I think it would have happened by now. I have no hope for him.

Grace, a reminder. Don't quote a whole long post if you don't necessarily have to.

(October 4, 2013 at 2:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 4, 2013 at 2:38 pm)Ryantology Wrote: And if he can't, by his own standards, the only conclusion he can draw is that he's wrong, his God is a lie, and abiogenesis is certain fact.

That would be the corollary, yes, but for right now I'm basically entreating this guy to actually come forward and address me in actual conversation, rather than hit and run assertions. If we can pin him down, we might be able to jam some knowledge up there and make it stick.

I've put my best foot forward, Grace: will you do the same?

You could not answer the simple questions of the other topic.

You have not challenged this topic either.

I asked you to show proof of your god's existence and an explanation for where he came from. You failed on both counts, proving (according to your stated standard of evidence) that you're lying and your god isn't real.

Unless you've got something you haven't shared?

Mix up words and phrases from another thread and repost. That's all I'm seeing.

(October 4, 2013 at 2:19 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 4, 2013 at 12:38 pm)Chas Wrote: A con? Really? Let's say a god created the first simple organism then stepped back and let evolution take over. Would you accept that?

P.S. You stating that abiogenesis is impossible doesn't make it impossible. No matter how many times you say it.

If you are willing to acknowledge that God exists and that God created the first living thing, then we can discuss the rest.

No, I'm asking you what your view of evolution would be given those conditions.

(October 4, 2013 at 9:33 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: OK now prove that abiogenesis is only possible using a god.

^ This. You do realize, theist, that you also believe in a start for life from non-life, don't you? The difference is you think it adds something to say it was done by magic. Inorganic material can never become organic material - unless a magic genie appears and causes it to happen. That is what you believe, isn't it? I don't suppose you ever bother to ask how a god comes to be. That much you are content to leave shrouded in mystery. But if anyone rejects your favorite genie, then you really think you've scored a decisive blow by pointing out holes in our understanding of the inorganic becomes the organic. Your primitive creation myth is far, far less complete. But you simply expect less from it.

(October 5, 2013 at 12:22 am)whateverist Wrote:

(October 4, 2013 at 9:33 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: OK now prove that abiogenesis is only possible using a god.

^ This. You do realize, theist, that you also believe in a start for life from non-life, don't you? The difference is you think it adds something to say it was done by magic. Inorganic material can never become organic material - unless a magic genie appears and causes it to happen. That is what you believe, isn't it? I don't suppose you ever bother to ask how a god comes to be. That much you are content to leave shrouded in mystery. But if anyone rejects your favorite genie, then you really think you've scored a decisive blow by pointing out holes in our understanding of the inorganic becomes the organic. Your primitive creation myth is far, far less complete. But you simply expect less from it.

Atheistic origin science assumes no magic. But to explain the vast complexity of the life forms on Earth, atheistic origin science requires a multitude of miraculous events, one right after another, in an exact sequence, and in an exact manner. That is ludicrous. It also violates the very assumption of atheistic origin science.
This atheistic origin science is false.
So its opposite, theistic origin science, is true.

Theistic origin science assumes one miraculous thing, the existence of God. But that does not violate its assumption.

---

(October 4, 2013 at 11:46 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 4, 2013 at 2:19 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: If you are willing to acknowledge that God exists and that God created the first living thing, then we can discuss the rest.

No, I'm asking you what your view of evolution would be given those conditions.

Once God is brought into the picture, it makes no sense to assume God did nothing after creating the first simple thing, because that is just returning to the same false assumption that God is not allowed to have done anything.

No. The next step is to identify which God.

So if you are willing to acknowledge that because abiogenesis is false unless God did it, the next step is the identity of God.

(October 4, 2013 at 8:29 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: You could not answer the simple questions of the other topic.

Grace, maybe you're not paying attention to the usernames here, but I'm one of a few of us who did answer your simple questions seriously, and in order. I did so within the first few pages of the thread, and you have so far failed to respond to that post. The record simply shows this to be true; my response, and your absence of acknowledgement, are still there, right now.

Quote:You have not challenged this topic either.

I'm challenging you directly, right now. I want an exchange of ideas, but a part of that would be you providing evidence of your own, like I have done with multiple links all over this thread and all your others. Thus far, you've provided nothing but a bare assertion, and my question before, as it is now, is can you support your claim of a god beyond the mere argument from ignorance that you can't see how a secular perspective could answer the questions that you have?

---

(October 5, 2013 at 6:12 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Atheistic origin science assumes no magic. But to explain the vast complexity of the life forms on Earth, atheistic origin science requires a multitude of miraculous events, one right after another, in an exact sequence, and in an exact manner. That is ludicrous. It also violates the very assumption of atheistic origin science.

That's not exactly true, but then, so far you've seemed impervious to responses, let alone rebuttals. You understand that nothing in reality happens in a vacuum, right? And that every development toward the current state of life on earth is scaffolded by the ones that came before them, and the physical laws of the universe that they inhabit? There's nothing miraculous about this.

Quote:This atheistic origin science is false.
So its opposite, theistic origin science, is true.

Except you're not adhering to mere theism, aren't you?

(October 5, 2013 at 6:20 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 4, 2013 at 8:29 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: You could not answer the simple questions of the other topic.

Grace, maybe you're not paying attention to the usernames here, but I'm one of a few of us who did answer your simple questions seriously, and in order. I did so within the first few pages of the thread, and you have so far failed to respond to that post. The record simply shows this to be true; my response, and your absence of acknowledgement, are still there, right now.

Quote:You have not challenged this topic either.

I'm challenging you directly, right now. I want an exchange of ideas, but a part of that would be you providing evidence of your own, like I have done with multiple links all over this thread and all your others. Thus far, you've provided nothing but a bare assertion, and my question before, as it is now, is can you support your claim of a god beyond the mere argument from ignorance that you can't see how a secular perspective could answer the questions that you have?

---

(October 5, 2013 at 6:12 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Atheistic origin science assumes no magic. But to explain the vast complexity of the life forms on Earth, atheistic origin science requires a multitude of miraculous events, one right after another, in an exact sequence, and in an exact manner. That is ludicrous. It also violates the very assumption of atheistic origin science.

That's not exactly true, but then, so far you've seemed impervious to responses, let alone rebuttals. You understand that nothing in reality happens in a vacuum, right? And that every development toward the current state of life on earth is scaffolded by the ones that came before them, and the physical laws of the universe that they inhabit? There's nothing miraculous about this.

Quote:This atheistic origin science is false.
So its opposite, theistic origin science, is true.

Except you're not adhering to mere theism, aren't you?

Please prove that abiogenesis happened with real evidence and no assumptions.

I already showed that it could not ever happen.