(November 30, 2014 at 10:13 pm)Jenny A Wrote:(November 30, 2014 at 10:05 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:
Man I forgot how we even got into this whole abiogenesis thing.
Probabilistic indicators? Like what? Based on all of the arguments for the existence of God that is convincing to ME, I have probabilistic indicators that God exists and he has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. So how does your indicators have any more virtue than mines?
That is your opinion. I think the probability trends away from naturalism.The God hypothesis best explains the origin of life, consciousness, species, and the universe....that is my opinion. Those are four different/independent problems for the naturalist, and so far science is silent on all four of those problems...and since science can't demonstrate either one, you have no reasons to believe that any of that stuff occurred, so you simple pout and/or frown...and accept by faith that it occurred.
Science hasn't demonstrated what it needs to demonstrate to convince me that those things could happen without intelligent design..to hell with "the way science works"...however it is working, it hasn't answered my questions.
You can't stop the unstoppable...top the untoppable....pop the unpoppable..
You can't take the untakeable...break the unbreakable...shake the unshakeable...
Bullying? What are you, in the 5th grade? How the hell is it bullying...it is a fact. You can't provide evidence for what you believe to be NATURAL occurrences...but you have nerve to claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences"?
Like I said, this is an old played out line by atheists and it is time someone called you guys out on this...and I am just the guy to do it.
As mentioned previously, I don't recall how abiogenesis crept in to the conversation, but if I brought it up, it was because of something someone else said.
Look, all of that "I don't know" shit is misleading...sure, you don't know...but it is clear that you BELIEVE that it happened even if you don't know HOW it happened. If you conclusively rule out intelligent design...if your stance is "God didn't do it"...then the default position is nature did it.
Either life formed naturally, or supernaturally. Point blank, period. You sit there and argue against intelligent design, all the while acting as an apologists for naturalism...but then sit there and say "I don't know"...yeah you don't know, but you BELIEVE that nature did it, and the fact of the matter is that science cannot validate that hypothesis as of yet, so you simply accept by faith just like any religious folk does.
Dude, even if I am attacking the concept of abiogensis with someone else, you make your way into the conversation and begin defending against those attacks, as if you are an apologist for the position...yet you claim you dont know, and you claim that you don't accept it, but your actions prove otherwise. It is clear as day.
First off, they were still longggg ways from life...second, they would still have to find out how to get consciousness in there...third, even the little bit that they did do, guess what, intelligence was required, right?
Im not even sure you would call it a piece...it may be one piece, OF a piece...not even a full piece. It has been over 60 years since the Miller experiment, and we really havent made any advancements since then...we have a long way to go...and we wont even mention consciousness, like how are you going to get consciousness squirting in there amiss of all of that molecular junk? It aint happening.
Wait a minute, so two scientists conducted an experiment, but no intelligence was needed??? dude, you are a mess.
My point was, INTELLIGENT DESIGN WAS NEEDED TO PRODUCE THE DESIRED EFFECT.
Not only that, but environmental conditions of the early earth 3 billion years ago did NOT reflect what Miller & nem THOUGHT the early earth was...so after it was all said and done they only were able to produce two amino acids...2 out of the minimum 200 that is needed for a protein molecule...and even if they managed (which they didn't/can't) to get the minimum needed, they would still have had to get the correct sided amino acids..as amino acids come right-handed and left handed...and only the left-sided is needed...then you would have to get all of the left side-sided amino acids in sequence order, otherwise the protein molecule can't be formed.
So it is highly improbable for even ONE protein molecule to be formed without intelligence, let alone 200.
Now this is a well known problem with abiogenesis...and no amount of bio babble will be able to save this nonsensical notion that life can come from non living material.
Hey, I understand that you are uncomfortable talking about the limitations of science..but science will also have to explain the origin of consciousness as well. You got life, but how do you get life to think and become aware..but lets just sweep that shit under the rug, huh?
"Some" is not good enough...Carmello Anthony played in "some" playoff games and even won a few playoff series, but he never actually won a championship, which is the ultimate goal. Second, again, you still have the consciousness problem, infinity problem, and species problem...you are not even half way done on naturalism
Since my argument is based on life that began, then that light bulb that apparently went off in your head to make you think you had such an awesome response becomes....meaningless.
I appeal to what I think is the best explanation.
And I took you to task by explaining to you the fact that NOT being able to conceive of something only ratifies its impossibility.
Of course I do, but you said it wasn't "necessary", so you are making it seem as if it COULD something other that what it is..and my question is, based on what?
I know, you are basically saying "If I had such a hard time dealing with the abiogenesis problem, why would you throw the origin of consciousness in there to make the problem twice as difficult."
No one said the job was going to be easy, Esquil
You sound like a damn fool. If I am asking you to explain the origin of consciousness, why the hell would you start by saying it evolved?? But its evolution could only occur after it originated, which still has yet to be explained, but that was the question in the first place!!!
Second, you are WRONG anyway, because I didn't switch to abiogenesis, my point was if abiogenesis PROVED to be true, hypothetically speaking, then where did consciousness come from?? That was the freakin' point...it had nothing to do with abiogenesis as I assumed (briefly) that abiogenesis was true.
Your reading comprehension skills are piss poor, bro.
And naturalists position is that "nature makes it". And if that isn't your position, then stop defending it.
So get all of the inanimate physical matter in the world, and see if any of the matter will come to life.
Non sequitur.
Life from nonlife hasnt been demonstrated as a natural occurrence either.
Again, if just having all the right ingredients was all that is needed, why aren't you able to demonstrate life from nonlife??
I like the ID model better.
I am just taking out the bio-babble and calling it what it actually is..."In the beginning, nature..."
Everyone knows that the Miller experiments didn't come close to creating life...you are the only one even still appealing to that experiment...it is a dead issue...they went in the lab to create life from nonlife, and failed. Point blank, period.
Dude, the goal was for them to create life from nonlife, and they didn't...so how is that exceeding expectations?
Completely ignored the distinguishing point I was making between eternity and infinity. Each term has at least two definitions for it and it isn't until you put each one in its proper perspective that you won't end up looking like a dumbass.
Um, I believe in God, duh.
Yes I do...and for you to sit there and say that is very dishonest, but when you are intellectually losing, I guess dishonesty is the last resort.
I've also stated why that to be the case...but lets conveniently leave that part out and continue with this meaningless rhetorical tirade, shall we?
It does make it the case if I have reasons to believe it to be the case.
Because life through infinite duration is impossible.
I repeat: Because life through infinite duration is impossible. You see how I am giving a reason for the shit? Instead of just saying it because it is "convenient", I am actually giving a reason for the shit, ain't I?
*Life that began, that is.
No, I said actual infinities are impossible...Now yeah, when dealing with actual time, infinite time and eternity mean the same thing...but eternity can also mean "without time" or "timelessness" or "atemporal" <----these are all synonymous with each other and also with "Eternity"...and this is the eternity I am talking about when I said "God is eternal", meaning that he wasn't living through infinite duration of time...he transcended time altogether...he was above and beyond time.
Um, life originating from chemical reactions would be a natural phenomena, right? And I could of swore that was one of the options...but hey, it isnt the first time my point was misrepresented, so what the hell.
But I recognize that there couldn't be an infinite chain of "life producing life" going all the way back to eternity past, which is a view that is quite consistent with me arguing against infinity on the other thread.
Dude, there are no "gotcha" moments with me on this subject. None.
*Life that began.
It is ok, the more you keep attacking straw man, I will be there to put you right back on path, you know, the path of my actual position.
God is not eternal in the sense of infinite duration in time, no.
Which is exactly what a self-aggrandizing bully would say.
You are right, I am an intellectual bully...so after school...me...you....playground.....and I will intellectually beat the crap out of you regarding any subject that we've been discussing.
What the hell does any of that crap have to do with the historicity of Jesus?
And you aren't a bully, more like a clumsy toddler.
Trouble being, HM, we would all show up and you'd either make an excuse not to show up or you'd send someone else to do it and fail for you.
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"