Goat wrote:
Volbrigade wrote:
Goat wrote:
Volbrigade wrote:
Translation: you have nothing to counter with. So, you'll see if you can deflect that fact by conjuring a bunch of gaseous nonsense. Taking lessons from JP?
If you have no coherent response (other than agreement, the only one possible
) to the factors I've cited, above -- and not for the first time, by a long shot -- there's no shame in that, even if it took you several days to realize it.
There IS shame in not being man enough to admit it.
Sniveling is not argument; and is not fit for a science forum, or any other.
You seem to be missing the ability to translate what I said.
I was pointing out you provided no support or reasoning for your ideas.
Let's start with your unsupported claim number1.
The 'pre-flood' conditions.
First, give evidence to the claim there were 'pre-flood' conditions. Show how you know what those 'conditions' are. Show it isn't a total fantasy.
We will start from there. As far as I can see, the physical evidence show there was no 'World wide' flood to begin with. Therefore , jumping to 'pre-flood' conditions is just not meaningful.
Oh, please.
For the thousandth time, it seems (and I only have 150 or so posts on this site) --
the evidence and data are what they are. It is the presuppositions with which they are examined that will yield different postulations as to what they reveal; different explanations and ideas as to what happened.
I mean, it's one thing to chew your cabbage twice. But this site invites a constant rumination of the same cud, in trying to address the persistent materialist indoctrination that is expressed in the fruit basket medley of Whateverist (you know, those who believe any, every, no - thing -- "whatever"...) nonsense.
Ah well. It's not like anyone forces me to log on, eh?
So: once again (sigh); we have two main points of reference: a theistic, and an a-theistic one.
For reasons I won't bother to rehash (and despite the la-la land blather of JP, et. al.), Christianity is the supreme expression of theism. If it is not the truth, then there is absolutely no reason to think that any of the other permutations of theism are.
You claiming something doesn't make it true. That might be your personal opinion, but, frankly, as far as I can see , it's false. You seem to be also mixing up the concept of 'Making a claim' verses 'Providing evidence'. The bible, which you seem to depend on, is the claim, not the evidence.
Atheism (materialism) is such a tepid and banal wash of self-contradictory and mutually exclusive nonsense that there is no particular flavor of it to point to.
That is your opinion. What I don't see is objective evidence or even anything more than 'because I said so' to back that up. Now, how about providing evidence of
Pre flood conditions, or the flood?
Nevertheless: I hold that the Bible provides an explanation for our reality; that the Flood it recounts is amply documented in the fossil and geologic record; and that the movement of science at its frontiers is in shocking concert with what the Bible has been intimating all along.
The onus is one YOU to provide the empirical, "real world" non-inferential evidence (at this point, I'm not even demanding inferential evidence that will stand up to scrutiny, of which there is none) for:
And, please back up the claim that the explination the bible provides has anything to do with the state known as 'reality'. Please provide evidence that the 'Flood' existed.. Prove it. You made the claim, now show that the evidence backs up your interpretation.
"...that the universe is uncaused; that "once there was nothing, and then it exploded; after that, that amino acids lined up to form peptides and proteins, in just the right order, and with the 100% "left-handed" chirality necessary for life. And then linked together by serendipitous self-replication into an information code for life; and that they then proceeded to construct the first living cells, absent the nano-technology within the cell needed to guide its construction. And proceeded from there to make the nearly limitless number of beneficial copying errors that could transform an amoeba into a worm into a man, over great expanses of time."
Please get back to me as soon as you have that evidence.
Until then, you are wasting both of our time.
All that is needed for 'left handed charality' to be there is having the first self replicating molecule to be left handed. Can you show that ita lot is impossible for there to be life out there with 'right handed chailarity?
I see you provide a lot of logical fallacies, such as 'argument from personal belief, argument from ignorance, and just plain ego. What I dont' see is you backing up any of your claims.
Let's see you show the fossil and geological evidence for the flood. Let's look at it , and see if you can show that the evidence supports your view, or if it is all pushing the evidence into your predetermined viewpoint, rather than looking at the real facts
Re chirality: you're rationalizing. Naturally occurring amino acids are racemic -- 50/50 left and right handed.
To get a simple protein, you need 100 of the same chirality to line up. Like flipping a coin 100 times, and getting all heads. Like guessing a 30 digit PIN on the first try.
To get a
specific protein, in which different amino acids must be in a specific order, the odds are much lower.
And it gets much worse than that:
As the following conservative calculation shows (even ignoring the chemical problems), the origin of life from non-life still defies probability.
20 amino acids
387 proteins for the simplest possible life
10 conserved amino acids on average
∴ chance is 20(to the –3870th power) = 10( to the –3870.log20 power) = 10(–5035th power)
This is one chance in one followed by over 5000 zeroes. So it would be harder than guessing a correct 5000-digit PIN on the first go!
Is time really ‘the hero of the plot’? No:
10(to the 80th power) atoms in the universe
10(to the 12th power) atomic interactions per second
10(to the 18th power) seconds in the universe, according to the fallacious big bang theory
∴ only 10(to the 110th power) interactions possible. This is a huge number, but compared with the tiny chance of obtaining the right sequence, it is absurdly small: only 10( to the –4925th power).
Bottom line: either this universe, and the life it contains (including ours, the only example of which is capable of questioning the meaning of its own existence) is the product of a Miracle: or of an accident.
Your bias toward that position will determine how you interpret the empirical evidence, and the inferences you draw from it.
In the former case, such a bias leads to truth:
in the latter, to stultifying error.
As far as evidence for the Flood: the fact that you're unaware of it attests to how the 'truth has been suppressed in unrighteousness.' Blessedly, by the diligent work of many dedicated, truth-loving scientists, the accurate interpretations of the evidence which reveal the fact of the Flood event are easily available.
I suggest you avail yourself of them; unless you are determined to maintain cherished but obsolete materialist notions of the reality you inhabit. Google CMI or AIG to begin on your journey to enlightenment, if you care to.
Otherwise, if you continue to ignore the factors that I have repeatedly drawn your attention to, we have nothing else to discuss.
"There is a principle which is a bar against information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance.
That principle is condemnation before investigation." – Edmund Spencer
