(April 4, 2016 at 9:11 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(April 4, 2016 at 8:51 pm)IATIA Wrote: Which means that you cannot detect god. So you believe in nothing?

Did you miss the whole "we walk by faith not by sight" thing? If we could detect God with the natural senses, then we wouldn't need faith now would we?

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. - Hebrews 11:1

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:6

Faith is believing in something without good reasons to do so.

A logical mind sees the con in having faith without evidence to support the existence of something.

(April 4, 2016 at 9:13 pm)Kitan Wrote: A logical mind sees the con in having faith without evidence to support the existence of something.

You've admitted to believing that life started through abiogenesis despite there being no evidence of that happening...

welcome to the club.

(April 4, 2016 at 9:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You've admitted to believing that life started through abiogenesis despite there being no evidence of that happening...

welcome to the club.

You have already been informed of the error of your thinking processes.

You will never be welcomed to the club with your irrationality controlling you.

(April 4, 2016 at 9:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(April 4, 2016 at 9:13 pm)Kitan Wrote: A logical mind sees the con in having faith without evidence to support the existence of something.

You've admitted to believing that life started through abiogenesis despite there being no evidence of that happening...

welcome to the club.

Some dummies think that a woman was created from a guy's rib.

(April 2, 2016 at 12:53 am)robvalue Wrote: Did I read this right, that if I gave you some particular life form, it would be impossible to tell if it was designed or not? Yet your whole argument is that humans are designed?

Why do you keep asking me to define what I think things look like? I'm not making any claims. You know that ridiculing me isn't the same as defending your position, right? It's called deflection, or the "tu quoque" fallacy. You're making a claim, and I'm pointing out why the claim is flawed. If you can't cope with that, it's probably because I'm right. I'm not claiming to be able to identify "designed" or "non designed" life.

I don't even know what you mean by "designed". I've asked for clarification and received none. I don't know what you think happened. Creationism? Guided evolution? A mixture of the two? I'm starting to suspect you guys don't even know what you believe.

I think it's been demonstrated quite thoroughly that this whole claim is entirely bogus, from every angle it's been approached from. We haven't even established what the claim is. If you have to keep it so elastic as to cover any convenient scenario, you may as well claim nothing.

It's not like I'm claiming it to be 100% fact, I just think it is a reasonable interpretation to think that it was designed. If you're saying we can't interpret evidence without proving your interpretation to be correct, then science would halt. Designed life would have characteristics that can be explained only by the result of intelligence.
 My main goal on this thread is not to prove God's existence, but to show why it is not completely irrational, illogical, and/or delusional to believe that life was designed. It bothers me when people write things like kitan did in the opening statement of the thread.

Quote: Did you miss the whole "we walk by faith not by sight" thing?

Of course not.  We just dismissed it as horseshit like everything else you say.

(April 4, 2016 at 6:50 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(April 4, 2016 at 6:34 pm)AJW333 Wrote: It isn't that the mechanism of action "does not require a natural explanation" I would suggest that it  "does not have a natural explanation." Abiogenesis isn't something we ever see in nature so why do we assume it happens/happened? According to atheists it must have happened naturally because there is no possibility of it occurring any other way. This is due to inherent bias in the atheist worldview. Without the bias, a supernatural entity is a real possibility.

What does accepting abiogenesis or not have to do with atheism?

It is used as an example of faith. No one ever saw it happen, it can't be reproduced naturally and it cannot be said to be a scientific fact because it fails to meet the necessary criteria. On the other hand, we have independent eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and his miracles who wrote down their observations and were prepared to die for the truth of what they wrote. Therefore, I would contend that there is more factual evidence for Christ than there is for abiogenesis. As such, I would consider atheists who believe in abiogenesis to be a people of faith.

(April 4, 2016 at 8:41 pm)abaris Wrote:

(April 4, 2016 at 6:53 pm)AJW333 Wrote: From Wiki

"The number of chromosomes in an organism's genome also does not necessarily correlate with the amount of DNA in its genome."

Oh, great. You actually found a wiki link. I'm impressed.

I was trying to find a description of the number of base pairs and amino acids in ophioglossum reticulatum. This link makes a valid point and my money is on this plant having more chromosomes than a human but a much simpler genetic code.

(April 4, 2016 at 9:38 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(April 4, 2016 at 9:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You've admitted to believing that life started through abiogenesis despite there being no evidence of that happening...

welcome to the club.

Some dummies think that a woman was created from a guy's rib.

There is nothing dumb about it. A supernatural God can do whatever he wants.