[Tj3]

Yea...great minds...who both didn't say whether or not you agree that cells are made of atoms.

And here you were making remarks about others and what they know, and you don't even know if matter is made of atoms. Heck, if you want to go back to first principles. Why don't we discuss what an atom is made up of, or an electron, or a quark, or a neutrino, or a photon...

Why don't we just all take a course in quantum physics - no wait why don't you, I already have a degree which requires an understanding of quantum physics (I mention this because you apparently don't think that anyone else knows anything - just you).

You did not tell us how life came to be.

And now that you raise the question - how did these various sub-atomic particles come to be?

[Tj3]

Just to correct you. Atheists would never use evolution as an excuse for the rejection of god since an atheist doesn't care if a god exists or not. In an atheist mind there is no god to reject.

If they don't reject God for a reason, then what you are saying by definition is that their belief that there is no God is not rational.

I agree.

[JoeT777]

I'll assume Tj3 agrees with this as well. So we have something we agree on. Good.

I'll hand out three questions this time.

1.The fist question is on the age of the earth. Are we in agreement that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old give or take a billion it really doesn't matter but the question is do we agree that earth is really old? This is important because most theories of abiogenesis and evolution require this. So if this is debatable we need to discuss this first because without this large time frame evolution becomes less likely so we need to establish this first.

2.The next question assumes you all agreed on the age of the earth. Have the element that make up a cell been on earth since it first cooled and liquid water formed. Elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and iron.

3.Are you familiar with self replicating chemical reactions? These are molecules that replicate themselves as long as they have the raw elements that they are made of available and have an energy source or catalyst. Are you aware that these types of molecules exist and do you understand the basic principles behind how they work?

Spontaneous generation of life has not been proven. Furthermore, it's not likely to ever be proven. The theory suggests that the building blocks of life existed on earth some 4-Billion years ago - which hasn't been shown to be true. And, they must remaine stable for Billions of years so that the proto-life could be established. The earth is known to be a volatile place for billions of years - so this isn't likely.

There are several models suggested for spontaneous generation of life, none of which has yet synthesized a proto-cell; none has come close. Nor has any approached a workable hypothesis that identifies at which point in the process that a chemical process turns into sustainable life. Also, scientists have yet to discern the amino acids that “trigger” reproduction, awareness, but more important, self-awareness.

But, I'm repeating myself. See post 108

You're swatting at fleas with a hammer. Suppose you are able to turn a bucket of amino acids (goo) into some semblance of life. You still haven't shown “first cause.” See my post.

JoeT

[Tj3]

I'll hand out three questions this time.

I see that you are studiously avoiding the OP, and the issues raised there. I don't blame you. Trying to deal with those would be an absolute disaster for your point of view.

Where is the OSE for your belief that there is no God?

You did not tell us how life came to be.

And now that you raise the question - how did these various sub-atomic particles come to be?

[michealb]

As I've said I will address abiogenises but we need to answer some basics established first because we can debate the top of the pyramid if we disagree on what makes up its base.

I'm not avoiding the op question I'm establishing a base line for the discussing the first cell.

[michealb]

So is the answer yes to all 3 questions because if it is we can go on to other points or do you dispute any of the three?

I'll give the next question assuming you argee on the other 3.

Is it possible for organic compounds to form in the absence of life under any conditions? Things like fatty acids and nucleotides.

[Tj3]

As I've said I will address abiogenises but we need to answer some basics established first because we can debate the top of the pyramid if we disagree on what makes up its base.

The point is that if you think that what you claim to be facts are true, it is for you to establish that they are true. Even if I did agree with you on all these points (and I don't), it would mean nothing because science is based on facts, not whether you can get three people on internet to agree. And if you think that getting three people to agree establishes a fact, then by the fact that anyone disagrees with one or more of your claims, your argument therefore would become false.

I'm not avoiding the op question I'm establishing a base line for the discussing the first cell.

No you are not establishing a baseline. Establishing a baseline requires that you prove a factual basis for your claims - you have not done so. You are trying to hijack the thread, and avoid the OP.

You did not tell us how life came to be.

And now that you raise the question - how did these various sub-atomic particles come to be? How about neutrinos? Photons?

[JoeT777]

1.The fist question is on the age of the earth. Are we in agreement that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old give or take a billion it really doesn't matter but the question is do we agree that earth is really old? This is important because most theories of abiogenesis and evolution require this. So if this is debatable we need to discuss this first because without this large time frame evolution becomes less likely so we need to establish this first.

I've conceded this already

2.The next question assumes you all agreed on the age of the earth. Have the element that make up a cell been on earth since it first cooled and liquid water formed. Elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and iron.

Wikipedia would suggest the following composition:
Primary Methane, Ammonia , Water , Hydrogen sulfide , Carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide , and Phosphate , with molecular oxygen and ozone rare. Other sources would suggest that this is the current thinking.

3.Are you familiar with self replicating chemical reactions? These are molecules that replicate themselves as long as they have the raw elements that they are made of available and have an energy source or catalyst. Are you aware that these types of molecules exist and do you understand the basic principles behind how they work?

I understand the basic principles but I don't believe that conditions on the surface of the earth would have been stable for sufficient periods for life to have taken hold without a creator.

But in either case get on with your argument. Pare it down and spit it out; my attention span has already been stretched to the limit.

JoeT

[Tj3]

I've conceded this already

I wouldn't. And indeed, even if it were true, if something cannot be shown to be feasible, adding any amount of time that one wishes will not help. Any accountant knowns that zero times anything is still zero. But athesist seems to thing that if you add a few billion years, it is like a wand and one need not apply normal; scientific principles for that timeframe.

I'm not buying that story. I expect that if he plans to use the magic billion year wand theory, that he validate how it can happen, and not just say "presto, after a billion years it happens". That is not science.

But in either case get on with your argument. Pare it down and spit it out; my attention span has already been stretched to the limit.

My thoughts exactly. He seems to be trying to stretch it out as long as possible to distract from the OP, and I can understand how someone with his beliefs might wish to avoid the issue at hand.

If he has a point to make, then he should provide the evidence to demonstrate that his claims are factual. The validity of facts does not depend upon one or more people agreeing, but it does require validation that will withstand examination.

[davers]

If your god does exist how did he/she/it come into being?
If this all powerful entity which can do wonders and miracles
Was created then a more powerful being/entitiy must have created it.
This then means a further being/entity even more powerful must have
Created that one and so on.
No doubt you will say your god has always existed, which is no answer, but a cop out!
A bit like the bible, full of inconsistancies and obvious contradictions.
Anyway, how do you know your god is the correct one? What about all the
Other religions. I don't mean judaism and islam as they worship the same god.
Why do we need people to interprate god's will, and they can't decide amongst
Themselves what that interpretation is, why doesn't he/she/it speak to us all without
Any ambiguous and meaningless fireworks?
It seems to me that religion is a great way of controlling people and fleecing them of their money etc. There are just too many gullable people in the world today!
I would suggest you avail yourselves of Prof Richard Dawkins' books and videos
Which will enable you to open your evolved eye and actually accept the world for what it is and not what you would wish it to be.
Davers

[NeedKarma]

If they don't reject God for a reason, then what you are saying by definition is that their belief that there is no God is not rational.

I didn't say that, you did. It's the same as saying there is a giant purple teapot in the sky, the fact that it has no bearing on my life doesn't mean I'm irrational.

[Tj3]

I didn't say that, you did. It's the same as saying there is a giant purple teapot in the sky, the fact that it has no bearing on my life doesn't mean I'm irrational.

I know that you did not say that, but for something to be rational, there must be a reason. That is the measing of the word "rational" - check it out. So if you are denying God without a reason, then that denial is not rational, by definition.

I also did not say that you are irrational. I said that your belief that there is no God is not rational if there is no reason for it. And again, for something to be rational, there must be a reason for it.

[Tj3]

If your god does exist how did he/she/it come into being?

God has existed from eternity.

If not knowing where God came from keeps you from believing in God, then tell me, how did electrons comes into being? Do you know? Do you believe that they exist? Or do you deny the existence of electrons because you don't know how they came to be?

How did life come to be?

A bit like the bible, full of inconsistancies and obvious contradictions.

Years ago, I took on a lot of those cut and paste claimed contradictions that people got from websites on internet, and found none that held up to the light of day. I am speaking at a conference in 2 weeks on the very topic of whether the Bible is credible, and whether there are contradictions and inconsistencies!

But this is not the "let's attack Christianity thread". If you want to do that, or discuss these claimed contradictions, start your own thread. This one is to discuss the scientific evidence for the existence of a creator as indicated in the OP.

[NeedKarma]

I know that you did not say that, but for something to be rational, there must be a reason. That is the measing of the word "rational" - check it out. So if you are denying God without a reason, then that denial is not rational, by definition.

I also did not say that you are irrational. I said that your belief that there is no God is not rational if there is no reason for it. And again, for something to be rational, there must be a reason for it.

Ok. If this helps you be stronger in your beliefs than so be it. Have a great day!

[Tj3]

Ok. If this helps you be stronger in your beliefs than so be it. Have a great day!

It does nothing for my beliefs for you to believe that there is no God. I am telling you the facts - look in your own dictionary if you don't believe me.

[NeedKarma]

Ok. Bye.

[Tj3]

Ok. Bye.

Bye. Enjoy your weekend!

[Tj3]

Back to the topic.

How did this animal come to be through natural means?

Diving bell spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[michealb]

My point is that you will never understand point E if you don't know points A B C D first. That's why I'm trying to find out what points you agree with and which you don't. As I said in the beginning though you apparently aren't interested in a debate or knowledge you just want to push your agenda.

If you would like to question one the question I've post so far please explain why you don't agree with it so we can have some where to start.

[Tj3]

My point is that you will never understand point E if you don't know points A B C D first.

And my point is that if you hwant to establish something as a "fact", you need to put forward the basis for believing it to be fact. That is the scientific approach. If you believe some points need to be validated first, then put forward that point with the scientific validation.

That's why I'm trying to find out what points you agree with and which you don't. As I said in the beginning though you apparently aren't interested in a debate or knowledge you just want to push your agenda.

Give up on the personal shots. They get you nowhere. Take the time to do your research and present a scientific based argument and stay on topic.