XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 21:00:55 -0400, James <1rilu2@windstream.net> wrote:   
   .   
   >Sylvia Else    
   >>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.   
   >   
   >Yes we do, but you reject it. We can see God's handprints all over the   
   >place by means of his intelligent creation. Either God created all the   
   >life forms on this planet, or some alien did.   
      
       How could God possibly be native to Earth?   
      
   >But something did with   
   >extreme intelligence.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   >And pigs can fly.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   >I am sure you are not deliberately lying, are you?   
      
       That is the most commonly recurring question with these people. This   
   particular thread was inspired by that particular question in fact, and so far   
   it appears that none of them are willing to say they agree with their retarded   
   brother.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)