(August 11, 2017 at 2:59 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: You may not "be an answers in genesis" person but by your actions here you certainly behave and think like them.

Ok. I guess I will own up to that one.

Quote:I didn't say you worked with or for them but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

And I did not say you did. I was merely clarifying for your benefit.

Quote:What definitions?

Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.

Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.

Quote:As stated before my only presupposition is that magic/fantasy (god) does not exist in reality.

Very naive. Surely you presuppose more than that. Like: I can believe/trust the things I see. But I won't press the point.

Quote:I'm arguing that science can't be done with a presupposition of magic.

Sure it can. What about theists who deal regularly with operational science? And please don't be so stupid as to say there aren't any.

Quote: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.

So you define science to exclude all but naturalistic explanations. Fine. Good to know.

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

Did you read the article on the lab that produce RNA spontaneously under conditions that scientists think might have been around in the distant past? Mr. Agenda provided it. It was not from a Christian but an atheist (If I am mischaracterizing your position, Mr. Agenda, let me know.) The scientists were evolutionists. So I must ask, why don't you consider it historical science? Your position on this has me baffled.

Quote:Again, if you need magic to feel comfortable and safe, fine, believe the fantasy delusion but don't expect me to.

I don't and I don't expect you to.

Quote:Something tells me that you have doubts about the fantasy or you wouldn't be here in the first place.

That something is giving you wrong information.

Quote:The time of god being a necessary psychological tool is over. Get used to it.

Get used to it? I am and I agree with you. God is not a psychological tool at all, let alone a necessary one.

Quote: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?

You already said your presupposition is that God does not exist. Therefore, no evidence of any kind would change your mind. It would be impossible. You would have to change your presuppositions first.

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

You want me to prove a negative? So it would be appropriate to ask you to prove God doesn't exists?

(August 11, 2017 at 3:43 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 2:59 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: You may not "be an answers in genesis" person but by your actions here you certainly behave and think like them.

Ok. I guess I will own up to that one.

Quote:I didn't say you worked with or for them but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

And I did not say you did. I was merely clarifying for your benefit.

Quote:What definitions?

Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.

Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.

Quote:As stated before my only presupposition is that magic/fantasy (god) does not exist in reality.

Very naive. Surely you presuppose more than that. Like: I can believe/trust the things I see. But I won't press the point.

Quote:I'm arguing that science can't be done with a presupposition of magic.

Sure it can. What about theists who deal regularly with operational science? And please don't be so stupid as to say there aren't any.

Quote: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.

So you define science to exclude all but naturalistic explanations. Fine. Good to know.

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

Did you read the article on the lab that produce RNA spontaneously under conditions that scientists think might have been around in the distant past? Mr. Agenda provided it. It was not from a Christian but an atheist (If I am mischaracterizing your position, Mr. Agenda, let me know.) The scientists were evolutionists. So I must ask, why don't you consider it historical science? Your position on this has me baffled.

Quote:Again, if you need magic to feel comfortable and safe, fine, believe the fantasy delusion but don't expect me to.

I don't and I don't expect you to.

Quote:Something tells me that you have doubts about the fantasy or you wouldn't be here in the first place.

That something is giving you wrong information.

Quote:The time of god being a necessary psychological tool is over. Get used to it.

Get used to it? I am and I agree with you. God is not a psychological tool at all, let alone a necessary one.

Quote: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?

You already said your presupposition is that God does not exist. Therefore, no evidence of any kind would change your mind. It would be impossible. You would have to change your presuppositions first.

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

You want me to prove a negative? So it would be appropriate to ask you to prove God doesn't exists?

No he is saying you are doing that.

You, "Science doesn't know how non life went to life, now prove my God didn't start evolution."

If you are going to ask us to disprove your God, then try disproving Superman. 

We agree you cant prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove your God does exist.

Otherwise, prove Allah does not exist.
Prove Yahweh does not exist.
Prove Brahma does not exist.
Prove Angelina Jolie is not giving me a blowjob as you read this.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party.

Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be easily asserted without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence."

So before you even try to ask the question of how non life went to life, and want that cause to be your pet deity, you have to prove that your god exists and is even necessary.

Anything less is a non starter.

Regardless you are giving special pleading to life, I doubt very seriously you assign a magic sky wizard to being responsible to the molecules in your poop, or the atoms in a rock. 

God did it is the same as
Allah did it
Is the same as
Vishnu did it
Is the same as
Yoda did it.

All nonsense.

and try to wrap your noggin around how far a light year is:

light can go from earth to the moon in less than 2 seconds

Apollo astronauts took 3 days, IIRC the fastest rocket/spacecraft has taken ~ 8-10 hours.

And that 2 seconds is just for light, in 10 hours it is past Pluto and a light year is how far it goes IN A YEAR. It's a long way !!

(August 11, 2017 at 4:18 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: and try to wrap your noggin around how far a light year is:

light can go from earth to the moon in less than 2 seconds

Apollo astronauts took 3 days, IIRC the fastest rocket/spacecraft has taken ~ 8-10 hours.

And that 2 seconds is just for light, in 10 hours it is past Pluto and a light year is how far it goes IN A YEAR.  It's a long way !!

No kidding, the size of our universe is yet another reason I cannot swallow the idea of a magic sky wizard. Mostly empty, and hostile to life. It took 40 years for just 1 man made object to get out of our solar system. Considering humans have lived most of their existence in scientific ignorance and only the past 150 years has science really taken off, he wants us to believe all this was put here for humans.

Fine, if he wants to test that theory he can take a rocket to space and take a space walk, take his helmet off and find out what a grand "design" all this is.

rjh4 is back Wrote: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.

Good form.

(August 11, 2017 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

rjh4 is back Wrote: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.

Good form.  

Your evil plan is working. Soon you will have young Skywalker join the dark side.

(August 11, 2017 at 4:01 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be easily asserted without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence."

I wonder how many have really thought through how this can be applied.  For example.

Easily asserted without evidence: "God does not exist."

Based on what Christopher Hitchens says, the claim can be easily dismissed without evidence to imply the only other possible result I can think of: "God exists."

Easily asserted without evidence: "God exists."

Based on what Christopher Hitchens says, the claim can be easily dismissed without evidence to imply the only other possible result I can think of: "God does not exist."

A statement that can be used like that is essentially useless as far as I can see.

Quote:So before you even try to ask the question of how non life went to life, and want that cause to be your pet deity, you have to prove that your god exists and is even necessary.

BS.

The one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. I have tried hard not to make any claims. I did make at least one claim that I had to withdraw as it was unsupportable as pointed out by Mr. Agenda. As far as I know, I have not made any claims regarding God. Furthermore, you asked me not to talk about God and I will respect that. 


The claim that it was easy to go from life to non-life via naturalistic mechanisms was yours, not mine. So the burden is on you as it is your claim.

I don't think you have come close to proving it.

Does anyone here think Brian has come close to proving that it is easy to go from life to non-life via naturalistic mechanisms?

---

(August 11, 2017 at 4:18 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: and try to wrap your noggin around how far a light year is:

light can go from earth to the moon in less than 2 seconds

Apollo astronauts took 3 days, IIRC the fastest rocket/spacecraft has taken ~ 8-10 hours.

And that 2 seconds is just for light, in 10 hours it is past Pluto and a light year is how far it goes IN A YEAR.  It's a long way !!

It certainly is hard to do, i.e., wrap your noggin around it.

Sometimes I think about space, as in empty space, and wonder how it could be filled with nothing. I mean I know it is there. You can create such spaces with a bell jar and a vacuum. But it still boggles my mind to think of what empty space is...or is not. I just find it hard to conceptualize. Probably sounds stupid...but I just thought I would throw that out there as a bit of who I am.

(August 11, 2017 at 5:02 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 4:01 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be easily asserted without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence."

I wonder how many have really thought through how this can be applied.  For example.

Easily asserted without evidence: "God does not exist."

Based on what Christopher Hitchens says, the claim can be easily dismissed without evidence to imply the only other possible result I can think of: "God exists."

Easily asserted without evidence: "God exists."

Based on what Christopher Hitchens says, the claim can be easily dismissed without evidence to imply the only other possible result I can think of: "God does not exist."

A statement that can be used like that is essentially useless as far as I can see.

Quote:So before you even try to ask the question of how non life went to life, and want that cause to be your pet deity, you have to prove that your god exists and is even necessary.

BS.

The one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. I have tried hard not to make any claims. I did make at least one claim that I had to withdraw as it was unsupportable as pointed out by Mr. Agenda. As far as I know, I have not made any claims regarding God. Furthermore, you asked me not to talk about God and I will respect that. 


The claim that it was easy to go from life to non-life via naturalistic mechanisms was yours, not mine. So the burden is on you as it is your claim.

I don't think you have come close to proving it.

Does anyone here think Brian has come close to proving that it is easy to go from life to non-life via naturalistic mechanisms?

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH

Ok fine, PROVE IT.

You and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist. All of you get your best scientists, have a pow wow. Come up with a neutral method, and neutral control groups, test and falsify it, then when you figure out who was right, get back to us.

You just accused us of wanting you to prove a negative when in reality that is what you were doing. 

Hitchens is full of shit. Ok, fine. PROVE IT. Not up to us to prove what you claim.

All claims are not true by default just because someone can make sound waves with their mouths or type on a computer. If "prove it isn't true" worked, then all gods claimed in our species history are all true since you cannot prove they are not true. You know that is utter nonsense.

(August 11, 2017 at 5:29 pm)Brian37 Wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH

Ok fine, PROVE IT.

To what are you referring? My statement: "I don't think you have come close to proving it."

You want me to prove what goes on in my mind? It has really come to that?

Why not just withdraw your claim that life can easily come from non-life via naturalistic mechanisms and be done with it?

Quote:Hitchens is full of shit. Ok, fine. PROVE IT.

Once again you are asking me to prove your claim. You said Hitchens is full of shit...not me...you prove it.

You do get the difference between a positive claim and an opinion don't you? They are generally worded differently. If you are just giving your opinion, say so. I will not ask you to prove you opinion. I may or may not share your opinions depending on the issue but it would seem silly for me to ask you to prove your opinion.

No and please stop!

You do NOT have to prove your claim.

But if you do not, nobody is obligated to swallow it just because you claim it.

If your claim is the Christian God is the cause of all this, and considering you identify as such, I am reasonable in saying that is what your ultimate goal is. So unless you are lying to us and you are really a Muslim or Jew or Hindu, you DO believe that Jesus and daddy are responsible for how non life went to life.

FINE, get in line, take a number. Jews think Yahweh did it. Muslims think Allah did it. Hindus think Brahma did it. Buddhist even without a god, think it is an infinite cycle through reincarnation. I DONT CARE.

You are simply getting pissed because I am not treating your pet deity as special.

GET IN LINE TAKE A NUMBER.