1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay“...No, I'm saying since you really don't have any idea on what is or is not really
"would you say we should believe something that is NOT credible? 😛"
No, I'm saying since you really don't have any idea on what is or is not really
required to build the universe, you telling me what is or is not credible is a bit
of a stretch, you actually have no more idea on what is or is not required on
making the universe than you do telling me materials and applied them in such a way that a message in a
letter was written.
Kelly
required to build the universe ...”
I wasn't talking about what is “ required to build the universe” so I fail to see any relevance this has to my post.
“...You don't know about abiogenesis either, and even your "must have involved"
is an educated guess not true knowledge. ...”
nope, I said it must have involved water. Do you deny that water would have to be present? If so, tell us how the required organic chemistry and the formation of the first cell-like structure could have happened without water.
“...Same thing is true about RNA, you
are just guessing, no one can prove you wrong so anything you say is an opinion
not factual ...”
note here that a “guess” here is a very well-qualified “guess” based on the evidence and what we know.
In other words, you cannot dismiss it as “just opinion” because it is based on what is PROBABLY so.
RNA is simpler than DNA so it is reasonable to assume that RNA probably came first. Since there is nothing known to date that is simpler than RNA that can do the same function and since the more resent physical simulations of the early Earth has produced the required RNA bases, it is surely currently the least assumptive hypothesis to date that the first life started with RNA. So, is that reasoning “just opinion”? Or do you admit this hypothesis is evidence and reason based?
“...So suggesting nothing supernatural is required is your opinion ...”
No, it is a logically deduced fact. Nothing supernatural is logically required to explain the origins of life. Why should something supernatural be logically required?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonConcerning this:
“...No, I'm saying since you really don't have any idea on what is or is not really
required to build the universe ...”
I wasn't talking about what is “ required to build the universe” so I fail to see any relevance this has to my post.
“...You don't know about abiogenesis either, and even your "must have involved"
is an educated guess not ...[text shortened]... d to explain the origins of life. Why should something supernatural be logically required?
“...So suggesting nothing supernatural is required is your opinion ...”
No, it is a logically deduced fact. Nothing supernatural is logically required to explain the origins of life. Why should something supernatural be logically required?
Perhaps KellyJay is failing to see a distinction between "nothing is required" and "nothing is required to explain...". Science does not appeal to the supernatural in its explanations, so not only is it not required, it's not allowed. Of course people are free to appeal to the supernatural in their explanations, it just won't be science if they do. If there is ever a scientific need to appeal to something called God, that entity will by that fact, be considered part of the natural world, and/or only its natural aspects will be recognized in the explanation.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton“...No, I'm saying since you really don't have any idea on what is or is not really
“...No, I'm saying since you really don't have any idea on what is or is not really
required to build the universe ...”
I wasn't talking about what is “ required to build the universe” so I fail to see any relevance this has to my post.
“...You don't know about abiogenesis either, and even your "must have involved"
is an educated guess not ...[text shortened]... d to explain the origins of life. Why should something supernatural be logically required?
required to build the universe ...”
Sorry didn't notice you changed the subject.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"nope, I said it must have involved water. Do you deny that water would have to be present? If so, tell us how the required organic chemistry and the formation of the first cell-like structure could have happened without water. "
“...No, I'm saying since you really don't have any idea on what is or is not really
required to build the universe ...”
I wasn't talking about what is “ required to build the universe” so I fail to see any relevance this has to my post.
“...You don't know about abiogenesis either, and even your "must have involved"
is an educated guess not ...[text shortened]... d to explain the origins of life. Why should something supernatural be logically required?
I again say, how do you it must have involved water? I'm not denying anything
I'm not the one suggesting it could have been done without intent you are. I
have been promoting that all the conditional requirements were set, all the
material was present, all the material was formed in the proper designs, and
life was put into each creature. Since we see the proper conditional requirements
are present, with materials and so on, I'd say everything I believe has evidence
as well. I can also point to complex DESIGNS that were put together with INTENT
as well, you on the other hand have to suggest because you cannot prove that
all the life we see today just happened and you THINK you know what was
required for it to occur X amount of years ago that the case your trying to make
is more sound, when actually it is nothing but matters of belief on your part.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"note here that a “guess” here is a very well-qualified “guess” based on the evidence and what we know.
“...No, I'm saying since you really don't have any idea on what is or is not really
required to build the universe ...”
I wasn't talking about what is “ required to build the universe” so I fail to see any relevance this has to my post.
“...You don't know about abiogenesis either, and even your "must have involved"
is an educated guess not ...[text shortened]... d to explain the origins of life. Why should something supernatural be logically required?
In other words, you cannot dismiss it as “just opinion” because it is based on what is PROBABLY so. "
You are still doing it, a well qualified guess is just that, a guess. What you know
and what you are guessing about is a fuzzy mix in my opinion as your statement
about water must have been there only suggests that you assume a great deal.
You could be right, but it is still an assumption so your building your beliefs about
the past on faith and beliefs in things you really don't know only believe.
Kelly
Originally posted by JS357“...Perhaps KellyJay is failing to see a distinction between "nothing is required" and "nothing is required to explain...". ...”
Concerning this:
“...So suggesting nothing supernatural is required is your opinion ...”
No, it is a logically deduced fact. Nothing supernatural is logically required to explain the origins of life. Why should something supernatural be logically required?
Perhaps KellyJay is failing to see a distinction between "nothing is required" and "nothing is r ...[text shortened]... the natural world, and/or only its natural aspects will be recognized in the explanation.
I think you may have something there.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton“...So suggesting nothing supernatural is required is your opinion ...”
“...No, I'm saying since you really don't have any idea on what is or is not really
required to build the universe ...”
I wasn't talking about what is “ required to build the universe” so I fail to see any relevance this has to my post.
“...You don't know about abiogenesis either, and even your "must have involved"
is an educated guess not ...[text shortened]... d to explain the origins of life. Why should something supernatural be logically required?
No, it is a logically deduced fact. Nothing supernatural is logically required to explain the origins of life. Why should something supernatural be logically required?
Really you logic deduces facts about event you have not witnessed and can only
guess about? You do not know if the what we would call the supernatual is trully
required because you don't know what really is required! You don't know if intent
to move everything in the proper positions are required, you don't know if intent
to set all the proper timings in all things is required or not, your have nothing but
imagination to base that on. If you think it could have happened that way it must
have, which is again assuming you know how it could have happened, which is
not knowing how it did.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonReally, you just know so your argument doesn't need to be explained? You think
“...Perhaps KellyJay is failing to see a distinction between "nothing is required" and "nothing is required to explain...". ...”
I think you may have something there.
that is sound science do you?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI suppose so.
Yes to you and Andrew that is true, so is this like beauty only found in the eye of
the beholder?
If so we are not doing anything other than offering an opinion again are we not?
I wouldn't say that. I think our beliefs may or may not be based on what evidence is available to us. I don't think an evidence based belief should be called 'nothing more than opinion', nor should it be equated to belief not based on evidence.
What little experience I have in watching the time and
effort it takes to not only gets all the proper material to build devices, form the
material properly into the correct configuration, apply proper voltages at the right
places, with the right timing, suggests to me that what is being proposed in the
biological world can only happen with intent.
I realize that is the case. Though I find it curious that you never seem interested in any counter argument. In fact you seem positively against any possible argument that suggests that complex things like life can happen without intent.
The complexity we see in life, looking
at all the forces in the universe that are at just the right strength acting at the right
times to support life suggests again to me intent and therefore a creator. You
accept it is possible without one, but I don't, so again we look at the same things
and view them differently. I think accepting all the coincidences or lucky
happenstances that had to occur as just happening is much harder to do without a
creator than with one.
Kelly
But at the end of the day, it is you that makes more assumptions - despite your original accusations that I as an atheist make assumptions.
Originally posted by KellyJayI didn't.
[b]“...No, I'm saying since you really don't have any idea on what is or is not really
required to build the universe ...”
Sorry didn't notice you changed the subject.
Kelly[/b]
If you just look at my post you responded to on page 11, I clearly didn't say nor imply anything about what 'builds' universe on page 11, I was clearly talking about abiogenesis.
Reminder:
“: I cannot know exactly how it happened but that does not diminish the fact that I CAN know many of the aspects of how abiogenesis happened. For example, I can know the process must have involved the presence of water and fatty-acids and must have happened billions of years ago etc. I can also know some 'probables' such as it probably involved RNA bases and probably occurred in a pool of water on land but there are other possibilities but none of even the less probable possibilities require something supernatural. “
and I didn't even mention the word “universe” in that post.
Originally posted by KellyJay“...What you know
"note here that a “guess” here is a very well-qualified “guess” based on the evidence and what we know.
In other words, you cannot dismiss it as “just opinion” because it is based on what is PROBABLY so. "
You are still doing it, a well qualified guess is just that, a guess. What you know
and what you are guessing about is a fuzzy mix in my opinion as ...[text shortened]... efs about
the past on faith and beliefs in things you really don't know only believe.
Kelly
and what you are guessing about is a fuzzy mix in my opinion ...”
then your opinion is wrong.
“...as your statement
about water must have been there only suggests that you assume a great deal. ...”
such as....?
life cannot exist without water; do you deny this? would you dismiss that as "just opinion"?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI did go back and read it all and you did change the subject and I believe you
I didn't.
If you just look at my post you responded to on page 11, I clearly didn't say nor imply anything about what 'builds' universe on page 11, I was clearly talking about abiogenesis.
Reminder:
“: I cannot know exactly how it happened but that does not diminish the fact that I CAN know many of the aspects of how abiogenesis happened. For ...[text shortened]... something supernatural. “
and I didn't even mention the word “universe” in that post.
were aware of the universe as the topic, this isn't worth an arguement really, who
cares we are all debating several people at once and from time to time we all
make mistakes. Right or wrong, what does this matter one way or another?
kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYour changing the subject.
“...What you know
and what you are guessing about is a fuzzy mix in my opinion ...”
then your opinion is wrong.
“...as your statement
about water must have been there only suggests that you assume a great deal. ...”
such as....?
life cannot exist without water; do you deny this? would you dismiss that as "just opinion"?
My opinion is no better than yours as far as I'm concern, but when you mix in your
opinions with what you want to call facts you are in danger of gross errors.
Life cannot exists without water does not address how or where it started.
Kelly