(May 29, 2012 at 2:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So your claim would then be that the second law of thermodynamics stands at odds to abiogenesis, not evolution? In which case, it matters very little how you propose that abiogenesis occurred (by any natural or fairy tale means abiogensis is abiogenesis). You are forced to invoke miracles, and since you've decided that this is the thing to do, all "science" was pretense (conversely, you could toss out the very law which you feel makes our origins impossible..it's your choice, it's your head you're grinding into mush, not mine).

(as to your last bit about the breath of life, wouldn't that make a god a living breathing thing? Living breathing things aren't usually ethereal....and they can (generally) be killed...I like this concept)

Concepts can be killed and that is all all deity/god/ super natural, claims are. Bullshit fantasy that can be killed with logic and reason. Once you know Santa is not real, and you know better, you have no excuse.

God as an entity(claim) cannot be killed anymore than claims of Superman and Harry Potter, you cant kill something that does not exist. But you can kill the bad logic of the people who postulate such nonsense as reality.

(May 29, 2012 at 1:15 pm)ScienceLovesGod Wrote: Sorry, I should have been more detailed. I'm trying to point out the origins of life. The reason I asked this is because the sun gives energy, but this can't produce complex systems, you need that first single system to transform random energy into kinetic energy.

This isn't more detailed. These are more unsupported assertions that indicate a need to take a class in organic chemistry.

(May 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Aiza Wrote: I guess there really is no point in asking. The fact that evolution is based on life sprouting from non-life is a fairy tale. Life can only come from life.

Saying something is so isn't an argument that it is so. Life coming from life isn't a law, it's an observation that all life we see now is a product of other biological organisms. However, in order for this to have always been true, biological organisms would have had to exist for eternity. Do you believe biological organisms have existed for eternity?

(May 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Aiza Wrote: Now you might be saying things like, "stupid creationist, so what about his God making Adam and Eve from dirt? That's Abiogenesis!" Adam was not alive until God gave him the breath of life. Life comes from life.

So you're saying the dirt was not alive and then it was alive, aren't you? Whether the first living organism was a product of chemistry or divine intervention, evolution applies thereafter. And you're not saying God is a biological organism are you?

(May 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Aiza Wrote: He was nothing more than dead meat, a lifeless composition of elements.

And anything that changed that situation that didn't involve the propagation of a biological organism would be creating life from non-life.

(May 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Aiza Wrote: The 59 elements of the human body can all be found on the earth's crust. And when the body dies, it turns into dirt again. Convenient, huh? Or is that just another one of the millions of "coincidences"?

Yes, we're all very amazed that life on earth is made out of the same stuff the earth is, rather than unearthly elements as could happen if there were no divine intervention...oh wait, that should be the other way around. We'd be amazed if we were made of something unearthly while being made of what's available is exactly what we expect from natural processes. BTW, have you ever considered that the dust we were supposedly raised from could be a metaphor for our evolution from microorganisms? Just sayin'.

(May 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Aiza Wrote: "...Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories." -Ernst Mayr, Professor of Zoology at Harvard University

Why should we care about your quote-mines?

It is likely that evolution happens all over the Universe. It's not exclusive to Earth.

But then all of a sudden, evolution stops applying when it comes to the idea of a creator. That's pretty absurd in my eyes.

Quote:Huh? Yes we DO know the origins of life. DNA.

Until science can demonstrate how DNA formed the "god of the gaps" crew will still point to the blank spot on your map and say "goddidit."

Science has time; how long have such investigations really been going on? Time is short for those ignorant fuckers and their 'god'.

(May 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Huh? Yes we DO know the origins of life. DNA.

Until science can demonstrate how DNA formed the "god of the gaps" crew will still point to the blank spot on your map and say "goddidit."

Science has time; how long have such investigations really been going on? Time is short for those ignorant fuckers and their 'god'.

"You can't explain how the universe came into existence or how the first life form originated, therefore an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God named yawheh created all life 6,000 years ago and sent his son to die for all our sins 2000 years ago and all of this is revealed in his truth, the holy bible!"

Exactly.

(May 30, 2012 at 3:47 pm)libalchris Wrote:

(May 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Until science can demonstrate how DNA formed the "god of the gaps" crew will still point to the blank spot on your map and say "goddidit."

Science has time; how long have such investigations really been going on? Time is short for those ignorant fuckers and their 'god'.

"You can't explain how the universe came into existence or how the first life form originated, therefore an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God named yawheh created all life 6,000 years ago and sent his son to die for all our sins 2000 years ago and all of this is revealed in his truth, the holy bible!"

"A turd by any other name would still be shit" And I cant think of anything more stinky an argument than a fictional super hero.

Which is precisely why I think Richard Leakey was mistaken in the other thread. These assholes will not be swayed by evidence. They will simply invent more excuses for why the evidence is wrong.

They have to die off. They are not sitting there waiting for science to provide evidence for evolution. All they want is for some asshole to tell them that fairy tales are true.

There are plenty of such con artists out there to do that.

Sadly, they pass the virus of their idiocy through cultivated schools of ignorance (the church) and brainwash many who never manage to escape afterward.

(May 30, 2012 at 4:43 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Which is precisely why I think Richard Leakey was mistaken in the other thread. These assholes will not be swayed by evidence. They will simply invent more excuses for why the evidence is wrong.

They have to die off. They are not sitting there waiting for science to provide evidence for evolution. All they want is for some asshole to tell them that fairy tales are true.

There are plenty of such con artists out there to do that.

Some can. Not most probably, but some at least can be swayed by evidence. I was, I used to be a creationist.