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.

Eilonnwy Wrote:We can't explain how life got started therefore you claim you can by saying "god did it!".

First of all, all I'm trying to do is demonstrate some evidence. The problem is that people are clicking into my threads thinking that they're going to find definite proof of God's existence. Notice that I never said proof. I said 'evidence.' There's a difference between evidence and proof. No one will ever find definite proof of God's existence, because that is not how God wants it. Belief in God is meant to be faith-based. However, I believe that there are clues all around us that point towards his existence, and that's what I'm attempting to detail.

Secondly, as a theist, it's not much of a jump for me to say that the lack of evidence for abiogenesis points towards God. For me, it's a logical conclusion. However, I understand that atheists won't view it this way. All I'm asking is that you consider this evidence not as conclusive proof, but as a clue, or a piece of a larger puzzle.

Eilonnwy Wrote:However all you are doing is dismissing abiogenesis, when frankly it's not ready to be dismissed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis

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.

(April 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

Eilonnwy Wrote:We can't explain how life got started therefore you claim you can by saying "god did it!".

First of all, all I'm trying to do is demonstrate some evidence.

No, you're equating lack of evidence as a support to your claim, which also LACKS evidence.

It's a false dichotomy and is fractally wrong.

(April 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: The problem is that people are clicking into my threads thinking that they're going to find definite proof of God's existence. Notice that I never said proof. I said 'evidence.'

The problem is that you're titling your threads "evidence God exists", then spouting off a bunch of nonsense about how no one can demonstrate abiogenesis and humans have intelligence. Assumptions aren't evidence.

(April 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: There's a difference between evidence and proof.

There is also a difference between evidence and unfounded assumption.

(April 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: No one will ever find definite proof of God's existence, because that is not how God wants it.

Begging the question. You can't assume something's existence when it's the existence of that something you're trying to verify. Not to mention add attributes to that unknown entity in order to fit your already biased conclusion.

(April 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Belief in God is meant to be faith-based. However, I believe that there are clues all around us that point towards his existence, and that's what I'm attempting to detail.

You haven't demonstrated any clues unless I'm missing something.

You clearly stated that lack of evidence for abiogenesis = God exists.

Does that make any fucking sense to you?

(April 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Secondly, as a theist, it's not much of a jump for me to say that the lack of evidence for abiogenesis points towards God. For me, it's a logical conclusion.

No, it's an irrational confirmation bias. Logic has nothing to do with it.

(April 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: However, I understand that atheists won't view it this way. All I'm asking is that you consider this evidence not as conclusive proof, but as a clue, or a piece of a larger puzzle.

You're not understanding this at all.

What's stopping me from saying that lack of evidence for abiogenesis means that celestial fairies seeded this planet? Why couldn't the fairies' existence share the same standards of evidence?

(April 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis

and had you looked a wee bit further than the first link, you would have realized that it was meant in the context of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, a theory, long debunked, in which flies were though to generate from waste. We know this is not the case as we can document life cycles quite regularly and accurately.

This is not abiogenesis in the context of life origins on this planet.

Here's a more concise explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial, now that the life cycles of various life forms have been well documented. However, the question of abiogenesis, how living things originally arose from non-living material, remains relevant today.

The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter. This should not be confused for the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and diversified.

Read up on the varying theories and methodologies used for abiogenesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

I'm tired of spoonfeeding you and correcting your crackpot claims. Please stop writing nonsense.