OK OK Yes, planets are reservoirs of chemistry and chemical reactions to provide those "footings". Not all planets qualify for the term Cinderella planet. But Earth has undergone some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion (2 x 10 ^54) chemical reactions during its lifetime. Can't ever match that in a lab......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. No wonder we have the variety of life in all species, everywhere. We got Air, Water, Minerals aplenty Start the clip at 25:10 to avoid lenghty introduction. Actually we have a pretty good idea, it's just that we are speaking about nano-chemistry and polymerization and at that level experiments become complicated and difficult to monitor. Watch the Hazen lecture. It touches on a lot of things. One interesting point is that life on earth only uses some 500 different biomolecules. Which is a very small number of fundamental types of molecules compared to the number of cells which run into the millions.
I just explained why organisms have intelligence. The ability to learn - to gather new intelligence and use it to form new behaviors and skills. At its lowest level it is nothing more than programmed habit. Take a million amoebas and kill any ones that move toward light. Then have the survivors reproduce. After a few generations they will all move away from light. Why? Because the biochemical reactions that cause phototropism will have been altered or removed by the process of evolution. Is that "learning?" Barely. But it is where it starts.
Great news friends! I have thought it over and concluded that atheists indeed believe what they say they believe. I must however declare that God is still real because we still exist. You will undoubtedly respond by asking "who created God?" but this is just moving the goalpost and therefore illogical.
I feel I have to because I believe it's not right to say that God doesn't exist, because it's simply not true.
The problem is that you saying God is true is in fact a falsehood as supported by the non-evidence. p.s. A new word; "non-evidence" has been introduced into the American language. What that actually means is dependent on your gullibility for big important sounding words....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Except that you can't show that it's not true. I.e. it's not right for you say this (and that's not a belief it's a fact).
"Ability" possess the means or skill to do something, and to possess something is to have, and to control something. So how did we acquire this ability. Can you elaborate, or provide links that do. I can't seem to find anything that backs this claim. What a dim question. I think you're supposed to reveal how. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Erm... What? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What a load nonsense. Why don't you actually answer his query? Jan.
This is an argument against God, not for God. To-wit: Adding God to the universe doesn't get us any further to answering where we came from. All it does is provide one more thing for which we have to explain the origin.
I don't think it's illogical to ask what the turtle is standing on. The one who is moving the goalposts is the one who says it's turtles all the way down.
If it's not possible to get evidence of god or what god is, the idea of it existing is meaningless. How is it otherwise logically necessary?
How did the Macao monkey acquire the skill to "count" (know the difference between "more" and "less")? Why should I? If I provide you with a link you'll ignore it anyway. You don't debate honestly Jan. But just in case you may want to actually learn something. "Quantum Consciousness And its Nature In Microtubules. Dr. Stuart Hameroff - Brief History." What a dim answer. You don't, why should I. The question was if flowers display a form of consciousness (sensing environmental conditions) and pseudo-intelligent (precursor to intelligence in sentient biological organisms) action? I have several times previously, but it was ignored, as is typical. Hint: Cause <--> Effect, Action <--> Reaction . Explain what that means in terms of consciousness and sentience? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient You may want to explore the gray area between quantum information and an evolving increased sophistication in sensory response to stimulus in biological organisms. Are you going to dismiss Darwin also? Why my links are being ignored is a mystery to me, but it is typical when debating religious zealots. Only the atheist is required to provide "non-evidence" (note: a new word recently introduced into the American language) of the existence of a god. The theist is exempt from having to provide actual "evidence" of the existence of a god. Quite a turn around in the concept of "critical thinking" , wouldn't you say?