Dr Adnan Ibrahim on Emotional Atheism

[FearGod]

Yes, I am.

Abiogenesis refers to life arising from non-life. If this was done by some miracle of God, then that miracle would be the mechanism for abiogenesis.

The reason that scientists in the field don't talk about God as an explanation is because none of their evidence points to God. It isn't because they decided to reject God.

And that opposes biogenesis which says that life comes from another life and also where in nature that we can see life came to existence
from no-living matters.

Do you realize that there are many people (including many scientists) who believe that God used abiogenesis and evolution as his way to bring about his creation? They believe that God set things in motion with an end result in mind, and didn't need to intervene with magic partway through to make sure that humans, cats, etc. would be created.

Google "theistic evolution" of you're curious.

Exactly, the point is that science is useless at this point since it can't prove what causes life and the universe to exist, only names.

 

[YmirGF]

Whatever.
My truth is different than yours.

*sigh* That is almost exactly what those two people implied.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan — 'You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.'

 

[Sapiens]

That's Dr. Adnan's point, "give it a name" and exclude God.
Giving it a name doesn't make it science except if you can show us the answers by science, so what you
have is expectation that God wasn't included but you can't prove anything.

Parsimony gives us the expectation that the inclusion of God is illogical, names are just convenient.

 

[McBell]

No, you claim know the reality but you don't .

origine of life is theory not fact , and "natural selection" and "randomness" are just names to justify your ignorance and failure.

again with the "what color does the number seven smell like" posts....

 

[Godobeyer]

again with the "what color does the number seven smell like" posts....

this post like , I have no answser , just blah blah .

 

[Godobeyer]

*sigh* That is almost exactly what those two people implied.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan — 'You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.'

there is proverb better.

My opinion is correct could be wrong, your opinion is wrong could be correct.

 

[YmirGF]

again with the "what color does the number seven smell like" posts....

Like one of my faves, "Pink Faeries love nothing more than to ride of the backs of purple unicorns." The point is, prove they don't.

 

[Godobeyer]

Like one of my faves, "Pink Faeries love nothing more than to ride of the backs of purple unicorns." The point is, prove they don't.

not funny at all

 

[YmirGF]

not funny at all

Why not? I'm curious.

 

[Godobeyer]

Why not? I'm curious.

it was distraction, instead of give reasonable answsers.

 

[Sapiens]

I disagree, but that is your decision to make.


That is been addressed all the way back in the video that @9-10ths_Penguin offered us.

You may well feel that way, but there is no logical reason why you must be correct. In fact, I doubt you are.


Let's wait.

Running this through Google Translate, it seems to roughly correspond to:

"I say that random natural selection and luck of the draw are not true explanations. They are empty of meaning and purpose, and therefore can't be the true causes of speciation.

The universe can't just have happened to exist out of nowhere, because an universe so chaotically originated could not possibly sustain nor originate life.

Life can't be originated accidentally out of single-cell beings, since they would not have the means to survive. And that is before considering how impossible it would be for such beings to somehow originate more complex life without a guiding intelligence making it so."

None of that amounts to more than an appeal to your aesthetical sense. Nearly all of that has been refuted quite decisively for a long time, or is simply mistaken.

But it is conceivable that there is some subtlety there escaping my perception.

1. Say all you want, you lack the knowledge and perspective to make a meaningful contribution.
2. You maintain that "an universe so chaotically originated could not possibly sustain nor originate life." Any "proof" of such a sweeping statement that flies in the face of all rational observation?
3. Sure life can originate "accidentally" out of single-cell beings. You maintain that is because they would not have the means to survive, yet such single-cell beings survive even today in a much more competitive environment.

Your problem is clearly not in the meat of the argument but is presuppositional and there is no way to debate that, all that can be done is to point it out.

 

[YmirGF]

it was distraction, instead of give reasonable answsers.

Too bad. There's an important lesson contained in that short sentence.

I specifically chose the Bugs Bunny ending rather than using the much more famous Porky Pig ending due to Muslim sensitivities about pigs.

 

[McBell]

this post like , I have no answser , just blah blah .

That was the whole point of that post.
To point out you are not making any sense.

 

[McBell]

not funny at all

perhaps not.
But it is accurate.

 

[Godobeyer]

That was the whole point of that post.
To point out you are not making any sense.

Of course , I don't.

 

[Godobeyer]

Too bad. There's an important lesson contained in that short sentence.

I specifically chose the Bugs Bunny ending rather than using the much more famous Porky Pig ending due to Muslim sensitivities about pigs.

This video is for kids,why you still watch until now ?

Now, I know what I discuss with

 

[LuisDantas]

1. Say all you want, you lack the knowledge and perspective to make a meaningful contribution.
2. You maintain that "an universe so chaotically originated could not possibly sustain nor originate life." Any "proof" of such a sweeping statement that flies in the face of all rational observation?
3. Sure life can originate "accidentally" out of single-cell beings. You maintain that is because they would not have the means to survive, yet such single-cell beings survive even today in a much more competitive environment.

Your problem is clearly not in the meat of the argument but is presuppositional and there is no way to debate that, all that can be done is to point it out.

Was this directed to me?

 

[LuisDantas]

No, you claim know the reality but you don't .

origine of life is theory not fact , and "natural selection" and "randomness" are just names to justify your ignorance and failure.

It is good that I know you are sincere. Otherwise I would not spend any more time replying to such things.

 

[YmirGF]

Was this directed to me?

Clearly, not.

 

[LuisDantas]

not funny at all

Unfortunately, the comparison is spot on. You are severely mistaken.