(August 11, 2017 at 9:56 am)Brian37 Wrote: Close proximity of individual atoms that by themselves are not a living thing, but because they bond like magnets exchanging electrons, that makes it very easy to go from non life to life.

Most of your post was just more stawman assumptions about my position. I won't respond any more to them.

I will respond to your statement above with these questions: If you are correct and it is so easy to go from life to non-life, why do you suppose scientists now take the position that spontaneous generation has been refuted? If it is so easy, why don't we see it happening all the time such that spontaneous generation would be widely accepted?

---

(August 11, 2017 at 10:44 am)Brian37 Wrote: Your avatar lists you as Christian, you are still being intellectually dishonest if you are trying to claim that you are not trying to put your God of the bible in as the start of evolution.

Wrong again, Brian. I already told you I was a common descent denier. So why would I put God as the start of something I do not ascribe to?

---

(August 11, 2017 at 10:42 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

rjh4 is back Wrote:I was trying to show you how the logic didn't seem to flow for me and maybe I was focusing on the wrong part of your position. Of course I was just making something up as the hypothesis. But my point was that some, if not all, proposed hypotheses on this subject, may be wrong. (I was just picking a ridiculous one that all would agree was wrong.) How can a claim that there is no natural mechanism be unsupported based on hypotheses that are wrong or even potentially wrong?

The same way a claim that you didn't have any way to drive to Columbia, SC this morning is refuted, even if my proposed method of you doing so might not be the right one. I claimed there was no way you could do it. To refute me, all you have to do is show that there was a way you could do it. Maybe I should only have claimed that you weren't in Columbia this morning; then if you wanted to bother to refute me, you would have to show you actually were in town this morning instead of just pointing out ways that you could have gotten here.

That's why I shouldn't go around telling people what can't be, unless I'm sure there's no way it could be. Even if you never arrived in Columbia, SC at all, I'm wrong if you could have driven here.

rjh4 is back Wrote:Let me explain it this way:

You say: "When you claim there is no natural mechanism...All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism". Given any of those "possible" natural mechanisms, would it not be fair of me to then say: "Prove that the natural mechanism can produce life from non-life, and until you do my claim stands"?

As I said above, if somebody actually produced life from non-life in the lab, I would agree that my claim would then be unsupported.

If anyone ever succeeds in producing life from non-life in a lab, your claim was always unsupported, wasn't it? It just wasn't disproven yet. There's a difference. I'm not saying that your claim is disproven, I'm saying it's unsupported. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can prove that life could not have begun by a natural process. Claiming that there is no such process is a position you can't support.

You could certainly have said that we don't know for sure what natural mechanism is responsible for the origin of life, and that we can't reasonably claim to have 100% certainty that the mechanism for the origin of life was, in fact, natural. But you claimed that there is no natural mechanism, and you are not able to meet the burden of proof for that. All I have to do to show that your claim is unreasonable is a possible way that there could have been a natural origin for life (and there are several) and the rational thing for you to do would be to revise your claim to a position of less certainty.

Since that seems to actually be your position (that a natural mechanism for the origin of life is unproven), that should be your claim.

Now to me, it's probabilistic: a natural origin seems much more likely given the information that we have than a miraculous origin, even if there is some sort of God that started the universe. God poofing the first cell into existence billions of years ago seems not to be what any religion actually claims as their deity's MO for starting life, but if that's how you want to roll, it's less unlikely than most other supernatural abiogenesis claims in that it at least doesn't contradict the evidence we have that the earliest detectable signs of life were of microorganisms.

Were I a Christian who accepted evolution, I would think God making man from dust would be a nice metaphor for humans evolving from microorganisms.

Ok...I do see where you are coming from regarding unsupported vs. unproven.

I didn't think I actually made that claim but I looked back and I did say:

"Perhaps no atheists wanted to push back as doing so might highlight the lack of any known naturalistic mechanism for forming life from non-life????"

This does have the claim embedded into it.

Good catch, Mr. Agenda. I should have been more careful.

I hereby withdraw my claim regarding the lack of any known naturalistic mechanism for forming life from non-life.

Brian, that doesn't let you off the hook from explaining how life comes from non-life when you say it is so easy.

(August 11, 2017 at 1:06 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(August 10, 2017 at 11:56 pm)Godscreated Wrote:  I'm not oppressed.

GC

 Oh, so the folks here are not actually ganging up on you then? Well, that's good news.

  Yes some are and your one of them, it bothers me in that I have to answer stupid statements like this, but oppressed by not no. I have the ignore tool if I need it.

GC

(August 11, 2017 at 10:44 am)Brian37 Wrote: And we actually DO witness evolution in action today which is why we make new flu vaccines every year because science proves the virus evolves.

Sure, Brian, as in evolution means change. I am on board with evolution insofar as that is what you mean.

I said I was a common descent denier, not a change denier.

This is a perfect example of facts vs. scenario. Sure, I would agree with you that things change and, yes, we create new flu vaccines every year. Sure viruses evolve (change). I think we would agree that these are all facts. But that is quite far from proving common descent.

It appears as if you were committing the fallacy of equivocation. The old bait and switch concerning definitions of evolution.

(August 11, 2017 at 2:17 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 10:44 am)Brian37 Wrote: And we actually DO witness evolution in action today which is why we make new flu vaccines every year because science proves the virus evolves.

Sure, Brian, as in evolution means change. I am on board with evolution insofar as that is what you mean.

I said I was a common descent denier, not a change denier.

This is a perfect example of facts vs. scenario. Sure, I would agree with you that things change and, yes, we create new flu vaccines every year. Sure viruses evolve (change). I think we would agree that these are all facts. But that is quite far from proving common descent.

It appears as if you were committing the fallacy of equivocation. The old bait and switch concerning definitions of evolution.

GREAT, but you still do not get to cherry pick the parts of evolution you agree with and ignore the rest.

It still remains that a god is not needed to be a starting point. Not Jesus not Allah not Yahweh not Bhrama or Buddhist reincarnation.

Atoms bond automatically as individual atoms without help from fictional puppeteers. 

I am sorry that mundane reality isn't romantic and sexy enough for you, but that is your baggage, not mine.

Let me put it to you this way. There is no gravity deity named "Splat" magically pulling you to the ground if you jump off a skyscraper. Atoms don't need a magical force to bond either.

(August 11, 2017 at 8:19 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 10, 2017 at 11:56 pm)Godscreated Wrote:  I'm not oppressed.

GC

NO you are not.

Correct

Brian37 Wrote:Nobody here wants any theist arrested or murdered.

I don't remember anyone saying they did.

Brian37 Wrote:Yes theists claims annoy us. Yes, theists claims that infect science and politics irritate us. But no, you are not oppressed.

Didn't I say I wasn't oppressed, you ramble to much over nothing. Atheists claims are annoying also and we have rights to state what we see as the best way, it's not an exclusive club for atheist.

Brian37 Wrote:There are theists who are. Koptic and Kurish Chrisitans, Sunnis living under Shiites, Shiites living under Sunnis, LGBT and and atheists living in parts of theocracies, THEY are oppressed.

Some of those are surely oppressed, I do not disagree with you, what's your beef.

Braian37 Wrote:Theists living in the west merely being told they got it wrong, or "bullshit" only makes us blunt, not tyrants.

There are tyrants on this site and you know it and to deny it want change the fact. You tell Christians we're wrong but you never provide proof we'er wrong, that makes you bullies. I'm not referring to all atheist here or anywhere else.

Brian37 Wrote:WE DONT WANT THEISTS DEAD, we would like it if theists would actually think for themselves instead of blindly swallowing old mythology.

Again who said you did. We think well for ourselves and you have no proof to the contrary, you to often believe your opinions are reality when they aren't. Again until you can prove the Bible as myth you are making false statements about it.

Brian37 Wrote:We are not going to eat your babies or barbecue your kittens.

 I hope you want eat anyone's baby, now for cat, in some parts of the world they are considered quite the thing, so until we know all atheist do not enjoy cat the jury's still out.

GC

And you still have no evidence for your pet deity.

FYI I don't represent all atheists so other individuals eating habits you'd have to argue with them. 

It would be silly to assume there are no lax Jews who eat pork, or lax Hindus who eat beef.

(August 11, 2017 at 9:45 am)rjh4 is back Wrote: I am not an answers in genesis person. I am familiar with them but I do not work with or for them in any way.

So other than you disagree with the presuppositions that they take to interpret things, what do you disagree with in their definitions? Note, their definitions are pretty generic and would include any presuppositions, including yours. Or are you arguing that science, by definition, cannot be done if one takes an presuppositions other than naturalistic ones? How would you define science and historical science?

Sure...the nature article itself is not historical science. I thought it would be clear that I was talking about the science being reported on. Do you agree that is historical science?

You may not "be an answers in genesis" person but by your actions here you certainly behave and think like them. I didn't say you worked with or for them but thanks for putting words in my mouth. 

What definitions? If you can't point them out this is a BS question. (gee, seen that before....goose/gander)

As stated before my only presupposition is that magic/fantasy (god) does not exist in reality. I'm arguing that science can't be done with a presupposition of magic. With a fantasy presupposition then any result/interpretation (positive or negative) can be given a fantasy explanation, either positive or negative. That is not science, that's a belief in magic. 

Science definition?: I'll accept the google response. Historical science?: I'll accept the rationalwiki definition that includes the studies of paleontology, archaeology, forensics and geology in the absence of magic or god. There are other fields of study that could be included as long as they don't contain magic. 

The science being reported on was not historical science. Only your presupposition makes it historical science for you. 

Again, if you need magic to feel comfortable and safe, fine, believe the fantasy delusion but don't expect me to. Something tells me that you have doubts about the fantasy or you wouldn't be here in the first place. The time of god being a necessary psychological tool is over. Get used to it. 

Still waiting for you or the god fantasy to provide evidence of it's existence. Why do you think you and/or it keep dodging this question? 

Also waiting for you to prove that Superman does not exist.

(August 11, 2017 at 2:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 2:17 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: Sure, Brian, as in evolution means change. I am on board with evolution insofar as that is what you mean.

I said I was a common descent denier, not a change denier.

This is a perfect example of facts vs. scenario. Sure, I would agree with you that things change and, yes, we create new flu vaccines every year. Sure viruses evolve (change). I think we would agree that these are all facts. But that is quite far from proving common descent.

It appears as if you were committing the fallacy of equivocation. The old bait and switch concerning definitions of evolution.

GREAT, but you still do not get to cherry pick the parts of evolution you agree with and ignore the rest.

It still remains that a god is not needed to be a starting point. Not Jesus not Allah not Yahweh not Bhrama or Buddhist reincarnation.

Atoms bond automatically as individual atoms without help from fictional puppeteers. 

I am sorry that mundane reality isn't romantic and sexy enough for you, but that is your baggage, not mine.

Let me put it to you this way. There is no gravity deity named "Splat" magically pulling you to the ground if you jump off a skyscraper. Atoms don't need a magical force to bond either.

And you clearly do not get how stupid it sounds when you say:

Atoms bond automatically as individual atom then...bata bing bata boom...life.

Imagine sitting in a university freshman chemistry or biology class and an atheist student asking how life came from non-life. Imagine further that the atheist professor said the things you have been saying here. Do you really think the student would be satisfied with that answer? If so, I would not characterize that student as being skeptical of anything. Maybe you are just not very skeptical and believe anything you are told.

Do you think you could create life from non-life in the lab? I challenge you to! I challenge you to find someone who has done it without starting with material already derived from something living. I assure you, if you show that, I will concede the point that it is plausible that life came from non-life in a naturalistic manner and not say that it took a creator.

(August 11, 2017 at 3:12 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 2:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote: GREAT, but you still do not get to cherry pick the parts of evolution you agree with and ignore the rest.

It still remains that a god is not needed to be a starting point. Not Jesus not Allah not Yahweh not Bhrama or Buddhist reincarnation.

Atoms bond automatically as individual atoms without help from fictional puppeteers. 

I am sorry that mundane reality isn't romantic and sexy enough for you, but that is your baggage, not mine.

Let me put it to you this way. There is no gravity deity named "Splat" magically pulling you to the ground if you jump off a skyscraper. Atoms don't need a magical force to bond either.

And you clearly do not get how stupid it sounds when you say:

Atoms bond automatically as individual atom then...bata bing bata boom...life.

Imagine sitting in a university freshman chemistry or biology class and an atheist student asking how life came from non-life. Imagine further that the atheist professor said the things you have been saying here. Do you really think the student would be satisfied with that answer? If so, I would not characterize that student as being skeptical of anything. Maybe you are just not very skeptical and believe anything you are told.

Do you think you could create life from non-life in the lab? I challenge you to! I challenge you to find someone who has done it without starting with material already derived from something living. I assure you, if you show that, I will concede the point that it is plausible that life came from non-life in a naturalistic manner and not say that it took a creator.

You, "Mommy mommy, I cant stand that other people are not buying my Sky Hero gap answer."

Boo hoo, like I said, that is your baggage, not mine.

(August 11, 2017 at 2:14 pm)Godscreated Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 1:06 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote:  Oh, so the folks here are not actually ganging up on you then? Well, that's good news.

  Yes some are and your one of them, it bothers me in that I have to answer stupid statements like this, but oppressed by not no. I have the ignore tool if I need it.

GC

Just trying to sort it out.

So people are ganging up but they are not persecuting you.

You seem very conflicted and confused. You need FSM in your life.

Have a blessed day.

RAmen