Abiogenesis is impossible

[Bob Kelso]

God is revealed thru nature and revelation; God's attributes and identity are not discovered by the 5 senses since He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present --- "whom no one has seen or can see".

1. Allah is revealed thru nature and revelation; Allah's attributes and identity are not discovered by the 5 senses since He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present --- "whom no one has seen or can see".

2. FSM is revealed thru nature and revelation; the FSM's attributes and identity are not discovered by the 5 senses since He is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-noodly, and everywhere-present --- "whom no one has seen or can see".

When you can tell me why you don't believe 1 & 2 then you'll have a good idea as to why we regard what you just said as a giant heap of bollocks.

[Chas]

So, this universe that couldn't have happened on it's own and must have been created by a deity because it is so fine tuned for life.....
...can't generate, life.

no reason to chafe at the probabilities, follow the data where it leads. If the universe appears to be designed precisely in order to support life, the most logical conclusion is that it was designed precisely to support life.

Good. The data do not lead to a designed universe.

[ThomM]

[quote='SavedByGraceThruFaith' pid='517688' dateline='1380892843']
Abiogenesis is impossible

To prove that all life forms came to be without God, evolutionary theory must show that atoms somehow formed into some form of life and then evolved upward to mankind.


Actually - the problem is that YOU have never provided PROOF that a god exists - NO one has ever done that - and since that has never been proven - the claim that a god was involved in "creation" has NO basis. So - where is YOUR proof of a god?

Evolution is NOT a single theory - but quite a number of different theories and a number of former theories that have been established to be FACTUAL.
Among the facts are that a method of passing traits from parent to child does indeed exist (DNA).

THe libraries of the world have thousands of FACTUAL SCIENTIFIC evidence supporting Evolution - and in 2000 year - the xtians have failed to provide a SINGLE piece of scientifically testable and verifiable evidence that a god exists.

Science HAS established that prayer has NO effect beyond that of chance when tested in large enough numbers to be statistically valid. IT makes no difference what you pray to - nothing changes.

[snowtracks]

[quote='SavedByGraceThruFaith' pid='517688' dateline='1380892843']
Abiogenesis is impossible

To prove that all life forms came to be without God, evolutionary theory must show that atoms somehow formed into some form of life and then evolved upward to mankind.


Actually - the problem is that YOU have never provided PROOF that a god exists - NO one has ever done that - and since that has never been proven - the claim that a god was involved in "creation" has NO basis. So - where is YOUR proof of a god?

Evolution is NOT a single theory - but quite a number of different theories and a number of former theories that have been established to be FACTUAL.
Among the facts are that a method of passing traits from parent to child does indeed exist (DNA).

THe libraries of the world have thousands of FACTUAL SCIENTIFIC evidence supporting Evolution - and in 2000 year - the xtians have failed to provide a SINGLE piece of scientifically testable and verifiable evidence that a god exists.

Science HAS established that prayer has NO effect beyond that of chance when tested in large enough numbers to be statistically valid. IT makes no difference what you pray to - nothing changes.

there's matter and natural laws; these two things do nothing without some external intelligence. these two thing do not on their own devise a plan and then execute the plan.
---------------------------
after moses was giving instruction by God, he asked: who should i say sent me? the answer was 'I am who I am".
in others words, God exist. everyone knows it, including you.

[Esquilax]

there's matter and natural laws; these two things do nothing without some external intelligence. these two thing do not on their own devise a plan and then execute the plan.

Now demonstrate that there's a plan, else this is another unjustified assertion.

after moses was giving instruction by God, he asked: who should i say sent me? the answer was 'I am who I am".
in others words, God exist. everyone knows it, including you.

Oh, fuck off, shitheel. You don't have the right to audit our beliefs and tell us what's really there. You don't see me going around telling you how everyone knows that god isn't real, including you. That's because I'm not a dishonest cretin like you're turning out to be. Now go fuck a cactus, if you insist on this line of reasoning.

[Whateverist]

there's matter and natural laws; these two things do nothing without some external intelligence. these two thing do not on their own devise a plan and then execute the plan.

Right, and the wind doesn't blow without God farting no doubt.

Why do you think repeating stupid shit is a form of argumentation. Then again, why do we keep engaging you? I suppose that is our bad. At least you have stupidity as an excuse. You can't help it.

[Zen Badger]

no reason to chafe at the probabilities, follow the data where it leads. If the universe appears to be designed precisely in order to support life, the most logical conclusion is that it was designed precisely to support life.

And what evidence do you have that suggests that the universe appears to be designed to support life?

Because the vast majority of it is utterly inimical to life.

[*Deidre*]

no reason to chafe at the probabilities, follow the data where it leads. If the universe appears to be designed precisely in order to support life, the most logical conclusion is that it was designed precisely to support life.

And what evidence do you have that suggests that the universe appears to be designed to support life?

Because the vast majority of it is utterly inimical to life.

Excellent post!

[snowtracks]

no reason to chafe at the probabilities, follow the data where it leads. If the universe appears to be designed precisely in order to support life, the most logical conclusion is that it was designed precisely to support life.

And what evidence do you have that suggests that the universe appears to be designed to support life?

Because the vast majority of it is utterly inimical to life.

for starters on the macro level: earth resides in what's is a safe spot in the milky ways galactic habitable zone which a narrow ring that encircles a spiral arm type galaxy. this ring area is protect from the galactic core radiation and where a variety of heavy elements and isotopes are available that advance life requires, however not all areas within the ring can support life due to radiation originating from supernovas, spiral arms, dense molecular clouds and super-giant stars. so only about 1% of U's planets would meet this one basic criteria (extrapolate from the milky way data). this of course doesn't eliminate the chance development originating from a naturalistic model but certain reducing the possibilities. however, all the galaxies that don't support life are actually needed to support earthly life within the creation model. God doesn't create without a purpose.
http://space.about.com/od/frequentlyaske...Galaxy.htm

[shep]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldilocks_principle