Questions for the Atheists

[yanong_banikanhon]

---

...The movement of the tides along with volcanic eruptions were just the right circumstance for biologically replicating life to arise from inorganic matter.

Aw, swetuha gyud diay ninyo no? Sige kuno, volcanic eruption ra man diay ug tide movements ang gikinahanglan, nganong wala man na ma-simulate sa inyong lab aron ipakita sa kadaghanan nga inyong mahatagan og life ang chemical compound (amino acid) nga walay kinabuhi?

Kabalo nako, TIME na pud ang inyong pasumanginlan. Kay matud pa ninyo: it takes million of years para mo-evolve ang usa ka single-cell life form into a multi-cellular organism.

What about the human embryo? It only takes nine months for a living single diploid cell called zygote (the fertilized egg cell) to transform into a very complex, multi-cellular organism called human fetus. Unsa man pud ang explanation ninyong mga atheists aron inyong ma-deny ang involvement of intelligence ani?

It has been proven already that biologically replicating life can arise from inorganic matter.

Even some theists believe life comes from dust which is an inorganic matter.

Bay, ayaw putla ang akong pangutana. Imo mang gi-erase ang phrase nga 'without the aid of any intelligence'.

Ako kumpletohon ang question ha (take note of the underline phrases):

Asa man ang evidence that life can arise from inorganic matter through a random process, without the aid of any intelligence?

[vipvip68]

As I've said, let the evidence speak for itself....

the evidence does not point to any aid of intelligence.

The evidence leads us to the model of life beginning as such....

The notion of an intelligent creator cannot be shown in the evidence because it has been proven that organic life is possible for inorganic matter and the whole process happened in billions of years with the right circumstances.

Do you have an alternative model we can use?

[rodsky]

I believe that you are an intellectually honest atheist. So I trust that you will answer my question this time:

Hain man ang ebidensya (current data, kun ikaw pa ang pasultihon) nga nahimong usa ka living cell ang mga amino acid thru a random, natural process without the aid of any intelligence?

Give me time to get a degree in molecular biology, and genetic engineering, and perhaps I can show you. But considering I'm already nearly 40 years old, the chances of that from happening are slim, so again, you can declare your victory, but you only won it simply because I lack the time and resources to show you.

But then, why would I even attempt to undertake an endeavor when Craig Venter and others are already pursuing right this very moment? I'm confident they will be able to do it, but this is NOT faith--it's merely my confidence that when things are done using the scientific process, chances are you DO get to find out about things. This is the legacy began by the Greeks, handed down through the years up until the great scientists of the renaissance and the 18th, 19th and 20th century problem solvers who time and time again diligently show that theories can be proven in the real, practical world, given enough time and resources.

-RODION

[KlaytoN]

As I've said, let the evidence speak for itself....

the evidence does not point to any aid of intelligence.

The evidence leads us to the model of life beginning as such....

The notion of an intelligent creator cannot be shown in the evidence because it has been proven that organic life is possible for inorganic matter and the whole process happened in billions of years with the right circumstances.

Do you have an alternative model we can use?

These people are banking on the argument for "Irreducible Complexity" to push forward their belief or agenda in Intelligent Design..

The argument is central or the core of Intelligent Design, and is rejected by the scientific community, which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."The gist of the whole argument goes like this:

Systems are irreducibly complex if removing any one part destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity in organisms indicates they were designed.

Irreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is NOTHING about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design.
Argument from Incredulity is like this:

It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.

This argument, also known as the argument from ignorance or "god of the gaps," is implicit in a very many different creationist arguments. In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis and any and all claims of intelligent design.

The argument from incredulity creates a 'god of the gaps'. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking everyday..

[yanong_banikanhon]

Give me time to get a degree in molecular biology, and genetic engineering, and perhaps I can show you. But considering I'm already nearly 40 years old, the chances of that from happening are slim...
...this is NOT faith--it's merely my confidence that when things are done using the scientific process, chances are you DO get to find out about things...This is the legacy began by the Greeks, handed down through the years up until the great scientists of the renaissance and the 18th, 19th and 20th century problem solvers who time and time again diligently show that theories can be proven in the real, practical world, given enough time and resources.

-RODION

Possible Theist Version:

Give me time to get a degree in philosophy and metaphysics, and perhaps I can show you. But considering I'm already nearly 40 years old, the chances of that from happening are slim...this is NOT faith--it's merely my confidence that when you use logic, chances are you do GET to know that GOD exists...This is the legacy began by the Greeks, handed down through the years up until the great philosophers and logicians of the renaissance and the 18th, 19th and 20th century great thinkers who time and time again diligently show that concrete and abstract concept can be proven using logical reasoning, given enough time and resources.

[yanong_banikanhon]

As I've said, let the evidence speak for itself....

the evidence does not point to any aid of intelligence.

Aguy, nanglaktaw man ka bay. Wala pa gani nimo ipakita kanang maong evidence ni-conclude na dayon ka nga it does not point to any aid of intelligence. Ipakita sa lagi kanang evidence nga pirmi nimong gihisgutan.

Asa man lagi ang ebidensya nga nahimong usa ka living cell ang mga amino acid thru a random, natural process without the aid of any intelligence?

Ipakita kuno diri aron atong ma-examine.

[rodsky]

Possible Theist Version:
...that when you use logic, chances are you do GET to know that GOD exists.

Entirely the opposite. If you do arrive at a supreme deity conclusion while using logic, then your logic is flawed. Faith is the exact opposite of logic--you don't have any reasons why you should believe, yet you feel you must do.

-RODION

[yanong_banikanhon]

If you do arrive at a supreme deity conclusion while using logic, then your logic is flawed.

Really? That is interesting. Can you provide a logical proof for that?

[yanong_banikanhon]

Ingon ani ba gyud ang mga atheists? Pataka la'g himo og mga assumptions unya kun pangitaag proof, hilom pa sa tungang-gabii.Tsk.tsk.tsk.

rodsky, asa man ang logical proof aning imong statement nga: If you do arrive at a supreme deity conclusion while using logic, then your logic is flawed. ?

[rodsky]

Ingon ani ba gyud ang mga atheists? Pataka la'g himo og mga assumptions unya kun pangitaag proof, hilom pa sa tungang-gabii.Tsk.tsk.tsk.

rodsky, asa man ang logical proof aning imong statement nga: If you do arrive at a supreme deity conclusion while using logic, then your logic is flawed. ?

Hilom ba ko? I already gave you a sufficient answer to your question wala man ko nag hilom. https://www.istorya.net/forums/10413246-post1013.html Ikaw man ang hilig kaayo mang-insulto diri, after someone just gave a credible answer...just read your posts...unya you keep are trying hard to make it seem nga kami ang mga walang-kwentang tao, nga ang mga dili gatuo sa diyos mga walang sense ug mga wala'y ayo nga tawo. Matino akong tao, kahit na wala akong sinasambang diyos. Ikaw, naniniwala nga sa diyos pero tingnan mo naman ang istilo ng pag-atake mo.

-RODION