(May 30, 2014 at 5:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm glad we agree on this......so..you have observed life coming into existence without the need of intellect. Good.....for a minute I thought I might be having a conversation with a nutball...

I'm not sure why a blade of grass doesn't qualify. It belongs to a lineage...there was a "first blade" ....it wasn't too long ago.

I'm pretty sure I'm on target.

The second generation of mycoplasma laboratorium came into existence naturally. The first generation was manufactured by scientist and did not come into existence naturally. The lineage of mycoplasma laboratorium is the product of intellect.

You are confusing life with lineage.....they are not the same.

(May 30, 2014 at 5:16 pm)Heywood Wrote: I agree, our lineage of life cannot be definitively said to be a product of nature because it hasn't been observed as such. It can only be speculated as such. And it looks as if we will have good reason to dismiss that speculation.

Ah, no. Go shit your theism out of your ass before besmirching words such as "have good reason" by using them.

(May 30, 2014 at 5:25 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I never made that claim, sir.

It is a claim of atheists. If you are not an atheists, I apologize.

I am indeed an 'atheists'. Try not to be obtuse.

Can you provide a citation for it being a claim of atheists?

(May 30, 2014 at 5:30 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(May 30, 2014 at 5:16 pm)Heywood Wrote: I agree, our lineage of life cannot be definitively said to be a product of nature because it hasn't been observed as such. It can only be speculated as such. And it looks as if we will have good reason to dismiss that speculation.

Ah, no. Go shit your theism out of your ass before besmirching words such as "have good reason" by using them.

I explained my reasons. Since apparently you are unable to find fault with them you resort to smilies to refute them.

This is the worst counter argument(if you can call it that) I have ever seen you make. You are perhaps one of the brightest bulbs here. I was hoping you would pop into this thread. I was glad when you did. Now I am disappointed because I expected more from you.

(May 30, 2014 at 5:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: you need to prove your claim that our lineage of life occurred naturally if our experience and observations suggests that lineages of life only come into existence via intelligent design.

"lineage of life"?
Is that a fancy expression for "kind", now?

Myco is a derivative...none of those scientists actually "created" any "lineage". They induced speciation (at best)...which we have observed outside of the lab..no designer or intellect in evidence (as usual).

IOW..one of us is very confused..yes.

(May 30, 2014 at 5:33 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I am indeed an 'atheists'. Try not to be obtuse.

Can you provide a citation for it being a claim of atheists?

Now you are playing games....Everytime you talk about a theistic claim do you provide such a citation?

Do you not agree that many atheists believe or claim that life originated via a natural process?

How about you tell me were the flaw is in my thinking. Quote it and explain why it is a flaw.

---

(May 30, 2014 at 5:36 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(May 30, 2014 at 5:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: you need to prove your claim that our lineage of life occurred naturally if our experience and observations suggests that lineages of life only come into existence via intelligent design.

"lineage of life"?
Is that a fancy expression for "kind", now?

Lineage is a term used in evolutionary science. Lineage of life isn't something I made up.

---

(May 30, 2014 at 5:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Myco is a derivative...none of those scientists actually "created" any "lineage". They induced speciation (at best)...which we have observed outside of the lab..no designer or intellect in evidence (as usual).

IOW..one of us is very confused..yes.

Mycoplasma Labratorium is different. It was claimed to be the first instance of synthetic life. I don't agree with that claim, but the achievement and others has convinced me that intellects are capable of creating independent lineages of life. Its just a matter of time before more than one lineage of life exists on this planet. Most if not all those lineages will be the product of intelligent design.

(May 30, 2014 at 5:39 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 30, 2014 at 5:36 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

"lineage of life"?
Is that a fancy expression for "kind", now?

Lineage is a term used in evolutionary science. Lineage of life isn't something I made up.

Lineage, yes.... lineage of life, no!

wiki Wrote:An evolutionary lineage is a sequence of species, that form a line of descent, each new species the direct result of speciation from an immediate ancestral species.[1][2] Lineages are subsets of the evolutionary tree of life. Lineages are often determined by the techniques of molecular systematics.

Anyway, the requirement for new such lineages during our lifetime only shows, once more, how you utterly misunderstand what evolution of animals by natural selection is.... and your dismissal of new lineages in micro-organisms, just shows how uninterested you are to acknowledge actual evidence.
Bacteria don't breed through sex, so discerning one species from another is... tricky... when they are sufficiently close. How can you say that MRSA is the same species as some other bacteria that exists in our normal environment?

(May 30, 2014 at 5:39 pm)Heywood Wrote: Now you are playing games....Everytime you talk about a theistic claim do you provide such a citation?

Do you not agree that many atheists believe or claim that life originated via a natural process?

How about you tell me were the flaw is in my thinking. Quote it and explain why it is a flaw.

1) The reason I keep asking for citations is because your arguments depend on making claims that cannot be verified without them. If you actually had the evidential support, it ought to be trivial to do. And it's not an unreasonable request - if you think it is, you seriously need to re-evaluate what you're trying to sell and why you find it convincing.

2) No, I don't agree with this. I don't know of any atheists making that claim, but that's not even relevant here. The point is that neither do you, otherwise you wouldn't complain about having to back up your assertions.

3) Ok, you asked for it. The flaw in your thinking is your continual shifting of your burden of proof, coupled with misrepresenting what you call the position of atheists. An atheist is someone who does not accept theistis claims and that's it. Anything else is not a claim of atheism; nor is rejecting your claim a counter-claim itself. All I and others are doing is sitting here waiting for you to bring something to the table that we can examine and test. If your claims cannot withstand such examination, it's hardly our fault. Get better claims, or at least better evidence.