(April 30, 2010 at 11:43 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Abiogenesis discredited. 500 years of experiments have failed to produce life out of inanimate matter. Scientists make excuse that the earth would have to be in the same condition as it was billions of years ago for life to be produced. And that’s just what it is. An excuse after so many experiments failed. So where does life comes from if there is no God? Evolution explains the development of life, or how it evolved from point A to point B. It doesn’t explain the origin. How life itself started. Scientists' many attempts recently to synthesize ribonucleotides have failed...

The lack of evidence for abiogenesis is my evidence. And for those of you who start dismissing this as non-evidence, then you need to remember that what I’m presenting is a result of centuries of experiments by scientists. Therefore, it is evidence.

As always, only respectful replies will be addressed. Light bantering, criticism and snide remarks are okay. I make them, too, and it’s part of the fun. But no obscenities or name-calling. Most of you did pretty well with respect to that on the previous thread, and for that I thank you.

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

Oh dear.

Just thought I'd draw people's attention to the use of fallacious arguments in these truly dreadful posts.

First of all, there's a fallacy called denying the antecedent. This takes the form of:
If A then B
Not A
Therefore not B

In the case above we have:
If scientists could synthesize life, then a natural explanation for life's origin would be possible.
Scientists can't synthesize life.
Therefore there isn't a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

Which of course doesn't follow at all. Try substituting 'stars' for 'life' in the above, and you'll see just how silly this so-called 'argument' is.

Next up we have what is called a false dichotomy. AngelThMan creates a false dichotomy by making an implicit, and entirely unwarranted, assumption that the only possible explanations for the existence of life are abiogenisis and divine creation. This leads him to make the fallacious argument that 'evidence' against abiogenisis is somehow evidence for a creator god.

And finally we have a nice example of begging the question. AngelThMan is trying to show that there is evidence for god, but then he goes on to assume that god exists and that 'he' doesn't want us to have clear proof of 'his' existence.

So what do these posts demonstrate? I'd say that they are evidence that creationists have trouble with formulating coherent arguments (which of course we knew already). I'd also say that they are clear evidence that AngelThMan isn't very smart.

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

Your title suggests otherwise. Nevertheless, even as a piece of evidence, it still fails. As pointed out many times before by other people and myself. The lack of scientists figuring out the exact mechanism for life arising on earth does is not evidence of god. It simply shows we don't know yet. Your making a leap in judgement and Caecilian did an excellent job of showing the logical fallacy used in the post above mine.

(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. 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.

Being a theist doesn't give you the excuse to make logical fallacies.

Furthermore, if you recognize that your evidence is not sufficient for an atheist, why the hell would you present it?

We have already considered this evidence. There is nothing you have stated that I haven't heard before and subsequently dismissed.

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

Tavarish answered sufficiently, I see no need to add to what he said.

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

You never offer evidence. You offer "argument."

And your arguments are childish.

(April 30, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote: What is fascinating is that he posted an article which notes:

Quote:A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

and then claims that his sky daddy did it, anyway.

You know what, Angel, you keep believing that god played in the dirt and made you. Leave the heavy thinking to those who can handle it.

They still have not explained how they formed, unless you want to consider God, replicated in labatory conditions by a greater intelligence removes your argument from consideration. The supposed conditions on earth at the supposed time that such processes were to have taken place are not avaliable to scientist so therefore they will never be able to say this is how it happened. The conditions that science says existed at that particular time were so severe, so harsh that if life could have been a chemical reaction these conditions would have destroyed it before it could replicate itself.
Min let's take something as simple as a sand castle, by the way that's where you need to be back in the sandbox, some one was walking along a deserted beach and saw a sand castle do you believe they are going to wonder what kind of process could have formed this structure or do you believe they would start looking around for the one responsible for its existance.

Sonny, when you can learn the difference between a sand castle and a living cell then you can come out of your room and play with the adults.

Read a little Richard Dawkins and you might learn more than you ever will from your stupid fucking bible.

(April 30, 2010 at 11:43 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Abiogenesis discredited. 500 years of experiments have failed to produce life out of inanimate matter.

It might be within your interest to read the article without personal bias - it said researchers had taken another fundamental step towards explaining the evolution of life by synthesizing the basic ingredients of RNA.

The fact that the University of Manchester has so far failed to synthesize these ribonucleotides does not mean abiogenesis is invalid, after all these results couldn't be reproduced and verified by a credible independent source or peer review.

Quote:The lack of evidence for abiogenesis is my evidence. And for those of you who start dismissing this as non-evidence, then you need to remember that what I'm presenting is a result of centuries of experiments by scientists. Therefore, it is evidence.

I'm starting to think you don't actually know what evidence is.

First off, as everyone else here already stated, disproving abiogenesis is not proof of a god. Go back and try again. For any argument you need to have confirmers, not defeaters to make existence claims, which you haven't yet provided. Whereas abiogenesis is a theory, your god concept barely qualifies as a hypothesis.

But the real tragedy is you're ignorantly trying to discredit or downgrade accomplishments in science which provided you with the very luxuries and technology you're using to communicate with right now.

(May 1, 2010 at 1:32 am)Godschild Wrote: Min let's take something as simple as a sand castle, by the way that's where you need to be back in the sandbox, some one was walking along a deserted beach and saw a sand castle do you believe they are going to wonder what kind of process could have formed this structure or do you believe they would start looking around for the one responsible for its existance.

(April 30, 2010 at 1:54 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(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.

You did not understand me. People can insult me all they want. I've left that opening. Just no obscenities or name-calling. For me it is hard to engage in an intelligent conversation when people start acting like foul-mouthed construction workers, or spoiled brats, especially among a breed that professes such intellectual prowess. But respectful insults are fine.

How about not sounding so condescending, Angeltheman. There are a lot of "pretty girls" here, no need to treat them like they're 6.

(May 1, 2010 at 3:45 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: That's for sure. But Shell B is special.

Am not. I don't even have to wear a helmet.