Atheists please answer this

like I said, don't d(e)rive a false sense of hope

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No matter how much you try to remount the issue, you still get nagged because the limits are n(e)igh

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hey, LG, I'm just fucking with you.

If you knew any history at all you'd know it's widely thought that you could have just walked across the Pacific. When the Bering Strait was frozen, enabling human migration into the Americas from Asia.

But it seems you want to ignore what has happened, for some daft analogy someone else made, and flog that to death.

I already said it, but give up. You aren't advancing here.

 

got plans for the winter vacation I see

tell you what - you can walk, drive a car or ride your horse (either a dead one or an alive one), but I will catch a plane, ok?

what can I say, if you are prepared to drive or walk across the pacific ocean, you certainly have high hopes .... I guess this sort of impossible two dimensional dreaming is just what a reductionist view requires in order to grant an accessible world view
:shrug:

 

The plane that was made possible via the scientific method?

 

What exactly do you mean by darwinism? I don't know any facts that are called "darwinism".

Oh, you mean evolution? Ok.

Burden of proof? By what scientific evidence, arguments or logic can that person prove his claim to be true? I don't need to disprove something that hasn't been shown to be true to begin with.

Umm, nope.

 

actually its the plane you refuse to travel in since you are so sold out to the automobile, walking or riding a horse with an inflatable tube around its neck ... much like you are so sold out to reductionist views
:shrug:

 

i have always wondered what that trip would be like to walk across the ice..

i know its not possible in this day and age..but if it were what would the trip be like?..how many hours would it take to cross by foot,snowmobile,(don't know if a horse would make it..)..

they have been disscussing building a highway across there..

 

What a pissing contest.

 

Keep stuffing that straw man, is exposes you for what you are.

 

The straw man being?

 

Real quick here, do you think that the man from mud theory is a good explaination of how life started? Man came from the primordial soup?

My basic question of this concept is that we are to believe that dead things that had no life were never alive became alive through an accident of combining dead things together. You see, this abiogenesis requires that life be given to these things, such as chemicals, minerals, electricity, and whatever else you want to throw in the mix. None of the ingriedients for life were alive yet when they combined they became alive. 0+0=0. Not living + Not living =Not living.

The question remains, is this mix of atoms and electrons the source of life, or did they become alive? You see life is the source of life, life would not become alive. Atoms and electrons are not alive according to science. In order to change these atoms and electrons, for instance, make them have life, well then life has to added, not more dead thing such as atoms and electrons.

I bring this up only for disscusion. Thank You.

 

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

What if I told you I can take some "dead things" and combine them in the lab, set some conditions and within 20 years, have early DNA?

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=3

 

Lets cover the dumbness:
Man did not come directly from Mud. Nor from a primordial soup. No "Accident" was involved.

The only thing that came from the primordial soup would have been self replicating protein chains.
This is a basic Chemical Reaction - One that is Inevitable as long as the proper ingredients are there. Just as combining hydrogen with oxygen, you are to believe that suddenly, you get water.

Self replicating proteins are the basis of DNA.

Once DNA is exposed (which it most certainly would be) to various other reactive elements, more chemical reactions will occur. Much of it will be destructive to the chains, but those that are not destroyed remain behind to replicate further.
When self replicating proteins combine together, they can then work in conjunction to better the odds of remaining and replicating. Which is bound to happen given the odds.
Thus, the cell. Given the HUGE and VAST time spans involved, (Although possibly as fast as One MILLION years...), structure is inevitable.

Even to this day, certain kinds of Amoebas clump together to create a larger life form.

Once cellular structure has begun to cooperate with each other (A feat that outshines humanity...), larger life forms are inevitable.

Adaptation is inevitable in such an environment in which suited cells replace independent cells. Larger life forms adapt to their environment as well and you begin to see specialized creatures.

With the environment set, adaptation leads to the illusion that life is perfectly suited for that environment.

 

Neverfly: "No "Accident" was involved." (sorry am yet to sort out this quoting business)


On the contrary the creation of life was just one big accident.... no intelligent design was involved, no one planned it.
Life was really just created by chance

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually, I'm glad you posted that. Because this is one of my stronger peeves...

Usage of words is a big player in how people express a bias.

If a rock tumbles down a slope and breaks a branch off of a tree, was that an accident?
The usage of the word implies, "Mistake" or "Causation by error."

This is why creationists are quick to use this word. The implication being that intelligence IS involved as an axiom- as they believe in a god. To them, that is absolute whether there is any evidence or not. Since the Origin Question is scientifically uninvolved with a divine answer; that 'chance' happened when a god was present is most definitely an accident.

But you wouldn't say that a rock broke a tree by accident, would you? Because that doesn't deal with the hand of God. No on cares about the tree and no one is going to assume God set out to smite it.
No one is likely to think that the rock was intelligent and made an error in judgment. Or that it failed to avoid the tree...
So they would say, "The rock just fell and it happened to hit this tree here..."
Oh ok- THEN chance is ok... whatever.

No, it was not an accident, no more than is a rock falling due to gravity an accident.

Chemicals reacting to each other is no accident. If one happens to come across another that is reactive to it- they react. They don't react by accident.

It is the property of the chemicals to react with each other.

 

chance does not equal accident.
yes a rock falls due to gravity. but provided nobody has purposely thrown the rock at the tree, it hits the tree by chance.
I suppose in a sense the rock did hit the tree by accident because nobody meant it to, but in saying that it implies there had to be somebody throwing the rock in the first place, and that they did not mean to break the tree.

Ok, I have me convinced, if you say that the creation of life was an accident then you imply someone did not mean it to happen. So therefore life is created by chance because it happened even though there was a possibility it might not happen and nobody (especially not some mythical old man) helped it along. it is by chance alone that the chemicals meet although like the rock and branch they inevitably react.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at but that is what i took from it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

i am sorry for my large irrelevant post. i am rather overtired