Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[buckshot24]

No, you just didn't like that it contradicts what you think. You have yet to give an argument for why life couldn't come through chemistry into biology.


I guess I will try one last time with some simple evidence is.
Life started out simple and small
Chemistry can create compounds, amino acids, organic molecules, the building blocks of life
The conditions, and elements on earth are conducive to the chemistry to create these building blocks.
There was a lot of time over a large area to give a diverse set of conditions and a large number of chances for different things to happen.
Once replication starts and the environment is conducive, the number of these things will rapidly increase.

There is zero evidence here. This is all story telling. The only thing missing is "once upon a time".

Basically you're employing the "vasts amount of time did it" fallacy as well.

 

[Paul98]

There is zero evidence here. This is all story telling. The only thing missing is "once upon a time".

Basically you're employing the "vasts amount of time did it" fallacy as well.

What did I say that was incorrect? What do you even consider evidence?

 

[buckshot24]

I need not, because my usages are yours. You've only made a pitiful attempt to evade the fact which reveals your own intellectual dishonesty.

You've complained that I haven't even defined what living is so how can you be using my definition?

 

[buckshot24]

What did I say that was incorrect? What do you even consider evidence?

Telling a story isn't evidence that it happened. All you've done is tell a story. That is NOT evidence that the story is true.

 

[Paul98]

Telling a story isn't evidence that it happened. All you've done is tell a story. That is NOT evidence that the story is true.

It's not showing how life started, and it's not a story. Each is a specific claim all of which is evidence to support that life could have come about through chemistry.

Such as the first point, if it didn't come through chemistry and was designed it didn't need to start out small and simple and evolve over time. Where as if it came from chemistry in did need to start off small and simple.

Second point since chemistry can already create the building blocks of life, it becomes possible given the right conditions to put these building blocks together in such a way that it is life.

...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You've complained that I haven't even defined what living is so how can you be using my definition?

I'm using your usage -- that is to say, I have only used the term as you have used it. This is a far cry from outlining a rigorous definition which is sufficient to substatiate the claim that there was a point in time before which nothing describable as "life" existed.

Is it not true that -- whatever you believe "life" to mean -- you believe that a first living thing exists? If this first living thing must have come from somewhere, and you do not believe that there previously existed another living thing from which it could come, it only stands to reason -- again, whatever you believe "life" to mean -- that this living thing must've come from a non-living thing.

This is a straightforward point, accessible to just about anyone with an IQ greater than their height in inches. Maybe you should stop licking your screen. I think it is affecting your brain, or something.

 

[buckshot24]

Not at all true. I've repeatedly explained to you that I do not believe that life has always existed, so it cannot be a basis for any of my arguments. My position is that your reasoning is unsound, and I have proven that.

Rigorous proofs are for mathematics. If you want me to provide a "proof" that your beliefs that life had a beginning then you'll be left wanting.

It may have. You haven't shown that it didn't.

Ok, life may be eternal. You might also be a brain in a vat only imagining your life. Both of those things are equally plausible but there is no reason to believe either of them. I don't need to consider a flying unicorn when trying to figure out how Jim got to the football game either.

It is a real possibility.

No, it is merely a possibility. Just as it is possible that your mother is/was a reincarnated Hitler. There are no reasons to believe either of those things.

That is the point. Your claim that it cannot possibly be true because "if it didn't exist, then we aren't here" is an unsound argument.

It's also possible that we are living in some teenagers video game too. Again, no reason to believe it. Since there is no reason to believe it then there is no need to consider it when making an argument.

Because you are not an imbecile, are you?

There is reasonable and there is possible. It isn't reasonable to believe that life has always existed. Again, no good reason to believe that it is true that life has always existed.

So not only can't you supply evidence, you struggle to accurately apprehend reality. Great.

I think it is pretty obvious what you're doing. You're trolling. That is a very accurate description of reality.

No, I don't, and none of my arguments are premised upon any such purported knowledge. So, any answers?

So you're not sure if you're alive or not. D: To tell you the truth, neither am I now after these last few posts.

Nope.

Nope as in no you don't believe it or nope as in you do in fact believe it?

Then let's see it.

Open any Biology text book and you'll see it. Any of them will work for my purposes.

It absolutely matters. The definition delineates what is and is not life. Without a rigorous definitions, the statements made that employ the term lack clear meaning.

There are no rigorous definitions of what life is. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it in meaningful ways.

But you wouldn't understand that, because clear and true meanings are not in the interest of your arguments.

Rigorously define every word in that statement. Otherwise it is far too ambiguous to make any sense of it.

Not good enough. You have the parameters which are required, and if you cannot meet them, then you're just spruiking nonsense.

They aren't required.

How? What criteria do people and animals meet that fulfill the definition of "alive"?

Open your Biology text book.

Ok, if I defined the term to mean "containing carbon as a constituent element," would that be a sufficient definition?

No, you'll need to choose one out of any Biology text book. That is not a good definition to what life is.

Not according to my definition just supplied.

Not a good definition. But you're right it can't be just any definition, point taken.

Really? REALLY?

No, not really. But I was only talking about the most accepted definitions of life. Not some absurdity like you've created. That's why I'd like you to open a text book on Biology.

I have not accused you of making that claim. I just want to know how you know that a first living thing exists.

How do we know anything? It is more likely than not. If we need certainty to discuss anything then we may as well shut up, because there is very little of it to go around.

Your original argument failed, yet you persist with this now naked and baseless claim, all the while spitting and hissing because someone has taken you to task on it.

LOL. Nobody thinks replication has been going on for eternity, much less anybody in this thread. You've based this entire thing on the possibility that it has been while not providing any reasons to take it seriously. It isn't like I said gravity repels people away from mass. Everybody here thinks that life didn't exist in one point in time. There is no reason to consider it, there is no reason to refute it, and there is no reason anybody should take it seriously.

I think that will do on the subject. I've wasted enough time with your trollish behavior. I won't respond further about it.

 

[Paul98]

Not to mention the fact that the universe might be infinite in space, if that is true then no matter how improbable something is it will happen.

 

[buckshot24]

It's not showing how life started, and it's not a story. Each is a specific claim all of which is evidence to support that life could have come about through chemistry.

It most definitely is a story. Some might call it a fairy tale. There is zero evidential content in your story.

Such as the first point, if it didn't come through chemistry and was designed it didn't need to start out small and simple and evolve over time. Where as if it came from chemistry in did need to start off small and simple.

True.

Second point since chemistry can already create the building blocks of life, it becomes possible given the right conditions to put these building blocks together in such a way that it is life.

No, that doesn't follow.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm using your usage -- that is to say, I have only used the term as you have used it. This is a far cry from outlining a rigorous definition which is sufficient to substatiate the claim that there was a point in time before which nothing describable as "life" existed.

Nice try. Go collect some more tolls, troll.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Rigorous proofs are for mathematics. If you want me to provide a "proof" that your beliefs that life had a beginning then you'll be left wanting.

I want a sound argument -- but this is apart from the fact that I have also shown that I am not basing any of my arguments on a belief that life has always existed, as you earlier claimed in error.

Ok, life may be eternal. You might also be a brain in a vat only imagining your life. Both of those things are equally plausible but there is no reason to believe either of them.

Upon what basis do you equate their plausibility? We have observed life, and we have observed life existing for a very long time. We do not know that there is a first living thing. We're not really sure where "non-living" stops and "life" begins.

In contrast, we have never observed a brain in a vat imagining its life.

Clearly, your suggestion that these two propositions are "equally plausible" is totally without merit.

No, it is merely a possibility.

That doesn't contradict me.

Just as it is possible that your mother is/was a reincarnated Hitler. There are no reasons to believe either of those things.It's also possible that we are living in some teenagers video game too. Again, no reason to believe it. Since there is no reason to believe it then there is no need to consider it when making an argument.

There are real reasons to consider its possibility, as described above, but this is now a wholly different set of goalposts you've set up. The fact which I set out to establish is that the reasoning you'd described was terribly ignorant. Your concession is noted.

There is reasonable and there is possible. It isn't reasonable to believe that life has always existed.

Why not? Do you know a point in time when life didn't exist?

Again, no good reason to believe that it is true that life has always existed.

Repeating a bald assertion does not increase its truth value.

I think it is pretty obvious what you're doing. You're trolling. That is a very accurate description of reality.

...says the guy who continues to evade the questions he's been repeatedly asked.

So you're not sure if you're alive or not. D: To tell you the truth, neither am I now after these last few posts.

Good one. Now how about you answer the question?

Nope as in no you don't believe it or nope as in you do in fact believe it?

I don't believe life has always existed.

Open any Biology text book and you'll see it. Any of them will work for my purposes.

Do you think biologists have a rigorous certainty on what is and is not life?

There are no rigorous definitions of what life is.

Then what definition are you claiming I should find in a biology text? The definition you're now admitting doesn't exist?

That doesn't mean we can't talk about it in meaningful ways.

But it does mean you can't be certain when or if it began to exist.

Rigorously define every word in that statement. Otherwise it is far too ambiguous to make any sense of it.

It appears now that you have forgotten how to speak English. It is no wonder you struggle with more difficult concepts like life.

They aren't required.

Gainsaying. Is that really the best you can do? Are you that desperate to avoid conceding your errors?

Open your Biology text book.

I didn't find it. You tell me. You can, can't you?

No, you'll need to choose one out of any Biology text book. That is not a good definition to what life is.

So when you said it was irrelevant, were you lying?

Not a good definition. But you're right it can't be just any definition, point taken.

So you have been caught lying. Why should anyone believe anything you say?

No, not really. But I was only talking about the most accepted definitions of life. Not some absurdity like you've created. That's why I'd like you to open a text book on Biology.

Why do you think it is reasonable to suppose that such a contemporary and unresolved issue could be so easily resolved by reference to any old biolofy textbook. Do you even understand how academia works?

How do we know anything?

You were the one purporting to know. You answer that question.

It is more likely than not.

Based upon what calculations?

If we need certainty to discuss anything then we may as well shut up, because there is very little of it to go around.

You were the one speaking in certain terms. You are, naturally, invited to shut up at your earliest convenience.

LOL. Nobody thinks replication has been going on for eternity, much less anybody in this thread. You've based this entire thing on the possibility that it has been while not providing any reasons to take it seriously.

I provided several reasons in this very post, reasons which should have been common knowledge to anyone that has ever read a National Geographic.

It isn't like I said gravity repels people away from mass.

No, you said something more stupid, akin to "circles have pointy corners."

Everybody here thinks that life didn't exist in one point in time.

I don't.

There is no reason to consider it, there is no reason to refute it, and there is no reason anybody should take it seriously.

The fact that we cannot find a first living organism is a pretty good reason.

I think that will do on the subject. I've wasted enough time with your trollish behavior. I won't respond further about it.

Yes, you will bow out, and concede defeat. Next time you have no idea what you're talking about (which I'm sure will be soon) you might consider keeping your stupid false arguments to yourself, and then we won't have to endure your continued embarassment any longer.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Nice try. Go collect some more tolls, troll.

Clench your fists and stomp your feet. My argument remains unassailed, and your embarassment continues ad infinitum.

 

[buckshot24]

Clench your fists and stomp your feet. My argument remains unassailed, and your embarassment continues ad infinitum.

I'm done trying to define what "is, is". If you don't accept that life didn't always exist then I have nothing further to discuss about it. Your argument is stupid. Your argument is that we don't know beyond any and all doubt life didn't always exist. There is no reason, at all, to think that it did.

 

[buckshot24]

Not to mention the fact that the universe might be infinite in space, if that is true then no matter how improbable something is it will happen.

It is expanding so it seems reasonable to think it had a beginning. If so, then there isn't an infinite amount of time available and there isn't anyway it could have expanded beyond a finite size.

 

[werepossum]

The universe as a whole, or in other words, the universal constants. Consider the strong force. Five percent weaker and we have no stable atoms other than hydrogen. Two percent stronger and we have no hydrogen - meaning no time for evolution - plus massive elements which are typically poisonous to life as we know it. That's one of the more lenient of universal constants. Stephen Hawking pointed out that if the charge of an electron varied only a fraction of a percent, either stars would be unable to form or they would be unable to burn helium or hydrogen. Either way, that means no heavier elements, or at least nothing heavier than beryllium.

Professor Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in high energy physics, pointed out that life as we know it requires the vacuum energy to be accurate to 120 decimal places to avoid either expanding and contracting so quickly that no life could arise, or expanding so rapidly that no stars, galaxies or planets could form. And remember, the vacuum energy is not A universal constant, but rather the net energy (after cancellation) of ALL universal constants.

Many, many top level high energy physicists and astrophysicists (many of whom are agnostics or even atheists) have pointed out this remarkable coincidence, that the entire universe's ability to sustain life of any kind is literally balanced on a knife edge. This makes it even more difficult for those positing a natural origin for the universe, for to have any credibility one has to account not only for our universe but for more universes than our own has particles. Otherwise, mathematically it simply falls apart.

Evidently atheists prefer not to think about these things. LOL

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm done trying to define what "is, is".

Did I ask you to define that word?

If you don't accept that life didn't always exist then I have nothing further to discuss about it.

That's a laugh. "If you don't accept my claim purely on my say-so, then I don't wanna talk to you." Grow up.

Your argument is stupid.

You still haven't figured out what my argument is, despite it being re-stated over and over, ad nauseum.

Your argument is that we don't know beyond any and all doubt life didn't always exist.

No. My argument is that you had given a stupidly false reason to believe that life had a beginning.

There is no reason, at all, to think that it did.

I don't think that it did. I just think it is possible, and the reasons you gave to suppose that it was impossible were believeable only by morons.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Evidently atheists prefer not to think about these things. LOL

No, we're just not floored by someone else's argument from incredulity.

It's fine if you are, though.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If you don't accept that life didn't always exist then I have nothing further to discuss about it.

I'm not asking you to accept anything.

 

[soulcougher73]

Hey look, Rob has nothing and is attacking one letter of a mispelling.

 

[soulcougher73]

So you're open to intelligent agents causing it?

My question is if it was guided or unguided.
You should learn to spell before calling people retarded. Looks bad.

Yes im open to intelligent agents causing it. But as yet there is not much proof or convincing evidence to support such a claim. It is possible though.

Hey look, another person attacking a one letter spelling mistake. So petty. Birds of a feather flock together. At least Rob has company so that is good.

 

[Retro Rob]

Hey look, Rob has nothing and is attacking one letter of a mispelling.

I only did that because you felt the need to call people retarded while brain-farting the spelling of a common word.

 

[soulcougher73]

So you're open to intelligence causing first life?
That isn't a problem as has been explained to you.

But if this is a problem for a creator hypothesis then it is a problem for you as well. You've stated that you don't know how life began so eventually you get to a place where you have to say "I don't know" if you want to explain where you came from. So using your logic here we can't say that your parents "created" you because ultimately we don't know where they came from if you go back far enough.

:'(

 

[buckshot24]

Did I ask you to define that word?

Basically.

That's a laugh. "If you don't accept my claim purely on my say-so, then I don't wanna talk to you." Grow up.

A claim you agreed with. haha

You still haven't figured out what my argument is, despite it being re-stated over and over, ad nauseum.

It isn't as if you explicitly state your point.

No. My argument is that you had given a stupidly false reason to believe that life had a beginning.

It wasn't really meant to do that. I didn't think I needed to rigorously establish that life had a beginning.

I don't think that it did. I just think it is possible, and the reasons you gave to suppose that it was impossible were believeable only by morons.

Since I never even tried to show that it was impossible I'm not sure what you could be talking about.

 

[soulcougher73]

Telling a story isn't evidence that it happened. All you've done is tell a story. That is NOT evidence that the story is true.

Oh the irony is delicious.

 

[buckshot24]

Now that is dishonest.()