We can't explain how life got started therefore you claim you can by saying "god did it!". It's a pathetic piece of evidence at best, contradictory, and laughable to anyone who has a basic understanding of logic.

People used to not know how thunderstorms happened, so they said god did it. We know that's not true. Just because science has yet to explain something doesn't mean it's unexplainable, and further does not mean it has a supernatural cause. You are essentially saying, "I cannot explain this, therefore I can explain it!"

Furthermore, I'm sure you know about the Miller-Urey experiment. While yes, it didn't replicate the conditions of earth around the time life sprang up, it proves that the building blocks of life CAN be produced through purely chemical means. It's not a slam dunk, but it means that abiogenesis looks more likely. Furthermore, abiogenesis is not the only possible explanation for the origin of life. There are other theories out there, one being panspermia.

It could be the case that God created life. We don't know. If you have evidence for God creating the first organisms, then less talk. However all you are doing is dismissing abiogenesis, when frankly it's not ready to be dismissed.

I don't claim to know the origin of the first organism, however I maintain that whatever is unexplained is just that, unexplained. Don't tell me you know the answer to something that you couldn't possibly know. And without providing evidence for a supernatural cause, I have no reason to believe in a supernatural cause.

Nice try, but there was absolutely nothing you said that I have not heard before and thoroughly dismissed as absurd.

10/10 because it describes the op perfectly. Wait, this isn't the "rate the above person's signature" thread, is it?

That's what the Kudos is for!

Darwinian Wrote:First of all, it is not up to you to dictate how or with what tone other members choose to reply...

Agreed. All I can dictate is what replies I'll respond to.

Darwinian Wrote:If a post is deemed unsuitable then it will be dealt with by the moderators or admins.

I don't think obscenities and name-calling are illegal on this forum.

(April 30, 2010 at 1:42 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: That's what the Kudos is for!

I liked your post, but I was rating your sig in regards to the thread. I gave you kudos too, though.

---

(April 30, 2010 at 1:46 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: I don't think obscenities and name-calling are illegal on this forum.

I think you mean against the rules. Just kidding, the whole semantics thing came up in the other thread and I thought I would be coy.

Anyway, you can't make up new rules and ignoring a person because they added an insult to a well put post is silly, in my opinion.

This just in:

The lack of evidence for Batman makes Superman real.

Angel, you see these things as 'clues that god exists', because you already believe that god exists. That is the definition of a presupposed conclusion. What we are all trying to tell you is that none of these things are actual, demonstrable evidence that god exists. Unless you already believe in god.

(April 30, 2010 at 1:46 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

Darwinian Wrote:First of all, it is not up to you to dictate how or with what tone other members choose to reply...

Agreed. All I can dictate is what replies I'll respond to.

Darwinian Wrote:If a post is deemed unsuitable then it will be dealt with by the moderators or admins.

I don't think obscenities and name-calling are illegal on this forum.

holy crap, now if an atheist arrogantly and rudely wrote in one of his posts "Please, no stupid comments or try not to be stupid, theists." I doubt Darwinian would go out of his way to say "You can't tell people how to respond. Let the admins handle that." so in the name of obscenities and name-calling that many atheists here represent themselves with, i say fuck you darwinian.