Atheist vs Christian debate summary

[williamwbishop]

Re: I can't stop the laughing!!!

Originally posted by Prisme



WTF do you mean ethically and logically wrong???? There is no ethics involved in my proposition my friend, and logic refers to a structure not the validity of a statement:
ex.:

1-Birds have 3 wings = FALSE NOT ILLOGICAL!!!!!!
2-My father is either in or out of Mexico = True and logical.
3-Air is and is not = Illogical

To all the atheist that talk on this thread: please stop always saying things are illogical if you don't know what illogical means.




Listen man, I know you must have typed your post early but Big Bang or not, all atheists must believe in some form of evolutionism. Coming from the monkey is optional, but originating from sponteaneous cells is not if you do not believe in a Creation.
Only two ways to go about it. If you got a third possibility I am dying to know it.


Evolution exists, it is easily tracked. The questions existing are 1. Where did life originate, and 2. Did we come to exist outside of the rest of the animal kingdom(unlikely, as we share common traits). To the first, I don't know where life originated. Could be big bang, could be we're in the middle of the biggest game of Sim life in existence. Don't know, don't really care.

Another thing, if you are a christian in the sense that you follow the Pope and the scriptures, you must belive in the Creation. You can't be the true definition of a christian if you don't accept the creation... you are just a believer and a pretty lame one if you think God let everything happen by chance.

But there are lot of people who are not christian in that sense, neh? Many christians don't follow the pope or scriptures(which makes sense considering the validity of the scriptures themselves.)



Errr... my title is called RE: 2 atheists. R is the second one.

You think that science never assumes????? Under what rock do you live under man? Pharmaceutical companies are always claiming the purity of certain drugs only to have them silently withdrawn from the market.

I would never have concluded a company who makes financial gain their primary target could be considered pure science. Money is their goal, they use science to TRY and meet it.

Physical science is barely a science in the sense that we have never actually seen an atom (it's just a theory my friends),
Actually, considering what they do with atomic theory, I'd wager on it. I seem to recall a photograph of an atom from IBM though when they were working on using individual atoms as a means of computing. Maybe I remembered incorrectly.



the theory that the universe is in continuous expansion is based on mere equations while others still maintain we live in a closed Cosmos... Mathemathics are abtract concepts put together that could one day be shown to be false, it has limitations also: infinitely positive or negative, nobody knows where 'pi' actually came from certain numbers are not known to truly exist etc...

But the difference is that if reality proves a theory wrong, it is discarded. Religion does not do this.


Sociology and Psychology are happy when they get 60% validity in their experiments because they rarely actually get that much. Every science in the world is always contradicting themselves and re-adjusting its claims that have too hastely been said to be certain.
So a true person that seeks thruth would not say that he puts his faith on science. It is just another more socially accepted form of faith in the facts that could tomorrow be shown to be false!

I didn't say I put my faith in science. I said I put my faith in the scientific PROCESS.

Say what you like, that science is only a constant search process for the truth, but the fact is that the scientific community and its followers hold their actual 'fact's up high and act like they just got Christ delivered in their hands.

See above. They have been happily disposing of their own "truths" whenever contrary evidence comes along. Every time someone destroys another maxim of christianity, they just state that it's only "figurative".



And finally: Saying that R will surely beat my arguments hasn't said anything against them yet. So you have just made an argument of authority pal.

Aye, but I have read his arguments, and I have read yours. I think that in all probability, that my gut feeling is correct in this case.


Next! [/B]

 

[Prisme]

Enlighten me PLZ Mr. R

The World is either a homogenous, closed Cosmos(Greeks and Newton) or an infinite heterogenous Universe(Einstein)
That is a false dichotomy. There are other possibilities.

Gee thanks R, don't let me believe other wise.. you sure closed all controversy with that reply. Ouf! this is a tough group. At least I know that they are the 2 most accepted and likely to be true.

Odds of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability that all the amino acids are left handed and being combined with the proper peptide bonds 1 over 10 (950)
You left out the words "by chance". But protein molecules don't form by chance, in general.

Exactly my point, thanks for the backup my friend. Life is not an accident. Its purposeful.

When it comes to the haemoglobin molecules, there are 574 amino acids which means the odds are even less probable.

Where did you get the 574 number from? If I remember correctly, there are only about 20 common amino acids.

20 common amino acids doesn't mean there are only 20 amino acids present. There can be 574 amino acids formed of 20 common amino acids.

The proposed age of the Earth does not allow the formation of a single protein by the trial and error method.

That may well be correct. We can be thankful that the trial and error method was not required.

Not required? Are you saying that something or someone 'helped' the universe to get the proper order correctly? Were you there to see the universe not requiring such a method? What other 'method' was available? (Carefull: method could imply that something was in action other than nature)


-Miller's 20 amino acids were not alive and well.

They are found commonly in carbonaceous condrites (certain types of meteors). How did they get there?

-How did they get on meteors? I don't know where did the meteors that have amino acid come from! Most likely another planet or star of this universe. Yet nothing in our solar system can account for their presence.
So either life is fundamentally extra-terrestrial and that life would have easily started on others planets by receiving a meteor on them OR life was created only on this planet by a God.

If life is extra-terrestrial, why only life on Earth? Where does life come from? A source? A common place of amino acids creation? The origin of all living organisms?

Atheist scientists are no out of the bushes more than the average learned Christian. (which I am not)

*putting myself on my knee*

My Démiurge!!!

 

[Prisme]

Quote: Evolution exists, it is easily tracked. The questions existing are 1. Where did life originate, and 2. Did we come to exist outside of the rest of the animal kingdom(unlikely, as we share common traits). To the first, I don't know where life originated. Could be big bang, could be we're in the middle of the biggest game of Sim life in existence. Don't know, don't really care.

-While your not giving a rat's ass about where you come from, others are. If you don't care, don't participate, it will be half-assed.
As for our ressemblances with animals: "It is in the differences that reality is made"
Could you please tell me where in Darwin's theaory that a monkey would be compelled by nature to evolve to the point of making sky scrapers, cell phones and enough nukes to destroy the planet?
Necks on giraffs I get, but there is no intelligent explanation that explains why a monkey would prefer our life rather than eating freakin banana's in a simili-hammack somewhere where it never snows.


-----

.

But there are lot of people who are not christian in that sense, neh? Many christians don't follow the pope or scriptures(which makes sense considering the validity of the scriptures themselves.)

No, not alot of CHRISTIANS that do not follow christianity. It's like: are their a lot of celebate individuals that are married? Of course not

Actually, considering what they do with atomic theory, I'd wager on it.

As long as your ready to admit that science is as uncertain as a wager, just like your belief that there is no God.. I am happy.

But the difference is that if reality proves a theory wrong, it is discarded. Religion does not do this.

What about my God that is not housed in any church? Are you sure He does not exist?

Aye, but I have read his arguments, and I have read yours. I think that in all probability, that my gut feeling is correct in this case

Your gut feeling is as good as christiian faith in this forum. Spare me please.

Peace

 

[daktaklakpak]

One common mistake Christian made on the math about gene mutation/molecule formation is that they think things only happen linearly.

I just want to ask: How many folds need to made a 0.1 mm thick paper as high as the Mount Everest?

 

[Prisme]

daktaklakpak

One common mistake Christian made on the math about gene mutation/molecule formation is that they think things only happen linearly.
I just want to ask: How many folds need to made a 0.1 mm thick paper as high as the Mount Everest?

If all you have to say in order to attempt to refute founded biological and chemical evidence is somekind of intuitive enigma concerning some stupid paper being folded 100 times...

I suggest you either stick to television or start reading scientific journals so that you won't be falling in false analogies which is precisely what you are doing by confounding mathematical statistics concerning paper with molecular behavior.

Please be more specific if you have a point.

Prisme

 

[Tyler]

"To all the atheist that talk on this thread: please stop always saying things are illogical if you don't know what illogical means"

Illogical means no full reason to believe. Your statement was illogical. It stated that all atheists believe in big bang. Many do not.


"Only two ways to go about it. If you got a third possibility I am dying to know it"

This is perhaps the most common mistake theists ever make. That there does not exist a third option at the moment (or fourth, fifth... whatever the case may be) does not mean one does not exist. Consider that until 200 years ago evolution wasn't an option. By your "logic" prisme, if you lived 220 years ago you would say "The only option is god, therefore god exists!"


"Every science in the world is always contradicting themselves and re-adjusting its claims that have too hastely been said to be certain"

That's the beauty of science, it's capable of correcting itself. Religion is not.


"Say what you like, that science is only a constant search process for the truth, but the fact is that the scientific community and its followers hold their actual 'fact's up high and act like they just got Christ delivered in their hands."

Care to back this up with any evidence?


"If life is extra-terrestrial, why only life on Earth?"

What makes you think there's only life on Earth? Last I checked there was evidence life once existed on a planet as close as Mars.


"Necks on giraffs I get, but there is no intelligent explanation that explains why a monkey would prefer our life rather than eating freakin banana's in a simili-hammack somewhere where it never snows."

Have you studied evolution at all?

 

[Tyler]

And I pose a question again; have you been to the north or south pole?

 

[Prisme]

Sorry...

Tyler, grab a dictionnary and read what illogical means. It reports itself to the structure of the argument, not to the truth or false value of the statement. A statement can be logical and false = no reason to believe as you said.

This is perhaps the most common mistake theists ever make. That there does not exist a third option at the moment (or fourth, fifth... whatever the case may be) does not mean one does not exist. Consider that until 200 years ago evolution wasn't an option. By your "logic" prisme, if you lived 220 years ago you would say "The only option is god, therefore god exists!"

WTF are you doing Tyler???? Your using the same lame arguments as theists! They are alway saying: one day our knowledge will change and we will prove that God exist. You atheists say: thats not an argument... yet you are here today doing the same thing and are asking me to give you credit that
maybe, possibly there is another form of universe.
Noob please!

"Every science in the world is always contradicting themselves and re-adjusting its claims that have too hastely been said to be certain
That's the beauty of science, it's capable of correcting itself. Religion is not. "

Are we reading the same posts Tyler??
I clearly stated that my God wasn't housed in any church and I have yet to heir conclusive arguments that render his existence impossible. Science is giving you atheists an up hill battle, contrarily to what you guys think.

Care to back this up with any evidence?

-Gulf war pills that made soldiers sick
-Pregnancy aid pills in the 60's that deformed children
-City water supplies being 'purified' with chlorine, lead and aluminum.
-Chemo-therapy that has killed more than it has saved
-The idea that the evolutionist theory is nothing more than a theory and that it has plunged humanity in a systematic rejection of God without absolute certainty of the facts

Need more?

What makes you think there's only life on Earth? Last I checked there was evidence life once existed on a planet as close as Mars.

Then one of my points have been strenghten:
Life is essentially extra-terrestrial. It's source, we can call God.

Have you studied evolution at all?

Actually yes, but by your reply I'm getting the feeling you haven't.
At least not passed your 4th grade teachers explanation.

Peace

 

[Prisme]

tyler 2

As for your idiotic distraction about the north and south pole:

No I heven't yet I know they exist.

 

[daktaklakpak]

Re: daktaklakpak

Originally posted by Prisme
If all you have to say in order to attempt to refute founded biological and chemical evidence is somekind of intuitive enigma concerning some stupid paper being folded 100 times...

I suggest you either stick to television or start reading scientific journals so that you won't be falling in false analogies which is precisely what you are doing by confounding mathematical statistics concerning paper with molecular behavior.

Please be more specific if you have a point.

Prisme

Haha, I thought so. You are thinking linearly. The real answer is only 27 folds. At the 26th fold, the height is 6711 m. At the 27th fold, the height is 13422 m, 4.5 km above Mount Everest.

 

[Tyler]

"It reports itself to the structure of the argument, not to the truth or false value of the statement."

That the only option besides god is the big bang appeared to be part of your arguement. And that is an illogical statement. If this was not part of your arguement, then I'll leave it alone.


"You atheists say: thats not an argument... yet you are here today doing the same thing and are asking me to give you credit that"

Er... I'm clearing something up. Like I said; two hundred years ago nobody had a clue about evolution. Tomorrow, a new theory could be introduced. There's no way to rule that out.


"Science is giving you atheists an up hill battle, contrarily to what you guys think."

No, and I will explain that in a minute.


"Need more?"

None of those things proved that science considers itself "high". Just proved that science makes mistakes. And I never said anything contrary to that.


"Actually yes, but by your reply I'm getting the feeling you haven't.
At least not passed your 4th grade teachers explanation."

Had you studied evolution I take it you would understand the theorized reasons our particular ancestors chose to evolve into our form. While it's not actually known for certain why, there a number of theories.



Now, the point of the North Pole thing is to show the ridiculousness in the "everything has a creator" arguement. The watch in the forest arguement, that is (which has, actually, been thuroughly dispursed of for quite some time).

If you've never been to the North Pole I can gather that everywhere on Earth you have been you could travel further north to. So, by your experience, had you not known of the north pole it would be "proof" that from any point on earth you can walk further north. Regardless, I'm not even sure if you believe the watch-in-the-forest arguement, so this may be useless.


Now, about science fighting an uphill battle against. You seem to be cocky enough to have read some philosophy or science.
You then would realize that there it is illogical to believe something if there is no proof of it.

Let us imagine we're all back in time, say, 5000 years. Got that image in your head? Now imagine we see a flash of lightning come down from the sky. You look up and say to me - God made that lightning come down. I say - how do you know God did it? You reply - what other possible explination is there?

Years ago man did not know how lightning came to be, so we attributed it to gods. We did not know how life came to be, so we attributed it to gods. We did not know how the stars formed, so we attributed it to gods. We did not know the Earth formed, why the plants grew or why the rivers flooded, so we attributed it to gods. Most of what we once attributed to gods has been scientifically explained. As it stands science has not proven a full explination of the beginning of life. This does not mean god did it. All it means is that we don't know the answer. People just happen to have a history of saying "God" when we don't know the real answer.

 

[Raithere]

Re: RE: 2 atheists

Originally posted by Prisme
The World is either a homogenous, closed Cosmos(Greeks and Newton) or infinite heterogenous Universe(Einstein).

As has already been pointed out this is a false dilemma. In fact, much current theory and fact is tending towards a rather conditional situation where the Universe is probabilistic rather than deterministic. Much effort in the way of quantum physics is trending this way. Regardless, I will address your considerations.

If we live in a ordered Cosmos, God is what has stored order within the Cosmos and gathered the necessary elements for its perpetual state of 'homeostatic-ness'.

No, the "laws of physics" are what seem to be sustaining the Universe in its present state. As we have discovered there are certain forces that are responsible for and regulate every interaction within the Universe. Thus far there is no need for a supernatural explanation.

In this case, God would be to me the clock-maker, the one that could answer: why order rather than chaos?

This assumes that the forces which comprise this Universe are conditional. We have no reason to believe that they are and there is certainly no proof for this assumption. If they are not conditional then there is no need for a creator.

If we live in a infinite Universe, the foundation of science is on shakyer grounds for the simple fact that knowledge would thus not follow a necessary Cause-Effect cycle. Why is that? Because the Universe, not being finite and ordered, becomes an 'amalgame' a sort of incoherent mixture of elements that are not ordered as in Newton's mecanic nor as the Greeks saw it, but rather presented as being totally contingent. Left and right we have unpredictable patterns, no existence or movement is necessary for the Universe itself is ever changing in its conditions of existence.

Again we can rely on the laws of physics... those essential forces that constitute everything. Additionally, there is growing evidence (superposition, wave/particle duality, entanglement, virtual particles, etc.) that the Universe is conditional.

In such a world, God would be to me what holds such things as galaxies together

No; that would be gravity.

Odds of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability that all the amino acids are left handed and being combined with the proper peptide bonds 1 over 10 (950)

Leaving out, of course, the fact that amino acids will only be combined in particular ways and not in others and that such interactions always follow the laws of chemistry. This randomness crap is just BS, it has nothing to do with science or reality.

The proposed age of the Earth does not allow the formation of a single protein by the trial and error method. Even if we suppose that the process of amino acids combining and decomposing at the very beginning of the Universe, there would still be hundreds of thousands years missing.

I'd like to see the calculation upon which you are basing this. This argument usually fails to address the enormity of parallel "trials" that would be occuring and the fact that proteins act as catalysts for further reactions. It also fails, to take into account various other hypotheses which suggest that perhaps life arose in a more protected environment.

Although he managed to 'create' 20 amino acids, they revealed themselves to be:
1- Inorganic
2- The "cold trap" he used isolated the amino acids from natural surroundings. Natural surroundings would have immediately corrupted the weak amino acids. And of course, this isolated mecanism did not exist in the beginning of time.
3-Miller used an unrealistic environment. American scientits such as J.P. Ferris and C.T. Chen would reproduce his experiment without the amonia that Miller used that was deemed as inexistent at the primitve stages of the Earth's life.

1- Amino acids are, by definition, organic.
2- The experiment was not whether the amino acids would survive long in those conditions but whether they would be created in the first place. He proved this quite nicely.
3-The conditions of the prebiotic world are indeed in contention. However, the question of whether organic compounds can be formed via natural processes has been answered affirmatively.

Today Miller's experiments are totally disregarded by the scientific community.

No, they are not.

Amino acids, proteins and cells have NEVER, EVER been produced by chance.

Yea... they have.

The "Chatelier Principle" in chemistry shows that it is not possible for a reaction that releases water (condensation reaction) to take place in a hydrate environement.

I'm not going to take the time to address the full considerations of this. Suffice to say, this is one of the reasons there are many alternative hypothesis (clay matrix, micro-spheres, etc). This does not mean that the entire realm of investigation into Abiogenesis is defunct.

Thus evolutionists have a problem that they rarely discuss: if not in water, where???? Land is even more problematic as we know.

None of this has anything to do with Evolution. You are discussing Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is as of yet, largely hypothetical but there have been some extremely interesting findings that indicate that it is well within the realm of possibility.

Of course, there is not an iota of proof for the creationist model, which is why they are entirely reliant upon attacking Abiogenesis.

Either we live in a highly, pre-defined world. (a God is necessary to instore order and perpetual movement... scientifically impossible by the way)

Please note that the laws of thermodynamics only apply to systems within the Universe not to the Universe as a whole or any hypothesized meta-verse. God is therefore not necessary but simply presumed to be by the creationist "hypothesis".

Or we live in a Universe that should not be and which its own existence can only be the proof of the existence of an unknown form of creation.

Again, no.

~Raithere

 

[Prisme]

so what?

Linear or not, you haven't changed much in the debate.

 

[Prisme]

Tyler Tyler Tylre....

Er... I'm clearing something up. Like I said; two hundred years ago nobody had a clue about evolution. Tomorrow, a new theory could be introduced. There's no way to rule that out.

Maybe tomorrow a lovely fairy will come and shoot an arrow up my butt and I will fall in love.

The point is that you used it as an argument at the time. Don't weasel out.

-If poisoning people and deforming kids isn't high and mighty what is Tyler?

Now, the point of the North Pole thing is to show the ridiculousness in the "everything has a creator" arguement. The watch in the forest arguement, that is (which has, actually, been thuroughly dispursed of for quite some time)If you've never been to the North Pole I can gather that everywhere on Earth you have been you could travel further north to. So, by your experience, had you not known of the north pole it would be "proof" that from any point on earth you can walk further north. Regardless, I'm not even sure if you believe the watch-in-the-forest arguement, so this may be useless.

I'm sorry Tyler, while you are out there in the north pole making analogies that have absolutly nothing to do with the existence of a God. I will skip to the next point.
If all you can do to gain knowledge is by where you have been, then we have problems.

This does not mean god did it. All it means is that we don't know the answer. People just happen to have a history of saying "God" when we don't know the real answer.

"All it means.. just happens" you seem to know something I don't Tyler. From the same facts you have stated I could easily speculate, as you did, that man's predisposition to attribute the unknown to God is an innate psychological factor which IS emperical knowledge.
By our exprience and history, God is present, in some shape or form when we live in this world.
This does not impede or prove God existence, but it sure stes off a series of interesting questions.
Now please explain why such a predisposition would exist without having any merit?

I'm sorry I can't acept the fact that "it just happens" Tyler. Theists say the same thing over and over and they aren't making any progress with you, so why should you with me?

 

[Prisme]

Sorry to burst your bubble Raithere

No, the "laws of physics" are what seem to be sustaining the Universe in its present state. As we have discovered there are certain forces that are responsible for and regulate every interaction within the Universe. Thus far there is no need for a supernatural explanation.

Laws of physics are supernatural!!!! Do you ever ask yourselves where and how those "certain forces" became to be?
Most likely not... your atheists.

When you say "laws of physics" in the sense that you are using it, it is no different form mine except that the meanning in value has changed. In any case, they are both subjective value judgements.

This assumes that the forces which comprise this Universe are conditional. We have no reason to believe that they are and there is certainly no proof for this assumption. If they are not conditional then there is no need for a creator.

If they are not contingent, God can be said to the clock maker of their necessity.
If they are contingent, which Einstein has shown in his theories concerning time, space and infinity, then god becomes what makes life possible in an impossible universe.

No; that would be gravity.

Again, so quick to judge and yet to think:
Then God is what holds gravity and its laws in place.

Leaving out, of course, the fact that amino acids will only be combined in particular ways and not in others and that such interactions always follow the laws of chemistry. This randomness crap is just BS, it has nothing to do with science or reality.

Must I always draw a topographic map to explain everything? All amino acids that do not align themselves in proper order eventually corrupt, but they do begin a process of combination before they are formed an complete. you have not said anything that contradicts what I have written.
You do not seem to have grasped what I was saying.

I'd like to see the calculation upon which you are basing this. This argument usually fails to address the enormity of parallel "trials" that would be occuring and the fact that proteins act as catalysts for further reactions. It also fails, to take into account various other hypotheses which suggest that perhaps life arose in a more protected environment.

Well when those "hypothesis" will be founded, we'll talk about them.
Did you heir? A research just showed that the more ice-cream we sell, the more drownings they are in summer... geez.


So when you want to refute the fact that Miller's experiment is disregarded all you have to say is no?
Man I should use your technique more often. And if it wouldn't kill you, please leave references about what the *** you are refering about and in what journal did you come up with the "No's" you like to place around without saying anything structured and verifiable such as:

"I'm not going to take the time to address the full considerations of this. Suffice to say, this is one of the reasons there are many alternative hypothesis (clay matrix, micro-spheres, etc). This does not mean that the entire realm of investigation into Abiogenesis is defunct"

Yeah... bravo, you sure showed me. I can peddle complicated words too Raithere:

Ontological fallacy
Playdough matrix
mesi-slimy atoms
Spheric-teleology

Look! I'm debating at your level!

Please...

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: Tyler Tyler Tylre....

Originally posted by Prisme
... man's predisposition to attribute the unknown to God is an innate psychological factor which IS emperical knowledge.

No, it is not empirical knowledge.

Originally posted by Prisme
Now please explain why such a predisposition would exist without having any merit?

The supposition that only the meritorious exist is unfounded. Furthermore, a predisposition toward superstition is hardly a viable argument for theism.

 

[Prisme]

consequentwhatever

Definition of empiricism:
Facts that come from direct expericence from the world.

Tyler was telling me that it was a known fact that ancient tribes used to worship Gods when confronted with the unknown.

That is empirical:
Indians, Egyptisans, Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, Incas, Mayas and pretty much every primitive culture that still persist today have natural tendencies towards faith in a mightier substance or being than they are.

If you need more empirical facts, you should start by working on your definition of empirical instead.


Quote:
"The supposition that "only" the meritous exist is false"

Where did you read anything like that Consequent? What I said was that I would like to heir the Atheist's point of view when it comes to ideas that have credible merit that tends towards faith.

Furthermore, just saying that a predisposition towards <superstition>(already defined the unknown in a pejorative way) is not an arguemnt for theism is a rather an oversimplified statement.
You see, I believe that humans have certain predispostions:

-Heavier than air (thus cannot fly without external apparatus)
-A body of mass (this prevents him from passing throught other masses)
-Needs a brain to function (cognitively and psychologically)
-Should not drink motor oil (certain death by poisoning)

Knowing this, I can whole heartedly affirm that the human psyche has prefered states:

-Rather laugh than cry (predisposition to survival)
-Prefers pleasure over pain (except pathologically)
-Rather remain one body than lose an arm ...
bla bla bla...

All these evident truths show me this:
There is what I ought to do and there is what I ought to avoid.

Now if 3000 years of human history isn't enough to rise the doubt within you that MAYBE there is something going on with this predisposition to the belief in a greater being... then nothing will ever be enough for you, because you chose it, not because it is real.

Prisme

 

[Prisme]

Raithere!!!!

Why must you always dissect everything other people say?
Let go of the quote button and say something logical for yourself!
Have you nothing to say personally about the world and what you think other than to perpetually trying to discredit what others say?

 

[James R]

Prisme:

<i>Enlighten me PLZ Mr. R</i>

Thankyou for the invitation. I shall attempt to do so.

you sure closed all controversy with that reply. Ouf! this is a tough group. At least I know that they are the 2 most accepted and likely to be true.

There are many possible cosmologies, not just two. The questions of whether the universe is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded, and whether it will expand forever or recollapse are still debateable, although some possibilities are more likely than others given current data.

There can be 574 amino acids formed of 20 common amino acids.

This statement makes no sense.

Are you saying that something or someone 'helped' the universe to get the proper order correctly?

Yes. It's this wonderful thing called the <b>laws of chemistry</b>. Some combinations of atoms and molecules are permitted by the laws of chemistry - others are not. Some molecules tend to form spontaneously - others never do. The process of forming proteins is not random.

Miller's 20 amino acids were not alive and well.

What do you require in order to call something "alive"?

So either life is fundamentally extra-terrestrial and that life would have easily started on others planets by receiving a meteor on them OR life was created only on this planet by a God.

Again, a false dichotomy. Do you need me to explain this one for you as well?

Laws of physics are supernatural!!!! Do you ever ask yourselves where and how those "certain forces" became to be?

Maybe God created them.

I can peddle complicated words too Raithere:

Ontological fallacy
Playdough matrix
mesi-slimy atoms
Spheric-teleology

Look! I'm debating at your level!

No, you're parroting. Anybody can use big words. The question is: do you understand them?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Prisme

Quote: "The supposition that "only" the meritous exist is false"

Your sloppiness does not speak well for you. What I wrote was: "The supposition that only the meritorious exist is unfounded."

Originally posted by Prisme

Where did you read anything like that Consequent? What I said ...

What you said was: "Now please explain why such a predisposition would exist without having any merit?" My response stands.

As for the rest, your comments amount to the curious argument that a predisposition toward superstition and mythmaking constitutes empirical evidence for God(s) - a case of ignorance as a self fulfilling prophesy.

What, then, is the consequence of empirical knowledge? This:

The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge. We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible.

-- Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism by Doctor Barbara Forrest