XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   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.   
      
   >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.   
      
       Why do you want to pretend that we're not discussing whether or not God   
   had/has deliberate influence on Earth? What do you think you can gain by   
   pretending we're discussing something different? How do you think it could help   
   support your particular position?   
      
   >>>>> Fossils of cyanobacteria date back 3.5 billion years while fossils of   
   >>>>> multicellular life are far more recent. If you would like to believe   
   >>>>> that someone somewhere somehow created cyanobacteria and then waited a   
   >>>>> billion years or so to create anything more complex than that, I can't   
   >>>>> stop you.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>       If something deliberately began and influenced the development of   
   life on   
   >>>> Earth I believe they made use of the evolutionary method of "creation".   
   But then   
   >>>> I believe humans do too in creating new breeds of animals.   
   >>>   
   >>> I've never heard the term 'evolutionary method of "creation"'. What   
   >>> specifically do you mean by it and what are you implying?   
   >>   
   >>      That "natural selection" isn't always only the result of chance   
   mutations   
   >> just happening to be more successful than what they originated from, as is   
   the   
   >> situation with human breeding for example.   
   >   
   >It's clear that you have no idea what natural selection is. Natural   
   >selection is the name given to a wide array of processes, not to the   
   >result of those processes.   
      
       The result of the processes is a significant part of what we're discussing,   
   though what I explained to you about what I was referring to certainly is a   
   significant part of the processes if something deliberately began and   
   influenced   
   the development of life on Earth. Why do you want to pretend it would not have   
   been? What do you think you could gain this time?   
      
   >You could do with a lesson in basic biology.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)