Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the source of life
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 26 of 211 (495715)
01-24-2009 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by homunculus
01-24-2009 2:06 AM


Re: Goldilocks
homunculus writes:
Yes, life can flourish in just about every place on the earth. But, as stated in the providential law, it is limited to the earth. my assertion is comparing the rationality of supernatural intercession with spontaneous generation.
You're using a lot of big words to put together a bullshit argument. First of all, you're making an assertion about the universe based on 1 single data point: Earth.
As per the argument, I noted that life on earth exists on a delicate balance of global position, climate and atmospheric gases.
Delicate balance? Bullshit! Even if tomorrow the Earth is completely deprived of oxygen, it would still be teeming with life. It will be a completely different biosphere than what we know now, but life will go on.
the atmosphere is 'all too conveniently' some 75 - 77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1 - 3% carbon dioxide as well as other gasses in the atmosphere represent the ideal figures necessary for the survival of living beings, consequently separating earth's ecosystem from the vacuum of space.
Again, you have convieniently ignored what other posters have stated, so let me state this again.
You are looking at a pothole filled with water and claiming that the pothole was somehow designed to fit the shape of the water in the pothole now.
The Earth happened to have such combination of gases in the atmosphere. Life adapted to such conditions. Those that didn't adapt died out.
earths global position sets about 90 million miles from the sun, according to the "experts". earth's solar distance measures max difference of about 5 million miles. astronomically speaking, 5 million miles isn't an extreme range of distance, considering the sometimes visible Mar's average distance of 140 million miles to the sun. Differing range of 50 million miles to earth.
Again, have you even heard of extremophiles?
And whatever happened to the 1 mile difference bullshit argument?
Back to the point at hand, earth houses life on a plain of pain staking balances. In addition to the much needed conditions for life on earth, according to evolution, life would have needed to spontaneously generate, as per the conditions or nigh.
What the hell are you talking about? (1) Evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenesis. (2) You are still looking at the pothole filled with water and claiming that the pothole is somehow designed to fit the current shape of the water.
The problem with spontaneous generation, again, is that it has never been observed or had evidential facts documented. Since there is no other life in 'observable space', we can safely assume that, according to evolution, spontaneous generation would've had to have taken place due to earth's global specific environs.
You're still using a lot of big words to make a bullshit argument.
You are making a cosmic claim based on 1 single data point. You're proposing that life can only exist in current observable conditions on Earth, nevermind the fact that we haven't been able to go anywhere else to collect any data.
If you have data from other places in the cosmos that I'm not aware of, please share.
Finally, until life does spontaneously generate, either on this planet or on another, I'm ruling that 'living' organic provision is required, which ultimately, not only suggests the supernatural, it requires it.
Why stop there? Don't even bother to go to school. Goddunit seems to answer everything, doesn't it? Don't waste your time learning algebra, chemistry, thermodynamics, and a kazillion other subjects not using the goddunit approach.
Jesus Christ University - where you get an automatic A for being able to write "goddunit" in every answer box on the exams.
Added by edit.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 2:06 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 7:05 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 72 of 211 (495815)
01-24-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by homunculus
01-24-2009 7:05 AM


Re: Goldilocks
homunculus writes:
Let's see, I would like to ask you to not use immature speech on a debate friendly, uncensored forum. Thanks.
Since this thread is on its way down the toilet, I might as well tell you a little about myself.
I'm a cranky person. I normally don't respond to people. When I respond, I sound cranky, because I am cranky. If I were to respond more often, you'd think that I am cranky all the time, and you would be right. It has nothing to do with you. Like the old saying goes, it's not you, it's me.
Rather, I will assert that Even though Evolutionists don't have a shred of evidence to back up their principles (which, ironically is the absence of principle), they still become frustrated (I.E. Taz) to a point of nearly giving themselves a stroke.
Ok, let's sit back for a moment and look at this. Let's assume that evolution is completely wrong. Let's assume that all "evolutionists" have recanted. How in the world does this prove a supernatural being?
Are you aware that you've just given a live demonstration of what I've been saying for years about creationists?
Rule 1 about creationism: disprove evolution ---> creation is proven by default.
I say I don't understand, when really I do. As I had said before, if I had stated on here that everything came from nothing or created itself (I.E. the big bang THEORY)
Then I would say you've been grossly misinformed and that you really really really need to seek out a cosmologist.
I said that not really expecting you to do so simply because you're a creationist, and creationists have a track record of knowing everything.
if I said that life originated from nothing or created itself (abiogenesis, or whatever name it be tagged for the season),
Then I would say you've been grossly misinformed and that you really really really need to seek out a biologist whose discipline is abiogenesis.
But again, I really don't expect you to do so because you seem to know everything already.
But because I said we have only seen life produce life, suggesting the possibility of a god, it's like a black man walked in the middle of a kkk convention with a white girl.
You got it all wrong, so let me attempt to calmly explain this to you again.
The fact that we don't know how life began is a gap in our knowledge. What you are doing is worshipping the god of the gaps. I'm sure you've heard of this since you seem to know everything.
The god of the gaps exists solely in the gaps of our knowledge. As science progresses, the more gaps we fill in. This means that your god of the gaps continually loses a place to live. This is a frightened god, frightened by progress. This god will always be afraid of scientific progress, because it is human nature to continue to make scientific progress and fill in the gaps of our knowledge.
Do you really want to worship the god of the gaps? Unlike you, there are people who worship honest-to-god a god that occupies more than the gaps of our knowledge.
Does the idea of a supernatural creator really crawl on you that much?
No. What crawls on me is using the goddunit answer for everything we don't know.
Just sit back and imagine this. Imagine Kepler using the goddunit answer rather than spending years seeking out a mathematical pattern for the motions of the planets. Instead of Kepler's 3 laws of planetary motion, we'd have kepler's 3 goddunit laws of planetary motion.
Just imagine Einstein using the goddunit answer to explain Mercury's orbit. Well, goddunit.
How do people get sick? Instead of a germ theory of disease, we'd have the goddunit theory of disease.
Why do things fall down? Instead of the theory of gravity, we'd have the theory of goddunit.
Don't you see the implications of using the god of the gaps to explain the unknown?
{Back to cranky mode}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 7:05 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 12:47 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 78 of 211 (495900)
01-25-2009 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by CosmicChimp
01-24-2009 10:13 PM


Re: coming up for air!
Speaking of which, a couple of years ago there was a member that eventually lost his editing privileges. The reason for that was everytime someone refuted a claim he made, he'd go back, edit his post beyond recognition, and declare victory. I actually can't remember his name.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by CosmicChimp, posted 01-24-2009 10:13 PM CosmicChimp has seen this message but 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