666...the Devils Moving Average

***************************************************
"Here's what I am saying: nothing is going right for the Origin of Life researchers. They have the WORST imaginable conditions in the early earth for the creation of life by mechanistic processes: meteors, comets, asteroids, an oxidizing atmosphere and an EXTREMELY short time span."

Your claim of short contradicts reality. It's an opinion.
Who are you to say this is short?
****************************************************
If you won't accept my opinion, then accept the opinion of Morowitz, Crick, Hoyle, Oparin, Dean Kenyon, Michael Polanyi, etc., etc. They would all be willing to admit doubts unlike you guys.

Read your guys' previous posts. You always throw out the opinion of anyone, including great scientific minds, that disagree with you. Essentially, you are saying: "We can only allow materialistic evidences and we throw out anything that does not agree with materialism." This is a sure way to "victory": throw out the opinion of every great scholar that disagrees with you.
 
***************************************************

"You can argue with me if you want about little details, but that does not change the overlying facts. There is no way currently to explain how this could possibly happen by any known process in this short of a time frame. "

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Fact is, IT HAPPENED. We just haven't figured out how.
******************************************************
Yes it did happen. That's my point. It happened and it shouldn't have according to many of our foremost scientists.
 
***************************************************
" In fact, I will go so far as to say it is IMPOSSIBLE to occur by any known process."
Now THAT is a blatant assertion you have NO WAY of backing up.
***************************************************

The key is that I said "known process". By that I meant that Origin of Life researchers do not know by what mechanism life came about. And a prominent number of them do not believe that it is even reasonably possible in the time frame given. Period.
 
"Well, no doubt to YOU it seems like a cop out."

It doesn't SEEM like a cop out, it IS a cop out.
Get the facts straight alfonso.

I might as well say that the three headed purple unicorn
which created the universe is BEYOND human logic, so
that anything you say about it is irrelevant.

Pretty silly idea huh? Yeah...it's a COP OUT.
Because to make such an assertion I first must prove
my three headed purple unicorn exists.
I do no have license to simply "wave away" human reason
with my magical wand.


" Then again, I've never for one moment believed you have any intention whatsoever of gaining any kind of greater understanding about God."

I used to be a theist. I discovered the flaws in my thinking.
Gaining understanding about something requires that it
first EXISTS. Oooopps.... care to prove that Alfonso?
Didn't think so.

" You're just so intent on parading around your worn out old atheist rhetoric that you are one person on here that I am convinced routinely misses the forest for the trees. Which is a pity, because there's obvious intellect there."

Lol.... worn out rhetoric? You mean the logic that consistently
shoots down the worn out ancient theistic arguments that
have FAILED to prove that god exists for thousands of years? :)

Why don't you show all the clueless atheists where the
forest is Alfonso, with a proof de force that no one can deny?
Go ahead... I CHALLENGE you. Until then, take your grand standing
to someone who will be impressed by it.


"Anyway, I'm amazed that for such a strict adherent to logic that the logical truth that you cannot know if something was optimally designed or not until you know what it was designed to optimally do has escaped you. Talk about bias. "

I'm NOT the one claiming "intelligent design".
It amazes me that you are incapable of determining wether
something so obviously flawed was intelligently designed
when a beginning engineer could make better choices.

A mother giraffe pops her children out, and drops them 6+ feet
onto their heads, killing them sometimes.
GREAT design there! :D

Oh yes yes... "God has a greator purpose for this beyond
what your tiny human brain could possibly understand"

Whatever.... these are mere fairytales. It doesn't take
a rocket scientist to realize you could have given the beast
the ability to kneel for a moment to give birth. :D

If you have to appeal to "unknown reasons" from an "unproven god", then your really hurting for a rational position.

When you actually have a real argument to put forth, instead
of empty assertions and appeals to unproven entities,
come back to the table.


peace

axeman
 
This begs the question, HOW did life start on the alien planet???

It doesn't move the argument in either direction at all.

We may in FACT have been impregnated by an alien "life seed".
This still doesn't explain how life started in the universe.


peace

axeman


Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

By the way, you guys are forgetting another key fact: the Origin of Life situation is so desperate that many of the greatest scientists of the 20th century have played with or even turned to panspermia, the idea the first life on earth was seeded from outer space.

1) Oparin, the apostle of the biotic soup, wrote about an "infection" from space.
2) Hoyle, one of the 10 most famous astrophysicists of this century, wrote several books on the subject including the Astronomical Origins of Life: Steps towards Panspermia
3) Frances Crick, codiscoverer of DNA, wrote about it in his 1973 paper "Directed Panspermia".

There are others as well: these are just the big guns.

You don't get any more famous and impressive list of scientists than this. This is the equivalent of Soros, Buffett and Lynch all weighing in on investing. Would any of these men have speculated about life coming from outside our solar system if things were looking good right here on earth? Of course not.

Plus, has anybody heard of a movie called Contact?
More...
 
Now I expect 2 or 3 types answers from the creationists,
maybe more...

1) It IS a good design.... (rejecting reality)

2) There is some hidden greator purpose in the supposed flaw
that a mere human couldn't possibly understand (cop out)

3) God can make mistakes ( but is smart enough to create
an incredibly universe with 50+ vars just right for life , uhhhh no )
Axeman
___________________________________________

1) It is a good design. Here you are again not seeing things as they are but as you are. Since you totally reject the creator and His word that tells why He created things in the way He did you are creating a straw man to attack. We are rejecting your limited and prejudiced reality.
There are many genetic defects in all creatures and many if not most are lethal. In one large scale trial lasting over 80 years now selective close breeding (varying degrees of close relationship) has shown that of the 64 unique families or lines that started the test 63 developed a fatal flaw. These flaws didn't appear for several generations of close and inbreeding. The flaws varied but one I remember was no testes in any of the males in I believe the seventh generation. Guess what, that is a fatal flaw for that family.These flaws were caused by the mating of very close relations.
Now Leviticus 18 gives instructions about not doing this close breeding and now from scientific experiments we can see why.
The questioin still remains as to why God would program in these fatal flaws. a. The reason to me is that we are not allowed to live forever because of a curse brought on by our own decision. b. The only way we have known to direct the micro-evolution in animals, to design a superior animal, was to try to concentrate and cause to be reliable the desired traits and the known practice has been to close breed to concentrate the genetics. This practice, however, has produced side effects that are not desirable. The other big issue in this selective breeding example that gives another slant for the need for fatal flaws is that in the above example. If through selective breeding 63 families and the diversity of their varying genetic traits are bred into extinction then their genetic diversity is lost forever and if some future change in the environment (economic or natural) requires adaptation, the necessary traits may have been lost that one of those 63 fataly flawed had possessed.

2. Man should be able to understand the above but maybe you can't through prejudice and yes there is a greater purpose easilily identified in the flaws.

3. No mistake, only on your part to demand to see things as you are.
 
You need to CITE these people in context first.
Get me a quote where each of these guys claim
the time is too short, and based on what facts.

Then get me quotes from the other guys in their
field that shows they are in agreement with these guys
so I know your not cherry picking here.


If any scientist actually claims that it was impossible for
life to evovle within this time limit, when it actually DID,
he/she is obviously wrong.


peace

axeman




Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

***************************************************
"Here's what I am saying: nothing is going right for the Origin of Life researchers. They have the WORST imaginable conditions in the early earth for the creation of life by mechanistic processes: meteors, comets, asteroids, an oxidizing atmosphere and an EXTREMELY short time span."

Your claim of short contradicts reality. It's an opinion.
Who are you to say this is short?
****************************************************
If you won't accept my opinion, then accept the opinion of Morowitz, Crick, Hoyle, Oparin, Dean Kenyon, Michael Polanyi, etc., etc. They would all be willing to admit doubts unlike you guys.

Read your guys' previous posts. You always throw out the opinion of anyone, including great scientific minds, that disagree with you. Essentially, you are saying: "We can only allow materialistic evidences and we throw out anything that does not agree with materialism." This is a sure way to "victory": throw out the opinion of every great scholar that disagrees with you.
More...
 
Post the quotes that say life should NOT have happened
by these guys.

"There is no way currently to explain how this could possibly happen by any known process in this short of a time frame. "

"By known processes".
Isn't that true of ALL science, until the missing pieces are found?
What is the big deal here?

Your basically saying that science hasn't figured out exactly
how life spawned on earth billions of years ago.

Who is claiming that they did???

What exactly are you arguing against?

1) Life appeared on earth
2) Science has some theories on the how

End of story.


Is this thread about proving there are holes in science
for you? If so... just end it, I think that is clear.

If this thread is about providing evidence for god, or
proving that god exists, then drop the science attacks
and get to work.

I'm still waiting for the first proof or shred of evidence.


peace

axeman




Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

***************************************************

"You can argue with me if you want about little details, but that does not change the overlying facts. There is no way currently to explain how this could possibly happen by any known process in this short of a time frame. "

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Fact is, IT HAPPENED. We just haven't figured out how.
******************************************************
Yes it did happen. That's my point. It happened and it shouldn't have according to many of our foremost scientists.
More...
 
****************************************
It strikes me as odd that this is even debated.
Scientists can produce lots of data, lab experiments, etc.
What can the ID guys produce? Just words and attacks.
******************************************
Wrong. ID guys can produce a model that works imo better than materialism for the the following three major phenomenon:

1. Origin of the Universe
2. Origin of Life
3. Supernatural
 
Remember, we are talking about models. Does our model satisfy the extraordinary events that we see on planet earth. Imo materialism fails and ID has a reasonable explanation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top