TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

The fact that you're a carbon based life form made of elements that were forged in stars is a good indicator. Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms.

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

At the end of the day, while I do not agree with everything RFK Jr. believes, I respect he at least has principles. Not that Biden actually is in charge, but like Clinton he doesn't really believe anything but just does whatever he things is popular at the time. He's really in it for the grift.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

The fact that you're a carbon based life form made of elements that were forged in stars is a good indicator. Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms.

---

You have a strong faith.

whiterock said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

His anti vaccine efforts following the accidental death of two kids in Samoa (nurse accidentally mixed muscle relaxant instead of saline with measles vaccine) was followed by the deaths of dozens of people. His efforts included social media posts, writing the Samoan prime minister and visiting personally. If I took an accidental poisoning and worked to convince people not to vaccinate their children and then a bunch of those children died, I am not exactly sure how I could sleep at night.

https://www.kff.org/news-summary/los-angeles-times-washington-post-editorials-discuss-measles-outbreak-in-samoa-importance-of-vaccination/

---

The LA Times and WaPo reporting that. Nice sources there.

---

These are not the only sources for the story. If you have a dispute with the facts, provide the evidence that that facts asserted (that he did the things he is said to have done) are inaccurate. Otherwise, complaining about accurate information because of the outlet that published is foolish.

https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/12/05/the-anti-vax-movement-causes-an-epidemic-in-samoa

---

The idea that RFK has some of these kids blood on his hands is called an opinion, and it's written by a couple of liberal rags who recommended children get inoculated for COVID - one of the most ridiculous positions of all time. Consider your source for opinion commentary.

---

Do you dispute the facts that following two accidental deaths due to an error by a nurse that contaminated measles vaccine with muscle relaxant RFK Jr. did what it was said he did in Samoa? I understand that you may believe he was justified and I understand that you might not like what you call the opinion that his actions contributed to the collapse in vaccine rates and subsequent outbreak and deaths, but do you dispute the facts that he did what did or not?

---

Did you see the Facebook posts?
Have you been to the website of Childrens' Defense Fund?

The Wapo and LAT articles carry the same genetic fallacy arguments against RFK Jr. that they do against conservatives and conservative issues - "well, they are (insert deplorable term here), so they should be deplatformed."

Asking questions about the safety of a vaccine, or the constitutionality of a vaccine requirement, is squarely within the tradition of free speech. The proper answer to bad speech is more speech. Denouncing and deplatforming is, in fact, evidence of establishments exercising power to defend an otherwise weak argument.

But it is convenient that such critics exist, as they can be blamed for the failure of public officials to do a good job, which is what happened in Samoa.

---

I haven't seen the particular Facebook posts as I don't follow him on Facebook. I did read his letter to the PM. It had more bovine excrement than the pastures I was driving around earlier today.

I do agree that the solution to bad speech is more speech rather than censorship, but bad speech can have ill effects, including deaths. Whether this was the case in this particular instance, RFK Jr. and his ilk do seek to persuade people that vaccines like MMR are more dangerous than the diseases and it is also true that when vaccination rates fall below a certain level, outbreaks and the illness and deaths associated with those diseases follow.

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

Well, you did make this comment 5 posts above:

"Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms."

That comment clearly illustrates the premise that life does not spontaneously erupt from nothing.....that it needs "help" from an intelligent designer, like a PhD educated team of scientists working in a room (designed by a college educated architect, built by a team of college educated specialists) full of equipment (designed by highly educated doctors and engineers, built by highly specialized firms full of highly educated people from materials extracted by highly educated people, with equipment designed and built by highly educated......) for the purpose of DESIGNING STRUCTURES TO RE-CREATE LIFE.

Seriously. There are a couple of millennia and trillions of dollars worth of accumulated intelligence and knowledge behind the designs you cite as proof that life could not possibly have been a result of intelligent design.

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

The vast majority of the probabilities you are referring to are so astronomically improbable that it defies logic and common sense to believe what you claim to believe.

The origin of the intelligent designer I believe in is an eternal Supreme Being that is outside of time as we know it. No question it requires a faith component, but you seem to fail to understand that your position requires even greater faith. For starters, what is the origin of inate matter?

🔥 PBD Shuts Down Chris Cuomo’s Attempt to Discredit RFK Jr

“I sent a text to Bobby at 11PM CST, which is midnight his time…In 30 seconds he texts back. Then he gets on the phone with me. For 45 minutes he’s finding people to do a conference call with us…This is when you know… pic.twitter.com/MqbuCXuSYR

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) July 22, 2023

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

Well, you did make this comment 5 posts above:

"Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms."

That comment clearly illustrates the premise that life does not spontaneously erupt from nothing.....that it needs "help" from an intelligent designer, like a PhD educated team of scientists working in a room (designed by a college educated architect, built by a team of college educated specialists) full of equipment (designed by highly educated doctors and engineers, built by highly specialized firms full of highly educated people from materials extracted by highly educated people, with equipment designed and built by highly educated......) for the purpose of DESIGNING STRUCTURES TO RE-CREATE LIFE.

Seriously. There are a couple of millennia and trillions of dollars worth of accumulated intelligence and knowledge behind the designs you cite as proof that life could not possibly have been a result of intelligent design.

---

Experimentation is what shows us the pathway of how. We learn from that, and learn how it came about naturally. There isn't anaything we have learned from science that says hiding supernatrual being did it.

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

The vast majority of the probabilities you are referring to are so astronomically improbable that it defies logic and common sense to believe what you claim to believe.

The origin of the intelligent designer I believe in is an eternal Supreme Being that is outside of time as we know it. No question it requires a faith component, but you seem to fail to understand that your position requires even greater faith. For starters, what is the origin of inate matter?

---

Someone, who had the good fortune to be in a successive chain with others, who each had the good fortune for a specific sperm, out billions available, to ferilize a specific ovulated egg, at a specific time, eventually wins the lottery, all without supernatural intervention.

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin and/or design of your god?

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

The vast majority of the probabilities you are referring to are so astronomically improbable that it defies logic and common sense to believe what you claim to believe.

The origin of the intelligent designer I believe in is an eternal Supreme Being that is outside of time as we know it. No question it requires a faith component, but you seem to fail to understand that your position requires even greater faith. For starters, what is the origin of inate matter?

---

Someone, who had the good fortune to be in a successive chain with others, who each had the good fortune for a specific sperm, out billions available, to ferilize a specific ovulated egg, at a specific time, eventually wins the lottery, all without supernatural intervention.

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin and/or desing of your god?

---

It's spelled with a capital "G" and I've already answered. Plus I repeat - where did inate matter originally come from?

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

The vast majority of the probabilities you are referring to are so astronomically improbable that it defies logic and common sense to believe what you claim to believe.

The origin of the intelligent designer I believe in is an eternal Supreme Being that is outside of time as we know it. No question it requires a faith component, but you seem to fail to understand that your position requires even greater faith. For starters, what is the origin of inate matter?

---

Someone, who had the good fortune to be in a successive chain with others, who each had the good fortune for a specific sperm, out billions available, to ferilize a specific ovulated egg, at a specific time, eventually wins the lottery, all without supernatural intervention.

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin and/or desing of your god?

---

It's spelled with a capital "G" and I've already answered. Plus I repeat - where did inate matter originally come from?

---

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin of or who designed your god?

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

Well, you did make this comment 5 posts above:

"Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms."

That comment clearly illustrates the premise that life does not spontaneously erupt from nothing.....that it needs "help" from an intelligent designer, like a PhD educated team of scientists working in a room (designed by a college educated architect, built by a team of college educated specialists) full of equipment (designed by highly educated doctors and engineers, built by highly specialized firms full of highly educated people from materials extracted by highly educated people, with equipment designed and built by highly educated......) for the purpose of DESIGNING STRUCTURES TO RE-CREATE LIFE.

Seriously. There are a couple of millennia and trillions of dollars worth of accumulated intelligence and knowledge behind the designs you cite as proof that life could not possibly have been a result of intelligent design.

---

Experimentation is what shows us the pathway of how. We learn from that, and learn how it came about naturally. There isn't anaything we have learned from science that says hiding supernatrual being did it.

---

LOL except for the minor detail those human directed experiments using synthesized this and recreated that explicitly did not demonstrate that life came about spontaneously from nothing.

Your argument cannot clear the same critique you levy against the opposing argument.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

Well, you did make this comment 5 posts above:

"Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms."

That comment clearly illustrates the premise that life does not spontaneously erupt from nothing.....that it needs "help" from an intelligent designer, like a PhD educated team of scientists working in a room (designed by a college educated architect, built by a team of college educated specialists) full of equipment (designed by highly educated doctors and engineers, built by highly specialized firms full of highly educated people from materials extracted by highly educated people, with equipment designed and built by highly educated......) for the purpose of DESIGNING STRUCTURES TO RE-CREATE LIFE.

Seriously. There are a couple of millennia and trillions of dollars worth of accumulated intelligence and knowledge behind the designs you cite as proof that life could not possibly have been a result of intelligent design.

---

Experimentation is what shows us the pathway of how. We learn from that, and learn how it came about naturally. There isn't anaything we have learned from science that says hiding supernatrual being did it.

---

LOL except for the minor detail those human directed experiments using synthesized this and recreated that explicitly did not demonstrate that life came about spontaneously from nothing.

Your argument cannot clear the same critique you levy against the opposing argument.

---

I never said life came about spontaneously. We'll eventually understand pathways for how life forms can originate through scientific experimentation. Progress is being made. 2,000 years ago, you'd be arguing that the sun supernaturaly traverses the sky. Why do you think we've reached the end of our ability to gain knowledge? Throughout history, people have resisted accepting scientific evidence, until it is irrefuteable, then they have to modify what they believe or deny reality.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

Well, you did make this comment 5 posts above:

"Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms."

That comment clearly illustrates the premise that life does not spontaneously erupt from nothing.....that it needs "help" from an intelligent designer, like a PhD educated team of scientists working in a room (designed by a college educated architect, built by a team of college educated specialists) full of equipment (designed by highly educated doctors and engineers, built by highly specialized firms full of highly educated people from materials extracted by highly educated people, with equipment designed and built by highly educated......) for the purpose of DESIGNING STRUCTURES TO RE-CREATE LIFE.

Seriously. There are a couple of millennia and trillions of dollars worth of accumulated intelligence and knowledge behind the designs you cite as proof that life could not possibly have been a result of intelligent design.

---

Experimentation is what shows us the pathway of how. We learn from that, and learn how it came about naturally. There isn't anaything we have learned from science that says hiding supernatrual being did it.

---

LOL except for the minor detail those human directed experiments using synthesized this and recreated that explicitly did not demonstrate that life came about spontaneously from nothing.

Your argument cannot clear the same critique you levy against the opposing argument.

---

I never said life came about spontaneously. We'll eventually understand pathways for how life forms can originate through scientific experimentation. Progress is being made. 2,000 years ago, you'd be arguing that the sun supernaturaly traverses the sky. Why do you think we've reached the end of our ability to gain knowledge? Throughout history, people have resisted accepting scientific evidence, until it is irrefuteable, then they have to modify what they believe or deny reality.

---

Dude - Either matter and ultimately life originated from nothing (which is exactly what you are asserting) or it didn't (I.e. intelligent design). It's the same as the fact that someone can't be a little bit pregnant - either they are or they aren't. You can drone on about quantum fluctuations and scientific experiment all you want, but it still all eventually comes back to the simple point that there was either intelligent design in creation or it all randomly originated from absolutely nothing.

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

Well, you did make this comment 5 posts above:

"Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms."

That comment clearly illustrates the premise that life does not spontaneously erupt from nothing.....that it needs "help" from an intelligent designer, like a PhD educated team of scientists working in a room (designed by a college educated architect, built by a team of college educated specialists) full of equipment (designed by highly educated doctors and engineers, built by highly specialized firms full of highly educated people from materials extracted by highly educated people, with equipment designed and built by highly educated......) for the purpose of DESIGNING STRUCTURES TO RE-CREATE LIFE.

Seriously. There are a couple of millennia and trillions of dollars worth of accumulated intelligence and knowledge behind the designs you cite as proof that life could not possibly have been a result of intelligent design.

---

Experimentation is what shows us the pathway of how. We learn from that, and learn how it came about naturally. There isn't anaything we have learned from science that says hiding supernatrual being did it.

---

LOL except for the minor detail those human directed experiments using synthesized this and recreated that explicitly did not demonstrate that life came about spontaneously from nothing.

Your argument cannot clear the same critique you levy against the opposing argument.

---

I never said life came about spontaneously. We'll eventually understand pathways for how life forms can originate through scientific experimentation. Progress is being made. 2,000 years ago, you'd be arguing that the sun supernaturaly traverses the sky. Why do you think we've reached the end of our ability to gain knowledge? Throughout history, people have resisted accepting scientific evidence, until it is irrefuteable, then they have to modify what they believe or deny reality.

---

LOL so now you admit that we do not yet know exactly how life began, but still must insist that it could not possibly have been via intelligent design (except in the laboratory...)

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

The vast majority of the probabilities you are referring to are so astronomically improbable that it defies logic and common sense to believe what you claim to believe.

The origin of the intelligent designer I believe in is an eternal Supreme Being that is outside of time as we know it. No question it requires a faith component, but you seem to fail to understand that your position requires even greater faith. For starters, what is the origin of inate matter?

---

Someone, who had the good fortune to be in a successive chain with others, who each had the good fortune for a specific sperm, out billions available, to ferilize a specific ovulated egg, at a specific time, eventually wins the lottery, all without supernatural intervention.

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin and/or desing of your god?

---

It's spelled with a capital "G" and I've already answered. Plus I repeat - where did inate matter originally come from?

---

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin of or who designed your god?

---

Quantum particles/fluctuations have to be generated from something smaller if 3D spacetime is all that exists or you have a paradox called 'Turtles all the way down'. It's impossible. Especially stupid considering we've proven its impossible to have mathematical operations beyond Planck scale.

The quantum world is spacetime, it's not giving rise to spacetime. The smallest particles have mass. Quantum fluctuations causing our universe to come into existence is absurd and illogical.

You have no evidence whatsoever that spacetime can emerge within itself.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

CammoTX said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

He is a nut, but I always appreciate free thinkers, especially in the age of Orwell.

---

He's not a nut. He's right and if he has a platform he will scare to death the establishment.

---

he's definitely a nut.

---

What makes him a nut?

---

As I posted previously, he's a Jenny McCarthy vaccine denier and believes in all kinds of extremism when it comes to the climate change. I'm sure he could tell you about Preciously Bodily Fluids.

---

Kennedy is not a "vaccine denier" and neither is McCarthy. Neither denies that vaccines have helped control disease, nor are they "anti-vax," per se. What both of them have questioned is the safety of some vaccines for children who are immunocompromised or suffer from metabolic issues. I'd suggest delving a little deeper into what they believe.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

Well, you did make this comment 5 posts above:

"Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms."

That comment clearly illustrates the premise that life does not spontaneously erupt from nothing.....that it needs "help" from an intelligent designer, like a PhD educated team of scientists working in a room (designed by a college educated architect, built by a team of college educated specialists) full of equipment (designed by highly educated doctors and engineers, built by highly specialized firms full of highly educated people from materials extracted by highly educated people, with equipment designed and built by highly educated......) for the purpose of DESIGNING STRUCTURES TO RE-CREATE LIFE.

Seriously. There are a couple of millennia and trillions of dollars worth of accumulated intelligence and knowledge behind the designs you cite as proof that life could not possibly have been a result of intelligent design.

---

Experimentation is what shows us the pathway of how. We learn from that, and learn how it came about naturally. There isn't anaything we have learned from science that says hiding supernatrual being did it.

---

LOL except for the minor detail those human directed experiments using synthesized this and recreated that explicitly did not demonstrate that life came about spontaneously from nothing.

Your argument cannot clear the same critique you levy against the opposing argument.

---

I never said life came about spontaneously. We'll eventually understand pathways for how life forms can originate through scientific experimentation. Progress is being made. 2,000 years ago, you'd be arguing that the sun supernaturaly traverses the sky. Why do you think we've reached the end of our ability to gain knowledge? Throughout history, people have resisted accepting scientific evidence, until it is irrefuteable, then they have to modify what they believe or deny reality.

---

LOL so now you admit that we do not yet know exactly how life began, but still must insist that it could not possibly have been via intelligent design (except in the laboratory...)

---

Abiogenesis has never happened in a laboratory. Scientists thought they had it figured in the 50s, but nobody in the next 70 years has been successful.

I thought some philosophers dropped abiogenesis and went on to panspermia

His voice is annoying, but I hope he makes Old Joe crap his pants more than usual.

Sean Hannity is a CIA plant and part of COINTELPRO

Thank you RFK Jr for bringing the FACTS https://t.co/NOVHMVrOFu

— Lori (@LJT_is_me) July 26, 2023

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

Well, you did make this comment 5 posts above:

"Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms."

That comment clearly illustrates the premise that life does not spontaneously erupt from nothing.....that it needs "help" from an intelligent designer, like a PhD educated team of scientists working in a room (designed by a college educated architect, built by a team of college educated specialists) full of equipment (designed by highly educated doctors and engineers, built by highly specialized firms full of highly educated people from materials extracted by highly educated people, with equipment designed and built by highly educated......) for the purpose of DESIGNING STRUCTURES TO RE-CREATE LIFE.

Seriously. There are a couple of millennia and trillions of dollars worth of accumulated intelligence and knowledge behind the designs you cite as proof that life could not possibly have been a result of intelligent design.

---

Experimentation is what shows us the pathway of how. We learn from that, and learn how it came about naturally. There isn't anaything we have learned from science that says hiding supernatrual being did it.

---

LOL except for the minor detail those human directed experiments using synthesized this and recreated that explicitly did not demonstrate that life came about spontaneously from nothing.

Your argument cannot clear the same critique you levy against the opposing argument.

---

I never said life came about spontaneously. We'll eventually understand pathways for how life forms can originate through scientific experimentation. Progress is being made. 2,000 years ago, you'd be arguing that the sun supernaturaly traverses the sky. Why do you think we've reached the end of our ability to gain knowledge? Throughout history, people have resisted accepting scientific evidence, until it is irrefuteable, then they have to modify what they believe or deny reality.

---

Dude - Either matter and ultimately life originated from nothing (which is exactly what you are asserting) or it didn't (I.e. intelligent design). It's the same as the fact that someone can't be a little bit pregnant - either they are or they aren't. You can drone on about quantum fluctuations and scientific experiment all you want, but it still all eventually comes back to the simple point that there was either intelligent design in creation or it all randomly originated from absolutely nothing.

---

Life has to have the right elements in place to originate. Life is a essentially a chemical reaction. I've said the universe can be spontaneous arising from nothing. It's not the same.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

Well, you did make this comment 5 posts above:

"Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms."

That comment clearly illustrates the premise that life does not spontaneously erupt from nothing.....that it needs "help" from an intelligent designer, like a PhD educated team of scientists working in a room (designed by a college educated architect, built by a team of college educated specialists) full of equipment (designed by highly educated doctors and engineers, built by highly specialized firms full of highly educated people from materials extracted by highly educated people, with equipment designed and built by highly educated......) for the purpose of DESIGNING STRUCTURES TO RE-CREATE LIFE.

Seriously. There are a couple of millennia and trillions of dollars worth of accumulated intelligence and knowledge behind the designs you cite as proof that life could not possibly have been a result of intelligent design.

---

Experimentation is what shows us the pathway of how. We learn from that, and learn how it came about naturally. There isn't anaything we have learned from science that says hiding supernatrual being did it.

---

LOL except for the minor detail those human directed experiments using synthesized this and recreated that explicitly did not demonstrate that life came about spontaneously from nothing.

Your argument cannot clear the same critique you levy against the opposing argument.

---

I never said life came about spontaneously. We'll eventually understand pathways for how life forms can originate through scientific experimentation. Progress is being made. 2,000 years ago, you'd be arguing that the sun supernaturaly traverses the sky. Why do you think we've reached the end of our ability to gain knowledge? Throughout history, people have resisted accepting scientific evidence, until it is irrefuteable, then they have to modify what they believe or deny reality.

---

LOL so now you admit that we do not yet know exactly how life began, but still must insist that it could not possibly have been via intelligent design (except in the laboratory...)

---

We know a lot more about how life must have originated, compared to the past, and we'll eventually understand it more fully. Life is a natural process, and all evidence points that its origin must be a natural process. Where is your evidence for anything supernatural, other than wishful thinking? How did your supernatural designer do it?

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

Well, you did make this comment 5 posts above:

"Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms."

That comment clearly illustrates the premise that life does not spontaneously erupt from nothing.....that it needs "help" from an intelligent designer, like a PhD educated team of scientists working in a room (designed by a college educated architect, built by a team of college educated specialists) full of equipment (designed by highly educated doctors and engineers, built by highly specialized firms full of highly educated people from materials extracted by highly educated people, with equipment designed and built by highly educated......) for the purpose of DESIGNING STRUCTURES TO RE-CREATE LIFE.

Seriously. There are a couple of millennia and trillions of dollars worth of accumulated intelligence and knowledge behind the designs you cite as proof that life could not possibly have been a result of intelligent design.

---

Experimentation is what shows us the pathway of how. We learn from that, and learn how it came about naturally. There isn't anaything we have learned from science that says hiding supernatrual being did it.

---

LOL except for the minor detail those human directed experiments using synthesized this and recreated that explicitly did not demonstrate that life came about spontaneously from nothing.

Your argument cannot clear the same critique you levy against the opposing argument.

---

I never said life came about spontaneously. We'll eventually understand pathways for how life forms can originate through scientific experimentation. Progress is being made. 2,000 years ago, you'd be arguing that the sun supernaturaly traverses the sky. Why do you think we've reached the end of our ability to gain knowledge? Throughout history, people have resisted accepting scientific evidence, until it is irrefuteable, then they have to modify what they believe or deny reality.

---

LOL so now you admit that we do not yet know exactly how life began, but still must insist that it could not possibly have been via intelligent design (except in the laboratory...)

---

We know a lot more about how life must have originated, compared to the past, and we'll eventually understand it more fully. Life is a natural process, and all evidence points that its origin must be a natural process. Where is your evidence for anything supernatural, other than wishful thinking? How did your supernatural designer do it?

---

The issue you continue to miss is there's no evidence of your position. You are putting just as much faith in your theory as believers are putting in their god. There is no evidence that complex life forms come from inanimate matter. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Now, I know you have a strong faith we will find it, but as of yet, all that is is faith.

In short, you're not all that different from the religious people you decry.

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

The vast majority of the probabilities you are referring to are so astronomically improbable that it defies logic and common sense to believe what you claim to believe.

The origin of the intelligent designer I believe in is an eternal Supreme Being that is outside of time as we know it. No question it requires a faith component, but you seem to fail to understand that your position requires even greater faith. For starters, what is the origin of inate matter?

---

Someone, who had the good fortune to be in a successive chain with others, who each had the good fortune for a specific sperm, out billions available, to ferilize a specific ovulated egg, at a specific time, eventually wins the lottery, all without supernatural intervention.

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin and/or desing of your god?

---

It's spelled with a capital "G" and I've already answered. Plus I repeat - where did inate matter originally come from?

---

Physical processes originating with the big bang. Eveything that makes up our universe came out of the big bang. I'm not sure what you mean by innate (spelled with two ns) matter. Who designed your captial "G" god?

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

Well, you did make this comment 5 posts above:

"Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms."

That comment clearly illustrates the premise that life does not spontaneously erupt from nothing.....that it needs "help" from an intelligent designer, like a PhD educated team of scientists working in a room (designed by a college educated architect, built by a team of college educated specialists) full of equipment (designed by highly educated doctors and engineers, built by highly specialized firms full of highly educated people from materials extracted by highly educated people, with equipment designed and built by highly educated......) for the purpose of DESIGNING STRUCTURES TO RE-CREATE LIFE.

Seriously. There are a couple of millennia and trillions of dollars worth of accumulated intelligence and knowledge behind the designs you cite as proof that life could not possibly have been a result of intelligent design.

---

Experimentation is what shows us the pathway of how. We learn from that, and learn how it came about naturally. There isn't anaything we have learned from science that says hiding supernatrual being did it.

---

LOL except for the minor detail those human directed experiments using synthesized this and recreated that explicitly did not demonstrate that life came about spontaneously from nothing.

Your argument cannot clear the same critique you levy against the opposing argument.

---

I never said life came about spontaneously. We'll eventually understand pathways for how life forms can originate through scientific experimentation. Progress is being made. 2,000 years ago, you'd be arguing that the sun supernaturaly traverses the sky. Why do you think we've reached the end of our ability to gain knowledge? Throughout history, people have resisted accepting scientific evidence, until it is irrefuteable, then they have to modify what they believe or deny reality.

---

Dude - Either matter and ultimately life originated from nothing (which is exactly what you are asserting) or it didn't (I.e. intelligent design). It's the same as the fact that someone can't be a little bit pregnant - either they are or they aren't. You can drone on about quantum fluctuations and scientific experiment all you want, but it still all eventually comes back to the simple point that there was either intelligent design in creation or it all randomly originated from absolutely nothing.

---

You asked about life. All evidence indicates life came about under favorable conditions after the big bang and formation of our universe. Quantum theory tells us it is plausible the universe spontaneously arose from nothing. That makes a god irrelevant. Who designed your designer?

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

Well, you did make this comment 5 posts above:

"Huge strides have been made in the field of abiogenesis and biochemistry in recent years. RNA and amino acids have been synthesized in labs, without any supernatural shenanigans I might add. There is no reason not to believe that we won't be able to produce or replicate a living organism comparable to early life forms."

That comment clearly illustrates the premise that life does not spontaneously erupt from nothing.....that it needs "help" from an intelligent designer, like a PhD educated team of scientists working in a room (designed by a college educated architect, built by a team of college educated specialists) full of equipment (designed by highly educated doctors and engineers, built by highly specialized firms full of highly educated people from materials extracted by highly educated people, with equipment designed and built by highly educated......) for the purpose of DESIGNING STRUCTURES TO RE-CREATE LIFE.

Seriously. There are a couple of millennia and trillions of dollars worth of accumulated intelligence and knowledge behind the designs you cite as proof that life could not possibly have been a result of intelligent design.

---

Experimentation is what shows us the pathway of how. We learn from that, and learn how it came about naturally. There isn't anaything we have learned from science that says hiding supernatrual being did it.

---

LOL except for the minor detail those human directed experiments using synthesized this and recreated that explicitly did not demonstrate that life came about spontaneously from nothing.

Your argument cannot clear the same critique you levy against the opposing argument.

---

I never said life came about spontaneously. We'll eventually understand pathways for how life forms can originate through scientific experimentation. Progress is being made. 2,000 years ago, you'd be arguing that the sun supernaturaly traverses the sky. Why do you think we've reached the end of our ability to gain knowledge? Throughout history, people have resisted accepting scientific evidence, until it is irrefuteable, then they have to modify what they believe or deny reality.

---

LOL so now you admit that we do not yet know exactly how life began, but still must insist that it could not possibly have been via intelligent design (except in the laboratory...)

---

We know a lot about what conditions are required for life, and what comprises life compared prior knowledge and superstitions. We're learning more all of the time. Everything we've learned points to natural processes. We haven't learned anything that requires and intelligent designer. In fact, there are suboptimal things about life that an 'intelligent' designer would not have designed. In your line of reasoning, that would be good evidence against 'intelligent' design.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

The vast majority of the probabilities you are referring to are so astronomically improbable that it defies logic and common sense to believe what you claim to believe.

The origin of the intelligent designer I believe in is an eternal Supreme Being that is outside of time as we know it. No question it requires a faith component, but you seem to fail to understand that your position requires even greater faith. For starters, what is the origin of inate matter?

---

Someone, who had the good fortune to be in a successive chain with others, who each had the good fortune for a specific sperm, out billions available, to ferilize a specific ovulated egg, at a specific time, eventually wins the lottery, all without supernatural intervention.

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin and/or desing of your god?

---

It's spelled with a capital "G" and I've already answered. Plus I repeat - where did inate matter originally come from?

---

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin of or who designed your god?

---

Quantum particles/fluctuations have to be generated from something smaller if 3D spacetime is all that exists or you have a paradox called 'Turtles all the way down'. It's impossible. Especially stupid considering we've proven its impossible to have mathematical operations beyond Planck scale.

The quantum world is spacetime, it's not giving rise to spacetime. The smallest particles have mass. Quantum fluctuations causing our universe to come into existence is absurd and illogical.

You have no evidence whatsoever that spacetime can emerge within itself.

---

Spacetime itself can be a quantum fluctuation. Your argument is with quantum theory. Go design a better argument.

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself…?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

The vast majority of the probabilities you are referring to are so astronomically improbable that it defies logic and common sense to believe what you claim to believe.

The origin of the intelligent designer I believe in is an eternal Supreme Being that is outside of time as we know it. No question it requires a faith component, but you seem to fail to understand that your position requires even greater faith. For starters, what is the origin of inate matter?

---

Someone, who had the good fortune to be in a successive chain with others, who each had the good fortune for a specific sperm, out billions available, to ferilize a specific ovulated egg, at a specific time, eventually wins the lottery, all without supernatural intervention.

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin and/or desing of your god?

---

It's spelled with a capital "G" and I've already answered. Plus I repeat - where did inate matter originally come from?

---

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin of or who designed your god?

---

Quantum particles/fluctuations have to be generated from something smaller if 3D spacetime is all that exists or you have a paradox called 'Turtles all the way down'. It's impossible. Especially stupid considering we've proven its impossible to have mathematical operations beyond Planck scale.

The quantum world is spacetime, it's not giving rise to spacetime. The smallest particles have mass. Quantum fluctuations causing our universe to come into existence is absurd and illogical.

You have no evidence whatsoever that spacetime can emerge within itself.

---

Spacetime itself can be a quantum fluctuation.

---

No it can't and you have no proof.