Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
35 online now:
Aussie, Diomedes, DrJones*, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,775 Year: 16,811/19,786 Month: 936/2,598 Week: 182/251 Day: 11/59 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Coyote
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 446 of 687 (523390)
09-09-2009 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by ICANT
09-09-2009 9:36 PM


Re: Genesis Literal Facts
It is a scientific fact life produces life.

Nonsense.

This is an assertion, not a documented fact.

If one discounts the hundreds of thousands (or more) purported deities, for which there is no empirical evidence, then life is not required to produce life.

Rather than arguing that "life produces life" and using this as evidence for one or more of these purported deities, perhaps you could come up with empirical evidence for these deities?

Document that they exist and then we can argue about their purported characteristics, inclinations, and table manners, and whether one or more of them created life somewhere.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:36 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 10:58 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 448 of 687 (523401)
09-09-2009 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by ICANT
09-09-2009 10:58 PM


Re: Genesis Literal Facts
There are over 260 humans births per minute in the world.

Those are the offspring of human parents.

I think that alone would prove my assertion as you put it.

Do you have one documented account of non life producing life?

Life produce life whether you like it or not.


Sorry, that doesn't cut it as empirical evidence.

What human parents do now has no relation to the question of origins. What human parents do now doesn't prove anything about origins several billion years ago! You should be ashamed for even suggesting such a thing! Freshmen in science courses have been failed for less than that.

As to whether "non life produces life" -- unless you can produce empirical evidence for one or more deities who could handle the job of producing life, what is left as an alternative?

And as for empirical evidence for deities, so far there is none. Belief doesn't constitute empirical evidence, so beyond that what've you got?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 10:58 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 7:52 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 461 of 687 (523447)
09-10-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by ICANT
09-10-2009 8:32 AM


Re: Life from non Life
Since only life produces life the first life on earth had to be produced by a living life form.

Still nonsense.

I suppose the fact that Edison failed to make a workable filament for his first light bulb--producing thousands of failures--is proof positive that such a filament can't be made, eh? That's the analogy you are making.

But you are left with one simple problem: There is no empirical evidence for deities, yours or any other. There is only your religious belief, the details of which are contradicted by tens of thousands of other religious beliefs from around the world. And none are supported by empirical evidence. Not very much to go on there, eh?

But from this mish-mash of unsupported beliefs you pull an absolute proof that only life begets life?

Sorry, that's just another belief, and its not proof of anything.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 8:32 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 4:49 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 468 of 687 (523492)
09-10-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by ICANT
09-10-2009 4:49 PM


Re: Life from non Life
I don't think I'll be continuing this conversation with you.

Not having arrived at your conclusions by means of evidence, no amount of evidence will serve to alter those conclusions.

A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.

Robert A. Heinlein, Friday


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 4:49 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019