Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[Learner]

Look who introduced the topic of evidence for God.

So? Look who said there's scientific evidence for God:

Science can and does find plenty of evidence for God.

If the accusation is merely that I said theres scientific evidence for God, I proudly agree

Yes, you're simply agreeing with this fellow below. Michael O'Connell. (He has a book out that's now on my list)

www.amazon.com/Finding-God-Science-Extraordinary-Non-Illustrated/dp/0997369035

"A NASA rocket scientist finds God in astronomy, quantum physics and Genesis. This is the story of one man’s quest to know the Creator of the universe, in the face of postmodern thought and atheistic claims. "

Psalm 19:1. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
(eventually)

 

[Lion IRC]

That's right Learner.

We can look at extraordinary 'things' and so ...meh, that's just...ho hum...always existed, nothing special, accidental, illusion of design..

Or we can accept the parsimonious idea that if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's deliberate intelligent design.

 

[pood]

Evidence for a Creator- Exhibit "A"

We didn't cause ourselves to exist.
We haven't always existed.
Past-eternal time plus chance can't explain our existence because because that would entail inevitability and the enigma of our prior absence until now.

Oh, look, after denying he said there was evidence for God, and when presented with the EXACT QUOTE in which he did just that, now he produces his “evidence.” And notice, also, how he smarmily equivocated over whether he was asked who introduced God into the thread, or whether he was asked whether he ever said that there is scientific evidence for God. And, in fact, he did both — he introduced God into the very first response to the OP, thereby shitting up the thread right off the getgo, and then later on explicitly stated that there was evidence for God, but then spent a whole bunch of pages denying he said that. How pitiful and childish. But OK, now we can look at this so-called ‘evidence,” lol.

 

[Elixir]

Or we can accept the parsimonious idea that if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's deliberate intelligent design.

Yeah, you can blindly accept your own ignorance as authoritative. Creos do it all the time.
Proud as hell to pronounce that there is scientific evidence for the god of their fav book, but absolutely hapless when called to show such evidence - that’s creos.
Smarmy, stupid, baseless assertions; the creationists’ only stock in trade.

 

[pood]

Evidence for a Creator- Exhibit "A"

We didn't cause ourselves to exist.

This is not evidence for God. The evidence — the fact — is that evolution caused us to exist. And even if we did not know about evolution, “we didn’t cause ourselves to exist” is not evidence for God. It’s a silly God of the Gaps argument.

We haven't always existed.

So? No evidence for God there, either. Baseball hasn’t always existed, either. Does that mean God created baseball?

Past-eternal time plus chance can't explain our existence because because that would entail inevitability and the enigma of our prior absence until now.

The above not only fails to be evidence for God, it’s barely coherent. How would past eternal time plus chance “entail inevitability” — inevitability of what? What does that even mean? And why would our prior absence be an enigma? What are you even trying to say?

 

[Elixir]

he introduced God into the very first response to the OP, thereby shitting up the thread right off the getgo, and then later on explicitly stated that there was evidence for God, but then spent a whole bunch of pages denying he said that. How pitiful and childish.

S.O.P. for slimeball creationists.
Their furious defense of dishonesty should be a huge red flag.

 

[lostone]

If we grant that it is intelligent design, then the existence of this missing in action creator is much harder to explain than the original question about the existence of everything else.

 

[Elixir]

Baseball hasn’t always existed, either. Does that mean God created baseball?

Heresy!!!! Baseball is eternal, always has been, always will be! As the immortal Yogi observed “half of this game is 90% mental!”. What about the other half?
Of course god created it!

 

[pood]

That's right Learner.

We can look at extraordinary 'things' and so ...meh, that's just...ho hum...always existed, nothing special, accidental, illusion of design..

Or we can accept the parsimonious idea that if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's deliberate intelligent design.

It it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck, and ducks were not designed but rather evolved, like all other living things. Got any scientific evidence for the existence of God? Remember, you said there was such evidence. We’d like to hear what it is.

 

[Elixir]

That's right Learner.

We can look at extraordinary 'things' and so ...meh, that's just...ho hum...always existed, nothing special, accidental, illusion of design..

Or we can accept the parsimonious idea that if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's deliberate intelligent design.

It it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck, and ducks were not designed but rather evolved, like all other living things. Got any scientific evidence for the existence of God? Remember, you said there was such evidence. We’d like to hear what it is.

Full circle now... seems like years ago I felt compelled to point out that "evidence of god" doesn't mean "SCIENTIFIC" evidence of god, except in the sense that crap like Dembski's "intelligent design" is science (which it most certainly is NOT). It is only "evidence" by their own misinformed definition.
No matter how the creos try to parse it, their arguments from incredulity remain just that.

 

[Elixir]

I'd like to see Lion or Learner address the actual science,

"In the context of the OOL debate, there is one single and central historic fact on which there is broad agreement—that life's emergence was initiated by some autocatalytic chemical system."

Well ... except in superstitious religious circles where it quacks like a duck, so goddidit.

 

[Lion IRC]

Oh, look, after denying he said there was evidence for God...

You obviously can't read pal.

And you clearly struggle with the quote function because you have not reproduced the quote where I allegedly denied saying there's evidence for God.

Let's sort out this communication problem first just to make sure it's worth moving on to a discussion of what I actually said rather than your ventriloquism routine.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'd like to see Lion or Learner address the actual science,

"In the context of the OOL debate, there is one single and central historic fact on which there is broad agreement—that life's emergence was initiated by some autocatalytic chemical system."

Well ... except in superstitious religious circles where it quacks like a duck, so goddidit.

The same page informs us that...

"The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time."

The problem.
The problem that remains.
...the problem for atheism.

And I would counter that there is also "broad agreement" that God initiated the 'emergence' of life.

 

[Elixir]

Oh, look, after denying he said there was evidence for God...

You obviously can't read pal.

And you clearly struggle with the quote function because you have not reproduced the quote where I allegedly denied saying there's evidence for God.

Let's sort out this communication problem first just to make sure it's worth moving on to a discussion of what I actually said rather than your ventriloquism routine.

Why not stop talking about yourself?
The thread title is not “Creationist Lion denies denying Lion said blah blah blab”
Would you like me to start a thread with that title do you can clarify whatever you didn’t deny, so we can get back to discussing how science converges on the origin of life?

 

[pood]

Oh, look, after denying he said there was evidence for God...

You obviously can't read pal.

And you clearly struggle with the quote function because you have not reproduced the quote where I allegedly denied saying there's evidence for God.

Let's sort out this communication problem first just to make sure it's worth moving on to a discussion of what I actually said rather than your ventriloquism routine.

What are you talking about? You denied it by implication — by repeatedly demanding, after it was pointed out that you claimed there was scientific evidence for God, that I or others reproduce the quote where you claimed that. Why did you do that, if you had no problem owning up to what you said? Eventually, someone, I believe Jarhyn, DID reproduce the quote, and now here you are babbling on about evidence for God that isn’t evidence at all. Do you think your duplicitous behavior is fooling anyone?

I know exactly what you said. Pal. So do you. Now get on with it and produce your scientific evidence for God. So far, nada.

 

[pood]

Past-eternal time plus chance can't explain our existence because because that would entail inevitability and the enigma of our prior absence until now.

For those of us who allegedly “can’t read,” maybe you’d like to elaborate on what the above pile of garbage is even supposed to mean. Maybe the problem is you can’t write or think.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There's probably more evidence for Loki than Yahweh. Loki's a prankster so he'll convince people to believe all kinds of weird things and then laugh and laugh...

 

[Learner]

Now now Don2, you know how it goes. You'd be asked about the evidence for that.

 

[Elixir]

Now now Don2, you know how it goes. You'd be asked about the evidence for that.

Nah. “More evidence” than none whatsoever is a pretty low bar. Just the GM fact that there are and/or were people who believed in Loki, puts him in a tie with the Xtian god.

 

[Learner]

Or we can accept the parsimonious idea that if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's deliberate intelligent design.

Yeah, you can blindly accept your own ignorance as authoritative. Creos do it all the time.

Snap. I was just thinking that about some atheists.

Proud as hell to pronounce that there is scientific evidence for the god of their fav book, but absolutely hapless when called to show such evidence - that’s creos.
Smarmy, stupid, baseless assertions; the creationists’ only stock in trade.

Nice one, let's focus and argue particularly on the 'smarmy retoricals' instead, but not acknowledge the NASA scientist (stock-in-trade?).