Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Conditions readily available elsewhere in our universe.
Our life exists in a specific form with specific constraints. These forms and constraints exist knowingly elsewhere in the universe. If it can happen here, it's likely to happen elsewhere, and considering the sheer number of "elsewhere." i's statistically likely it has\can\will.
Why do you think this is in contradiction to what I said? It is what removes your use of the time line for the existence of life HERE as any kind of clock or standard for the existence of life period. That was my point. Life IS what comprises our reality . . . God's life.
Quote:
"The existence of a beginning for the cells in your brain says nothing about the existence of your cells as a fetus that preceded the formation of your brain."
Clarify this statement.
I forget you need thoughts spelled out for you . . . Consider that you are a "conscious" neuron trying to understand about your life and its evolution in your current environment of the brain in a fetus. That is like us trying to understand the evolution of our life in our current environment of the earth. No matter what evidence it gathers about the evolution of its life (and that of its fellow neurons) . . . it would NOT apply to the evolution of the cells that comprise the fetus BEFORE the brain was formed. Get it yet or is more clarification needed?
Why do you think this is in contradiction to what I said?
You stated that these forms started here, which states nothing about life elsewhere. I was pointing out that statistically, life is elsewhere than just Earth.
Quote:
It is what removes your use of the time line for the existence of life HERE as any kind of clock or standard for the existence of life period.
You claim life cannot come from non-life. It must by definition if Earth has been here for 4.5 billion years and life only 3 billion. There is no evidence of panspermia, only abiogenesis.
Quote:
That was my point. Life IS what comprises our reality
As humans?
Quote:
. . . God's life.
I can always tell your frustration level by the amount of ellipses you use.
Quote:
I forget you need thoughts spelled out for you
In other words, "You're stupid." You are one of the single greatest purveyors of insults on these forums, Mystic.
Quote:
. . . Consider that you are a conscious neuron
A neuron doesn't posses a consciousness. That is something that only occurs in aggregate.
Quote:
trying to understand about your life and its evolution in your current environment of the brain in a fetus.
Except a neuron would be incapable of this. Not posing a consiouness and all.
Quote:
That is like us trying to understand the evolution of our life in our current environment of the earth. No matter what evidence it gathers about the evolution of its life (and that of its fellow neurons) . . . it would NOT apply to the evolution of the cells that comprise the fetus BEFORE the brain was formed.
You seem to be confused as to what a neuron is capable of doing. You see, it's basically an organic transistor.
Quote:
Get it yet or is more clarification needed?
Nope. I think you're full of ****. You're trying to convince me of a grand consciousness without a shred of evidence to support it. You try to use half-baked and already defeated arguments, then you throw together non-nonsensical mysticism alongside pseudoscience in order to air legitimacy to your argument, and finally when called out on your ridiculous drunken guesses, call your opposition an idiot.
We've done this song and dance many times before Mystic. You've never once provided me with anything worthwhile. I don't know what is worse. The fact that you've actually used creationist arguments, or that you think you aren't.
You stated that these forms started here, which states nothing about life elsewhere. I was pointing out that statistically, life is elsewhere than just Earth.
Agree . . . so why do you think the time line for its appearance HERE applies to the entire universe?
Quote:
You claim life cannot come from non-life. It must by definition if Earth has been here for 4.5 billion years and life only 3 billion. There is no evidence of panspermia, only abiogenesis.
There is no evidence of abiogenesis.
Quote:
In other words, "You're stupid." You are one of the single greatest purveyors of insults on these forums, Mystic.
Those are your words. But in this case the underlying sentiment is not an insult . . . it is a statement of fact defensible by the obtuseness exhibited in your posts . . . especially the following inability to comprehend the use of analogies, similes, or metaphors.
Quote:
A neuron doesn't posses a consciousness. That is something that only occurs in aggregate.
Of course it doesn't . . why on earth would you think I didn't know that. Are you completely incapable of using your imagination to derive comparatives?
Quote:
Except a neuron would be incapable of this. Not posing a consiouness and all.
Apparently you are not capable.
Quote:
You seem to be confused as to what a neuron is capable of doing. You see, it's basically an organic transistor.
And you seem to be brain dead. I am drawing a hypothetical parallel situation using a developing fetus and its different composition and developmental time lines as an analogue to a developing universe (reality).Duh!!!
Quote:
Nope. I think you're full of ****. You're trying to convince me of a grand consciousness without a shred of evidence to support it. You try to use half-baked and already defeated arguments, then you throw together non-nonsensical mysticism alongside pseudoscience in order to air legitimacy to your argument, and finally when called out on your ridiculous drunken guesses, call your opposition an idiot.
I have never called you anything like that Konraden (those are your words) . . . but your intellectual shortcomings are quite obvious and undeniable to any objective observer.
Quote:
We've done this song and dance many times before Mystic. You've never once provided me with anything worthwhile. I don't know what is worse. The fact that you've actually used creationist arguments, or that you think you aren't.
Yes you have and I tire of your song and dance. You have been trying to stick the fraudulent Creationism label on my views from the very beginning to no avail . . . you clearly haven't a clue about either reality, science or my views.
But in this case the underlying sentiment is not an insult . . . it is a statement of fact defensible by the obtuseness exhibited in your posts . . . especially the following inability to comprehend the use of analogies, similes, or metaphors.
Intentionally.
Quote:
Of course it doesn't . . why on earth would you think I didn't know that. Are you completely incapable of using your imagination to derive comparatives? Apparently you are not capable. And you seem to be brain dead. I am drawing a hypothetical parallel situation using a developing fetus and its different composition and developmental time lines as an analogue to a developing universe (reality).
I'm mocking you.
Quote:
Duh!!! I have never called you anything like that Konraden (those are your words) . . . but your intellectual shortcomings are quite obvious and undeniable to any objective observer.Yes you have and I tire of your song and dance. You have been trying to stick the fraudulent Creationism label on my views from the very beginning to no avail
You've frequently requested special pleading for a creator god which creates the physical world.
Quote:
. . . you clearly haven't a clue about either reality, science or my views.
like I said, abiogenesis is a THEIST IDEA.
the atheist version of the origin of life would be more correctly termed "atheogenisis" which is not what science supports. science supports abiogenesis because it is illogical to think life always existed.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 05-02-2011 at 08:56 PM..
I've read them have you? Abiogenesis has not been demonstrated, period.
Quote:
You fool no one.
Intentionally.
I'm mocking you.
Well apparently you do . . . that is called trolling, my friend. Mockery is a sign of ignorance and a failure to produce viable refutation.
Quote:
You've frequently requested special pleading for a creator god which creates the physical world.
You seem unable (or deliberately unwilling) to distinguish between Creation and Being. Life is intrinsically creative as a function of its continual becoming . . . as in Cosmic Becoming ("accelerated expansion" for Konraden and those in Rio Linda).
Quote:
Because you know my qualifications?
You have exhibited a distinct lack of any in the bulk of your posts . . . (perhaps it was that "mocking" thing using obtuseness as a debating tactic, eh?)
I've read them have you? Abiogenesis has not been demonstrated, period.
We are as close as we can get without actually playing god.
Quote:
Well apparently you do . . . that is called trolling, my friend. Mockery is a sign of ignorance and a failure to produce viable refutation.
It's a sign of exhaustion with your inane bull****. Like I said, you've provided me with no evidence nor argument convincing of a grand consciousness. When pushed on the specifics, you trumpet half-baked arguments, mysticism, and pseudoscience and when people disagree or call you out, you insult their intelligence.
[qupte] You seem unable (or deliberately unwilling) to distinguish between Creation and Being.[/quote]
Than oh great holy one, distinguish the two.
Quote:
Life is intrinsically creative as a function of its continual becoming . . . as in Cosmic Becoming ("accelerated expansion" for Konraden and those in Rio Linda).
By golly, I think I just stated you would say exactly these things not two posts ago.
Quote:
You have exhibited a distinct lack of any in the bulk of your posts . . . (perhaps it was that "mocking" thing using obtuseness as a debating tactic, eh?)
Hey orogenicman, is it true that God doesn't exist?
That is an off-topic question. As I understand it, the subject of this thread is whether there is a reasonable argument for god. Got anything like that?
That is an off-topic question. As I understand it, the subject of this thread is whether there is a reasonable argument for god. Got anything like that?
In what way is it off topic? My question concerns the issue of whether or not God exists. You could opine by stating that there is no reasonable answer - all quite on topic I would say.
Be that as it may, what is your objection to the cosmological argument for God's existence?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
