Let's get this straight
All-Seeing-I
The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
generate life all by itself with no outside help
get real.
Sheesh.
Bruce Stephens
So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
...which is an interpretation imposed on the Christian Bible by a
small number or religious fundamentalists who have demonstrated by
their ignorance, duplicity and downright dishonesty that their claims
to be Christian are somewhat suspect.
>
> The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> generate life all by itself with no outside help
Actually, the "alternative" is to accept the findings of science, and
not to pretend that science can support faith-based positions. This
view is accepted by virtually all of the world's scientists, most of
the world's Christians, and most educated people all over the world.
>
> get real.
>
A piece of advice you might benefit by following.
RF
> Sheesh.
Boikat
> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
Yes. A unicellular organism, probably a bit over 5.8 billion years
ago.
>
> The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> generate life all by itself with no outside help
No magic involved. Just chemistry.
>
> get real.
Learn the meaning of "argument from incredulity".
>
> Sheesh.
Yes, "sheesh". You spout your conclusions based upon your
incredulity, and proclaim them as fact. Sorry, but reality does not
work that way.
Boikat
Stuart
Yeah.. that is so much more silly than an imaginary God.
Stuart
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
suggest all life happened by itself.
One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we simply
have not found the creator yet.
Iain
>Let's get this straight
That could take forever.
> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
How do you know this?
> The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> generate life all by itself with no outside help
Or indeed, a non-magical planet which generated life(self-replication)
all by itself.
--Iain
A.Carlson
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
>> just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>>
>> Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>>
>> I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
>> admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
>There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
>element that generated life on earth.
You're kidding! Right?!?!?!
On what to you base this bald assertion about a higher probability of
an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (Read: ridiculously complex)
being compared to a far simpler self-replicating biochemical structure
in it's simplest form?
>The lower probability is to
>suggest all life happened by itself.
Are you forgetting the first argument?
>One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we simply
>have not found the creator yet.
Just because you are incapable (or perhaps just unwilling) to
understand a natural process does not make it 'magical'. Even if
science does not yet fully understand a given process down to its most
minute detail it still doesn't automatically make it 'magical'.
Boikat
> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
> > > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> > > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> > > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> > So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
> > just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>
> > Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>
> > I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
> > admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
> There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
> element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
> suggest all life happened by itself.
Upon what do you base that probability? Show your work(math).
>
> One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we simply
> have not found the creator yet.
And what happened to "a result of purely physical processes"? Aside
from ignorance, why do you exclude that from your options?
Boikat
Mark Evans
Where did this creator come from? You are just moving the starting
point.
Mark Evans
Devils Advocaat
> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
Have you any objective evidence to support this claim?
>
> The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> generate life all by itself with no outside help
Since when have physics and chemistry ever involved any magic?
>
> get real.
I already am real :)
>
> Sheesh.
Ron O
Is this an honest and valid argument against biological evolution?
Since it isn't why put it up? It isn't even a logically sound
argument. I'm sure that someone has pointed out why, but can you
explain why the argument fails in your own words. I'm just curious if
it is possible for you to learn anything about how wrong you usually
are.
Ron Okimoto
bpuharic
OK I go with the self created magical planet. because we know what
you call 'magic', the rest of us call 'chemistry'.
and we know that ghosts...your view...have never been seen. ghosts
can't do anything. sorry
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
>element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
>suggest all life happened by itself.
hmmm...yes...you guys tried that 'creator' bullshit to explain the
weather, volcanoes, disease, planetary motion, etc.
didn't work out, did it? we fould scientific explanations for all
those
but you go ahead...you keep on with your wizard of oz view of nature.
the rest of the human race will use science. that works.
>
>One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we simply
>have not found the creator yet.
in 300 years science found what your wizard hasnt found...how life
develops. you just can't handle the truth
Boikat
You've *GOT* to be joking!
Boikat
Ron O
> On Nov 24, 3:37 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> Yes. A unicellular organism, probably a bit over 5.8 billion years
> ago.
3.8 billion is the estimate. Our sun is likely less than 5.8 billion
years old.
>
> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> No magic involved. Just chemistry.
That is the assumption that the current line of abiogenesis research
relies on.
>
> > get real.
>
> Learn the meaning of "argument from incredulity".
He should at least read up on logical fallacies. He is putting up two
options as a complete set of options when there are other options. In
this case he is leaving out the option that the vast majority of
scientists accept. You have to be ignorant, incompetent and or
dishonest to use such an argument. Just what you can expect from
addledman.
>
> > Sheesh.
>
> Yes, "sheesh". You spout your conclusions based upon your
> incredulity, and proclaim them as fact. Sorry, but reality does not
> work that way.
>
> Boikat
Maybe, you should ask him what "Sheesh" means. With all-screeching-
denial you never can tell if he knows anything himself.
Ron Okimoto
Inez
> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
> > > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> > > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> > > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> > So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
> > just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>
> > Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>
> > I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
> > admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
> There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
> element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
> suggest all life happened by itself.
You have it backwards. If we assume that life was created magically,
it is more likely that it was created magically without a creator
because that is the less complicated senario, with less requirements.
> One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we simply
> have not found the creator yet.
The creator you want is also a pure magical process.
Boikat
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:37:48 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> >All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> >The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> >generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> >get real.
>
> >Sheesh.
>
> OK I go with the self created magical planet. because we know what
> you call 'magic', the rest of us call 'chemistry'.
You're right. If addledmonkey doesn't understand it, in his wee
little mind, it *is* magical.
>
> and we know that ghosts...your view...have never been seen. ghosts
> can't do anything. sorry
Boikat
Mike Dworetsky
> On Nov 24, 3:54 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens
>> <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>>>> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>>>> The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>>>> generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>>> So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
>>> just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>>
>>> Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>>
>>> I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
>>> admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>>
>> There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
>> element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
>> suggest all life happened by itself.
>
> Upon what do you base that probability? Show your work(math).
You will never get an honest mathematical answer from Adman/ASI. His usual
thing is to say one ludicrous thing, then another ludicrous thing, say "the
conclusion is obvious, you should do the maths". When challenged he will
say, "1 + 1 = 2."
All mathematics beyond counting on his fingers and toes is far above his
level.
>>
>> One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we
>> simply have not found the creator yet.
>
> And what happened to "a result of purely physical processes"? Aside
> from ignorance, why do you exclude that from your options?
>
> Boikat
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
bpuharic
<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 5:59 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:37:48 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>> >The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>> >generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> >get real.
>>
>> >Sheesh.
>>
>> OK I go with the self created magical planet. because we know what
>> you call 'magic', the rest of us call 'chemistry'.
>
>You're right. If addledmonkey doesn't understand it, in his wee
>little mind, it *is* magical.
>
but the ancients!! they didn't believe in atoms, but the thought
ghosts did it...so atoms don't exist!!
All-seeing-I
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:54:21 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
> >> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
> >> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> >> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
> >> So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
> >> just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
> >> Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
> >> I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
> >> admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
> >There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
> >element that generated life on earth.
> You're kidding! Right?!?!?!
Not at all. In order for evolution to take place science has to invoke
a magical senaro first in order to explain life.This magical senaro
suggests that all life came from lifeless material and it
spontaneously rose all by itself from material that science knows is
not alive.
THAT is magic.
>
> On what to you base this bald assertion about a higher probability of
> an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (Read: ridiculously complex)
> being compared to a far simpler self-replicating biochemical structure
> in it's simplest form?
You get an award for 'spinning' it the way you want it.
It is far more complex to explain how life rose via an unproven
chemical process then to simply admit "God Did It".
Science cannot even explain what life is, but once that hurdle is
overcome, one has to explain how that life came to be self generating
and self replicating all by itself. For that matter, Do all of the
necessary amino's and material even exist on earth for life to
spontaneously rise by itself anyway?
Yes. Science truly have to invoke magic to explain all of this. And it
does. To conceal that fact it hides this magic behind carefully
crafted words and chosen phrases.
Now to add insult to injury, after science makes up an exotic story
about how life rose, science then continues to claim more magic
happens. How? By claiming that random mutations and natural selection
causes a complete metamorphosis of one kind of life to the next over
time. But the only thing that has actually been seen with human eyes
is variation within the same kind of life. In fact, any of us can test
variation in our own back yards with a garden or a litter of puppies.
All in all, I would say one of the prerequisites for being a scientist
today is having a sound suspension of disbelief.
>
> >The lower probability is to
> >suggest all life happened by itself.
>
> Are you forgetting the first argument?
Life was created. All species have an original and created kind. This
fits what we can see for ourselves and does not invoke magic.
Why? Because there may be sound explainations that we have not
discovered yet regarding how a creator (that is far beyond our
capabilities) did the creating.
>
> >One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we simply
> >have not found the creator yet.
>
> Just because you are incapable (or perhaps just unwilling) to
> understand a natural process does not make it 'magical'. Even if
> science does not yet fully understand a given process down to its most
> minute detail it still doesn't automatically make it 'magical'
Standard "Pat Answer": "You are too stupid to understand, you are
incapable of understanding"
Any fool with 1/2 a brain can see that most explanations involving the
universe's origins and life's origins in general are wild exotic
claims based on no real observations at all. Have you seen a big bang
generate a universe? Have you witnessed a population of fish giving
rise to land animals?
If the answer is "No". Then you are inferring from data to make up
stories.
But your data is only going to be as reliable as man is. Which does
not say much since man cannot hear as well as a dolphin or see as well
as the common house pet can at night.
IOW a creator of the universe could be standing next to you right now
but you may not have the necessary perception and ability to see such
a creator.
Ye Old One
>On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
>> just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>>
>> Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>>
>> I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
>> admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
>There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
>element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
>suggest all life happened by itself.
No, you have that the wrong way round.
>
>One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we simply
>have not found the creator yet.
Wrong again!
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
Why?
>
>The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>generate life all by itself with no outside help
No magic involved. Just chemistry.
>
>
>get real.
We are.
>
>Sheesh.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
IAAH
> On Nov 24, 4:53 am, "A.Carlson"<amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:54:21 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens<bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> All-Seeing-I<allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>>>>> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>>>> The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>>>>> generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>>> So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
>>>> just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>>>> Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>>>> I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
>>>> admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>>> There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
>>> element that generated life on earth.
>> You're kidding! Right?!?!?!
>
> Not at all. In order for evolution to take place science has to invoke
> a magical senaro first in order to explain life.This magical senaro
> suggests that all life came from lifeless material and it
> spontaneously rose all by itself from material that science knows is
> not alive.
>
> THAT is magic.
Nice fallacy.
>
>>
>> On what to you base this bald assertion about a higher probability of
>> an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (Read: ridiculously complex)
>> being compared to a far simpler self-replicating biochemical structure
>> in it's simplest form?
>
> You get an award for 'spinning' it the way you want it.
>
> It is far more complex to explain how life rose via an unproven
> chemical process then to simply admit "God Did It".
Balls. You now get to explain how your "god" came to be.
With all the specifics that you demand of science.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian godmay exist; so may the
gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these
hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them."
- Bertrand Russell
heekster
>On Nov 24, 3:42�am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
>> just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>>
>> Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>>
>> I mean, at least we can see the planet. �It's not obviously magical,
>> admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
>There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
>element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
>suggest all life happened by itself.
>
Since you cannot count your own balls twice, and get the same number
each time, asking us to believe that you have even the vaguest
understanding of probabilities is farcical.
All-seeing-I
Claiming God created does not necessarily invoke magic until we can
understand how such a creator would or could create. It may be a
matter of our own limited perception and current perspective of the
universe that prevents us from understanding.
Whereas categorically stating that chemicals and organic matter got
together by themselves with no outside cause or effect and produced
spontaneous life does indeed invoke magic to the process.
All-seeing-I
Where did all of the matter that makes up the universe come from.
> You are just moving the starting point.
That is what you are doing by asking such an irrelevant question.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is not a mathamatical problem.
That is one of the reasons why you guys fall for anything. You are
just too dumb to see what is taking place.
All-seeing-I
>
> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> Yes. A unicellular organism, probably a bit over 5.8 billion years
> ago.
You can't even get the dates right.
Run along now. Let the grownups talk. Mkay?
John Harshman
> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
>
Do you have any evidence for this "original" and "created" kind? (By the
way, are you saying there was only one?) But if abiogenesis is magic,
what word could you use for pulling a kind out of your hat?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Not at all. In order for evolution to take place science has to invoke
>a magical senaro first in order to explain life.
although, as a chemist, i'm flattered at the idea i'm a magician, the
fact is evolution rests on chemistry and chemistry isn't magic
to a creationist, where the world is filled with ghosts and demons, i
suppose the laws of nature do appear magical. but that's a limitation
of creationism, with its wizard based view of reality
This magical senaro
>suggests that all life came from lifeless material and it
>spontaneously rose all by itself from material that science knows is
>not alive.
abiogenesis...the topic you so clumsily try to link to evolution...has
nothing to do with evolution. it's irrelevant
you just lack critical thinking skills
>
>It is far more complex to explain how life rose via an unproven
>chemical process then to simply admit "God Did It".
which, of course, they said about:
-earthquakes
-volcanoes
-weather
-diisease
etc. NONE of these is explained by 'god did it'. it would sure be nice
if creationists could tell us when their view was EVER correct, even
once.
yeah, you can explain it simply by 'god did it'. but that has always
been wrong...a fact he conveniently forgets.
>
>Science cannot even explain what life is, but once that hurdle is
>overcome, one has to explain how that life came to be self generating
>and self replicating all by itself. For that matter, Do all of the
>necessary amino's and material even exist on earth for life to
>spontaneously rise by itself anyway?
god of the gaps. science can't answer every question. even in
chemistry we do lots of research on things. hell, i'm a chemist in the
semiconductor industry. for 50 years we've used silicon in
semiconductors and we still do basic research on silicon
the creationist pretends that, because science does research, that
means it has NO answers. that idea is wrong.
and creationism itself, had a 2000 year headstart on science...and
explained nothing. it was a failure always and everywhere.
>
>Now to add insult to injury, after science makes up an exotic story
>about how life rose, science then continues to claim more magic
>happens. How? By claiming that random mutations and natural selection
>causes a complete metamorphosis of one kind of life to the next over
>time. But the only thing that has actually been seen with human eyes
>is variation within the same kind of life. In fact, any of us can test
>variation in our own back yards with a garden or a litter of puppies.
the creationist pretends that the world changes so dramatically that
the laws that governed the universe for our parents are completely
different than the laws governing it for us.
where's his proof? his evidence? where's his experiment to show this?
he has his 'god did it' view of nature...which can be PROVEN to be a
failure...and yet he complains that science doesn't have ALL the
answers
>
>All in all, I would say one of the prerequisites for being a scientist
>today is having a sound suspension of disbelief.
?? has he ever visited a research lab?
no. he hasn't. he's not a scientist. he has no idea how science is
done. the mere fact he believes the failed idea of
supernaturalism...2000 years of failure...explains ANYTHING tells us
about his viewpoint
>
>>
>> >The lower probability is to
>> >suggest all life happened by itself.
>>
>> Are you forgetting the first argument?
>
>Life was created. All species have an original and created kind. This
>fits what we can see for ourselves and does not invoke magic.
how was it created? if 'god did it' then why ISNT this magic?
you keep hemming and hawing about this. but this view is a failure.
it's ALWAYS been wrong
>
>Why? Because there may be sound explainations that we have not
>discovered yet regarding how a creator (that is far beyond our
>capabilities) did the creating.
fine. when you come up with an explanation, let me know. because your
view HAS been tried. for thousands of years your view was used.
it never worked. i can't possibly be more blunt than that. your view
ALWAYS failed.
if you had ONE success in 2000 years, THAT could at least salvage your
view. if you had ONE time a SINGLE time in thousands of years where
you could say "HERE IS PROOF" then you might have an argument
but you don't. you have thousands of years...THOUSANDS of years of
failure. and yet you STILL think you have an argument
>
>Any fool with 1/2 a brain can see that most explanations involving the
>universe's origins and life's origins in general are wild exotic
>claims based on no real observations at all. Have you seen a big bang
>generate a universe? Have you witnessed a population of fish giving
>rise to land animals?
?? based on no observations at all?
i used to work for bell labs. in the lobby of bell labs in murray hill
NJ, they have arno penzias's notebook when he was doing research that
found the cosmic microwave background radiation. THAT is an
OBSERVATION.
and it was PREDICTED by alpher, hermann and gamow in the 20's and
30's, then independently by dicke and peebles.
so THEORY predicted it. OBSERVATION confirmed it, based on the laws of
nature
creationism? still thought angels made the planets move. another
failure
so the creationist invokes a comic book view of science 'science has
to create a universe before we can say science understands how the
universe formed'
jesus fucking christ...are they really THAT stupid? do they think
humans can understand NOTHING unless we understand EVERYTHING??
and creationism...THOUSANDS of years of telling us GOD DID IT.
THOUSANDS of years of FAILURE
and they still lecture us on the superiority of their worldview.
>
>If the answer is "No". Then you are inferring from data to make up
>stories.
>
>But your data is only going to be as reliable as man is. Which does
>not say much since man cannot hear as well as a dolphin or see as well
>as the common house pet can at night.
sure we can. we have invented devices..based on science...enabling us
to see better than a housepet can
and creationists for thousands of years had no idea light was
involved at all. they said 'god did it'. and that was a failure
>
>IOW a creator of the universe could be standing next to you right now
>but you may not have the necessary perception and ability to see such
>a creator.
fine. you go tell me how to see the creator. you guys have been saying
this for thousands of years.
let me know when you're ready to get started.
All-seeing-I
I have given an example of this before.
There were 14 kinds of evergreens during the days of Enoch. There are
many more today because the evergreens have given rise to more
variations of evergreens.
Some have died out to allow new variations to exist on a dynamic
earth.
Working backwards, there had to be at least one that was the original
and created kind for their to only be 14 kinds during the days of
Enoch.
heekster
>> >> There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
>> >> element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
>> >> suggest all life happened by itself.
>>
>> > Upon what do you base that probability? �Show your work(math).
>>
>
Boikat
> On Nov 24, 4:53 am, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:54:21 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > >On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> > >wrote:
> > >> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
> > >> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
> > >> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> > >> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
> > >> So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
> > >> just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
> > >> Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
> > >> I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
> > >> admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
> > >There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
> > >element that generated life on earth.
> > You're kidding! Right?!?!?!
>
> Not at all. In order for evolution to take place science has to invoke
> a magical senaro first in order to explain life.
Wrong. Abiogenesis is not "magic", and it's obvious to all but the
dimest of minds, that how life appeard is irrelevent to the process of
evolution, which only desal sith life after it appeared and began to
reproduce with differential sucess.
> This magical senaro
> suggests that all life came from lifeless material and it
> spontaneously rose all by itself from material that science knows is
> not alive.
Though the details are not known, magic is not involved.
>
> THAT is magic.
That's your *fantasy".
>
>
>
> > On what to you base this bald assertion about a higher probability of
> > an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (Read: ridiculously complex)
> > being compared to a far simpler self-replicating biochemical structure
> > in it's simplest form?
>
> You get an award for 'spinning' it the way you want it.
>
> It is far more complex to explain how life rose via an unproven
> chemical process then to simply admit "God Did It".
So, "easy" is the key. If you don't have to think about it, it's the
truth. Lightning is a "Goddidit" phenomenat.
>
> Science cannot even explain what life is, but once that hurdle is
> overcome, one has to explain how that life came to be self generating
> and self replicating all by itself. For that matter, Do all of the
> necessary amino's and material even exist on earth for life to
> spontaneously rise by itself anyway?
So, science is wrong about abiogenesis just because scientists do not
yet know exactly how it occured, but you and the other god-smacked
morons are right because all you have to do is proclaim, "Goddidit!"
and that's all there is to it?
>
> Yes. Science truly have to invoke magic to explain all of this. And it
> does. To conceal that fact it hides this magic behind carefully
> crafted words and chosen phrases.
As opposed ot "Thinking make head hurt. Goddidit! Me feel much
better now"?
>
> Now to add insult to injury, after science makes up an exotic story
> about how life rose, science then continues to claim more magic
> happens. How?
No magic involved. f that were the cae, then science would claim to
know how life arose to begin with.
> By claiming that random mutations and natural selection
> causes a complete metamorphosis of one kind of life to the next over
> time.
No magic involved.
> But the only thing that has actually been seen with human eyes
> is variation within the same kind of life.
So what? Only a slightly evolved baboon thinks that in order
forverify a theory, the entire phenomena has to be dorectly observed.
Oh, waith, you *are* a slighty evolved baboon.
> In fact, any of us can test
> variation in our own back yards with a garden or a litter of puppies.
Your ignorance of evolution knows no bounds, does it?
>
> All in all, I would say one of the prerequisites for being a scientist
> today is having a sound suspension of disbelief.
And, as usual, you thereby demonstrate the depth of your ignorance.
>
>
>
> > >The lower probability is to
> > >suggest all life happened by itself.
>
> > Are you forgetting the first argument?
>
> Life was created. All species have an original and created kind. This
> fits what we can see for ourselves and does not invoke magic.
Neither does science. However, you claim that life and kinds were
created by a sky-pixie. Where's your evidence?
>
> Why? Because there may be sound explainations that we have not
> discovered yet regarding how a creator (that is far beyond our
> capabilities) did the creating.
Until you have the evidence, shut the fuck up.
>
>
>
> > >One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we simply
> > >have not found the creator yet.
>
> > Just because you are incapable (or perhaps just unwilling) to
> > understand a natural process does not make it 'magical'. Even if
> > science does not yet fully understand a given process down to its most
> > minute detail it still doesn't automatically make it 'magical'
>
> Standard "Pat Answer": "You are too stupid to understand, you are
> incapable of understanding"
Facts are facts. You demonstrate your stupidity, lack of cognitive
skills, and willful ignorance in almost every post you have made so
far. It's not a "PAT" answer, it's the fracking truth, lackwit.
>
> Any fool with 1/2 a brain can see that most explanations involving the
> universe's origins and life's origins in general are wild exotic
> claims based on no real observations at all. Have you seen a big bang
> generate a universe? Have you witnessed a population of fish giving
> rise to land animals?
And only a 'tard ike you thinks one has to directly witnes an event to
know the event occured. That's like coming home, and finding a broken
window, and saying the window is not really broken because you didn't
see how the window was broken. Damn, you're stupid!
>
> If the answer is "No". Then you are inferring from data to make up
> stories.
No, infering an explaination based upon observed evidence, lackwit.
>
> But your data is only going to be as reliable as man is. Which does
> not say much since man cannot hear as well as a dolphin or see as well
> as the common house pet can at night.
Damn you're stupid. You ignoran human *intelligence*. But that goes
without saying, since you lack any.
>
> IOW a creator of the universe could be standing next to you right now
> but you may not have the necessary perception and ability to see such
> a creator.
So could an invisible magical dragon. Until it's detectablem
untestable and there is no evidence to support it's existence, it
doesn't count.
It's that simple, m'kay?
Boikat
All-seeing-I
> >just too dumb to see what is taking place.- Hide quoted text -
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Claiming God created does not necessarily invoke magic until we can
>understand how such a creator would or could create.
in the meantime, science isn't gonna sit around waiting ANOTHER 2000
years for you creationists to tell us anything. we waited. and waited
and waited. you guys kepts saying 'god did it'
and that explained nothing.
It may be a
>matter of our own limited perception and current perspective of the
>universe that prevents us from understanding.
and it may be he uses evolution to create. we've already found the
answer. sorry it's too much for your failed view of nature to deal
with
>
>Whereas categorically stating that chemicals and organic matter got
>together by themselves with no outside cause or effect and produced
>spontaneous life does indeed invoke magic to the process.
chemistry exists. your computer is proof
creationism? 2000 years. and 2000 years of failure
>
>
All-seeing-I
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:54:21 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
ATTEN Lurkers: This is what happens when gate gurads get to have a
computer in the guard house.
TomS
<eN6dnSO80dA...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>
>All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
Does anyone have an example of what an "original" or "created"
"kind" is? Or what it might be like for life to start with a
kind? Or, for that matter, what a non-original or a non-created
kind is, or what it would be like for life to start without a
kind?
>>
>> The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>> generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>>
>> get real.
>
>Do you have any evidence for this "original" and "created" kind? (By the
>way, are you saying there was only one?) But if abiogenesis is magic,
>what word could you use for pulling a kind out of your hat?
>
Does anyone have an example of the generation of life with outside
help? If we had an example, we might be able to tell what it looks
like when outside help generates life.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Boikat
catagory.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Boikat
"Probability" is, fool.
>
> That is one of the reasons why you guys fall for anything. You are
> just too dumb to see what is taking place
Coming from a lackwit that doens't think "probability" involves math,
that's pretty funny. But, Ill ask again:
You claimed a higher probability of a "creator" as opposed to natural
processes. Upon what do you base that probability? Show your work
(math).
If you again claim that mathamatics is not involved, then your
"probabilitiy" caim was a lie. Did you lie, assmonkey?
Boikat
Kermit
Well, you see, you make a mathematical assertion. We ask to see the
ath which led to that assertion, then you claim it's not mathematical.
Kermit
All-seeing-I
> On 24 Nov, 09:37, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
The complexity of the life itself.
> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> Since when have physics and chemistry ever involved any magic?
Since it tries to create life.
Has life as we know it, using physics and chemistry, ever been
generated in a lab for observation?
If it cannot happen in an controlled environment, how would you expect
it to generate life all by itself without magic?
Davej
Working backwards or backwards thinking? Gosh, some old fable also
mentions one-eyed giant cyclops living on a Mediterranean island. It
must be true since it was written down long ago. Why don't the
scientists dig up the one-eyed cyclops fossils? It must be some sort
of liberal scientific conspiracy.
Mark Evans
> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>
> > > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> > just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>
> > Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>
> > I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
> > admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
> element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
> suggest all life happened by itself.
>
> have not found the creator yet.
There is no way to compare the relative chances of creator vs. natural
processes. One is, well, natural the other involves unknown external
intervention. And the one involving the creator is the magical
process. Much waving of hands (or whatever), things "poofing" into
existence with no ancestors, that sort of thing.
You know, your grasp of reality has shown signs of decay recently and
it was never very strong. Have you seen a physician? One with a
degree from an accredited medical school in the USA?
Mark Evans
Inez
> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
> > > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> > > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> > > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> > So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
> > just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>
> > Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>
> > I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
> > admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
> Claiming God created does not necessarily invoke magic until we can
> understand how such a creator would or could create. It may be a
> matter of our own limited perception and current perspective of the
> universe that prevents us from understanding.
Or it could be your stupidity and lack of education that prevents you
Kermit
> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
Evidence?
Ah, right, you don't depend on evidence, you insist that we depend on
*your "special perceptions", which are indistinguishable from
delusions - even to you.
>
> The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> generate life all by itself with no outside help
Well, that's one alternative, which I agree is very nearly as silly as
assuming, without evidence, that a magical being created itself, then
made a whole universe in order to put bioligcal creatures that looked
just like him on a thin film on one little pebble.
Why does Yahweh have eyelashes?
Does he have genitals? Why? What happened to Mrs. God (there used to
be one)?
Another alternative to Yahweh and also to magical planets is:
A universe is born entirely thru natural processes (from previous
universes). Entirely natural chemical processes on at least one,
probably many, planets led to life. On at least one of those planets,
tool-making intelligence developed. That last process we know quite a
bit about.
What about this do you find problematic? Please note that your
ignorance of science is not actually a problem, either for the
universe (nature) or for our collective understanding of it (science).
>
> get real.
You, who deny evidence that implies conclusions you don't like, and
who admits that you do not believe this world we see is ultimately
real in some important way, want us to get real? You deny reality!
>
> Sheesh.
Willikers.
Kermit
Mark Evans
Oh boy, from creating life to asking where the matter in the universe
came from? You are not moving the goal posts, you are moving to a
different field. And accusing me if being irrelevant is just icing on
your BS cake. You know, people try to answer your asinine posts with
reason and log and you resort to infantile insults and attacks as your
first line of defence. This is indicates several things, including,
frankly, lack of cognitive skills. And you are showing more and more
problems in this area. There are public agencies that will help you
with mental health issues, even in the area you have claimed you live
in. GO GET HELP before the decay we are seeing results in you living
alone in a filthy apartment with a dozen starving cats making designs
on putting you out of your misery and food on their plates. I would
offer you additional advice of a semi-reproductive nature but you
would doubtless injure yourself taking it literally.
Mark Evans
Inez
> On Nov 24, 8:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> > > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> > > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> > > get real.
>
> > Do you have any evidence for this "original" and "created" kind? (By the
> > way, are you saying there was only one?) But if abiogenesis is magic,
> > what word could you use for pulling a kind out of your hat?
>
> I have given an example of this before.
>
> There were 14 kinds of evergreens during the days of Enoch.
Do you have any evidence of this?
>There are
> many more today because the evergreens have given rise to more
> variations of evergreens.
> Some have died out to allow new variations to exist on a dynamic
> earth.
So you're saying that all evergreens evolved from a common ancestor.
> Working backwards, there had to be at least one that was the original
> and created kind for their to only be 14 kinds during the days of
> Enoch.
Working even further backwards, all life had a common ancestor.
Boikat
> On Nov 24, 3:44 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 3:37 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> > Yes. A unicellular organism, probably a bit over 5.8 billion years
> > ago.
>
> You can't even get the dates right.
Sorry, typo. 3.8 billion.
Happy now?
>
> Run along now. Let the grownups talk. Mkay?
Then what are you doing here, Mr Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite?
Boikat
Kermit
Previous universes(1).
>
> > You are just moving the starting point.
>
> That is what you are doing by asking such an irrelevant question.
How is it irrelevant? *You are the one who started this thread with a
claim about probabilities and magical kings. You said that the
universe couldn't have created itself, so it must have been created by
a wizard who... created himself? If the magic king didn't have to
create himself, why would the universe?
(1) "Previous" in a causal sense, not a chronological sense.
Kermit
Boikat
> On Nov 24, 3:44 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 3:37 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
> > ago.
>
> years old.
>
Yup. That was a typo. Note, in his reply, that's *all* the little
piss-ant addressed.
Boikat
Boikat
Odd, that's the only thing from my entire reply to your drivel that
you thought merited a reply. Or, maybe not so odd, since your post
was bullshit.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
ATEN LURKERS: Now they think math = magic
Kermit
> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>
> > > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> > So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
> > just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>
> > Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>
> > I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
> > admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
> understand how such a creator would or could create. It may be a
> matter of our own limited perception and current perspective of the
> universe that prevents us from understanding.
>
> together by themselves with no outside cause or effect and produced
> spontaneous life does indeed invoke magic to the process.
We don't have to categorically state that natural processes exist. We
only have to point out that your assertions are not evidence that
there is anything else. Are you saying that every time two hydrogens
and an oxygen atom combine into a water molecule that it's a miracle
of Yahweh? We suggest that the past was no more magical than it is
now. Why was simple chemistry a miracle 4 billion years ago but isn't
know?
My college buddy said "science is studying how God does things". In
what way did your god do chemistry differently 4,000,000,000 years
ago? Perhaps my college buddy was right. He became a microbiologist.
In what way do you suppose his Christian beliefs informs his science?
When he studies viruses, what does he do differently than an atheist
who studies viruses?
Kermit
All-seeing-I
Do you actually believe life on this planet happened all by itself?
What about the universe?
That happened all by itself too?
Did all of the matter just *poof* into existance?
The matter was either created,
or
it *poofed* into existance all by itself. Which is magic my dear boy.
Dana Tweedy
> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
There's no evidence for this, and is a unscientific claim.
>
> The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> generate life all by itself with no outside help
Irony. You are proposing that magic produced the first life, and then you
claim that proposing naturalistic means of production is "magic".
>
>
> get real.
Indeed. Do you have any evidence that life requires "outside help" to
begin?
>
> Sheesh.
Sorry, but magic is not an explanation for natural events.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>>
>>> generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>>
>> Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>>
>> I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
>> admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
> element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
> suggest all life happened by itself.
How did you calculate these probablities?
>
> One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we simply
> have not found the creator yet.
Actually, you are the one proposing a pure magical process. Science is
looking for a naturalistic explanation.
DJT
Kermit
They *have:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/cyclops02.htm
Boy, don't you look silly.
<reads article>
Oh...
Kermit
Boikat
> On Nov 24, 5:47 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 24 Nov, 09:37, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> > Have you any objective evidence to support this claim?
>
> The complexity of the life itself.
>
> > > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> > > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> > Since when have physics and chemistry ever involved any magic?
>
> Since it tries to create life.
How is that "magic"?
>
> Has life as we know it, using physics and chemistry, ever been
> generated in a lab for observation?
Nope. That's because not all the details are understood yet. So?
>
> If it cannot happen in an controlled environment, how would you expect
> it to generate life all by itself without magic?
Because scientists do not know exactly what the "controlled"
environment should be modeled after. Until then, scientists conduct
*experiments* based upon different models of the possible
environmental conditions. So, fruitloop, what happesn if scientists
do stumble across a model that works 9based upon a natural environment
from around 3.8 billion years ago) and creates some form of life?
Claim that as "proof" if a designer, even if the modeled environment
is modeled after a natural environment and nothing was "tweaked'
during the process?
Boikat
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Do you actually believe life on this planet happened all by itself?
>
>What about the universe?
>
>That happened all by itself too?
>
>Did all of the matter just *poof* into existance?
>
>The matter was either created,
>or
>
>it *poofed* into existance all by itself. Which is magic my dear boy.
actually chemistry was involved
i realize to creationists chemistry is magic, but we chemists think
otherwise
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 6:01 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 0
>>
>> in 300 years science found what your wizard hasnt found...how life
>> develops. you just can't handle the truth
>
>ATTEN Lurkers: This is what happens when gate gurads get to have a
>computer in the guard house.
IOW you have no response.
yep. i knew that
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 5:47 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24 Nov, 09:37, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>> Have you any objective evidence to support this claim?
>
>The complexity of the life itself.
circular argument. he assumes complexity is evidence of god then,
MIRABILE DICTU!! finds that god exists
no wonder creationism is a 2000 year old failure
>
>> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> Since when have physics and chemistry ever involved any magic?
>
>Since it tries to create life.
>
>Has life as we know it, using physics and chemistry, ever been
>generated in a lab for observation?
irrelevant to evolution. you're trying to conflate abiogenesis with
evolution
wrong.
>
>If it cannot happen in an controlled environment, how would you expect
>it to generate life all by itself without magic?
glad to see you admit creationism is magic
stew dean
> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>
> > > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> > just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>
> > Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>
> > I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
> > admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
> understand how such a creator would or could create. It may be a
> matter of our own limited perception and current perspective of the
> universe that prevents us from understanding.
Then we cannot make that claim as we don't have enough information to
make it. It's a weak hypothesis with no factual support. As our
perception grows it could go any number of ways, but without the right
information it is unknowable at the moment. This is why things like
science are not absolute - there will always be one more thing that
can add to what we know and put it into a new light. This is highly
unlikely to happen to evolution simply because of the huge amount of
information we have about it and our deep understanding of how it
works, this runs much deeper for evolution than it does for something
like gravity. We know what gravity does but we don't know why it does
it - in essense how gravity 'works'. That is one of the great unknown
questions which many physicists are working on.
> Whereas categorically stating that chemicals and organic matter got
> together by themselves with no outside cause or effect and produced
> spontaneous life does indeed invoke magic to the process.
What makes you think that? First organic matter is made from
chemicals, it's a recombination of what is a relatively small set of
atoms that combine and recombine - Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen the
hologens as well as physophorus, silocon and sulfur. It's a limited
numbe of blocks but the structures they create get very complex and
where reached through a process of chemical evolution (which is of
course different from biological evolution).
These chemicals did indeed have a lot of outside cause and effect, the
biggest of which was the sun but also a big factor volcanic heat.
To get from the right mix of organic chemistry through to the fading
in of life requires a lot of time, some stable places for the
combination and recombination to happen and the right combination of
heat and change. All this is evident in the history of this planet.
There's simply no need for intelligent intervention or any form of
supernatural activity. When we see other planets that have the same
kind of set up as ours we'll see the same things there - life is
inevitable under certain situations.
Boikat
ATTN LURKERS: Now you know why the "I" in "All Seeing-I" stands for
*IDIOT*. But then again, most of you already knew that.
So, AS-I(diot), are you saying that probability is not a math based
concept, or are you claiming that probability is a "magic based"
concept?
Boikat
raven1
Last I checked, probability involved math.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>> There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
>>> element that generated life on earth.
>> You're kidding! Right?!?!?!
>
> Not at all. In order for evolution to take place science has to invoke
> a magical senaro first in order to explain life.
No, that's what you are invoking. Saying "a creator did it" is saying it
must have been magic.
>This magical senaro
> suggests that all life came from lifeless material and it
> spontaneously rose all by itself from material that science knows is
> not alive.
By natural processes that can be observed. That's not magic.
>
> THAT is magic.
No, "magic" is something that can't be explained, and has never been
observed.
>
>>
>> On what to you base this bald assertion about a higher probability of
>> an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (Read: ridiculously
>> complex) being compared to a far simpler self-replicating
>> biochemical structure in it's simplest form?
>
> You get an award for 'spinning' it the way you want it.
You just don't understand that your way is a much more complex explanation
than simple chemistry.
>
> It is far more complex to explain how life rose via an unproven
> chemical process then to simply admit "God Did It".
Because "Goddidit" is proposing a magical solution, and posits a not only
"unproven" (nothing in science is ever 'proven') process, but one that can't
even be observed, in principle. The exact chemical process that resulted
in life may not be found as yet, but it's at least possible by natural laws.
Claiming a supernatural being did something is a complete abandoment of
science.
>
> Science cannot even explain what life is, but once that hurdle is
> overcome, one has to explain how that life came to be self generating
> and self replicating all by itself.
Fortunately, science has a way of overcoming hurdles. You seem to be
saying that science shouldn't try at all.
> For that matter, Do all of the
> necessary amino's and material even exist on earth for life to
> spontaneously rise by itself anyway?
Yes.
>
> Yes. Science truly have to invoke magic to explain all of this. And it
> does. To conceal that fact it hides this magic behind carefully
> crafted words and chosen phrases.
That's just the point. Science does NOT have invoke magic. It can propose
testable hypotheses, which can be evaluated, and those that don't work,
eliminated. Eventually, one will get closer to the correct explanation.
With your method, you just assume something you want to believe, and abandon
any testing of that idea.
>
> Now to add insult to injury, after science makes up an exotic story
> about how life rose, science then continues to claim more magic
> happens.
Again, you are the one proposing magic. Science is proposing testable
natural hypotheses.
> How? By claiming that random mutations and natural selection
> causes a complete metamorphosis of one kind of life to the next over
> time.
That is not "magic" and there is only one 'kind" of life. There is no
"complete metamorphosis", jsut variation on the first life.
> But the only thing that has actually been seen with human eyes
> is variation within the same kind of life. In fact, any of us can test
> variation in our own back yards with a garden or a litter of puppies.
All evolution is variation from the last common ancestor. There aren't any
divisions of "kind".
>
> All in all, I would say one of the prerequisites for being a scientist
> today is having a sound suspension of disbelief.
Actually what a scientist requires is curiosity, and a unwillingness to
abandon questions when they become hard.
>
>>
>>> The lower probability is to
>>> suggest all life happened by itself.
>>
>> Are you forgetting the first argument?
>
> Life was created. All species have an original and created kind. This
> fits what we can see for ourselves and does not invoke magic.
Actually, it does invoke magic. What process did this creator use?
There's no way that science can tell, so you are left with "it's magic".
>
> Why? Because there may be sound explainations that we have not
> discovered yet regarding how a creator (that is far beyond our
> capabilities) did the creating.
Science is a way of discovering how life began, and how it evolved. Saying
"Goddidit" is intellectually sterile. If you had your way, nothing would
ever be explained, and people would still be using superstition.
>
>>
>>> One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we
>>> simply have not found the creator yet.
>>
>> Just because you are incapable (or perhaps just unwilling) to
>> understand a natural process does not make it 'magical'. Even if
>> science does not yet fully understand a given process down to its
>> most minute detail it still doesn't automatically make it 'magical'
>
> Standard "Pat Answer": "You are too stupid to understand, you are
> incapable of understanding"
When a "pat" answer applies, why not use it?
>
> Any fool with 1/2 a brain can see that most explanations involving the
> universe's origins and life's origins in general are wild exotic
> claims based on no real observations at all.
Well, you certianly fit the first condition, but the scientific explanations
are not just 'wild exotic claims" because you can't be bothered to learn
about them. All scientific concepts are based on observations, whether you
like it or not.
> Have you seen a big bang
> generate a universe?
One can see the evidence that it happened.
> Have you witnessed a population of fish giving
> rise to land animals?
One can see the evidence left over from the process, and one can see it
actually happening in some fish species today. Walking catfish,
mudskippers, etc.
>
> If the answer is "No". Then you are inferring from data to make up
> stories.
That's what science does. It infers from the data, and proposes testable
ideas to explain the observations. Those ideas are tested, and the ones
that don't work are weeded out. The ones that work, are refined, so that
the become theories, such as evolution.
Your own method appeas to be "assume what I want to believe, and declare it
to be "truth"". Which of the two ways is more likely to produce usable
results?
>
> But your data is only going to be as reliable as man is.
Not a problem. Scientists are aware of the limitations of humans, and
human perception. Still, science has been remarkably successful in working
things out. Assuming one's conclusions, not so much.
> Which does
> not say much since man cannot hear as well as a dolphin or see as well
> as the common house pet can at night.
Again, not a problem. Science is a way of getting around such
limitations.
>
> IOW a creator of the universe could be standing next to you right now
> but you may not have the necessary perception and ability to see such
> a creator.
By the same token, an invisible pink unicorn may be standing right next to
you. Is it reasonable to assume that any occurance I can't immediately
explain is caused by this unicorn?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
No. You claimed that there was a greater probablity that a creator
produced life. That is a mathmatical assertion. Probablities are
mathmatics. If you want to claim that your personal belief is more
probable, you need to show by what method you came up with that probablitiy
estimate.
If you want to admit you just pulled it from your fundament, no one would be
surprised, and it would be much more honest.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 24, 7:12 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
snip
>
> This is not a mathamatical problem.
Probablity is a mathmatical problem. If you claim to know the probablity
of creation by a supernatural being versus the natural development of life
by chemistry, you need to show your math.
>
> That is one of the reasons why you guys fall for anything. You are
> just too dumb to see what is taking place.
Again, quite ironic. You are the one who "falls for" ancient astronaut
stories, vitamin pusher stories, and creationism, and then you accuse others
of falling for things by being skeptical.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>>> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>>> The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>>> generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
>> just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>>
>> Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>>
>> I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
>> admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
> Claiming God created does not necessarily invoke magic until we can
> understand how such a creator would or could create.
So, why couldn't God have used the natural processes that science is
discovering?
> It may be a
> matter of our own limited perception and current perspective of the
> universe that prevents us from understanding.
Or, maybe other people understand much better than you do.
>
> Whereas categorically stating that chemicals and organic matter got
> together by themselves with no outside cause or effect and produced
> spontaneous life does indeed invoke magic to the process.
No, you are conflating chemistry with magic, presumably because you can't be
bothered to learn enough to understand chemistry.
DJT
Boikat
> On Nov 24, 8:44 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 8:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > Do you have any evidence for this "original" and "created" kind? (By the
> > > way, are you saying there was only one?) But if abiogenesis is magic,
> > > what word could you use for pulling a kind out of your hat?
>
> > I have given an example of this before.
>
> > There were 14 kinds of evergreens during the days of Enoch. There are
> > many more today because the evergreens have given rise to more
> > variations of evergreens. Some have died out to allow new variations
> > to exist on a dynamic earth.
>
> > Working backwards, there had to be at least one that was the original
> > and created kind for their to only be 14 kinds during the days of
> > Enoch.
>
> Working backwards or backwards thinking? Gosh, some old fable also
> mentions one-eyed giant cyclops living on a Mediterranean island. It
> must be true since it was written down long ago. Why don't the
> scientists dig up the one-eyed cyclops fossils? It must be some sort
I seem to recall the cyclops legends may have been based upon ancient
Greek misintepretation of the skulls of mammoths or mastodons found in
the area.
But even that does not pull AS-Idiot's) bacon out of the fire.
Boikat
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> Where did this creator come from?
>
> Where did all of the matter that makes up the universe come from.
From the energy in the "Big Bang".
>
>> You are just moving the starting point.
>
> That is what you are doing by asking such an irrelevant question.
If you propose a creator that isn't a magic being, then that creator must
have come from somewhere. That just puts your problem of origin back to who
created your creator.
DJT
Will in New Haven
> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
> > > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> > > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> > > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> > So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
> > just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>
> > Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>
> > I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
> > admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
> element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
> suggest all life happened by itself.
>
> have not found the creator yet.
Granted that this is not totally unreasonable. It is not, however, an
argument against evolution being the process by which life developed
and differentiated. Nor is it an argument in favor of any particular
religion. It is an argument for letting the mystery be. "There may
well be a creator" or even "there is a creator" is a long way from "I
know the creator's name and nature and what he (in most cases) wants
us to do. Now send me some money."
--
Will in New Haven
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 24, 5:47 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24 Nov, 09:37, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>
> The complexity of the life itself.
This is not evidence for life being created. There's no reason to assume
that early forms of life are as complex as life today.
>
>>> The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>>> generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> Since when have physics and chemistry ever involved any magic?
>
> Since it tries to create life.
That's not magic. "Creating life" means setting up the original
conditions, and seeing what happens. No magic involved.
>
> Has life as we know it, using physics and chemistry, ever been
> generated in a lab for observation?
Not yet, but so what?
>
> If it cannot happen in an controlled environment, how would you expect
> it to generate life all by itself without magic?
Doesn't follow. It's not known that it can't happen in a controlled
environment, and there are other ways of life beginning than claiming
"magic", which, incidentally, is exactly what you are doing.
DJt
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 3:44 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 3:37 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>> Yes. A unicellular organism, probably a bit over 5.8 billion years
>> ago.
>
>You can't even get the dates right.
I've yet to see you get *anything* right
Steven L.
> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> generate life all by itself with no outside help
There doesn't appear to be anything "magical" about living processes.
They appear to be a series of related chemical reactions.
And we know that some chemical reactions can occur spontaneously. Do
you consider spontaneous combustion to be "magical"?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
>> just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>>
>> Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>>
>> I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
>> admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
>Claiming God created does not necessarily invoke magic
Au contraire. Claiming a supernatural event occurred (which, may I
remind you, you have done repeatedly) is the very definition of an
appeal to magic.
> until we can
>understand how such a creator would or could create. It may be a
>matter of our own limited perception and current perspective of the
>universe that prevents us from understanding.
>
>Whereas categorically stating that chemicals and organic matter got
>together by themselves with no outside cause or effect and produced
>spontaneous life does indeed invoke magic to the process.
Your complete ignorance of chemistry does not make it magic.
Dana Tweedy
>>> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>>> The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>>> generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>>
>> Do you have any evidence for this "original" and "created" kind? (By
>> the way, are you saying there was only one?) But if abiogenesis is
>> magic, what word could you use for pulling a kind out of your hat?
>
> I have given an example of this before.
>
> There were 14 kinds of evergreens during the days of Enoch.
That's an unsupported assertion. Was anyone in Enoch's time a botanist?
How were the "kinds" determined?
> There are
> many more today because the evergreens have given rise to more
> variations of evergreens.
by your cliam, that would mean there are still only 14 "kinds" of
evergreens, but just more variations of them.
> Some have died out to allow new variations to exist on a dynamic
> earth.
Why would a creator allow his creations to die out?
>
> Working backwards, there had to be at least one that was the original
> and created kind for their to only be 14 kinds during the days of
> Enoch.
If there were only one "created kind" then all life is descended from that
"kind", which is, by the way, what common descent tells us. All life is
descended from the same 'kind', which means that there's no barrier to
humans descending from other ape species.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>
> Do you actually believe life on this planet happened all by itself?
There's no reason to assume that it required any help.
>
> What about the universe?
What about it?
>
> That happened all by itself too?
Again, no reason to assume it must have had help.
>
> Did all of the matter just *poof* into existance?
No, it came as a result of physical laws. Incidentally, how would that
be different from what you are proposing?
>
> The matter was either created,
> or
>
> it *poofed* into existance all by itself. Which is magic my dear boy.
Both claims are magic. Science, on the other hand doesn't claim that
things 'poofed' into existence. Scientific explanations require testable
mechanisms.
DJT
Dan Listermann
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:nOudnSbuSN9imZHW...@bresnan.com...
This is where their special pleading kicks in.
.
EvoNewbie
> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>
> > > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> > > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> > just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>
> > Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>
> > I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
> > admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
> understand how such a creator would or could create. It may be a
> matter of our own limited perception and current perspective of the
> universe that prevents us from understanding.
>
> Whereas categorically stating that chemicals and organic matter got
> together by themselves with no outside cause or effect and produced
> spontaneous life does indeed invoke magic to the process.
Likewise
Claiming abiogenesis does not necessarily invoke magic until we can
understand how abiogenesis would or could result in life. It may be a
matter of our own limited perception and current perspective of the
universe that prevents us from understanding.
Whereas categorically stating that God created life without magic
would
result in an explaination of life that doesn't need God at all.
The difference in arguments here is that, from your view you must find
a way
to fit God in and there is no probability of anything else. Whereas
God from
the other view is still considered a probability only it is so small
it is patently
absurd to cliam that God did it.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 24, 4:53 am, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:54:21 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>> >> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>> >> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>> >> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>> >> So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
>> >> just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>> >> Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>> >> I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
>> >> admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>> >There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
>> >element that generated life on earth.
>> You're kidding! Right?!?!?!
>
>Not at all. In order for evolution to take place science has to invoke
>a magical senaro first in order to explain life.
Liar!
>This magical senaro
>suggests that all life came from lifeless material and it
>spontaneously rose all by itself from material that science knows is
>not alive.
>
>THAT is magic.
Liar!
>
>>
>> On what to you base this bald assertion about a higher probability of
>> an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (Read: ridiculously complex)
>> being compared to a far simpler self-replicating biochemical structure
>> in it's simplest form?
>
>You get an award for 'spinning' it the way you want it.
>
>It is far more complex to explain how life rose via an unproven
>chemical process then to simply admit "God Did It".
It is. No doubt about it.
But explain it science will. After thousands of years religion has not
been able to.
>
>Science cannot even explain what life is, but once that hurdle is
>overcome, one has to explain how that life came to be self generating
>and self replicating all by itself. For that matter, Do all of the
>necessary amino's and material even exist on earth for life to
>spontaneously rise by itself anyway?
Provide evidence they didn't.
>
>Yes. Science truly have to invoke magic
Liar!
> to explain all of this. And it
>does. To conceal that fact it hides this magic behind carefully
>crafted words and chosen phrases.
>
>Now to add insult to injury, after science makes up an exotic story
>about how life rose, science then continues to claim more magic
>happens.
Liar!
> How? By claiming that random mutations and natural selection
>causes a complete metamorphosis of one kind of life to the next over
>time. But the only thing that has actually been seen with human eyes
>is variation within the same kind of life. In fact, any of us can test
>variation in our own back yards with a garden or a litter of puppies.
Liar!
>
>All in all, I would say one of the prerequisites for being a scientist
>today is having a sound suspension of disbelief.
Liar!
>
>>
>> >The lower probability is to
>> >suggest all life happened by itself.
>>
>> Are you forgetting the first argument?
>
>Life was created.
Prove it.
>All species have an original and created kind.
Fox or wolf?
> This
>fits what we can see for ourselves and does not invoke magic.
>
>Why? Because there may be sound explainations that we have not
>discovered yet regarding how a creator (that is far beyond our
>capabilities) did the creating.
Magic?
>
>>
>> >One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we simply
>> >have not found the creator yet.
>>
>> Just because you are incapable (or perhaps just unwilling) to
>> understand a natural process does not make it 'magical'. Even if
>> science does not yet fully understand a given process down to its most
>> minute detail it still doesn't automatically make it 'magical'
>
>Standard "Pat Answer": "You are too stupid to understand, you are
>incapable of understanding"
In your case we know that is true.
>
>Any fool with 1/2 a brain
Something you can only aspire to.
> can see that most explanations involving the
>universe's origins and life's origins in general are wild exotic
>claims based on no real observations at all.
That is a out and out lie - and even a pathetic brain-dead moron like
you knows that.
> Have you seen a big bang
>generate a universe?
Yes - this one.
>Have you witnessed a population of fish giving
>rise to land animals?
Yes. On this planet.
>
>If the answer is "No". Then you are inferring from data to make up
>stories.
Good job you are the one that is wrong.
>
>But your data is only going to be as reliable as man is.
Which is much more reliable that you any your stupid religious
quackery.
>Which does
>not say much since man cannot hear as well as a dolphin or see as well
>as the common house pet can at night.
I see you have finally learnt that cats can't see in the dark. One
minor step towards a full education.
>
>IOW a creator of the universe could be standing next to you right now
>but you may not have the necessary perception and ability to see such
>a creator.
Because one is not necessary.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 24, 5:32 am, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 4:54 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>> > > > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>> > > > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>> > > > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> > > So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
>> > > just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>>
>> > > Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>>
>> > > I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
>> > > admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>>
>> > There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
>> > element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
>> > suggest all life happened by itself.
>>
>> > One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we simply
>> > have not found the creator yet.
>>
>> Where did this creator come from?
>
>Where did all of the matter that makes up the universe come from.
Energy.
>
>> You are just moving the starting point.
>
>That is what you are doing by asking such an irrelevant question.
Nope. You are wrong as usual.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 24, 6:01 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:54:21 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> >There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
>> >element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
>> >suggest all life happened by itself.
>>
>> hmmm...yes...you guys tried that 'creator' bullshit to explain the
>> weather, volcanoes, disease, planetary motion, etc.
>>
>> didn't work out, did it? we fould scientific explanations for all
>> those
>>
>> but you go ahead...you keep on with your wizard of oz view of nature.
>>
>> the rest of the human race will use science. that works.
>>
>>
>>
>> >One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we simply
>> >have not found the creator yet.
>>
>> in 300 years science found what your wizard hasnt found...how life
>> develops. you just can't handle the truth
>
>ATTEN Lurkers: This is what happens when gate gurads get to have a
>computer in the guard house.
ATTN Lurkers: This is what you get when inmates at the nuthouse get a
computer in their cells.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 9:03�am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 6:53�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In the "I'm too dumb to understand" catagory
>>
>> > On Nov 24, 8:44�am, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > In the "Probability for Dummies" category,
>>
>> > > >> >> There is a higher probability there was a creator or an outside
>> > > >> >> element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
>> > > >> >> suggest all life happened by itself.
>>
>> > > >> > Upon what do you base that probability? �Show your work(math).
>>
>> > > >This is not a mathamatical problem.
>>
>> > > >That is one of the reasons why you guys fall for anything. You are
>> > > >just too dumb to see what is taking place.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Well, you see, you make a mathematical assertion. We ask to see the
>> ath which led to that assertion, then you claim it's not mathematical.
>>
>> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>ATEN LURKERS: Now they think math = magic
No, shit-for-brains, no one thinks that, except maybe you.
It is just that your sorry, ignorant, goat-smelling ass is cluelessly
oblivious to the fact that Probability is the branch of mathematics
that studies the likelihood of occurrence of random events in order to
predict the behavior of defined systems.
You were asked to show how you arrived at your stated probabilities,
and to nobody's surprise, you failed grotesquely to even understand
the request, which is typical of the intellectual level of
functionality for a fundie cretin, such as yourself.
Eric Root
Well, he _is_ a fundamentalist. All of his thoughts come out of his
fundament.
Eric Root
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
If they ask for money. Don't trust them.
Which knocks out 90% of the man made religions and about 89% of
science
Which leaves us with around 10% trying to find the truth.
Sad eh?
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
>> just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>>
>> Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>>
>> I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
>> admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
>Claiming God created does not necessarily invoke magic
Of course it does.
> until we can
>understand how such a creator would or could create.
Magic - the bible tells you so.
> It may be a
>matter of our own limited perception and current perspective of the
>universe that prevents us from understanding.
You will never understand anything.
>
>Whereas categorically stating that chemicals and organic matter got
>together by themselves with no outside cause or effect and produced
>spontaneous life does indeed invoke magic to the process.
No it does not.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 24, 5:47 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24 Nov, 09:37, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>> Have you any objective evidence to support this claim?
>
>The complexity of the life itself.
Life became complex through evolution.
>
>> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> Since when have physics and chemistry ever involved any magic?
>
>Since it tries to create life.
>
>Has life as we know it, using physics and chemistry, ever been
>generated in a lab for observation?
We have been trying for about 60 years. The Earth took about 4-600
million years.
We have a few small labs. Nature had the entire planet.
>
>If it cannot happen in an controlled environment, how would you expect
>it to generate life all by itself without magic?
No magic involved.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 24, 8:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> > get real.
>>
>> Do you have any evidence for this "original" and "created" kind? (By the
>> way, are you saying there was only one?) But if abiogenesis is magic,
>> what word could you use for pulling a kind out of your hat?
>
>I have given an example of this before.
No, you haven't.
>
>There were 14 kinds of evergreens during the days of Enoch. There are
>many more today because the evergreens have given rise to more
>variations of evergreens.
Most imported from areas the authors of those stories had never been
to.
>Some have died out to allow new variations to exist on a dynamic
>earth.
>
>Working backwards, there had to be at least one that was the original
>and created kind for their to only be 14 kinds during the days of
>Enoch.
So, carnivores. Which was the first of that kind?
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 24, 9:14 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 1:37 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>>
>> Evidence?
>>
>> Ah, right, you don't depend on evidence, you insist that we depend on
>> *your "special perceptions", which are indistinguishable from
>> delusions - even to you.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
>> > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>>
>> Well, that's one alternative, which I agree is very nearly as silly as
>> assuming, without evidence, that a magical being created itself, then
>> made a whole universe in order to put bioligcal creatures that looked
>> just like him on a thin film on one little pebble.
>>
>> Why does Yahweh have eyelashes?
>> Does he have genitals? Why? What happened to Mrs. God (there used to
>> be one)?
>>
>> Another alternative to Yahweh and also to magical planets is:
>> A universe is born entirely thru natural processes (from previous
>> universes). Entirely natural chemical processes on at least one,
>> probably many, planets led to life. On at least one of those planets,
>> tool-making intelligence developed. That last process we know quite a
>> bit about.
>>
>> What about this do you find problematic? Please note that your
>> ignorance of science is not actually a problem, either for the
>> universe (nature) or for our collective understanding of it (science).
>>
>>
>>
>> > get real.
>>
>> You, who deny evidence that implies conclusions you don't like, and
>> who admits that you do not believe this world we see is ultimately
>> real in some important way, want us to get real? You deny reality!
>>
>>
>>
>> > Sheesh.
>>
>> Willikers.
>>
>> Kermit
>
>Do you actually believe life on this planet happened all by itself?
Yes.
>
>What about the universe?
Totally.
>
>That happened all by itself too?
Yes.
>
>Did all of the matter just *poof* into existance?
No, there was no matter to start with - it was all energy. Matter came
a lot later.
>
>The matter was either created,
>or
>
>it *poofed* into existance all by itself.
No, matter is just frozen energy.
> Which is magic my dear boy.
There is no such thing as magic.
--
Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't
make an exception for the last one.
Boikat
> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>
> > > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> > just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>
> > Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>
> > I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
> > admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
> understand how such a creator would or could create.
"Magic" would seem to fit the bill.
> It may be a
> matter of our own limited perception and current perspective of the
> universe that prevents us from understanding.
Yes. Reality sucks.
>
> Whereas categorically stating that chemicals and organic matter got
> together by themselves with no outside cause or effect and produced
> spontaneous life does indeed invoke magic to the process.
If you define "magic" as "Anything AS-I(diot) doesn't understand",
like the basic principles of chemistry and physics, then "yes".
However, your inability to understand, or even attempt to understand,
those principles does not mean the rest of humanity sees those
principles as "magic". So, in reality, there is no "magic" invoked.
Just your stupidity.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
[cut to da point]
> We don't have to categorically state that natural processes exist. We
> only have to point out that your assertions are not evidence that
> there is anything else.
Kermit, I wish I could get you to understand how insane that sounds.
That is synonymous to sticking your head in the sand and pretending
the tide is not rising because YOU cannot see the white caps of the
waves rolling in.
I have tried to explain, but you just do not get it.
You DO have to hear my points. Because they are backed up by people
long ago that claimed they saw something or experienced something that
you disallow based on the premise that you cannot test for it.
If you are smart you will accept what may be correct with or without
your kind of evidence. Because the kind of evidence you want is based
on a man made science that will only be as accurate as man is. Which
is not saying much.
How can someone of your obvious intelligence not understand THAT?
Mankind has only scratched the surface of understanding.
To ignore what ancient people have claimed may be true is not
scientific.
If this was a SINGLE and ISOLATED group of people saying "There is a
creator"; Then you MIGHT have a point. But that is not the case.
What we have here is every major culture on this planet over many
thousands of years singing the same tune that there is a creator.
But you want to deny that may be true based on a science that is known
to have flaws and need revisions as new discoveries are found.
How do you know you have not found the right science that will show a
creator yet? You don't. So you stick your head in the sand and ignore
all other types of evidence as you let the waves wash over you.
Have a nice swim.
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> If this was a SINGLE and ISOLATED group of people saying "There is a
> creator"; Then you MIGHT have a point. But that is not the case.
>
> What we have here is every major culture on this planet over many
> thousands of years singing the same tune that there is a creator.
How would they know, they weren't there at the creation? That's not
even eyewitness testimony (which would be weak enough).
[...]
Baron Bodissey
> On Nov 24, 3:42 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
> > > All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> > > The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> > > generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
> > So according to you it's either a magical planet or an invisible (or
> > just absent, I suppose) magical Creator?
>
> > Why is the invisible magical Creator the better option, of the two?
>
> > I mean, at least we can see the planet. It's not obviously magical,
> > admittedly, but perhaps the magicness decays over time or something.
>
> element that generated life on earth. The lower probability is to
> suggest all life happened by itself.
>
> One notion invokes a pure magical process, the other suggest we simply
> have not found the creator yet.
You've heard of Occam's Razor? How is postulating that life arose and
evolved through purely natural means that are known and have been
observed is of lower probability than blaming it on a supernatural
force FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE other than your own incredulity?
You better go back and learn something about probability, or quit
using words you don't understand.
Baron Bodissey
The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but
that they know so many things that ain't so.
– Mark Twain
All-seeing-I
wrote:
Ask any evolutionist here...
Eye witness does not count for much
Or are you applying the typical evolutionist double standard here?
All-seeing-I
> On Nov 24, 7:05 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 8:44 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 24, 8:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Do you have any evidence for this "original" and "created" kind? (By the
> > > > way, are you saying there was only one?) But if abiogenesis is magic,
> > > > what word could you use for pulling a kind out of your hat?
>
> > > I have given an example of this before.
>
> > > many more today because the evergreens have given rise to more
> > > to exist on a dynamic earth.
>
> > > Working backwards, there had to be at least one that was the original
> > > and created kind for their to only be 14 kinds during the days of
> > > Enoch.
>
> > mentions one-eyed giant cyclops living on a Mediterranean island. It
> > must be true since it was written down long ago. Why don't the
> > scientists dig up the one-eyed cyclops fossils? It must be some sort
> > of liberal scientific conspiracy.
>
> They *have:http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/cyclops02.htm
>
> Boy, don't you look silly.
>
> <reads article>
>
> Oh...
>
> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
meaningless garbage.
try an apple to apple comparison.
As hard as I realize that will be for those of you that have such a
broad suspension of disbelief.
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
No evidence, therefore *DISMISSED!*
Try again.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
R. Baldwin
2f9b7a...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
>
> The alternative is to believe this is a magical planet that can
> generate life all by itself with no outside help
>
>
> get real.
>
> Sheesh.
>
How is that the only alternative?
Boikat
That's what he just said, you illiterate twit.
>
> Or are you applying the typical evolutionist double standard here?
Damn, your dense.
Boikat