abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

reply to post by squiz

Enlighten us with your facts. May want to look up the definition of facts before you attempt to do so.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

Noncompatible you say --

..."we don't know" is the most honest answer there is, surely ?

It's more like "WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW is the most honest answer there is" for atheist n such - alike, cuz evidence of intelligence is staring you in the eye.

imagine that - DNA CODE is INTELLIGENCE!

tc

And that's your BELIEF....not backed up by objective evidence

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I'd love to play poker against anyone applying "creationist probability calculations"

Hope they understand Borel's Law...

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

Noncompatible you say --

..."we don't know" is the most honest answer there is, surely ?

It's more like "WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW is the most honest answer there is" for atheist n such - alike, cuz evidence of intelligence is staring you in the eye.

imagine that - DNA CODE is INTELLIGENCE!

tc

And that's your BELIEF....not backed up by objective evidence

No siree Bob - not just a belief but a fact backed up by objective evidence that you refuse to see and refuse to know.

Let me prove it to you by way of a simple question:

Is the DNA Code a form of language?

That is a language that we can interprete and cypher?

Or are they just random meaningless bunched of codes with no sense of stucture and purpose - a completely arbitrariy code of nonsense like the abioGenesis hypothesis?

For example - the DNA Code for insulin.

What say you - all NOT KNOWING -ignorant- ONE?

Don't know?

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I'd love to play poker against anyone applying "creationist probability calculations"

Hope they understand Borel's Law...

says that if there is less than a 1 in 10^50 chance for something to happen, it will never happen, no matter how much time is allowed.

So happybunny - you should be able to show us how life is possible then using Borel's Law.

From the Big Bang to the formation of a simple DNA Code - all by unguided chance event.

tick tock - clock is ticking....

reply to post by edmc^2

Borel's law was referenced by HappyBunny to elicit the exact response you just gave, hoping you would use it to strengthen your argument, thereby embarrassing yourself even further.

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Borel's law was referenced by HappyBunny to elicit the exact response you just gave, hoping you would use it to strengthen your argument, thereby embarrassing yourself even further.

Happy to obliged!!

finally someone took the bait.

Point is - chance event whatever probability you apply to it IS IMPOSSIBLE to occur when it comes to INTELLIGENT LIFE.

Yet evolutionists / atheist alike say it happened because here we are. That is, chance event DID IT.

Know what I mean - so to me it's really embarrassing for someone to claim to be scientific but then turn around and put faith that unguided chance event was responsible for life.

But when ask to explain - "we don't know" is the answer.

So uva3021 what say you - was chance event responsible for the emergence of INTELLIGENT Life?

Don't Know?

reply to post by uva3021


Chew on this one too while you figure out my question.

“If the universe is simply an accident, the odds against it containing any appreciable order are ludicrously small. . . . As this was clearly not the case, it appears hard to escape the conclusion that the actual state of the universe has been ‘chosen’ or selected somehow from the huge number of available states, all but an infinitesimal fraction of which are totally disordered. And if such an exceedingly improbable initial state was selected, there surely had to be a selector or designer to ‘choose’ it.” -- God and the New Physics

-- Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Newcastle in Great Britain,

So what say you uva3021 - CHANCE EVENT DID IT?

'don't know?

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

Noncompatible you say --

..."we don't know" is the most honest answer there is, surely ?

It's more like "WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW is the most honest answer there is" for atheist n such - alike, cuz evidence of intelligence is staring you in the eye.

imagine that - DNA CODE is INTELLIGENCE!

tc

And that's your BELIEF....not backed up by objective evidence

No siree Bob - not just a belief but a fact backed up by objective evidence that you refuse to see and refuse to know.

Let me prove it to you by way of a simple question:

Is the DNA Code a form of language?

That is a language that we can interprete and cypher?

Or are they just random meaningless bunched of codes with no sense of stucture and purpose - a completely arbitrariy code of nonsense like the abioGenesis hypothesis?

For example - the DNA Code for insulin.

What say you - all NOT KNOWING -ignorant- ONE?

Don't know?

Complexity and order don't automatically prove intelligence

You are essentially like a kid seeing a car for the first time, and the car is blue...so the kid automatically believes all cars are blue.

Complete...and utter...nonsense!

Once again you're simply repeating an argumentative fallacy over and over and over again. You have provided ZERO objective evidence for your claims, and even worse, you try to sell your BELIEF to people as if it were a proven theory.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by uva3021

 

Chew on this one too while you figure out my question.

“If the universe is simply an accident, the odds against it containing any appreciable order are ludicrously small. . . . As this was clearly not the case, it appears hard to escape the conclusion that the actual state of the universe has been ‘chosen’ or selected somehow from the huge number of available states, all but an infinitesimal fraction of which are totally disordered. And if such an exceedingly improbable initial state was selected, there surely had to be a selector or designer to ‘choose’ it.” -- God and the New Physics

-- Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Newcastle in Great Britain,

So what say you uva3021 - CHANCE EVENT DID IT?

'don't know?

Yes, and he's stating an OPINION. He isn't providing a scientific theory or objective evidence to back up his claims. Just because he's a scientist doesn't mean everything he says is suddenly a scientific theory.

By the way, thanks providing another example of an argumentative fallacy...the ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY.

reply to post by edmc^2

So uva3021 what say you - was chance event responsible for the emergence of INTELLIGENT Life?

Don't Know?

"Don't know" is the only honest answer given that we DON'T KNOW

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by uva3021

 

Chew on this one too while you figure out my question.

“If the universe is simply an accident, the odds against it containing any appreciable order are ludicrously small. . . . As this was clearly not the case, it appears hard to escape the conclusion that the actual state of the universe has been ‘chosen’ or selected somehow from the huge number of available states, all but an infinitesimal fraction of which are totally disordered. And if such an exceedingly improbable initial state was selected, there surely had to be a selector or designer to ‘choose’ it.” -- God and the New Physics

-- Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Newcastle in Great Britain,

So what say you uva3021 - CHANCE EVENT DID IT?

'don't know?

Yes, and he's stating an OPINION. He isn't providing a scientific theory or objective evidence to back up his claims. Just because he's a scientist doesn't mean everything he says is suddenly a scientific theory.

By the way, thanks providing another example of an argumentative fallacy...the ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY.

Ahh!! of course - now comes the circular argument.

State a fact - they will ask for evidence from an expert.

Provide a the evidence - they come back with just an "OPINION".

Back it up again with more facts from other experts - they come back with "ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY".

Provide further proof - and ask them to provide their evidence - they come back with

"WE DON'T KNOW".

See I figured you already with this simple bait n switch.

So MR. XYZ - what do you call "believing on something you don't know"?

care to take a CHANCE?

reply to post by edmc^2

Ahh!! of course - now comes the circular argument.

State a fact - they will ask for evidence from an expert.

Provide a the evidence - they come back with just an "OPINION".

Back it up again with more facts from other experts - they come back with "ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY".

Provide further proof - and ask them to provide their evidence - they come back with

"WE DON'T KNOW".

See I figured you already with this simple bait n switch.

So MR. XYZ - what do you call "believing on something you don't know"?

care to take a CHANCE?

It isn't a circular argument, it's a FACT that you are using the argument from authority.

Do you even understand the difference between an OPINION and a SCIENTIFIC THEORY??

Again, just because a scientists says something doesn't mean it's automatically comparable in validity to scientific theories. He could have said "strawberries taste awful", and that would also be an opinion, just like him stating he believes in a creator. It's not comparable to a scientific theory fully backed up by objective evidence!

Here's what circular reasoning really means, you don't seem to understand its meaning: LINK

reply to post by MrXYZ



So MR. XYZ - what do you call "believing in something you don't know"?

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So MR. XYZ - what do you call "believing in something you don't know"?

edit on 9-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: in on

Personal belief not based on objective evidence? Don't your question at all..you could call it an opinion.

The sad part is, you pretend your personal belief is fact...and that's kinda weird given you haven't provided any proof to back up those claims. You are essentially asking people to blindly believe you

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So uva3021 what say you - was chance event responsible for the emergence of INTELLIGENT Life?

Don't Know?

"Don't know" is the only honest answer given that we DON'T KNOW

Mr. XYZ - what do you call someone who readily believes in something he/she doesn't know?

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So uva3021 what say you - was chance event responsible for the emergence of INTELLIGENT Life?

Don't Know?

"Don't know" is the only honest answer given that we DON'T KNOW

Mr. XYZ - what do you call someone who readily believes in something he/she doesn't know?

Blind faith? Take your pick

Are you gonna start defending creationism again with semantics now that you ran out of scientific arguments?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So MR. XYZ - what do you call "believing in something you don't know"?

edit on 9-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: in on

Personal belief not based on objective evidence? Don't your question at all..you could call it an opinion.

The sad part is, you pretend your personal belief is fact...and that's kinda weird given you haven't provided any proof to back up those claims. You are essentially asking people to blindly believe you

edit on 9-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

you almost got it - It's called BLIND FAITH.

Fact is all of the evidence I presented to support my belief are grounded on facts.

You on the other hand based your belief on what you don't know.

So to me a person who believes on what he/she doesn't know is either ignorant or just plain gullible.

To prove my POINT.

I believe that Life can only come from pre-existing life.

Experiment after experiment showed this to be a fact.

You on the other hand don't know and many of your type believe in an unproven hypothesis that life arose from non-living materials by chance events.

Am I right?

If so - who really is basing their belief on OPINION here?

I say those who believe in what they don't know.

reply to post by edmc^2

Fact is all of the evidence I presented to support my belief are grounded on facts.

No they're not

You are just rehashing argumentative fallacy after argumentative fallacy...

You on the other hand based your belief on what you don't know.

OF COURSE I do

If something is unknown, then guess what, it's UNKNOWN. And in the case of knowing how life started in the first place, we really don't know.

So to me a person who believes on what he/she doesn't know is either ignorant or just plain gullible.

No, a person who admits when something ISN'T KNOWN is an HONEST person

A person who fills that GAP IN KNOWLEDGE with magic and fairytales on the other hand...well...

I believe that Life can only come from pre-existing life.

Experiment after experiment showed this to be a fact.

Again, we DON'T KNOW how first life started....so you can't know that, and most definitely not claim it's a fact

You on the other hand don't know and many of your type believe in an unproven hypothesis that life arose from non-living materials by chance events.

It's a hypothesis, not a proven theory like evolution...please learn the difference.

Am I right?

No.

If so - who really is basing their belief on OPINION here?

You are.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So uva3021 what say you - was chance event responsible for the emergence of INTELLIGENT Life?

Don't Know?

"Don't know" is the only honest answer given that we DON'T KNOW

Mr. XYZ - what do you call someone who readily believes in something he/she doesn't know?

Blind faith? Take your pick

Are you gonna start defending creationism again with semantics now that you ran out of scientific arguments?

edit on 9-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

semantics? no just plain down to earth free from gobbledegook words.

Besides what's the point of using Scientific Arguments when the person your speaking with doesn't know what the heck to believe in/on.

I mean - how do you reason with a person who says:

"Don't know" is the only honest answer given that we DON'T KNOW

to the question - where does INTELLIGENT Life came from?

You know what I mean? INTELLIGENCE comes from where/what?