Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Universely, absolutely. But we weren't discussing universely. And yet some will still say it was created.

Even then that would be an abiogenesis event.

 

[Valjean]

"I can provide evidence for it."

Can your prove abiogenisis? Yes or no?

Proof is an impossible criterion -- and you know it.
We can't prove anything. We can't prove germs cause disease or that the Earth is round. The best we can do is amass evidence.
We believe things because of credible evidence, not proof..

I can provide evidence for a god. The bible, billions of believers, churches... But that doesn't mean a god actually exits.

The Bible is not evidence of a god, it's a collection of claims. Is Lord of the Rings evidence for orcs?
Millions of believers isn't evidence, it's an ad populum claim. There are millions of believers in Islam. There were once millions for a flat Earth.
Churches? Seriously?

Right now abiogenesis is like a god, neither one have been proven nor disproven.

Abiogenesis is not a personage, or intentional; nor is it worshiped. It's not like a god.

Proof again? Nobody's claiming it's been proved. It's evidenced. Its complete history and mechanism have yet to be discovered, but, inasmuch as there was once no life, and now there's life, we can reasonably assume it came from the 'no life'. Nor are there any alternative claims.
Creationism? -- just another kind of abiogenesis, but with neither a proposed mechanism nor evidence. It's a proposal of agency.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proof is an impossible criterion -- and you know it.
We can't prove anything. We can't prove germs cause disease or that the Earth is round. The best we can do is amass evidence.
We believe things because of credible evidence, not proof..

The Bible is not evidence of a god, it's a collection of claims. Is Lord of the Rings evidence for orcs?
Millions of believers isn't evidence, it's an ad populum claim. There are millions of believers in Islam. There were once millions for a flat Earth.
Churches? Seriously?
Abiogenesis is not a personage, or intentional; nor is it worshiped. It's not like a god.

Proof again? Nobody's claiming it's been proved. It's evidenced. Its complete history and mechanism have yet to be discovered, but, inasmuch as there was once no life, and now there's life, we can reasonably assume it came from the 'no life'. Nor are there any alternative claims.
Creationism? -- just another kind of abiogenesis, but with neither a proposed mechanism nor evidence. It's a proposal of agency.

I do not think that he understands that. I offered to give him evidence and explained that was all that there was in the sciences and he seemed to think that was an a loss on my side.

 

[We Never Know]

Proof is an impossible criterion -- and you know it.
We can't prove anything. We can't prove germs cause disease or that the Earth is round. The best we can do is amass evidence.
We believe things because of credible evidence, not proof..

The Bible is not evidence of a god, it's a collection of claims. Is Lord of the Rings evidence for orcs?
Millions of believers isn't evidence, it's an ad populum claim. There are millions of believers in Islam. There were once millions for a flat Earth.
Churches? Seriously?
Abiogenesis is not a personage, or intentional; nor is it worshiped. It's not like a god.

Proof again? Nobody's claiming it's been proved. It's evidenced. Its complete history and mechanism have yet to be discovered, but, inasmuch as there was once no life, and now there's life, we can reasonably assume it came from the 'no life'. Nor are there any alternative claims.
Creationism? -- just another kind of abiogenesis, but with neither a proposed mechanism nor evidence. It's a proposal of agency.

Right. But the phrase "prove it" started right here.

Then prove it. If you can't then it is just a belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right. But the phrase "prove it" started right here.

Yes, and I explained to you what that means.

Why did you ignore that and go with your strawman version? Is it because you know that I was right? Why when you are wrong and I am right do you always hate to admit it ?

 

[Valjean]

So, the chances are either the 99% chance of a theory that failed to be accepted as a scientific theory after more than 100 years of scientific research or 1% Aliens from outer space. How pathetic?

??????.
Are you seriously claiming >100 years of scientific research into abiogenesis? It's only recently we acquired the tools to research the mechanisms involved. Before that it was the only reasonable assumption, inasmuch as life did appear on a lifeless planet.
Aliens? That just shifts the proposed venue.

There is. Demonstrate your evidence for the claim that the simplest known life form today (single-celled organism) can be reduced much further to the alleged simpler first life. See #2493

You haven't looked into this, have you?
We've observed the components of a cell forming, all that remains is the assembly mechanism.
What alternative mechanism do you propose?

 

[Valjean]

Life "could" have arrived here per meteor/comet. That would/could mean abiogenesis wasn't needed/didn't happen on earth.

That wouldn't be an argument against abiogenesis, it would be a proposed alternative site of.

 

[Valjean]

Universely, absolutely. But we weren't discussing universely. And yet some will still say it was created.

Everyone agrees it was created. We're just arguing about mechanism and intentionality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

??????.
Are you seriously claiming >100 years of scientific research into abiogenesis? It's only recently we acquired the tools to research the mechanisms involved. Before that it was the only reasonable assumption, inasmuch as life did appear on a lifeless planet.
Aliens? That just shifts the proposed venue.
You haven't looked into this, have you?
We've observed the components of a cell forming, all that remains is the assembly mechanism.
What alternative mechanism do you propose?

A very long time ago, in an interview that was heavily edited after the fact, including the supposed questions that were asked, Dawkins was asked if he could think of any other possible explanation for the appearance of life on the Earth. When one could not consider natural abiogenesis he said that then it could have been aliens. That is not saying "It was aliens ; ; duR!!"

 

[We Never Know]

Proof is an impossible criterion -- and you know it.
We can't prove anything. We can't prove germs cause disease or that the Earth is round. The best we can do is amass evidence.
We believe things because of credible evidence, not proof..

The Bible is not evidence of a god, it's a collection of claims. Is Lord of the Rings evidence for orcs?
Millions of believers isn't evidence, it's an ad populum claim. There are millions of believers in Islam. There were once millions for a flat Earth.
Churches? Seriously?
Abiogenesis is not a personage, or intentional; nor is it worshiped. It's not like a god.

Proof again? Nobody's claiming it's been proved. It's evidenced. Its complete history and mechanism have yet to be discovered, but, inasmuch as there was once no life, and now there's life, we can reasonably assume it came from the 'no life'. Nor are there any alternative claims.
Creationism? -- just another kind of abiogenesis, but with neither a proposed mechanism nor evidence. It's a proposal of agency.

And again here "prove" even when talking about evolution. So sometimes I like to throw it back at the ones that complain about the use of "prove" but yet use it themselves.

Please prove that evolution has that sort of goal.

 

[We Never Know]

Everyone agrees it was created. We're just arguing about mechanism and intentionality.

"Everyone agrees it was created"

Created???

 

[Subduction Zone]

And again here "prove" even when talking about evolution. So sometimes I like to throw it back at the ones that complain about the use of "prove" but yet use it themselves.

In a scientific discussion when one demands "proof" the proper response is to provide evidence since that is all that there is in the sciences. You are misusing a term in your argument. And when you demanded proof I do believe I pointed out that you would not understand the evidence, so your demand was groundless.

Can I provide evidence? Of course. That would be all that I needed to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Everyone agrees it was created"

Created???

Yes, the word "created" was a bit cringeworthy since it implies agency.

 

[We Never Know]

In a scientific discussion when one demands "proof" the proper response is to provide evidence since that is all that there is in the sciences. You are misusing a term in your argument. And when you demanded proof I do believe I pointed out that you would not understand the evidence, so your demand was groundless.

Can I provide evidence? Of course. That would be all that I needed to do.

Dude! You were the one using "prove".
I simply threw it back at you. Even here when again you used "prove" when discussing evolution goals.

Get over yourself

Please prove that evolution has that sort of goal.

Link to quote..

I believe UFO and Aliens are real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dude! You were the one using "prove".
I simply threw it back at you. Even here when again you used "prove" when discussing evolution goals.

Get over yourself



Link to quote..

I believe UFO and Aliens are real.

Try asking again without the facepalms since your post is always the one that generates facepalms. I will try to explain if you do that. I sometimes have to wonder if English is a second language for you.

 

[We Never Know]

Try asking again without the facepalms since your post is always the one that generates facepalms. I will try to explain if you do that. I sometimes have to wonder if English is a second language for you.

"Try asking again"

Are you delusional? I didn't ask anything. There was no question in my post

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Try asking again"

Are you delusional? I didn't ask anything. There was no question in my post

I see. So you are saying that it only had false claims in it. Why am I not surprised.

 

[Valjean]

"Everyone agrees it was created"

Created???

Naturally created. Created by intentionless, non-directed chemistry and physics.
I was implying no intentionality; no "creator."

 

[Valjean]

And again here "prove" even when talking about evolution. So sometimes I like to throw it back at the ones that complain about the use of "prove" but yet use it themselves.

Are they using it colloquially, or in a technical context?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Can I provide evidence? Of course. That would be all that I needed to do.

Evidence is proof. Do we have to create a human before @You Never Know on a lab table to prove it? It took more than 4 billion years.
What evidence can the theists provide for their Gods and Goddesses, and for their prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis?