Quote from jem:
l kabong, nice science snipet... buy you realize you are a long way from showing a complete pathway from non life to life by random chance. a really long way.
Quote from L-Kabong:
I never said the emergence of life from non life is by pure chance.
My contention is life's emergence is most likely agent free and
a result of the inherent properties of nature. Life is probably inevitable and will probably be found one day to be universal.
And if I could map out the pathway of non life to life, I'd have a Nobel Prize.
Quote from jem:
the nobel prize line is what I have been using with clowns like Stu who claim they have plenty of evidence of life evolving from non life. I kept telling Stu produce the evidence he claimed he had and he would win a Nobel Prize.
so, since our positions on this subject are virtually identical but for the fact you speculate abiogenesis is agent free and I speculate there was an Agent, what is your challenge regarding?
Quote from stu:
The false claims element of Religion 101.
Quote from jem:
the nobel prize line is what I have been using with clowns like Stu who claim they have plenty of evidence of life evolving from non life. I kept telling Stu produce the evidence he claimed he had and he would win a Nobel Prize.
so, since our positions on this subject are virtually identical but for the fact you speculate abiogenesis is agent free and I speculate there was an Agent, what is your challenge regarding?
Quote from L-Kabong:
It depends on what role you think an agent plays. If you think an agent started it and nurtured it from the big bang to present, I think our positions are significantly different. If you feel an agent started it all - the universe - and invested nature with properties that led to the creation of life, then we are not far apart. Our only difference in the latter example is who or what is responsible.
Of course, If one visits RCG girl's pictorium, one delights in the vast beauty of life within a one mere species on one small planet in one average galaxy, regardless of belief. Perhaps it is not coincidental that so many scream "oh God" in the throes of ecstasy.
Quote from jem:
if you ask my scientific position, I have no data so I do not make the call.
If you ask my faith...
I suspect time is irrelevant to a Creator, there may be no before, after, during.. .So more than likely the Creator set it all in motion.
However, it could very well seem to us like there has been some timely intervention.
But again, i know the difference between my faith and what science currently thinks.
I married so I have no idea what you are talking about... RCGs girl pictorium? what is that?
Quote from stu:
You have no data so do not make the call?
Then why do you keep "making the call" by posting great lumps of copied text and referring to your own personal translations of it as if it was the data?
Trying to say what the "the best minds of science" thinks, when all you are really arguing for is not science, but a religious faith?
What you say "science thinks" is not science, nor is it scientific.
There's nothing credible about calling up volumes of stuff that cannot by definition be scientifically relevant to a supernatural "the Creator".
What you do say here is, what you think, is based on religious faith. Then it is not based on science yet you endlessly try to make a science call.
There is nothing scientific about who is responsible for the universe. If there were, it would be in the science.
There's nothing of who, there is an overwhelming abundance of what.