ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[fool]

That doesn't make sense.

Yes it does.

fool, have you been drinking tonight?

Yes.
But whatever I said before still makes sense.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I think someone brought up droplets.
And I mentioned the clay (lost favor because the crystal did attract and arrange the molecules but then it didn't let them go)
I think they're on to undersea volcano vents now.
They'll think of something after that, when your job is to come up with stuff you tend to come up with stuff.

Don't forget aliens from outer space!!! I hear them being mentioned more and more these days. Of course aliens don't really solve the problem do they? They only move the problem to another planet.

 

[fool]

Therefore, apparently you know more than the scientists do.

That's OK.
I'm used to that sort of thing.
I'll have to put them on my list of people to whip into shape.

 

[Woodbine]

Me thinks.... you are painfully missing my point. I don't blame you.

Puddles of water generally do not have intelligence.
Puddles of water generally do not know how to conduct scientific experiments.
Puddles of water generally do not have a predetermined desired result.

Puddles of water do not have these things in common with scientists.

Yet..... yet..... (que huge Broadway show music) you have faith that a puddle of water can do on its own what thousands of scientists cannot come close to doing in a "most favored" condition.

Your constant repetition of the phrase "puddles of water", while impressively blue, doesn't really reflect the enormous range of environmental conditions on Earth; any of which may have been the stage for life to occur. Do you honestly think the scientists doing the experiments are limiting their research to "puddles of water"?

Remind me again who has the greater faith?

Faith in what? You're projecting. I haven't the foggiest idea how life got here. But i've no reason to suspect life cannot form naturally on the basis that after 100 years of patchy, limited research scientists have failed to create life. There's a million and one things that happen naturally that scientists can't reproduce.....so what?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes.
But whatever I said before still makes sense.

I am glad you have convinced yourself. :chuckle:

 

[fool]

Of course aliens don't really solve the problem do they? They only move the problem to another planet.

And how are you going to research some thing that happened millions of years ago on another planet?
Looks like ambiogenisis has plenty of places to hide.
"we demand strictly defined area of uncertainty!"
Do you know were your towel is?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Your constant repetition of the phrase "puddles of water", while impressively blue, doesn't really reflect the enormous range of environmental conditions on Earth; any of which may have been the stage for life to occur. Do you honestly think the scientists doing the experiments are limiting their research to "puddles of water"?

Are you on crack?

Do you have any critical thinking skills?

Do you have the gift of comprehension?

I don't think any scientists are doing ANY experiments on puddles of water, let alone limiting their research to puddles of water. :doh:

Get back to me when you are up to speed.

And now for the "money shot".

You ask....

Faith in what?

You continue...

You're projecting. I haven't the foggiest idea how life got here. But i've no reason to suspect life cannot form naturally on the basis that after 100 years of patchy, limited research scientists have failed to create life. There's a million and one things that happen naturally that scientists can't reproduce.....so what?

You just answered your own question far better than I ever could.

 

[Woodbine]

Are you on crack?

Do you have any critical thinking skills?

Do you have the gift of comprehension?

I don't think any scientists are doing ANY experiments on puddles of water, let alone limiting their research to puddles of water. :doh:

Then why the constant references to the puddle of water? I will repeat what I wrote.....

Your constant repetition of the phrase "puddles of water", while impressively blue, doesn't really reflect the enormous range of environmental conditions on Earth; any of which may have been the stage for life to occur

You also claimed I had "faith in a puddle of water....etc...". I do? Presumably you either believe that puddles of water are the only possible venue for Abiogenesis to occur, or that scientists are limiting their research into puddle-like scenarios. Or....something else entirely. So which is it? What's the obsession with puddles of water?

You just answered your own question far better than I ever could.

Your conflating faith with ignorance. It's possible God might have done it, it's possible it may have happened naturally. I have no idea how it occurred. How can I have faith in something I have no position on? But i'll repeat the point...just because scientists have been unable to do it has no bearing at all as to whether Abiogenesis could occur. Scientists in the 18th century couldn't split the atom....therefore atoms can't be split?

 

[SUTG]

. Of course aliens don't really solve the problem do they? They only move the problem to another planet.

What is "the problem"?

 

[fool]

UpDate.
It's looking like "by the Creator" may have been added to Darwin's book at a later time.
Will advise on further developments.
My apologies to BobB for implying that any liberties had been taken on his or his sources part.

 

[Woodbine]

UpDate.
It's looking like "by the Creator" may have been added to Darwin's book at a later time.
Will advise on further developments.
My apologies to BobB for implying that any liberties had been taken on his or his sources part.

Possibly for his wife's benefit, possibly to assuage the clergy (?).

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Again, for the 10th time.... it seems to me he is simply making a point that we never ever (no not once) can scientifically demonstrate life coming from non-life (i.e., the presentation at the beginning of the video about only pre-existing life forming in the peanut butter container).

Life only comes from life.

Personally I think a better example would be dead animals but I do get the point about peanut butter as well.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Yes, an atheistic worldview reuquires at some abiogenesis, and no we have never observed this process happenning. That it occurred sometime in the past is a cetain fact. Whether you believe this was through divine imtervention or the forces of nature and physics is irrelevent to the theory of evolution that is being attacked. ToE is NOT a freaking origin theory!

 

[fool]

Possibly for his wife's benefit, possibly to assuage the clergy (?).

Added to the second edition to assuage the clergy.
Darwin later wrote that he regreted making the concession.

 

[zoo22]

I wanted to make a PB and banana sandwich this morning, but I'm afraid to open the jar and disrupt the experiment.

 

[aharvey]

Hey fool, earlier on this thread I asked....

YES or NO.... Do you believe that it is scientifically impossible that life could form by chance in a jar of peanut butter? And if so.... why?

To which you unequivocally answered....NO. Yet now... several pages later you acknowledge that science doesn't know. If science doesn't know (as you assert) how can you unequivocally assert that you KNOW life cannot form in peanut butter?

Do you know more than the scientists know?

Umm, Knight, I'm sure you would never ever intentionally play fast and loose just to "win" against an atheist, so it must be a pure oversight on your part that you have reversed fool's statement and then attacked him for saying the opposite of what he said.

See, fool said he did not believe that it was scientificially impossible that life could form by chance in a jar of peanut butter, which somehow you've reversed: "how can you unequivocally assert that you KNOW life cannot form in peanut butter?" He even told you this more than once, and you turned it around more than once. Getting a bit desperate, are we?

Frankly, though, this thread turned surreal when you established that no video, no argument, no example is too stupid as long as it criticizes evolution.

 

[fool]

Umm, Knight, I'm sure you would never ever intentionally play fast and loose just to "win" against an atheist, so it must be a pure oversight on your part that you have reversed fool's statement and then attacked him for saying the opposite of what he said.

See, fool said he did not believe that it was scientificially impossible that life could form by chance in a jar of peanut butter, which somehow you've reversed: "how can you unequivocally assert that you KNOW life cannot form in peanut butter?" He even told you this more than once, and you turned it around more than once. Getting a bit desperate, are we?

Frankly, though, this thread turned surreal when you established that no video, no argument, no example is too stupid as long as it criticizes evolution.

Don't confuse em with facts.
This tread went archive! arty:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Then why the constant references to the puddle of water? I will repeat what I wrote.....

The puddle of water represents the "whatever" environment/situation that atheistic evolutionist's put their faith into for creating life.

It's just a figure, don't get too distracted by it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What is "the problem"?

Life springing from non-living matter, otherwise known as...... the topic of this thread. :doh:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Umm, Knight, I'm sure you would never ever intentionally play fast and loose just to "win" against an atheist, so it must be a pure oversight on your part that you have reversed fool's statement and then attacked him for saying the opposite of what he said.

See, fool said he did not believe that it was scientificially impossible that life could form by chance in a jar of peanut butter, which somehow you've reversed: "how can you unequivocally assert that you KNOW life cannot form in peanut butter?" He even told you this more than once, and you turned it around more than once. Getting a bit desperate, are we?

Frankly, though, this thread turned surreal when you established that no video, no argument, no example is too stupid as long as it criticizes evolution.

aharvey you are an idiot! :wave2:

You couldn't see a point if it was batted into your face with a baseball bat!

You are a waste of time, a monumental obfuscater and a distraction to everyone who is actually having a dialog.

My point to fool was spot on in every way. Fool is sure that life cannot arise in a jar of peanut butter yet is also sure scientists don't know what conditions need be present for such an event.

It's really just a minor point but an interesting one none the less.

Harvey we have put up with your garbage for long enough. I am giving you an extended vacation so I can focus my efforts on people who are actually interested in honest dialog.

 

[Johnny]

How would someone who supports this guy's "point" define life? For the argument to remain in tact (i.e. life only from life), then you have to define life in such a way that it includes the simplest of organisms to the most complex organisms, and to God himself.

And what about this argument based on the same logic: Life with a genome has only ever been observed coming from life with a genome. Thus, unless God has a genome, the creationist argument is defeated from the outset. (Note that I do not think this argument has any merit, but it is constructed around the same logic as the "life only from life" argument.)