'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[Speedwell]

Well, abiogenesis by definition means the generation of life without the help of a living thing. Since God is a living thing, then abiogenesis and God concept are inherently incompatible. Even if god had set in motion the process itself it would still not be abiogenesis because it is traceable to living thing intervention.

Of course you may choose to give abiogenesis your own personal definition but that is mine.


Abiogenesis
Home » Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis

(Science: study) The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.

I think it will prove to be just one more biochemical reaction, no more requiring God's intervention as Efficient Cause than any other biochemical reaction. But when you ask, why do chemicals react the way they do? that's a different story.

 

[Radrook]

I think it will prove to be just one more biochemical reaction, no more requiring God's intervention as Efficient Cause than any other biochemical reaction. But when you ask, why do chemicals react the way they do? that's a different story.

I guess we differ. Unlike you, I can't imagine blind chance chemical reactions eventually producing organisms which show overwhelmingly compelling evidence of planned design.
Furthermore, such reasoning goes completely contrary to how you react when confronted with a camera, a pump, or a computer. Then, of course, you are all vehemently convinced that they indeed NEEDED an ID and would use the identical reasons of evidence of planning and forethought shown by their configurations toward a purpose in order to convince me why.

Sorry but that inconsistency of policy is strongly indicative of insincerity.

 

[Speedwell]

I guess we differ. Unlike you, I can't imagine blind chance chemical reactions eventually producing organisms which show overwhelmingly compelling evidence of planned design.
Furthermore, such reasoning goes completely contrary to how you react when confronted with a camera, a pump, or a computer. Then, of course, you are all vehemently convinced that they indeed NEEDED an ID and would use the identical reasons of evidence of planning and forethought shown by their configurations toward a purpose in order to convince me why.

Sorry but that inconsistency of policy is strongly indicative of insincerity.

How do you know how I would react or why? And no, that's not how I would try to convince you, but it would be entirely without vehemence--and entirely sincere. Your Creationist sources are showing again.

I'm biased by my math degree. Random variation and selection is what's called a "Markov process" and is capable of producing the complexity we observe in biological structures--the math is rock solid. As far as "blind chance chemical reactions," there is really no such thing. What happens in chemistry at the atomic level is always the most probable outcome, depending on local conditions. That's how synthetic chemistry works; you mix the constituents together and tweak the conditions--temperature, pressure, etc.-- to get the molecule you want, rather than some other.

And that's what's wrong with those Creationist "odds against" calculations--they assume that given a mix of constituent atoms, all possible compounds are equally likely to form--which is not the case, in nature or in the lab.

 

[Radrook]

How do you know how I would react or why? And no, that's not how I would try to convince you, but it would be entirely without vehemence. Your Creationist sources are showing again.

I'm biased by my math degree. Random variation and selection is what's called a "Markov process" and is capable of producing the complexity we observe in biological structures--the math is rock solid. As far as "blind chance chemical reactions," there is really no such thing. What happens in chemistry at the atomic level is always the most probable outcome, depending on local conditions. That's how synthetic chemistry works; you mix the constituents together and tweak the conditions--temperature, pressure, etc.-- to get the molecule you want, rather than some other.

And that's what's wrong with those Creationist "odds against" calculations--they assume that given a mix of constituent atoms, all possible compounds are equally likely to form.

Sorry but I cannot fathom complex organic computers, complicated organic cameras, lifelong functional three-chambered and four chambered organic pumps, and all the other intricate organization which shouts planning and mind as merely the result of fortuitous mindlessness dependent on millions of happy highly improbable accidents. No degree in physics is needed to detect fallacious reasoning and reaching that conclusion is fallacious reasoning par excellence..

Furthermore, whenever such fallacious reasoning is repeatedly brought atheists attention they unceremoniously proceed to ignore it while demanding that their dubious arguments be given meticulous ponderings. Such a modus operandi is indicative of a closed mind unwilling to reason where reasoning is essential and a mind which is exceedingly eager to totally suspend cogent reasoning and shift into the fallacious mode whenever deemed convenient. In short, constantly shifting the playing table in order to avoid having to reach inevitable conclusions which are perceived as extremely unsavory from the atheistic viewpoint. Discussion is virtually impossible under such conniving conditions.

BTW
Who coded the DNA and who programed the RNA to read and proceed to follow it's instructions?
Chemical reactions? Surely you jest!
Better yet, where did the info come from?
Chemical reactions?
That's the stuff faery tales are made of.

 

[SteveB28]

Those aren't the reasons why we are told to believe in an intelligent designer of all things.
The Apostle Paul provides the reason why we should believe in the creator and it isn't blind faith nor an inherent need to worship.


Romans 1:20 ►

New International Version
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.


So you are blatantly misrepresenting the REASON why the Bible tells us we should believe, and prefer to join in the "Ï just cain't see nuffin fo day is nuffin ta see!" chanting offered mindlessly for lack of a better response

Anything based upon the philosophy of Paul is indeed "blind" faith......

Because Paul never asserted to have 'seen' any of the things in which he believed. It was all based upon divine revelation.

 

[SteveB28]

Sorry but I cannot fathom complex organic computers, complicated organic cameras, lifelong functional three-chambered and four chambered organic pumps, and all the other intricate organization which shouts planning and mind as merely the result of fortuitous mindlessness dependent on millions of happy highly improbable accidents. No degree in physics is needed to detect fallacious reasoning and reaching that conclusion is fallacious reasoning par excellence..

How amusingly ironic....Given that you spent most of that paragraph committing the Argument from Incredulity logical fallacy...........

 

[Radrook]

How amusingly ironic....Given that you spent most of that paragraph committing the Argument from Incredulity logical fallacy...........

Not at all. I understand where you are coming from.
Your explanations are simply not convincing.
Especially when you refuse to reason while demanding that others do so.
In other words do as you say but not as you do.

BTW
Most evolutionists and atheists who believe in abiogenesis believe because they have been told to believe and not because they understand the intricacies involved. Actually, if indeed they understood them-then they would readily realize that the seemingly certain claims are really nonsensical and that the available data doesn't warrant the wild conclusions being reached at all.

But since they like to feel smart via identifying with people they consider smart because the ideas are popular, they parrot mindlessly anything that those people say. I once began asking an atheist questions about the exact mechanisms which he had been claiming produced the various organs of the human body and he panicked because despite all his previous blustering he didn't have clue. Neither did rest of the atheists involved who had also been blustering and whom he asked for help. They simply said that there was was still much to learned! LOL!

 

[Radrook]

Anything based upon the philosophy of Paul is indeed "blind" faith......

Because Paul never asserted to have 'seen' any of the things in which he believed. It was all based upon divine revelation.

If indeed that is what you understand from the scripture quoted then you obviously are deficient in English reading comprehension skills.

BTW
You are the one running on faith.

Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis
http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

 

[SteveB28]

Not at all. I understand where you are coming from.

How strange, because your last statement was that you "could not fathom". It seems that not only do you not understand, you don't even know what you don't know....!

Your explanations are simply not convincing.
Especially when you refuse to reason while demanding that others do so.
In other words do as you say but not as you do.

What are you talking about? What "explanations" have I made? What "refusals" have I made?

You seem very confused.......

BTW
Most evolutionists and atheists who believe in abiogenesis believe because they have been told to believe and not because they understand the intricacies involved. Actually, if indeed they understood them-then they would readily realize that the seemingly certain claims are really nonsensical and that the available data doesn't warrant the wild conclusions being reached at all.

What "wild conclusions"?? There was a time when there was no life on this planet. Now, there is. Ergo, there must have been a process by which it appeared. The most likely process is one involving chemical or electro-chemical processes.

That's as far as the "wild conclusions" go, in my understanding.

But since they like to feel smart via identifying with people they consider smart because the ideas are popular, they parrot mindlessly anything that those people say. I once began asking an atheist questions about the exact mechanisms which he had been claiming produced the various organs of the human body and he panicked because despite all his previous blustering he didn't have clue. Neither did rest of the atheists involved who had also been blustering and whom he asked for help. They simply said that there was was still much to learned! LOL!

And now an ad hominem approach...?

You aren't very good at this 'forming an argument' business, are you?

 

[SteveB28]

If indeed that is what you understand from the scripture quoted then you obviously are deficient in English reading comprehension skills.

BTW
You are the one running on faith.

Do try reading. I said that ANYTHING based upon Paul's accounts is an act of blind faith....not just that one verse.

However, it does mention 'seeing' the invisible......

 

[DogmaHunter]

Romans 1:20 ►

New International Version
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.


So you are blatantly misrepresenting the REASON why the Bible tells us we should believe, and prefer to join in the "Ï just cain't see nuffin fo day is nuffin ta see!" chanting offered mindlessly for lack of a better response

I don't see any "reason" in the verse. I see a bare assertion.

 

[Radrook]

Do try reading. I said that ANYTHING based upon Paul's accounts is an act of blind faith....not just that one verse.

However, it does mention 'seeing' the invisible......

Paul's reference to the invisible in this scripture is in reference to God's quality of God ship ad all that it encompass such as his almightiness, and wisdom. What did you think he meant? Actually, he tells us what he means right in that scripture so why ignore it?
Here is a simplified writing of what Paul said:.

Because of the way it is made, creation itself offers evidence of God and of his Godly qualities so that we have no excuses to say that we can't see it.

Hope that clears up the misunderstanding.

Your description of Paul's writings indicates that you either never read them or if you did you simply can't see, or are perhaps simply repeating what another person who never read his writings said.:

You see, your accusation becomes nonsensical because much of what Paul wrote was behavioral advice to the churches such as the churches in the cities of Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome. His timely counsel covered , personal relationships, Christian relationship with the government, comportment and managing matters within the church, clarification of misunderstandings, warnings against disruptive individuals, warnings against the apostasy he detected was developing, expressions of gratitude for previous assistance, and doctrinal matters which needed clarification. Such doctrinal matters were in reference to how Gentiles wee now to be viewed and how Hebrews should now view gentiles. The writings did contain explanations of how the Law was fulfilled in Christ. But that part which is mostly found in Hebrews does not constitute the majority of his writings. So to say that EVERYTHING which Paul wrote necessitates that we exercise faith is simply ridiculous since much of it is simply common-sense advice and other matters to which faith is totally irrelevant.

Please note, if I were to engage in a criticism of the writings of the Koran, I would at the least read what the Koran contains lest I cut a comical figure by attempting an exegesis of its text which will turn out to be Mickey Mouse.

BTW
As for your claim that:

"You still caint't see!"

Well, then I guess that you simply cain't see.
So since you jist cain't see it, then I guess this discussion should be over.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because of the way it is made, creation itself offers evidence of God and of his Godly qualities so that we have no excuses to say that we can't see it.

Merely claiming it, does not make it so.

Hope that clears up the misunderstanding.

He understood you the first time, I'm sure.

 

[Radrook]

Merely claiming it, does not make it so.



He understood you the first time, I'm sure.

No he dint! Paul didn't say that his mere claim made it so and neither did I.

BTW
Inability to see or refusal to see is OK.
After all, no one can force us to see what we refuse to see or prefer not to see.
That is a human right just as it is a human right not to try to force you to see what you refuse to see--see?


John 9:39 ESV

Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.”

Romans 11:8 ESV
As it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”

2 Corinthians 4:3-4
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Isaiah 43:8 ESV /
Bring out the people who are blind, yet have eyes, who are deaf, yet have ears!

Matthew 13:16 ESV /
But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.

 

[Radrook]

Sure sure! Uh huh! uh huh! It be just dose clever chemichiles! Numb sayin?

Cuz dem chemicals be smarts!

Instructions, transcriptions, transfers, chains, messengers, templates, Wow Yow! How smart can dem chemicals get?

No my friend, I don't buy your fantastic "Da Chemicals did it!" explanation.

 

[Jimmy D]

Sure sure! Uh huh! uh huh! It be just dose clever chemichiles! Numb sayin?

Cuz dem chemicals be smarts!

What's your point? Cells are complicated?

Oh, and is your mocking language an attempt to disguise the fact that you can't formulate a rational argument? Because that's what it looks like.

 

[Radrook]

What's your point? Cells are complicated?

Oh, and is your mocking language an attempt to disguise the fact that you can't formulate a rational argument? Because that's what it looks like.

Um, : "The usual I jist Cain't see it!" response again? LOL! In a way I don't blame you. I mean what else can you say? But now there is a twist.

Now the claim that cogent reasoning itself is illogical is added. That is also understandable since acknowledging the value of cogent reasoning would force you to think cogently and that would only lead in one inexorable direction, a path which you don't want to follow because you know full well where that path leads and you want nothing to do with that unavoidable, [terrifying to you] destination.

BTW
Why not simply admit that the attribution of all this clever genius to mere mindless chemicals is a lunacy? That would confirm your dedication to finding truth and remove the serious doubt about sincerity that a continuous, pathetic claim of sudden and total inability to reason cogently engenders.

 

[MasonP]

I guess we differ. Unlike you, I can't imagine blind chance chemical reactions eventually producing organisms which show overwhelmingly compelling evidence of planned design.
Furthermore, such reasoning goes completely contrary to how you react when confronted with a camera, a pump, or a computer. Then, of course, you are all vehemently convinced that they indeed NEEDED an ID and would use the identical reasons of evidence of planning and forethought shown by their configurations toward a purpose in order to convince me why.
Sorry but that inconsistency of policy is strongly indicative of insincerity.

So everything is designed because it would be ridiculous to think it wasn't, all except your God that is, to think your God needed designing in your mind is equally ridiculous, your beliefs rely on twisted thinking, one thing needs designing but the other doesn't is the only way your belief can be made to work.

 

[Radrook]

So everything is designed because it would be ridiculous to think it wasn't, all except your God that is, to think your God needed designing in your mind is equally ridiculous, your beliefs rely on twisted thinking, one thing needs designing but the other doesn't is the only way your belief can be made to work.

Say what?
Of course not. Please try not to offer silly premises! It wastes time.
Also, please try not to introduce God, gods, deities, goddesses, sprites, spirits, elves, hobbits or gnomes when such are not necessary or haven't even been as much as suggested.
It avoids annoying equivocation and distracting straw man-you know?.

Blessings!

This is Radrook on Christian forums.

I'm out!

 

[Hieronymus]

So everything is designed because it would be ridiculous to think it wasn't,

Spot on bro !