Abiogenesis is impossible

[tor]

From what point is he arguing then? Showing how unlikely it is?
Because all it tells us is that in our big universe an unlikely thing happened.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

From what point is he arguing then? Showing how unlikely it is?
Because all it tells us is that in our big universe an unlikely thing happened.

For some reason, the OP is a theist that thinks abiogenesis is impossible and wants to tell atheists ALL ABOUT IT...

Lots of theists believe that creationism is real because abiogenesis is impossible, by the way! LOL

[tor]

The thing about abiogenesis is that if you take all the planets like earth in the universe(and there are lots of them) add all the years they existed(and it's a lot of time). Even if abiogenesis is possible it will happen purely by chance on at least one planet. And for the most simple self-replicating molecule I don't think it will take this much chance.
Somebody somewhere wins the lottery.

As for impossibility of abiogenesis I can't even imagine how anyone can try to do that.

[snowtracks]

here's the deal: atheist have this site, one sub-menu of it is "christianity". supposedly, it's set-up for more purpose than for one atheist to tell another atheist how smart they are and how stupid christianity is. hardly ever do i get the scientific or philosophic reason for atheistic or naturalist reason in support topic under discussion. what is posted is ridicule, derision and juvy stumper style question like: how do you explain that my favorite teacher or dog got cancer? what about those 11'th century crusades? did you know that there is a book that says the wall of Jericho didn't fall down?). so, atheistic want brand themselves with "we are the intellectual ones". well to that - bring it on. but there's a problem, actually it a cop-out: "we don't have to since you haven't proved the existence of God. over last 5000 years, there has been let say 50,000 scientist, philosophers, writers, educators that written on the subject and i'm asked to prove God (just think wherever i would go, people saying "that's person proved God). posters however are about as good as the featured speakers at the atheist yearly world conventions. by the way that's coming up it April in Salt Lake city. tell them you want to speak about nothing, they will say "about nothing"? well if it's about 'nothing' you can but if you present any cogent argument 'forget it". it all comes down to comparing models: one says chance, another says purpose. on this board at least - purpose is winning.

---

with only a smidgen extra mass (less than 1%), the universe would have expanded so slowing that stars would have rapidly become black holes and neutron stars so this anthropic principle as it relates to gravitational force parameters would seem to connote intentionality.

"Things could have been different, therefore god."

So what? You're having to presuppose that god exists just to present this as a problem for atheists! Fuck!

hey shithead, we're not backing off because you learned a new 4 letter word.

[*Deidre*]

here's the deal: atheist have this site, one sub-menu of it is "christianity". supposedly, it's set-up for more purpose than for one atheist to tell another atheist how smart they are and how stupid christianity is. hardly ever do i get the scientific or philosophic reason for atheistic or naturalist reason in support topic under discussion. what is posted is ridicule, derision and juvy stumper style question like: how do you explain that my favorite teacher or dog got cancer? what about those 11'th century crusades? did you know that there is a book that says the wall of Jericho didn't fall down?). so, atheistic want brand themselves with "we are the intellectual ones". well to that - bring it on. but there's a problem, actually it a cop-out: "we don't have to since you haven't proved the existence of God. over last 5000 years, there has been let say 50,000 scientist, philosophers, writers, educators that written on the subject and i'm asked to prove God (just think wherever i would go, people saying "that's person proved God). posters however are about as good as the featured speakers at the atheist yearly world conventions. by the way that's coming up it April in Salt Lake city. tell them you want to speak about nothing, they will say "about nothing"? well if it's about 'nothing' you can but if you present any cogent argument 'forget it". it all comes down to comparing models: one says chance, another says purpose. on this board at least - purpose is winning.

---

"Things could have been different, therefore god."

So what? You're having to presuppose that god exists just to present this as a problem for atheists! Fuck!

hey shithead, we're not backing off because you learned a new 4 letter word.

I respectfully disagree that atheists here "use" the Christianity section to merely pontificate. The problem is and always will be that you don't need any evidence to support your religious beliefs. That's why the dialogue breaks down, to be honest. What's funny is Christians will tout the Bible, a book of poorly written metaphors (I'm being kind) but fight with non believers about the evidence to "support" science.

It is hard to keep an empathetic dialogue going when one side uses faith and religion to argue against scientific reasoning.

[Esquilax]

here's the deal: atheist have this site, one sub-menu of it is "christianity". supposedly, it's set-up for more purpose than for one atheist to tell another atheist how smart they are and how stupid christianity is. hardly ever do i get the scientific or philosophic reason for atheistic or naturalist reason in support topic under discussion. what is posted is ridicule, derision and juvy stumper style question like: how do you explain that my favorite teacher or dog got cancer? what about those 11'th century crusades? did you know that there is a book that says the wall of Jericho didn't fall down?). so, atheistic want brand themselves with "we are the intellectual ones". well to that - bring it on. but there's a problem, actually it a cop-out: "we don't have to since you haven't proved the existence of God. over last 5000 years, there has been let say 50,000 scientist, philosophers, writers, educators that written on the subject and i'm asked to prove God (just think wherever i would go, people saying "that's person proved God). posters however are about as good as the featured speakers at the atheist yearly world conventions. by the way that's coming up it April in Salt Lake city. tell them you want to speak about nothing, they will say "about nothing"? well if it's about 'nothing' you can but if you present any cogent argument 'forget it". it all comes down to comparing models: one says chance, another says purpose. on this board at least - purpose is winning.

Wow, so many words just to shift the burden of proof and bitch about how unfair it is that you can't provide any evidence at all for your beliefs.

hey shithead, we're not backing off because you learned a new 4 letter word.

I'm not asking you to back off, I'm pointing out that you're yet to justify even a single aspect of your freewheeling arguments from ignorance, to the point where you're now not even saying things that are even close to being a problem for atheists.

[Whateverist]

here's the deal: atheist have this site, one sub-menu of it is "christianity". supposedly, it's set-up for more purpose than for one atheist to tell another atheist how smart they are and how stupid christianity is.

There are sub-forums here so that one can find topics of interest more readily. That's it. There are no private clubs here. Were you really expecting the Christian sub-forum to be reserved for discussing the bible in the manner Christians are accustomed?

The major difference between this site and any Christian forum is that you are allowed to say what you think. This ridiculous thread is a testimony to the tolerance allowed here. Obviously you meant to be provocative so I don't feel sorry for you. It really isn't a question of atheists showing how smart they are. When you say stupid stuff like this you make the case against what you think better than any atheist could.

But I'm not happy about it. Your original post is an embarrassment to me as a member of your species. That any modern person could still think not knowing the precise natural mechanisms by which inorganic molecules became organic molecules was proof positive of creationism is just sad. There is no need for anyone to twist their brain up like this just to impose a lie on the world. It is perfectly possible to believe in gods without maintaining such ridiculous claims and so bankrupting your intellect. If only Christians could practice humility fundamentalism wouldn't be so prevalent.

[FifthElement]

... it all comes down to comparing models: one says chance, another says purpose. on this board at least - purpose is winning.

Calling bullshit here

I'm the atheist and I believe that life has a purpose, what we disagree on is what that purpose is

[ThomM]

[quote='snowtracks' pid='639092' dateline='1396066737']
here's the deal: atheist have this site, one sub-menu of it is "christianity". supposedly, it's set-up for more purpose than for one atheist to tell another atheist how smart they are and how stupid christianity is. hardly ever do i get the scientific or philosophic reason for atheistic or naturalist reason in support topic under discussion. what is posted is ridicule, derision and juvy stumper style question like: how do you explain that my favorite teacher or dog got cancer? what about those 11'th century crusades? did you know that there is a book that says the wall of Jericho didn't fall down?). so, atheistic want brand themselves with "we are the intellectual ones". well to that - bring it on. but there's a problem, actually it a cop-out: "we don't have to since you haven't proved the existence of God. over last 5000 years, there has been let say 50,000 scientist, philosophers, writers, educators that written on the subject and i'm asked to prove God (just think wherever i would go, people saying "that's person proved God). posters however are about as good as the featured speakers at the atheist yearly world conventions. by the way that's coming up it April in Salt Lake city. tell them you want to speak about nothing, they will say "about nothing"? well if it's about 'nothing' you can but if you present any cogent argument 'forget it". it all comes down to comparing models: one says chance, another says purpose. on this board at least - purpose is winning.

---

[quote='Esquilax' pid='638048' dateline='1395993931']



Over the last 5000 years - scientists(As defined by you) - philosophers - writers - educators - and lot of other people have written LOTs of things about LOTS of gods - literally thousands of them.

In fact - there are at least 20 different gods mentioned in the bible itself (Not as false gods) - and the bible itself says that eventually - ALL humans will be united under the ONE GOD of the JEWISH religion and admit that all other beliefs were false. ( (Zechariah )

Since the majority of the people of the world who believe in gods - do not accept YOURS - and since we NOW live in an era where education and literacy is common in the world - you now present a dilemma for you -
why should we believe YOU rather than the other religions and gods - much less all of the others that have passed by in those 5000 years? Certainly it is NOT because of the bible - since the bible is of dubious reliability - contains lots of errors and contradictions - and cannot be identified as to source.

YOU see - this is not a SINGLE choice - there are DOZENS of possibilities.

So - who do you ask -?

Today - I can ask xtians themselves - and they will give me logical reasons why ALL of the sects of xtianity are no good. With over 40,000 different forms of xtianity available - alone - if your religion was SO convincing - why is it that you cannot even unite xtianity first?

And if you ask other theists - they will also eliminate ALL other religions as well.

Nevertheless - if Xtians agree that ALL xtian sects are of no value - and YOU claim that xtians tell the truth - then I have to accept that - and reject xtianity.

[Rampant.A.I.]

here's the deal: atheist have this site, one sub-menu of it is "christianity". supposedly, it's set-up for more purpose than for one atheist to tell another atheist how smart they are and how stupid christianity is. hardly ever do i get the scientific or philosophic reason for atheistic or naturalist reason in support topic under discussion. what is posted is ridicule, derision and juvy stumper style question like: how do you explain that my favorite teacher or dog got cancer? what about those 11'th century crusades? did you know that there is a book that says the wall of Jericho didn't fall down?). so, atheistic want brand themselves with "we are the intellectual ones". well to that - bring it on. but there's a problem, actually it a cop-out: "we don't have to since you haven't proved the existence of God. over last 5000 years, there has been let say 50,000 scientist, philosophers, writers, educators that written on the subject and i'm asked to prove God (just think wherever i would go, people saying "that's person proved God). posters however are about as good as the featured speakers at the atheist yearly world conventions. by the way that's coming up it April in Salt Lake city. tell them you want to speak about nothing, they will say "about nothing"? well if it's about 'nothing' you can but if you present any cogent argument 'forget it". it all comes down to comparing models: one says chance, another says purpose. on this board at least - purpose is winning.

---

"Things could have been different, therefore god."

So what? You're having to presuppose that god exists just to present this as a problem for atheists! Fuck!

hey shithead, we're not backing off because you learned a new 4 letter word.

None of this drivel counts as evidence for your claim that abiogenesis is possible.

Why keep posting this garbage, unless you're trying to distract from the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims?

And who is "we," you and the mouse in your pocket?