Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2016, 01:26 PM
RE: Question for atheists...

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:26 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(22-03-2016 01:16 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 12:54 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Explain how abiogenesis could be false. If you understand the definition, then explain why you would ask "if abiogenesis is false..." who here has ever claimed it was?

No human being has ever explained how life could have originated from non-living material. So therefore, we are at the stage of "abiogenesis: could be true, could be false".

Well, if abiogenesis COULD be false, the evolution also COULD be false. The problem is, you people are claiming that evolution is a 100% scientific fact (macroevolution). Evolution can't be a fact if what it is dependent upon (abiogenesis) also isn't a fact. Now, of course you can say "maybe God used evolution as a method of creation", but the problem with that is, I am talking to atheists that don't believe in God, therefore, the only way life could have originated is if it came from nonlife, but that is EXACTLY the problem, such a thing hasn't been scientifically confirmed yet.

It is kinda like your parents (or anyone's parents). If it is possible that your parents would have never existed, then it is also possible that YOU would of never existed...because your existence depends on their existence.

So when I ask the question of "If abiogenesis is false, how can evolution be true", that is like me asking..

"If your parent's existence is false (they never existed), then how can your existence be true?"

You can't have one without the other, contrary to THEM saying "Abiogenesis is independent of evolution". Well, if that is the case, answer the question.

Once you answer the question of "If abiogenesis is false, how can evolution be true"...once you adequately answer that question, we can move on, and I will look like a fool (or more like a fool Laugh out load ).

But of course, you can't.

Do you even read the replies to your repeated nonsense? Consider

Or are you just too fucking stupid to understand them? Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:28 PM
RE: Question for atheists...

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:29 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(22-03-2016 01:16 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 12:54 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Explain how abiogenesis could be false. If you understand the definition, then explain why you would ask "if abiogenesis is false..." who here has ever claimed it was?

No human being has ever explained how life could have originated from non-living material. So therefore, we are at the stage of "abiogenesis: could be true, could be false".

Well, if abiogenesis COULD be false, the evolution also COULD be false. The problem is, you people are claiming that evolution is a 100% scientific fact (macroevolution). Evolution can't be a fact if what it is dependent upon (abiogenesis) also isn't a fact. Now, of course you can say "maybe God used evolution as a method of creation", but the problem with that is, I am talking to atheists that don't believe in God, therefore, the only way life could have originated is if it came from nonlife, but that is EXACTLY the problem, such a thing hasn't been scientifically confirmed yet.

It is kinda like your parents (or anyone's parents). If it is possible that your parents would have never existed, then it is also possible that YOU would of never existed...because your existence depends on their existence.

So when I ask the question of "If abiogenesis is false, how can evolution be true", that is like me asking..

"If your parent's existence is false (they never existed), then how can your existence be true?"

You can't have one without the other, contrary to THEM saying "Abiogenesis is independent of evolution". Well, if that is the case, answer the question.

Once you answer the question of "If abiogenesis is false, how can evolution be true"...once you adequately answer that question, we can move on, and I will look like a fool (or more like a fool Laugh out load ).

But of course, you can't.

Simply put abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection. They are comfortably independent.

With abiogenesis I'm completely satisfied with I don't know how life first began answer.

The theory of evolution by natural selection only answers the question how "we" (by we I mean loosely plants animals and people) got to this place in time. It has never spoken to the abiogenesis question of how life first began.

So your question is completely moot.

Yes, you do look a fool.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
22-03-2016, 01:30 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(22-03-2016 01:09 PM)Astreja Wrote:  Simple: The organisms, regardless of how they originally came to be, possess a genetic structure that permits for subtle generation-by-generation changes.

Nonsense. When you say "organisms", you are presupposing life, when the question is based on the ORIGINS of life. So you just bypassed the origins part, and jumped right to life.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Cmon now, Astreja, that was too obvious.

(22-03-2016 01:09 PM)Astreja Wrote:  You, COTW, are a rather convincing argument for your god being nonexistent, indifferent, or as sharp as a sack of wet mice. If it did exist and you were in its favour, it would hopefully have already provided you with the wisdom to understand what I managed to explain in a single sentence with less than a minute of typing. (Springy G shakes Her head in dismay and wanders off to refill Her coffeecup)

You really think you answered the question??Laugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:31 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
Yes cotw, you fuckin' religtard. So could the giant flying spaghetti monster, or leprechauns, the tooth fairy or Santa Claus or any one of the 4,199 other deities that Man has invented..

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:31 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
La renta


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:37 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(22-03-2016 01:16 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No human being has ever explained how life could have originated from non-living material.

False.

Your continuous attempts to equivocate between not being able to do something in practice and not having a valid theory are just tiresome at this point.

(22-03-2016 01:16 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, if abiogenesis COULD be false, the evolution also COULD be false.

Does not follow, irrelevant regardless. "Could" is not equivalent to "is". It is not even in the same ballpark. It is not even the first step towards "is".

This is largely due to the fact that "could", in the sense that you use it, is worthless, as it could be the case that Merlin lives on Mars and we just haven't found him yet.

(22-03-2016 01:16 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now, of course you can say "maybe God used evolution as a method of creation", but the problem with that is, I am talking to atheists that don't believe in God, therefore, the only way life could have originated is if it came from nonlife, but that is EXACTLY the problem, such a thing hasn't been scientifically confirmed yet.

It is kinda like your parents (or anyone's parents). If it is possible that your parents would have never existed, then it is also possible that YOU would of never existed...because your existence depends on their existence.

So when I ask the question of "If abiogenesis is false, how can evolution be true", that is like me asking..

"If your parent's existence is false (they never existed), then how can your existence be true?"

No, it isn't. It is equivalent to you asking "if life did not come from non-life, then how does reproduction with variation result in change over time?"

And, as has been pointed out many, many times, this is a nonsense question.

(22-03-2016 01:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Ok, we will go with your definition. Happy? The question remains; if abiogenesis is false, how can evolution be true?

Because evolution does not give a damn about how life got there. It is only concerned with how it behaves once it is there.

(22-03-2016 01:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 01:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  The start of life could have been done by magic - it doesn't matter.

Ohhh, so God couldddd have done it??? Ahh, now we are getting somewhere Laugh out load

It is like pulling teeth. See, once you ask the right questions, the atheists will eventually have to fess up.

The fact that you think this is some kind of "admission" only further indicates that you are incapable of basic reading.

Everyone here has been saying, for multiple pages, that even assuming that abiogenesis is false and that a god created life, the theory of evolution could still be true, because the theory of evolution does not give a damn how life got there.

And the fact that you try to further take this and run with it as some sort of statement that "maybe God actually did it" is only still more proof of your lack of basic reading comprehension.

I shudder to think of how poorly you must have done in middle school English classes.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
22-03-2016, 01:37 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(22-03-2016 01:29 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Simply put abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection. They are comfortably independent.

You can "simply put" it however you want. But what you can't do is "simply" answer the question.

If abiogenesis is false, how can evolution be true? If they are so "comfortably independent", then I expect you to be able to explain how evolution could still take place INDEPENDENTLY of abiogenesis being false.

(22-03-2016 01:29 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  With abiogenesis I'm completely satisfied with I don't know how life first began answer.

If abiogenesis is false, how can evolution be true?

(22-03-2016 01:29 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  The theory of evolution by natural selection only answers the question how "we" (by we I mean loosely plants animals and people) got to this place in time. It has never spoken to the abiogenesis question of how life first began.

So your question is completely moot.

Yes, you do look a fool.

Well, I already predicted that you would be unable to answer the question, and you've proved my predictions correct. You may as well just go back to whatever rat hole you crawled out of, because you are not any closer to answering the question than any of your comrades on here. You've haven't added anything significant to the conversation besides wasting my time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:39 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(22-03-2016 01:30 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. When you say "organisms", you are presupposing life, when the question is based on the ORIGINS of life. So you just bypassed the origins part, and jumped right to life.

Yes. Because the theory of evolution does not deal with the origins of life. The origins of life are not relevant to a theory which deals strictly with the characteristics of life once it already exists.

The theory of stellar fusion and the origins of iron atoms are not relevant to practical metallurgy.

This is not complicated.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: