Do you claim a fish as your ancestor?

[Radrook]

What is magic to one may be advanced science to another.

If abiogenesis is based on actual science, then why don't they counter the science-based counter arguments instead of snickering mindlessly and continuing to chant that water did it?

For example, I don't see them offering any response to the objections presented in these videos. Everything in these videos in reference to their modus operandi, indicates dishonesty in the service of atheism and nothing more. Yet they never address these objections. Why? If indeed the objections are flawed, then a rebuttal is the normal reaction. But instead, we get a profound silence, or a robotic repetition of the nonsense as if nothing significant had been pointed out when it very obviously has.

 

[gruntlabor]

If abiogenesis is based on actual science, then why don't they counter the science-based counter arguments instead of snickering mindlessly and continuing to chant that water did it?

For example, I don't see them offering any response to the objections presented in this video. Everything in this video in reference to their modus operandi indicates dishonesty in the service of atheism and nothing more. Yet they never address these objections. Why? If indeed the objections are flawed, then a rebuttal is the normal reaction. But instead, we get a profound silence.

​

Because they consider it beneath them.

 

[Radrook]

Because they consider it beneath them.

Or maybe because they have absolutely no effective response and fear being exposed for what they are.

 

[Murrmurr]

But there was plenty of time for millions of unlikely accidents.

Excellent point.

 

[Radrook]

Excellent point.

That's similar to pointing out how an explosion might briefly place a brick exactly on top of another but conveniently and constantly ignoring the powerful ever-present wind that always topples it before two or more can be added. Such biased fact-tilting or selective blindness is not part of the scientific method. The scientific method demands an objective assessment of all factors involved, not just the ones that support a pet preconceived notion while conveniently ignoring all others.

BTW I am not attempting to convince anyone that they should consider the mind that created the universe the biblical God nor any other god.

 

[gruntlabor]

There is speculation that viruses came before DNA. We think: Well, but viruses need life in which to colonize. But that may just have been a convenience.

 

[Radrook]

There is speculation that viruses came before DNA. We think: Well, but viruses need life in which to colonize. But that may just have been a convenience.

The existence of viruses doesn't nullify the evidence indicating forethought. The real question is why should humans be so reluctant to admit detecting what they would otherwise very quickly admit. It's as if an admission of a mind at work in DNA is perceived as some kind of mortal danger.

After all, there is no such reluctance if the code is detected by SETI. Then very little is needed to conclude a mind at work. So the powerful aversion is definitely not based on objective reasoning but seems to be generated by some irrational fear.

BTW I once a watched a film where a woman had a nervous breakdown after God had clearly revealed himself via miracles. The lady had been perfectly OK prior to that. LOL!

 

[Murrmurr]

That's similar to pointing out how an explosion might briefly place a brick exactly on top of another but conveniently and constantly ignoring the powerful ever-present wind that always topples it before two or more can be added. Such biased fact-tilting or selective blindness is not part of the scientific method. The scientific method demands an objective assessment of all factors involved, not just the ones that support a pet preconceived notion while conveniently ignoring all others.

BTW I am not attempting to convince anyone that they should consider the mind that created the universe the biblical God nor any other god.

Considering the universe hasn't sat stagnant for billions of years and that it contains billions and billions of moving objects, there's a pretty good chance there have been tens-of-thousands, or even millions of "happy accidents".

Meanwhile, the more questions scientists answer, the more new questions they have to ask. And they have far more theories than answers.

 

[AnnieA]

I've never used it personally, but have heard from others who do that a tiny percentage of most people is Neanderthal. It's even hard for me to absorb that idea!

Most people of Western Europe and UK descent going back 500ish years have Neanderthal genes, up to 4% in some cases. My ethnicity is 100% Western European/UK and I have 2% Neanderthal genes. I think it's really cool to be more than one type Sapien! ...know we all have more than one type Sapien genes but testing available to the general public isn't sophisticated enough yet to go back that far.

 

[Radrook]

Considering the universe hasn't sat stagnant for billions of years and that it contains billions and billions of moving objects, there's a pretty good chance there have been tens-of-thousands, or even millions of "happy accidents".

Meanwhile, the more questions scientists answer, the more new questions they have to ask. And they have far more theories than answers.

That would demand ignoring the forces that are constantly at work in preventing those happy accidents from getting anywhere and assuming a situation that doesn't exist and has never existed. Such disruptive forces are far more universally prevalent. Appealing to eons of time simply makes them more disruptive by increasing and intensifying their anti abiogenesis disruptive influence. Furthermore the indication of a mind at work is far too compelling, and going contrary to it, requires irrationally arguments seriously flawed by glaring inconsistencies.

 

[Mizmo]

Well to get back to the question...yes

As I said in another post long time ago , we spend nine months in a sack of water in mummy's tummy and yes we do grow from that little tadpole into lovely little babies.

 

[Murrmurr]

That would demand ignoring the forces that are constantly at work in preventing those happy accidents from getting anywhere and assuming a situation that doesn't exist and has never existed. Such disruptive forces are far more universally prevalent. Appealing to eons of time simply makes them more disruptive by increasing and intensifying their anti abiogenesis disruptive influence. Furthermore the indication of a mind at work is far too compelling, and going contrary to it, requires irrationally arguments seriously flawed by glaring inconsistencies.

Okie Dokie, Dude.

 

[Radrook]

Well to get back to the question...yes

As I said in another post long time ago , we spend nine months in a sack of water in mummy's tummy and yes we do evolve from that little tadpole into lovely little babies.

 

[Elsie]

"For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."

 

[Elsie]

Bloop bloop.

 

[gruntlabor]

Well to get back to the question... yes

As I said in another post long time ago , we spend nine months in a sack of water in mummy's tummy and yes we do evolve from that little tadpole into lovely little babies.

'Evolve' is a loaded word. We 'grow' also would apply. Time passes. Things are born, they grow, they age and die. That's the passage of time.

 

[Elsie]

Theory in science not mere speculation, as you know, Frank. Hypotheses supported by fact & observation more like it

Huh? Supported by fact?

Hypothesis:
to give a possible but not yet proved explanation for something:

 

[Elsie]

reminds me of this old joke...

An Orangutan is sitting in his enclosure in the zoo.
In one hand he has the Holy Bible; in the other, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

“I can’t figure it out” he thinks; “one says I’m my brother’s keeper, and the other says I’m my keeper’s brother!”

 

[Elsie]

I am with Richard Dawkins. This is the quote I like most of him:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

(Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion)

And a second one from the same book:

"There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it."

Dawson blatantly exposed his inner being for what it is, with that blather.

 

[Elsie]

One thing all the theorist share is that they cannot prove what they believe to be true!

 

[Elsie]

Because they consider it beneath them.

Actually, that's just their copout.

 

[Mizmo]

'Evolve' is a loaded word. We 'grow' also would apply. Time passes. Things are born, they grow, they age and die. That's the passage of time.

Yes grow is a better word but when you see humans like this......
I would say we are still evolving

 

[Radrook]

"For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."

 

[Tommy]

A wonderful reminder, @Radrook

 

[VaughanJB]

If abiogenesis is based on actual science, then why don't they counter the science-based counter arguments instead of snickering mindlessly and continuing to chant that water did it?

For example, I don't see them offering any response to the objections presented in these videos. Everything in these videos in reference to their modus operandi, indicates dishonesty in the service of atheism and nothing more. Yet they never address these objections. Why? If indeed the objections are flawed, then a rebuttal is the normal reaction. But instead, we get a profound silence, or a robotic repetition of the nonsense as if nothing significant had been pointed out when it very obviously has.

These videos might be good if you prefer your own bias to actual learning. The fact is, we don't yet have all the answers. We can only give the best explanation based on available evidence. As we learn more, our explanations become more rounded. The trouble is, people will believe just about anything, regardless of evidence. For example, that there's a God. There's no evidence for a God, but some people believe it anyway.

That said, who is chanting "water did it"? Because the only person making that claim here is you. Water did not "do it", I'm not aware of anyone suggesting it's the case. Why do you keep repeating this point as though it's relevant? I mean, people may well be snickering because what is being written (water did it) that is hilariously inept and funny?

People are working on finding the answers, and that is the very best we can do. Demanding all the answers right now is silly and dishonest. And quite how you reject "robotic repetition" while pushing your God is irony at its finest.