if not evolution

[G.T.]

Virtue is a universal truth because everyone knows when another is treating them with virtue and when they are not.

This is not a debate on which virtues people prefer. It is a debate on whether or not people prefer virtue over absence of virtue.

"people"
"everyone"
"people"
"people"

Appeal to humans, in attempt to posit a Universal Standard for something.

Virtue is a behavior which naturally leads to success and that is one of the reasons it is a universal truth.

That's called conjecture. Look that word up.

Success is a term which requires definition if you're discussing trying to prove Universal truths, as well. Very, very sloppy work.

 

[Boss]

They are not in direct contradiction, when looking at abiogenesis as the origin of the earliest organisms. This is a fact, and it doesn't care what idiotic, magical narrative you have chosen for today.

It does not need to be proven that the origin of life originated via deterministic processes. This is assumed for the purpose of doing science. Might some magical creationism be the truth? Sure, but science has no use for such magical nonsense. Abiogenesis is not "an explanation for the first life". It is the formation of life. Explaining abiogenesis is to explain the origin of life.

It is fascinating to watch the magical bullshit you still cling to degenerate through the years , as we gain more scientific knowledge. You magical thinkers are now left with this tiny gap at the origin of the first species on Earth into which to wedge your magical bullshit. We'll close that gap soon enough. Then where will you ply your fetish? Big Bang, I suppose.

I'm sorry you're having trouble with English grammar here but whenever the prefix "a" is added, it means, "not-" Therefore, "abiogenesis" simply means "not-biogenesis."

I said nothing about "deterministic processes" in my statement. I also said nothing about "magic." Why do you insist on LYING about things I've said? Is that because you cannot support your own suppositions?

We've gained tons of scientific knowledge but we have yet to discover how life originated. The theory that you have is a contradiction of known science. It could still be true but it is far from proven at this point. If abiogenesis is ever proven it will fundamentally change science and biology as we know it... but it STILL will not refute existence of God the Creator.

 

[Boss]

Evolution is a theory explaining how organisms change over time. It does not have anything to do with the origin of organisms. In order for any organism to evolve, it has to first exist. You can say that it's impossible to believe man was simply created out of nothing but the fact remains, it's equally impossible for a living organism to have been simply created out of nothing as well.

Abiogenesis is a theory that has not been proved. It contradicts biogenesis. We can't say that it isn't true because life does exist and it had to come from somewhere. The question is, did it come from normal physical phenomenon or something else? Since we cannot reproduce any normal sequence where it could have happened as the result of normal physical phenomenon, the question of something else remains relevant.

Science is about examining the physical universe. It doesn't draw a conclusion. The conclusions are made by man alone, not Science. To dismiss the possibility of something outside our current understanding of physical nature is antithetical to Science. It's entirely possible that we simply don't yet understand the mechanisms by which life originated because we lack that knowledge. That being said, it leaves the possibility open that some force outside of currently understood physics is responsible. Again, to dismiss such a possibility is not Scientific, it's the antithesis of Science.

That being said, it leaves the possibility open that some force outside of currently understood physics is responsible.

And this force needs to explain its creation

Why is that so? Does any other force in the universe explain what it creates?

 

[Boss]

Biogenesis is not a theory. It is an induction. Creation is not possible if biogenesis is true

I disagree. Let's be clear, "creation" is certainly true because life exists. The question is the source of creation, not creation itself. We are here, we exist, therefore, something had to create us. Else, we would not exist.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[G.T.]

Biogenesis is not a theory. It is an induction. Creation is not possible if biogenesis is true

I disagree. Let's be clear, "creation" is certainly true because life exists. The question is the source of creation, not creation itself. We are here, we exist, therefore, something had to create us. Else, we would not exist.

Thats not true ~ its a nice circular argument for a creator though.

 

[Hollie]

They are not in direct contradiction, when looking at abiogenesis as the origin of the earliest organisms. This is a fact, and it doesn't care what idiotic, magical narrative you have chosen for today.

It does not need to be proven that the origin of life originated via deterministic processes. This is assumed for the purpose of doing science. Might some magical creationism be the truth? Sure, but science has no use for such magical nonsense. Abiogenesis is not "an explanation for the first life". It is the formation of life. Explaining abiogenesis is to explain the origin of life.

It is fascinating to watch the magical bullshit you still cling to degenerate through the years , as we gain more scientific knowledge. You magical thinkers are now left with this tiny gap at the origin of the first species on Earth into which to wedge your magical bullshit. We'll close that gap soon enough. Then where will you ply your fetish? Big Bang, I suppose.

I'm sorry you're having trouble with English grammar here but whenever the prefix "a" is added, it means, "not-" Therefore, "abiogenesis" simply means "not-biogenesis."

I said nothing about "deterministic processes" in my statement. I also said nothing about "magic." Why do you insist on LYING about things I've said? Is that because you cannot support your own suppositions?

We've gained tons of scientific knowledge but we have yet to discover how life originated. The theory that you have is a contradiction of known science. It could still be true but it is far from proven at this point. If abiogenesis is ever proven it will fundamentally change science and biology as we know it... but it STILL will not refute existence of God the Creator.

You have made no case for the existence of any god or gods. Vacuous claims of gods and magical spirit realms are not part of science. Claims of supernatural entities are best addressed with those who claim to read magic crystals or claim to converse with one or more gods.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is a theory explaining how organisms change over time. It does not have anything to do with the origin of organisms. In order for any organism to evolve, it has to first exist. You can say that it's impossible to believe man was simply created out of nothing but the fact remains, it's equally impossible for a living organism to have been simply created out of nothing as well.

Abiogenesis is a theory that has not been proved. It contradicts biogenesis. We can't say that it isn't true because life does exist and it had to come from somewhere. The question is, did it come from normal physical phenomenon or something else? Since we cannot reproduce any normal sequence where it could have happened as the result of normal physical phenomenon, the question of something else remains relevant.

Science is about examining the physical universe. It doesn't draw a conclusion. The conclusions are made by man alone, not Science. To dismiss the possibility of something outside our current understanding of physical nature is antithetical to Science. It's entirely possible that we simply don't yet understand the mechanisms by which life originated because we lack that knowledge. That being said, it leaves the possibility open that some force outside of currently understood physics is responsible. Again, to dismiss such a possibility is not Scientific, it's the antithesis of Science.

That being said, it leaves the possibility open that some force outside of currently understood physics is responsible.

And this force needs to explain its creation

Why is that so? Does any other force in the universe explain what it creates?

What force can you identify that explains what it creates?

 

[Hollie]

Biogenesis is not a theory. It is an induction. Creation is not possible if biogenesis is true

I disagree. Let's be clear, "creation" is certainly true because life exists. The question is the source of creation, not creation itself. We are here, we exist, therefore, something had to create us. Else, we would not exist.

Life emerging on the planet has no requirement for "creation". Completely natural proceses appear to be consistent with the existence of biological life. While your use of the term "creation" was calculated, it's really just an attempt to shoehorn in your gods.

 

[Boss]

Biogenesis is not a theory. It is an induction. Creation is not possible if biogenesis is true

I disagree. Let's be clear, "creation" is certainly true because life exists. The question is the source of creation, not creation itself. We are here, we exist, therefore, something had to create us. Else, we would not exist.

Thats not true ~ its a nice circular argument for a creator though.

No, it IS true. Something, somehow, created us. We haven't always existed, have we? So either we are the product of some physical phenomenon that created us or some non-physical phenomenon. There is no other options if we actually exist in a state of reality.

 

[ding]

Virtue is a universal truth because everyone knows when another is treating them with virtue and when they are not.

This is not a debate on which virtues people prefer. It is a debate on whether or not people prefer virtue over absence of virtue.

"people"
"everyone"
"people"
"people"

Appeal to humans, in attempt to posit a Universal Standard for something.

Virtue is a behavior which naturally leads to success and that is one of the reasons it is a universal truth.

That's called conjecture. Look that word up.

Success is a term which requires definition if you're discussing trying to prove Universal truths, as well. Very, very sloppy work.

Not conjecture. Reason and experience. Virtue is a successful behavior. The absence of virtue is a failed behavior.

 

[G.T.]

Biogenesis is not a theory. It is an induction. Creation is not possible if biogenesis is true

I disagree. Let's be clear, "creation" is certainly true because life exists. The question is the source of creation, not creation itself. We are here, we exist, therefore, something had to create us. Else, we would not exist.

Thats not true ~ its a nice circular argument for a creator though.

No, it IS true. Something, somehow, created us. We haven't always existed, have we? So either we are the product of some physical phenomenon that created us or some non-physical phenomenon. There is no other options if we actually exist in a state of reality.

Of course there are other options.

Creation implies a purposeful action. There's been no reasonable establishment of that.

Everything that "exists" wasn't therefore "created," that's not logical.

 

[ding]

Biogenesis is not a theory. It is an induction. Creation is not possible if biogenesis is true

I disagree. Let's be clear, "creation" is certainly true because life exists. The question is the source of creation, not creation itself. We are here, we exist, therefore, something had to create us. Else, we would not exist.

Thats not true ~ its a nice circular argument for a creator though.

No, it IS true. Something, somehow, created us. We haven't always existed, have we? So either we are the product of some physical phenomenon that created us or some non-physical phenomenon. There is no other options if we actually exist in a state of reality.

Not in our present form. But the matter and energy that make up who we are was created when space and time were created. And since that time we have only changed form according to the laws of nature. Rules which were prescribed before space and time were created.

 

[G.T.]

Virtue is a universal truth because everyone knows when another is treating them with virtue and when they are not.

This is not a debate on which virtues people prefer. It is a debate on whether or not people prefer virtue over absence of virtue.

"people"
"everyone"
"people"
"people"

Appeal to humans, in attempt to posit a Universal Standard for something.

Virtue is a behavior which naturally leads to success and that is one of the reasons it is a universal truth.

That's called conjecture. Look that word up.

Success is a term which requires definition if you're discussing trying to prove Universal truths, as well. Very, very sloppy work.

Not conjecture. Reason and experience. Virtue is a successful behavior. The absence of virtue is a failed behavior.

Your reasoning is limited to human capacity, as is your experience ~ and so you cannot use merely your reason and experience to establish that virtues are "universal" to anything other than humans....rendering what youre saying conjecture, as I postulated.

You defined virtue as a behaviour leading to success...


then when asked to define success....you said it is virtue.

Strong circular argument, batman.

 

[Boss]

Of course there are other options.

Creation implies a purposeful action. There's been no reasonable establishment of that.

Everything that "exists" wasn't therefore "created," that's not logical.

Creation doesn't imply anything other than the bringing of something into the state of existence. If something exists that hasn't always existed, it had to be created.

 

[ding]

Virtue is a universal truth because everyone knows when another is treating them with virtue and when they are not.

This is not a debate on which virtues people prefer. It is a debate on whether or not people prefer virtue over absence of virtue.

"people"
"everyone"
"people"
"people"

Appeal to humans, in attempt to posit a Universal Standard for something.

Virtue is a behavior which naturally leads to success and that is one of the reasons it is a universal truth.

That's called conjecture. Look that word up.

Success is a term which requires definition if you're discussing trying to prove Universal truths, as well. Very, very sloppy work.

Not conjecture. Reason and experience. Virtue is a successful behavior. The absence of virtue is a failed behavior.

Your reasoning is limited to human capacity, as is your experience ~ and so you cannot use merely your reason and experience to establish that virtues are "universal" to anything other than humans....rendering what youre saying conjecture, as I postulated.

You defined virtue as a behaviour leading to success...


then when asked to define success....you said it is virtue.

Strong circular argument, batman.

No. I did not define virtue as something that leads to success. I said virtue naturally leads to success. Try again.

 

[Boss]

Not in our present form. But the matter and energy that make up who we are was created when space and time were created. And since that time we have only changed form according to the laws of nature. Rules which were prescribed before space and time were created.

You're still admitting we are the product of creation.

 

[G.T.]

Of course there are other options.

Creation implies a purposeful action. There's been no reasonable establishment of that.

Everything that "exists" wasn't therefore "created," that's not logical.

Creation doesn't imply anything other than the bringing of something into the state of existence. If something exists that hasn't always existed, it had to be created.

Bringing...also a purposeful act.

Of course creation implies something - it implies a creator....which is not established.

 

[G.T.]

"people"
"everyone"
"people"
"people"

Appeal to humans, in attempt to posit a Universal Standard for something.

Virtue is a behavior which naturally leads to success and that is one of the reasons it is a universal truth.

That's called conjecture. Look that word up.

Success is a term which requires definition if you're discussing trying to prove Universal truths, as well. Very, very sloppy work.

Not conjecture. Reason and experience. Virtue is a successful behavior. The absence of virtue is a failed behavior.

Your reasoning is limited to human capacity, as is your experience ~ and so you cannot use merely your reason and experience to establish that virtues are "universal" to anything other than humans....rendering what youre saying conjecture, as I postulated.

You defined virtue as a behaviour leading to success...


then when asked to define success....you said it is virtue.

Strong circular argument, batman.

No. I did not define virtue as something that leads to success. I said virtue naturally leads to success. Try again.

I dont need to. I asked you to define success, and you went and circled back to virtue.

You are the one playing word games, because you lack the fundamental ability to reason.

 

[Hollie]

Of course there are other options.

Creation implies a purposeful action. There's been no reasonable establishment of that.

Everything that "exists" wasn't therefore "created," that's not logical.

Creation doesn't imply anything other than the bringing of something into the state of existence. If something exists that hasn't always existed, it had to be created.

There is no creative force associated with chemical reactions.