On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

Sure but Homo sapiens are just ONE form of Humanity.

AA

 

Where do you see Traveler 2, me making an argument that God created universe:

?
?

And how admitting the existence of the rule "You cannot use it as argument in your proof until you prove it is true"
does make a statement " DD did it" false
and the opposite statement "DD didn't do it'' true?

 

And of course what you just said is true
as everything you say?

 

Way back with this quote:

This is the quote that started our whole back-and-forth.

 

You have quoted my conclusion
but your omitted to quote the premises.
Let me remind to the audience:

Your quote is related to the discussion of the fallacy of God of gaps.
You had a chance to prove that
my conclusion you quoted
from the premises you omitted in your quote was false.

You abandoned the discussion of the fallacy of God of gaps.
You didn't prove my conclusion from the premises you omitted in your quote was false.

Then we went to the discussion of the fallacy of the burden of proof.
Then you you agreed that if you have a point the burden of proof was on you to prove it to be true.

Your point was that God does not exist,
you as Traveler 1 you had to make and you made your opening statement in the discussion.

Let me ask you a Q
Will you continue proving your point that God does not exist in the related discussion:
Traveler 1:
- God doesn't exist because Odin does, so if you want to prove existence of your god, please prove that Odin does not.
Traveler 2:
-I accept as true that Odin exists. How does it prove that God does not exist?
Traveler 1:
- Because the Bible says there are no other gods but God.
Traveler 2:
- I do not accept this statement of the Bible as true. Prove it is true.

Or not?

 

You are just not getting it are you. The whole thing with Odin was a ruse. I don't really believe in Odin and I don't believe anything in the Bible is true. The statement in the Bible is not true because the Bible is not true. I did the whole thing to trick you to admitting that you cannot use something as an argument in your proof until you prove it is true.

 

You have not pointed yet
which of my conclusions was not based on true premises and which one was
was not necessarily following the given premises.
I didn’t make so many, so you should be able to quote premises
and a following conclusion
and to point to a mistake.

So far you don’t even understand what I am talking about.
You are just withdrawing your premise that Odin exist = true.
If Odin= false,
your conclusion that God does not exist is false.
Therefore the opposite belief that God does exist is true,
as there is only choice between true and false in logic.

I guess you will not be willing to try to prove any of your beliefs.
That’s why nobody was and nobody will be able to prove existence of God to an atheist.
Atheists are void any understanding of logic, any ability to think rationally.
They are driven by just blind beliefs.
That’s why.

 

The last resort. Insults.

There is no logic in believing in a supernatural being. There is no evidence of a supernatural being. Science is gradually coming to an understanding of the universe and I've no doubt that what was 'logical' to the ancients - 'someone must have made all this, there is no other explanation' - is gradually being downgraded by our knowledge today. If man is sensible enough not to destroy humanity we may one day know the answer. In the meantime there will always be people who prefer to rely on 'a creator god'.

For all the discussion that is going on there is no person that can give a shred of evidence for the existence of 'god'.

 

The only possible conclusion from the facts which are demonstrated to be truth is not an insult,
unless you demonstrate that the facts are not true,
or a different conclusion is possible.So far you have not done that.
That the conclusion stands to be true.
So far your words have no relation to facts pointed in the text you quoted. This is an insult
to any logic, any rationality.
Thank you for another confirmation of both facts and the conclusions of the text you quoted.

 

Chemical evolution asserts the "production probability frontier", of abiogenesis, given sufficient time.

 

For all your erudition you have proved nothing. There is no evidence for any 'god'. Neither is there any proof that a non-existent being does not exist. None of the greatest minds in the world have been able to show 'god' to anyone.
It is all a matter of 'fact' of 'faith'.
Fact ; there is NO evidence
Faith : the fact that the earth exists must mean there is a 'god'

Logic studies the principles of correct reasoning. When it comes to religion and 'god' there are no principles of sound reasoning. How can there be when we are considering something that does not exist except in the faith of believers.

 

The point is, even five million is not very long when compared to one hundred and fifty million.

 

Do you want to know a secret? I actually do believe in a god, just not the Judeo-Christian God. You see, I am a Pastafarian.

 

My respects to his Reverence, I hear he and his wife have just given 'birth' to 2 offspring - the god Macaroni and goddess Semolina.

 

Evil rumors created and forwarded by Vermacelli during the Italian cheeses rebellion.

 

Oh, Feta !!!!!!!!!!:

 

The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists. - Michael Denton, microbiologist

His views are shared by a large number of biologists, as Nobel Laureate Peter Medawar has stated.

A tautology does not science make. "It survives because it's successful and it's successful because it survives." Shallow. Extremely shallow and useless. It is supposed to explain everything, and so it explains nothing.

 

3 simple questions:
1. what was I proving?
2. Who was expressing his religious beliefs? (hint: balded for you in a quote on the previous page.)
3. Who took over on the labor of just spitting his religious beliefs numbered below
religious belief #1 There is no evidence for any 'god
religious belief #2 Neither is there any proof that a non-existent being does not exist.
(Others are incomprehensible constructions of words)

while submitting no empirical evidence
no logic
no rationality behind these beliefs?

In order to prove my conclusion that
- no atheist can understand a simple question
- no atheist can answer a simple question
I predict you will go on an unrelated rant just randomly spitting your religious beliefs.

Go

 

Do you want to know a secret?
I have nothing against your beliefs. It is a totally different topic.

It is just when you claim that your beliefs in whatever or absence of whatever
are based on logic and evidence
while demonstrating total ignorance of logic
makes me concerned because
it does not make you look good.

Logic is such a thing like let's say chess.
You introduce yourself as a capable player
then it turn that you have no idea how to move figures.
There is nothing wrong if somebody is not logical and is not rational as long he does not hurt himself or others.

You will hard time to prove me that we are logical and rational beings.

 

And as it turned out, the coelacanth didn't used its fins as legs. Matter of fact they were found in the depths. Like I said finding a living fossil doesn't really change how we view evolution, but it does put a kink in the idea of index fossils. And btw if this was on topic I would say that humans have seen living dinosaurs. They called them dragons before the word dinosaur was invented and we still have reports of dinosaurs like Loch Ness. Though for accuracy it's not a dinosaur, its a swimming reptile.

 

Yes, when they find a T. Rex the first thing that comes to their mind is not that its 6,000 years old. And I said at least 65 million to correct any confusion.

 

Are you going to argue what I just posted was not fact?

Go ahead.

AA

 

Come on!!!

I have known Priests that are more honest in their acknowledgement that no evidence of a GOD existing than you!!

AA

 

Seriously?

You believe in Dragons and Nessie?


No wonder you also believe in your God....apparently everything is truth in your mind, unless your mind says it's not..

 

We have fossils of various fish that evolved legs that came out of the water.

And regardless the point is some life forms are so perfectly evolved that there is no mechanism to continue their evolution until some world catastrophic event occurs.

AA