TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

Science (his god) of The Gaps

Kennedy Jr. calls for dialogue with Moscow: Russia has more nuclear warheads than we do
The USA should establish high-level contacts with Russia , said the candidate for the US presidency, Robert Kennedy Jr., pointing out that "Washington is actually at war with Moscow".
"… pic.twitter.com/hkOHVkYaOE

— Spriter Team (@SpriterTeam) July 26, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

Kennedy Jr. calls for dialogue with Moscow: Russia has more nuclear warheads than we do
The USA should establish high-level contacts with Russia , said the candidate for the US presidency, Robert Kennedy Jr., pointing out that "Washington is actually at war with Moscow".
"… pic.twitter.com/hkOHVkYaOE

— Spriter Team (@SpriterTeam) July 26, 2023

---

Cue "he's a Putin Puppet" music.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Kennedy Jr. calls for dialogue with Moscow: Russia has more nuclear warheads than we do
The USA should establish high-level contacts with Russia , said the candidate for the US presidency, Robert Kennedy Jr., pointing out that "Washington is actually at war with Moscow".
"… pic.twitter.com/hkOHVkYaOE

— Spriter Team (@SpriterTeam) July 26, 2023

---

Cue "he's a Putin Puppet" music.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Kennedy Jr. calls for dialogue with Moscow: Russia has more nuclear warheads than we do
The USA should establish high-level contacts with Russia , said the candidate for the US presidency, Robert Kennedy Jr., pointing out that "Washington is actually at war with Moscow".
"… pic.twitter.com/hkOHVkYaOE

— Spriter Team (@SpriterTeam) July 26, 2023

---

Cue "he's a Putin Puppet" music.

---

Proxy wars are tricky things

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Kennedy Jr. calls for dialogue with Moscow: Russia has more nuclear warheads than we do
The USA should establish high-level contacts with Russia , said the candidate for the US presidency, Robert Kennedy Jr., pointing out that "Washington is actually at war with Moscow".
"… pic.twitter.com/hkOHVkYaOE

— Spriter Team (@SpriterTeam) July 26, 2023

---

Cue "he's a Putin Puppet" music.

---

Proxy wars are tricky things

---

Yeah, that silly little bit of Russia invading in 2014 and 2022 throws a little kink in that theory.

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Kennedy Jr. calls for dialogue with Moscow: Russia has more nuclear warheads than we do
The USA should establish high-level contacts with Russia , said the candidate for the US presidency, Robert Kennedy Jr., pointing out that "Washington is actually at war with Moscow".
"… pic.twitter.com/hkOHVkYaOE

— Spriter Team (@SpriterTeam) July 26, 2023

---

Cue "he's a Putin Puppet" music.

---

Proxy wars are tricky things

---

Yeah, that silly little bit of Russia invading in 2014 and 2022 throws a little kink in that theory.

---

[sarcasm]It's too bad there is absolutely nothing whatsoever we could have done to prevent the 2022 invasion.[/sarcasm].

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Kennedy Jr. calls for dialogue with Moscow: Russia has more nuclear warheads than we do
The USA should establish high-level contacts with Russia , said the candidate for the US presidency, Robert Kennedy Jr., pointing out that "Washington is actually at war with Moscow".
"… pic.twitter.com/hkOHVkYaOE

— Spriter Team (@SpriterTeam) July 26, 2023

---

Cue "he's a Putin Puppet" music.

---

Proxy wars are tricky things

---

Yeah, that silly little bit of Russia invading in 2014 and 2022 throws a little kink in that theory.

---

[sarcasm]It's too bad there is absolutely nothing whatsoever we could have done to prevent the 2022 invasion.[/sarcasm].

---

Could have allowed Ukraine into NATO in 2014, would have limited damage to Crimea...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Kennedy Jr. calls for dialogue with Moscow: Russia has more nuclear warheads than we do
The USA should establish high-level contacts with Russia , said the candidate for the US presidency, Robert Kennedy Jr., pointing out that "Washington is actually at war with Moscow".
"… pic.twitter.com/hkOHVkYaOE

— Spriter Team (@SpriterTeam) July 26, 2023

---

Cue "he's a Putin Puppet" music.

---

Proxy wars are tricky things

---

Yeah, that silly little bit of Russia invading in 2014 and 2022 throws a little kink in that theory.

---

[sarcasm]It's too bad there is absolutely nothing whatsoever we could have done to prevent the 2022 invasion.[/sarcasm].

---

Could have allowed Ukraine into NATO in 2014, would have limited damage to Crimea...

---

[sarcasm]Yes, I am sure that kind of provocation wouldn't have had any repercussions.[/sarcasm]

You neocons crack me up.

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Kennedy Jr. calls for dialogue with Moscow: Russia has more nuclear warheads than we do
The USA should establish high-level contacts with Russia , said the candidate for the US presidency, Robert Kennedy Jr., pointing out that "Washington is actually at war with Moscow".
"… pic.twitter.com/hkOHVkYaOE

— Spriter Team (@SpriterTeam) July 26, 2023

---

Cue "he's a Putin Puppet" music.

---

Proxy wars are tricky things

---

Yeah, that silly little bit of Russia invading in 2014 and 2022 throws a little kink in that theory.

---

[sarcasm]It's too bad there is absolutely nothing whatsoever we could have done to prevent the 2022 invasion.[/sarcasm].

---

Could have allowed Ukraine into NATO in 2014, would have limited damage to Crimea...

---

[sarcasm]Yes, I am sure that kind of provocation wouldn't have had any repercussions.[/sarcasm]

You neocons crack me up.

---

You really think that Russia would test Chapter 5? They can't take out Ukraine with a hodgepodge of donated weapons. You really think Russia is going to take on NATO?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Kennedy Jr. calls for dialogue with Moscow: Russia has more nuclear warheads than we do
The USA should establish high-level contacts with Russia , said the candidate for the US presidency, Robert Kennedy Jr., pointing out that "Washington is actually at war with Moscow".
"… pic.twitter.com/hkOHVkYaOE

— Spriter Team (@SpriterTeam) July 26, 2023

---

Cue "he's a Putin Puppet" music.

---

Proxy wars are tricky things

---

Yeah, that silly little bit of Russia invading in 2014 and 2022 throws a little kink in that theory.

---

[sarcasm]It's too bad there is absolutely nothing whatsoever we could have done to prevent the 2022 invasion.[/sarcasm].

---

Could have allowed Ukraine into NATO in 2014, would have limited damage to Crimea...

---

[sarcasm]Yes, I am sure that kind of provocation wouldn't have had any repercussions.[/sarcasm]

You neocons crack me up.

---

You really think that Russia would test Chapter 5? They can't take out Ukraine with a hodgepodge of donated weapons. You really think Russia is going to take on NATO?

---

It's not a conventional war I am concerned with. I suspect for most NATO countries who said no to Ukraine, it's not a conventional war they were concerned with either.

Interesting that you think Ukraine was worth testing your theory, however.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Kennedy Jr. calls for dialogue with Moscow: Russia has more nuclear warheads than we do
The USA should establish high-level contacts with Russia , said the candidate for the US presidency, Robert Kennedy Jr., pointing out that "Washington is actually at war with Moscow".
"… pic.twitter.com/hkOHVkYaOE

— Spriter Team (@SpriterTeam) July 26, 2023

---

Cue "he's a Putin Puppet" music.

---

Proxy wars are tricky things

---

Yeah, that silly little bit of Russia invading in 2014 and 2022 throws a little kink in that theory.

---

[sarcasm]It's too bad there is absolutely nothing whatsoever we could have done to prevent the 2022 invasion.[/sarcasm].

---

Could have allowed Ukraine into NATO in 2014, would have limited damage to Crimea...

---

When it comes to breaking agreements, I always say , go big or go home.

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

In the end I fear God will he disappointed in those that push this but I pray for Them daily as they still have time

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Kennedy Jr. calls for dialogue with Moscow: Russia has more nuclear warheads than we do
The USA should establish high-level contacts with Russia , said the candidate for the US presidency, Robert Kennedy Jr., pointing out that "Washington is actually at war with Moscow".
"… pic.twitter.com/hkOHVkYaOE

— Spriter Team (@SpriterTeam) July 26, 2023

---

Cue "he's a Putin Puppet" music.

---

What's more dangerous for his heart - the HGH he takes or the jab he didn't?

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Kennedy Jr. calls for dialogue with Moscow: Russia has more nuclear warheads than we do
The USA should establish high-level contacts with Russia , said the candidate for the US presidency, Robert Kennedy Jr., pointing out that "Washington is actually at war with Moscow".
"… pic.twitter.com/hkOHVkYaOE

— Spriter Team (@SpriterTeam) July 26, 2023

---

Cue "he's a Putin Puppet" music.

---

Proxy wars are tricky things

---

Yeah, that silly little bit of Russia invading in 2014 and 2022 throws a little kink in that theory.

---

Who was at the helm then?

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

Quantum theory allows for it.

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

---

No, there is no evidence that it's even scientifically possible. If you had some evidence in nature of complex organisms, forming from simple matter, then you might have a point. But we both know you got nothing.

Except faith of course.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

---

No, there is no evidence that it's even scientifically possible. If you had some evidence in nature of complex organisms, forming from simple matter, then you might have a point. But we both know you got nothing.

Except faith of course.

---

Quantum theory allows for a spontaneous universe from nothing. That is reality. Do I know if that is how it occurred. No, but because it is scientifically plausible with what we know about quantum theory, it makes relegion irrelevant. You can deny reality, and believe primitive myths, and in mysticism, but there is no evidence for what you want to believe, and there is no plausible scientific theory for what you want to believe.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

---

No, there is no evidence that it's even scientifically possible. If you had some evidence in nature of complex organisms, forming from simple matter, then you might have a point. But we both know you got nothing.

Except faith of course.

---

Quantum theory allows for a spontaneous universe from nothing. That is reality. Do I know if that is how it occurred. No, but because it is scientifically plausible with what we know about quantum theory, it makes relegion irrelevant. You can deny reality, and believe primitive myths, and in mysticism, but there is no evidence for what you want to believe, and there is no plausible scientific theory for what you want to believe.

---

Well, energy has to convert to something. It doesn't just disappear. Spontaneous Universe, I'll take that...

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. Your argument is with quantum theory. Go design a better argument.

---

There's no such thing as quantum fluctuation. You just said so yourself.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

---

No, there is no evidence that it's even scientifically possible. If you had some evidence in nature of complex organisms, forming from simple matter, then you might have a point. But we both know you got nothing.

Except faith of course.

---

Quantum theory allows for a spontaneous universe from nothing. That is reality. Do I know if that is how it occurred. No, but because it is scientifically plausible with what we know about quantum theory, it makes relegion irrelevant. You can deny reality, and believe primitive myths, and in mysticism, but there is no evidence for what you want to believe, and there is no plausible scientific theory for what you want to believe.

---

You're swerving all over the place in defense of your faith. Here are the facts - you have zero evidence in support of your theory that complex organisms came from matter. Sorry, but there is zero scientific plausibility to something that has never been witnessed in nature. You got nothing yet continue to adhere blindly to your faith.

As I said, your faith is strong . You're a good little Atheist that gets easily flustered when the massive holes in your beliefs are exposed.

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

If life is a chemical reaction, why do animals screw?

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

If life is a chemical reaction, why do animals screw?

---

It feels good...

Sam Lowry said:

---

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. Your argument is with quantum theory. Go design a better argument.

---

There's no such thing as quantum fluctuation. You just said so yourself.

---

No. We know quantum fluctuations exist.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

---

No, there is no evidence that it's even scientifically possible. If you had some evidence in nature of complex organisms, forming from simple matter, then you might have a point. But we both know you got nothing.

Except faith of course.

---

Quantum theory allows for a spontaneous universe from nothing. That is reality. Do I know if that is how it occurred. No, but because it is scientifically plausible with what we know about quantum theory, it makes relegion irrelevant. You can deny reality, and believe primitive myths, and in mysticism, but there is no evidence for what you want to believe, and there is no plausible scientific theory for what you want to believe.

---

You're swerving all over the place in defense of your faith. Here are the facts - you have zero evidence in support of your theory that complex organisms came from matter. Sorry, but there is zero scientific plausibility to something that has never been witnessed in nature. You got nothing yet continue to adhere blindly to your faith.

As I said, your faith is strong . You're a good little Atheist that gets easily flustered when the massive holes in your beliefs are exposed.

---

Complex organisms are made up of matter, and are matter. Science is getting closer and closer to demonstrating how living organisms can begin. Science is by far much closer to a plausible explanation of life's origin, compared to the meaningless claim of an inexplicable god inexplicably did it.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

---

No, there is no evidence that it's even scientifically possible. If you had some evidence in nature of complex organisms, forming from simple matter, then you might have a point. But we both know you got nothing.

Except faith of course.

---

Quantum theory allows for a spontaneous universe from nothing. That is reality. Do I know if that is how it occurred. No, but because it is scientifically plausible with what we know about quantum theory, it makes relegion irrelevant. You can deny reality, and believe primitive myths, and in mysticism, but there is no evidence for what you want to believe, and there is no plausible scientific theory for what you want to believe.

---

You're swerving all over the place in defense of your faith. Here are the facts - you have zero evidence in support of your theory that complex organisms came from matter. Sorry, but there is zero scientific plausibility to something that has never been witnessed in nature. You got nothing yet continue to adhere blindly to your faith.

As I said, your faith is strong . You're a good little Atheist that gets easily flustered when the massive holes in your beliefs are exposed.

---

Complex organisms are made up of matter, and are matter. Science is getting closer and closer to demonstrating how living organisms can begin. Science is by far much closer to a plausible explanation of life's origin, compared to the meaningless claim of an inexplicable god inexplicably did it.

---

Had beef fajita nachos for lunch. Are you saying they spontaneously evolved from a field of corn, a cow and a block of cheese??? And here all this time I thought it was the cook at Chuy's. Who knew?

LOL at your idea of "plausible." Like I said, you have a very strong faith.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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%85?

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.

---

There's no such thing as quantum fluctuation. You just said so yourself.

---

No. We know quantum fluctuations exist.

---

If the universe came from nothing, and "nothing" means quantum fluctuations, then quantum fluctuations are nothing. Therefore quantum fluctuations do not exist.

Occam's Razor always is how and why did the first fish instantly breath air.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

---

No, there is no evidence that it's even scientifically possible. If you had some evidence in nature of complex organisms, forming from simple matter, then you might have a point. But we both know you got nothing.

Except faith of course.

---

Quantum theory allows for a spontaneous universe from nothing. That is reality. Do I know if that is how it occurred. No, but because it is scientifically plausible with what we know about quantum theory, it makes relegion irrelevant. You can deny reality, and believe primitive myths, and in mysticism, but there is no evidence for what you want to believe, and there is no plausible scientific theory for what you want to believe.

---

You're swerving all over the place in defense of your faith. Here are the facts - you have zero evidence in support of your theory that complex organisms came from matter. Sorry, but there is zero scientific plausibility to something that has never been witnessed in nature. You got nothing yet continue to adhere blindly to your faith.

As I said, your faith is strong . You're a good little Atheist that gets easily flustered when the massive holes in your beliefs are exposed.

---

Complex organisms are made up of matter, and are matter. Science is getting closer and closer to demonstrating how living organisms can begin. Science is by far much closer to a plausible explanation of life's origin, compared to the meaningless claim of an inexplicable god inexplicably did it.

---

Had beef fajita nachos for lunch. Are you saying they spontaneously evolved from a field of corn, a cow and a block of cheese??? And here all this time I thought it was the cook at Chuy's. Who knew?

LOL at your idea of "plausible." Like I said, you have a very strong faith.

---

You didn't pay attention to what I said and unwittingly, or willfully mischaracterized what I said. Never said life formed spontaneously, and faith isn't required.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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%85?

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.

---

There's no such thing as quantum fluctuation. You just said so yourself.

---

No. We know quantum fluctuations exist.

---

If the universe came from nothing, and "nothing" means quantum fluctuations, then quantum fluctuations are nothing. Therefore quantum fluctuations do not exist.

---

You're partially right. You could say quantum fluctuations are related to nothing. Your idea/definition or concept of nothing doesn't apply at the quantum level. Quantum fluctuations occur in a vacuum, in a time frame so small they can't be observed.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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%85?

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.

---

There's no such thing as quantum fluctuation. You just said so yourself.

---

No. We know quantum fluctuations exist.

---

If the universe came from nothing, and "nothing" means quantum fluctuations, then quantum fluctuations are nothing. Therefore quantum fluctuations do not exist.

---

You're partially right. You could say quantum fluctuations are related to nothing. Your idea/definition or concept of nothing doesn't apply at the quantum level. Quantum fluctuations occur in a vacuum, in a time frame so small they can't be observed.

---

Existence and observability aren't the same thing.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

---

No, there is no evidence that it's even scientifically possible. If you had some evidence in nature of complex organisms, forming from simple matter, then you might have a point. But we both know you got nothing.

Except faith of course.

---

Quantum theory allows for a spontaneous universe from nothing. That is reality. Do I know if that is how it occurred. No, but because it is scientifically plausible with what we know about quantum theory, it makes relegion irrelevant. You can deny reality, and believe primitive myths, and in mysticism, but there is no evidence for what you want to believe, and there is no plausible scientific theory for what you want to believe.

---

You're swerving all over the place in defense of your faith. Here are the facts - you have zero evidence in support of your theory that complex organisms came from matter. Sorry, but there is zero scientific plausibility to something that has never been witnessed in nature. You got nothing yet continue to adhere blindly to your faith.

As I said, your faith is strong . You're a good little Atheist that gets easily flustered when the massive holes in your beliefs are exposed.

---

Complex organisms are made up of matter, and are matter. Science is getting closer and closer to demonstrating how living organisms can begin. Science is by far much closer to a plausible explanation of life's origin, compared to the meaningless claim of an inexplicable god inexplicably did it.

---

Had beef fajita nachos for lunch. Are you saying they spontaneously evolved from a field of corn, a cow and a block of cheese??? And here all this time I thought it was the cook at Chuy's. Who knew?

LOL at your idea of "plausible." Like I said, you have a very strong faith.

---

You didn't pay attention to what I said and unwittingly, or willfully mischaracterized what I said. Never said life formed spontaneously, and faith isn't required.

---

LOL life isn't formed on purpose, and it isn't formed on accident. Would that be Nihilist Origin Theory? NOT?

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

---

No, there is no evidence that it's even scientifically possible. If you had some evidence in nature of complex organisms, forming from simple matter, then you might have a point. But we both know you got nothing.

Except faith of course.

---

Quantum theory allows for a spontaneous universe from nothing. That is reality. Do I know if that is how it occurred. No, but because it is scientifically plausible with what we know about quantum theory, it makes relegion irrelevant. You can deny reality, and believe primitive myths, and in mysticism, but there is no evidence for what you want to believe, and there is no plausible scientific theory for what you want to believe.

---

You're swerving all over the place in defense of your faith. Here are the facts - you have zero evidence in support of your theory that complex organisms came from matter. Sorry, but there is zero scientific plausibility to something that has never been witnessed in nature. You got nothing yet continue to adhere blindly to your faith.

As I said, your faith is strong . You're a good little Atheist that gets easily flustered when the massive holes in your beliefs are exposed.

---

Complex organisms are made up of matter, and are matter. Science is getting closer and closer to demonstrating how living organisms can begin. Science is by far much closer to a plausible explanation of life's origin, compared to the meaningless claim of an inexplicable god inexplicably did it.

---

Had beef fajita nachos for lunch. Are you saying they spontaneously evolved from a field of corn, a cow and a block of cheese??? And here all this time I thought it was the cook at Chuy's. Who knew?

LOL at your idea of "plausible." Like I said, you have a very strong faith.

---

You didn't pay attention to what I said and unwittingly, or willfully mischaracterized what I said. Never said life formed spontaneously, and faith isn't required.

---

Ah, so over billions of years, the field of corn, the cow and the block of cheese would have created fajita nachos if exposed to the right conditions?

LOL.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

---

No, there is no evidence that it's even scientifically possible. If you had some evidence in nature of complex organisms, forming from simple matter, then you might have a point. But we both know you got nothing.

Except faith of course.

---

Quantum theory allows for a spontaneous universe from nothing. That is reality. Do I know if that is how it occurred. No, but because it is scientifically plausible with what we know about quantum theory, it makes relegion irrelevant. You can deny reality, and believe primitive myths, and in mysticism, but there is no evidence for what you want to believe, and there is no plausible scientific theory for what you want to believe.

---

You're swerving all over the place in defense of your faith. Here are the facts - you have zero evidence in support of your theory that complex organisms came from matter. Sorry, but there is zero scientific plausibility to something that has never been witnessed in nature. You got nothing yet continue to adhere blindly to your faith.

As I said, your faith is strong . You're a good little Atheist that gets easily flustered when the massive holes in your beliefs are exposed.

---

Complex organisms are made up of matter, and are matter. Science is getting closer and closer to demonstrating how living organisms can begin. Science is by far much closer to a plausible explanation of life's origin, compared to the meaningless claim of an inexplicable god inexplicably did it.

---

Had beef fajita nachos for lunch. Are you saying they spontaneously evolved from a field of corn, a cow and a block of cheese??? And here all this time I thought it was the cook at Chuy's. Who knew?

LOL at your idea of "plausible." Like I said, you have a very strong faith.

---

You didn't pay attention to what I said and unwittingly, or willfully mischaracterized what I said. Never said life formed spontaneously, and faith isn't required.

---

Ah, so over billions of years, the field of corn, the cow and the block of cheese would have created fajita nachos if exposed to the right conditions?

LOL.

---

With enough heat and in close enough proximity... Can we add a lime tree and cactus to the mix?

The real question is will all the cheese be melted? Or, is that proof of intelligent design.