(March 11, 2018 at 12:54 am)Astreja Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 10:13 pm)He lives Wrote: The evidence is life itself.

Nope.  Life is evidence for life.  It isn't evidence for gods.

---

(March 10, 2018 at 10:11 pm)He lives Wrote: Intelligent design is the only realistic possibility. Happenstance is an impossibility.

Intelligent design isn't a possibility at all until you have demonstrated that gods or god-like beings actually exist.

Then you have a new problem:  Where did the god(s) or god-like beings come from?

By the way, there is nothing "happenstance" about organic chemistry.  Chemical processes are quite explainable and fairly regular in their operation, rather than being random.

So what if I told you that consciousness is not part of the brain and actually resides outside of the body? By the way I know that chemical processes are quite explainable and fairly regular in their operation, rather than being random. My posts were about abiogenesis or the beginning of life. It is described as having conditions just right at the right time and place to turn inorganic matter into living matter. Thus a deduction of happenstance.

Quote:My posts were about abiogenesis or the beginning of life. It is described as having conditions just right at the right time and place to turn inorganic matter into living matter. Thus a deduction of happenstance.

Nope not happenstance.Your deduction is total bollocks .

(March 11, 2018 at 1:50 am)He lives Wrote: So what if I told you that consciousness is not part of the brain and actually resides outside of the body?

I would demand that you provide testable neurological evidence for your claim.  (Don't try to bullshit me, either -- I work in medicine and am knowledgeable about neuroscience.)

Quote: By the way I know that chemical processes are quite explainable and fairly regular in their operation, rather than being random. My posts were about abiogenesis or the beginning of life. It is described as having conditions just right at the right time and place to turn inorganic matter into living matter. Thus a deduction of happenstance.

When you are dealing with a universe 13.8 billion years old, populated by at least 1 billion trillion stars and comprised primarily of the elements of which life is actually made, there are rather a lot of possibilities for conditions being "just right at the right time and place."  (And don't try to bullshit me on this, either -- one of my hobbies is astronomy, and I studied physics, biology and chemistry in school.)

Please note that the most probable places for discussions about "right time and place" to occur is in those places, including here, where sentient life has evolved.  This natural bias creates the illusion that humans are somehow special and unique.  I doubt that very, very much.

I'll never get over the theist attitude of "if this event wasn't ultimately guided from on high, it's meaningless/worthless." It's such a negative, pissy outlook. And some have the gall to call us nihilists.

Not only that; theists seem to think that one requires eternal life to have meaning and purpose. No. Eternal life negates intrinsic purpose because it's impossible to get to "the point of it all." We're all in the same boat, ultimately: We have to craft our own meaning.

(March 11, 2018 at 2:26 am)Astreja Wrote:

(March 11, 2018 at 1:50 am)He lives Wrote: So what if I told you that consciousness is not part of the brain and actually resides outside of the body?

I would demand that you provide testable neurological evidence for your claim.  (Don't try to bullshit me, either -- I work in medicine and am knowledgeable about neuroscience.)

Here is a link: https://www.consciouslifestylemag.com/no...the-brain/

Quote: By the way I know that chemical processes are quite explainable and fairly regular in their operation, rather than being random. My posts were about abiogenesis or the beginning of life. It is described as having conditions just right at the right time and place to turn inorganic matter into living matter. Thus a deduction of happenstance.

When you are dealing with a universe 13.8 billion years old, populated by at least 1 billion trillion stars and comprised primarily of the elements of which life is actually made, there are rather a lot of possibilities for conditions being "just right at the right time and place."  (And don't try to bullshit me on this, either -- one of my hobbies is astronomy, and I studied physics, biology and chemistry in school.)

Please note that the most probable places for discussions about "right time and place" to occur is in those places, including here, where sentient life has evolved.  This natural bias creates the illusion that humans are somehow special and unique.  I doubt that very, very much.

Then I shall demand the same thing of you. Prove to me that all of these conditions existed on the earth and that life was not intelligently designed. While you are about it prove that life was created out of inorganic material here on earth. Testable evidence only.

Quote:Then I shall demand the same thing of you. Prove to me that all of these conditions existed on the earth and that life was not intelligently designed.

The first has already been done beyond reasonable doubt 

The burden is on you to prove intelligent design not for us to prove that it's not .

(March 11, 2018 at 8:40 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:Then I shall demand the same thing of you. Prove to me that all of these conditions existed on the earth and that life was not intelligently designed.

The first has already been done beyond reasonable doubt 

The burden is on you to prove intelligent design not for us to prove that it's not .

The information you are looking for is here: https://iands.org/

(March 11, 2018 at 8:50 am)He lives Wrote:

(March 11, 2018 at 8:40 am)Tizheruk Wrote: The first has already been done beyond reasonable doubt 

The burden is on you to prove intelligent design not for us to prove that it's not .

The information you are looking for is here: https://iands.org/

You're just precious.

(March 11, 2018 at 8:40 am)Tizheruk Wrote: The burden is on you to prove intelligent design not for us to prove that it's not .

That is very convenient for you isn't it? Your whole premise is based on happenstance. You do not have any testable evidence that life began on earth when conditions were just right yet you expect proof from me.