Let's go over this again, shall we, about chances--

[shunyadragon]

You don't have to be an expert in biology to draw the conclusion that..

1. Dogs produce dogs.

2. Cats produce cats.

3. Fish produce fish.

No degree or certificate needed. Just pay a visit to your local farm or zoo and observe animals producing what they are, not what they aren't.

Very foolish simpleton intentional ignorance argument based on an ancient religious agenda without science over 2000 years old.

Life is over billions of years old and began when there was no such thing as dogs, cats and fish.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no evidence FOR life originating from nonliving material. So why do atheists (who denies intelligent design) assume it?

The issue is not atheists, but scientists from many different religious beliefs including atheists, There is not objectively verifiable evidence nor hypotheses for Intelligent Design that science can deal with, because it is a religious subjective assertion based on belief and not evidence.

Without fine-tuning, there would be no chemistry.

Natural Laws define chemistry despite any claims for 'fine-tuning.' .

Just like there is no evidence that mindless and blind processes (nature) can give you order and structure.

The natural Laws have determined the nature of our existence. Claims of mindless or blind are anthropomorphic foolishness without evidence or merit.

Present evidence that life can arise naturally from nonliving material.

True, that it what science demonstrates. You need to get an education in science. What are your qualifications to make such negative assertions about scientific evidence other than a religious agenda?

Really? There are scientific models which proves abiogenesis. Since when?

More intentional ignorance of science. Science does not PROVE anything The present knowledge of the science of abiogenesis and evolution is based on the consistent predictability of the evidence and falsifiable hypotheses. There is no evidence to support Intelligent Design or other Creationist hypotheses.

'Arguing from ignorance; is areligious agenda in this case.

Please provide evidence of your view since there is no proof either way.

1. The universe popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing..

Ho support in the evidence for this, nor does science claims anything of the sort. Aristotle agrees.

or..

2. That infinite regression is possible.

No evidence to support this. Based on sound math since Aristotle, our physical existence is potentially infinite and eternal..

or..

3. Mindless and blind process processes can create specified irreducible complexity (nature can build machines and codes containing information).

Anthropomorphic parallels do not apply to the science of the nature of our physical existence. Natural Laws and processes are not blind, not mindless. Our physical existence is indeed predictable and verifiable based on the evidence.

or...

4. That dead matter can come to life and begin to talk, think, and have sex.

5. Mental thoughts can come from blobs of matter.

Abiogenesis and evolution do not work that way.

Can you do any of that for me. No, you can't.

No No your statement above is not intelligible based on any objective scientific perspective.

Provide some references in sound intellibel science, and
I will gladly respond,

 

[Jose Fly]

Please provide evidence that...

1. The universe popped in to being, uncaused, out of nothing..

or..

2. That infinite regression is possible.

or..

3. Mindless and blind process processes can create specified irreducible complexity (nature can build machines and codes containing information).

or...

4. That dead matter can come to life and begin to talk, think, and have sex.

5. Mental thoughts can come from blobs of matter.

Can you do any of that for me. No, you can't.

There ya' have it....the creationist God of the Gaps trifecta: origin of the universe, first life on earth, and consciousness/intelligence.

You can't explain those? Well then.....um.....God!

 

[YoursTrue]

IMHO, no combinations are by chance. Your presumption is not logical unless you provide a reason for emergence of this 'intelligence'.

What's any reason for emergence of, uh, things that put together for life? OK, I take that back. No, I don't. I was going to say a 'valid reason,' but then people will come up with all sorts of reasons. As if they know. (They don't.)

 

[YoursTrue]

The issue is not atheists, but scientists from many different religious beliefs including atheists, There is not objectively verifiable evidence nor hypotheses for Intelligent Design that science can deal with, because it is a religious subjective assertion based on belief and not evidence.





Natural Laws define chemistry despite any claims for 'fine-tuning.' .




The natural Laws have determined the nature of our existence. Claims of mindless or blind are anthropomorphic foolishness without evidence or merit.





True, that it what science demonstrates. You need to get an education in science. What are your qualifications to make such negative assertions about scientific evidence other than a religious agenda?



More intentional ignorance of science. Science does not PROVE anything The present knowledge of the science of abiogenesis and evolution is based on the consistent predictability of the evidence and falsifiable hypotheses. There is no evidence to support Intelligent Design or other Creationist hypotheses.

'Arguing from ignorance; is areligious agenda in this case.

Please provide evidence of your view since there is no proof either way.



Ho support in the evidence for this, nor does science claims anything of the sort. Aristotle agrees.



No evidence to support this. Based on sound math since Aristotle, our physical existence is potentially infinite and eternal..



Anthropomorphic parallels do not apply to the science of the nature of our physical existence. Natural Laws and processes are not blind, not mindless. Our physical existence is indeed predictable and verifiable based on the evidence.



Abiogenesis and evolution do not work that way.



No No your statement above is not intelligible based on any objective scientific perspective.

Provide some references in sound intellibel science, and
I will gladly respond,

Forget intelligent design. Let's go back to random meeting. Any "scientific" tested idea as to how it all started?
Oh, and random meeting of what? (any idea?)

 

[YoursTrue]

There ya' have it....the creationist God of the Gaps trifecta: origin of the universe, first life on earth, and consciousness/intelligence.

You can't explain those? Well then.....um.....God!

And I think we know other's excuse, I mean reason. Something was always there? Or it was like a peach? Or -- ??

 

[YoursTrue]

No one is so blind as those thant won't see.
Chance is not like you picture it. Some things are almost inevitable if the conditions are right.

There could be many planets in the universe with equal conditions to the early earth, where life took hold and others where it did not. Nothing is certain even when it is possible. This is what may be considered as chance.

And of course, chances are that it was NOT "random chance" that life evolved? Conditions...right...like the "Big Bang" again...there we go -- something like a peach size, maybe? Something or nothing outside of that little mass? lolol...ok. And of course, just going with your thought for a moment, maybe these aliens look like?? um...????

 

[YoursTrue]

At least, that is not an atheist belief. Normally theists would have such beliefs - devil and exorcism.Yeah, look around; Covid and Monkeypox, earthquakes and volcanoes, floods and droughts, typhoons and tornadoes, all have purpose as mandated by God.It has been 2,000 years. How long we have to wait? He told the disciples that it will happen in their life-time.

1. I don't go with every so-called theist belief.
2. I'd have to go over the references you are talking about. So let's pretend though, for a moment, that it's "scientifically" examined, ok? So let's see -- just for starters, some of us are still waiting for the "end," because the semi-final end didn't quite happen yet. But what is the end of, anyway, do you think? And in order for me to concentrate on this, I'd have to go over the "evidence" again, i.e., in part, the Scriptures referring to the 'end.' Although I would like to suggest to you that scientists themselves are saying that the 'world' as we know it will be over at a certain point. Anyway. Lots of propositions; climate problems, sun growing cold, maybe exploding, nuclear war (ok, cockroaches would make it).

 

[Aupmanyav]

What's any reason for emergence of, uh, things that put together for life? OK, I take that back. No, I don't. I was going to say a 'valid reason,' but then people will come up with all sorts of reasons. As if they know. (They don't.)

The problem is that you do not read, never even look through what is linked in answers. See here what possible scenarios science has for emergence of life: Alternative abiogenesis scenarios - Wikipedia

 

[YoursTrue]

You should have read some chemistry to understand how and why atoms combine. Where did you study? In a madarsa (religious school)?

OK, I'll look up about how atoms formed. No, I didn't go to a religious school. I did study chemistry, but not in detail. I did well in school and believed EVERYTHING THEY TAUGHT ME about evolution. As I've said quite a few times, I used to be an atheist. I did not believe in God at all because of all the differing religious beliefs on this planet, and because of man's vicious violence to man and others. But then...something happened...but I won't go into that now. Suffice it to say that although I was not a major in science but rather the arts, I did well in school, was a scholarship student and tested well in the science areas. And believed what the teachers told me.

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem is that you do not read, never even look through what is linked in answers. See here what possible scenarios science has for emergence of life: Alternative abiogenesis scenarios - Wikipedia

All I have to do is first read the link title -- "Alternative" scenarios. Alternative scenarios? Yes, right. OK, I'll look at it.

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem is that you do not read, never even look through what is linked in answers. See here what possible scenarios science has for emergence of life: Alternative abiogenesis scenarios - Wikipedia

I truly HOPE you're not going to tell me that you read the entire article, right? But even if you had read it all, there are many different imaginings of how it happened. Meantime, the lakes, hot water, enzymes, etc. Nope. None of that explains the real origin.

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem is that you do not read, never even look through what is linked in answers. See here what possible scenarios science has for emergence of life: Alternative abiogenesis scenarios - Wikipedia

Here's a question though, for you. With all the pollution going on in the world, do you really think the powers that be concerning oil and spilloffs to water systems will be changed in a good way? Now the next big foretell is the melting of a very large glacier, observers (scientists) foretelling disaster.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But what is the end of, anyway, do you think? Anyway. Lots of propositions; climate problems, sun growing cold, maybe exploding, nuclear war (ok, cockroaches would make it).

This is life. Problems will always be there, man-made or natural. But if you want to know about 'End of universe' scenarios, it is here: Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

I truly HOPE you're not going to tell me that you read the entire article, right? But even if you had read it all, there are many different imaginings of how it happened. Meantime, the lakes, hot water, enzymes, etc. Nope. None of that explains the real origin.

: D I suppose 'Goddidit' explains all.

Here's a question though, for you. With all the pollution going on in the world, do you really think the powers that be concerning oil and spilloffs to water systems will be changed in a good way? Now the next big foretell is the melting of a very large glacier, observers (scientists) foretelling disaster.

Sorry, I am not a prophet. I do not believe in prophecies. Life will go its own way. Survive or perish for humans too just like for other living things (animals or vegetation).

 

[YoursTrue]

This is life. Problems will always be there, man-made or natural. But if you want to know about 'End of universe' scenarios, it is here: Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia

Looking at your statement logically, scientists in fact predict the end of life. No more problems as far as you're concerned.

 

[YoursTrue]

: D I suppose 'Goddidit' explains all. Sorry, I am not a prophet. I do not believe in prophecies. Life will go its own way. Survive or perish for humans too just like for other living things (animals or vegetation).

By the way, did you read all the references and text in the link about how life started that you provided?

 

[YoursTrue]

: D I suppose 'Goddidit' explains all. Sorry, I am not a prophet. I do not believe in prophecies. Life will go its own way. Survive or perish for humans too just like for other living things (animals or vegetation).

Well since you listen to scientists, they (many of them) are saying life on this earth will end anyway. Do you believe that?

 

[YoursTrue]

: D I suppose 'Goddidit' explains all. Sorry, I am not a prophet. I do not believe in prophecies. Life will go its own way. Survive or perish for humans too just like for other living things (animals or vegetation).

So which of those possibilities do you believe? Any of them? All of them? No, it can't be all of them, can it?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is life. Problems will always be there, man-made or natural. But if you want to know about 'End of universe' scenarios, it is here: Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia

Problems will "always" be there? You know this how?