XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: sylvia@not.at.this.address   
      
   On 9/08/2014 5:03 AM, James wrote:   
   > Sylvia Else    
   >> On 8/08/2014 4:25 AM, James wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> So you are saying the first cell had to be of the kind that could self   
   >>> reproduce?   
   >>   
   >> That's an interesting distortion of what I said.   
   >>   
   >> The first reproducing thing, not being a cell, and possibly just a   
   >> single molecule, had to be capable of reproducing (by definition). We   
   >> don't know what the odds are.   
   >   
   > But you have no proof that such a molecule exists, do you?   
      
   No.   
      
   You have no proof that God exists either.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> The first reproducing cell would have evolved from that (or perhaps from   
   >> a later reproducing thing, if the first died out). Since that's an   
   >> evolutionary process, a simplistic approach to the probabilities doesn't   
   >> work.   
   >   
   > According to my references, they do calculate probabilites. And it is   
   > always extremely high chances that life started the way you claim.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> You just upped  the odds about a zillion times.  The above odds   
   >>> figures was based on one protein molecule coming out of a primordial   
   >>> soup, not the whole cell. And the protein molecule (made up of amino   
   >>> acids) was not self producing.   
   >>>   
   >>> Also, look at what you are saying. You are saying a human being came   
   >>> together by no mind.   
   >>   
   >> Er, where did I say that? It's not even implied by what I wrote.   
   >   
   > Then are you saying that human beings were involved in the first   
   > coming together of human beings? Isn't that an oxymoron?   
      
   It's not an oxymoron, because it lacks the required elements.   
      
   Actually, I misconstrued what you wrote. Human beings did arise without   
   that being directed by any mind. It was a result of evolution.   
      
   >>   
   >> I know people who believe in God, but are otherwise apparently capable   
   >> of reasoning correctly. Clearly, that's not always the case.   
   >   
   > My reasoning is based on the facts.   
      
   Facts? You have presented none.   
      
     What do you think of the fact that   
   > a neuroscientist said about the human brain. "the most complex object   
   > in the known universe,"? (Christof Koch, chief scientific officer of   
   > the Allen Institute for Brain Science)   
   >   
   > Or that no human has ever seen one thing turn into another different   
   > thing?	 (dinosaur to bird type thing)   
      
   It happens too slowly for a human being to see it. There are fossils of   
   creatures that are intermediate between birds and dinosaurs.   
   >   
   > Or that no human has ever seen a life form come from non-life?   
   >   
   > Or that no lab has ever duplicated either one?   
      
   Nature had the entire world, and a huge period of time, in which to do   
   it. The process may be sufficiently unlikely that it would, for   
   practical purposes, be impossible to achieve in a laboratory.   
      
   Indeed, it might be something that happens only rarely in the Universe.   
   Had it not happened here, we'd not be around to comment on it (the   
   anthropic principle).   
   >   
   > That don't disturb you at all for that THEORY of macroevolution?   
      
   Nup.   
      
   Sylvia.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)