Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 8:16 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth
#31
RE: Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth
There is no other context for the word incest.

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".

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?

Oh, and I don't need to discredit the bible. The text within does that without any assistance from me.
Dying to live, living to die.
Reply
#32
RE: Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth
(August 8, 2017 at 3:04 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: I wonder how it happens within your worldview?

It's called chemistry.

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.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
[Image: JUkLw58.gif]
Reply
#33
RE: Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth
(August 8, 2017 at 5:12 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:
(August 8, 2017 at 4:49 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Scientist creates life in the lab.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...g-god.html

Seems your imaginary friend isn't needed.

Also, if your special friend can create an entire universe from nothing, why did it need humans to populate the Earth through incest TWICE?*


*At least according to your little book of myths.
Interesting! I actually toured Craig Venter's lab back when they were sequencing the human genome. It was pretty cool.

Creating new/different life from preexiting life (cells that already exist) is a far cry from taking chemical compounds and/or atoms and creating life from it, unless, of course, you are taking the position that cells have always existed in such a form that separately formed DNA could be inserted therein and that is how life came to be on earth. Is that your argument? If not, please elaborate on your position.

Regarding: "Also, if your special friend can create an entire universe from nothing, why did it need humans to populate the Earth through incest TWICE?"

First, who said God "needed" to do that? Putting words in my mouth again!

Second, it seems that the way you put the question that you are trying to use the word "incest" and its current societal taboos to it to discredit the Bible. It seems you create some problems for yourself also. What is your position on how humans came to be? Did humans evolve in one line or several? If one, don't you have the same incest issue? If many, maybe not.

Third, if you are implying incest is wrong or bad in all circumstances, what leads you to that conclusion? Is there some objective criteria that makes it wrong in all circumstances? If so, who or what provides the standard? If not, what is your basis for the implication?

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.

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.

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.
Reply
#34
RE: Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth
(August 8, 2017 at 4:05 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:
(August 8, 2017 at 3:36 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, there's one instance of special pleading right there.

I don't think special pleading applies here.

Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.

So what standard am I applying to you (general you) and exempting myself from? Any worldview would have the obligation of explaining life from non-life. Mine is that God did it because my presuppositions are that God exists and the Bible is the Word of God. Why would I be required to provide more. My answer flows logically from my presuppositions. You may think it is silly but it does flow logically. If yours is that matter/energy exist and all comes from this and naturalistic processes, it is your obligation to explain how. If you cannot, that is fine. But taking those presuppositions, it seems to that you would be limited to a naturalistic explanation where my position is not so limited.

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.


Quote:Sure...so? The also have the disadvantage that scientists cannot reproduce life from non-life still. Come talk to me when they actually create life from non-life. Otherwise, all the hypotheses are really meaningless and prove nothing. Could I prove creation by coming up with a hypothesis as to how God created? I think not. So neither do the naturalistic hypotheses prove anything.

Well, it's a good thing I never said they did, then!

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?

Quote:I find it very inyeresting that I originally asked why none of you atheists here thought of critiquing Min's post and all I have gotten is name calling and people asserting that I said things I did not. My questions are never answered but unsupported statements are provided.

Is this how atheists argue rationally?

There must be someone here that can have a discussion about issues and positions without getting emotional and calling names.

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

I find your proclivity for broad generalizations interesting.

Reply
#35
RE: Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth
(August 8, 2017 at 5:23 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:
(August 8, 2017 at 3:04 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: I wonder how it happens within your worldview?

It's called chemistry.

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.

Or if god is necessary, why can't they prove god even exists.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Reply
#36
RE: Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth
To Valkyrie:

Quote: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?

Quote: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".

Quote: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

Quote: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.

Quote: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

Quote: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.

Quote: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. 

Quote: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

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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

Quote: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?
Reply
#37
RE: Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth
5th edit; Basically Rjh4 typed a lot of words but said very little.

I cannot even quote the huge wall correctly.
"For the only way to eternal glory is a life lived in service of our Lord, FSM; Verily it is FSM who is the perfect being the name higher than all names, king of all kings and will bestow upon us all, one day, The great reclaiming"  -The Prophet Boiardi-

      Conservative trigger warning.
[Image: s-l640.jpg]
                                                                                         
Reply
#38
RE: Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth
(August 8, 2017 at 2:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Life cannot come from nonliving matter?

What living material did your god work with to create humans, then?

The reply was "naturalistic process," No one has said God used natural processes to "make" the human body. Yes the term is "make," God made the human body from the materials of the earth and then created a soul (breath of life). Read the creation story God created three times and made things from the created things.

GC

(August 8, 2017 at 3:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The bible is not a science textbook, never has been, never will be.

Been trying to tell you this for years, glad to see you are beginning to understand.

Brian37 Wrote:FYI the word "atheist" is not a worldview. If you want to know what an individual thinks of a certain topic, you have to ask that individual atheist. We are not sheep,

Yes you are, you follow the likes of Dawkins and others.

Brian37 Wrote:we are not a gang,

Yes you are you've proven that in this thread. Since I've been back the same people are following me from thread to thread, just to harass for the most part.

Brian37 Wrote:we are not a religion,

You follow the religion of Darwin, Dawkins and others, you all parrot Dawkins every chance you get.

Brian37 Wrote:we are not a political party, 

  I'm betting most atheist here are liberal democrats.

GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Reply
#39
RE: Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth
(August 8, 2017 at 9:20 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: To Thumpalumpacus

Quote: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.

Nonsense. Calling your claims "presuppositions" adds nothing but four syllables. Fancy verbiage aside, you're still making a bald claim, that your god can imbue life into the nonliving, while also making the bald claim that organic chemistry cannot do so.

You do not know either thing.

Quote: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.)

My position is I don't know, and neither do you. I can admit it. Your skepticism of organic chemistry is shot through your replies. If you think it might explain how life arose, perhaps you should tailor your words to better reflect your views, because as matters stand, your words clearly imply that organic chemistry is no answer at all. You simply lack the fortitude to say it openly, probably for argumentative-tactical reasons; you don't want to be nailed down to a position.

Quote: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.

I don't know whether it happened as the various hypotheses describe or not.

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

You did, because you claimed that your god could imbue the nonliving with life while at the same time (and fully admitting being possibly wrong!) implying that organic chemistry cannot do that.

Quote: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.

Well, it's a good thing I am not trying to change your mind about things. See, I don't give a shit what you think, until you start imputing stuff onto others like myself. I don't care enough about you to want to change your mind. I'll be happy to discuss evidences, but I have no emotional investment in your outlook, because I can already see that you're dug-in for a fight. I have better uses for my artillery than yet another god-warrior online.

Quote: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.

You clearly don't speak sarcasm.

Quote: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.

So what? I haven't seen any reason to mark you as a thinker of note; you cannot even acknowledge your own fallacies when they're pointed out to you. Your opinion is worth every penny I've paid for it.

Quote: 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.

That "nobody here" includes you as well. Smile

I don't think you can make a case for good or bad myself, because you've clearly adopted a command morality, and passed the heavy lifting over to some deity you believe exists rather than accepting responsibility for your own decisions.

Perhaps you need to be told what is right and what is wrong. Myself and many others need not appeal to anything other than empathy. I didn't need to read a book to know that, say, stealing is wrong, or kicking someone in the teeth is bad. It's not that hard to figure out, really.

Quote:
Quote: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.

Yes, you are generalizing, and you should not do so. You said we're all being insulting, and not all of us are. So either you can practice nuance, or catch grief for sloppy thinking. It's not my problem, but I sure as hell won't let your overbroad generalization slide without comment. If that discomfits you, perhaps you should, you know, say what you actually mean.

You know my "position on things". You also know that I'm not cussing at you or calling you names. You should take care not to broad-brush people -- and if you do, you should not be surprised when they pipe up.

Reply
#40
RE: Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth
(August 8, 2017 at 4:49 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Also, if your special friend can create an entire universe from nothing, why did it need humans to populate the Earth through incest TWICE?*

And before the old coot made Eve out of pasticine, it was only Adam and Steve. No wonder Adam ate an apple to get the taste out of his mouth...
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Earth's Gravity Hole Bucky Ball 2 553 July 29, 2023 at 1:27 am
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  The shape of Earth h311inac311 162 24577 December 4, 2022 at 1:06 am
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  Young Earth Creationism LinuxGal 3 805 November 26, 2022 at 8:21 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Earth’s energy budget is out of balance Jehanne 5 577 August 20, 2021 at 2:09 pm
Last Post: popeyespappy
  NASA: Asteroid Could Still Hit Earth in 2068 WinterHold 52 4076 November 7, 2020 at 2:42 pm
Last Post: WinterHold
  Possible signs of life found in the atmosphere of Venus zebo-the-fat 11 1458 September 14, 2020 at 8:22 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Did Einstein Say Light is Massive? Rhondazvous 25 3117 July 8, 2019 at 10:15 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Puzzling thing about Speed of Light/Speed of Causality vulcanlogician 25 2615 August 24, 2018 at 11:05 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Irresponsible caretakers of Earth ignoramus 50 7248 April 9, 2018 at 8:12 am
Last Post: JackRussell
  How Cn Gravity Affect Light When Light Has No Mass? Rhondazvous 18 1832 March 2, 2018 at 10:51 pm
Last Post: polymath257



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)