(March 17, 2018 at 2:33 pm)He lives Wrote: Happenstance is just another word meaning abiogenesis. The whole premise behind abiogenesis is happenstance. The hypothesis is that conditions were just right for life to come about by extraordinary means. However due to the amazing complexity of the DNA molecule, abiogenesis is an impossibility just like it is an impossibility for nature to create a encyclopedia when there is a windstorm with lightening. I don't think you really understand just how improbable abiogenesis is.

You keep offering the same bullshit assertions with nothing of any substance to back them up. At this point, I can conclude you are nothing more than a troll.

If by happenstance he means it just so happens that chemistry contains the possibility of assembling new individuals by way of sexual reproduction then yes that obviously is a fact.

If he wants to argue that it is only a potential for chemistry because some pixies hammered fairy dust into DNA, then he is free to present his evidence.

(March 17, 2018 at 3:10 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(March 17, 2018 at 2:33 pm)He lives Wrote: Happenstance is just another word meaning abiogenesis. The whole premise behind abiogenesis is happenstance. The hypothesis is that conditions were just right for life to come about by extraordinary means. However due to the amazing complexity of the DNA molecule, abiogenesis is an impossibility just like it is an impossibility for nature to create a encyclopedia when there is a windstorm with lightening. I don't think you really understand just how improbable abiogenesis is.

You keep offering the same bullshit assertions with nothing of any substance to back them up. At this point, I can conclude you are nothing more than a troll.

Have you ever studied probability? There is a point where a thing becomes not only improbable, but impossible. That is my position on abiogenesis. It is an impossibility.

You mean it wouldn't be possible for life to have come from non-life?  Well, if it isn't possible, then how could god have done it?

(March 17, 2018 at 3:44 pm)Whateverist Wrote: If by happenstance he means it just so happens that chemistry contains the possibility of assembling new individuals by way of sexual reproduction then yes that obviously is a fact.

If he wants to argue that it is only a potential for chemistry because some pixies hammered fairy dust into DNA, then he is free to present his evidence.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/6788...nce-alone/

(March 17, 2018 at 4:25 pm)He lives Wrote: However what do your scientific minds have to say about the above?

That the quoted material was written either by people pretending to be scientists, or by scientists whose religious beliefs are more important to them than their work, or by scientists working in something other than biology.  In all three cases, I have no respect for them and can also dismiss their entire argument as an elaborate argument-from-incredulity logical fallacy.

I have seen sufficient information, and in one case an actual cell culture, that leads me to believe that evolution is actually happening and is the best current explanation for the wide diversity of organisms on this planet.

I have never in all of my sixty years seen one piece of evidence sufficient to convince me that gods -- any gods at all -- were real.  As far as I'm concerned, until we have testable empirical evidence of a sentient being capable of creating life forms, intelligent design is dead in the water and fit only to be laughed at.

(March 17, 2018 at 4:16 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You mean it wouldn't be possible for life to have come from non-life?  Well, if it isn't possible, then how could god have done it?

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29 - 30)

29 Man was also in the beginning with God.  Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

(Pearl of Great Price | Abraham 3:21 - 24)

21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.
22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

That's not an explanation -- That's storytelling. *eyeroll*

(March 17, 2018 at 4:33 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(March 17, 2018 at 4:25 pm)He lives Wrote: However what do your scientific minds have to say about the above?

That the quoted material was written either by people pretending to be scientists, or by scientists whose religious beliefs are more important to them than their work, or by scientists working in something other than biology.  In all three cases, I have no respect for them and can also dismiss their entire argument as an elaborate argument-from-incredulity logical fallacy.

I have seen sufficient information, and in one case an actual cell culture, that leads me to believe that evolution is actually happening and is the best current explanation for the wide diversity of organisms on this planet.

I have never in all of my sixty years seen one piece of evidence sufficient to convince me that gods -- any gods at all -- were real.  As far as I'm concerned, until we have testable empirical evidence of a sentient being capable of creating life forms, intelligent design is dead in the water and fit only to be laughed at.

You have stated why you believe this logic is flawed, but your reasoning is subjective. Do you have a good reason to believe that the probability is wrong. If so I would like to hear it.

(March 17, 2018 at 2:33 pm)He lives Wrote: It might be thought … that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood. 

— Francis Crick

I can well understand why you did not quote the preceding sentence in this quote, as it rather undermines your point. The prior sentence reads, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." But thanks for showing that you're simply yet another quote mining creatard.