The Abiogenesis/Atheism Fallacy

[HAPMinistries]

Is that really what you think was meant?

Would I ask what was meant if I known what was meant?

Do you ask questions when you do not know what was meant?

 

[Hespera]

Where did you get this information, if I may ask?

evidence



I do not currently have a 'hundreds of millions of years' life span to wait around and see if the hypothesis is true or not. In that sense, I am dealing with a hypothesis over a untestable amount of time.





ok, that is a odd thing to say...




The small changes is recorded in the bible. No biggie there.
The hypothesis of evolution spanning untestable amounts of time can not be shown to be true. Therefore, there is nothing to 'disprove'.

That is the point.

The Time of the Gaps fallacy, just throwing large amounts of time at problems, is no longer accepted.

That said, we have currently been using Occam's Razor to eliminate absurd and outrageous feats, like life coming from nonliving matter, we have introduced the need for a eternal form to exist. No matter what you believe, the only logical conclusion for 'anything' to exist in our universe, is that something eternal must exist, otherwise, infinite regression debunks the idea.

So far, my only hypothesis has been the eternal form possesses life.

With that, world views have broken down, and it completely disturbed personal philosophy, and that is where you entered in.

What "evidence"? This I really will have to hear about.

You dont have tens of millions of years to see if a mountain will wash to the sea. So for that reason you think its a worthless hypothesis that it will?

Yous spoke of "parts" of evolution that cannot be shown, I said same is true of WW2; in neither case does it falsify the reality of the event that we dont know some parts.

The small changes is recorded in the bible. No biggie there.
The hypothesis of evolution spanning untestable amounts of time can not be shown to be true. Therefore, there is nothing to 'disprove'

Evolution is not a hypothesis so why do you call it that?
There are many many ways to demonstrate the reality of deep time.

Either the ToE or deep time could be falsified a million ways if they happened to be false.

The Time of the Gaps fallacy, just throwing large amounts of time at problems, is no longer accepted.

Now that is an odd thing to say. A fallacy that never existed is no longer accepted.

to eliminate absurd and outrageous feats, like life coming from nonliving matter,

A plant turns non living water and air to living matter before your eyes.
All manner of complex organic molecules are known to self assemble
There is no bright line distinction between life and non life

You will need more than fanciful application of your "razor' to make it absurd that life can come from nonliving matter.

And once you bring in your god, btw, you really create a problem for the razor people, coz you are making things vastly more complex and difficult.

As for eternity, let me know when you can explain time and then I may believe you can talk about eternity in a meaningful way.

 

[Hespera]

Would I ask what was meant if I known what was meant?

Do you ask questions when you do not know what was meant?

You did put in a "lol" and all.
I thought you were trying to make a joke, as it was so very obvious that wasnt remotely what he meant.

Are you a non-native English speaker? Just curious.

 

[Skaloop]

lol, ok
So did thermodynamics not being a national law mean thermodynamics is wrong?

No.

You are conflating scientific laws with societal laws. There's a societal law against stealing; I can break that law, at will, any time I so choose.

There's a scientific law regarding the conservation of mass and energy; I can't break that no matter how hard I try. There's also a law of gravity; can't break that, either.

 

[Hespera]

Noting of course that natural law is derived from observations and experiments, and as such cannot be proven to always be applicable.

 

[Skaloop]

Noting of course that natural law is derived from observations and experiments, and as such cannot be proven to always be applicable.

Granted.

 

[HAPMinistries]

What "evidence"? This I really will have to hear about.

The evidence that we have not been around that long. This is really getting redundant...

You dont have tens of millions of years to see if a mountain will wash to the sea. So for that reason you think its a worthless hypothesis that it will?

Because it may only take 6,000 years.

Yous spoke of "parts" of evolution that cannot be shown, I said same is true of WW2; in neither case does it falsify the reality of the event that we dont know some parts.

Just odd you comparing the belief that all species came from one micro-organism to people who believe the holocaust never happened.

Evolution is not a hypothesis so why do you call it that?

It is a hypothesis.

There are many many ways to demonstrate the reality of deep time.

Either the ToE or deep time could be falsified a million ways if they happened to be false.

Deep time is the concept that the Geologic time scale is vast "because" the Earth is very old. Of course, that works under the hypothetical assumption that the Earth "is" very old, and then goes, it actually never gives evidence for it to be 4.54 billion years old...

There is nothing to give evidence for the Time of the Gaps time frames. It is all untestable, therefore, all hypothetical.

A plant turns non living water and air to living matter before your eyes.
All manner of complex organic molecules are known to self assemble
There is no bright line distinction between life and non life

Another Dahmer...

You will need more than fanciful application of your "razor' to make it absurd that life can come from nonliving matter.

It is absurd. The razor made it simple where life comes from life every day. We see and observe this all of the time. It is life coming from nonliving matter that is the hoax of this conversation.

And once you bring in your god...

You brought in religion. As I have stated in another post, you are trying to play one game by the rules of another game. In this demonstration I have always used an eternal form that has life. You are misleading in anything you are trying to associate with me in this context.

Yes, I believe in God, by faith, but that has never been part of this conversation. Which makes me wonder what conversation you are on.

 

[HAPMinistries]

You did put in a "lol" and all.
I thought you were trying to make a joke, as it was so very obvious that wasnt remotely what he meant.

Are you a non-native English speaker? Just curious.

I guess Poe's law includes comments about abiogenesis too. You can not tell when people are serious or not.

Well i found it funny that he realized that there are different types of laws, therefore, the first law has no effect.

I mean, nothing written has addressed 'First Cause' which is the subject.

Instead, we have another wonderful fallacy from the Naturalism section:

First Cause is a law.
First Cause is not the same type of law as Thermodynamics
Therefore, First Cause is a lie.

now do you see why I find this humorous?

 

[HAPMinistries]

You are conflating scientific laws with societal laws.

Did anyone say what kind of law First Cause is? no

Nice fallacy.

 

[Hespera]

The evidence that we have not been around that long. This is really getting redundant...



Because it may only take 6,000 years.



Just odd you comparing the belief that all species came from one micro-organism to people who believe the holocaust never happened.



It is a hypothesis.



Deep time is the concept that the Geologic time scale is vast "because" the Earth is very old. Of course, that works under the hypothetical assumption that the Earth "is" very old, and then goes, it actually never gives evidence for it to be 4.54 billion years old...

There is nothing to give evidence for the Time of the Gaps time frames. It is all untestable, therefore, all hypothetical.



Another Dahmer...



It is absurd. The razor made it simple where life comes from life every day. We see and observe this all of the time. It is life coming from nonliving matter that is the hoax of this conversation.



You brought in religion. As I have stated in another post, you are trying to play one game by the rules of another game. In this demonstration I have always used an eternal form that has life. You are misleading in anything you are trying to associate with me in this context.

Yes, I believe in God, by faith, but that has never been part of this conversation. Which makes me wonder what conversation you are on.

never mind. I thought you might possibly have something serious to say.

 

[Skaloop]

Did anyone say what kind of law First Cause is? no

Nice fallacy.

No, but in the context of the topic and the discussion, First Cause as some sort of societal law is meaningless and irrelevant. The way it was presented and asserted, it wpood have to be a natural law, yet no such natural law exists.

If you're just going to play silly semantic games, your already limited contributions to the thread have diminished even further.

 

[HAPMinistries]

No, but in the context of the topic and the discussion, First Cause as some sort of societal law is meaningless and irrelevant.

Unfortunately, not when dealing with something like the origin of life. Hey, blame Aristotle.

When dealing with a first life, you need a first cause to give the first life. This must follow guidelines of what we do know to be true. You can not run down the road 90 in a 35, and say the law does not apply because it is not a scientific law. This certainly applies and is part of the conversation.

lol, otherwise, what do you think Occam's Razor is?

 

[Hespera]

No, but in the context of the topic and the discussion, First Cause as some sort of societal law is meaningless and irrelevant. The way it was presented and asserted, it wpood have to be a natural law, yet no such natural law exists.

If you're just going to play silly semantic games, your already limited contributions to the thread have diminished even further.

Well, its not just that. There;s also insistence on facts not in evidence such as that "evolution is a hypothesis". I guess I could go back and look for more but why bother.

This is on the level of a chess game I played in middle school, i beat the kid and he made some illegal move to get out of checkmate. I objected; "French rules" he said. Ok, end of game, I wont honour such with my time.

Why do you?

 

[ug333]

Deep time is the concept that the Geologic time scale is vast "because" the Earth is very old. Of course, that works under the hypothetical assumption that the Earth "is" very old, and then goes, it actually never gives evidence for it to be 4.54 billion years old...

Untrue.

The Age of the Earth

There are many different methods of dating the planet, and they agree on the age. If you can provide some reason why this evidence is invalid, please let me know.

 

[ug333]

Agreed. People who develop philosophies believing life is 'unimpressive and meaningless' tend to act on it...

Sure, all beliefs inform our actions. But none of the believers in abiogensis that I personally know take the stance that life is unimpressive and meaningless.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Untrue.

The Age of the Earth

There are many different methods of dating the planet, and they agree on the age. If you can provide some reason why this evidence is invalid, please let me know.

Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO3- with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium.

The Age of the Earth

Has any dating methods ever accurately dated anything we 'know' the age of?

 

[HAPMinistries]

Sure, all beliefs inform our actions. But none of the believers in abiogensis that I personally know take the stance that life is unimpressive and meaningless.

Thank God!

 

[ug333]

Incorrect, my definition is a eternal form must exist, otherwise nothing could possibly exist. My hypothesis is supported by Occam's Razor that the eternal form has life.

How do you define life?

 

[HAPMinistries]

How do you define life?

With a dictionary.

Life - the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body.
Life - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Do you believe a virus is alive?

 

[ug333]

Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO3- with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium.

The Age of the Earth

Has any dating methods ever accurately dated anything we 'know' the age of?

Do you mean to suggest that radiometric dating is inaccurate as a whole, but produces consistent error across multiple objects and elements?

I will admit that error can exist in some cases, but that is why we only use objects that can produce consistent results across multiple dating methods when measuring the age of the earth. When we follow that process, we get a very consistent picture of the age of the earth, putting it at 4.5 billion years old.

There is a reason that the age of the earth is agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.