XPost: alt.atheism, alt.flame.jesus.christ, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:17:27 -0500, August Rode  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:44:37 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 14:31:24 -0500, August Rode  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On 25/12/2014 8:34 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 20:42:47 -0500, August Rode    
   wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>        It's sort of like the proposition that life could have   
   developed by random   
   >>>>>>>> chance on this planet without anything deliberately bringing it into   
   existence,   
   >>>>>>>> except that there's no evidence to support it  and all attempts to   
   prove it   
   >>>>>>>> correct have failed and instead been evidence that it's incorrect.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> So what you're saying is that there is no evidence that life could have   
   >>>>>>> been brought into existence deliberately because all attempts to do so   
   >>>>>>> have failed.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>       No. That's evidence that it didn't happen just by random chance.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> How so? Walk me through your reasoning.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>      Since even by deliberately creating various conditions humans have   
   been   
   >>>> unable to produce life from lifeless material on this planet, it's   
   evidence that   
   >>>> life didn't happen to somehow originate just by chance on this planet   
   either.   
   >>>   
   >>>No one claims that it happened just by chance, you silly person.   
   >>   
   >>    It happened by chance or it happened by deliberate intent. Even if you   
   try   
   >>to explain how it did "not" happen by chance you still will be saying it   
   didn't   
   >>happen by deliberate intent meaning it happened by chance, according to you.   
   The   
   >>fact that you don't like the term means you're ashamed of the meaning, which   
   is   
   >>that it just happened to happen without deliberate intent.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>> Fine. I can live with that.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> There is evidence that suggests the gradual emergence of life on this   
   >>>>>>> planet.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>       Like what.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Nothing but single celled organisms for billions of years. They're   
   >>>>> eventually followed by soft-bodied, simple multicellular forms. Then   
   >>>>> marine organisms with hard body parts and the earliest chordates. Do you   
   >>>>> really need me to continue?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The entire pattern of the fossil record shows a very simple beginning   
   >>>>> followed by a gradual diversion of forms. That this planet's life   
   >>>>> emerged through organic chemistry is an inference from the data. There   
   >>>>> is no data that suggests that life was created through a deliberate act   
   >>>>> by an intelligent agent.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>      There's nothing to suggest it didn't either. What you mentioned is   
   >>>> significant in some ways if there is no God associated with Earth. But!   
   It's   
   >>>> just as significant if not more so if there is a God associated with   
   Earth.   
   >>>   
   >>>I have been meaning to ask you... You keep using the phrase "a God   
   >>>associated with Earth". It's unique with you as nearly as I can tell. I   
   >>>have never seen anyone else use that phrase.   
   >>   
   >>    That's not a failing on my part.   
   >>   
   >>>What are you suggesting by it?   
   >>   
   >>    The meaning speaks for itself, meaning that there was/is a God associated   
   >>with this planet by having had deliberate influence on it. I've always felt   
   that   
   >>last part didn't need to be pointed out specifically. Only very few people   
   have   
   >>acted unable to comprehend on their own, and ONLY atheists have done so.   
   >>   
   >>>That there is a different god for every planet?   
   >>   
   >>    Not to me. If referring to it in that way causes you to believe there   
   might   
   >>be then please explain how. Using that phrase is acknowledging that there   
   could   
   >>be other Gods that are not associated with Earth, or aren't directly   
   associated   
   >>with it, or countless possibly variations. It gives a person more freedom to   
   >>speculate than to simply suggest that there is one God over the entire   
   universe   
   >>and that that particular being has great interest and influence on this one   
   >>little planet. It doesn't make a person appreciate that leeway or apparently   
   >>necessarily even recognise it, but it does provide it none the less.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>> The oldest fossils we have are those of single celled organisms.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>       That's not evidence that they happened by random chance.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You didn't ask me to present evidence of that. And if you did, I   
   >>>>> couldn't. 'Cause no one has ever seriously proposed that random chance   
   >>>>> alone is responsible for the emergence of life. Chemistry is *not*   
   random.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>      Explain how it's deliberate then.   
   >>>   
   >>>'Deliberate' and 'random' are not the only two choices here, mur. Oxygen   
   >>>gas and hydrogen gas in the presence of sufficient energy combines to   
   >>>produce water,   
   >>   
   >>    That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing whether or not there   
   was   
   >>deliberate influence. Apparently you're ashamed of trying to support the idea   
   >>that there was none, even as you try to support it.   
   >   
   >Excuse me?   
      
       "Apparently you're ashamed of trying to support the idea   
   that there was none, even as you try to support it."   
      
   >You seem to be under the impression that 'random chance' and   
   >'deliberate' are the only two options. They aren't. If you want to   
   >change the options to 'deliberate' and 'non-deliberate', then that's a   
   >different discussion, a discussion we *weren't* having as nearly as I   
   >could tell.   
      
   me:   
       "It's sort of like the proposition that life could have developed by random   
   chance on this planet without anything deliberately bringing it into existence,   
   except that there's no evidence to support it and all attempts to prove it   
   correct have failed and instead been evidence that it's incorrect."   
      
   you:   
   "So what you're saying is that there is no evidence that life could have   
   been brought into existence deliberately because all attempts to do so   
   have failed."   
      
   >You seem to expect me to be able to read your mind, mur. I can't do   
   >that. (Given the apparent jumble that's in there, I wouldn't want to.) I   
   >can only respond to what you write; I cannot respond to what you *ought*   
   >to have written.   
      
       LOL! You can't even respond to what YOU have written. For whatever reason   
   it's just the nature of you atheists to eventually resort to pretty much   
   nothing   
   but dishonesty. Maybe somehow it's not truly "your fault", but it is the   
   consistent pattern with ever one of you that I remember ever encountering. This   
   is just one more example.   
      
   >>>regardless of whether those gases are deliberately put in   
   >>>connection with each other or not.   
   >>   
   >>    Whether or not there was/is such deliberate influence IS what we're   
   >>discussing.   
   >>   
   >>>It's also true that randomness produces order. The movement of   
   >>>individual molecules in a fluid is random, but this will result in a   
   >>>uniform (or nearly so) distribution of those molecules in the fluid.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)