Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Converting raw energy into biological energy
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 314 (419617)
09-03-2007 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rob
09-03-2007 8:25 PM


Re: You just couldn't wait to drag in the Second Law, could you?
Well, the entire Qur'an in Arabic Morse Code would be good.
And, come to think of it, that would convince me that God created DNA, too. If there were an identical stretch of non-coding DNA found in every human genome that was basically a transcription of the Qur'an in Arabic Morse Code.

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 8:25 PM Rob has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 314 (420009)
09-05-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by kuresu
09-05-2007 10:02 PM


Rob's Balderdash XCI
s your argument just a version of "if we can't see it, it didn't happen"?
He's moved. This was supposed to be, "See? It's impossible!"
Now it's, "But it's only theoretically possible!" Which still prevents the Argument from Incredulity from even getting off the ground.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2007 10:02 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Rob, posted 09-05-2007 10:17 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 314 (420027)
09-05-2007 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Rob
09-05-2007 10:17 PM


Re: Rob's Balderdash XCI
Is evidence neccessary for credulity?
I dunno, you tell me -- you're the one who believes that snakes talk people into eating fruit and people turn into pillars of salt.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Rob, posted 09-05-2007 10:17 PM Rob has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 314 (420528)
09-08-2007 11:32 AM


My summary.
Rob writes:
It is the positive aspects of the natural world evidence that debunk prebiotic organisms.
And this is the whole problem with the argument of this thread. The whole argument is an attempt to explain that something could not have happened, and therefore we must believe that the Protestant Christian God did it.
But the evidence that has been presented shows that one can not conclude that this something could not have happened. In fact, the evidence that has been presented in this thread shows quite well that it is entirely possible that the energy conversion processes in the modern cell could have developed naturalistically. That should be enough to destroy the argument from incredulity (not that such an argument isn't a fallacy to begin with).
So then the argument has to be modified: since scientists cannot come up with the precised, detailed history of how the energy conversion processes did, in fact, develop, then we can conclude that the natural development is impossible, and so we must conclude that the Protestant Christian God created life 6000 years ago.
Even if the thread's attempted point was accurate, that we have absolutely no knowledge of how the natural development of the cell is possible, that still leaves us with no way to conclude the existence of an intelligent designer of any sort. Any hypothesis requires external evidence to support it before it becomes a contender. Without any evidence that such an intelligent designer exists, then it is not an option for serious consideration (at least not beyond an attempt to see if positive evidence can be found).
This entire thread has been an exercise of incredulity, and incredulity maintained despite the very clear reasons that the absolute incredulity shown is not at all justified.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 12:22 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 299 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 12:26 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 302 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 12:32 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 314 (420548)
09-08-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Rob
09-08-2007 12:22 PM


Re: My summary.
Got any?
Debate is over. We're giving summaries.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Added link.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 12:22 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 12:27 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 301 of 314 (420552)
09-08-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Rob
09-08-2007 12:27 PM


Re: My summary.
You're making cliams that were never established.
Actually, I'm repeating what I said earlier in this very thread.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 12:27 PM Rob has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 314 (420555)
09-08-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Rob
09-08-2007 12:32 PM


Re: My summary.
Even if the thread's attempted point was accurate...that still leaves us with no way to conclude the existence of an intelligent designer of any sort.
Thank you for agreeing that the point was established.
Um, okay. Sure thing.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 12:32 PM Rob has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024