Conquer Club

jay_a2j wrote:

mpjh wrote: Where is the logic?

In the OP.

OP: (Original Poster)

mpjh wrote:I didn't attack Jay's character. He probably is a fine person. I just described his conduct and questioned his lack of support for the "logic" which is supposed to be the topic of this thread.

Ohhhhhh! So that's what you meant by calling him smug and immature.

I read and reread the opening paragraph. It makes a claim for science that science does not make for itself. The whole argument is based on that false premise. The logic fails.

Is that all you got?

Gregrios wrote:

mpjh wrote:I didn't attack Jay's character. He probably is a fine person. I just described his conduct and questioned his lack of support for the "logic" which is supposed to be the topic of this thread.

Ohhhhhh! So that's what you meant by calling him smug and immature.

Well his statements (conduct) are smug and immature.

Gregrios wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

mpjh wrote: Where is the logic?

In the OP.

OP: (Original Poster)

Also "Original Post".

OK, original post it is. Still it makes a claim for science that science does not make. It is based on that false premise and proves nothing logical as a result.

mpjh wrote:OK, original post it is. Still it makes a claim for science that science does not make. It is based on that false premise and proves nothing logical as a result.

On the contrary, it is very logical. Life can not come from non-life. Show me evidence to the contrary. So, establishing that, you need to come up with where life came from? Only 1 conclusion (if life can not come from non-life) is that something that is living has always had to exist and has to have the ability to create life. Hence God.

Science does not say that life cannot come from non-life. So your premise is false, and you following logic fails.

jay_a2j wrote: Life can not come from non-life. Show me evidence to the contrary.

We have, the Chicago Experiment, remember?

Where we created cosmic sludge out of atmosphere and elements. That's F---ing like squeezing water out of quartz.
We started the process, with nothing. With atmosphere and elements. That is amazing... And the Soviets created amino acids the same way. The theory is sound, whether you fully understand it or not, brother.

Also, resent research show that the DNA structure might have derived from the spacing in mica stone. In other words chemicals in stone may have created DNA and subsequent life. The point being that "science" is perfectly free to hypothesize that life can come from non-life and explore that with research. So the claim that science says otherwise is simply false.

Can Life Come From Non-life?

I found the text under figure 3 to be most revealing.

jay_a2j wrote:Can Life Come From Non-life?

I found the text under figure 3 to be most revealing.

Impressive.

jay_a2j wrote:Can Life Come From Non-life?

I found the text under figure 3 to be most revealing.

And, your point is?

mpjh wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Can Life Come From Non-life?

I found the text under figure 3 to be most revealing.

And, your point is?

He thinks on very short time scales in small, closed systems.

mpjh wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Can Life Come From Non-life?

I found the text under figure 3 to be most revealing.

And, your point is?

I don't have one, but it appears science does.

Come again?

mpjh wrote:Come again?

In 1877 physicist, John Tyndall demonstrated that life can not come from non-life. This is SCIENCE speaking. Science made the point, I don't need to.

jay_a2j wrote:

mpjh wrote:Come again?

In 1877 physicist, John Tyndall demonstrated that life can not come from non-life. This is SCIENCE speaking. Science made the point, I don't need to.

One scientist, or so called scientist, do not "science" make. Many scientists are working issues associated with how life began, including, for example, the mica exploration. More fundamentally, science is about the exploration of the real world and it does not preclude any particular theory of the real world from exploration.

Thus, I don't concede the point that "science" says life cannot come from non-life.

Ya know why these types of threads go on for so long?

Because neither side can offer solid proof on their stance and therefore the argument begins running in circles.

In this case, once "side," or at least I am not claiming anything. The thread is that "logic dictates" something about god. I don't know nor care whether there is a god, but I am interest in logical thinking. So I am just asking for the logic that dictates that there is a god.

So far I don't see any.

Duel007 wrote:Ya know why these types of threads go on for so long?

Because neither side can offer solid proof on their stance and therefore the argument begins running in circles.

Exsmackly!

Just for the record, many circles have already been made. We're just on a new one, that's all.

I don't see any circles, just a lack of evidence for god

So they proved that complex organisms like maggots don't spontaneously appear. Yeah, great... just how does this show that organic molecules can't form under any circumstances at all?

mpjh wrote:I don't see any circles, just a lack of evidence for god

There's evidence all around you my man. You just have to open your eyes.

My eyes are open, and they are particularly acute at spying out arrogant professional obfuscators like you. You never stick to the thread, which is that "logic dictates" something about god. You just spout platitudes supposedly derived from your "higher" knowledge of god. If you want to start a thread about logical proof, then you need to produce it.