Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[rjh4 is back]

To Valkyrie:

There is no other context for the word incest.

Assuming you are talking about incest being "bad" or some other negative word...you still have not explained your standard for use of the word. Is it some objective standard of goodness/badness or something else? Why do you refuse to enlighten me on your position?

Though I DO expect believers to continually try to justify such things. It's a common ploy that those who don't believe are taking the myths "out of context".

One, I am not saying you are taking things out of context. I fully agree that in the context of the Bible, Adam and Eve, and the flood that there must have been some getting together of at least brother/sister/cousins. (In fact, I would say in this context we are all cousins to some degree.)

Two, I have no need to justify anything. It is not my job to explain God's decisions to you. (Like I would be able to even if I wanted to. God has not provided such information.)

Three, unless you can provide a cogent reason why brother/sister/cousin getting together at least at the start of things is objectively bad anyway, there is nothing to "justify".

I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked why the god of the bible, who is supposedly capable of creating the entire universe in a few days, decided to let humans repopulate the world through incest?

Ok...looking back, I agree you were not putting words in my mouth. I did notice, though, that you changed the question here from "needed" to "decided". Asking me to tell you why God did something is kind of like me asking you why someone else did something. We both would only know if we were told by the party. Here, God has not revealed why He set things up like He did, so I cannot answer.




To Popeyespappy

It's called chemistry.

Assuming you are talking about life arising from non-life via naturalistic mechanisms: Really? It's as simple as that? Then please explain the mechanism for all of us. Don't hold back. I do have a degree in Chemical Engineering and have worked with technology for the past 34 years. I know I would be able to understand where you are coming from. Just lay it out for us.

In the decade or so I've been hanging out on forums like this one not a single solitary Christian has come up with a valid explanation of why life can't happen without god.

So somehow it is the Christian's burden to prove that life can't happen without God? Nonsense. Since you would be the one asserting the positive that life can happen without God, the burden would be on you. Can you show that life can't happen with God? Would it be reasonable for me to charge you with the burden of proof there? I think not.




To Brian37

Evolution explains why you don't fuck family members. No it is not impossible physically, but most life does not do that because it would not produce genetic diversity which evolution requires for reproduction.

Fallaceous argument. Reification. Evolution (common descent) is a concept and does not explain or require anything.

The Adam and Eve story which would be a limited gene pool, and like the flood story again, leaving one family also would be a limited gene pool. Not that ether of those myths are fact, but the way the stories go would make them incestuous stories knowing what the scientific definition of genes and DNA are.

It is my understanding that limited gene pools are bad now because there are many defect/changes in the DNA which cause negative traits that can be amplified in a small gene pool. But if the DNA was such that it had no defects/changes (created by God) the gene pool argument goes away. 

The good thing is that the bible is a book of myth, the bad thing for you is that you have yet to realize that.

On what basis do you say it is "bad" for me? Why would you care what I believe? You keep throwing around these terms but never answer the questions regarding your basis for them. Is it an objective basis or something else? 



To Thumpalumpacus

It is special pleading because you are asserting by fiat that your godling can imbue life in the non-living, while asserting that organic chemistry cannot, all the while having zero support for either claim.

One, I asserted nothing by fiat. I merely told you my presuppositions and the logical conclusion I come to because of them.

Two, I never asserted that organic chemistry cannot imbue life in the non-living. You are the one who takes the position that it has. (If I am mischaracterizing your position, please explain what you really think.) I would just argue that scientists have not demonstrated that it is possible and you have not shown otherwise. While I don't think it will ever be demonstrated, I would not make the positive claim that it cannot.

Consequently, I still think I did not commit special pleading.

However, not all hypotheses are equal. You see, we can see organic chemistry at work any day of the week. Perhaps you should hold your "god hypothesis" to your same standard of replicability which you demand of material processes ... or perhaps you wish to indulge in special pleading once more?

I agree that all hypotheses are not equal. I also agree that we can see organic chemistry at work any day of the week. But that does not lead you any closer to proving that life and come from non-life via naturalistic mechanisms.

Regarding your "god hypothesis" comment, I think you totally misunderstand where I am coming from. God existing is not a hypothesis that can be proven with evidence in a scientific manner. On the other hand, one can begin with certain presuppositions and see where it would lead logically. To me beginning with God existing and the Bible being the Word of God results in a much more consistent position than anything else I have come across. The fact is, so far, nobody here has explained how their positions lead to meaningful definitions of words such as "good" and "bad". Again, that is not to say atheists cannot be "good" people. I am still wondering what arguments you use to make a case for "goodness"/"badness". A position that cannot make such an argument but uses the terms seems inconsistent and irrational to me.

How have I insulted you? What names have I called you?

I find your proclivity for broad generalizations interesting.

I think there was a miscommunication based on how I posted. My quote that you were responding to was one I did separately after I posted the one to you. The forum programming combined them. It was intended to be a generalization. The name calling issue was directed mostly, if not exclusively, to Minimalist. The failing to answer questions would probably apply to most, but I would have to go back and look at individual posts.

Note, I am engaging several of you here so it is hard not to generalize. Please feel free to provide your position on things and I will certainly try to engage you on a one to one basis.



To mh.brewer

Or if god is necessary, why can't they prove god even exists.

Like I said before, I do not think God can be proved in a scientific sense. Nor do I think that His existence can be disproven in a scientific sense. No amount of scientific research or evidence can prove one way or the other. You can say that God is not necessary all you want, too, but that doesn't prove the non-existence of God nor that He is not necessary. That is why I think looking at presuppositions and examining the resulting worldview consistency and rationality provides a better way to look at things.

So...why not proffer your presuppositions and your conclusions and see how they stand up?