XPost: talk.religion.christian.jehovah-witness, free.christians, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: see@sig.below   
      
   In article , HeatWave   
    declared...   
   > Gregory A Greenman wrote:   
   > > In article , HeatWave   
   > >  declared...   
   > >> Gregory A Greenman wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >>>> They say that scientific investigation of the world   
   > >>>> around us has proved that life came into existence not by intelligent   
   > >>>> creation but by blind chance and the haphazard process of evolution.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> This is just a straw man. No one actually says this. When you lie   
   > >>> to people about their beliefs, do you honestly think you're   
   > >>> likely to persuade them that they're wrong?   
   > >>>   
   > >>>   
   > >> If there was no Creator, then life must have started spontaneously by   
   > >> chance.  Do you deny this?   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > Yes I deny that. It's possible that life has always existed   
   > > (although I don't believe that to be the case).   
   >   
   > Interesting, Life has always been.   
      
      
   Funny, I could have sworn I said that it's a possibility, but not   
   one that I believe is not an actuality.   
      
      
      
      
   > > And chance isn't   
   > > the right word for it.   
   > >   
   > > BTW, if there is a creator, did the creator come into existence   
   > > by chance?   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   > Not if you believe Life has always been.   
      
      
   So how did the creator come into existence? Did some chemicals   
   come together in just the right way for just the right time?   
      
      
      
      
      
      
   > >> or is it another straw man.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > Do you know what a straw man is? Apparently not. It's a position   
   > > you incorrectly attribute to others that you then criticize.   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   > a strawman is an object, document, person, or argument that temporarily   
   > stands in for and is intended to be "knocked down" by something more   
   > substantial.  Has nothing to do with wrong attributions, or criticism.   
      
      
   "Knocked down" means "criticized" idiot. "Stands in for" means   
   "is attributed to someone else, in place of their real position"   
   idiot.   
      
   Next time you cut and paste something you ought to read it ~and~   
   try to understand it.   
      
      
      
      
      
   > >> For life to have   
   > >> come about, somehow the right chemicals would have had to come together   
   > >> in the right quantities, under the right temperature and pressure and   
   > >> other controlling factors, and all would have had to be maintained for   
   > >> the correct length of time.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > Yep. Just like for rain to occur, "somehow the right chemicals   
   > > would have had to come together in the right quantities, under   
   > > the right temperature and pressure and other controlling factors,   
   > > and all would have had to be maintained for  the correct length   
   > > of time". Note that rain occurs all the time. (Well, except here   
   > > in Texas. If anyone has any to spare, please send it here.)   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   > But abiogenesis doesn't   
      
      
   Doesn't occur all the time? How do you know? Perhaps new life   
   comes into existence every day in the depths of geysers, only to   
   be eaten by already existing life.   
      
      
      
      
   > .. you were saying about the strawman fallacy?   
      
      
   That you should try to learn what it is and avoid using it.   
   Obviously you don't understand the fallacy because I did not come   
   anywhere close to committing that fallacy.   
      
      
      
      
   > >> Furthermore, for life to have begun and been   
   > >> sustained on earth, these chance events would have had to be repeated   
   > >> thousands of times. But how likely is it for even one such event to take   
   > >> place?   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > Pretty darn close to a certainty. You've got vast amounts of   
   > > spaces on earth where abiogenesis could have occurred and you   
   > > have vast amounts of time over which it could have occurred.   
   >   
   > And yet it can't even be duplicated. Urey-Miller showed that much.   
      
      
   So what? Suppose god created all life 6,000 years ago. Can you   
   duplicate that? Should we therefore conclude that that's not what   
   happened?   
      
      
      
      
   > > Also, it's probable that there are millions of earth like planets   
   > > in the Universe on which it could have occurred.   
   >   
   > It is also probable that, there is only one earth as well.   
      
      
   One earth and probably many, many like it.   
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Greg   
   ----   
   http://www.spencerbooksellers.com   
   greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)