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

[Speedwell]

As I clearly pointed out, the chicanery is acting as if it were undeniable fact. Anyone watching the documentaries about possibility of life on other worlds and on how life arose on Earth is immediately aware of that conveyed sense of certainty. It is never "ÏF" it happened" but it is always "How it must have happened". Claiming not to see that certainty as demonstrated in those documentaries itself constitutes chicanery.

Documentaries??? Oh, my!

 

[Radrook]

Documentaries??? Oh, my!

Suddenly documentaries don't reflect what is popularly believed and the scientists who appear in them no longer count. Another version of the "I caint see!" or more accurately, the""Ï will never see no matter what!" sudden brain on hold excuse. I strongly suggest that if indeed your atheist scientists are as uncertain concerning abiogenesis as you claim them to be, then your atheist scientists should be more honest when invited to appear on documentaries which will represent their opinion to the public.

 

[Radrook]

The problem is that, if our understanding of cosmology, star formation and the origin of the Earth is even approximately correct, there was a time when there was no life anywhere in the universe, and a fortiori no life on Earth, whereas now there certainly is life on Earth. In other words, life must have originated somehow from non-life.

The elements of life were produced in the Big Bang (hydrogen) or by nuclear reactions in stars (everything else), and they combined in interstellar space and elsewhere to form non-living organic compounds, which still exist in comets and some asteroids and meteorites.

If you accept this, how do you think that life originated? Do you think that God put appropriate organic compounds, made by natural processes, together to make the first living organisms? Alternatively, do you think that God created plants, fungi, animals, micro-organisms, viruses, etc., out of nothing and in essentially their present form? Would you like to explain your own ideas on the matter rather than merely denying the possibility of abiogenesis?

As a Christian I accept the Genesis account as the explanation of how life originated.
I have absolutely no problem in accepting the Big Bang as the way that God created our universe. Neither do I have a problem with the billions of Earth years involved in its creation.
So what the problem is that you speak of I really don't know. Christians don't deny that God created the elements or that he used the elements to create life. So there really isn't a problem.

Also, I have never imagined God creating things out of nothing. In fact, I find that concept unbiblical and a bit weird. I recently asked a Christian what she meant by it and she said it was merely an expression. Yet expressions have meaning and I fail to understand the meaning of that idea.

I think that you are misunderstanding the issue involved.

 

[Radrook]

His opinion is the very model you are promoting here. ID.



Well... it WAS in court and he WAS under oath.

Here's the transcript. Have fun.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

When you have to redefine what a "scientific theory" is to include just about any crazy idea someone's imagination can come up with, just so you can call your own crazy idea a "scientific theory", it's safe to conclude that your idea has a few problems.


Please give the link to the post where I supposedly quoted anything from the bible.



Funny. Behe is one of the people that came up with it.

He's not just "promoter" or "believer" or "follower".
He's the guy behind the "irreducible complexity" nonsense.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

He misrepresented what Paul meant.

About Bhehehe! If you have a gripe with something he said -please take it up with him.

 

[SteveB28]

Quite amazing....

The religious will tell us that it is ridiculous that 'life came from non-life'.

And yet, this is exactly what they believe themselves.....!



.

 

[MasonP]

Quite amazing....
The religious will tell us that it is ridiculous that 'life came from non-life'.
And yet, this is exactly what they believe themselves.....!

They condemn others for doing it then they do it themselves and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Arguments from incredulity, aren't reasonable. Fallacious arguments never are.

About Bhehehe! If you have a gripe with something he said -please take it up with him.

I thought it was okay to bring it up here, seeing as how you are here promoting/defending the dude's model.

 

[Radrook]

Arguments from incredulity, aren't reasonable. Fallacious arguments never are.



I thought it was okay to bring it up here, seeing as how you are here promoting/defending the dude's model.

The dude compares astrology with ID you claim? Now that is crude since thsat isn't part of any model I approve of. Ummm, you are resorting to strawman via projecting this dandy's ideas on me and then demanding that I defend them.

About argument from incredulity, I think that applies more to atheists than it does to theists. Atheists just can't imagine anything other than a material universe devoid of anything supernatural. Because they can't imagine it they reject it.

Actually, our argument offers logical reasons why your idea is bogus. Your reasons for rejection of our concept offers nothing more than "Ï can't see!" Ï won't see!" and ""Nothing will ever force me to see!" Accompanied by," Ï can't hear!"" Ï won't hear!"" and "Nothing's ever going to force me to hear!"

Nothing new actually.
Isaiah 43:8 ESV
Bring out the people who are blind, yet have eyes, who are deaf, yet have ears!

 

[Radrook]

Quite amazing....

The religious will tell us that it is ridiculous that 'life came from non-life'.

And yet, this is exactly what they believe themselves.....!



.

That is a misrepresentation based on equivocation with some misleading legerdemain involving semantics.
Let me clarify lest I inadvertently induce a copious a nosebleed due to cerebral overexertion:

Atheists believe that dead matter spontaneously produced life without an outside, living, intelligent organizing agency..

Theists do not believe that dead matter spontaneously produced life without a living outside intelligently guiding agency. Instead, theists believe that dead matter was infused with the spark of life via an outside living highly intelligent agency called a creator or God who planned it and brought it about.

So you see, your ""exactly"" isn't as ""exactly"" as you propose it to be. In fact, it isn't exactly at all. Instead it is the exact opposite.

Genesis 2:7
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. ...

The problem is that you think that we have an aversion against life being composed of material formed during the Big Bang.
Sorry but we have no opposition to that concept. The Bible tells us that the creator used such material and infused it with the spark of life. So please keep in mind that the material itself isn't the issue. In short, you are creating a straw man and demanding that we defend it as you attack it.

 

[Radrook]

They condemn others for doing it then they do it themselves and expect to be taken seriously.

Straw man making seems to be an atheist forte.
Maybe the brain becomes predisposed to it from delving on impossibilities as if they were viable.Such inclinations can shackle the mind and imprison the intellect via preventing logical thought processing. But not to worry. There is a liberating remedy for that. It is called truth.

John 8:32 ►
New International Version
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

 

[Jimmy D]

The dude compares astrology with ID you claim?

Not bothering to read the links provided? The court transcripts are right there.

Now that is crude since thsat isn't part of any model I approve of. Ummm, you are resorting to strawman via projecting this dandy's ideas on me and then demanding that I defend them.

About argument from incredulity, I think that applies more to atheists than it does to theists. Atheists just can't imagine anything other than a material universe devoid of anything supernatural. Because they can't imagine it they reject it.

I get it now, you don't know what an 'argument from incredulity' is.

Making observations, coming up with theories and testing those theories has got nothing to do with 'rejecting things they can't imagine'.

An argument from incredulity is when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

Again you make the mistake of singling out atheists, what about Christian scientists?

 

[Jimmy D]

Atheists believe that dead matter spontaneously produced life without an outside, living, intelligent organizing agency..

Wow, you're a mind reader now? I would be impressed, if you were correct........ which you're not.

 

[Jimmy D]

The problem is that you think that we have an aversion against life being composed of material formed during the Big Bang.

More mindreading! Again....... wrong.

My problem is that you're trying to force the supernatural into science where it has no place (as it can't be seen, measured or quantifed in any way). Also, it seems that you think that people should listen to you as you declare established scientific theories wrong when it's painfully obvious the only time you have studied these subjects is on creationist propaganda websites.

 

[Radrook]

Wow, you're a mind reader now? I would be impressed, if you were correct........ which you're not.

Wow! An entirely new paradoxical category! Atheists who believe that God, a god, gods, goddesses, deities and other such supernatural beings might have indeed, indefatigably and diligently infused life into matter. Very novel and interesting. Too bad it is self-contradictory and totally nonsensical as an inevitable consequence of sloppy thinking.

 

[Jimmy D]

Wow! An entirely new paradoxical category! Atheists who believe that God, a god, gods, goddesses, deities and other such supernatural beings might have indeed, indefatigably and diligently infused life into matter. Very novel and interesting. Too bad it is self-contradictory and totally nonsensical as an inevitable consequence of sloppy thinking.

It's not either

"dead matter spontaneously produced life without an outside, living, intelligent organizing agency.."

or

"God, a god, gods, goddesses, deities and other such supernatural beings might have indeed, indefatigably and diligently infused life into matter."

That is a false dichotomy, yet another logical fallacy.

And for the record, and this might be quite a difficult concept to grasp, I don't know how life began. (Although, as it happens I think a natural explaination is more likely.)

 

[Radrook]

More mindreading! Again....... wrong.

My problem is that you're trying to force the supernatural into science where it has no place (as it can't be seen, measured or quantifed in any way). Also, it seems that you think that people should listen to you as you declare established scientific theories wrong when it's painfully obvious the only time you have studied these subjects is on creationist propaganda websites.

100% false assumption. I am NOT trying to induce the supernatural in any way manner or form into the discussion. The ones doing that are you and other atheists who keep cunningly steering the discussion into the religious and discussing it as your pet peeve. Then when I respond to your off-topic queries, straw man accusations and unfounded assertions in order to clarify matters-that's when you jack-in-the-box jump up and accuse ME of trying to infuse the discussion with the religious.

Please note that all I am proposing is an ID. Anything beyond that is merely a figment of your over active imaginations.

BTW
I keep telling you folks the above over and over and you totally ignore it as if claiming that you can't see.

Now! About the supernatural being undetectable? That is 100% false. Paul tells us that a creator is detectable by the very nature of what was created which offers a compelling example of a very complex organizing mind at work. We detect that mind and quantify it's capacity as far beyond any human ability. So your claim is once more nothing other than the glaringly inane claim of: ""Í cain't see!""


SAs for expecting people to listen to me when I write or speak? Gee! That is entirely up to you. If indeed you don't wish to listen to a radio you shut it off. If you don't wish to see opinions on TV, you don't watch. So if indeed you are listening to me it is entirely of your own free will since I sure as heck am not forcing you nor would I ever attempt to force my opinion on anyone.

About expecting to convince people? Well, that would be nice since the arguments I offer are rock-solid based on logic and logic is a very essential factor which is part of the scientific method. If you discard logic and argue vehemently and mindlessly against cogent reasoning or employ fallacious reasoning instead, then unfortunately you automatically become a certifiable quack, a very educated quack mind you-but a quack nevertheless.

 

[Jimmy D]

I am NOT trying to induce the supernatural in any way manner or form into the discussion.

all I am proposing is an ID

 

[Radrook]

ID = Intelligent Designer
An intelligent designer need not be a supernatural being.
Or are you now nit-a-picking because I used capital letters and you want to pin me down to a certain philosophical view because that was my personal choice? Hmmmm? Please note that I have been using capital letters in this way in hundreds of discussions with atheists concerning this subject and not one was stumped or took umbrage. Seems peevish. Is that all you got? Wait, I forgot! That's just another way of saying ""Ï cain't see!""

BTW
Maybe you are still identifying me with Behe fellow.

 

[Radrook]

It's not either

"dead matter spontaneously produced life without an outside, living, intelligent organizing agency.."

or

"God, a god, gods, goddesses, deities and other such supernatural beings might have indeed, indefatigably and diligently infused life into matter."

That is a false dichotomy, yet another logical fallacy.

And for the record, and this might be quite a difficult concept to grasp, I don't know how life began. (Although, as it happens I think a natural explaination is more likely.)

So what is the third factor that you are claiming might be involved in the origin of ALL life?
This should prove interesting.

 

[Oafman]

ID = Intelligent Designer
An intelligent designer need not be a supernatural being.