Instead of Berengaria providing an answer, you'd rather comment on his quips.
lol....
Silent_Scream
JoinedPosts by Silent_Scream
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
Silent_Scream
FA
Wow. Another ad hominem.
Why don't you listen.
LIFE CAN'T COME FROM NON-LIFE! NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PROVES THAT IT HAS OR CAN.
Since atheism would suggest thats the case, YOU ARE GOING AGAINST THE VERY SCIENCE YOU SUPPORT!
Give an answer to your own contradiction or shut up.
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
Silent_Scream
WOW. So not one person has provided an answer.
NOT ONE! No evidence, the very thing you demand from us.
But you all keep posting crap!
If your can't asnwer, the OP, you have nothing to say.
Scientifically, life can't come from non life. NO evidence of that. None. Zip. Zero. In 1248 years, maybe there will be answer. But none of you have it. And you all look down on believers.
This turned into a joke thread!
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
Silent_Scream
Let's get this straight.
belief in a God is not a fall back answer for me. It's not, I don't have an answer, so God must have did it.
So stop using that as your leverage.
Any evidence I provide you will view differently. Ok. Your choice. But PROVE that life came about on it's own. Life started from nothing.
YOU CAN'T. Therefore, you have no evidence for the origin of your own beliefs. But you still believe it.
Hypocritical ignorance.
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
Silent_Scream
Flat Accent provides no proof, simply straw manned me up.
Flat Accent, I look to not change your position. But don't hypocritically tell me I supply no evidence when you clearly haven't either.
That's my point! You have no answer for the OP yet you wish to condescend on belief in a Creator by referring to him as a "magic man in the sky".
You might as well go back to the KH.
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
Silent_Scream
We don't know how life got here.
What we do know, in detail, is the process by which simple life became complex life through random mutation and natural selection. So to me, the idea of simple life being formed under the right conditions is not hard to envision.
You however, posit an magic man in the sky that popped life into existence.
I claim nothing, instead I tacitly admit I don't know.
You claim God, yet you supply no evidence of this, so therefore I reject your claim and have no reason to change from my initial position - Agnostic Atheism.
If anything this thread should be the other way round.
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
Silent_Scream
Speaking only for myself it's like "I don't know how life got started, but I don't see any evidence for it being the work of an identifiable God" No contradiction. You are one in the few I've spoken too. Many of your peers have stated they don't know, but it wasn't "magic", referring to of course, a God. So they are not sure what it was, but they are sure what it wasn't. you can see some of this in this thread.
Also, no valid reason for not questioning theistic claims.And it goes both ways. Thus, this thread...
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
Silent_Scream
Don't attack me.
Provide an answer.
And please reread my posts from previous page. This is supremely repititous and redundant.
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
Silent_Scream
No one can ever go to a nicely built house and claim it literally came out of nowhere.
I could take all the elements of the house (wood, metal, glass, etc) and find origins elsewhere, but to come together in something as well crafted and able to be utilized as a house, people would think I'm crazy if I said no one built it.
There's no proof someone was there, cut the wood, put up walls, painted, etc, in a sense. The proof is in the building itself.
Much less things as complicated as cells and DNA and many things around us.
So, for some, it is completely logical and sensible to believe there is an intelligent designer. It's not "magic" as claims those who like to belittle the argument. Science to us is only a way of understanding the things around us and functions, not defining.
Atheists may not agree, and that's fine. But it's not void of evidence as you all so claim. You just view evidence differently.
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
Silent_Scream
If this is your real problem . . . then why did you start another one?
It wasn't my intent to prove there is a God.
Like I been saying, many feel they got the upper hand because all their ideas are based on evidence. And that is not the case. There is a serious hole in atheistic thinking that some can seem to patch. Yet, it seems to be a huge key in dismissing a creator.
It's like "I don't know how life got started, but I know it wasn't a God". That's contradictory, and just as bad as people believing in God while dismissing scientific reality.
If any believe in a Creator, it's based on reality, and not some "hope" that in the future man will hopefully figure out how it all started, especially when it is illogical against science itself to believe life somehow came from nonlife.