Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[For_The_Kingdom]

I don't know. It appears to be a chemical property (or a quantum one) of the structure of the brain and the molecules that make up those structures. Structure matters in chemistry. You can use any electrons, protons, and neutrons in the universe to make a gold atom, but it only looks "gold" and acts like "gold" if those things are in the formation of a gold atom. Put them in a different atom and they have the properties of that element instead. Structure allows for things to happen.

Yeah, but chemical properties won't get you thoughts and concepts. Sweeping the floor is a concept of cleaning. So go to a chemist and tell him to gather all of the chemicals he need and formulate the thought/concept of sweeping a floor.

It is physically impossible. It is impossible to formulate thoughts and ideas from mere physical entities. Something else is needed.

All matter and energy in the universe reacts with other matter and energy. Energies are absorbed, transmitted, and expelled. Matter moves based on the forces that have been applied to them. Everything that happens in a living thing is the result of exactly these interactions.

Sure, it happens...but how it came to happen, that is the question. It goes right back to entropy, which is a problem for naturalism.

We even know that material can store bits of information for extended periods of time if they are protected and constructed right (your computer is proof of that).

My computer is proof of intelligent design, isn't it?

So it should not be a surprise that the matter and energy in you can do the same thing.

What would come as a surprise to me is if I left my house for work...and come back, and sometime between the time that I left and the time that I came back, all of the furniture in the house began to talk, think, listen, and reproduce.

That is what naturalists are claiming happened, in a nut shell. That would come as a surprise to me.

Your awareness of the universe is because your body follows the same laws of physics and chemistry as the rest of the stuff in the cosmos. You are just reacting to it, and storing the information for usage and retrieval.

Again, this is what happened AFTER the universe/life/consciousness began to exist. My questions are about the origin of these things...not what happened after they got here.

But your god creature can exist out of non living energy, or non living matter, or whatever you want to claim it is made out of, and you are OK with that. What a hilarious double standard Kingdom.

Um, no its not a double standard because no one is claiming that this God creature "can exist out of non living energy". Who said that? That is a straw man.

Unlike mankind, God did not "begin" to exist from nonliving material. No theist that I know ever claimed that. Again, straw man.

Of course, as has been pointed out to you before, the proof that life can come from nonliving material is all around you. You are made up entirely of nonliving material.

Yeah, go ahead and PRETEND like I didn't give you a DIRECT response to this whole "you are made up of nonliving material" notion. What did I say? I SPECIFICALLY said "yeah, but we are talking about the SENTIENT part of me", which IS in fact...LIVING.

Do you/Did you NOT see that? So don't go telling me what was already "pointed out to me before", if you don't respond to what I said regarding the same point that you claim was already pointed out to me.

The fact that I don't know exactly why non-living material structures have the capability to record data and use that data doesn't change the fact that you are a sentient hominid made out of non living matter.

Sorry, charlie, I don't know about you; but I came from two very much LIVING parents.

Since they aren't done trying, I find it pretty obnoxious for you to claim that science is "unable to do" anything.

Well, you wait for science to figure things out, and I will wait for the return of Jesus Christ. We will see which one comes first.

Maybe you are the type of guy that likes to declare the winner and loser halfway through the race...

Not at all. I just realize and accept the limitations of science...and I invite you to do the same.

Then we will have to get you caught up on the meaning of rational at some point.

Will that be before or after you can produce life from nonliving material? Hopefully, after.

This must me more of that "It's rational to me" part coming out now...

Sure is. But then again, the fact that we are having this debate seems to suggest that I am getting more of that "it's rational to me" part coming from you as it relates to abiogenesis.

No robbery with fair exchange.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You've received multiple adequate answers. Each person's brain is the culprit.

The question was "who is the culprit". The brain is not a "who", but rather...a "what".

Unless of course you are saying that you ARE your brain? Hmm.

Are those your initials?

SMH=Shaking my head. Text lingo.

[Bust Nak]

Look at that; You can't even articulate a point in this regard. Just a flat out empty, blank assertion. Unlike myself, who already gave you reasons why it is foolish for you to compare a product of intelligent design (computers/digital images), to a product of which you claim is NOT intelligently designed (brain/mental images).

No you didn't, you just claimed that it was a false equivalency, a flat out empty, blank assertion. The record will show that I have already gave you reasons why it is a product of intelligent design (computers/digital images), is comparable to a product of which you claim is NOT intelligently designed (brain/mental images), namely because the feature being compared is analogous. i.e. capturing an visual image by collecting reflected light.

All you have to do is ask Mother Nature how she did it. Oh, wait..

A good start, waiting, since you don't seem all that interested in chipping in to help.

Enough resources? You have the same amount of resources to "allocate" that Mother Nature had. So whats the problem?

The problem is we don't actually have the same amount of resources. We will get there sooner or later.

So, the idea that computers are self-assembled (or whatever it was you were implying)...that debunks my thesis??

Correct.

The only problem is, I didn't say it.

The record shows otherwise.

It isn't about what you (intelligent designer) can do, or did...it is about what the natural occurrence of what happened inside the bowl can/did do.

Incorrect. There is nothing supernatural about me making a bowl of egg with a batman symbol on it, or heart shaped egg for that matter.

Again, you are conflating concepts here...same thing you did above. False equivalency. Not the same.

There is no conflation here, I am comparing one instance of a natural occurrence (me making heart shape egg) with another instance of a natural occurrence (you making batman logo egg.)

Then I guess it isn't neither one of our problem's.

Well it ought to be yours, given your goal of arguing against evolution/abiogenesis. It helps if you understood what the evidence are for them.

So you admit that it isn't an absolute fact. Good, progress. That's all I ask.

Is it really all you ask though?

So this ---> "God didn't do it, nature had to have done it, and eventually science will provide to us the answers". <---your stance...isn't an argument?

Correct. I have confidence, given all we have achieve with the limited resources we have. Quick a track record.

Ok, fine. We won't call it question begging. We will just call it an unscientifically verified claim.

I like that one better anyway.

Just give it more time and resources.

I will just call them up and ask them "Will there be any abiogenesis type-stuff going down in your exhibits today", and see what they say.

Let me know how you get on. I have a feeling you wouldn't actually call them.

[Kenisaw]

I don't know. It appears to be a chemical property (or a quantum one) of the structure of the brain and the molecules that make up those structures. Structure matters in chemistry. You can use any electrons, protons, and neutrons in the universe to make a gold atom, but it only looks "gold" and acts like "gold" if those things are in the formation of a gold atom. Put them in a different atom and they have the properties of that element instead. Structure allows for things to happen.

Yeah, but chemical properties won't get you thoughts and concepts. Sweeping the floor is a concept of cleaning. So go to a chemist and tell him to gather all of the chemicals he need and formulate the thought/concept of sweeping a floor.

Chemical properties won't get you thoughts and concepts? Really. Prove that big boy. I mean sure it's easy for you to make that assertion, but let's see the data that shows that brain structure and chemical/quantum properties cannot possibly be responsible for sentience.

It is physically impossible. It is impossible to formulate thoughts and ideas from mere physical entities. Something else is needed.

Prove it.

All matter and energy in the universe reacts with other matter and energy. Energies are absorbed, transmitted, and expelled. Matter moves based on the forces that have been applied to them. Everything that happens in a living thing is the result of exactly these interactions.

Sure, it happens...but how it came to happen, that is the question. It goes right back to entropy, which is a problem for naturalism.

Ugh, is that ever unscientific. Entropy has nothing to do with the conservation of energy, Kingdom. Entropy has to do with the usefulness of energy to do work. Entropy is also not a problem for "naturalism". Even most of the websites run by your creationist masters have dropped that stupid claim from their sites because they realized how erroneous it was. So I guess the "question" isn't relatable to the topic at hand...

We even know that material can store bits of information for extended periods of time if they are protected and constructed right (your computer is proof of that).

My computer is proof of intelligent design, isn't it?

No it's not actually, but nice try. Your computer is proof that computers exist. It does not prove how or why they came to be. It has been explained to you previously, the existence of something does not prove source. We also know that humans exist, and we can prove that humans build computers, but we have to be able to prove human existence and that humans are involved in computer building before we can prove that computers are designed and built by intelligent humans. I'm sure you know what comes next here. Got any proof of gods, or that gods were involved in the creating of humans? Of course not. So the claims of ID cultists is unsubstantiated conjecture, just like it's always been.

Everyone will please note, by the way, that Kingdom was unable to challenge the fact that data storage and retrieval (in my sentence that he responded to above) is a material and chemical property, and NOT a life property. Human brains take advantage of physics and chemistry, not the supernatural, to retain and recall data.

So it should not be a surprise that the matter and energy in you can do the same thing.

What would come as a surprise to me is if I left my house for work...and come back, and sometime between the time that I left and the time that I came back, all of the furniture in the house began to talk, think, listen, and reproduce.

Except those things aren't in the right structure to be alive and sentient (well, the wood in the furniture was alive at one point, but you catch my drift). You also wouldn't expect the furniture to be gold either, right? That's because the atoms in the furniture aren't in the right structure that would reveal the properties of "gold". I realize you've just been introduced to this, but structure DOES matter in chemistry, and properties do arise from different structures. The sum of things is more than its parts. The structures formed by the atoms and molecules in the brain have properties that their individual parts do not, just like a gold atom.

That is what naturalists are claiming happened, in a nut shell. That would come as a surprise to me.

That is not what anyone is claiming. I know you are fond of hyperbole, but even you know your statement misrepresents quite a bit...

Your awareness of the universe is because your body follows the same laws of physics and chemistry as the rest of the stuff in the cosmos. You are just reacting to it, and storing the information for usage and retrieval.

Again, this is what happened AFTER the universe/life/consciousness began to exist. My questions are about the origin of these things...not what happened after they got here.

They happened because of the chemical/quantum properties of structures of matter. What are the origins of "gold"? The origin is that the properties of the matter that make up a certain structure allow for "gold" to exist...

But your god creature can exist out of non living energy, or non living matter, or whatever you want to claim it is made out of, and you are OK with that. What a hilarious double standard Kingdom.

Um, no its not a double standard because no one is claiming that this God creature "can exist out of non living energy". Who said that? That is a straw man.

Unlike mankind, God did not "begin" to exist from nonliving material. No theist that I know ever claimed that. Again, straw man.

Like I said, "whatever you want to claim". Please note that I did not use the word "begin" even though you even bothered to put that word in quotes. Please make the effort to read and comprehend by posts more carefully so we can progress this discussion without these distracting sidebars.

No one ever said your god critter was pure energy? You must read all the posts. I see that claim all the time. If you disagree with your fellow believers about that, then feel free to correct them and let us know the right interpretation. Oh, and if you get a chance, please explain how an always existing divine creature can get to the point in it's existence where it created anything. It' always interesting to hear someone explain how to get to the middle of infinity...

Of course, as has been pointed out to you before, the proof that life can come from nonliving material is all around you. You are made up entirely of nonliving material.

Yeah, go ahead and PRETEND like I didn't give you a DIRECT response to this whole "you are made up of nonliving material" notion. What did I say? I SPECIFICALLY said "yeah, but we are talking about the SENTIENT part of me", which IS in fact...LIVING.

Kingdom, what is the problem here? Your sentience arises out of non sentient material. Gold arises from non gold material. Life arises out of NON LIVING material! This isn't a hard concept to grasp, and it's obviously true. Even common sense dictates that. I'm not presenting you with higher levels of organic chemistry here, or trying to confuse you with things you might not be familiar with. Your obviously smart enough to see my point here, so I quite frankly don't see what the problem is. Sentience is the property that arises out of a lot of nonliving material structures and chemical combinations

Do you/Did you NOT see that? So don't go telling me what was already "pointed out to me before", if you don't respond to what I said regarding the same point that you claim was already pointed out to me.

I didn't say that to anger you, but I am accurate in my statement that I have discussed this previously.

The fact that I don't know exactly why non-living material structures have the capability to record data and use that data doesn't change the fact that you are a sentient hominid made out of non living matter.

Sorry, charlie, I don't know about you; but I came from two very much LIVING parents.

Who are also made out of non living material and have sentience from non sentient structure and matter. I guess we are self replicating molecules, just like the SunY three subunit self-replicator, or the 32 amino acid long Ghadiri self replicator, or replicons, or viruses. Go figure...

Since they aren't done trying, I find it pretty obnoxious for you to claim that science is "unable to do" anything.

Well, you wait for science to figure things out, and I will wait for the return of Jesus Christ. We will see which one comes first.

Well the worst science can do is tie in that match...LOL

Maybe you are the type of guy that likes to declare the winner and loser halfway through the race...

Not at all. I just realize and accept the limitations of science...and I invite you to do the same.

No thanks, I don't pretend to know the limits of science, especially in an investigation that involves matter, energy, chemistry, and physics. I realize that a person can't realize that...

Then we will have to get you caught up on the meaning of rational at some point.

Will that be before or after you can produce life from nonliving material? Hopefully, after.

But you said it can't be done, remember? Whoops, your Freudian slip is showing. Looks like your subconscious has its doubts...

This must me more of that "It's rational to me" part coming out now...

Sure is. But then again, the fact that we are having this debate seems to suggest that I am getting more of that "it's rational to me" part coming from you as it relates to abiogenesis.

No robbery with fair exchange.

You can't steal your way to an open and rational mind, Kingdom...

[Kenisaw]

You've received multiple adequate answers. Each person's brain is the culprit.

The question was "who is the culprit". The brain is not a "who", but rather...a "what".

Unless of course you are saying that you ARE your brain? Hmm.

Of course you are your brain. Where are "you" when you thin about it? Right behind your eyes is the standard answer most people give. Their head is where they exist. All that wonderful structure is where "you" reside.

"Each person's brain is the culprit"

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 355 by For_The_Kingdom]

This right here ---> "they are the direct result of additional brain regions (cerebral cortex) that have been tacked onto earlier brain forms, adding more functionality and the ability to become an "I."

Does not follow from this right here -----> "We humans still have a'hind brain" that deals with the basic bodily functions (breathing, operating the blood pump, etc.) so that these functions occur even if we are not conscious. This hind brain is very similar to the brains of simple animals. The huge expansion in the neocortex (which only mammals have) in humans is responsible for our exceptional ability for symbolic thought, language, spatial reasoning, etc".

Non Sequitur.

What I was trying to point out was that brains started out as much simpler structures (eg. in simple worms) and have become progressively more complex with more functional regions as creatures evolved and obtained new parts like eyes, limbs, more internal organs, more advanced nervous systems, etc. that all required more control and monitoring (by the brain). There has been a progression in complexity from worms all the way to humans in the structure and complexity of the brain, and this is borne out by observations.

We (humans) have maintained many of these more primitive brain sections (eg. the hind brain), as opposed to having a completely new brain structure created from "scratch" that is specific to a human. There is a great deal of similarity in mammal brains for the hind brain and other core functional sections, but humans have a much larger neocortex (some 75-80% of the entire brain volume). This is the area responsible for cognition, sensory perception, complex symbolic thought, language, etc. (ie. many of the things that are responsible for our extreme intelligence compared to other animals). So my argument is that a human brain is just a more advanced version that was derived from earlier brains via evolution, and in particular our very large neocortex is an adequate explanation for our extreme intelligence relative to other animals that exist now. When you ask for an explanation of where consciouness "started", I'd say in the first creature that developed a brain advanced enough to think at a certain level.

When you discuss sentience, consciousness, etc. where to you draw the line on animals that have this and animals that do not? Surely many other animals are conscious in that they are aware of their surroundings and respond to events around them. Some exhibit empathy, many communicate with each other, etc., but none as far as we know worry about their retirement or getting cancer or ponder an afterlife. Is it the significantly higher intelligence level of humans that you would define as the thing that makes us "special", and is the dividing line between humans and "lower" animals who can't engage in symbolic thought? That is, the dividing line between creatures that can have an afterlife and those that can't is simply the intelligence level of the creature ... those who can imagine an afterlife can have one, and those that can't (like my dog), can't? I have a very hard time believing that either me or my dog will do anything but cease to exist in the universe in any way when the breathing stops, but as for where sentience started ... my vote is at the stage of brain development where it could be conceptualized by the owner of that brain.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No you didn't, you just claimed that it was a false equivalency, a flat out empty, blank assertion. The record will show that I have already gave you reasons why it is a product of intelligent design (computers/digital images), is comparable to a product of which you claim is NOT intelligently designed (brain/mental images), namely because the feature being compared is analogous. i.e. capturing an visual image by collecting reflected light.

And I already gave you reasons why it is STILL a false equivalency..for the simple fact that one image is manifested via intelligent design, and the other one isn't (on your view).

Now, if you got an intelligent designer that can create a brain from scratch and give it consciousness, thus, allowing it to think, which would be analogous to an intelligent designer creating a computer from scratch and allowing image manifestation on the screen.

What you are doing is comparing when nature blows her cool breeze on me in the summer time, to a man-made air conditioner blowing cool air on me in the summer time. True, I am getting cold air from both, but the source of the cold air are from two different sources.

You are saying "You are getting cold air from the a/c in the same way you are getting cold air from the wind outside".

Um, no bruh, I'm not.

A good start, waiting, since you don't seem all that interested in chipping in to help.

And you don't seem to want to be helped.

The problem is we don't actually have the same amount of resources. We will get there sooner or later.

You have all of the material you need. No excuses.

Correct.

SMH.

Incorrect. There is nothing supernatural about me making a bowl of egg with a batman symbol on it, or heart shaped egg for that matter.

That wasn't the scenario, but ok.

There is no conflation here, I am comparing one instance of a natural occurrence (me making heart shape egg)

Intelligent design.

with another instance of a natural occurrence (you making batman logo egg.)

That wasn't the scenario.

Well it ought to be yours, given your goal of arguing against evolution/abiogenesis. It helps if you understood what the evidence are for them.

Evidence? Where?

Is it really all you ask though?

Yes indeed.

Correct. I have confidence, given all we have achieve with the limited resources we have. Quick a track record.

So, you have faith? Gotcha.

Just give it more time and resources.

Just give Christ more time. He will be here.

Let me know how you get on. I have a feeling you wouldn't actually call them.

I will when I decide to waste valuable time. Time is something you can't get back, ya know. The guy that is doing 30 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit, and he gets out....do you think he will get back that time?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Chemical properties won't get you thoughts and concepts? Really. Prove that big boy. I mean sure it's easy for you to make that assertion, but let's see the data that shows that brain structure and chemical/quantum properties cannot possibly be responsible for sentience.

I repeat: "Sweeping the floor is a concept of cleaning. So go to a chemist and tell him to gather all of the chemicals he need and formulate the thought/concept of sweeping a floor."

I expect science to back up naturalistic claims.

Prove it.

Again, I repeat: "Sweeping the floor is a concept of cleaning. So go to a chemist and tell him to gather all of the chemicals he need and formulate the thought/concept of sweeping a floor."

Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Ugh, is that ever unscientific. Entropy has nothing to do with the conservation of energy, Kingdom. Entropy has to do with the usefulness of energy to do work. Entropy is also not a problem for "naturalism". Even most of the websites run by your creationist masters have dropped that stupid claim from their sites because they realized how erroneous it was. So I guess the "question" isn't relatable to the topic at hand...

Hmm..

"A measure of the unavailability of a system's energy to do work; also a measure of disorder; the higher the entropy the greater the disorder. A measure of disorder; the higher the entropy the greater the disorder. ... A measure of disorder in the universe or of the availability of the energy in a system to do work".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_( ... _disorder)

Moments after the big bang, the entropy would have been EXTREMELY high. Yet, based on the precision which was needed for life to began (based on the PRECISE values of the cosmological constants), we find that the entropy was LOW.

Instead of foolishly arguing against observation and experiment (you know, actual science)...just simply agree with me and we can pretend this conversation never happened.

No it's not actually, but nice try. Your computer is proof that computers exist. It does not prove how or why they came to be.

Stop the nonsense. Was your computer intelligently designed? Yes or no.

It has been explained to you previously, the existence of something does not prove source.

Not in and of itself, no. But computers are designed, correct?

We also know that humans exist, and we can prove that humans build computers, but we have to be able to prove human existence and that humans are involved in computer building before we can prove that computers are designed and built by intelligent humans.

No we don't. If I see a space shuttle, I don't have to "know" who did it or who didn't do it in order for me to conclude "intelligent" design. I know based on observation and repeated experiment (again, actual SCIENCE) that nature doesn't build houses, space shuttles, automobiles, statues.

But I do know that intelligent entities do.

I'm sure you know what comes next here. Got any proof of gods, or that gods were involved in the creating of humans?

Sure. I have proof that a MGB is possibly necessarily true, and all possible necessary truths must be true (MOA). I have proof that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past, and therefore must owe its existence to a timeless, supernatural mind, which astronomical powers and abilities (KA).

Now, what case can you make for naturalism?

Everyone will please note, by the way, that Kingdom was unable to challenge the fact that data storage and retrieval (in my sentence that he responded to above) is a material and chemical property, and NOT a life property. Human brains take advantage of physics and chemistry, not the supernatural, to retain and recall data.

Everyone will please note, by the way, that Kenisaw cannot provide me answers to the question of "where did consciousness come from". Until he can do that, quotes like above are irrelevant.

That would be like someone telling you how a computer operates, but your question is regarding how it was built/manufactured. Two totally different concepts.

That is not what anyone is claiming. I know you are fond of hyperbole, but even you know your statement misrepresents quite a bit...

Well, most of you. And it isn't a hyperbole...it is the same concept. Tell me the difference.

They happened because of the chemical/quantum properties of structures of matter.

So go in a lab, and take those chemical/quantum properties of structures of matter...and create a conscious brain. Mother nature did it, and she can't see, or THINK.

So I expect thinking/seeing human beings to be able to do it faster, and more efficient.

What are the origins of "gold"? The origin is that the properties of the matter that make up a certain structure allow for "gold" to exist...

I will take you one further...one is the origin of the universe, PERIOD?

But your god creature can exist out of non living energy, or non living matter, or whatever you want to claim it is made out of, and you are OK with that. What a hilarious double standard Kingdom.

Um, no its not a double standard because no one is claiming that this God creature "can exist out of non living energy". Who said that? That is a straw man.

Unlike mankind, God did not "begin" to exist from nonliving material. No theist that I know ever claimed that. Again, straw man.

Like I said, "whatever you want to claim". Please note that I did not use the word "begin" even though you even bothered to put that word in quotes.

Well, when you said "can exist OUT of..", I took that to mean "begin out of". If I got you wrong, my apologies. But you were still wrong about the "non living energy" thing, so hey.

Please make the effort to read and comprehend by posts more carefully so we can progress this discussion without these distracting sidebars.

No need for the chastising, bruh. Especially since you were wrong in a different sense.

No one ever said your god critter was pure energy?

First you said "non living energy". Now it is pure energy. SMH. The energy of God is "alive", in the same sense we call the electrical current in a wire a "live" wire.

You must read all the posts.

Sure, I will read all the posts.

I see that claim all the time. If you disagree with your fellow believers about that, then feel free to correct them and let us know the right interpretation.

This is really a dead issue...a red herring, in fact...to take away the fact that your position does not stand up to scrutiny.

Oh, and if you get a chance, please explain how an always existing divine creature can get to the point in it's existence where it created anything.

More red herrings.

It' always interesting to hear someone explain how to get to the middle of infinity...

Why would that be the middle of infinity?

Kingdom, what is the problem here? Your sentience arises out of non sentient material.

The cells that created me was living, and the living cells came from sentient human beings. The PRIMARY source of my being was sentient. Perhaps maybe you should get touched up on the concepts of primary cause, and secondary causes.

Gold arises from non gold material. Life arises out of NON LIVING material!

Unscientific claim.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp

It is an easy concept to grasp. But a hard concept to accept.

, and it's obviously true.

Obvious to who? You/

Even common sense dictates that.

What does the science dictate?

I'm not presenting you with higher levels of organic chemistry here, or trying to confuse you with things you might not be familiar with. Your obviously smart enough to see my point here, so I quite frankly don't see what the problem is.

The problem is the whole idea that inanimate (dead) matter, suddenly/gradually came to life and begin to talk to each other. That to me is a problem. You talk about common sense, to me, that defies common sense.

Sentience is the property that arises out of a lot of nonliving material structures and chemical combinations

Unscientific assertion.

I didn't say that to anger you, but I am accurate in my statement that I have discussed this previously.

Accurate, eh?

Who are also made out of non living material and have sentience from non sentient structure and matter. I guess we are self replicating molecules, just like the SunY three subunit self-replicator, or the 32 amino acid long Ghadiri self replicator, or replicons, or viruses. Go figure...

Where did the sentience/consciousness come from, sir?

Well the worst science can do is tie in that match...LOL

I wouldn't give it that much.

No thanks, I don't pretend to know the limits of science, especially in an investigation that involves matter, energy, chemistry, and physics. I realize that a person can't realize that...

Of course, because for you, science must have all of the answers. So you will always have to leave the door open. I understand. Its all apart of the game.

But you said it can't be done, remember? Whoops, your Freudian slip is showing. Looks like your subconscious has its doubts...

?

You can't steal your way to an open and rational mind, Kingdom...

Don't need to. I am on the winning team (Team Jesus).

[For_The_Kingdom]

Of course you are your brain.

False. When you are sad, it isn't your brain that is sad. Yet, you are sad. So, there is something true about you that isn't true about your brain, making YOU and your brain unidentical.

Philosophy 101. No charge for the lesson, either.

Where are "you" when you thin about it? Right behind your eyes is the standard answer most people give. Their head is where they exist. All that wonderful structure is where "you" reside.

Their head is where "they" are. But their brain is not "them".

[Bust Nak]

And I already gave you reasons why it is STILL a false equivalency..for the simple fact that one image is manifested via intelligent design, and the other one isn't (on your view).

That is not a reason that demonstrate that it is a false equivalency, because it does not change the fact that I am comparing one example of capturing an visual image by collecting reflected light with another example of capturing an visual image by collecting reflected light.

What you are doing is comparing when nature blows her cool breeze on me in the summer time, to a man-made air conditioner blowing cool air on me in the summer time.

DING DING DING, we have a winner. That's is a great analogy.

True, I am getting cold air from both, but the source of the cold air are from two different sources.

And that's irrelevant when you are debating getting cold air in your face.

You are saying "You are getting cold air from the a/c in the same way you are getting cold air from the wind outside".

That is 100% correct.

And you don't seem to want to be helped.

No, I want you to help, donate to the biological department of your local university, that will help.

You have all of the material you need. No excuses.

All the material but not all the knowledge required. There can be no excuse more legitimate than that.

That wasn't the scenario, but ok.

Well that's what you wrote, so be explicit, what exactly was the scenario you had in mind re: batman logo egg?

Evidence? Where?

I told you, your local natural history museum.

Yes indeed.

Then why are you still here if you are satisfied?

So, you have faith? Gotcha.

In the loosest sense, sure.

Just give Christ more time. He will be here.

2000 years not long enough?

I will when I decide to waste valuable time.

But you said you would do it. Are you going back on your words?

Time is something you can't get back, ya know. The guy that is doing 30 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit, and he gets out....do you think he will get back that time?

No.