Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is a qualitative difference between what you are proposing and what theists believe. Why you are suddenly resorting to obfuscation via the ubiquitous: "I cain't see!" atheist response at this point is totally beyond me.
BTW
Smart chemicals!
That Behe fellow did that? LOL!
Well, I wouldn't cut my own throat that way but if he felt he had to-to each his own.
Really? Just chemistry? Others might readily perceive malevolent pre-programmed purpose and intent. But then again, once the ""Ï cain't see!"" policy is in full swing, then nothing is obvious if it indicates what we wish to ignore. That's why they call it invincible and that's why I am very averse to wasting my time with those who subscribe to it.No. As it happens, I was a very poor chemistry student.
It is inferred from the repeated same supposedly confused way you respond.
As I said, I don't know him, and really not interested in knowing him or his ideas. However, you are arousing my curiosity and I might just delve into that trial to see what exactly happened since you seem focused on relating him to mePossibly because he was in a court of law and realised that he had to tell the truth!
I wasn't talking about "intent" but about the actual manipulation of chemicals which would be required.Really? Just chemistry? Others might readily perceive malevolent pre-programmed purpose and intent. But then again, once the ""Ï cain't see!"" policy is in full swing, then nothing is obvious if it indicates what we wish to ignore. That's why they call it invincible and that's why I am very averse to wasting my time with those who subscribe to it.
I wasn't talking about "intent" but about the actual manipulation of chemicals which would be required.
I know. But intent can easily be inferred from such an activity.
Use of Quotation Marks
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Quotation-Marks
Not really. I follow where the data clearly leads. If indeed there is a need to ignore something in that scenario it is the glaring fact that such a microscopic thing should KNOW what to do within the total darkness of that living cell, know exactly where it should go with an exact purpose-self replication. Under any other circumstances you would readily conclude pre-programming. Right?You have a habit to infer, whatever meets your agenda.
Not really. I follow where the data clearly leads. If indeed there is a need to ignore something in that scenario it is the glaring fact that such a microscopic thing should KNOW what to do within the total darkness of that living cell, know exactly where it should go with an exact purpose-self replication. Under any other circumstances you would readily conclude pre-programming. Right?
There are self evident truths that do not need tests to display themselves as self evident.
That is why they are considered self evident truths.
BTW
You place great value on falsification with tests, yet all your desperate attempts at proving abiogenesis true have falsified it but you stubbornly refuse to deal with the results and the implications of such results. Instead, you grab at straws by claiming limited chemical reactions as evidence of abiogenesis and interpret failure as success. Had these same tests offered the same results in reference to ID you would have claimed immediate success in disproving an ID's existence. That is the inconsistency which strongly indicates bias and a biased approach to science is no science at all but a self-serving mockery of it.
Well, data is information. Are you absentmindedly thinking about the Star Trek Next Generation Android? Or perhaps unfamiliar with basic English? If not then your chortling is baffling.Data? LOL
Not even AiG supports your contention that Miller and Urey expected to create life.Here is a relevant article on the subject
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis/
But information is not necessarily data.Well, data is information. Are you absentmindedly thinking about the Star Trek Next Generation Android? Or perhaps unfamiliar with basic English? If not then your chortling is baffling.
I did not say that the experiment was striving to create life. I said that the article is relevant.Not even AiG supports your contention that Miller and Urey expected to create life.
But you know what I mean. I think this discussion has run its course. Thanks for the conversation.But information is not necessarily data.
I don't think so. One of the things that sinks ID is that no test for the presence of irreducibly complex biological structures has ever been developed. The only alternative is to say that everything is intelligently designed, which reduces ID to ordinary theistic evolution--a non-falsifiable proposition.
Here is a relevant article on the subject
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis/
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?