XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.philosophy   
   XPost: alt.talk.creationism   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:59:58 -0400, James <1rilu2@windstream.net> wrote:   
      
   >Free Lunch    
   >>On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:08:46 -0400, James <1rilu2@windstream.net> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>Free Lunch    
   >>>>On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:03:59 -0400, James <1rilu2@windstream.net> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>raven1    
   >>>>>>On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 06:26:41 -0400, ¶ <> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Everybody knows all matter is comprised of Elements of the Periodic   
   Table... none of which are   
   >>>>>>>alive.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Everybody knows that water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen,   
   >>>>>>neither of which is a liquid, therefore, water isn't a liquid either.   
   >>>>>>When are you going to stop repeating your absurd composition fallacy?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>But he is right. How do you explain LIFE coming from all non-life   
   >>>>>material. Are you saying if you slap together all the complexities of   
   >>>>>a human body, it will magically come to life? What about a dead person   
   >>>>>who just died with his heart stopping? He is still made of the same   
   >>>>>stuff, but WITHOUT life!   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Where else would life come from? Life is a self-sustaining biochemical   
   >>>>reaction. There's nothing magical about it, as theists appear to assume.   
   >>>   
   >>>Yet you still cannot produce it in the lab. If you don't want to call   
   >>>it a "miracle", then call it an unsolved "mystery". Whatever it is, so   
   >>>far it is beyond human thinking.   
   >>   
   >>It is true that scientists have not yet developed life in a lab, though   
   >>they have managed to assemble a virus. This isn't because it is beyond   
   >>human thinking.   
   >   
   >Are not viruses alive?   
      
   Sometimes, but when they are not hosted in active cells, they really   
   aren't.   
      
   >Then they would have created life from nonlife.   
      
   Not exactly. What does it matter to you? You worship your science   
   ignorance and celebrate your religion's foolish claims.   
      
   >Or did they take something already alive, and change it to be   
   >something different?   
      
   They assembled it from subparts.   
      
   >>>>>Your combination of two gasses to produce a liquid, although cleaver   
   >>>>>sounding, has nothing to do with LIFE. So you need a better analogy if   
   >>>>>you can come up with one.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>So answer the question, how do you get life, from non-life? Is it a   
   >>>>>miracle? No, we can't have that, can we. So then how?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>It's not a miracle because it is just normal chemical processes.   
   >>>   
   >>>It is not that simple, since you cannot duplicate it in the lab.   
   >>   
   >>And when there is life in a lab, you will say that is evidence that we   
   >>needed intelligence.   
   >   
   >Would that not be a true statement?   
      
   No.   
      
   >It would take state of the art   
   >scientific machines, and an abundant knowledge of biology etc, to   
   >creat life from nonlife. Nature has neither, yet you are giving her   
   >credit for doing so.   
      
   The evidence is fully consistent with life arising from prebiotic   
   chemicals. There is no requirement for an intelligence. That is just an   
   unscientific claim made by religious people to defend their erroneous,   
   dishonest claims about life on earth.   
      
   >>Your ignorance of science and blind adherence to   
   >>religious dogma makes it impossible for you to engage in informed   
   >>discussion.   
   >   
   >On the contrary, your dedication to the latest scientific false theory   
   >blinds your eyes to the real truths from the Bible.   
      
   What about the real falsehoods found in the Bible. Why don't you address   
   those? If there are any real truths in the Bible, they will be   
   consistent with everything else in the universe that is true. It is   
   quite clear that the Bible is not very reliable. It is useless for   
   science, very inaccurate for history, not much of a moral guide, and   
   full of unsubstantiated claims.   
      
   >You really don't know me. I love true science, but hate pseudoscience.   
      
   You have made it clear that you will dismiss all scientific evidence   
   that does not fit your religious prejudices.   
      
   >(like astrology and macroevolution, etc)   
      
   Your ignorance of biology is noted.   
      
   >I do not blindly follow the   
   >Bible. If we were supposed to blindly follow the Bible, then God could   
   >not punish us for blindly following Buddhism, etc. I verify whateveer   
   >I can from the Bible. I have found it to be a book of profound truths.   
      
   It is not. You have been misled by your religious teachers.   
      
   >James   
   >www.jw.org   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)