Okay, Mr. Smug: You're avoiding the issues (and I think you know it). Here's another one for you: We both know the amino acids must link together in a chain and then fold into an exacting irregular structure, i.e. a protein. The chance of each amino acid finding the correct bond is one in twenty; the chance of one hundred amino acids hooking up to successfully make a functional protein is one in 10^30!
Stu, you are heading off the logic reservation here. Let us consider the key tenet of the anthropocentric view: 1 Regarding humans as the central element of the universe. Questions regarding the morality of God cannot be anthropocentric by definition, Stu, because if God exists then God is the center of the universe and man is not, and therefore the main regard of anthropocentrism is simply wrong. Proposing God inherently proposes anthropocentrism false. This is so simple and obvious that I fail to see how you miss the point, unless you are not really thinking about what I am saying and sticking to shallow water for time's sake. If man is defined in relation to God, then morality is defined in relation to God. An anthropocentric argument is one in which man is the highest standard and the ultimate source of judgment. If there is in actuality a higher standard and more ultimate source of judgment, then anthropocentric arguments no longer apply. The ony self defeating contradiction here is that you are missing what I am saying, to the point where I am almost tempted to pull out an old formal logic textbook. I'm also disappointed you turned down my challenge. Who said you had to go away? I would be reading your texts as well, does that mean I would go away? I eat this stuff for lunch- I'll be reading Bertrand Russell again fairly soon anyway. I would have been curious to see how casually you would have tossed off 'puff the magic dragon' arguments after swimming in deep waters of logic and reason for hundreds of pages and been forced to strain your brain in crafting a structured response that required far more thought and consideration than simple sound bite objections that miss the main thrust. But I guess you would rather dismiss the opponent as weak than actually stand up and examine the strength of what you casually disregard. I invite you to go deeper into reason with me, to put your mind where your mouth is, and you chicken out. Who is proceeding on blind faith here Stu?
I don't want to quibble with #s with you. I will research your protest about Morowitz's numbers: I don't have the answers right now. But your strategy is not going to work: I make 5 or 6 major points about Origin of Life research and you grab one numerical calculation and attack it! Even if I'm off by 100 zeros, it doesn't change the facts! I will say this again: DNA/RNA research as to the origin of life research is dead! They've all but given up! Since 1979, articles based on the premise that life arose through chance random reactions in DNA/RNA over billions of years are not accepted in any reputable journal. Here's what you are avoiding: Morowitz does NOT believe life arose through DNA/RNA and has gone on the Krebs cycle! If you won't believe me, then believe him!
Let's review the facts again: 1. Origin of life research is in complete disarray. 2. Virtually no reputable researchers are proposing that life formed through RNA/DNA. 3. The atmosphere was virtually impossible to live in due to asteroid, meteor and comet bombardments. 4. The atmosphere was oxidizing rendering amino acid formation virtually impossible. 5. The first cell was irreduciably complex, requiring at least 7 systems to be functioning simultaneously.
I go back to my previous post: Suppose just for a minute that deism/theism/pantheism is true. Then we would expect to see the following events: 1. The beginning of the universe explodes from a First Cause singularity in 9+ space dimensions with a very real possibility of 2+ time dimensions as well. 2. Explosions do not lead to order, yet this one settles into a universe that is HIGHLY tuned for advanced life. 3. The solar system is HIGHLY tuned for advanced life. 4. Lifeâs origin baffles science because it appears so suddenly w/o any plausible natural explanation. Many prominent scientists are so shocked that they become open to the idea of deistic, theistic or pantheistic involvement. 5. The entire globe is covered with billions of people reporting supernatural phenomenon. (theistic only) What do you actually find on the globe? 1. The beginning of the universe explodes from a First Cause singularity in 9+ space dimensions with a very real possibility of 2+ time dimensions as well. 2. Explosions do not lead to order, yet this one settles into a universe that is HIGHLY tuned for advanced life. 3. The solar system is HIGHLY tuned for advanced life. 4. Lifeâs origin baffles science because it appears so suddenly w/o any plausible natural explanation. Many prominent scientists are so shocked that they become open to the idea of deistic, theistic or pantheistic involvement. 5. The entire globe is covered with billions of people reporting supernatural phenomenon. (theistic only) I ask the question again: what gives you guys the right to label deists/theists/pantheists as silly, myth believers? You have no right of course! A deistic/theistic/pantheistic model is a perfectly good model that explains many important historical scientific events that materialism cannot explain! And many major scientists (I have listed at least 30 and I can go on if you would like) that feel the same way.
Again, I'm not saying this proves God! It only proves that your model has some weaknesses and that you should not be trash-talking all non-materialist views. Stu, you have gotten better about this, but the other three continue it ad nauseum. Let me ask this: have I ever said to you guys, "You guys are unicorn believers for believing in an origin through RNA/DNA"? I would have a strong scientific argument for doing so, but I prefer NOT to do so because I cannot completely disprove the materialist model. This is all I'm saying...
Look, let's put it another way. It's fashionable in our society now to trash Chrisitians. But in another recent thread on chit chat, aphie said that there were many Jews on this board and, if so, then probably many of them are orthodox and conservative. What gives you guys the right to insult and demean them as "unicorn believers" in light of current science? That is the type of question that I am asking and that you guys are avoiding.
You really need to take a critical thinking course. This is nothing but one big fallacious appeal to authority, coupled with Ad Hominem attacks and strawmen. axeman ______________________________________ Boy you got that right! All this appeal to the "higher authority" of critical thinking courses is really high. Lay the teachings of the academic "critical thinkers" beside the teachings of Christ or the Talmud before any group of non-biased people and see which one wins. Next reveal the personal moral lives of each side of the teachers and see what the outcome is.