Psalm 137:9

[Cyberman]

Nothing from AiG is important.

[Crossless2.0]

I never said that. He is an atheist who believes in atheism.

And right there is where you go completely wrong. You seem to think that atheism is a belief system to which one ascribes. It's not. It's the negation of theism. We don't believe your god claims because you haven't presented any good reasons that would compel our belief. It's as simple as that.

[Godisgood]

Nothing from AiG is important.



That's an ignorant opinion!!

[Crossless2.0]

Nothing from AiG is important.



That's an ignorant opinion!!

Not if you've read their drivel.

[Godisgood]

Nothing from AiG is important.



That's an ignorant opinion!!

Not if you've read their drivel.

drivel

I dont know what this means.

---

Not if you've read their drivel.

drivel

I dont know what this means.

And you saying its silly nonsense is your opinion!

---

Ok I will but can you remind me of what we were talking about. I cant provide a link from AIG if I dont know what we were talking about. Just remind me? Was it Morality, Evolution, Naturalism, Abiogenesis, etc? Its like a one word answer.  Please

Like I said, take your pick.  I was being facetious..though...why would I want you to plaster AIG trash all over the boards?  

-and no, you can't explain why - unless the answer to "what did god make life from" is life...then we're talking abiogenesis.  That's just what the term means.

-and no, you can't explain why - unless the answer to "what did god make life from" is life...then we're talking abiogenesis. That's just what the term means. 

Yeah but that isnt WHAT GOD IS DOING!!!

[Cyberman]

That's an ignorant opinion!!

Correct, the site is filled with them.

[Cyberman]

And learn to quote properly... it's really not that hard. Even rik can do it.

[Crossless2.0]

Not if you've read their drivel.

drivel

I dont know what this means.

---

drivel

I dont know what this means.

And you saying its silly nonsense is your opinion!

No shit . . . it's my opinion.

Sharp as a bowling ball, aren't you?

You still haven't done anything but make assertions. When are you going to treat us to your AIG talking points?

[Astreja]

When considering how life began, there are only two options. Either life was created by an intelligent source (God) or it began by natural processes.

I think that a natural source is the more likely of the two, considering that science has yet to find any empirical evidence to support the existence of supernatural beings.

Amino acids, the foundation of more complex molecules like RNA and DNA, have self-assembled in chemical solutions comprised of simpler but very common compounds.  The elements that life requires (Hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen) are not confined to Earth -- they're all over the solar system, and probably in most planet-containing solar systems in the universe.

DNA formation from inorganic matter may be an uncommon process, but it doesn't have to happen constantly.  Once it does start -- and there are lots of opportunities for it to start over the span of billions of years -- it can become a continuous process.  I expect to see spontaneous DNA synthesis in a laboratory setting in my own lifetime, probably in the next 5-10 years.  Once we have that, we will know that life can arise from non-life via strictly chemical means -- although I suspect there will still be believers who will insist that their god somehow made it happen.

[Godisgood]

That's an ignorant opinion!!

Correct, the site is filled with them.

In your opinion the site is filled with nonsense. Why it that difficult to understand?

---

When considering how life began, there are only two options. Either life was created by an intelligent source (God) or it began by natural processes.

I think that a natural source is the more likely of the two, considering that science has yet to find any empirical evidence to support the existence of supernatural beings.

Amino acids, the foundation of more complex molecules like RNA and DNA, have self-assembled in chemical solutions comprised of simpler but very common compounds.  The elements that life requires (Hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen) are not confined to Earth -- they're all over the solar system, and probably in most planet-containing solar systems in the universe.

DNA formation from inorganic matter may be an uncommon process, but it doesn't have to happen constantly.  Once it does start -- and there are lots of opportunities for it to start over the span of billions of years -- it can become a continuous process.  I expect to see spontaneous DNA synthesis in a laboratory setting in my own lifetime, probably in the next 5-10 years.  Once we have that, we will know that life can arise from non-life via strictly chemical means -- although I suspect there will still be believers who will insist that their god somehow made it happen.

I think that a natural source is the more likely of the two, considering that science has yet to find any empirical evidence to support the existence of supernatural beings.

And science has yet to prove that everything came about by natural processes.

---

Correct, the site is filled with them.

In your opinion the site is filled with nonsense. Why it that difficult to understand?

---

I think that a natural source is the more likely of the two, considering that science has yet to find any empirical evidence to support the existence of supernatural beings.

Amino acids, the foundation of more complex molecules like RNA and DNA, have self-assembled in chemical solutions comprised of simpler but very common compounds.  The elements that life requires (Hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen) are not confined to Earth -- they're all over the solar system, and probably in most planet-containing solar systems in the universe.

DNA formation from inorganic matter may be an uncommon process, but it doesn't have to happen constantly.  Once it does start -- and there are lots of opportunities for it to start over the span of billions of years -- it can become a continuous process.  I expect to see spontaneous DNA synthesis in a laboratory setting in my own lifetime, probably in the next 5-10 years.  Once we have that, we will know that life can arise from non-life via strictly chemical means -- although I suspect there will still be believers who will insist that their god somehow made it happen.

I think that a natural source is the more likely of the two, considering that science has yet to find any empirical evidence to support the existence of supernatural beings.

And science has yet to prove that everything came about by natural processes.

Once we have that, we will know that life can arise from non-life via strictly chemical means -- although I suspect there will still be believers who will insist that their god somehow made it happen.


So in 5-10 years,, we will be able to  violate the Law of Biogenesis.

God somehow made it happen.

He somehow made it happen.

Given that God is allpowerful, it wasnt difficult.


Yes there will always be believers who think that because its more logical than life coming from nonlife, and considering it will never actually happen. It doesnt even make sense to try and pretend that it can happen.