The Beginning of Life (preachers, morality, moral, society)
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.
I am driving down the road and I see this very nice house I know someone must have designed it and just because I do not know who the designer was does not take away from the fact it was designed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
My point still stands. You do not have to know who the designer is to know it was designed.
That's only a reasonable inference for what is already known. We can very reasonably infer it was designed and built by humans since we only know of houses designed and built by humans. I'm unaware of any documented instances of houses sprouting from dirt the way plants do, so I would not infer that about a house even if I didn't know its origin.
In the case of life, the biological process of reproduction has been exhaustively observed and documented and no creator as ever been observed other than the organisms involved. Since god has never been observed there's no reason to infer it even exists nor that it's involved with biology.
Do you understand the difference between inference-based reasoning and intuitive sentiment? Do you understand that since there's no evidence a god/creator exists, beliefs and arguments for its existence are entirely based on the latter and not the former? Do you understand that unless and until god is empirically identified there's no inferential reason to believe it exists?
This is about as simply and clearly I can explain it.
We can very reasonably infer it was designed and built by humans since we only know of houses designed and built by humans. I'm unaware of any documented instances of houses sprouting from dirt the way plants do.
In the case of life, the biological process of reproduction has been exhaustively observed and documented and no creator as ever been observed other than the organisms involved. Since god has never been observed there's no reason to infer it even exists nor that it's involved with biology.
When I was still a christian I used a very similar analogy. Later, I realized that was just rather superficial thinking, because, as you say, building a house is different than some chemical process that may develop amino acids as a first step...or something simliar.
Do you understand the difference between inference-based reasoning and intuitive sentiment? Do you understand that since there's no evidence a god/creator exists, beliefs and arguments for its existence are entirely based on the latter and not the former? Do you understand that unless and until god is empirically identified there's no inferential reason to believe it exists?
This is about as simply and clearly I can explain it.
No matter how much you try to explain it to non-science trained humans it won't matter...they will never understand. There's a huge hole missing of basic understanding on how the Universe works.
If I had to pretend or prop up wishful thinking that there was a god, that god would be Evolution.
Thankfully I have no need for such props or wishful thinking.
I don't even need to look to know that you are not getting it. The tree of life is validated by fossil, morphological and DNA evidence. Of course there are gaps and questions because of the incompleteness of the record, but that is questions about, not, as Creationists would like to believe, questioning Of.
Creationism, on the other hand fails in just about all the claims it makes. I suggest you start with the evidence of evolution and not the faith based rejection of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Try to control yourself.
The only embarrassment to we Darwinists is that Arach still calls himself an atheist.
I looked at that clip. and you are making something out of nothing. 'Craig' said the tree of life was not holding up. Rather 'bush of life'. Which is to say that tree of life is bushier. Dawkins stepped in to clarify this point. It's the same DNA, it diverges from the same origins.
Did you even look at and understand the clip yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I’ve seen phet use this subtle flounce tactic often. He’s very squirmy when he’s been intellectually cornered. He starts getting indignant and pulls the victim card.
“You brute! You cad! How dare you try to force me to answer your question, against my will!?”
“Stop trying to manipulate the discussion. You don’t get to make the rules for this forum!”
“It’s my right to answer only those questions that I choose to.”
“I would rather go back to surface-level bickering and virtue signaling.”
“Can we please change the topic? That reminds we of an experience I had while touring temples in Thailand...”
If you keep trying to get him to answer he will storm off in a huffy flounce or keep telling you what a bad, mean person you are. He might even tell you you’re the worst, and suggesting you go elsewhere (the subtext being, “nobody likes you” or “you’re not welcome here.”).
Try it and see.
All I've seen is you quizzing atheists and rather avoiding any questions yourself. You are still slinging videos at us as 'atheist -stumpers' and when I gave a detailed rebuttal of much of it (one of them) you just waved it away.
You asked once what you could do to improve (not that I thought that was a sincere question ) but this type of jibing personals is not it, and it harms your case, not help it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-21-2020 at 04:15 AM..
I’ve seen phet use this subtle flounce tactic often. He’s very squirmy when he’s been intellectually cornered. He starts getting indignant and pulls the victim card.
“You brute! You cad! How dare you try to force me to answer your question, against my will!?”
“Stop trying to manipulate the discussion. You don’t get to make the rules for this forum!”
“It’s my right to answer only those questions that I choose to.”
“I would rather go back to surface-level bickering and virtue signaling.”
“Can we please change the topic? That reminds we of an experience I had while touring temples in Thailand...”
If you keep trying to get him to answer he will storm off in a huffy flounce or keep telling you what a bad, mean person you are. He might even tell you you’re the worst, and suggesting you go elsewhere (the subtext being, “nobody likes you” or “you’re not welcome here.”).
Try it and see.
I just want to check something. Are those all exactly my quotes? And if so, please reference them.
I just want to check something. Are those all exactly my quotes? And if so, please reference them.
the point is phet, we are talking about ideas on how life started in terms of religion and spatiality. We really are just comparing and contrasting ideas. It helps people think through and/or sort out reliable claims.
"alive", although not rock solid is really the best answer we have so far. In terms of life that is. Well, alive fits with exactly how see see people like you and Christians believe.
The question is why do you guys avoid it to the point that you would go to war to keep it a secret?
That's only a reasonable inference for what is already known. We can very reasonably infer it was designed and built by humans since we only know of houses designed and built by humans. I'm unaware of any documented instances of houses sprouting from dirt the way plants do, so I would not infer that about a house even if I didn't know its origin.
In the case of life, the biological process of reproduction has been exhaustively observed and documented and no creator as ever been observed other than the organisms involved. Since god has never been observed there's no reason to infer it even exists nor that it's involved with biology.
Do you understand the difference between inference-based reasoning and intuitive sentiment? Do you understand that since there's no evidence a god/creator exists, beliefs and arguments for its existence are entirely based on the latter and not the former? Do you understand that unless and until god is empirically identified there's no inferential reason to believe it exists?
This is about as simply and clearly I can explain it.
So what about the system causes people to think that? How can we describe the system, using what what we have, that accounts for the fine tuning and appearance that it looks like it was assembled?
and when we describe it would it lead us to a conclusion of "ok, its not a deity creator but it certainty may be [insert intuitive sentiment]"
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.
