(August 11, 2017 at 2:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(August 11, 2017 at 2:17 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: Sure, Brian, as in evolution means change. I am on board with evolution insofar as that is what you mean.
I said I was a common descent denier, not a change denier.
This is a perfect example of facts vs. scenario. Sure, I would agree with you that things change and, yes, we create new flu vaccines every year. Sure viruses evolve (change). I think we would agree that these are all facts. But that is quite far from proving common descent.
It appears as if you were committing the fallacy of equivocation. The old bait and switch concerning definitions of evolution.
GREAT, but you still do not get to cherry pick the parts of evolution you agree with and ignore the rest.
It still remains that a god is not needed to be a starting point. Not Jesus not Allah not Yahweh not Bhrama or Buddhist reincarnation.
Atoms bond automatically as individual atoms without help from fictional puppeteers.
I am sorry that mundane reality isn't romantic and sexy enough for you, but that is your baggage, not mine.
Let me put it to you this way. There is no gravity deity named "Splat" magically pulling you to the ground if you jump off a skyscraper. Atoms don't need a magical force to bond either.
And you clearly do not get how stupid it sounds when you say:
Atoms bond automatically as individual atom then...bata bing bata boom...life.
Imagine sitting in a university freshman chemistry or biology class and an atheist student asking how life came from non-life. Imagine further that the atheist professor said the things you have been saying here. Do you really think the student would be satisfied with that answer? If so, I would not characterize that student as being skeptical of anything. Maybe you are just not very skeptical and believe anything you are told.
Do you think you could create life from non-life in the lab? I challenge you to! I challenge you to find someone who has done it without starting with material already derived from something living. I assure you, if you show that, I will concede the point that it is plausible that life came from non-life in a naturalistic manner and not say that it took a creator.
