NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,16:35) | | Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,15:19) | All the design claims can possibly lead to are conclusions that intelligent living material beings created life on earth.
Obviously, this solves no problems, but merely shifts the problem elsewhere. As such it is worse than nonsense, it is useless nonsense.
This is one of many reasons why 'design inferences' fail. They have no explanatory power.
Design explains nothing.
You need evidence of manufacture. This is starkly missing.
So far all you have done is trot out more and more strained arguments from incredulity.
Your claim, which you still need to defend, is that abiogenesis is impossible.
It clearly occurred -- life exists.
There is nothing in or about life that violates the laws of chemistry and physics.
Thus, there are no grounds for inferring anything other than chemical and physical abiogenesis.
Attempts to drag poorly defined, vague and equivocal notions like 'information' into the argument, and allowing them to trump far better grounded arguments, are unjustifiable. They all amount to arguments from incredulity and special pleading.
Worse, from the perspective of the enterprise of human knowledge, they all seek to make a positive claim based solely on asserted problems with the existing explanations.
Flaws in our current understanding of anything at all provide no positive support for otherwise unsupported assertions masquerading as arguments.
So to repeat the question you continue to avoid, about a claim you yourself made quite emphatically
Why is abiogenesis not merely unlikely or improbable, but impossible? |
Two points here :
How exactly did God create things ? what process was involved ? |
Who asked?
Note, too, that 'process' is also an inherently temporal term. There can be no process if there is no time.
Further, processes are not disembodied or free-floating -- how can there be a process if there are no things (in the broadest sense of the term)?
You're worse at philosophy then you are at science.
[pointless link deleted]
| Quote | Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment, the words in that first verse are quite remarkable. They are indicative of the incredible mind of God. God says in that first verse everything that could have been said about creation and He says it in such few terms. The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition.
A well-known scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter.
Now think about that. Time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.
Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence.
In genesis it says God spoke and things came into existence. God is a potent cause with power ( energy ) and his spoken word indicates information. Because we do not understand and in a detailled manner how he created the physical universe, and life, does not mean God does not understand or can't. Mystery to us is not mystery to God, but we do know that God is not limited to His spiritual realm, as he shown with his becoming of flesh in Jesus Christ.
Argument from incredulity... |
Funny, in all that blather there is nothing that rescues your arguments nor shows that my claims regarding them are false.
You are simply arguing from your own prejudicial (in the technical sense of the term) rejection of theories that you cannot even present accurately. Most, if not all, of your objections to abiogenesis are old, tired, and amount to PRATTs.
| Quote | | And i repeat it WITH ALL LETTERS. Upon what we have learned through research of the origin of life, abiogenesis is not merely unlikely or improbable. It is IMPOSSIBLE by all means. Period. |
Oddly enough, nothing you have posted supports this conclusion.
You continue to squirm around avoiding the question.
Could it be you are not qualified to assert such a claim so boldly and absolutely? You are not so qualified if you cannot answer the question.
Why is abiogenesis impossible?
The words that so impress you are not remarkable in any way.
The claims were not uttered nor recorded by God. Even in the Abrahamic religions, those words are claimed to have been recorded by Moses. Moses' words are not self-validating. It is circular, if not question-begging, to simply accept them on the face of things.
Particularly when, on the face of things, that is, the clear text, the beginning of Genesis is a mishmash of commonplace mythology of the Mediterranean basin, particularly the region from Egypt east and northwards to Turkey.
You are asking us to assume your conclusion.
It remains an asserted conclusion, without adequate support, and without any explanatory power whatsoever even if the existence of a god should somehow be shown.
"Poof" is not an explanation.
But all of those words that you bibliolators are so impressed by are entirely irrelevant to the claims I am attacking.
They are, at best, a cop-out.
Nothing you have posted is responsive to the issues raised.
Why is abiogenesis impossible?
New issues, since you raised the subjects:
How does creation happen when there is no time?
There is no 'beginning' without time.
Ontology has progressed since Spencer. Nor is he particularly noted for his ontology.
You're cherry-picking as part of your furious Gish-gallop to avoid the problems of your own position.
Defend it or explicitly abandon it.
|
