Stu says he believes non life evolved into life based on random chance and pretending his argument is the one others should have to dispute. His argument is essentially asking those who do not share his belief to disprove the fact there is a teapot orbiting pluto. Afterall, there is no scientific proof that life evolved from non life. Note. I did not use russells analogy because here are pictures of a teapot orbiting saturn. http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/134 Believing in random chance in the equivalent of believing in a sky ferry which brought life here. (pan spermia.) Some Atheists like stu have a problem separating zealous atheistic hope from scientific fact and observation. Finally stu's asks you to observe the fact life is here and conclude random chance. That argument, at best, is identical to observeing complexity and concluding designer.
And you're saying a man in the sky took out his wand and created the universe out of nothingness in 7 days...
Lol. Like all ridiculous things God can't be defined or reasoned into existence . Well congratulations anyway for recognizing that much.
I'm not saying that, nor have I said anything like that. I see though as your position is completely collapsed by now, you have to sink into more false argument and that silly no belief is belief routine again. Lol You didn't use Russell's teapot. Why? You really have no clue do you. Go on explain, exactly how is that Russell's Teapot? On second thoughts don't bother, youâd only get even more weird.. What was it again about your imaginary creator that gets you so bothered about abiogenesis you need to get this absurd about everything? Oh thatâs right , that much you wonât say.
Why do you keep repeating the same false idea. I have told you many times abiogensis would not be contrary to my faith. For that matter the bible says God made Adam out of the dust from the ground. So it looks like it would not matter to most. Stu, this has always been about your lies and your false statemetns about random chance. You were the person who claimed science had plenty of proof for the evolution from non life to life.
Where did I tell you there was science for that. For that matter why would you assume time is absolute and not relative. Finally there seems to have been a lot creating before there was light. This debate has been about random chance and the lack of proof that random chance played a part in the creation of life.
Ok it is established, unless you change track again, abiogenesis, as well as evolution, would not be contrary to your religious faith. If that is the case, why keep misrepresenting and falsely claiming what I and others say about evolution and abiogenesis, as you have above for example? What's the point? "You were the person who claimed science had plenty of proof for the evolution from non life to life." Completely untrue. Where did I ever claim such a thing ? It is a scientific fact that chemical reaction forms organic compounds from inorganic material. So the properties characteristic of living organisms arise from non living matter. Abiogenesis. What problem do you have with that if it's not a religious one, such as you have to keep misrepresenting it? "this has always been about your lies and your false statemetns about random chance" What lies? What false statements? Show them. Do you imagine that all natural chemical processes work by some sort of magical reaction you call random chance? Chemical reactions that form organic compounds from inorganic material is a natural process. Wtf has random chance got to do with that? Fact is, science in abiogenesis is amazing. Ramifications and understanding it provides so far are awesome. Just what do you really have against it? It's about the origin of life understood through empiric grounding, or through a set of fantasized imaginary beliefs about a wizard god creator which can obviously have no corresponding evidence whatsoever. Your unyielding beliefs against reality want it to be the latter. That'll be your problem.
regarding your quote about having plenty of science. You pull this bullshit every few pages... Go back about 10 pages and you will see your quote and a link to the page one of the pages where you stated it. regarding organic compounds... wtf - why do you keep using new words to say the same thing. Who are you trying to fool? Miller urey found organic compounds 60 years ago, that is not new info. You said you have proof of life... not organic compounds.
this is a response to your denial just a few days ago. if I were smart I would save it in word because if you live up to your troll form you will be denying it again.
Jem, either put up or shut up. Where do I ever claim ..."science had plenty of proof for the evolution from non life to life ".... as you've falsely stated. Oh and I'm truly sorry for using new words . Obviously any words which actually represent the science and which you have haven't changed or misrepresented will be new to you. There are any number of advancements since Miller-Uray. You've been given many references but being ignorant of them, including not being bothered to check the right name, is essential to your position. In fussing about abiogenesis like you are , you're essentially trying to suggest you accept there is such a thing as conception, but no matter what the science shows, it doesn't prove a child will be the outcome. No matter how science explains how all the essential ingredients for life can form naturally from inorganic material, you don't consider life must be the outcome. How absurd. What do you expect will be the outcome. Plastic effigies of jesus? The link you made does nothing to support your false assertions. Are you going to properly explain what the hell you are talking about or is this one of those creationist things where you think coming up with any bullshit is equivalent to proving something.