Search results

oh oh, you've been sussed Jem.

from your post 584 / my emphasis: "Right behavior (morality) is defined as actions based in truth and not causing harm to others and wrong action being the opposite, so if right action is based in truth and is absolute by definition ...." How are you not defining "Right behavior (morality)"...

Inevitable outcomes from natural forces require no 'designer'.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... but absence is.

"Sciences (physical, biological, mathematical/cosmological, social, medical, chemical, psychological, philosophical, etc.) are meant to find the theoretical or observable frameworks individually of God's things!" Occam's razor. "It's futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer"

Quantum Mechanic's unsurpassed track record for precise and accurate predictions, describes how Uranium decays or a quantum of light occurs without cause.

Evolution. random chance or design is not the question, they just beg one.

If he's talking "Jesus and God" he certainly isn't talking science.

Inevitable outcome of natural forces. What is it about that statement that restricts your comprehension so much you can only think of words like 'random chance'.

You're rambling again. The lack of resourcefulness of thought you apply to the issue by limiting everything to either blind faith that god did it, or random chance, or multiverse, in order to exclude the obvious, is pitiful. Not faith but science, math, physics, knowledge of the physical...

You have been the one saying random chance. You're the dick accusing others of believing in it. Faith doesn't have reason That's why its called faith Yeah reason. Chemicals, environment, evolution. "(having nothing to do with the purposes of any agent)" Do you really not understand how...

With the right environment, the chemicals which are the building blocks of life, can produce life. That's why they are called the building blocks of life. What do you expect them to do? :rolleyes: Irrespective of any of pathway, bottom line is a toss up between natural chemical evolution...

12. Conclusion My argument has been that the following combination of attitudes is misguided: (i) Even if we do yet have an adequate explanation of life’s emergence, knowledge of the physical, chemical, and biological conditions that life requires makes it extremely implausible that life simply...

No problem Captain I respect that. But it isn't the science we were speaking of. I just think it wrong to mix the two.

I know you struggle a lot with rationality but you should stop reading your tuner creator into stuff all the time .It clearly makes you get very angry. There would be nothing more likely or obvious than the universe being hardwired to produce life from the inevitable outcomes of natural...

The Science of Chemical Evolution is scientific theory. It is as your link states, the science for abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the process by which life would arise from non living organisms, supported by that theory. It's a stretch to say Abiogenesis is a scientific theory in its own right...

You think natural evolution needs pre-programming? :D It's about change due to environment. Now that your random chance red-herring bs has completely run out of steam, you should take a stab at why the inevitable outcome of natural evolving forces, which are observed all the time throughout...

jink:D

If abiogenesis is a theory as you say, then it is in any case supported by scientific evidence and as such....is evidence. Apparently the obvious choices for origin of life is chemical reaction, of which the whole universe permeates, or an unexplained and unexplainable magic trick by an...