Probability of Origin of Life by Chance just went way UP.

[Oncedeceived]

How many people believing something does it take to make that something true? 1? 10? 100? 100,000? 10,000,000?
1 billion? 2 billion?
If something is not true it will remain untrue until it is shown to be true, belief in it either way is totally and completely unimportant.

Agreed. Millions of people could be wrong, but when all the evidence of design is present and evolution doesn't show how it can produce it, and millions of people know God as the Creator it tends to give a great deal of support to the premise.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And yet you are arguing against a Christian claiming he can imagine anything he wants, just like you. So I am to assume you are all just imagining things?

Oh, I most certainly do believe 95% of both sides are imagining things. Evolutionists with evolution and Creationists ignoring the works to claim a young earth.

Or imagining anyone can explain a God that is invisible - in which no image can be made of Him except other such invisible images - consciousness has no image to be made of.

Not debating any of your views - just your false belief that one has to imagine anything - butt accept the data - the Works.

Hey you. Not all creationists are YEC. Are you going to further the false idea that all creationists are YEC?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Pareidolia. We're hardwired to see agency, particularly anthropomorphic agency, even where there is none.

Yes, as I explained in an earlier post that happens that is why there are microscopes and the like to determine if what we are seeing is actually what we are seeing. This is a different category from what we are discussing anyway.

 

[Smidlee]

Hey you. Not all creationists are YEC. Are you going to further the false idea that all creationists are YEC?

They have been many men in the past who believe in old earth I have great respect for; J. Vernon McGee for example.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Agreed. Millions of people could be wrong, but when all the evidence of design is present and evolution doesn't show how it can produce it, and millions of people know God as the Creator it tends to give a great deal of support to the premise.

If you have evidence then what are we arguing about? or is your evidence just a fantasy?
no matter, as long as you're happy it's none of my business what you believe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They have been many men in the past who believe in old earth I have great respect for; J. Vernon McGee for example.

Well I have respect for YEC's too. I don't know that YEC couldn't be possible if time for instance was different far into history but I don't think that is the way it is. But the Bible doesn't claim a day is the same as a day as we know it and I don't think the calculations that were made for a six thousand year old universe need be correct and it is not Biblical in the first place. So that is where I am coming from.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you have evidence then what are we arguing about? or is your evidence just a fantasy?
no matter, as long as you're happy it's none of my business what you believe.

It doesn't matter to me, it might to you. It may not be none of my business what you believe but I care very much about it and feel that there is a reason I should.

 

[Jan Volkes]

It doesn't matter to me, it might to you. It may not be none of my business what you believe but I care very much about it and feel that there is a reason I should.

You are free to believe what ever it is you want to believe just like everyone else.
Beliefs hurt no one it's only when people start acting on those beliefs as if they are true is when the troubles start.

 

[The Cadet]

Yes, as I explained in an earlier post that happens that is why there are microscopes and the like to determine if what we are seeing is actually what we are seeing. This is a different category from what we are discussing anyway.

How would a microscope help?

You are used to recognizing design. Human design. You recognize human design because you constantly and consistently see humans designing things. And you recognize certain hallmarks in human-designed objects. This is pretty straightforward, we can apply the methodology I described a while back to do this, and we all do it (with more or less success). But without knowing the designer, we can't compare the hallmarks of that designer's design. What is your metric? What objective metric are you using to distinguish design from non-design in this scenario? I started a thread about this a while back, and I will admit that I stopped paying attention to it (on account of being banned for a week) so if you posted any answers to that challenge, I might have missed them. But I'm honestly not sure how you could establish that something was designed without already knowing what the designer was (or even if the designer existed!) and how that designer works/what that designer's hallmarks are.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How would a microscope help?

You are used to recognizing design. Human design. You recognize human design because you constantly and consistently see humans designing things. And you recognize certain hallmarks in human-designed objects. This is pretty straightforward, we can apply the methodology I described a while back to do this, and we all do it (with more or less success). But without knowing the designer, we can't compare the hallmarks of that designer's design. What is your metric? What objective metric are you using to distinguish design from non-design in this scenario? I started a thread about this a while back, and I will admit that I stopped paying attention to it (on account of being banned for a week) so if you posted any answers to that challenge, I might have missed them. But I'm honestly not sure how you could establish that something was designed without already knowing what the designer was (or even if the designer existed!) and how that designer works/what that designer's hallmarks are.

I don't even know what you are saying here. We know what design by an intelligent agent looks like, how it is structured, how it functions and how plan and purpose are structured into design. The fact that we can and do recognize design by intelligent agents we can observe living organisms having those features, structures, systems and functions and recognize them as design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are free to believe what ever it is you want to believe just like everyone else.
Beliefs hurt no one it's only when people start acting on those beliefs as if they are true is when the troubles start.

When does believing something is true make troubles start?

 

[The Cadet]

I don't even know what you are saying here. We know what design by an intelligent agent looks like,

Yeah, I agree. We know what design by humans looks like. Humans. Not some divine being, not super-advanced aliens, humans. And there is nothing in human design that has any parallel to what we see within the cells.

how it is structured, how it functions and how plan and purpose are structured into design.

This statue lacks function, purpose, and, depending on your degree of art snobbery, any sense of "design". And yet, anyone would be capable of telling you what made that, and why they came to that conclusion (humans, because there is nothing else known in nature which produces this kind of purified metal in this quantity).

Meanwhile, on the other end, we have biological mechanisms, and I welcome you, again, to demonstrate that there was any sort of plan or purpose for them. Or to define what "purpose" even means in this context.

The fact that we can and do recognize design by intelligent agents we can observe living organisms having those features, structures, systems and functions and recognize them as design.

The only design by intelligent agents we have access to is human design, and human design is not capable of crafting what is present within the cell. At best, you have a bad argument from analogy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yeah, I agree. We know what design by humans looks like. Humans. Not some divine being, not super-advanced aliens, humans. And there is nothing in human design that has any parallel to what we see within the cells.

Are you even serious? We see assembly lines, production lines and transportation lines in factories that all resemble human designs. We see rotary systems that look like the ones we design.

This statue lacks function, purpose, and, depending on your degree of art snobbery, any sense of "design". And yet, anyone would be capable of telling you what made that, and why they came to that conclusion (humans, because there is nothing else known in nature which produces this kind of purified metal in this quantity).

We do observe very recognizable designs in living organisms that are very easy to see the design is similar and those we recognize as human design. The fact that in Christian theology we know we "think God's thoughts after Him" due to being made in His image reinforces the connection we have with God and nature.

Meanwhile, on the other end, we have biological mechanisms, and I welcome you, again, to demonstrate that there was any sort of plan or purpose for them. Or to define what "purpose" even means in this context.

You don't think there is a purpose in living organisms systems, features, structures and functions?

The only design by intelligent agents we have access to is human design, and human design is not capable of crafting what is present within the cell. At best, you have a bad argument from analogy.

We are intelligent agents and we recognize design from intelligent agents, if God being an intelligent agent created us in Him image and life and we create as He creates we have reason to connect the two.

 

[Smidlee]

This statue lacks function, purpose, and, depending on your degree of art snobbery, any sense of "design". And yet, anyone would be capable of telling you what made that, and why they came to that conclusion (humans, because there is nothing else known in nature which produces this kind of purified metal in this quantity).

Are you claiming art can only be done by human? If a space alien happen to make a statue just like that how would it be different? Also art and music does in fact serve a purpose.
Notice you are using the exact same logic as ID is using. The only known cause of art is human thus the only known cause of digital code is an intelligence. Since we know it's not man-made code the most logical conclusion is created by another intelligence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you claiming art can only be done by human? If a space alien happen to make a statue just like that how would it be different? Also art and music does in fact serve a purpose.
Notice you are using the exact same logic as ID is using. The only known cause of art is human thus the only known cause of digital code is an intelligence. Since we know it's not man-made code the most logical conclusion is created by another intelligence.

Exactly, he is making our case for us.

 

[Jan Volkes]

When does believing something is true make troubles start?

When what you believe to be true is not true, believing something is true does not make it true.

 

[AV1611VET]

They have been many men in the past who believe in old earth I have great respect for; J. Vernon McGee for example.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When what you believe to be true is not true, believing something is true does not make it true.

Right you are a prime example of that.

 

[MikeEnders]

If life originates by chance, the more habitable planets the greater the odds that life will originate. You guys believing in a 6 day creation event better start rethinking your positions.

This is just VAST silliness. the more planets life is found on the higher the odds go against it being by accident. You suffer from the common atheist misconception that finding life on another planet would be a blow against creationists. LOL...hardly. In fact If you found life on all planets like this it would put a fork in the accident theory completely.

The second bit of silliness is you started a thread claiming that we should rethink our position as if llfe has been found on another planet when it hasn't even been discovered there

Just silliness all around and fairly obvious flame bait. Not that i particularly mind. It just shows what I say is correct. Atheist rarely think things through

 

[MikeEnders]

It would not for me, but for you and your six day creation it would have a great impact. It detracts from the whole idea of intelligent design as I said before.

ROFL......How? It would point towards a law built into the fabric of the universe that creates life all over the Universe. it wouldn't touch how life originated here in the least. As a matter of fact the idea that an infinitively creative God only created life in one place is almost contradictory.

Nothing in the Bible forbids life elsewhere...nada. As a matter of fact Biblical creationists already believe in separate life forms - read the book. We call them Angels.

Why would a purposeful God create all this wasted effort? God at least likes to play dice.

More hilarity. The OP should go collect his nobel prize. Apparently he has discovered life on other planets and the kind of life as well so that he can determine it has no purpose.

Meanwhile the Bible teaches God create by law. Some of those laws are baked into the very fabric of the universe. So umm why would I be surprised if that being the case it allowed for microorganisms on other planets

It really is funny. THey have had coming up on a hundred years of trying to solve how life originated on this planet and come up empty but they think a planet the right distance from a sun solves their dillemma