Abiogenesis is impossible

[snowtracks]

it's irrational to discount all the design evidence by appealing to that which can never be observed or detect, or appealing to infinity; theories breakdown if infinity needs to be involved. carl sagan had it right, we are alone.

Seriously, how do you keep doing that? How do you keep chastising us for talking about things we "can never observe or detect" and then in the next sentence tell us about intelligent designers and god without your head exploding from the sheer cognitive dissonance?

Why are you such a hypocrite?

it goes like this: when there is a high level of coincidences that makes earth life suitable, those that are committed to the presupposition of no-design proceed to make some very metaphysical speculation. you even have a post in cybspace that embraces panspermia. anyone seen any ufo's lately? if you have, please keep it to yourself.

[Ravenshire]

Wow. Haven't read the whole thread, but it's too bad the world's petroleum reserves aren't covered in a layer of snowtracks. No drill would ever get through something that thick and dense.

Life existing on Earth may seem exceedingly improbable and maybe it even is. But even a 1/1,000,000,000 chance is a pretty good one when you have trillions of probable habitable planets in the universe.

[Esquilax]

it goes like this: when there is a high level of coincidences that makes earth life suitable, those that are committed to the presupposition of no-design proceed to make some very metaphysical speculation. you even have a post in cybspace that embraces panspermia. anyone seen any ufo's lately? if you have, please keep it to yourself.

Ah, I see: being unable to respond to the very real accusation of hypocrisy leveled against you, you instead decide to go on the attack, just as ineffectively as you've argued anything else.

Again, coincidences aren't a problem for a naturalistic world because coincidences happen, they're possible. "This thing is improbable!" is not an argument against the thing happening, nor is it evidence for some magical other claim; you need evidence for your claim, not just negative evidence against a different claim. No matter how many things you bring up that disprove what I think- you haven't done this at all, but let's pretend- it won't confirm what you think.

And I don't have a "presupposition" of naturalism, that's just a childish canard made to try to drag us all down to you level; I believe in naturalistic sources for things because thus far nature is the only thing we have evidence for. That's not a presupposition, that's following the available evidence where it leads, and when your sole argument is "oh, it's improbable!" then you're not exactly giving us reason to do otherwise.

As to panspermia, I accept it as a possibility, I don't "embrace" it, you cretin. Additionally, panspermia deals with extraterrestrial sources, not just "ufos" so now you're stuck with a choice: either you're deliberately strawmanning me here, or you decided to open your mouth without knowing what you were talking about.

Asshole, or idiot, Snowy? You pick.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Wow. Haven't read the whole thread, but it's too bad the world's petroleum reserves aren't covered in a layer of snowtracks. No drill would ever get through something that thick and dense.

Life existing on Earth may seem exceedingly improbable and maybe it even is. But even a 1/1,000,000,000 chance is a pretty good one when you have trillions of probable habitable planets in the universe.

[RobbyPants]

it goes like this: when there is a high level of coincidences that makes earth life suitable, those that are committed to the presupposition of no-design proceed to make some very metaphysical speculation. you even have a post in cybspace that embraces panspermia. anyone seen any ufo's lately? if you have, please keep it to yourself.

Snowtracks: what are the odds that a hole in the ground would be the exact shape of a puddle that is in it? It's an amazing coincidence that the puddle and the hole are the exact same shape, isn't it? It's it even weirder that every hole is a perfect match for the puddle in it? It's almost like they're designed with the puddle in mind. It's amazing!

That, or the water conforms to whatever hole is already there, and trying to assume any further meaning to that is pointless. The reason you're not getting this is because your world view requires you to keep putting the cart before the horse. The hole exists, and the puddle conforms to it. Conditions on our planet exist as so... and we conform to it. If the earth were a little farther from the sun, we would have evolved to conform to a colder planet.

You presupposing that things must be designed and that coincidences can't happen is a hold up you have to get over. Your incredulity on the matter is not compelling to us and it is not a good argument; it just makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about, but you keep on insisting on talking about it.

[snowtracks]

---

Wow. Haven't read the whole thread, but it's too bad the world's petroleum reserves aren't covered in a layer of snowtracks. No drill would ever get through something that thick and dense.

---

Life existing on Earth may seem exceedingly improbable and maybe it even is. But even a 1/1,000,000,000 chance is a pretty good one when you have trillions of probable habitable planets in the universe.

suppose a person flipping a coin 100,000 times and every time it comes up 'heads'. it would be a form of the gambler's fallacy to bet the next flip would be 'tails'. such a gambler takes into consideration the possibility that 2^100,000 coin flippers are doing the same and he just happened to be watching the one flipper that got all 'heads' (the law of probability predict with that many samples, one would legitimately flip 100,000 consecutive heads).

---

it goes like this: when there is a high level of coincidences that makes earth life suitable, those that are committed to the presupposition of no-design proceed to make some very metaphysical speculation. you even have a post in cybspace that embraces panspermia. anyone seen any ufo's lately? if you have, please keep it to yourself.

Snowtracks: what are the odds that a hole in the ground would be the exact shape of a puddle that is in it? It's an amazing coincidence that the puddle and the hole are the exact same shape, isn't it? It's it even weirder that every hole is a perfect match for the puddle in it? It's almost like they're designed with the puddle in mind. It's amazing!

That, or the water conforms to whatever hole is already there, and trying to assume any further meaning to that is pointless. The reason you're not getting this is because your world view requires you to keep putting the cart before the horse. The hole exists, and the puddle conforms to it. Conditions on our planet exist as so... and we conform to it. If the earth were a little farther from the sun, we would have evolved to conform to a colder planet.

You presupposing that things must be designed and that coincidences can't happen is a hold up you have to get over. Your incredulity on the matter is not compelling to us and it is not a good argument; it just makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about, but you keep on insisting on talking about it.

not the puddle again. could I have your permission to laminate that for my wallet and carry it around?

[Rampant.A.I.]

[snowtracks]

it goes like this: when there is a high level of coincidences that makes earth life suitable, those that are committed to the presupposition of no-design proceed to make some very metaphysical speculation. you even have a post in cybspace that embraces panspermia. anyone seen any ufo's lately? if you have, please keep it to yourself.

Ah, I see: being unable to respond to the very real accusation of hypocrisy leveled against you, you instead decide to go on the attack, just as ineffectively as you've argued anything else.

Again, coincidences aren't a problem for a naturalistic world because coincidences happen, they're possible. "This thing is improbable!" is not an argument against the thing happening, nor is it evidence for some magical other claim; you need evidence for your claim, not just negative evidence against a different claim. No matter how many things you bring up that disprove what I think- you haven't done this at all, but let's pretend- it won't confirm what you think.

And I don't have a "presupposition" of naturalism, that's just a childish canard made to try to drag us all down to you level; I believe in naturalistic sources for things because thus far nature is the only thing we have evidence for. That's not a presupposition, that's following the available evidence where it leads, and when your sole argument is "oh, it's improbable!" then you're not exactly giving us reason to do otherwise.

As to panspermia, I accept it as a possibility, I don't "embrace" it, you cretin. Additionally, panspermia deals with extraterrestrial sources, not just "ufos" so now you're stuck with a choice: either you're deliberately strawmanning me here, or you decided to open your mouth without knowing what you were talking about.

Asshole, or idiot, Snowy? You pick.

-thou doth protest too much-

[Rampant.A.I.]

[Esquilax]

-thou doth protest too much-

"You think I'm wrong, and therefore I must be right!"?

Really?

Fuck off, Snowy.