(October 15, 2012 at 9:25 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: That's perfectly fine, please keep looking. But until there's actually a real answer, it's dishonest to presume that God is not a very live possibility.

Yes, lets substitute the unknowns with a magical being that we have no proof for.

(October 15, 2012 at 9:25 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote:

(October 15, 2012 at 8:45 am)Chuck Wrote: What scientists are doing is looking for answers from catagory of things proven to exist- advanced chemistry, not thing with utterly no support-god

That's perfectly fine, please keep looking. But until there's actually a real answer, it's dishonest to presume that God is not a very live possibility.

Until there is a real answer, it is dishonest to presume god is not a mere pile of shit you pulled out of e colon that has become your mind. I don't have the time to be bothered with piles of shit. Complex chemistry is vastly more promising

(October 15, 2012 at 7:43 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Well, if someone is honest enough to admit they don't know, that's fair.

What's dishonest is when scientists pretend they know that life is advanced chemistry, when that clearly hasn't been proven.

I don't suppose you've ever heard of Occam's razor? It is usually incorrect to provide an answer that is in itself harder to explain than the original question. If you have no explanation for god, then how is god "a very live possibility"? We have evidence that life can arise from nothing, but we do not have proof. We do not even have evidence, however, that a god even can exist, let alone does.

(October 15, 2012 at 4:00 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: The scientists must admit that they still do not know the origin of life. Their claim that they will soon prove a chemical origin of life is something like paying someone with a postdated check.

I would like to know from you, if/when scientists demonstrate the creation of life from chemicals, if/how it would change your beliefs about god/religion..

Also, please answer my earlier question about the origin of god.

(October 15, 2012 at 4:00 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: How do you answer this challenge?

The scientists must admit that they still do not know the origin of life. Their claim that they will soon prove a chemical origin of life is something like paying someone with a postdated check. Suppose I give you a postdated check for ten thousand dollars but I actually have no money. What is the value of that check? Scientists are claiming that their science is wonderful, but when a practical example is wanted, they say they will provide it in the future... The scientists cannot produce even a single blade of grass in their laboratories, yet they are claiming that life is produced from chemicals. What is this nonsense? Is no one questioning this? - Life Comes from Life, p. 10

I just suddenly realized how ridiculous this is. You are accusing scientists of making stuff up because they haven't yet proven their answer correct (although they are making visible progress) and you don't consider the fact that you have far less evidence for god? (In fact you have no evidence...)

You know, I'm pretty sure that the "Chemical Origin of Life" is just a leading hypothesis. No one (that is intellectually honest) can claim to know where life came from. Another hypothesis include that an asteroid with some matter in some stage of life hit the earth. Personally, chemicals seems the most likely to me.

As far as claiming a god as a likely source of life is... counterproductive. We have no evidence (besides a bunch of "gut-feelings" that can be recreated with the proper electrical fields) that any god even exists, so which is the more ridiculous option? Some evidence might suggest one way(life from chemical reaction), but they don't have all the evidence to prove it to be correct or that an all-powerful being swooped down and just made everything happen (which there is not even a suggestion of)? You have a serious lack of knowledge as to how science works, remedying that will not only make you more successful here, but it can really help with your day-to-day life. And honestly, ignorance to science is unforgivable in the Information Age, where everything can be looked up and fact-checked in an instant.

It suddenly occured to me how innapropriately titled On The Origin Of Species is! No wonder ignorant people think that evolution explains life's origins!

(October 15, 2012 at 11:44 am)Darkstar Wrote: It suddenly occured to me how innapropriately titled On The Origin Of Species is! No wonder ignorant people think that evolution explains life's origins!

"Of Species" should be the thing that makes the distinction, but most people are so scientifically illiterate (at least here in the US), that they never learn the difference between species, genus, ect.

(October 15, 2012 at 11:47 am)Annik Wrote:

(October 15, 2012 at 11:44 am)Darkstar Wrote: It suddenly occured to me how innapropriately titled On The Origin Of Species is! No wonder ignorant people think that evolution explains life's origins!

"Of Species" should be the thing that makes the distinction, but most people are so scientifically illiterate (at least here in the US), that they never learn the difference between species, genus, ect.

Good point. But like I said "ignorant people". Maybe it would be more of a differentiation of species. But then again, the origin of species, as in plural, so it wouldn't have to explain the origin of the first species but of how more arose. Or is the singular of species still species? I am way overthinking this...