The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

[ChristineM]

Is it FUNCTIONAL DNA that developed it's own information, no. I don't tell you what I think, I tell you what I know based upon periodic comprehensive research

Yes, functional, reproducing and evolving. Read and learn

You said, and i quote "The experiment you think was the scientific creation of life was a 10 year collaboration of many trained scientists"

 

[shmogie]

Yes, functional, reproducing and evolving. Read and learn

You said, and i quote "The experiment you think was the scientific creation of life was a 10 year collaboration of many trained scientists"

This was created by the manipulation of DNA from a living organism. modifying the already existing information. This isn;t creating life it is manipulating life. The quote should say; the experiment you think was the creation of life...................... As I said, living DNA was required, not made. It was manipulated to change itś information to match what the experimenters wanted for their artificial cell. Designer organisms, perhaps, totally made organisms, no

 

[Curious George]

non sequitur: a statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it

Your statement was a non sequitur.

Your logic was:
Person A attacks Person B's views
Attacking views is not respectful to those views.
Therefore Person A does not respect Person B.

Views are different than people
Therefore, it does not follow that Person A does not respect Person B.

A non sequitur is a conclusion that does not flow from the premises.
You conclusion did not flow from your premises.
Therefore, it was a non sequitur.

Cheers

***Edited to do a quick fix of some grammar.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

1) Your evidence that God does not exist.

Ask an atheist that makes that claim. The burden of proof is on he who makes a claim and calls it fact. There is no burden of proff to say that one was not convinced by an unevidenced claim.

2) Your reason, without emotion, for spending time on a forum meant for religionists to gather, to tell everyone they are wrong and you have superior, more accurate knowledge.

You first. Why are you here preaching superstition? Your answer must be emotionless.

3) Your reason, without emotion and not based on emotion, for spending time questing for knowledge from me, when I am positing emotion and love to you, the love of Christ, which surpasses (gulp!) knowledge!

Why are you requesting knowledge from others?

No emotion, please. Your rule.

The love of Christ? Love doesn't involve the blood sacrifice of somebody writhing on a crucifix, nor sending skeptics to suffer eternally.

 

[shmogie]

An argument from authority wouldn't bother me much either way, but I think you're taking his words out of context.
At best he made allowance for the unknown. I do the same, in a variety of ways, yet would consider myself an agnostic atheist.

An agnostic atheist ? I was once an atheist, then an agnostic, how can one be both ? No, I am saying that since he says anything outside the universe cannot be known, and may exist in wayś we in the universe consider impossible, because our physical laws are only confirmed in the universe, and God created outside the Universe, Einstein verifies the possibility of God

 

[shmogie]

You are knacking one fantastic leap here.

Actually it fits perfectly with the conversation and you are denying the Bible to claim god is not omniscient .

Interesting that you consider the bible truth saying god existed before the universe (actually the Bible does not mention the universe) but false saying god is all knowing

Edit: knacking = making

Well, of course the Bible says that God created the universe, it says he created all things, isnt the universe a thing ? God knows all things (that have occurred), he does not know all things that havent occurred ( except by prophecy he specifically brings about by his omnipotence or a desire to have things take a specific course in a specific case} However, he is flawlessly and perfectly prepared to deal with anything that might occur. Omniscience means knowing everything there is to know and everything there will be to know in the future.

 

[shmogie]

Ask an atheist that makes that claim. The burden of proof is on he who makes a claim and calls it fact. There is no burden of proff to say that one was not convinced by an unevidenced claim.



You first. Why are you here preaching superstition? Your answer must be emotionless.



Why are you requesting knowledge from others?

No emotion, please. Your rule.

The love of Christ? Love doesn't involve the blood sacrifice of somebody writhing on a crucifix, nor sending skeptics to suffer eternally.

I will only address the last sentence. If your child required you to suffer extreme pain that makes you write, to save him from death, would you do it ? If so, why ? There is no eternal suffering, only obliteration, skeptics choose this fate by their skepticism, they are not made to be skeptics, nor are they sent anywhere without their choice to be so sent.

 

[shmogie]

I will only address the last sentence. If your child required you to suffer extreme pain that makes you write, to save him from death, would you do it ? If so, why ? There is no eternal suffering, only obliteration, skeptics choose this fate by their skepticism, they are not made to be skeptics, nor are they sent anywhere without their choice to be so sent.

Caught it !! Writhe, not write, sorry

 

[blü 2]

BUT if it does it says [...] EVERYTHING about Intelligent Design.

BUT "Intelligent Design" says NOTHING about HOW the first cell came into being. Your "Intelligent Designer" works by magic, not science.

Unless we discover the HOW, we've discovered nothing, and we're stuck in the intellectual perfect vacuum of Goddunnit.

And ─ correct me if I'm wrong ─ creationists are making ZERO effort to address this gaping hole.

In what sense is ID an explanation when it explains nothing?

Many Decades of highly educated scientists working in the best laboratories with the best equipment with the sole focus of designing and creating this cell. That isn';t nature, that isn;'t random, that isn't as the theory of abiogenesis proposes.

The task of the abiogenesis scientist is to show that a natural pathway from chemistry to active biochemistry exists. After that, we're just examining the ramifications.

It'll happen LONG AEONS before "Goddunnit" can explain anything.


As for ID itself, I'm not aware of even one single purported example of 'irreducible complexity' on the table, after all Behe's examples ─ flagellum, blood cascade, immune system ─ were explained by exaptation at the Dover trial.

And since 'irreducible complexity' is the ONLY purported evidence of ID, is it not?, that means the evidence supporting ID is presently ZERO.

So if 'intelligent design' were ever a scientific proposition, which it wasn't, it's even more busted than busted, as it stands.

Why do you bother?

 

[shmogie]

BUT "Intelligent Design" says NOTHING about HOW the first cell came into being. Your "Intelligent Designer" works by magic, not science.

Unless we discover the HOW, we've discovered nothing, and we're stuck in the intellectual perfect vacuum of Goddunnit.

And ─ correct me if I'm wrong ─ creationists are making ZERO effort to address this gaping hole.

In what sense is ID an explanation when it explains nothing?
The task of the abiogenesis scientist is to show that a natural pathway from chemistry to active biochemistry exists. After that, we're just examining the ramifications.

It'll happen LONG AEONS before "Goddunnit" can explain anything.


As for ID itself, I'm not aware of even one single purported example of 'irreducible complexity' on the table, after all Behe's examples ─ flagellum, blood cascade, immune system ─ were explained by exaptation at the Dover trial.

And since 'irreducible complexity' is the ONLY purported evidence of ID, is it not?, that means the evidence supporting ID is presently ZERO.

So if 'intelligent design' were ever a scientific proposition, which it wasn't, it's even more busted than busted, as it stands.

Why do you bother?

Irreduceaile complexity is perfectly exemplified by the single living cell, reduce it further, it ceases to be a living cell. No, the the task of biochemists working on abiogenesis is to show a pathway from chemistry to a fully functioning cell. A cell that created the DNA, required by the proteins that operate the cell, that activates the proteins by extremely detailed encoded information, required to be to be decoded so the proteins can operate the cell. There you go. Thousands of thousands of bits of information, properly encoded, in the perfect order,in the DNA, to be decoded by the complicated proteins to operate the cell, after first being activated by the DNA that requires the properly functioning proteins to survive before it can activate them. Should I wait for the breakthrough on this in the next few days ? NOTHING less than this will show that abiogenesis is possible. Dream on little broomstick cowboy, the great prince of science seeś your dream, but even he cannnot produce it. Science proposes the theory, science utterly fails to verify it. ID is perfectly as valid. You HOPE someday abiogenesis will be confirmed. I have the gift of HOPE that you will see what an utter and total blind path your banking on science was. Lets just watch and see whose hope is realized.

 

[blü 2]

Irreduceaile complexity is perfectly exemplified by the single living cell, reduce it further, it ceases to be a living cell.

You're not abreast of the science, For years we've been able to do gene splicing. Dolly the Sheep was born 1996 by cell nuclear transfer, then we had methods to read DNA sequences, then read them very quickly, then splice them, and now splice them quickly and easily,

If you mean that abiogenesis is 'irreducible complexity' then on all the present evidence that's not a scientific statement, since no reason in principle exists why the riddle of abiogenesis won't be answered one of these days.

Science proposes the theory, science utterly fails to verify it.

Tell me why in scientific principle (as distinct from your private wish) science must fail in this particular quest.

ID is perfectly as valid.

Don't be ridiculous. Even could you show your "Intelligent Designer" existed in reality, which (you won't deny) you can't, in your story he does his tricks by magic.

ID / magic explains NOTHING.

And you creos aren't even trying to make it explain anything. You haven't lifted a finger to develop a scientific theory of miracles.

Truly, what use is an "explanation' like that, which explains nothing?

How on earth could you think it was something to brag about?

How could you corrupt susceptible children with such total and abject nonsense?

 

[blü 2]

Sigh, here is plenty of evidence, many choose not to accept it. God exists outside the universe, where the laws of he universe do not exist.

Please tell me: where, exactly, is 'outside the universe'? Do you mean in some part of the hypothetical metaverse? If so, what part? If not, where?

And, either way, where's this evidence you mention?

Einstein recognized this.

Recognized what, exactly? Please quote him.

God created the world

Evidence?

perfectly,

Evidence?

it has sadly generated since.

I'd have said the opposite. If you're a human, I'd opine that the earth has improved a great deal in its 4.5 bn years or so ─ for instance, for much of that time it was inimical to most kinds of life.

Still, since you think it's all coming apart, when would you rather have been born?

Before we discovered the Higgs boson? Before TV? Before penicillin? Before quantum theory? Before relativity? Before the US abolished slavery? Before germ theory? Before they stopped burning witches? Before the Iron Age? Before writing? Before H sap sap?

What's your fancy?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Nope, it won't happen BUT if it does it says nothing about random life from unknown chemicals, environment and atmosphere, and says EVERYTHING about Intelligent Design.

Not really. You believe humans are too dumb to do it. So if it can be done, it means intelligence isn't a factor, right?

This is extremely complex information, encoded perfectly to activate the protein, to receive the decoded information, to operate the machinery of the cell.

As there are such things as genetic errors, it puts "intelligence" into question, no?

This isn;t creating life it is manipulating life.

God doesn't create either, then.

God knows all things (that have occurred)

Except the location of the only two members of a new species in a limited oasis, the differences between Egyptians and Hebrews, that gentiles can have faith (if you equate Jesus with God), how to be victorious against iron chariots, etc, etc ...

If your child required you to suffer extreme pain that makes you write, to save him from death, would you do it ? If so, why ? There is no eternal suffering, only obliteration,

Why bother if his suffering will end because "there is no eternal suffering"? See, the problem with believing in obliteration is that it also means you aren't around to care. Some people would enjoy the break.

 

[BilliardsBall]

My pleasure.

My first point is that if "God" in your question is imaginary, I freely admit imaginary gods exist, in that people imagine them all the time.

If you mean "God" has objective existence ─ if "God" exists in reality, independently of anyone's imagination ─ then I don't know what you might be referring to.

For example, if "God" has objective existence, it follows that you can give me a satisfactory demonstration of "God" in reality, doesn't it? Yet no one ever does.

And I've never heard a coherent account of how a real "God" might exist. For example, what objective test will tell us whether any being or phenomenon is a "God" or not? If "God" has objective existence then there must be such a test, and it must work for any interested observer, not just believers.

What is that test?
To pass the time.

(And I have a bee in my bonnet about fundamentalism, but this conversation has no need to go there.)

And to learn. As I said, if you show me I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it. Better still, I'll thank you because I've learnt something.
To see if you can tell me anything I don't know.

And I hope you're engaging in this conversation to see if I can tell you anything you don't know.

The main point of your post: "For example, if "God" has objective existence, it follows that you can give me a satisfactory demonstration of "God" in reality, doesn't it? Yet no one ever does," does not answer the question I posed:

What is your evidence that God does not exist?

My question stands as God is self-evident to me and most people.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How is this none truth equal to evidence?

It actually has considerable evidence, you, yourself are part of that evidence.

Proof by exhaustion shows us that in 10,000 years plus of god worship, literally billions of believers have failed to provide any verifiable evidence (you like e numbers so that's approximately 10e14 failures). It would only take one success to blow this evidence out of the water. And incidentally destroy atheist at a stroke.

Then we have mathematical evidence, E=MC2 shown that the god of revelation 19:6 kjv cannot exist in this universe at the same time as you (or anyone else/any matter)

How about childhood leukaemia? No compassionate god would create such a disease to inflict on his worshippers, noir would he create those worshippers to be susceptible.

Then we have the mosquito, for essentiality the same reason.

Were you under the influence of drugs or alcohol when you wrote things like E=MC^2 shows God cannot in the future have worshipers in Heaven?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your logic was:
Person A attacks Person B's views
Attacking views is not respectful to those views.
Therefore Person A does not respect Person B.

Views are different than people
Therefore, it does not follow that Person A does not respect Person B.

A non sequitur is a conclusion that does not flow from the premises.
You conclusion did not flow from your premises.
Therefore, it was a non sequitur.

Cheers

***Edited to do a quick fix of some grammar.

Actually, my argument was people show respect or lack of it by the volume of speech pouring from their mouth. You have no respect for theists or religionists or you would not hover on a religious forum like a dog seeking to ingest its own vomit. Proverbs 26:11

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ask an atheist that makes that claim. The burden of proof is on he who makes a claim and calls it fact. There is no burden of proff to say that one was not convinced by an unevidenced claim.



You first. Why are you here preaching superstition? Your answer must be emotionless.



Why are you requesting knowledge from others?

No emotion, please. Your rule.

The love of Christ? Love doesn't involve the blood sacrifice of somebody writhing on a crucifix, nor sending skeptics to suffer eternally.

You are certainly demonstrating the truth of the OP: "Why do atheists incessantly argue?"

How do you know love does NOT include one dying to help the living?

How do you come to understand Hell is about love and not justice?

 

[blü 2]

The main point of your post: "For example, if "God" has objective existence, it follows that you can give me a satisfactory demonstration of "God" in reality, doesn't it? Yet no one ever does," does not answer the question I posed:

What is your evidence that God does not exist?

I made it clear that imaginary gods give me no trouble. I don't dispute that people imagine gods all the time.

I'm asking you to tell me what a non-imaginary god is, how I'd know one if I encountered one, since, as I said, I don't know. That's not a joke, by the way. I see no way in which such a thing could exist but you apparently can.

Please enlighten me.

My question stands as God is self-evident to me and most people.

It isn't self-evident to me. And alas, your personal opinion, to which you're completely entitled, is not evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I will only address the last sentence. If your child required you to suffer extreme pain that makes you write, to save him from death, would you do it ? If so, why ? There is no eternal suffering, only obliteration, skeptics choose this fate by their skepticism, they are not made to be skeptics, nor are they sent anywhere without their choice to be so sent.

I will follow your lead and address only your last sentence. I am content with obliteration. Skeptics are people who choose not to believe without sufficient support for the belief. There is no reason to believe that any god exists, much less any specific god, so I don't believe it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

NOTHING less than this will show that abiogenesis is possible.

Anything not known to be impossible remains possible. No further demonstration of the possibility of abiogenesis apart from that sentence is necessary.

ID is perfectly as valid.

ID research has been sterile. Not a single useful idea has been generated by the search for an intelligent designer. This is exactly what we would expect would be the case if there is no god, or if there are gods that prefer to remain hidden, but not if there were an omniscient, omnipotent god that wants to be found, known, loved, obeyed, and worshiped.

You HOPE someday abiogenesis will be confirmed.

It's not necessary.

Nor is it likely that we can confirm that abiogenesis occurred. The best that we can hope for is to find that only one path to a single type of protocell is possible, and then find fossil evidence of that cell having existed on earth - an unlikely scenario.

Even that wouldn't prove that the abiogenesis occurred on earth.

We'll likely have to be content with showing that small organic molecules spontaneously organizing themselves into metabolizing replicators over geologic time under conditions that may have existed on prebiotic earth is thermodynamically possible, maybe likely or even inevitable.

I have the gift of HOPE that you will see what an utter and total blind path your banking on science was.

Science has made our lives longer, safer, healthier, more comfortable, and more interesting. Religion has given us nothing of value and much of negative value.

Would you have the scientists simply stop researching abiogenesis and begin praying instead?