There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Shad]

If you wish to use imprecise words you can. However when trying to explain something specific more is required then a generalized term. If I answer a question of 10+10= "a number" does this qualify as an acceptable answer? Do I get to shoehorn a correct answer in after the fact like you are doing with dust? I should take all my exams this way. I wonder why such nonsense is not an academic standard?!

Post hoc rationalization is illogical

 

[Serenity7855]

If you wish to use imprecise words you can. However when trying to explain something specific more is required then a generalized term. If I answer a question of 10+10= "a number" does this qualify as an acceptable answer? Do I get to shoehorn a correct answer in after the fact like you are doing with dust? I should take all my exams this way. I wonder why such nonsense is not an academic standard?!

Post hoc rationalization is illogical

You are saying that 10.0000000001 + 10.0000000001 = 20.0000000002 and I am saying that 10 + 10 = 20. Both answers are pretty much the same. Yours is a little more precise but in this context it is irrelevant. Anyone reading this would most certainly have the capacity to know exactly what Sonofason is saying. I know I did, as soon as he said it, but I can understand it if you didn't and all this dissecting helps you to better understand general terms. You took exams?

 

[Shad]

No dust is a general term as "dust" is made up of many elements. Some elements are in the Human body, most are not. There is also the issues of ratio of elements in "dust" and those in the Human body. Also consider toxic elements in dust which would kill Humans. Given the mentioned synthetic life a page ago, we should should be able to take Human DNA and put it in "dust" right? Regardless of religion no one should use such a generalized term when talking about compositions of life or any object. If someone doesn't really know better to say so. I do not know is an acceptable answer when in fact science or the person in question does not know.

You are saying 10+10= number. I am saying 10+10=20.

Post hoc rationalization is illogical.

 

[WhatGod]

...

You aren't forgetting about the persuading me god is more likely are you?

 

[Serenity7855]

You aren't forgetting about the persuading me god is more likely are you?

You are being very silly by repeating a question that I have clearly answered.

 

[Serenity7855]

No dust is a general term as "dust" is made up of many elements. Some elements are in the Human body, most are not. There is also the issues of ratio of elements in "dust" and those in the Human body. Also consider toxic elements in dust which would kill Humans. Given the mentioned synthetic life a page ago, we should should be able to take Human DNA and put it in "dust" right? Regardless of religion no one should use such a generalized term when talking about compositions of life or any object. If someone doesn't really know better to say so. I do not know is an acceptable answer when in fact science or the person in question does not know.

You are saying 10+10= number. I am saying 10+10=20.

Post hoc rationalization is illogical.

You are wrong. God wrote the code. God created the Morphic magnetic field that ensure we are what we are supposed to be. God plays a major roll in our existences.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That doesn't make sense. Take a cow, dry it up and you have dust - but not a cow. A cow is not the same thing as a pile of dust anymore than a self replicating protien is the same thing as a pile of dust.

Self replicating proteins are not dust, nor for that matter is pond scum.

What he said.

 

[adi2d]

You are wrong. God wrote the code. God created the Morphic magnetic field that ensure we are what we are supposed to be. God plays a major roll in our existences.

You are wrong. No where in scripture does God play a pastry

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are wrong. God wrote the code. God created the Morphic magnetic field that ensure we are what we are supposed to be. God plays a major roll in our existences.

Can you demonstrate this in some way?

Seems to me that would be some good evidence to satisfy a "reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn" that god exists.

 

[WhatGod]

You are wrong. God wrote the code. God created the Morphic magnetic field that ensure we are what we are supposed to be. God plays a major roll in our existences.

Oh goody! Are you going to prove any of that?

 

[WhatGod]

You are being very silly by repeating a question that I have clearly answered.

Sorry I looked and didn't find any "clearly answered." Would you please point it out?

 

[Serenity7855]

Sorry I looked and didn't find any "clearly answered." Would you please point it out?

Post 2869, last comment, and Post 2847

 

[WhatGod]

So here is that post...

Do you realise that it is very rude, when debating with Christians, to call them "xtians"?

Using the Chi (x) has a long tradition in xtianity. Why are you offended?

I cannot convince you of anything.

That sounds like the start of a dodge. Skipping to end of dodge.

I cannot do that. That is for you to seek and find yourself.

And dodge complete.

This has not convinced me that god is more likely.

I'm sorry but you have failed. I don't think you can convince a reasonable person that god is more likely.

 

[Sonofason]

What's your point? What has that got to do with the article?

You said, "google: Scientists create first self replicating synthetic life."

I did. Should I be looking at the first link or should I be looking at link 170,000.

How about you give me the title, and the author, and the year that the article you want me to read was written. Or should I search all 170,000 links to satisfy you?

 

[Sonofason]

Yeah, do that Sonofason. You will see that it is self replicating, from living matter. Oops.

The article I saw described scientists inserting a computer generated DNA sequence in some form of existing, living bacterium, creating a "new species". That is not creating life. That is something I consider even more grotesque than trying to imitate God by creating life. It's on the scale of causing mice to live with human ears attached to their backs.

 

[Serenity7855]

So here is that post...



Using the Chi (x) has a long tradition in xtianity. Why are you offended?



That sounds like the start of a dodge. Skipping to end of dodge.



And dodge complete.

This has not convinced me that god is more likely.

I'm sorry but you have failed. I don't think you can convince a reasonable person that god is more likely.

You have replaced "Christ" with a Cross that was used in his execution.

If you believe I have failed I will accept that as in comparison to going through it all again, because you cannot be bothered to read it, is far worse than failing.

 

[Sonofason]

You are saying that 10.0000000001 + 10.0000000001 = 20.0000000002 and I am saying that 10 + 10 = 20. Both answers are pretty much the same. Yours is a little more precise but in this context it is irrelevant. Anyone reading this would most certainly have the capacity to know exactly what Sonofason is saying. I know I did, as soon as he said it, but I can understand it if you didn't and all this dissecting helps you to better understand general terms. You took exams?

How about this. I am saying that I am 51 years old. He is saying that I am 51 years, 0 months, 7 days, and 21 hours old. Did I lie if I say I'm 51 years of age? Am I overgeneralizing?

 

[Sonofason]

No dust is a general term as "dust" is made up of many elements. Some elements are in the Human body, most are not. There is also the issues of ratio of elements in "dust" and those in the Human body. Also consider toxic elements in dust which would kill Humans. Given the mentioned synthetic life a page ago, we should should be able to take Human DNA and put it in "dust" right? Regardless of religion no one should use such a generalized term when talking about compositions of life or any object. If someone doesn't really know better to say so. I do not know is an acceptable answer when in fact science or the person in question does not know.

You are saying 10+10= number. I am saying 10+10=20.

Post hoc rationalization is illogical.

Dander, which contains DNA is dust.

 

[Serenity7855]

The article I saw described scientists inserting a computer generated DNA sequence in some form of existing, living bacterium, creating a "new species". That is not creating life. That is something I consider even more grotesque than trying to imitate God by creating life. It's on the scale of causing mice to live with human ears attached to their backs.

I couldn't agree more. My gripe is that he tried to deceive you with mis-information. That is dishonest and an attempt to win the point on lies. I saw that article a why'll back. It was presented to me in exactly the same way, by an atheist. I might be wrong, but I believe that non-life no longer exists and the process to produce it is very complex and time consuming, but I might be wrong.

 

[Serenity7855]

How about this. I am saying that I am 51 years old. He is saying that I am 51 years, 0 months, 7 days, and 21 hours old. Did I lie if I say I'm 51 years of age? Am I overgeneralizing?

Absolutely not. He thinks it is intellectual to be pernickety.