Who cares? We're watching an argument between two folks who don't have the sense to understand that any utility in this argument has long been superseded by plugged ears and shouts of "lalalalala".

(August 12, 2017 at 9:48 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 9:05 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: I am a creationist. So as you might expect, I think the God who created used similar building blocks in the various kinds that were created.

Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being confine itself to one design format? Surely it would not require any 'extra effort' on God's part to make each organism's instruction format radically different, which would incidentally make common descent wildly implausible. Do you think God wants us to think all the organisms we've discovered so far are a product of common descent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleogenetics#Evolution

This is an interesting one to answer. So assuming DNA as the "one design format", the answer to your first question is: I have no idea. But even given the commonality of DNA amongst living things, I am not sure how valid the "one design format" really is. The fact is each organism still does have its own instructions (DNA sequence, different design format), and while some of the instructions are similar, when changes are made to DNA the changes are almost exclusively detrimental, and if enough changes are made it leads to death of the organism, not some other type of organism.

The answer to your last question is: No.

---

Quote:You didn't learn anything about Christianity until you were 19? That's quite unusual, I'd love to hear the story behind that. Were your parents atheists?

No they were not atheists. I was raised in the Episcopal church. They just really never talked much about Jesus or the Bible. Mostly talked about doing good in the world. So it wasn't until I was in college that I really looked into it.

---

Quote:For a social species, the ability to reach consensus can be more important to reproductive success in many cases than whether the consensus is correct.

Then why would anyone here who is an evolutionist, think it is a "bad" thing that so many people believe in God? Isn't it then a "good" thing from an evolutionary point of view?

---

(August 12, 2017 at 10:20 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Who cares? We're watching an argument between two folks who don't have the sense to understand that any utility in this argument has long been superseded by plugged ears and shouts of "lalalalala".

I think I agree with you there, and I am pretty sure I am one of the parties. So...point well taken.

(August 12, 2017 at 10:20 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Who cares? We're watching an argument between two folks who don't have the sense to understand that any utility in this argument has long been superseded by plugged ears and shouts of "lalalalala".

Exactly why should anyone entertain nonsense? They can, but I don't have the patience for it. R is defending crap and had been early in the thread trying to claim he was not trying to debate God only to recently admit he is a creationist. 

If others want to wade through his fantasy and allow him to pretend he has real science, they can. I like to cut to the chase. 

Nonsense is nonsense. Kinda like when Judge Judy's crap detector goes of and she is short and blunt and to the point.

(August 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm)Brian37 Wrote: only to recently admit he is a creationist. 

If you noticed my introduction, I have been here before. All my previous posts were merged with this current account. Search through them. I have admitted plenty of times before that I was a creationist. I actually figured it was already known. I certainly wasn't trying to hide anything.

Still no pushback on my syllogism, though, Brian. You know, the one that if valid and sound means that I would not be the only one here thinking that your position on the ease of going from non-life to life via naturalistic mechanism is BS.

I already know that most people here think most of my positions are BS right off the bat. That is to be expected. Though it is kind of nice to realize that it is not entirely the case, even if it is a result of an incredible silence.

(August 12, 2017 at 1:39 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm)Brian37 Wrote: only to recently admit he is a creationist. 

If you noticed my introduction, I have been here before. All my previous posts were merged with this current account. Search through them. I have admitted plenty of times before that I was a creationist. I actually figured it was already known. I certainly wasn't trying to hide anything.

Still no pushback on my syllogism, though, Brian. You know, the one that if valid and sound means that I would not be the only one here thinking that your position on the ease of going from non-life to life via naturalistic mechanism is BS.

I already know that most people here think most of my positions are BS right off the bat. That is to be expected. Though it is kind of nice to realize that it is not entirely the case, even if it is a result of an incredible silence.

That says it all. You buy garbage.

(August 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

rjh4 is back Wrote:I already know that most people here think most of my positions are BS right off the bat.

That says it all. You buy garbage.

You mean I am wrong about that?

(August 11, 2017 at 10:46 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 9:51 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: This is the entire point, god can't be philosophized into existence.

He doesn't have to. He already exists. And He can't be ignored into non-existence.

Sure he can.  Lots of gods invented by humanity have been ignored into non-existence.  Yhwh and his bastard kid are merely next on the list.

(August 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 10:46 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: He doesn't have to. He already exists. And He can't be ignored into non-existence.

Sure he can.  Lots of gods invented by humanity have been ignored into non-existence.  Yhwh and his bastard kid are merely next on the list.

I wonder. Can you be ignored out of existence? I will try and we'll see.

Trying to unpack the disagreement here, and steer it onto a better course.....

Are we trying to gauge the relative "ease" of life arising out of organic chemistry?  It's certainly easier than life arising out of inorganic chemistry, and for the reasons that brian suggested.  Carbon is the stuff of life precisely because of how many bonds it's capable of making, just for starters.  It has little competition on that count.  Without that ability the complex organic compounds we see in our kind of life wouldn't be possible.  

Silicon, maybe, but it wouldn't be as easy, and it just gets more difficult from there.  Ultimately though, I don;t know that you're both using the same metrics or even talking about the same thing.  It seems as though you're wondering whether or not abiogenesis is rare or common, rj - but I'm not sure that it matters either way in the context of brians response or the subject of contention...as we would only be discussing a rare natural event, or a common one.  Both are natural.  Life is organic chemistry either way - and even if god played in the dirt, he played with organic compounds, without which, life as we know it would not have been possible.  Does it actually matter what stirred the soup, fundamentally?

Minimalist doesn't claim to be a god. He actually posts here more than any god does. That would suggest he really exists.