Redi in the late 17th century. Why are you trying to foist it on our schoolchildren again?
PS. Read Thursday's Independent and Saturday's Financial Times.
There is no mechanism for the abiogenesis of the complex
macromolecules of living organisms. Protein synthesis, for
example, is irreducibly complex, requiring DNA, a suitable
transcription mechanism to form m-RNA, up to 20 different t-RNA
molecules stereospecifically designed to select only the
L-enantiomers of the optically active amino acids (19 of them!)
plus a medium in which to carry this out. But DNA itself
requires proteins for its own synthesis!!
As I've said elsewhere, God created chickens with the capacity
to lay eggs. (Don't laugh unless you have a better answer.)
As every year 7 Biology student will tell you: only life begets
life.
Spontaneous generation was debunked (grin) by Redi in the late
17th century. Why are you trying to foist it on our
schoolchildren again?
As you'll see John, we are dealing with people of great faith.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest