Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2016, 12:36 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 12:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 10:47 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Are you wilfully ignoring responses and posts that directly respond to you with a clear cut explanation to why this they MUST be linked view is flawed? Or are answers too many to combat.

First of all, NO one is adequately answering the question. I don't have to accept any given answer, unlike you and others on here. Just because someone offers any PISS POOR answer to the question, that doesn't mean that the question was adequately answered.

Also, just because someone offers a post full of technical spewage and excellent, state-of-the-art bio-babble, doesn't mean that the post is adaquate or even scientifically/logically true.

So basically, what I am saying is; the responses to the question hasn't been adequately answered, and if you can sit there and think that they were, then you are intellectually LOST, bruh.

(24-03-2016 10:47 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's simple, because of various ideas such as life seeding on earth by aliens

Then you are postuating supernatural aliens, which would still be intelligent design, wouldn't it?

(24-03-2016 10:47 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  a cosmic force that isn't god causing things such as a karma essence

A cosmic force with no mind or vision can "cause" karma? SMH.

(24-03-2016 10:47 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  or this believe some have of holons that is just this guiding force in the universe that trends toward consciousnesses as a higher plane which enacts and forms live in that way.

The above quote needs to be in the Guinness Book of World Records, for the most times the question has been begged in a single sentence.

*looks over sentence* Yup, thats gotta be a record.

(24-03-2016 10:47 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Neither of these are god claims nor about that view of abiogenesis but they may also believe evolution still.

Evolution cannot be true while abiogenesis is false. Clyde, if you get your head out of your ass and put it back on your shoulders, you would know this.

Your continued denial of the fact that the evolution of life is independent of the origin of life indicated that you do not understand what the Theory of Evolution states.

You need to read a book on evolutionary biology.

However, for the rest of the audience, here is the simple explanation.

Given an organism that replicates imperfectly and the progeny of which reproduce with differential success, change and diversity are logically inevitable.
There can be no other outcome.


Note that the origin of that first organism is of no importance whatsoever.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
24-03-2016, 12:38 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 12:21 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:19 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I got 1419.

You've got 1,419 what?

or do you means it's 1419 CE where you are.

I'm so confused.

1419 is how the military write 24 hour notation.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
24-03-2016, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 12:50 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 12:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 10:47 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Are you wilfully ignoring responses and posts that directly respond to you with a clear cut explanation to why this they MUST be linked view is flawed? Or are answers too many to combat.

First of all, NO one is adequately answering the question. I don't have to accept any given answer, unlike you and others on here. Just because someone offers any PISS POOR answer to the question, that doesn't mean that the question was adequately answered.

Also, just because someone offers a post full of technical spewage and excellent, state-of-the-art bio-babble, doesn't mean that the post is adaquate or even scientifically/logically true.

So basically, what I am saying is; the responses to the question hasn't been adequately answered, and if you can sit there and think that they were, then you are intellectually LOST, bruh.

(24-03-2016 10:47 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's simple, because of various ideas such as life seeding on earth by aliens

Then you are postuating supernatural aliens, which would still be intelligent design, wouldn't it?

(24-03-2016 10:47 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  a cosmic force that isn't god causing things such as a karma essence

A cosmic force with no mind or vision can "cause" karma? SMH.

(24-03-2016 10:47 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  or this believe some have of holons that is just this guiding force in the universe that trends toward consciousnesses as a higher plane which enacts and forms live in that way.

The above quote needs to be in the Guinness Book of World Records, for the most times the question has been begged in a single sentence.

*looks over sentence* Yup, thats gotta be a record.

(24-03-2016 10:47 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Neither of these are god claims nor about that view of abiogenesis but they may also believe evolution still.

Evolution cannot be true while abiogenesis is false. Clyde, if you get your head out of your ass and put it back on your shoulders, you would know this.

Yes it would still be intelligent design in the case of aliens... So???? That's not a negating response. Okay, so it'd be intelligent design by aliens, exactly. Them seeding earth then evolution taking place. Thus, evolution without it starting connected form abiogenesis.

"karma" is a cosmic force in the light of that as descried, not that it can cause Karma, it's one in the same. This is a view of some eastern spiritualists in versions of Buddhism/Hinduism.

Do you know anything about religious and spiritual beliefs outside of that God of Abraham collection?

I'm not "begging the question" you apparently need comprehension levels. I'm giving you ALTERNATIVES that actual people across the globe think that don't confirm to your proclamation that its abiogenesis tied to evolution or GOD did it view of this. That one you deemed me begging the question comes from this idea of Integral Theory a new agey faith from a few decades back that still have believers today. Welcome to the world. It may be scary and think people are nuts because they don't agree with you.

Why would you think claims of buddhists, spiritualists, raliens, or new age believers with alternate views to how life came to be are even LESS coherent than what you deem naturalism abiogenesis to evolution to be? If I "know" this as you claim I would have to be a god or godlike to have actual absolute knowledge of the case of reality. So no COW, I don't "know' this.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 12:55 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 12:38 PM)Leo Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:21 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  You've got 1,419 what?

or do you means it's 1419 CE where you are.

I'm so confused.

1419 is how the military write 24 hour notation.

What Girlyman is in the military?

What's he fighting with, muskets?

Tell him to come to 2016. Shit man, we've got Napalm and semtex and F-35 lightnings and nuclear weapons and Sarin and all kinds of shit.

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
[+] 1 user Likes god has no twitter account's post
24-03-2016, 12:56 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 12:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  ...And you question that by attacking abiogenesis, which is in no way related to evolution.

You aren't very good at this.

If there is no intelligent designer, can you have evolution without abiogenesis? The answer is obviously "no". So if one won't exist without the other, that would make evolution dependent upon abiogenesis (without intelligent design).

I really feel for you, Unbeliever. You seem like a cool dude, but there is just no way out of this one, bruh.

I am beginning to feel sorry for you, because you are definitely trying. You really are trying. It just isn't working, because you cant rebut the truth. You can rebut a lie, but the truth...whewww, the truth is an ugly little monster, isn't it? Big Grin

(24-03-2016 12:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, it isn't. I have been saying the same thing since this whole blitheringly idiotic sub-discussion began. You just haven't been paying attention. Or you've been utterly failing to understand what is being said. Or perhaps you've been rejecting it out of hand. The result is the same.

Oh, I've been paying attention.

(24-03-2016 12:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I have snipped quite a lot of repetitive gibberish wherein you utterly fail to respond to what I have actually said, as I don't feel like wasting time with your misinterpretations when it won't change a damn thing regardless. Moving on...

Well, the less you have to say to me, the less I have to say to you (theoretically). So, no robbery in fair exchange Big Grin

(24-03-2016 12:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I'm sure that you think that. But no, at this point, it is no more "possible" for abiogenesis to be false than it is "possible" for the theory of relativity to be false. Literally all evidence that we have points to it being true.

Dude, WHAT EVIDENCE do you have of life originating from nonliving material?

(24-03-2016 12:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Abiogenesis is only "possibly" false in the same way that the Loch Ness Monster is "possibly" real - that is, only in the most pedantic and worthless sense.

If you don't know it is true, you can then only assume it is. You can't go get me some life from nonlife, can you?

(24-03-2016 12:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Something something denying the existence of logical deduction something something we've danced this dance a dozen times and you are still wrong something something don't care.

More rhetoric smh.

(24-03-2016 12:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Literally the entire field of biochemistry.

I need specifics, not generalizations, please.

(24-03-2016 12:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  But you haven't asked about an exclusively atheistic interpretation.

Oh, so the athestic interpretation isn't that there is no intelligent designer and therefore, nature did everything?? Oh, then what is it then?

I can't wait to hear this one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 12:59 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
I got 1459.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
24-03-2016, 01:00 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
Shit but is 1500 right now.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
24-03-2016, 01:03 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(24-03-2016 12:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your continued denial of the fact that the evolution of life is independent of the origin of life indicated that you do not understand what the Theory of Evolution states.

If abiogenesis false, and there is no God, how is evolution true??

(24-03-2016 12:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  Given an organism that replicates imperfectly and the progeny of which reproduce with differential success, change and diversity are logically inevitable.
There can be no other outcome.


Note that the origin of that first organism is of no importance whatsoever.

If abiogenesis is false, then the first three words [Given an organism] of that sentence does not exist, does it?

See, if abiogenesis is false, then you can't even BEGIN to talk about evolution, as just demonstrated with Chas' post. You can't even BEGIN to talk about evolution, if life cannot come from nonlife (without intelligent design).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 01:04 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
I have snipped the repetitive idiocy about "can't have evolution without abiogenesis", as it has been addressed so often now that I'm worried about repetitive motion injuries when replying to it.

(24-03-2016 12:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I'm sure that you think that. But no, at this point, it is no more "possible" for abiogenesis to be false than it is "possible" for the theory of relativity to be false. Literally all evidence that we have points to it being true.

Dude, WHAT EVIDENCE do you have of life originating from nonliving material?

Literally the entire field of biochemistry.

(24-03-2016 12:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Abiogenesis is only "possibly" false in the same way that the Loch Ness Monster is "possibly" real - that is, only in the most pedantic and worthless sense.

If you don't know it is true, you can then only assume it is.

Incorrect. Inductive reasoning also exists.

Beyond that, we don't need to be able to create life in a lab to know that abiogenesis is true, no matter how much you wish we did.

(24-03-2016 12:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Literally the entire field of biochemistry.

I need specifics, not generalizations, please.

That is specific. In case you missed it: literally, meaning I am not employing any hyperbole here whatsoever, literally the entire field of biochemistry. Arguably of biology as a whole, but that's less certain depending on how narrowly you want to define the field.

Life is just chemicals. Chemicals always react in certain ways under certain conditions. Given these conditions and the presence of these chemicals, life is inevitable. And, as the Miller-Urey and following experiments have shown, the chemicals and the conditions necessary for formation of the basic components of life are both fairly simple and quite varied. Any number of them could have turned up quite easily on early Earth.

From there, whether you like it or not, it is only a matter of basic chemical reactions until you end up with a fully functional life form.

"But you haven't built one in a lab yet" is not a meaningful objection to this, no matter how loud of a tantrum you throw.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
24-03-2016, 01:05 PM
RE: Question for atheists...



#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: