I have now met a real life creationist.

[DrZoidberg]

FYI - I am not discussing science, Sir. I am discussing LIFE! I hope you can see the difference.

Sure, you're discussing poetic metaphor. But a few posts ago you claimed that science can't explain life. Which is a false statement on your part. So good luck digging yourself out of that hole.

Science has no difficulty "encapsulated, demonstrated, visualized or explain" science. It's pretty basic really. What are you smoking?

I see an error there. But if you mean that science has no difficulty encapsulating, demonstrating, visualizing or explaining life, then go ahead and show us your representations.

This was literally the top result when googling "life".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

When you googled "life" did you by mistake write "the Bible"?

Here's all the more detailed scientific fields studying life if you're looking for something specific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_life_sciences

All human emotions come from neurochemicals in the brain. We've known that since the 1950'ies. How old science books are you reading? Are you reading 17'th century tomes on alchemy or something? Science has since moved on.

Do you actually believe that peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, self-control, and mildness are EMOTIONS? If that is true, then they should be present in everyone - right? Maybe you can explain why these qualities are absent in almost all of humanity, as demonstrated by the violence and chaos that governments now face. Does that telling absence mean that they have no neurochemicals in their brains, or that they aren't working?

There's a very simple explanation for that. There is no species capable of behaviours that isn't natural for it. Violence and cruelty are inbuilt and natural behaviours for us. That's the only reason. Whatever force created us programmed us for those behaviours. Also for love, kindness and self control. Not sure why you put "faith" as a virtue. Belief without evidence is a common human brain failure.

The neurochemistry of cruel people is working just fine. It's doing what it's designed to do.

And if we look around nature, human emotional life is very similar to the emotional life of chimpanzees. They're capable of the most godawful behaviours. And we are very closely related to them.

Please explain how that statement disproves anything in Genesis.
Poetry? Really? Do you mean it was written for the beauty and expression of feelings and ideas by rhythm and style?
Or do you mean that it contains nothing of truth and substance that can be used for more than entertainment?
Just what do you mean?

Poetry can express truth. But there are many ways of expressing the truth. There isn't necessarily a conflict between the Bible and science. There's nothing in Genesis saying how God did it. We can decide that the Biblical account is a poetic metaphor and science is a detailed description. What that interpretation has going for it is that it's true.

Poetry primarily is about feelings and emotional connection. I think that is what the Bible is. I think that is all what the Bible is. That doesn't diminish it one bit IMHO.

All you need to do now is explain why the Bible is relevant in this discussion?

The origin of life. Life comes only from life.

You lost me. The Bible doesn't explain how it happened. The Bible is just poetic metaphor. There's zero detail here.

Can you account for the origin of life outside of the bible? Can anyone?

Now you're changing subjects. The origin of life is another subject than how it sustains itself. We're talking about the latter. Something which science knows well.

But on the new topic. Initially that which became life was just a chemical reaction among amino acids like many others. What made this special is that it created a cascading and stable chain reaction which eventually led to what we call life. But it's only special because we're a result of it. The world is full of cascading chain reactions. Because of how life later turned out it gobbled up the evidence of what led to it. But there's no miracle needed. By now the scientific world has come up with a whole bunch of possible ways life could have emerged all by itself. We can deduce that it most likely was one of those.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

wilson,

What I find most interesting about your argument is that you say everything is designed. That means you have no example to point to of anything lacking design. So how do you know everything is either designed or not designed?

Doesn't that mean your argument is flawed? Or can you simply give me an example of something lacking design?

This would rather be a problem for Atheists. How would one demonstrate a 'natural by itself ' design coming from something lacking design in the first place? Especially when everything so far abides to its respective notably predictable calculable behaviour by the mentioned laws anyway.

The implication of your argument is that your intelligent designer is just random ignorance? I would agree.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This would rather be a problem for Atheists. How would one demonstrate a 'natural by itself ' design coming from something lacking design in the first place? Especially when everything so far abides to its respective notably predictable calculable behaviour by the mentioned laws anyway.

Well, do you know of any actual definition of 'design' that depends on 'predictable' or 'calculable' behavior?

Seriously?

We have things we KNOW are designed, because we can talk to the designers, and we can build up a database of things we should see in stuff with an intelligence behind its design. And we can compare that database to other things and see if they compare positively.

Plus, we don't HAVE to demonstrate a 'natural by itself ' design as long as those who maintain that everything is designed continue to fail to pony up any good arguments or the barest minimum of evidence.
So, no, it's not a problem for atheists.
It continues to just be the natural conclusion one arrives at when every claim of the theist turns out to be so much swamp gas, incredulity and poor science skills masquerading as an attempt at logic.

 

[Ford]

Quotes Genesis


I think we're done here, folks.

You can only speak for yourself. Do you mean that you have nothing further to add?
If you're done, then just relax and watch the rest of the emerging dialogue.

I mean that we (the rest of the folks on this board) are done (or should be done) with you. You joined this thread (and the board) claiming not to be a creationist, or even know what it means to be one. Lately you've taken to quoting the Bible - specifically the Genesis account of creation - to bolster your argument.

If you are of the opinion that the God of the Bible created everything (whether in six literal days or not), then you are by definition a creationist.

Therefore, it is YOU who have nothing further to add. This board has existed for quite some time in various iterations, and the "goddidit" argument has been put forth over and over again, so coming here and quoting Genesis adds nothing new to the conversation. Creationists such as yourself never add anything to the conversation, because the source of your "truth" regarding the existence of life is a collection of Bronze Age tales written by people who would think a light bulb to be sorcery.

The "emerging dialogue" is more of the same old creationist clap-trap. Special pleading, Bible quotes, and a refusal to even consider that the aforementioned collection of tales might not be scientifically accurate.

Other people may continue to engage you on this topic, but it is a fool's errand. You didn't come here to learn from us.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You joined this thread (and the board) claiming not to be a creationist, or even know what it means to be one.

Except he simultaneously knew enough to know that he wasn't one...

 

[bilby]

w: We cannot see over the wall of ignorance, to find out what is on the other side. But I have a book that says there's a unicorn behind the wall.
Science: We built a ladder, and checked. There's no unicorn.
w: I believe that there's a unicorn, and I don't believe that you looked; Ladders don't work, only my book can say what is behind the wall.
S: Here, borrow the ladder, take a look for yourself.
w: I have been bashing the ladder against the wall for five minutes, and I still can't see what's on the other side. Ladders are stupid, obviously only idiots would claim that ladders help to find out what's behind the wall. You should trust my book.
S:

 

[Learner]

Well, do you know of any actual definition of 'design' that depends on 'predictable' or 'calculable' behavior?

Seriously?

Sure ... formulating correct measures for example ... building structures safely as possible , combining gases and chemicals for all sorts of uses making sure we check the charts of known predictability.

We have things we KNOW are designed, because we can talk to the designers, and we can build up a database of things we should see in stuff with an intelligence behind its design. And we can compare that database to other things and see if they compare positively.

I know this as mentioned above.

Plus, we don't HAVE to demonstrate a 'natural by itself ' design as long as those who maintain that everything is designed continue to fail to pony up any good arguments or the barest minimum of evidence.
So, no, it's not a problem for atheists.
It continues to just be the natural conclusion one arrives at when every claim of the theist turns out to be so much swamp gas, incredulity and poor science skills masquerading as an attempt at logic.

Of course you don't have to demonstrate a 'natural by itself' even though this would be impossible. Atheists have no conclusion in reality as to what natural really is (why it is) , science is insufficient here thats why I would say you are more agnostic-atheists because its better to say you 'don't know'. Unless you/atheists can demonstrate otherwise.

Perhaps not agnostic ..you've already made your conclusion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sure ... formulating correct measures for example ... building structures safely as possible , combining gases and chemicals for all sorts of uses making sure we check the charts of known predictability.

Um, can you link to where this is an official definition of design?

Plus, we don't HAVE to demonstrate a 'natural by itself ' design as long as those who maintain that everything is designed continue to fail to pony up any good arguments or the barest minimum of evidence.
So, no, it's not a problem for atheists.
It continues to just be the natural conclusion one arrives at when every claim of the theist turns out to be so much swamp gas, incredulity and poor science skills masquerading as an attempt at logic.

Of course you don't have to demonstrate a 'natural by itself' even though this would be impossible. Atheists have no conclusion in reality as to what natural really is (why it is) , science is insufficient here thats why I would say you are more agnostic-atheists because its better to say you 'don't know'. Unless you/atheists can demonstrate otherwise.

Perhaps not agnostic ..you've already made your conclusion.

You really have no idea what atheism really is, do you?

 

[blastula]

Because?

Because it behaves like an arrangement henceforth predictability and formulations.
Quacks like a duck but not like luck.

That doesn't answer it. The question is this. What's the proof that an arrangement in nature require a conscious designer?

 

[Learner]

Um, can you link to where this is an official definition of design?

I refer to the general understanding.

You really have no idea what atheism really is, do you?

Maybe but again I refer to the general understanding.

 

[Learner]

That doesn't answer it. The question is this. What's the proof that an arrangement in nature require a conscious designer?

From the same observations of the same data , I think we have the 'better proposition' or rather the only one so far in this regard. It looks like something we can 'compare with' - although on a lower level like our own design mechanisms.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Learner, I think it might be easier for you to understand the atheist position if you switch out "God" and replace it with "abrakadabra". Which is the exact same thing. I'm not pretending to speak for all atheists but I think that's how we view any Christian who uses "God" as an answer for anything.

God is a non-answer. What is interesting isn't what did it. But how it did it. How would omnipotence work scientifically? If God is omniscient what is the method by which God avoids the observer effect.

 

[funinspace]

Tis funnier and funnier. Ok, so you want Job to be a document to wow us heathen with it's amazing and accurate descriptions of the cosmos, but dodge and weave when its pointed out that your argument is not well founded.

You haven't done that yet. You point things out to me, I point things pout to you.

English Nazi’s should take care when they post, unless you intended to ‘pout’ to me Anywho, I’ll not play that silly game further…

Why do you think that what you point to is more important? Please show me where I dodged anything. Your "theologians' " estimate of the time of composition is very far off the mark because the book itself contains many clues as to its origin and author.

I don't care that you can ramrod all the odd parts of the Bible into your religious dogma, not my concern. But there is no 'wow' factor of 'wiseness' here.

You cannot support such dogmatism! I am not concerned about any "ramrod" and "wow" factors. The book contains a great deal of wisdom and answers vital question like: "Why do the innocent suffer?" and "Why does God permit wickedness in the earth?" Have you found the non-conjectural, truthful answer to either of those questions?

I wasn’t looking for answers to the meaning of life in Job, so I don’t need conjectural or non-conjectural answers. You brought up Job as if it somehow should amaze us heathens with its comprehension of the cosmos.

You said the below, which is about “wow” factor:

Would you agree that those "bronze -age nomads" were wise beyond your wildest imaginations?
If your answer is "no," then I have a few really unique puzzles for you.

Now you have switched to defending for your particular theological interpretation. Don’t care. I’ll take conservative mainstream theologians over your personal and weakly supported views any day. You haven’t even hit ‘dull imaginations’ let alone ‘wildest imaginations’…aka no ‘wow’.

You declaring that a circle is actually a sphere is not exactly 'wow' material.

Is that the truth? Is that really what I said? If you quote me verbatim and you will not be likely to make such gross errors.

Here is the quote of what you said:

How did those "bronze-age nomads" know the shape of the earth:
“There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth.”(Isaiah 40:22)

You didn’t bother quoting the whole verse for some odd reason.

Enough to make my point.

Here, let me help you:

I think you need it more than I do.

Isaiah 40:22 “It is He who sits above the [t]circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”
Now how do you stretch out a tent over a spheroid?

You missed the point completely.
The first statement is fact; the second is a simile. You can't tell one from the other.

Yeah, it sounds just like it reads, a circle (yah know like a pancake).

Nope! That is a very bad analogy.
A few facts: A disk, a flat circle, looked at from any angle, does not remain a circle. Sometimes it takes the shape of an oblong and at other times like a vertical line. OTOH, from God's point of view, a sphere, looked at from any angle, remains a circle.

And in Isaiah 22:18, it appears that the writer(s) knew what a “ball” is as compared to a circle.

Most fruits and vegetables, viewed head-on, appears circular. Even the object that you call a "football." Everything circular cannot be compared to a ball. Otherwise you would have to start playing "catch" with your food.
Now you know different (or at least you should).

Sure, from a certain angle a sphere can look like a circle, but nothing in that verse suggests that is so, let along suggesting that it is the most reasonable interpretation. The above is you declaring a circle a sphere with nothing more than your opinion. And you don’t have a lock on your purported Yahweh’s POV…for all you know your Yahweh’s POV sees a sphere as a bunch of dots in a matrix. I’m not saying that this verse Isaiah argues for a flat earth, I’m saying that you haven’t shown why it should most reasonably be considered a sphere. You haven’t tried to show that in other places in the Tanakh, that they used this Hebrew word as a sphere. That would be an argument. Again, the point is that this is clearly not ‘wise beyond your wildest imaginations’ aka no ‘wow’.

Renowned Christian theologians say Job is a poetic folk tail;

If they said that they are wrong! In that historical narration, only the cattle had tails.

what is your argument showing that they are factually wrong?

Good question. My first objection is - purpose. Nothing written in the Bible is without purpose. What, do you suppose, is the purpose of the "tale?"

You also seem to suggest that Job's background is virtually unknowable,

Why do you attribute your own erroneous suggestion to me? It was you who quoted:"We cannot put a date on the composition of the book of Job, except for the outer limits, perhaps the seventh and the second centuries BC. A folk tale of a righteous sufferer probably existed long before the present poem came into being." The uncertainty which you seem to have accepted, is underscored by the words "perhaps" and "probably."
A lot of facts are known about Job. Some of them are:
Job lived in Uz, located in northern Arabia near the territories occupied by the Edomites the Sabeans and the Chaldeans on the east.(Job 1:1, 3, 15,*17)
No nation on earth worshipped the God of Heaven; the nation of Israel, who later became the only monotheistic people and chosen by God, was not yet established.
Yet, Job was not a Jew, a Hebrew nor an Israelite. Still he alone, of all the people on the entire earth, worshipped the God of Heaven. (Job 1:8) Did your source say "seventh and second century BC?" Boy! Are they wrong!

You are taking what the New Bible Commentary stated out of context. Yes, they said the 7th to 2nd century BC as outer limits for the final composition of the book of Job. At the same time they said that the story/folk tale is much older. Arguing for Job being a literal historical tale because it has some valid geographic labels within it is comical. Would you make that argument for the Iliad as it has geography from Asia Minor?

Anywho, with mainstream Protestants, the RCC (one can read RCC link below if one wants), and even a large portion of more conservative Christianity agreeing that Job is in fact poetic, and may only have a kernel of real history at its core, we end up with probably 76-85% of the Christian theological community who disagree with your interpretation. Again, the point is that this is clearly not ‘wise beyond your wildest imaginations’ aka no ‘wow’.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08413a.htm

but at the same time YOU KNOW THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION. Lets see you explain that.

Explain what? I made no such claim. What "interpretation" have I given to the book of Job?

Your claim seems to be that Job is historical and a literally true story; which cuts against the views of a large majority of Christians theologians. But feel free to explain what your interpretation is, if not that. And taking Job as literal history, is in fact an interpretation.

 

[blastula]

That doesn't answer it. The question is this. What's the proof that an arrangement in nature require a conscious designer?

From the same observations of the same data , I think we have the 'better proposition' or rather the only one so far in this regard. It looks like something we can 'compare with' - although on a lower level like our own design mechanisms.

What observations?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I refer to the general understanding.

So that's a no.
There's no point in having a conversation if you can just hand-waive the meaning of words in the discussion and hide behind some unspecified 'general' understanding.
You use 'atheist' to equal 'cosmologist' and think you've made a point.

 

[wilson]

Sure, you're discussing poetic metaphor.

Life is a "poetic metaphor?" What is the source of that information?

But a few posts ago you claimed that science can't explain life. Which is a false statement on your part.

Then you have to prove me wrong; what is the scientific explanation of life? Wiki only explains what living things do - not what life is.

So good luck digging yourself out of that hole.

Don't believe in luck and no holes here.

Science has no difficulty "encapsulated, demonstrated, visualized or explain" science. It's pretty basic really. What are you smoking?

I see an error there. But if you mean that science has no difficulty encapsulating, demonstrating, visualizing or explaining life, then go ahead and show us your representations.

This was literally the top result when googling "life".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Your link failed to make that statement.

When you googled "life" did you by mistake write "the Bible"?

Didn't google "life."

Here's all the more detailed scientific fields studying life if you're looking for something specific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_life_sciences

None of them explain what life is.

All human emotions come from neurochemicals in the brain. We've known that since the 1950'ies. How old science books are you reading? Are you reading 17'th century tomes on alchemy or something? Science has since moved on.

Do you actually believe that peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, self-control, and mildness are EMOTIONS? If that is true, then they should be present in everyone - right? Maybe you can explain why these qualities are absent in almost all of humanity, as demonstrated by the violence and chaos that governments now face. Does that telling absence mean that they have no n/chemicals in their brains, or that they aren't working?

There's a very simple explanation for that. There is no species capable of behaviours that isn't natural for it.

WAIT! You are "explaining" what is irrelevant. I am not talking about behaviors. I am not talking about emotions. As I already pointed out, those are common to everyone. I am talking about qualities/virtues that must be cultivated, because they do not occur naturally.

Violence and cruelty are inbuilt and natural behaviours for us. That's the only reason.

Irrelevant!

Whatever force created us programmed us for those behaviours.

"Created?" Wouldn't that call for a creator? Wouldn't that mean that biological evolution is excluded? Again - those are not behaviors.

Also for love, kindness and self control.

What about them?

Not sure why you put "faith" as a virtue.

Because it is! ". . .for faith is not a possession of all people." (2 Thessalonians 3:2)

Belief without evidence is a common human brain failure.

What is that supposed to mean? Is that your definition of "faith?" If it is, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

The neurochemistry of cruel people is working just fine. It's doing what it's designed to do.

That may be true or untrue - but still, just as irrelevant.

And if we look around nature, human emotional life is very similar to the emotional life of chimpanzees.

Repeat - I am NOT talking about emotions. You just continue to dip into irrelevant issues; but I will not be sidetracked.

They're capable of the most godawful behaviours. And we are very closely related to them.

Still irrelevant!

Please explain how that statement disproves anything in Genesis.
Poetry? Really? Do you mean it was written for the beauty and expression of feelings and ideas by rhythm and style? Or do you mean that it contains nothing of truth and substance that can be used for more than entertainment? Just what do you mean?

Poetry can express truth. But there are many ways of expressing the truth.

Not without knowing what the truth is. No one can express what he does not know.

There isn't necessarily a conflict between the Bible and science.

Agreed.

There's nothing in Genesis saying how God did it.

Then you haven't read Genesis.

We can decide that the Biblical account is a poetic metaphor and science is a detailed description.

It is very unwise to apply metaphors to objects and actions if we do not have an accurate knowledge of what the reality is.
Science has no detailed description of what life is - only how it affects objects.

What that interpretation has going for it is that it's true.

What are you talking about?

Poetry primarily is about feelings and emotional connection.

Then you are not talking about Genesis.

I think that is what the Bible is. I think that is all what the Bible is.

I suggest you study the book.

All you need to do now is explain why the Bible is relevant in this discussion?

The origin of life. Life comes only from life.

You lost me. The Bible doesn't explain how it happened.

It did not just "happen", Sir. It was vigorously and purposely done.

The Bible is just poetic metaphor. There's zero detail here.

Sorry you missed it all.

Can you account for the origin of life outside of the bible? Can anyone?

Now you're changing subjects.

Not at all. The subject is design and life that comes only from life.

The origin of life is another subject than how it sustains itself.

It is pointless to discuss sustenance without first accounting for and understanding origins.

We're talking about the latter. Something which science knows well.

No. I quoted the Genesis account of the origin of earthly life. YOU'RE trying to change the subject.

But on the new topic.

No new topic.

Initially that which became life was just a chemical reaction among amino acids like many others.

There is no scientific evidence that can sustain that theory - they call it abiogenesis.
Consider this:
If you put a live frog in a blender and mix it thoroughly, you would have all the amino acids, DNA, proteins, etc, etc in the same place and in the correct proportions - but no life. True? Life is not physical. It is spiritual.

What made this special is that it created a cascading and stable chain reaction which eventually led to what we call life.

If you are claiming that life gradually came into being you would be lacking a great deal of evidence that is needed to support the idea. You would have to demonstrate something that was only partially alive for thousands of years. LIFE HAD TO ARRIVE SUDDENLY - and from something equally alive.

But it's only special because we're a result of it.

Sorry, pal, but we did not result from a conjecture.

The world is full of cascading chain reactions.

But only one source of life.

Because of how life later turned out it gobbled up the evidence of what led to it.

That's an admission that you lack the evidence to support your theories. Why do you insist on calling it science?

But there's no miracle needed.

Then show me how it could be done any other way.

By now the scientific world has come up with a whole bunch of possible ways life could have emerged all by itself.

Yet, none of them could be offered as proof - right? "Emerged?" From what? Isn't that your equivalent of a miracle?

We can deduce that it most likely was one of those.

You can, and must, do better than that. You can use all your scientific expertise to prove it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Life is a "poetic metaphor?" What is the source of that information?

Kind of ironic, coming from someone who won't explain what he means by 'life is spiritual.'

 

[wilson]

I refer to the general understanding.

You really have no idea what atheism really is, do you?

Maybe but again I refer to the general understanding.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=defin...2c909a19&pq=define+design&cc=US&setlang=en-US

 

[Keith&Co.]

Bing?

 

[DrZoidberg]

This was literally the top result when googling "life".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Your link failed to make that statement.

If you close your eyes while reading the scientific definition of life, that is known as cheating.

When you googled "life" did you by mistake write "the Bible"?

Didn't google "life."

You might consider doing that for future discussions. You know, just do a quick google of the concept that being discussed so you might anticipate the arguments of the people you are discussing with.

There's a very simple explanation for that. There is no species capable of behaviours that isn't natural for it.

WAIT! You are "explaining" what is irrelevant. I am not talking about behaviors. I am not talking about emotions. As I already pointed out, those are common to everyone. I am talking about qualities/virtues that must be cultivated, because they do not occur naturally.

It's the same thing. Emotions are the tools by which our genetic programming controls us toward behaviours that help them spread their genes.

We are a social species dependent on cooperation for our survival. That's why humans have the capacity for kindness. And when our kindness is rejected, we might turn to other behaviours that help us get the same thing anyway. The emotion of anger might help us here.

Violence and cruelty are inbuilt and natural behaviours for us. That's the only reason.

Irrelevant!

So what's your explanation for violence and cruelty?

Not sure why you put "faith" as a virtue.

Because it is! ". . .for faith is not a possession of all people." (2 Thessalonians 3:2)

Belief without evidence is a common human brain failure.

What is that supposed to mean? Is that your definition of "faith?" If it is, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

he he. If I go to the store and have faith that today everything is free, I'd get arrested. No matter how strong my faith is. Having faith without evidence is the same thing as being an idiot.

Repeat - I am NOT talking about emotions. You just continue to dip into irrelevant issues; but I will not be sidetracked.

Do you seriously think you'd do good things if it didn't make you feel good? It is the same thing.

There's nothing in Genesis saying how God did it.

Then you haven't read Genesis.

Oh, no, is there a new version? I've only got the 500 BC one. Are you saying there's a 2017 edition? But good. About time God updated it. Some of these references are a bit out of date.

We can decide that the Biblical account is a poetic metaphor and science is a detailed description.

It is very unwise to apply metaphors to objects and actions if we do not have an accurate knowledge of what the reality is.
Science has no detailed description of what life is - only how it affects objects.

It's for saying things like this that make people laugh at creationists. That is complete word salad. Just nonsense.

What that interpretation has going for it is that it's true.

What are you talking about?

It doesn't violate what we've learned about the creation via science.

Poetry primarily is about feelings and emotional connection.

Then you are not talking about Genesis.

Are we discussing the old one or the new 2017 edition. I'm getting confused now.

It is pointless to discuss sustenance without first accounting for and understanding origins.

Science disagrees. They're two distinct fields of study.

If you put a live frog in a blender and mix it thoroughly, you would have all the amino acids, DNA, proteins, etc, etc in the same place and in the correct proportions - but no life. True? Life is not physical. It is spiritual.

Take a shovel and break the handle. Can you still shovel snow? Snow shovelling is not physical. It is it spiritual.

Is sophistry the only thing you are capable of?

But only one source of life.

Special pleading and category error. Who cares?

Because of how life later turned out it gobbled up the evidence of what led to it.

That's an admission that you lack the evidence to support your theories. Why do you insist on calling it science?

Well... if we're talking science it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. A scientific theory are things we can prove, ie the truth. A hypothesis is a plausible, but yet unproven theory.

At least science has a hypothesis. So it wins over Christianity. Christians can't do better than sophistic waffling and flowery poetry. I'm sorry, but that does not a theory make.

But there's no miracle needed.

Then show me how it could be done any other way.

We've tested several possible methods in labs now. The hard part is not explaining how DNA started. That's pretty straight forward. The hard part is explaining Eukaryots. But creationists somehow never mention that. I suspect it's because they can't get their head around all the long words. To criticise the theory they have to actually learn some science.

By now the scientific world has come up with a whole bunch of possible ways life could have emerged all by itself.

Yet, none of them could be offered as proof - right? "Emerged?" From what? Isn't that your equivalent of a miracle?

If we're talking science, a proof is a mathematical proof. And we have a whole bunch of mathematical proofs of how abiogenesis emerged all by itself. Any scientific hypothesis starts out as a mathematical model, ie a proof.

I don't evoke miracles when discussing science. That's what children do.

We can deduce that it most likely was one of those.

You can, and must, do better than that. You can use all your scientific expertise to prove it.

No, I don't. Look, I care about what is true. This isn't about winning an argument. I'm just explaining to you how science works.

A weak hypothesis is better than nothing. Christianity has nothing to compete with it. "God did it" isn't an hypothesis. That's like saying "I can't explain it, but I know somebody who can".