On the impossibility of abiogenesis

The Ugly Truth said:
Many claim that that life is simply the result of random arrangements of atoms. As this article shows, such a belief is contrary to reality. I know it's bit long, but I ask you to read it and understand it before commenting. I'm looking for a reasoned debate on this topic. Is anyone on here capable of actually discussing this without resorting to insults or deflection? If so, please speak up.

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-impossibility-of-abiogenesis/
Click to expand...

His basic fail is the assumption that there's no randomness in nature.
 
domer76 said:
Computers not required for life.

Checkmate
Click to expand...

Neither are automobiles, but yet you've claimed they are.
Get rid of your computer and prove to us you're correct that
computers are not required for life. JPP will be much better off without you :smile:
 
RB 60 said:
Neither are automobiles, but yet you've claimed they are.
Get rid of your computer and prove to us you're correct that
computers are not required for life. JPP will be much better off without you :smile:
Click to expand...

lol

You really got a laugh out of me there, illiterate fuck.

What I HAVE said is that vehicles are necessary for a modern society to function. You must be Smarterthanayew’s sock. He makes thd same massively stupid comments.

Review the OP. You’ve made the same incredible miscomprehension on that as well.

Your stupidity is truly unbelievable.
 
The Ugly Truth said:
Many claim that that life is simply the result of random arrangements of atoms. As this article shows, such a belief is contrary to reality. I know it's bit long, but I ask you to read it and understand it before commenting. I'm looking for a reasoned debate on this topic. Is anyone on here capable of actually discussing this without resorting to insults or deflection? If so, please speak up.

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-impossibility-of-abiogenesis/
Click to expand...

A "belief" in an area like "the true nature of the REALITY of existence"...is nothing more than a blind guess.

So...you...and the author...are making blind guesses that are different from the blind guess against which the author argues.

If only you people would identify your blind guesses as blind guesses...rather than disguise the fact that they are blind guesses by calling them "beliefs"...the discussion would be possible with no trouble at all.

No deflection here. The truth of what I just said is at the heart of any "actual discussion" that might take place.
 
The Ugly Truth said:
Actually, we need to discuss formalism and symbolic processing. Nature cannot create a computer. It's impossible. And computers are required for life to exist.
Click to expand...

What is "nature?"

Or more exactly...what do YOU consider to be "nature." Please be exact as possible, because I want to hold you to whatever you give as an answer in my response.
 
Frank Apisa said:
If only you people would identify your blind guesses as blind guesses...rather than disguise the fact that they are blind guesses by calling them "beliefs"...the discussion would be possible with no trouble at all.
Click to expand...

ironically, the only one keeping the discussion from proceeding with no trouble is the idiot who feels compelled to paint faith as blind guesses..........
 
domer76 said:
lol

You really got a laugh out of me there, illiterate fuck.

What I HAVE said is that vehicles are necessary for a modern society to function. You must be Smarterthanayew’s sock. He makes thd same massively stupid comments.

Review the OP. You’ve made the same incredible miscomprehension on that as well.

Your stupidity is truly unbelievable.
Click to expand...

 
The Ugly Truth said:
Many claim that that life is simply the result of random arrangements of atoms. As this article shows, such a belief is contrary to reality. I know it's bit long, but I ask you to read it and understand it before commenting. I'm looking for a reasoned debate on this topic. Is anyone on here capable of actually discussing this without resorting to insults or deflection? If so, please speak up.

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-impossibility-of-abiogenesis/
Click to expand...
What sort of debate are you interested in? The thread title isn’t scientific as in science anything is possible. It just may have a low probability of being correct and all scientific theories must be, in principle, falsifiable. So scientifically abiogenesis isn’t impossible. The scientific question is what is the probability of it being correct?

Also, please identify who these “many” are.
 
The Ugly Truth said:
Gee. I thought at least one atheist would be willing to debate this. Guess I can't blame them. They never were ones to discuss the facts.
Click to expand...

OIC. You want to have a civil debate on the topic but start by claiming that anyone who considers any validity of abiogenesis as a hypothesis is an atheist? Pretty hypocritical of you.
 
Kacper said:
One of the reasons computers can usually beat humans at chess is because humans see things as having to be purposeful and computers can process and execute what is rather purposeless from the human perspective. Ironic that advanced computer programming deals better with spontaneity than even its human creators who often cannot figure out why the hell the computers did what they did getting to the end they were programmed to achieve.
Click to expand...
Good chess players can defeat the vast majority of computer chess programs.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
OIC. You want to have a civil debate on the topic but start by claiming that anyone who considers any validity of abiogenesis as a hypothesis is an atheist? Pretty hypocritical of you.
Click to expand...

They may well be an atheist. That doesn’t make one wring.

This is nothing more than another rambling ID piece of pablum. Just another iteration of the Creationist cult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top