Atheism is impossible, I don't see how life can be created naturalistically.

[Diamond-Deist]

you love your spell check ;P

Yeah I know...'grammar nazi' and Spell check queen. Had to work for a MOST Pedantic individual i have EVER met. Talk about crossing your T's and dotting your I's!! Anyways left me with a severe intolerance for the misuse of the English language..especially over the Internet when "Spell Check" is so readily available...

Why is it that most people don't use it?? Nor that the majority of people don't proof read their posts??

Some people have lives to get on with and showing you the beauty of the english language isn't the highlight of their day?

Come on let's just stick to the thread subject, your objection to my spelling is duly noted.

[Ace Otana]

Spell check annoys me. It is very Americanised. Putting "z" where it doesn't belong... And cutting out "u"s.

Yeah, but thankfully my spell check is British. So I don't have that problem.

[KichigaiNeko]

Spell check annoys me. It is very Americanised. Putting "z" where it doesn't belong... And cutting out "u"s.

Ehhhy?? I get the Australian version and opt for ENG (UK) Works a treat and I proof read so the z'ds don't get too much of a chance to get through.

[frankiej]

Diamond, You don't have to be so condescending.

---

Yeah, I was too lazy to alter the settings of my spell check.

[Ace Otana]

I should start spelling the way that I speak, like libry or militry.

[Diamond-Deist]

Diamond, You don't have to be so condescending.

---

Yeah, I was too lazy to alter the settings of my spell check.

Chill Winston ..... I'm just messing.

I just don't like it when I feel people are using put downs as a way of trying to win a factual argument, maybe he wasn't doing that ..... so let's just continue with the topic.

[frankiej]

Well, lets just chill to this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yot2Z-Uyu...re=related

[theVOID]

Oh dear I know I said I wouldn't post again but I couldn't resist

It happens, welcome back.

A) How an inaminate cell formed by globs of chemical and elemental matter decided to one day become animate join together like a transformer and decide it was going to conquer the world?

You are aware that's a bit of a straw man right?

For starters, cell's aren't inanimate. An inanimate object is essentially one that displays no sign of life since since cells are living they aren't inanimate. Technical difference I know but it pays to be precise.

Secondly, nothing decided to become animate, the process of inanimate objects coalescing into a state we refer to as 'life' is a function of chemical evolution, the specifics of the process known as abiogenesis aren't very well understood but we do know that many of the necessary constituents can arise from natural chemical processes. I suggest you do some reading on the subject as it's far from my area of interest, I'm more into physics and philosophy so I can't offer you any kind of comprehensive description of the subject.

Thirdly, you seem to be presuming that there is some 'goal' to all of this, to "conquer the world", that is not the case. If you try and approach any field of naturalistic enquiry looking for intent, as you presume to be a feature of the world from a deistic/theistic perspective, you are never going to fully grasp what it is we believe to be true about reality.

B) How do you explain the information contained in DNA? information by definition would need an inteligence behind its conception?

You really need to look up what 'information' means in regard to a physical system... It's not a phrase or a meaningful sequence - something that was designed for a purpose, just a difference, for instance the 'spin' of an electron is a 'bit' of information, as is the wavelength of a photon or electrical charge of a particle. The "information content" of a physical system is simply a measure of how many 'bits' are needed to fully describe the system, making a distinction between each component state that the constituents of the system can be in. Adding information to a system, whether the information content of a star or the sequence of a genome simply means that there was some net increase in the complexity of the system.

Here's something to start you off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

And something more meaty; http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2837

Maybe you have answered these before I don't know so why don't you humour me, I'd be interested to see the explaination?

I've offered you about as good of an explanation of abiogenesis as I'd be willing to attempt but if you're interested in discussing information theory and physics we can go into more detail.

All that aside there is a more fundamental issue here, that is the argument from incredulity that you are on the verge of committing. Presuming we could give you no explanation of either, or if you found our explanations lacking, you would invariably use this to conclude that there must be or this increases the probability of a deity, correct? If so you would be committing the logical fallacy known as the argument from personal incredulity - As you should already know the conclusions of fallacious arguments, while not necessarily false, are indefensible with any consideration for intellectual honesty, thus if you want to consider yourself a rational person basing your beliefs on fallacious arguments is counter productive.

[Diamond-Deist]

I have to be brief I'm at work.

For starters, cell's aren't inanimate. An inanimate object is essentially one that displays no sign of life since since cells are living they aren't inanimate. Technical difference I know but it pays to be precise.

Cells were inanimate fact, and yes they did originally not have life, unless that guy from NASA was lying on that programme I watched.
If you can explain how it went from inanimate to life you will be doing one better than him, according to him they still cannot work that bit out.

Thirdly, you seem to be presuming that there is some 'goal' to all of this, to "conquer the world", that is not the case. If you try and approach any field of naturalistic enquiry looking for intent, as you presume to be a feature of the world from a deistic/theistic perspective, you are never going to fully grasp what it is we believe to be true about reality.

I would have thought it was obvious, life is by definition is a struggle to survive, you've heard of the arms race phenomena? basically drove the variety of life we have .... Cambrian explosion (if I've spelt it right)?

All that aside there is a more fundamental issue here, that is the argument from incredulity that you are on the verge of committing. Presuming we could give you no explanation of either, or if you found our explanations lacking, you would invariably use this to conclude that there must be or this increases the probability of a deity, correct? If so you would be committing the logical fallacy known as the argument from personal incredulity - As you should already know the conclusions of fallacious arguments, while not necessarily false, are indefensible with any consideration for intellectual honesty, thus if you want to consider yourself a rational person basing your beliefs on fallacious arguments is counter productive.

Not so much ..... I am certainly not inserting the God element here at all, maybe Nicholas would but I am just playing devils advocate on his behalf.

[KichigaiNeko]

Oh deary me hock: