With his pseudonym I'd bet on dumb I would also question the avatar of dmoe showing a photo where the position of the photographer appears to be a short distance from the moon Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Probable" without evidence means it's only speculation. Chemistry is a long way from a living organism, otherwise you could create life in a lab. See how much mythology you have built up around your beliefs? Not falsifiable is not science. Not even bad science. No chemistry has ever been shown to result in a living organism, not even the simplest sort of organism. You equivocating over science and belief may mean there's hope for you realizing yours is the latter. Taking fragments of sentences out of context lets you play all sorts of bs game, huh? Fro example, science tells us that we cannot see back to the first moment of the Big Bang, send information faster than the speed of light, nor retrieve information beyond an event horizon. All due to the laws of physics. Very apropos your beliefs anyway. Your sarcasm is a defense mechanism to protect your unsupported beliefs. Might as well be from a God, since abiogenesis has mythical proportions in your beliefs anyway. Nature created that life, not you. You merely contributed. So no amount of evidence could possible convince you of a God? That would mean your atheism is not falsifiable, and thus not supported by science. My standards are the same for all beliefs. Your deflection is kind of pathetic.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Friends email So this is what theist mean when they bang on about having to experience god for yourself before you understand At least this church is being brutally honest about its intentions for you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I would ask , paddoboy, that since this is a Science Forum and since it is you that holds The Scientific Method so sacrosanct, that you might provide evidence to support these spurious allegations that you claim have been "proven". But would you provide any conclusive evidence if I did ask? Would you, paddoboy? After all, as a true arbiter of the purity of Science and the Scientific Method, it would seem that you would do just that without even being asked... But, Meh...it is not important for you to actually Practice what you Preach on this Forum is it, paddoboy? Seriously, paddoboy, you only seem to be Posting examples of the same Logical Fallacy.
If you believe wikipedia, the photo in my Avatar has been declared by Nature photographer Galen Rowell as "the most influential environmental photograph ever taken". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The photo, Earthrise, is purported to have been taken by astronaut William Anders during the Apollo 8 mission - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise
Do you doubt that it was taken by William Anders? What does this have to do with the thread topic, by the way?
it's not only true dmoe, it's been true for years, both here and elsewhere. Evidence? In recent times you have been labeled a troll by James, and convicted of misuse of the like system...I know that, and the forum knows that. In essence what you need to do, is quit while you are behind. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jesus died for your sins weather you believe in him or not. It is not so much that he requires your consent to penetrate you before you go into heaven...
Michael 345 seemed to Question the veracity of the Photo in his Post #221. I merely tried to provide him some quick backround on the picture. Since I was presenting background evidence for that veracity from the wikipedia Site, I used the word purported, intended to be synonymous with words like : proclaimed ; maintained ; declared ; expressed ; professed ; asserted ; avered, etc... Michael 345 might be able to answer that question, James R. introduced it in his Post #221. Since you asked "What does this have to do with the thread topic, by the way?" : May I ask you, James R, what does whether or not I doubt that the Photo was taken by William Anders have to do with the thread topic?
While you certainly are not worth the time for extensive searches, and since you asked so nicely, and since one of these was reasonably recent, I'll grant you your request.... Apologies to James for further off topic posts, but I was asked nicely for evidence......
Ah. Okay then. Nothing. That was my point. michael's post questioning the photo is off topic. Your post talking about the photo is off topic. My questioning you about your beliefs about the photo is off topic. And so it goes ... a series of off-topic posts. Interesting that you avoided answering my question to you, though. So, let's drop it and get back to the topic. Agree?
Really? That is what you dig out of my comment on your Avatar? Not dumbest man on earth has Avatar which is from a vantage point NOT ON EARTH If pseudonym had been - dumbest man in SPACE - sure Apologies James Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The topic "áre we made in God's image" Fairly presumptive anyway, considering that such a concept is unscientific anyway, and made greatly superfluous.....but be that as it may, I have heard it said that we are made in God's image, and yet on the other hand, I have heard some of our preachers on this forum, say that God is essentially a spiritual being, and does not have a body. And this God whoever he looks like, or whatever he looks like, is said to care for all humanity, and has a plan for us all, good, bad, indifferent, even me, as my lovely wife tells me on the odd occasion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But then it needs asking Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes what else can it be at the moment? Well we could but there is an absence of funding. Yes so it should appeal to folk who feel science should not be trusted. OK to help you feel you get some sort of say in all this yes...mmm maybe I should say confidence rather than belief..to make you happy. I may have chopped it down but I think I made a fair call...really make up your mind...be consistent. Well what would you do if you held unsupported beliefs like..mmm...can't think of any but what would you do? There is no way you can compare the two but it suggests to me you are not fully accepting abiogenesis ...don't worry you can think what you like but as I have said there is no other way for life to come from the building blocks of life..it must be chemistry. What do you mean...nature created that life? I would not say that. What has that got to do with anything...Godism made a claim that has no support...I think if one were to make the claim that humans invented gods it would be easy to offer evidence in support...again just like the life thing so obvious why waste any more time if you want to prove a god do so if you want to disprove the life via chemical action do so... I will take you at your word...do not disappoint me. Come now be more forceful if you think it's pathetic say so don't mince about like timid cat. Now so you don't think I am being too flippant ..I know what you are saying about belief and if you were talking to someone else you could be right..but in your hast to prove something you failed to take any notice of my statement that I don't really believe anything...I think the Big Bang is the best model we have but really I don't believe it necessarily reflects reality, same for all of it ..I am not as infected with scientism as you call out..you talk about straw men now I see why..you are obsessed with the concept...Anyways you ignored what I told you so that is why you are not going to get any sence out of me...my position is on everything I don't know if they are right but I take it on board...as to religion I think I know enough to saygods are human invention and if you follow the history you can not conclude anything different..is there any sort of God?...I doubt it as there is no need for a creator as the universe can only be eternal...do I believe that..not entirely but it make sense to me more than any god story. Life from chemicals..makes sense..do I believe it..well I won't bet the house.. Nice chatting please answer my life elsewhere question. Alex
And we havn't had the 4.6 billion years to do it in also. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mine likes god's image so much it could not believe got lumbered with moi, not in any way close to god's image So I guess mine is MIA here on Earth, and probably kissing up to Sky Daddy while drunk Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Certainly not the fact paddo and billvon claim it to be. And certainly not devoid of belief, as you have claimed. That's you unfounded beliefs talking again. Non sequitur. No, you've tried that mealymouthed bs before. The religious are no less confident in their beliefs. No, you took it out of context so you could outright lie. You're the one who has repeatedly been inconsistent, and you had to resort to taking quotes out of context to project that on me. Get some integrity, man. Exactly what I do all the time...readily admit they are only beliefs. It's only your blind faith that fails to see the direct comparison of two unsupported beliefs. "Must be" is an article of faith, and seemingly puts you in line with paddo and billvon in presuming it fact. Humans do not have the knowledge to create life themselves. They must utilize natural processes to procreate. Then make up your mind. Either you have some criteria which you would accept as evidence of God or you don't. Theism doesn't claim to based on scientific fact or evidence. The onus for the claim of abiogenesis is on those who tout it. Don't try to shift the burden for your own claim. My standards have always been consistent and intellectually honest. Like I said, make up your mind. If it's only a speculative belief, quit mincing words like "confidence" and "must be". And quit pretending that your beliefs are any more compelling that any others.
But you prefer some fabricated ancient myth about some supernatural being, which over the course of time, science has pushed further and further back to near oblivion. Totally wrong, again. We have many many lines of evidence pointing to Abiogenisis, and of course the stuff of life is everywhere we look. You Vociferous are simply start stuff and through chemistry, over 13.83 billion years, have evolved into a life form. You have a bad habit when confronted with reality and the truth, in writing them off as strawmen or non sequiturs...The fact remains, that Abiogenisis is the only factual scientific answer...Now if you prefer to argue whether the methodology of Abiogenisis is a result of just local Earth like conditions or something like Panspermia, then you maybe talking bout something with substance that can be falsified or otherwise. Yet it is you that comes to a science forum, preaching creationism and rubbishing the scientific method with useless rhetorical nonsense. I don't believe that Alex will do the reverse at some church or creationist convention anytime soon, and I can say with utmost certainty, that I would never find that necessary. Rather technology and improved scientific knowledge and observation alone, will hopefully see such nonsense conveyed to the scrap heap.
