XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 14:35:16 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:
.
>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.
You have great faith in that possibility being correct, but you have no
good
reason to put all your faith in that being the correct possibility.
>It was a result of evolution.
You have good reason for faith that humans developed through an
evolutionary
process, but you have no good reason for faith that it was not directed by any
mind.
>>> 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.
Present some besides archaeopteryx.
>> 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).
It's very possible that if God didn't develop in humans the ability to
consider and appreciate the possibility of his existence, we never would have
developed it. In fact some of "us" never do develop it while others have no
problem with it. Those are some of the basic starting lines that you people
can't get as "far" as.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
