Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

Lol, you're right. But I won't threaten to leave the debate again. At this point, I don't even think this qualifies as one. At any rate...I'm gonna keep my posts shorter to avoid responding so much, and avoid reading long em responses. Lets try an exchange over one thought at a time. Fair enough?

Whatever you can handle the best.

It is a Scientific theory that life began from lifeless matter.

I do not think it is scientific at all.

Evidence that such a thing could occur is available.

That’s not true at all, producing a racemic mixture does nothing to prove that a set of amino acids exhibiting homochiralty could ever form, and that’s what you need to produce life. Secondly, synthesizing building blocks in the lab does not prove that these building blocks can produce anything in nature.

The absurd suggestion that is NOT a theory, is that complex life SPONTANIOUSLY came from lifeless matter.

How else would the amino acids arrange in the proper sequence to produce self-replicating life?

How does not understanding one process differ from not understanding the other process? Are you claiming life is an unnatural process?

I am not sure what you’re asking here, you’re going to have to be more specific.

The origin of life is hardly an issue. It is not covered by any known religion rather claims the world was created as it existed at the time of writing the story. That is not a theory. That is bullshit.

Why? Because you say so?

There are living things and non-living things.

Yup.

There is nothing in living things which is not in non-living things.

Living things contain specified complexity, and the ability to self-replicate, neither is naturally found in non-living things (unless otherwise organized/assembled by a guiding mind).

Where else could life come from?

…from a guided intelligent process. You’re the kind of guy who’d try to argue that the patterns on the face of Mt. Rushmore were merely the product of wind erosion. I am calling that type of thinking absurd.

Even the great god Amun created the first man and woman out of clay and breathed life into them. Clay is not alive.

If you wanted to say that God created the first man and woman out of non-living matter then we’d be getting somewhere, but you’re trying to say “it just naturally happened.”

Yes. And as a side note. Everything you presented as an unfalsifiable claim, is falsifiable in one way or another and the subject of each claim given is verifiable.

Then tell me how you can falsify each of those claims, do not just assert that they are falsifiable (which they are not).

I tell you that God is in one (unfalsifiable claim)

I tell you the other is empty.

How can an omnipresent, immaterial God be in one jar but not in the other? Didn't I just falsify your claim?

Why do you keep assuming that all claims are scientifically testable when I have already given you numerous examples of claims that are not? That’s such a naïve view of epistemology. In a Godless Universe science would be impossible.

Personally I'm glad Statlers back.
I like a good laugh me.

I am glad I am back too! I get a good laugh hearing how you guys all think life can naturally arise from non-life because some intelligence in a laboratory was able to synthesize the amino acid building blocks, “look at all these brick buildings, did you know that they are the result of un-guided unintelligent natural processes? Yes, scientists proved it by building bricks in the laboratory and everyone knows that brick buildings are made of bricks! These people who believe that they are the constructed designs of architects are such morons and we should laugh at them!”

Thanks for that.