On the impossibility of abiogenesis

The Ugly Truth said:
So, you admit defeat. I graciously accept your unconditional surrender. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Hey, no problem.

If you want to think of what I wrote as indicative of defeat...and surrender (unconditional or not)...

...knock yourself out.

Essentially, you are proffering an ontological argument for the existence of a god. NO ontological argument in that direction has ever held water...not even a drop. Ontological arguments require assertions that cannot be established...mostly, but not necessarily, because they are too universal.

Your poorly worded and ambiguous, "Nothing comes from nothing" is an example.

And...I am still waiting for an answer to the question I asked in my #25.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh there are more fails here then an argument from authority logical fallacy. The premise of linked document is loaded with strawmen logical fallacies too. Not to mention an attempt to change the ground rules of science to include non natural causation. I don't know if I have the time or energy to go over the linked document and point out all the many blunders. Besides, what would be the point? Would it change the mind of an ID supporter? I doubt it.

Ultimately the single most important fail of the ID crowd is they don't provide any interesting or productive predictions that can be tested empirically. It has no practical use and no theoretical standing. To even debate it is, IMHO, a waste of time. What purpose would it serve other than to demonstrate ID Creationism as an example of a psuedo-science like Astrology, Torsion Field Physics, Non-Materialist Neuroscience or Psychokenisis.
Click to expand...

ID is exactly as valid as those "sciences." But like you said, no amount of logic, facts, or teaching is going to change the mind of an IDer.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well that's the absurd paradox of your argument. Who then created the creator of these intelligent men and where is the objective and empirical evidence for this creator? Good luck with that one. LOL If you can't provide that evidence than what you are talking about is something other than science.
Click to expand...

specious argument from a specious source......or to phrase it differently, "God doesn't need a creator you stupid fuck"...........
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Your arguments are poorly reasoned and based on logical fallacies, have no empirical data to support them, misrepresent the findings of science, attempt to change the definition of science, have predetermined a conclusion where you've cherry picked arguments to support your predetermined conclusion and do not draw conclusions based on empirical observation, testing and fact. .
Click to expand...

that pretty much covers abiogenesis in a nutshell.....
 
Frank Apisa said:
Hey, no problem.

If you want to think of what I wrote as indicative of defeat...and surrender (unconditional or not)...

...knock yourself out.

Essentially, you are proffering an ontological argument for the existence of a god. NO ontological argument in that direction has ever held water...not even a drop. Ontological arguments require assertions that cannot be established...mostly, but not necessarily, because they are too universal.

Your poorly worded and ambiguous, "Nothing comes from nothing" is an example.

And...I am still waiting for an answer to the question I asked in my #25.
Click to expand...

No. What I did was provide evidence on how abiogenesis is impossible. No one has even attempted to refute it yet. So you deflect and use childish arguments. And how is the statement "Nothing comes from nothing" ambiguous? It is a scientific fact. Can something come from nothing? The answer is a resounding no. Thus, nothing comes from nothing.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That may be true for all I know..and this is the part you can't deal with...but it isn't science. :)
Click to expand...

science says that matter had a beginning and therefore needs a cause.......logically science would lead us to conclude that something non material would not need a beginning or a cause.....
 
The Ugly Truth said:
No. What I did was provide evidence on how abiogenesis is impossible.
Click to expand...

You have asserted that abiogenesis IS IMPOSSIBLE.

You provided dubious evidence that it is POSSIBLE it is IMPOSSIBLE...which is to say that it is POSSIBLE.

I thank you for that.




No one has even attempted to refute it yet.
Click to expand...

Several people have. You simply do not want to acknowledge that we have.



So you deflect and use childish arguments.
Click to expand...

I am not deflecting and I am not using childish arguments.


And how is the statement "Nothing comes from nothing" ambiguous?
Click to expand...

Think about the statement "There is nothing to fear."

Is that meant to say..."The things you fear are not worth the fear"...or is it meant to be an almost unbearable threat...that the one thing you HAVE TO FEAR...is "nothing."

Nothing comes from nothing is that sort of thing.

You may not be able to do the brain work...and if not, you have my sympathies.



It is a scientific fact.
Click to expand...

If you meant it the way I think you meant it...then IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC FACT.

It is merely an unsubstantiated assertion on your part.

You do a lot of that.




Can something come from nothing?
Click to expand...

I DO NOT KNOW...and neither do you.

Stop assuming we have all the answers. It is close to certain we are not even near to having all the answers.


The answer is a resounding no.
Click to expand...

Only to someone being stone-headed...or incapable of logical thought.

The proper answer is: I do not know.


Thus, nothing comes from nothing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, assertion #1; assertion #2...and a laughable conclusion.

You are not that good at this. And even people who were very, very good at it...failed.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That may be true for all I know..and this is the part you can't deal with...but it isn't science. :)
Click to expand...

science says that matter had a beginning and therefore needs a cause.......logically science would lead us to conclude that something non material would not need a beginning or a cause.....yet atheists still pretend "who created the creator" is a logical question and somehow is a show stopper.......its not, its simply an irrational throw away.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
science says that matter had a beginning and therefore needs a cause.......logically science would lead us to conclude that something non material would not need a beginning or a cause.....yet atheists still pretend "who created the creator" is a logical question and somehow is a show stopper.......its not, its simply an irrational throw away.......
Click to expand...

All of your magical thinking is irrational, PMP.
 
The Ugly Truth said:
No. What I did was provide evidence on how abiogenesis is impossible. No one has even attempted to refute it yet. So you deflect and use childish arguments. And how is the statement "Nothing comes from nothing" ambiguous? It is a scientific fact. Can something come from nothing? The answer is a resounding no. Thus, nothing comes from nothing.
Click to expand...
No you didn't. You made an argument. You provided no evidence. Certainly no empirical evidence.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Big Fucking Bang......
Click to expand...
No. That's an explanation for the beginning of the Universe. That's not the same. It's entirely possible that the "Big Bang" is an endless cycle of death and rebirth of the universe over vast times and distances where matter/energy changes form and the law of conservation is kept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top