How the chickens learned the need to sit on it's eggs ?

[apophenia]

As of yet, science has come across no reason whatsoever why life cannot form naturally, therefore the concept of abiogenesis is still viable.

Is there a scientific effort to find a reason ' why life cannot form naturally' ?

That would be news to me.

In fact, I think the very proposition of 'a reason why life cannot form naturally' is a bit dubious isn't it ?

Therefore, your 'therefore' isn't valid. The absence of proof that life cannot form naturally is not an argument for the validity of abiogenesis !

It actually isn't an argument for anything at all.

 

[Ouroboros]

Lol I meant it has been described that way in the context of other materials being formed on earth. Iron has been specifically singled out for coming outside of earth for some reason.

No. That's wrong. Technically all elements came from somewhere else. Nothing originated on Earth (except perhaps biological organic structures, but it's possible that started somewhere else as well).

 

[Ouroboros]

Iron can also form in sedimentary rocks.

Not sure what you mean. Are you certain about this?

 

[secret2]

Is there a scientific effort to find a reason ' why life cannot form naturally' ?

That would be news to me.

In fact, I think the very proposition of 'a reason why life cannot form naturally' is a bit dubious isn't it ?

Therefore, your 'therefore' isn't valid. The absence of proof that life cannot form naturally is not an argument for the validity of abiogenesis !

It actually isn't an argument for anything at all.

You are quote-mining. The original words from ImmortalFlame were
" "Viable" essentially means "capable of working". As of yet, science has come across no reason whatsoever why life cannot form naturally, therefore the concept of abiogenesis is still viable."

He made it very clear that what he was saying is the possibility ("viable"). No one is making any claim about the validity (yet).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is there a scientific effort to find a reason ' why life cannot form naturally' ?

That would be news to me.

In fact, I think the very proposition of 'a reason why life cannot form naturally' is a bit dubious isn't it ?

Therefore, your 'therefore' isn't valid. The absence of proof that life cannot form naturally is not an argument for the validity of abiogenesis !

It actually isn't an argument for anything at all.

Thank you for, once again, putting words in my mouth rather than responding to the actual points I've made.

We're done.

 

[FearGod]

I didn't and I never have. I've never once tried to indicate that abiogenesis has anything to do with evolution. FearGod mentioned "the origin of life" as something for which only a God could be an explanation - that is the only reason I brought abiogenesis up, and I never NOT EVEN ONCE said it had any relation to evolution whatsoever.
.

Please don't make me an excuse for your silly arguments.

Show me where did i confirm or said that God started the creation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Please don't make me an excuse for your silly arguments.

Show me where did i confirm or said that God started the creation.

My comment was a response to this claim:

Do i have to repeat myself,i said we can observe god's effect for all things around us.
should i mention them all,i'll count some

1 - creation of the sun,moon and other planets,stars...etc
2 - creation of all living things
3 - creation of plants

You clearly state here that God's effect can be observed in the creation of all living things.

Oh, and don't call my arguments "silly" when you clearly fail to understand them.

 

[FearGod]

My comment was a response to this claim:



You clearly state here that God's effect can be observed in the creation of all living things.

Oh, and don't call my arguments "silly" when you clearly fail to understand them.

Yes i said we can observe god's effect in the creation of all living things as you observe the natural selection for the evolving organisms.

That is different than saying god had started the creation,but after all you are evolutionist and i am creationist.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes i said we can observe god's effect in the creation of all living things as you observe the natural selection for the evolving organisms..

You cannot observe God's effect in the same way that we can observe natural selection.

You can believe that what you are seeing is God's effect, but that is different than seeing something and knowing that this was caused by God.

Natural selection is not a belief in the same way. We can study genetics. We can perform studies. We can look at the differences in populations that get separated from each other. We can directly observe the processes and components of evolution.

You cannot observe the hand of God. You can only believe that that is what is happening.

 

[FearGod]

You cannot observe God's effect in the same way that we can observe natural selection.

You can believe that what you are seeing is God's effect, but that is different than seeing something and knowing that this was caused by God.

Natural selection is not a belief in the same way. We can study genetics. We can perform studies. We can look at the differences in populations that get separated from each other. We can directly observe the processes and components of evolution.

You cannot observe the hand of God. You can only believe that that is what is happening.

There is the unseen effect which isn't natural at all.

The nature itself is unconscious whereas we are conscious,so which nature that you are certain about,you can't be certain about the mechanism of evolution other than observing it,so whether it is god's effect to me or just the natural selection by others then we are in the same line .

 

[Falvlun]

There is the unseen effect which isn't natural at all.

The nature itself is unconscious whereas we are conscious,so which nature that you are certain about,you can't be certain about the mechanism of evolution other than observing it,so whether it is god's effect to me or just the natural selection by others then we are in the same line .

Huh?

Sorry. Believing something to be true, and having scientific evidence of something being true are two completely different methods.

Evolution has scientific evidence backing it up, so much so that it holds the level of theory which is just about as certain as you can get in science.

Creationism has no scientific evidence backing it up. You just believe it.

There is no comparison.

 

[FearGod]

Huh?

Sorry. Believing something to be true, and having scientific evidence of something being true are two completely different methods.

Evolution has scientific evidence backing it up, so much so that it holds the level of theory which is just about as certain as you can get in science.

Creationism has no scientific evidence backing it up. You just believe it.

There is no comparison.

Did you know what sort of mutations that happened through millions of years,or just making assumptions.

So if you don't know which and how such mutations happened,so how its different than god.

Creat just a simple organism that can live and multiply,then i'll agree with you without doubt thats its all about science with no need to think otherwise.

 

[Falvlun]

Did you know what sort of mutations that happened through millions of years,or just making assumptions.

No more of an assumption than assuming that gravity worked the same way in the past that we see it at work today.

So if you don't know which and how such mutations happened,so how its different than god.

We know the how.

I'm sure we know some of the which. It is not necessary to know every single one of the which since you can extrapolate, just like you don't need to see every single deciduous tree to lose its leaves in the winter to know that deciduous trees lose their leaves in the winter.

Creat just a simple organism that can live and multiply,then i'll agree with you without doubt thats its all about science with no need to think otherwise.

The amazing fruit fly.

 

[LuisDantas]

What? You do not have a sense of existence?



This is the most inexplicable part of the whole thread. You are not sure of sense of existence. But have doubts (about other peoples sense of existence)?

Yes. Don't you?

 

[apophenia]

atanu :
You are not sure of sense of existence. But have doubts (about other peoples sense of existence)?

Yes. Don't you?

There is a serious disconnect here.

It is stunning that the absence of a scientific paradigm to explain 'knowing that you exist' , or the 'sense of presence', will result in otherwise intelligent people claiming that such a sense is in question.

Jaw-dropping actually.

 

[FearGod]

There is a serious disconnect here.

It is stunning that the absence of a scientific paradigm to explain 'knowing that you exist' , or the 'sense of presence', will result in otherwise intelligent people claiming that such a sense is in question.

Jaw-dropping actually.

Indeed,but there is a solution for some and which i think is a silly one,such as saying ILLUSION,so i don't know if me is chatting with you by now or just an illusion.:bonk:

 

[darkendless]

There is a serious disconnect here.

It is stunning that the absence of a scientific paradigm to explain 'knowing that you exist' , or the 'sense of presence', will result in otherwise intelligent people claiming that such a sense is in question.

Jaw-dropping actually.

It is not scientific that's why.

Of course I exist, if you can see me, I exist. What more does science need to say?

 

[FearGod]

It is not scientific that's why.

Of course I exist, if you can see me, I exist. What more does science need to say?

Need to explain it.

 

[Me Myself]

Need to explain it.

Absolutely.

While it actually seeks for the answer religions just pretend to have the answer already

 

[apophenia]

It is not scientific that's why.

Of course I exist, if you can see me, I exist. What more does science need to say?

1,

Seriously, you need it to be 'scientific' before you can make the simple observation and acknowledgement that that are aware of existing ?

Seriously ?

2.

I'm not talking about if someone else can see you, I'm referring to your own sense of existence, the recognition of your presence.

3.

"What more does science need to say ".

OMG.