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]

Explain please how European sailors in the 1400s/1500s/1600s learned to communicate with the Chinese or Japanese, or the Maori in New Zealand?

Interpreters, obvious. In Iraq, we would have Iraqi interpreters accompany us on missions, so we can communicate with the local populations.

We certainly wasn't going out there just "winging" it.

Readers, please note here that FtK implies strongly that his opponents have a problem with presuppositions but that he himself does not.

Hey, there is nothing wrong with presuppositions, in general...but lets not make presuppositions gospel, if you know what I mean.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Let it be known that FortheKingdom accepts as truth what ignorant desert nomads without written language claimed about a god/gods.

"Because they were desert nomads, they couldn't speak things of truth value and have it written down at a later date".

It doesn't get any more fallacious than that, people.

Again, the Big Bang and evolution are not the same thing. The universe could have been created by a god of sorts for all I know, evolution came after. Please try to grasp this.

Well, I am not denying that God could have used evolution to create...I am denying the idea that Mother Nature used macroevolution to create, which is your position.

What was your analogy and what does it have to do with the fact that you claim order cannot come from chaos even though you have been show exactly how it can with a repeatable experiment that you can do on your own.
You claimed that order cannot come from chaos. You were wrong. The only thing left to be determined is if you will amend your thinking or stick your head in the sand.

The analogy was something about playing cards..

Please learn to debate. Shaking your head only tells us that you cannot refute a point. Believe me, I already knew you couldn't refute it, so shake your head until your brains fall out for all I care.

LOL.

Correct. I don't claim to know the source of all that exists. That seems unknowable and I'll leave it to the religious to pretend that they know without being able to show that they speak the truth.

Funny. I find it funny that some people try to put on this modest approach such as what you appear to be doing...this "oh, I don't claim to know the source of all things. I don't know. What is wrong with just saying I don't know?"

Yet, when it comes to naturalistic claims (like abiogenesis), you don't see those people EVER arguing against such claims. You don't see them making any attempts to refute those claims. They are silent. On mute. But once someone brings up the "G" word, then all of a sudden, they want to come out an play. They become social butterflys. They become refutation ninjas, reading to take a karate chop to anyone that had the nerve to mention the "G" word.

Yet, prior to that, the playing field was "equal". SMH.

Talk about shaking your head! Why do you use 'Mother Nature' when you actually mean natural occurrences? Please say what you mean. Understand that you as a person that believes in the gods (or just one god), when commenting on a Mother Nature paints the picture of some Mother Goddess of sorts that I also don't see evidence for, much like you god.

Wow. "Mother Nature (sometimes known as Mother Earth or the Earth-Mother) is a common personification of nature that focuses on the life-giving and nurturing aspects of nature by embodying it, in the form of the mother."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Nature

SMH.

That does not address the possibility that the universe could not have existed in a previous form before this Big Bang you talk about.

Which is exactly why I threw the "infinite regress" problem in there, which is a problem that DOES address the possibility that the universe could not have existed in a previous form before this Big Bang that I talk about.

Perhaps I can help this make sense for you.
Maybe there were gods that made it happen 13.7 billions years ago.

I agree. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".

You protest to much. I'm open to the idea that gods created the universe.

Ya know, I could never tell. You have a funny way of showing it.

I accept that natural explanations also can account for it and god explanations are not needed, yet not ruled out.

If natural explanations can account for it, then it should have accounted for those two problems I gave you before (entropy/infinite regress). You know, two problems that you clearly couldn't provide an adequate answer for.

I don't find naturalistic claims quite as silly as all the differing god claims about how the universe got here.

I do.

And now you know why. Show me a god and show me how it did what you claim and I will believe. Resort to ignorant desert nomadic stories, and I will have a hard time taking you seriously.

Show me sentient life originating from nonliving material or a reptile evolving into a bird.

Please show that this didn't go over your head.
How did the pyramids get built?
1) The gods did it. My work is now done.
2) I don't know. I will need to put in some work to establish some theories on how this was done. Lots of work ahead of me.

You sir, seem to prefer the route that takes no work when trying to explain things we don't know like how we got here and such.

LOL.

1.) "How did this Chevy Blazer get built"
2.) "The guys at Chevrolet did it. My work is done."

That is the same thing, right?

You have the cart before the horse. First you would need to show that the gods created the stone blocks. You are just claiming that 'the gods did it' so you don't have to put in any actual work. You seem to just be taking the easy way out.

The point was; even if God DID do it, that wouldn't stop me (or someone) from marveling at the work of the men that built from the material that God set about for them.

Yes I realize this and yes I'm trying to explain to you that I believe your doing this so you can take the easy road. 'The gods did it' as an explanation means you can be done. No more work is required.

I take what you call to be the "easy" road, because that is where the evidence leads me down.

That would be similar to Hansel and Gretel working at a bread making factory and being abducted from the factory and being led through the woods. Hansel begins to leave bread crumbs from the factory through the woods.

I am a detective arriving at the scene to investigate the abduction, and I begin to follow the bread trail...so I guess you would have been that pain in the ass detective that arrives at the scene and tell me "You are taking the easy way out, dust for finger prints and other DNA evidence. Following the bread trail doesn't require WORK!!!".

Instead of just shrugging my shoulders and saying "I don't know" (like some people), I choose to follow the obvious evidence and it points me to Christian theism.

Please call me out on this as soon as you see me say such a thing. Until then, this is just a straw man.

If you are saying God didn't do it...then you are saying Nature did it...if it isn't one, it is the other by default.

You are incorrect because I am not making any argument that relies on some claim about mothers. However, your entire argument relies on all gods being false, except for your favorite one. Your entire argument literally relies on this claim that from the outside seems nonsensical.

SMH. You still don't get it, do you?

Actually, you need to show that you speak the truth here. Why should I believe your claim that all the gods are false, except for your own? How have you ruled out other potential causes? It doesn't all stem from your desire to run with the easiest explanation does it?

The argument for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus points me in the direction of "which God".

Actually, I'm the one that pointed out the fact that even bacteria communicate.

We are not talking about the same kind of communication here, obviously.

Correct. Society tells us that it is not OK to kill and eat each other.

So if society tells us that it is ok to kill and eat each other, would that make it right? Hmmm..so right and wrong is based off of what society tells us, huh??

You're not attacking anything. Your just whining and complaining about evolution and a Big Bang.

As I deal with people on here that are just whining and complaining about theistic and Christianity.

Then stop. I'm addressing your god concept and how it is an ineffective punishing god. Rather than attempt to rebut, you complain about naturalism.

And rather than rebut what I say about naturalism, you complain about the God of the Bible.

I personally have already explained that society has determined that killing other humans is wrong, so why oh why do you continue to whine and complain about naturalism as if I'm arguing for it being a reason?

I already addressed this "society" business.

Now do you acknowledge that your god concept is a genocidal, ineffective punishing god, or perhaps you would like to complain about gravity now as your dodge?
It seems obvious that you do not have an actual defense to my position.

We apparently view God differently. That's cool. On judgement day, when you stand before the Almighty, I want you to tell him how you feel. Let him have it. Stick it to him.

I don't know, ask a naturalist for crying out loud.

I am asking the person that admitting to killing other life forms (flies). What is the difference in God killing humans, and you killing flies. There is no difference.

Nope. I think (and am willing to be shown wrong) that you would prefer to take the easy road (the gods did it) rather than study biology.

Then you are wrong.

My evidence for this is that you prefer to complain about naturalism then defend claims made against your assumed mechanism (the gods).

I prefer the Wing Chun philosophy: Attack and defend at the same time.

No, I am not aware. Please show that you speak the truth.

Inbox me.

Which presupposition are you accusing me of? Note, I was a tongue talking, street evangelizing, drunk in the holy ghost Christians for 2 decades.

Judas was a disciple by title, not by spirit.

I read the Bible from cover to cover and studied actual evolution (not my church/Christian school type). This is what started the long process of eventually losing my beliefs.

Inbox me. Lets see if we can get you back on the narrow path.

I see you got your training on evolution from your church. I urge you to study on your own. I know it's a lot more work compared to just going with what your church says, but believe me, it is fascinating.

I don't attend church. Christian Apologetics is my calling.

Perhaps. What it for sure rules out is some magic garden event and an evil genocidal flood event (no genetic bottleneck).

Well, the idea that life suddenly/gradually "came to life" from dead matter is worse than magic.

Society disagrees with you and will punish you if you kill another human animal.

Depends on the society and where we are in human history.

You may eat hamburgers if you wish for the foreseeable future.

Sure, because society loves hamburgers.

I find killing to be wrong because I understand that I don't want to be killed. Flies don't have the same value to me as humans do, so my thoughts on killing a fly differ when compared to my thoughts on killing humans.

Kind of like racism....racists believe that one race is more valuable than other races. So, I guess you are a speciest...believing that your species has more value than other species. Poor flies. (Poor black people).

All this whining about naturalism and yet you have decided to worship a god that is claimed to have killed off all life on this planet, save 8 people. It's hard to take such a stance seriously, but I'm trying. Shaking your head doesn't help though, please refute my claims if you are able.

Wait a minute, so let me get this straight: You JUST said that you value human lives more than that of flies...so you can go on a killing spree, killing all the flies with no guilt, shame, or regret...sparing all humans.

Yet, when God goes on a killing spree, killing all other humans but valuing EIGHT humans as opposed to the rest....God is wrong...but you are right?

SMH. Okey dokey.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 439 by For_The_Kingdom]

Wait a minute, so let me get this straight: You JUST said that you value human lives more than that of flies...so you can go on a killing spree, killing all the flies with no guilt, shame, or regret...sparing all humans.

Yet, when God goes on a killing spree, killing all other humans but valuing EIGHT humans as opposed to the rest....God is wrong...but you are right?

Here's the deal, FtK. Let's say I do do that. I actively go out and make it my mission to kill as many flies as I can.
Once I'm done, I talk to the flies (assuming for the sake of argument, flies are able to communicate with me), and I say to them "I had to do it, I'm all loving, I'm compassionate, I'm deserving of worship"
Am I lying to the flies when I say the above?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 439 by For_The_Kingdom]

FtK says

My point is simple; the only way for verbal speech to ever get off the ground is for humans to start with a common language. If you speak Chinese, yet you can't speak or understand a lick of Arabic...and you meet an Arab man who speaks Arabic and can't speak a lick of Chinese, and you and the Arab man are the only people in the world, do you ever think you both will get to a point where you will share a "common" language?

No. It aint happening.

My response

Explain please how European sailors in the 1400s/1500s/1600s learned to communicate with the Chinese or Japanese, or the Maori in New Zealand?
There would not have been a common language between the two groups. According to what you say here, it should have been impossible for European settlers to communicate with the Maori.

(thus we would have a French sailor who speaks French but not a lick of Maori, who meets a Maori who speaks Maori but not a lick of French. So going by FtK's mode of thought, "it ain't happening")

FtK's response

Interpreters, obvious. In Iraq, we would have Iraqi interpreters accompany us on missions, so we can communicate with the local populations.

We certainly wasn't going out there just "winging" it.

My new response

FtK...when you spoke earlier, you said there would have to be a 'common language between the groups'. Thus meaning, in your eyes, when two groups meet for the first time, and not having a common language, communication would have been impossible.
So I laid out a simple scenario, something that really did happen in history. European sailors, let's say they're French or Spanish or Italian, travel to New Zealand and meet the Maori for the first time. Both groups only speak their own languages.
UPDATE - It was a Dutch sailor, Abel Tasman, who was the first European to discover New Zealand. I've just looked it up.
Who would be the interpreters? An interpreter would have to speak both languages, but obviously when I spoke about European sailors going to New Zealand for the first time, such interpreters simply could not have yet existed.
According to what you said before, "it ain't happening". This means interpreters cannot exist, according to your train of logic.

Hey, there is nothing wrong with presuppositions, in general...but lets not make presuppositions gospel, if you know what I mean.

So why take your debate opponents to task for presuppositions you think they have? What about presuppositions you yourself have?

[rikuoamero]

I have been saying over, and OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER again that sentient life cannot rise from nonlife.

No you have not. You have been saying over and over and over 'life cannot come from non-life'. I have lost count of the number of times I have discussed this with you. Whenever you and I do get to discussing that line, you then for some reason, start talking about sentient life, as if 'life cannot come from non-life' is a settled matter between us.

Were your parents nonliving when you was conceived? Yes or no. Simple question.

Depending on how one looks at it, yes. To quote Obi Wan Kenobi, "From a different point of view". Physically, they are made up of components that are themselves not alive. It would not be inaccurate to say that two collections of elementary particles such as oxygen and hydrogen reacted together in such a way that a third collection of elementary particles started forming.
If you dispute that, you'll have to explain what happens during conception and pregnancy in such a way as to ignore/not mention the chemical processes involved.

You apparently think that there is a difference between consciousness and sentience

I have never, not once, in our discussions even alluded to a difference between the two of them. How many times have I written "consciousness/sentience" (i.e. with a slash) as if the two are one and the same?

What I DO have a difference with, is the difference between 'mere' life and sentient life. I talk about life (in general, meaning life without sentience and life with sentience) as coming from non-life, in that we are made up of elementary particles that react in ways discoverable through the laws of chemistry and physics, and you immediately jump to talking about sentient life, as if sentient life quite simply cannot be made up of elementary particles that react in ways discoverable through the laws of chemistry and physics.

the two terms cannot be used interchangeably.

Which raises an eyebrow on my end. Why is it that you do? How many times have you used the two terms interchangeably? I was merely following your example for the sake of discussion.

Yet, I've constantly made the distinction between things that are "living", yet not sentient...and things that are living, yet sentient.

So why is it, whenever I try to pin you down on what is non-life, or non-living, you talk about something that does not have sentience, as if that is the sole qualifier for something to be in the 'non-life' box.

It does merit a blip on my mental radar, because you don't have a scientific explanation as to the origin of life PERIOD, in general.

Neither do yourself, good sir. Quoting your creationist beliefs to us and saying your evidence is what is said in the Bible, is not being scientific.

You don't have a clue as to how life originated from nonliving material, in general.

There are actually several different hypotheses vying for attention in the scientific community. Panspermia to name one.
At this moment in time, none of them have won out.
Do you know what is NOT considered a scientific hypothesis? Biblical creationism.

Much less sentient life.

Whatever the processes for sentient life happen to be, they would have to be ultimately rooted in the same process that the very first life forms came from (whatever that process may be).

So you are clueless either way,

How so? The scientific community is looking in various different fields for the answer. It's not like scientists are sitting on their hands, scratching their heads in complete bafflement.

because that is much more fun to see naturalist try to defend such an impossible, unscientific, faith-based belief

Why is it you and some other theists try to put down or debunk the positions of others as being 'faith based', all the while ignoring that if I am to follow this train of thought of yours, it means your own faith based positions are also only so much bunk?

which they have no natural justification for whatsoever besides the typical "Well, God doesn't exist so he couldn't have done it, so mother nature must have done it."

What evidence do you have for your own claims outside of the stories in the Bible?

What about sentient animals or life forms? Like say a human?

Still a conglomeration of chemicals that react according to the laws of chemistry and physics.

Then the question of "life origins" will be asked of the very first snail...just like the question of "conscious origins" can be asked for the very first conscious agent. The truth is; you don't have an answer for either one.

Do you have an answer that doesn't rely on what some people a couple thousand years ago wrote down in a book?

But anyways, look; life from nonliving material is scientifically unproven at the present 5-14-17 moment.

Wrong, unless you want to retract earlier comments from yourself where you AGREED that life is composed of elementary non-living particles?

And that is just "life from nonlife"...once you throw the concept of "consciousness" in there, the problem becomes even more difficult/impossible for science. So either way, there are more questions than answers.

So why go with an ancient book that at best merely claims to have the answers, but has no way of verifying its own claims (or is disproven in certain areas)?

Can you outline to me as to what is the origin of consciousness?

Can you, without referring to a book that makes a claim that is ultimately untestable?

If objective morality exists, then it must come from a personal, moral agent in the same way that subjective morality from you yourself, must come from you, yourself...a personal, moral agent.

Hilarious. You describe me as a personal, moral agent, who comes up with a subjective morality (correct), then for some reason, you state that a personal, moral agent can come up with an objective morality.
How does that follow?
I see it the other way. I see an objective morality coming from a non-personal, non-agent (if there even can be an objective morality), in order to escape the problem of morality coming from a personal agent.

There is a difference between God sending a demon to go to a little boy disguised as an ice cream man to lure the boy into the truck with the promise of a free ice cream, and God sending a demon/spirit to a Christian's house disguised as a Muslim to get the gullible Christian to convert to Islam.

So in both cases, God can send a demon to lure a little boy into an ice-cream truck where he will be raped/tortured/murdered and God will still be moral/just/good/compassionate/{insert-adjective-here}?
God can send a spirit to a Christian's house, convince the Christian that Islam is 'true', and God is still moral/just/good/compassionate/{insert-adjective-here}?
How is the Christian supposed to 'know better'? He's listening to a spirit sent from God! Isn't God your barometer for what is true and not-true?
I'm going to SMH here.

There is no lying aspect to the Harry Potter stuff. False equivalency.

Not necessary. In both cases, we have spirits being let loose to do some sort of harm to humans, and in both cases, the one who lets them loose doesn't say outright to them do this harm.
In your eyes, God letting loose spirits who deceive humans is okay because God doesn't tell them to deceive.
What about Professor Lockhart? Is it OK for him to just open the cage door?

Wait a minute, what? Well, maybe Lion B thinks that Lion A should go out and get its own food. Every think about that? Or are you justifying reasons why animals kill each other...which is the same thing Bloods/Crips do.

Non-human animals do not share our level of sentience and/or consciousness. Are Blood/Crips still human?

You are assuming that killing is a bad thing and survival is a good thing. Who told you that? What is that conclusion based on?

I thought presuppositions had 'nothing wrong with them, in general'?

And I am asking why are those things objectively bad?

Can you describe for me where, in your own moral code, where rape/murder are bad? Your own code in my eyes, is not objective.

Never.

As I fully expected. There simply is no way for God to fail your moral judgement evaluations.

And God's discipline was so great that he sent a death angel out, and 70,000 Israelites were killed.

Now that I read the story, it is apparent that the carrying out of the census was a sin that all Israel took part in

What makes counting the number of people in a kingdom a sin? If God is that ready and willing to punish census-taking, how come similar disasters do not happen any time a census takes place?
A census takes place in my country every five years. Mass deaths do not happen whenever it happens.
So either God did punish David for his census (and didn't explain just what the heck is wrong with doing a census?), and since then, does not punish nations whenever new censuses are carried out (and hence, this is not objective morality)...or I'll let you try to figure out an alternative.
In fact, reading the story in 1 Chronicles reveals that it is a human, Joab, who says to David that it is a sin. David is NOT told by God or an angel that census taking is a sin. In fact, in earlier books, such as Exodus, other censuses take place, and no disaster-as-punishment occurs.
Exodus 30:11-13
Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them. 13 Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel,[c] according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the Lord.
Wow...how is this a description of an objective system of morality?
What I see here is what you call God saying at one point in time to take a census, a count, of the Israelites, and for each person to pay a ransom. Then later on, we've got King David who takes a census too, and for some mad reason, some reason unexplained (oh but we've just got to trust that the reason is good, according to you!) taking a census is now punishable by mass death!

No, because any God that can "fail" is not a God that should be rendered worship.

So rather than admit that the being whom you now call God actually does fail, has done actions that if it were any other entity would cause them to fail at your system of moral evaluation, you say about this God that he cannot 'cross the line', that it is not even possible for him to fail.
Do you know what I call this? A cheat, rigged.

In fact, Judeo-Christianity is based upon a morally perfect God. Anything less than that would be...Islam lol.

Really shows what you know about Islam. Do you honestly think that Muslims don't say about Allah that he is morally perfect?

He can't, thats the point.

Great. So God can be as destructive as he wants, cause as much pain and suffering as he desires, and no matter how bad he gets, he can never be described like a Dark Lord from a fantasy novel?

Remind away. I don't know.

My sisters were sexually abused.

Well I put it to you this way; the Hebrews were God's chosen people, right? Despite that, when they did wrong, they had their asses handed to them, didn't they? They didn't get any free passes.

Such as when they did the horrible horrible deed...of taking a census. That in their own holy writings, as passed down from Moses (supposedly), is fully allowed.

Sounds fair to me.

This word has no meaning whenever you apply it to your God. You NEED to have something about your God that falls under the heading of 'unfair', in order for the word fair to mean anything at all.
Imagine if you had the word 'hot', but you never once described anything at all as being 'warm' or 'luke-warm' or 'cold'. What does the word 'hot' mean then? When does something become not 'hot'?

So tell me...what is fair about God telling Moses to take a census, to collect ransoms, and then later on, to punish David for doing a census? In fact, it's not David who's punished, but the people, who would not have known that taking a census is now apparently "wrong".

No they don't. Last I checked, Catholics believe there was God behind the curtains, getting the play together. Unlike one of the statements..

For reader's sake, here are the two statements, as put forth by you.

Yeah, pretty much. I mean, I could either believe that "that humanity is just so guilty of some nebulous sin committed by proto-ancestors, a sin so bad that a god man has to get nailed to a piece of wood in order to pay for it"

or, I can believe that..

"13.7 billion years ago, the universe began to exist from literally nothing, and began to expand..and with this expansion came the rise of space, time, matter, and energy. And for some reason unbeknown to mankind, this dead matter that was floating around in preexisting space began to come to life..and not only did it come to life, but it began to think, see, listen, eat, and have sex."
Okay, I'll admit to a small error. Catholics do not believe the part about 'for some reason unbeknown to mankind'. If we strike those particular words out, Roman Catholics generally speaking have no problem with the two statements.
Need I remind you that I grew up Roman Catholic?

I am saying that some questions are beyond the scope of observation and experiment...which are questions regarding origins.

So why do your own claims regarding origins just get a pass? I do not give your claims a pass, precisely because they are beyond 'the scope of observation and experiment'.

I say

Whatever he does is moral by sheer definition, no matter how harmful or beneficial the act is.

You reply

Absolutely.

Meaning it would not be illogical for me to want to emulate God and thus go out and cause as much harm as I could.
Oh wait...that would be one rule for me, one rule for thee (thee = God) wouldn't it?
Again, how does that describe objective morality?

So wouldn't it make sense for objective moral values to be based upon (its foundation) from a personal, moral agent?

See, you certainly understand the concept...it is just once it comes to the concept of a "G" word (God), all of a sudden it is "hold on now, I don't agree. I don't understand. I don't know".

Yes...because when it comes to personal moral agents, they CANNOT give objective moral standards, and this INCLUDES the character you call God. If you disagree, you'll have to explain how your God is NOT a personal moral agent (even though up to now, you've described him as such),
OR
how I, as a personal moral agent can in fact have an objective moral system all of my own.

[rikuoamero]

So if society tells us that it is ok to kill and eat each other, would that make it right? Hmmm..so right and wrong is based off of what society tells us, huh??

FtK, your non-acceptance of what Clownboat promotes is that society is in-constant. It changes what it says is right and wrong, correct? Thus, you don't rely on that as a standard, it's shifting, there's no sure answer.

If so...how does this NOT describe your god? In earlier comments with myself, you mentioned King David taking a census and apparently according to God, that is a great sin, one he punishes by killing tens of thousands of people.
What I'm seeing here is ALSO an inconsistency. I pointed out to you that in Exodus, God gives instructions to Moses on what exactly to do with a census. He doesn't say to Moses to not do them. King David, when discussing and planning his own census, probably would have talked to his priests and they would have said its alright, here it is in our holy scriptures the instructions from God.


It's one thing for you to say you rely on a God who is able to and does give constant answers for moral problems. However, YOU run into problems when the literature you have chosen to promote to us (the non believers) as being a record of some sort of this god describe this god as being just as inconsistent as the society whose morality you reject.

[Clownboat]

"Because they were desert nomads, they couldn't speak things of truth value and have it written down at a later date".

It doesn't get any more fallacious than that, people.

FTK... We have knowledge at our fingertips now, and you still go to desert nomads without written language for what you think they thought up about the gods. (We can't even know what they thought up about the gods because they were unable to even write it down at the time).

Well, I am not denying that God could have used evolution to create...I am denying the idea that Mother Nature used macroevolution to create, which is your position.

Obviously. Now only if desert nomads without the knowledge we have today could tell you the mechanism in evolution that stops micro evolution from reaching the macro stage. For example, many small steps will eventually add up to miles. What mechanism stops all the micro from eventually reaching the macro level?
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=15
What stops micro+micro+micro+micro+micro+micro+micro+micro+micro+micro+micro+micro+micro+micro+micro+micro+micro from equally macro?

The analogy was something about playing cards..

I don't care. Do you understand that order can come from chaos now? Are you able to learn?

Funny. I find it funny that some people try to put on this modest approach such as what you appear to be doing...this "oh, I don't claim to know the source of all things. I don't know. What is wrong with just saying I don't know?"

Yet, when it comes to naturalistic claims (like abiogenesis), you don't see those people EVER arguing against such claims. You don't see them making any attempts to refute those claims. They are silent. On mute. But once someone brings up the "G" word, then all of a sudden, they want to come out an play. They become social butterflys. They become refutation ninjas, reading to take a karate chop to anyone that had the nerve to mention the "G" word.

Yet, prior to that, the playing field was "equal". SMH.

Do you feel better now? Perhaps you need a cookie? If only your religious claims could stand up to scrutiny, then you wouldn't have to feel like you are getting your feelings hurt.

Perhaps I can help this make sense for you.
Maybe there were gods that made it happen 13.7 billions years ago.

I agree. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".

All you need is for desert nomads to say it and it then makes sense?

You protest to much. I'm open to the idea that gods created the universe.

Ya know, I could never tell. You have a funny way of showing it.

I'm not surprised. Perhaps let go of the desert nomads and try reason and logic?

If natural explanations can account for it, then it should have accounted for those two problems I gave you before (entropy/infinite regress). You know, two problems that you clearly couldn't provide an adequate answer for.

Please explain how entropy and infinite regress make a big bang impossible.

And now you know why. Show me a god and show me how it did what you claim and I will believe. Resort to ignorant desert nomadic stories, and I will have a hard time taking you seriously.

Show me sentient life originating from nonliving material or a reptile evolving into a bird.

I'm hear and I'm sentient. I am formed from nonliving material.
To see a reptile that evolved into a bird, please look at a bird.

1.) "How did this Chevy Blazer get built"
2.) "The guys at Chevrolet did it. My work is done."

That is the same thing, right?

You're kind of getting it. Stop doing #2.

I take what you call to be the "easy" road, because that is where the evidence leads me down.

If this is true, please list what you call evidence for the god. Just so you know, complaining about evolution, abiogenesis or a big bang does not count as evidence that the gods are real.

That would be similar to Hansel and Gretel working at a bread making factory and being abducted from the factory and being led through the woods. Hansel begins to leave bread crumbs from the factory through the woods.

I am a detective arriving at the scene to investigate the abduction, and I begin to follow the bread trail...so I guess you would have been that pain in the ass detective that arrives at the scene and tell me "You are taking the easy way out, dust for finger prints and other DNA evidence. Following the bread trail doesn't require WORK!!!".

For crying out loud, at least figure out if the witch that lives in a candy house is real.

If you are saying God didn't do it...then you are saying Nature did it...if it isn't one, it is the other by default.

Again, please complain about this if I make such a statement.

You are incorrect because I am not making any argument that relies on some claim about mothers. However, your entire argument relies on all gods being false, except for your favorite one. Your entire argument literally relies on this claim that from the outside seems nonsensical.

SMH. You still don't get it, do you?

Correct, and I assume you don't either since you cannot articulate it.

Actually, you need to show that you speak the truth here. Why should I believe your claim that all the gods are false, except for your own? How have you ruled out other potential causes? It doesn't all stem from your desire to run with the easiest explanation does it?

The argument for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus points me in the direction of "which God".

See above? I asked you to show that you speak the truth about all the gods being false but your own. Somehow you think pointing to an argument about a dead body (501 actually) coming back to life shows that you are speaking the truth.
Let me try this out: SMH

We are not talking about the same kind of communication here, obviously.

You should define what it is you mean when you say communicate then.

So if society tells us that it is ok to kill and eat each other, would that make it right? Hmmm..so right and wrong is based off of what society tells us, huh??

Seems about right to me. If this is not true and society does not tell us what is right and wrong like it seems, please inform us what really tells us about what is right and wrong.
For example, I feel it is wrong to restrict things you hold dear for yourself from another human (exceptions to every rule of course). Why do I feel this way?

You're not attacking anything. Your just whining and complaining about evolution and a Big Bang.

As I deal with people on here that are just whining and complaining about theistic and Christianity.

Then show that you are better than them by making arguments and evidencing the claims you make.

And rather than rebut what I say about naturalism, you complain about the God of the Bible.

Listen up silly.
You are a believer in the god of the Bible. Again, if you want to show me that the gods are real, then please do so. I have not claimed that the gods are not real like a naturalist surely would. You might as well accuse me of not defending Buddhism.

I already addressed this "society" business.

Not sufficiently.
I can point to laws that society has created and even punishments. I can show real life examples of this being met out.
Please do the same for you god and morality.

We apparently view God differently. That's cool. On judgement day, when you stand before the Almighty, I want you to tell him how you feel. Let him have it. Stick it to him.

Really! Scare tactics! That is the best you got? Do you think you are talking to children here? I think it would be prudent for you to leave the scare tactics to the terrorist and let the gods evidence themselves.

I am asking the person that admitting to killing other life forms (flies). What is the difference in God killing humans, and you killing flies. There is no difference.

Like I keep saying, there is a difference to me. I'll explain it again though. Humans have more value than flies to me. Therefore killing a fly does not equal killing a human. Do you understand this yet? If not, let me know where you are confused.

Then you are wrong.

Great argument. The follow up evidence that backs this up is especially powerful.

My evidence for this is that you prefer to complain about naturalism then defend claims made against your assumed mechanism (the gods).

I prefer the Wing Chun philosophy: Attack and defend at the same time.

This is not Kung Fu. This is a debate site. Sparing we can take off line.

Which presupposition are you accusing me of? Note, I was a tongue talking, street evangelizing, drunk in the holy ghost Christians for 2 decades.

Judas was a disciple by title, not by spirit.

Are you now trying to blame me for the disciples Jesus chose? If not, what point are you trying to make or what are you trying to accuse me of?

Inbox me. Lets see if we can get you back on the narrow path.

You will need to do better than threatening me with hell fire.

I don't attend church. Christian Apologetics is my calling.

Do you think you have a god helping you do this?

Perhaps. What it for sure rules out is some magic garden event and an evil genocidal flood event (no genetic bottleneck).

Well, the idea that life suddenly/gradually "came to life" from dead matter is worse than magic.

Please stop saying silly things. What do you have against self replicating molecule anyway. Notice how you once again didn't address my points about the magic garden or a grand genocide event? Do you notice how you tend to complain about other things then defend your own?
Are you sure apologetics is your calling?

Society disagrees with you and will punish you if you kill another human animal.

Depends on the society and where we are in human history.

Do you recognize how it is society either way? Therefore ______.

You may eat hamburgers if you wish for the foreseeable future.

Sure, because society loves hamburgers.

Now your getting it. Can you imagine a society that didn't approve of eating cows? I'm guessing one just popped into your head. If not, see India.

Kind of like racism....racists believe that one race is more valuable than other races. So, I guess you are a speciest...believing that your species has more value than other species. Poor flies. (Poor black people).

There is only one race of humans. More sillyness.
Either way, you can call me a speciest if you want. You will not hurt my feelings.

All this whining about naturalism and yet you have decided to worship a god that is claimed to have killed off all life on this planet, save 8 people. It's hard to take such a stance seriously, but I'm trying. Shaking your head doesn't help though, please refute my claims if you are able.

Wait a minute, so let me get this straight: You JUST said that you value human lives more than that of flies...so you can go on a killing spree, killing all the flies with no guilt, shame, or regret...sparing all humans.

Actually no. Flies have value and are needed in the food chain. I don't value flies like I do humans, but there is no need to go on a fly killing spree. Killing is generally unnecessary IMO.

Yet, when God goes on a killing spree, killing all other humans but valuing EIGHT humans as opposed to the rest....God is wrong...but you are right?

Genocide is wrong. Such needless murder is wrong.

Especially when your talking about a concept that can create universes with words! In that case, genocide has no place. Making the bad humans infertile for example would have done the trick.

I suggest you don't address this though and instead complain about evolution or something else.

[Bust Nak]

Do you feel better now? Perhaps you need a cookie? If only your religious claims could stand up to scrutiny, then you wouldn't have to feel like you are getting your feelings hurt.

Moderator Warning

This crossed the line. Please refrain from personal comment please.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Here's the deal, FtK. Let's say I do do that. I actively go out and make it my mission to kill as many flies as I can.
Once I'm done, I talk to the flies (assuming for the sake of argument, flies are able to communicate with me), and I say to them "I had to do it, I'm all loving, I'm compassionate, I'm deserving of worship"
Am I lying to the flies when I say the above?

Depends. I don't assume that there is a contradiction between killing and loving. So, if you had morally sufficient reasons for killing the flies, then I don't see any problem with that. In the same way I don't see a problem with you killing an intruder of your home that broke down the door swinging a machete.

It all depends, and all situations aren't the same. The question is, who is the judge of what is right or wrong? Who decides whether the reason is justified or not? That is the question.

[For_The_Kingdom]

(thus we would have a French sailor who speaks French but not a lick of Maori, who meets a Maori who speaks Maori but not a lick of French. So going by FtK's mode of thought, "it ain't happening")

It ain't.

My new response

FtK...when you spoke earlier, you said there would have to be a 'common language between the groups'. Thus meaning, in your eyes, when two groups meet for the first time, and not having a common language, communication would have been impossible.

If it wasn't for the common language which was embedded into mankind from the very moment of our creation, it definitely would be impossible.

So I laid out a simple scenario, something that really did happen in history. European sailors, let's say they're French or Spanish or Italian, travel to New Zealand and meet the Maori for the first time. Both groups only speak their own languages.
UPDATE - It was a Dutch sailor, Abel Tasman, who was the first European to discover New Zealand. I've just looked it up.
Who would be the interpreters? An interpreter would have to speak both languages, but obviously when I spoke about European sailors going to New Zealand for the first time, such interpreters simply could not have yet existed.
According to what you said before, "it ain't happening". This means interpreters cannot exist, according to your train of logic.

Ok, so you tell me what were the levels of progression, and how they would all eventually end up speaking/understanding the common language (whatever language it was). Tell me. It ain't happening.

Better yet, go to any foreign country where English is not the primary language, and tell me how far you'd get in society not being able to speak/understand the native language (and vice versa). For every single word that you utter, they don't understand..and for every single word that they utter, you won't understand.

There is just no way getting around the language barrier.

So why take your debate opponents to task for presuppositions you think they have? What about presuppositions you yourself have?

I don't make my presuppositions gospel.