There is no evidence of Abiogenesis

[steve_bank]

Exactly, seconds,meters, and kilograms are arbitrary.

People are conditioned by decades of scifi to see time as some kind of reality unto itself.If you talk about tine as a metaphysical abstraction other then seconds then you have to unambiguously define it. If not then it becomes a kind of theology. Christians talk about god without defining what god is.

With relative motion there are four parameters. To define a point in space time in seconds and 3 spacial dimensions in meters. Space-Time.

Spacetime - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

n physics, spacetime, also called the space-time continuum, is a mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects, such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur.

Spacetime is an abritrary mathematical construction based in meters and seconds.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

NEWSFLASH: There isn't any evidence for magic spacemen, just stories, unevidenced claims.

 

[Elixir]

Well, according to creationists anyways. Apparently if you post a link to Nature articles regarding early self replicating nucleotides, that’s not evidence. Nor is evidence of protists or any other mechanism that has been biochemically observed.

Furthermore if you show a photo of hominid skulls arranged chronologically, that too is not evidence of common descent. Apparently that’s just variation in humans. As can be seen by comparing aboriginal Australians to Europeans.

I wonder if they would admit this version of evolution?

View attachment 46528

omg PONIES!!!

Yes! And Eohippus was recently reclassified, having previously been thought to fall under the Hyracotherium genus! He looked a little like a capybara.

 

[Bullmoose Too]

My sister has extensively researched our familiy tree, and despite her best efforts, has no hard evidence that we have any ancestors prior to 1538.

Therefore my family were created ex-nihilo by God in the sixteenth century. It's the only possible explanation.

Not true. Aliens could have done it.

 

[Jarhyn]

My sister has extensively researched our familiy tree, and despite her best efforts, has no hard evidence that we have any ancestors prior to 1538.

Therefore my family were created ex-nihilo by God in the sixteenth century. It's the only possible explanation.

Not true. Aliens could have done it.

Lies! It was an invisible pink unicorn. I took pictures of it with my time camera and you clearly can see that the unicorn in those pictures is in fact not visible!

 

[bilby]

My sister has extensively researched our familiy tree, and despite her best efforts, has no hard evidence that we have any ancestors prior to 1538.

Therefore my family were created ex-nihilo by God in the sixteenth century. It's the only possible explanation.

Not true. Aliens could have done it.

But who created the aliens? We all know the only possible answer to that one.

 

[pood]

My sister has extensively researched our familiy tree, and despite her best efforts, has no hard evidence that we have any ancestors prior to 1538.

Therefore my family were created ex-nihilo by God in the sixteenth century. It's the only possible explanation.

Not true. Aliens could have done it.

But who created the aliens? We all know the only possible answer to that one.

Like turtles, it’s aliens all the way down.

 

[Bullmoose Too]

My sister has extensively researched our familiy tree, and despite her best efforts, has no hard evidence that we have any ancestors prior to 1538.

Therefore my family were created ex-nihilo by God in the sixteenth century. It's the only possible explanation.

Not true. Aliens could have done it.

But who created the aliens? We all know the only possible answer to that one.

I am going the logical fallacy route of special pleading and say that the aliens were not created and always existed.

 

[steve_bank]

he problem with Christian Intelligent Design is the same question, where did intelligent designers come from.

 

[DBT]

Why, that's easy, it's Wheelers retrocausality at work. The Super Aliens went back in time to create the very universe in which they evolved.

 

[Elixir]

he problem with Christian Intelligent Design is the same question, where did intelligent designers come from.

Intelligent design school of course.

 

[DBT]

It's just a part of the Doctorate of Divinity curriculum.

 

[Learner]

he problem with Christian Intelligent Design is the same question, where did intelligent designers come from.

Depending how one forms the language direction of the conversation or argument.

If the designer-entity does exist. The knowing or not knowing where the designer originated from wouldn't actually matter.
It's not a problem for Christians at all!

(you got a like for highlighting this)

 

[pood]

he problem with Christian Intelligent Design is the same question, where did intelligent designers come from.

Depending how one forms the language direction of the conversation or argument.

If the designer-entity does exist. Knowing or not knowing how or where a designer originated from doesn't actually matter.
It's not a problem at all!

(you got a like for highlighting this)

Positing a designer to explain where life comes from just pushes the problem back a step. Of course one would naturally desire to know where the designer came from.

But, since there is no designer, the issue is moot.

 

[Learner]

he problem with Christian Intelligent Design is the same question, where did intelligent designers come from.

Depending how one forms the language direction of the conversation or argument.

If the designer-entity does exist. Knowing or not knowing how or where a designer originated from doesn't actually matter.
It's not a problem at all!

(you got a like for highlighting this)

Positing a designer to explain where life comes from just pushes the problem back a step. Of course one would naturally desire to know where the designer came from.

But, since there is no designer, the issue is moot.

Having hypothetical questions from a modern perspective about designers, are valid questions in today's non-religious world.

I think the issues for atheists (specifically those who challenge the Christian creator belief) completely and automatically go against Intelligent Design, because of the implication that some individuals (not all,who are open to ID) use analogous parallels/similarities between the Intelligent Design concept and the God creator of the bible.

 

[pood]

he problem with Christian Intelligent Design is the same question, where did intelligent designers come from.

Depending how one forms the language direction of the conversation or argument.

If the designer-entity does exist. Knowing or not knowing how or where a designer originated from doesn't actually matter.
It's not a problem at all!

(you got a like for highlighting this)

Positing a designer to explain where life comes from just pushes the problem back a step. Of course one would naturally desire to know where the designer came from.

But, since there is no designer, the issue is moot.

Having hypothetical questions from a modern perspective about designers, are valid questions in today's non-religious world.

I think the issues for atheists (specifically those who challenge the Christian creator belief) completely and automatically go against Intelligent Design, because of the implication that some individuals (not all,who are open to ID) use analogous parallels/similarities between the Intelligent Design concept and the God creator of the bible.

No, that’s not the issue at all. The issue is that intelligent design is empty. There is zero evidence for it, and zero evidence of an intelligent designer. The theory of evolution fully explains, without any holes, how species arise. Abiogenesis is a work in progress, but there are plenty of good hypotheses out there. It remains to be seen whether it will ever be possible to explain how life arose exactly, becuase it is difficult to find the evidence. The default assumption will always properly be that abiogenesis was a fully natural, unguided event.

 

[steve_bank]

he problem with Christian Intelligent Design is the same question, where did intelligent designers come from.

Depending how one forms the language direction of the conversation or argument.

If the designer-entity does exist. The knowing or not knowing where the designer originated from wouldn't actually matter.
It's not a problem for Christians at all!

(you got a like for highlighting this)

Not really.

ID was invented to try to get creationism taught in public school science classes. Multiple court cases labeled it as such.

The interdependent designer is a code word for god. Which of course had no beginning or end, no explanation of origins required.

Next on the list, The watchmaker argument for god.

You have never seen a watch You are walking along and find a watch and conclude someone or something had to have made it. You observe the Earth and you observe humans making things, you conclude somebody or something designed or made the Earth. IOW god must exist.


The complexity argument. Physical constants all fit together, therefore the universe was designed, IOW god.

The teleological argument. The universe could not possibly exist without a god, therefor god exists.

No it is not a problem for Christians. It shores up faith and serves as talking points against the evil 'secular science' out to get religion and destroy god.


All logical fallacies. Non sequitur, conclusion does not follow from premises.

 

[Learner]

he problem with Christian Intelligent Design is the same question, where did intelligent designers come from.

Depending how one forms the language direction of the conversation or argument.

If the designer-entity does exist. Knowing or not knowing how or where a designer originated from doesn't actually matter.
It's not a problem at all!

(you got a like for highlighting this)

Positing a designer to explain where life comes from just pushes the problem back a step. Of course one would naturally desire to know where the designer came from.

But, since there is no designer, the issue is moot.

Having hypothetical questions from a modern perspective about designers, are valid questions in today's non-religious world.

I think the issues for atheists (specifically those who challenge the Christian creator belief) completely and automatically go against Intelligent Design, because of the implication that some individuals (not all,who are open to ID) use analogous parallels/similarities between the Intelligent Design concept and the God creator of the bible.

No, that’s not the issue at all. The issue is that intelligent design is empty. There is zero evidence for it, and zero evidence of an intelligent designer.

Just as I said. Your Auto-dismissal of the designer concept; even when it's not all about people who apparently make 'knowledge' claims but others who make these hypotheses.

The theory of evolution fully explains, without any holes, how species arise.

It's an explanation yes sure.

Abiogenesis is a work in progress, but there are plenty of good hypotheses out there.

More than one hypothesis? But of course... as long as it doesn't hint of any Intelligent Design woo..

It remains to be seen whether it will ever be possible to explain how life arose exactly, becuase it is difficult to find the evidence.

No evidence but we have plenty of good hypotheses out there.

The default assumption will always properly be that abiogenesis was a fully natural, unguided event.

Yes, I know. I understand this and accept that's how it is.

 

[pood]

he problem with Christian Intelligent Design is the same question, where did intelligent designers come from.

Depending how one forms the language direction of the conversation or argument.

If the designer-entity does exist. Knowing or not knowing how or where a designer originated from doesn't actually matter.
It's not a problem at all!

(you got a like for highlighting this)

Positing a designer to explain where life comes from just pushes the problem back a step. Of course one would naturally desire to know where the designer came from.

But, since there is no designer, the issue is moot.

Having hypothetical questions from a modern perspective about designers, are valid questions in today's non-religious world.

I think the issues for atheists (specifically those who challenge the Christian creator belief) completely and automatically go against Intelligent Design, because of the implication that some individuals (not all,who are open to ID) use analogous parallels/similarities between the Intelligent Design concept and the God creator of the bible.

No, that’s not the issue at all. The issue is that intelligent design is empty. There is zero evidence for it, and zero evidence of an intelligent designer.

Just as I said. Your Auto-dismissal of the designer concept; even when it's not all about people who apparently make 'knowledge' claims but others who make these hypotheses.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say. It is not an ”auto-dismissal.” It is a dismissal based on the total lack of evidence for ID, and the massive amount of evidence for unguided evolution.

The theory of evolution fully explains, without any holes, how species arise.

It's an explanation yes sure.

Right.

Abiogenesis is a work in progress, but there are plenty of good hypotheses out there.

More than one hypothesis? But of course... as long as it doesn't hint of any Intelligent Design woo..

Right. Plenty of good naturalistic hypotheses, none of involving ID woo.

Yes, I know. I understand this and accept that's how it is.

Good.

 

[bilby]

It's not a problem for Christians at all!

Of course it's not. When you can just believe any old shit that feels good, and don't feel the need to reference reality, there really is no need to accept the existence of any problems at all.