Scientists create living eating and growing machines...

[Valjean]

It is true. Theres no evidence non intelligence creates life.

The atheist needs to preform / demonstrate / display how life arrived from non-life ie: matter alone < the challenge stands

Type chemical evolution into YouTube and watch a few of the simple videos.
Atoms combine into molecules -- all by themselves by ordinary chemistry. These molecules combine, all by themselves &c, into the structures that make up living things: lipids, membranes, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, &c. All by themselves.

We observe chemical interactions every day. Nobody considers them supernatural. The above mentioned chemistry giving rise to self-assembling, self-replicating life-components is observed all the time. You could do it in a high school chem lab.

It's reasonable to conclude that natural chemistry like this created more and more lifelike structures -- proto-life -- and eventually produced complete organisms.

You say this is not reasonable; that it's more reasonable to conclude that it all happened by magic, directed by an invisible agent no-one's ever detected. You're asserting that if we can't currently show you the complete, atom-to-amoeba process of abiogenesis, then magic poofing is the only remaining "explanation." This is an absurd, false dichotomy.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

In order for the atheist to gain any credibility ... The atheist needs to preform / demonstrate / display how life arrived from non-life ie: matter alone < no can do

This assumes you're speaking with an atheist who makes the claim that life arose from non-living matter. I just say "I don't know how life arose." As an atheist, do I still have to demonstrate how life arose from non-life if I don't claim to know how life arose, do you think?

.... this is why the FOOL hath said in his heart: "there is no God"

And, here, when you make a claim about your God existing, I simply say "I don't believe you." And then that is your cue to produce compelling evidence.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You're just plain wrong. Nothing indicates that non intelligence creates life. There is no evidence. There is wishful thinking and outright lies but that's all we've gotten from you

Specifically about the bit above in red - do you feel that human sperm and egg are "intelligent" by your standards? Are those (and a hosting mother) not the only natural requisites to create human life?

And if we can't discount the mother's "intelligence" in human reproduction, how about bacteria? Are bacteria "intelligent?" They also reproduce themselves, creating "more life" from just the elements of the universe available to them.

 

[Valjean]

You believe chemicals created a full grown man out of dirt and chemicals but you don't think life could be created from a all powerful spirit being.

I believe chemicals assembled the components of life -- as is observed by scientists and students every day.
I believe these created various kinds of proto-life -- lifelike assemblages, with many of the features of the fully alive microbes we see today. These eventually resulted in the fully alive microbes we see today.

No-one's ever seen an all powerful spirit being. True, there have been claims, just as some claim to have seen dragons and faeries, but these claims cannot be backed up or reproduced, so their credibility is in question.

Which "explanation" is more reasonable?
(I put explanation in quotations because only science posits an explanation. Creationism only posits an agent, without any explanation of mechanism).

 

[Valjean]

No, but, its a evidential inference that only intelligence creates life.

It is not. Hasn't this been explained to you?

You have a inference that none intelligence created life.

We have evidence of this. There is no evidence for magic poofing.

They used chemicals, parts and intelligently put them together to create life.

They observe chemical interactions in the lab, under the same conditions that occur outside the lab, in Nature. They are not 'manipulating' anything.

Your basing your view on an assumption that none intelligence created our life.

For which we have evidence.

You're claiming an invisible, undetectable being, for whom we have no evidence, created life, by magic.
Again, which is more reasonable?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It takes zero dollars to answer questions..

But it takes energy I no longer have, to go back to First Grade Biology lessons, just to start you on the correct track.

... but it's even worse! You have much to unlearn! It's as if your head was filled with "anti-knowledge" or something.

By that, I mean, you have things in your head, which are so beyond merely being "wrong", that these literally cause you to lose knowledge!

The US Comedian, Ron White, understood this very well, about Things You Cannot Fix.

But apparently you had the interest to respond..

Indeed. What? You thought my responses were for.... .you?

Also, are you unwilling to learn the truth of intelligent design?

Oh, I know the truth already: The Cake Is A Lie.

(the Cake has always been a Lie. There never was any Cake in the first place, in fact.)

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Creationists are humans and gumans are intelligence. So, baby making is from intelligence..

Citation needed, re: "creationists are intelligent"

So far? There is no more evidence for that, than there is for .... "cdesign proponentsists"...

Also the baby making machinery is built from intelligence.

Citation needed. Bacteria make baby bacteria-- all without a single shred of intelligence. They don't even have neurons!

What's more: We see new species of bacteria emerging pretty much on a daily basis...

Of course, "species" with respect to "bacteria" is highly problematic-- not that it matters to anyone still using the Bronze Age failed classification of "kinds" ...

 

[tas8831]

The atheist needs to preform / demonstrate / display how life arrived from non-life ie: matter alone < the challenge stands

The theist needs to perform / demonstrate / display how life arrived from non-life ie: matter alone < the challenge stands

Cool - I can do that, too!

 

[Jollybear]

Type chemical evolution into YouTube and watch a few of the simple videos.
Atoms combine into molecules -- all by themselves by ordinary chemistry. These molecules combine, all by themselves &c, into the structures that make up living things: lipids, membranes, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, &c. All by themselves.

We observe chemical interactions every day. Nobody considers them supernatural. The above mentioned chemistry giving rise to self-assembling, self-replicating life-components is observed all the time. You could do it in a high school chem lab.

It's reasonable to conclude that natural chemistry like this created more and more lifelike structures -- proto-life -- and eventually produced complete organisms.

You say this is not reasonable; that it's more reasonable to conclude that it all happened by magic, directed by an invisible agent no-one's ever detected. You're asserting that if we can't currently show you the complete, atom-to-amoeba process of abiogenesis, then magic poofing is the only remaining "explanation." This is an absurd, false dichotomy.

Its not we theists that believe in magic, its you atheists that believe in magic.

You gotter backwards.

Further, just because chemistry work by set laws and pathways, that only shows evidence that God creates by means of ORDER.

 

[Darkstorn]

Its not we theists that believe in magic, its you atheists that believe in magic.

You gotter backwards.

This still isn't kindergarten. And even if it was, you're supposed to be much older than 5 years old.

Further, just because chemistry work by set laws and pathways, that only shows evidence that God creates by means of ORDER.

You have a very weird understanding of what it means to prove something. Here, let me do exactly what you did:

"Further, just because chemistry work by set laws and pathways, that only shows evidence that nature creates by means of natural processes."

I'll give you a spoiler of what's about to happen though. Evidence exists for this claim. On this very thread no less. Your argument is still on the level of wishful thinking, and your modus operandi is simply to take something someone said and turn it on its head. That doesn't actually invalidate the claim you messed up, nor does it validate the claim you turned it into.

And you're the one who invoked logic. You've shown none.

 

[Woberts]

Citation needed, re: "creationists are intelligent"

That's a good one. I'm gonna keep that for later use.

 

[Jollybear]

Citation needed, re: "creationists are intelligent"

So far? There is no more evidence for that, than there is for .... "cdesign proponentsists"...


Citation needed. Bacteria make baby bacteria-- all without a single shred of intelligence. They don't even have neurons!

What's more: We see new species of bacteria emerging pretty much on a daily basis...

Of course, "species" with respect to "bacteria" is highly problematic-- not that it matters to anyone still using the Bronze Age failed classification of "kinds" ...

God design the baby birth system.

 

[Darkstorn]

God design the baby birth system.

Evidence required for a fantastical claim. Show this.

Note: You being proven wrong regarding this claim proves nothing about god. It proves something about you. Namely that you *made up* an argument in a debate thread.

/E: I'll even make the claim that you have no idea how the "baby birth system" even works. You're no expert. That much is obvious. You obviously don't know a single thing about it. You aren't in any position to make any claims regarding it.

 

[Jollybear]

This still isn't kindergarten. And even if it was, you're supposed to be much older than 5 years old.



You have a very weird understanding of what it means to prove something. Here, let me do exactly what you did:

"Further, just because chemistry work by set laws and pathways, that only shows evidence that nature creates by means of natural processes."

I'll give you a spoiler of what's about to happen though. Evidence exists for this claim. On this very thread no less. Your argument is still on the level of wishful thinking, and your modus operandi is simply to take something someone said and turn it on its head. That doesn't actually invalidate the claim you messed up, nor does it validate the claim you turned it into.

And you're the one who invoked logic. You've shown none.

At least kids cut to the chase and take complicated things and make em simple.

Thats me.

Also, we both have an inference. You infer that all the order and design in the world comes from either nothing+time+chance or it was infinately always here.

I infer an intelligence was always here and he made all the order and design.

My inferences is more logical then yours. Therefore you would be serving your intellect by agreeing with me and then we join forces and take on the rest of t he atheists here. Sound like a good deal?

 

[Darkstorn]

At least kids cut to the chase and take complicated things and make em simple.

I'm not going to simplify English for you just so you can understand it better. How about you learn it instead?

Thats me.

It's painfully obvious.

Also, we both have an inference. You infer that all the order and design in the world comes from either nothing+time+chance or it was infinately always here.

You don't know that. You're projecting. You're thinking just because i'm arguing against your poorly thought out arguments, you get to label me automatically to whatever group you want me to fit.

That is dishonest. I have not told you my views. And i infer nothing.

I infer an intelligence was always here and he made all the order and design.

Yes, but you have no logical reason to conclude that based on the arguments you made in this thread. That's what i'm trying to say. YOU claimed there's proof for something you believe, and i ONLY claimed that there is not.

My inferences is more logical then yours. Therefore you would be serving your intellect by agreeing with me and then we join forces and take on the rest of t he atheists here. Sound like a good deal?

How about this instead:

You go against the wishes of your parents and get a primary school equivalent education. Because what you just wrote there seems incredibly simpleminded or just plain crazy.

 

[Jollybear]

Evidence required for a fantastical claim. Show this.

Note: You being proven wrong regarding this claim proves nothing about god. It proves something about you. Namely that you *made up* an argument in a debate thread.

/E: I'll even make the claim that you have no idea how the "baby birth system" even works. You're no expert. That much is obvious. You obviously don't know a single thing about it. You aren't in any position to make any claims regarding it.

I do know how the baby birth system works.

The male puts the bird in da woman and then a bullet shoots to her egg and then out comes a baby.



Hows dat one for ya, huh!?

 

[Darkstorn]

I do know how the baby birth system works.

The male puts the bird in da woman and then a bullet shoots to her egg and then out comes a baby.



Hows dat one for ya, huh!?

That's what i used to think when i was 5. But obviously, when you finally get personal experience, you'll know it's not that simple.

Do you know what the word "menstruation" means?

 

[Jollybear]

I'm not going to simplify English for you just so you can understand it better. How about you learn it instead?



It's painfully obvious.



You don't know that. You're projecting. You're thinking just because i'm arguing against your poorly thought out arguments, you get to label me automatically to whatever group you want me to fit.

That is dishonest. I have not told you my views. And i infer nothing.



Yes, but you have no logical reason to conclude that based on the arguments you made in this thread. That's what i'm trying to say. YOU claimed there's proof for something you believe, and i ONLY claimed that there is not.



How about this instead:

You go against the wishes of your parents and get a primary school equivalent education. Because what you just wrote there seems incredibly simpleminded or just plain crazy.

You dont infer anything? So yous agnostic? So that means you MIGHT come to agree with me. Well, thats better then nothing at all.

 

[Jollybear]

That's what i used to think when i was 5. But obviously, when you finally get personal experience, you'll know it's not that simple.

Do you know what the word "menstruation" means?

Period. Did i get it right?

 

[Darkstorn]

You dont infer anything? So yous agnostic? So that means you MIGHT come to agree with me. Well, thats better then nothing at all.

By convincing argument and evidence maybe. But yours is one of the least convincing i've ever seen.

Period. Did i get it right?

Yes, but do you know what "period" in this context actually means?