Atheists Prevaricating

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from stu:

mmmm, like that gravity one. DUH

Well okay since science can't seem to find 1 , just 1 graviton I really don't find it all that surprising they are a little lost on the proof for god concept.


Likewise it make little sense to presume God and gravity don't exist just because of the limitations of scientists.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Lucrum:

Yes

Fair enough.

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

There is no PROOF life came from non-life, but there are plenty of facts, theories and observations that support it. A logical mind, educated in the basics of protobiology and biology must conclude it does. Someone who places God somewhere between a sterile earth and 2.5 billion years of single-celled life is desperately grasping at insubstantial straws.

right...only that the best minds in the field state that those 2.5 billions years are not likely enough time to have life form by random chance.

its why they suggest directed evolution... pan spermia... etc.

 

[stu]

Quote from Lucrum:
My only real position on this is that we don't know with 100% certainty.

Well I see from your apparent honesty in above posts , that may not be your only real position on this.

My only real position on this is not having 100% certainty is no good reason to grant other supernatural stuff equal or any standing for that matter alongside the degree of certainty that IS gained by scientific knowledge.

Though I do not claim 100% certainty, I notice there is only one side in these topics to which you remark against. It is not against the certainty implied and impressed by those who try to push supernatural notions where they don't belong.

Quote from Lucrum:
How exactly does gravity prove that wrong?

How does it? I didn't say it did.
Don't you remember? "It's just a theory" ... engenders the reply... so is gravity.

You apparently prefer to assume, that because I will not accept religious hocus pocus as a rational counter argument, I'm claiming 100% certainty. But that's just another of those '..old standby responses when you've got noting else. ' Isn't it!

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
right...only that the best minds in the field state that those 2.5 billions years are not likely enough time to have life from by random chance.

its why they suggest directed evolution... pan spermia... etc.

Do you suppose if you keep endlessly repeating the same wrong and widely debunked stuff, it will magic itself into being right?

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Do you suppose if you keep endlessly repeating the same wrong and widely debunked stuff, it will magic itself into being right?

I present nothing but scientists and scientific fact and observation. you present b.s. and troll misdirections.

you have not once presented any scientist or scientific proof saying they know how life formed during those 2.5 billion years. There are no complete pathways... just speculations about parts of the pathway.

you know how the reader knows you are a troll.
Because if you could present the evidence you claim you have, or the facts, you would have a noble prize.


so once again... you are a fraudulent lying troll.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stu:

Well I see from your apparent honesty in above posts , that may not be your only real position on this.

My only real position on this is not having 100% certainty is no good reason to grant other supernatural stuff equal or any standing for that matter alongside the degree of certainty that IS gained by scientific knowledge.

I don't recall saying anything about "equal standing".

Though I do not claim 100% certainty...

That's good to know, you sure could have fooled me though.

How does it? I didn't say it did.

Quote from stu:
09-22-12 06:15 PM
Gravity just proves you wrong

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

right...only that the best minds in the field state that those 2.5 billions years are not likely enough time to have life form by random chance.

its why they suggest directed evolution... pan spermia... etc.

You misunderstand me, I mean life sat around for 2.5 billion years as single-celled organisms after the first cells came about. And certainly, the best minds in the field understand the basics of how the first cells may have come about after the earth settled down, and they came about much more quickly than 2.5 billion years. More like 0.5 billion years. It then took a while for the oxygen levels to come up enough to support aerobic respiration and higher life forms.

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

You misunderstand me, I mean life sat around for 2.5 billion years as single-celled organisms after the first cells came about. And certainly, the best minds in the field understand the basics of how the first cells may have come about after the earth settled down, and they came about much more quickly than 2.5 billion years. More like 0.5 billion years. It then took a while for the oxygen levels to come up enough to support aerobic respiration and higher life forms.

so you think life began in what time period in the earths history?
I think you are confused as to when science believes life could have first formed.

 

[stu]

Quote from Lucrum:

Quote from stu:
09-22-12 06:15 PM
Gravity just proves you wrong

... is a 100% certainty claim? I don't think so.

Quote from Lucrum:

I don't recall saying anything about "equal standing".

Quote from Lucrum:

That's good to know, you sure could have fooled me though