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.
That's interesting. Most atheists don't try to find faith, they try to avoid it. You probably have a very interesting life story about atheism and faith.
Enough with this false dichotomy.What?!?!? You're the one that has their goalposts in overdrive. I haven't moved anything.
Then you utterly failed. I've published several scientific papers with other people that *were* convinced of my work after seeing it. So much for that claim. I thought you were talking asking me how many atheist I'd converted. (also greater than zero)
Projecting again are you?
Boloney. You're subjectively ignoring that work by Penrose and Hameroff, and subjectively dismissing *anything and everything* that you don't like with a handwave.
Yes, I did. You clearly didn't read or respond to *any* of it.
For a guy that is defending <snip>
Enough with this false dichotomy.
/derail.
Hi Michael,
The term "naturalist" has multiple applications and in this context a naturalist is someone who believes that the forming of the universe and the formation of life on earth all came about through natural processes with no supernatural intervention. Those who believe this are 100% atheist.
Hmmm. Technically it's not quite that simple from my vantage point. I happen to believe that God *is* the physical universe that we live in, and more than we can see from Earth. IMO God is the single most "natural" part of nature. Even if microscopic life formed "naturally" on Earth, it wouldn't rule out the possibility of an "intelligent creator". In fact, the only thing that can supposedly save us from living inside of an intelligent universe is string theory.
IMO God is "nature" and therefore abiogenesis seems likely IMO.
Far out, that's a bit deep for me
Actually what you have done is akin to adding epicycles to a Ptolemaic system in order to fit the supernatural into your model.I'm just pointing out that abiogenesis is ultimately not a threat to theism or the concept of an intelligent (natural) creator.
Are you serious? Yes I will deny this completely that we came from non-life
Will you deny that we came from God the creator?
Silly question hey! Yes we are here aren't we? Why would I deny what is painfully obvious that we are here? The difference in our views is how we got here. I'm a creationist and you are a naturalist.
However, if we did come from non-life please show me the evidence.
Creation by an intelligent designer is not magic, it's an intelligent being who has the ability to design, actually designing.
Almighty God is powerful!
Abiogenesis is pure magic
, because nothing somehow creates life.
What can be more magic than that?
Okay, then show me evidence of abiogenesis. First you need to provide evidence that it happened then we can examine whether it's magic or not.
I'm a bit confused by that one. But not to worry. The bottom line is - can you give me the evidence for abiogenesis or not?
You are speaking like abiogenesis is a fact.
Again and again and yet again, show me the evidence of your faith based belief system.
There is a whole lot more to life than some amino acids and you should be well aware of that
Your ignorance is claiming that abiogenesis is fact
Some building blocks may form in nature but what you need to show me now is how these building blocks all came together without any guiding hand to form life.
This is mount improbable at its greatest.
Do you actually understand how complex even the most "simple" cell really is?
On the point that Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Well it is a form of evolution in chemical evolution. It also is related to naturalism which is also a basic for evolution. So really no Abiogenesis no evolution.
Again... If at one point life does not exist and the next moment life does exist, then matter was somehow brought together into living systems by some process.
To deny this is .... I can't say it without being censored.
Stop calling me any kind of -ist please. I don't label myself in such horribly constraining ways. I actually have an open mind and I will accept what the evidence suggests while I will reject what the evidence does not suggest.
Even if you believe that your deity of choice created life, that would still be life from non-life. The evidence is that once there was no life and then there was.
As for evidence that this was a natural process...
You have been given some of this evidence already. Also, nothing stops you from picking up a science book on the matter.
Errrr.... Abiogenesis does not state that life popped up out of nothing. If you don't even know what you are arguing against, you'ld better first informing yourself.
Is Chemistry magic?
That is what abiogenesis researcher are looking for: a chemical reaction that results in a self-replicating molecule. To claim that if this would be discovered that it would qualify as "magic"... then I guess all of chemistry is "magic".
No, I'm not. In fact, I'm continously refering to it as hypothesis / theory.
Tell me, when will you stop dishonestly misrepresenting my views on the matter? I've explained you at least 3 times now that I don't have faith in anything. I've explained how abiogenesis is a work in progress that isn't solved yet.
I, along with others, have repeated COUNTLESS TIMES that abiogenesis hypothesis does not (not... NOT.... NOT) claim that it would result in a modern cell.
You have the gall to demand evidence for abiogenesis while you fail miserably to produce any evidence of your God! Double standards much?As explained above but the difference is that God is intelligent and all powerful. Life created life. Not non life creating life.
Wrong again, you have delivered nothing to prove that non-life created life, not even close, simple as that. You obviously have no idea how complex even the simplest life form is otherwise you would not embarrass yourself with the bizarre claim that you have shown evidence when you have not. Dawkins is one of the most hardcore of Atheists and anti theist ideologists and even he admits there is NO evidence for abiogenesis because he has no choice.
Feel free to share it if you like!
Absolutely, you are correct, who is denying this?
Not me! God made us from the dust of the earth.
Trust me, your mind is not open and like any dogmatic ideologist it is firmly shut.
God is intelligent and all powerful
Wrong again, you have delivered nothing to prove that non-life created life, not even close, simple as that.
You obviously have no idea how complex even the simplest life form is
Dawkins is one of the most hardcore of Atheists and anti theist ideologists and even he admits there is NO evidence for abiogenesis because he has no choice.
Maybe it popped out of a primordial soup right? Hang on, wait a minute, maybe it popped out of Panspermia. But where did they come from?
BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Incredibly, Dawkins is all for the possibility of an intelligent designer as long as that designer is NOT God! Go figure. And no doubt you have seen this one when Ben Stein asked Dawkins how life began on earth:
DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
BEN STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, we don't know
I did chemistry at high school and I don’t ever remember ever performing any magic tricks.
But for non life to create life, yep, that’s pure magic.
Researchers can look all they want but they will never find evidence for abiogenesis.
So, if you really are now saying that it’s not a fact but a hypothesis,
do you believe that abiogenesis MAY possibly not have happened?
After all, you say it’s not a fact so there is a possibility that it’s non-fact
Then perhaps for you it is possible that God did create life on earth, do you agree it’s possible, not fact, just possible?
You do have faith, you just don’t know it
You keep claiming that abiogenesis is not fact but a hypothesis but it’s painfully obvious that you believe it as fact otherwise you would not be so zealous in defending it
. Again, could the hypothesis of abiogenesis be wrong???
Sighhhh, no one is claiming that abiogenesis results in a modern cell.
Do you actually understand how complex even the most "simple" cell really is?
You have the gall to demand evidence for abiogenesis while you fail miserably to produce any evidence of your God! Double standards much?
but I'm having lots of trouble getting naturalists to also admit that they have faith in abiogenesis
when there clearly is no evidence
Of course I can't produce any evidence that is satisfying to naturalists, but the point I'm making is that they have just as much and even more faith than I do.
If abiogenesis is fact
and not faith then produce the evidence, simple as that, but you can't because there isn't any.
For another thread or a private message
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?