Assumptions, Part 6c

Nick continues with more words but no actual evidence. Strange, that.

Please note that my previous text is in italic block quote and his text is in italics.

“Even though it may be deterministic, it is never the same.”

I agree…whats your point?

Ummm, randomness?

“Feel free to read the experiment. I have. At no point do they manipulate the matter. They simply set up the experiment to run and collect the results.”

Manipulation is defined as editing, moving, altering, etc. If, as part of an experiment, I so much as put sand in a bucket, I am manipulating matter. We are talking about controlled experiments, not observational studies. Moving on.

Thanks for failing at Basic Science 101.

“Thanks for admitting that. If it is possible in the laboratory, then why should I believe it when you say “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god?”

“Skeleton man argument. My argument is not that the existence of organic compounds is proof of Gods existence. That’s all those scientists did. Organic compounds aren’t even necessarily connected of organic life! They are found in interstellar dust clouds, and modern science does not indicate the presence of organic life in those clouds. Hell, maybe…its fun to think about…but regardless, once again, if I am made of hydrogen and oxygen, and scientists synthesize hydrogen and oxygen, have they made me? Hell no!”

Thanks for failing at Basic Science 102.

Remember: your burden of proof was to provide evidence for your god.

You are wasting my time.

“No it doesn’t. Remember, your point was “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.””

“If Scientists somehow did actually create life as part of an experiment by manipulating matter (not that I think they are any time soon), you really don’t understand how that would indicate that intelligence is required to create life?”

Thanks for failing at Basic Science 103.

Let’s look at removing salt from saltwater. Done in a lab by scientists, by your argument, indicates intelligence is required. Yet salt flats, which require nothing except heat and salt water, remove salt from salt water without intelligence required.

You keep digging that hole.

“Do you realize the fundamental argument here. It is completely logically false to say that If INTELLIGENT scientists manipulated matter to create life then this proves that no intelligence is required for life to emerge in the first place.”

Is removing salt from salt water by intelligent scientists manipulation? What about by salt flats? Does that mean the salt flats are intelligent?

“Are those scientists actually in the experiment? No, they are not. They are observing the results of the experiment. Any reasonable person can see that setting up a box that contains the initial conditions of an early earth is equivalent to the initial conditions of an early earth.”

“Oh, so the presence of intelligent life setting up the experiment is not, in itself, a variable which must be considered in the experiment when we are talking about intelligences creating life? So I guess if I make house out of mud and sand, it is quite logical to say that houses of mud and sand spontaneously pop out of the ground? Gee…how the hell did you arrive at that conclusion?”

So a salt flat is intelligent because it removes salt from salt water, just like a scientist? Gee…how the hell did you arrive at that conclusion?

Note to readers: Nick still hasn’t evidenced his god except to say “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

“Anyone should be able to see that the conditions of the early earth cannot be precisely replicated in a lab beacuse the presence of scientists making that early earth environment itself violates the requirements of the environment. Of course we can decently approximate early earth conditions, and we can answer all sorts of pertinent scientific questions by doing so…assuming we do not consider the presence of an intelligent being a necessary violator of that requirement to be considered.”

Please read some science.

But this is not a scientific argument we are having here, it is a logical one, and in the context of this argument, that intelligent variable is precisely the one that matters most!”

True, your argument is not scientific. It’s also not logical. Learn some science.

Again, dear readers, note no further evidence from Nick except “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

” Then you lied to me when you claimed that your god created DNA. If DNA came into being by natural mechanisms, then why did you claim that DNA proved your god?

No, you can’t have it both ways. You failed to provide evidence for your god or the supernatural and you stated above that “genetic material and life itself came into being through probably quite natural mechanisms

No god is necessary for “quite natural mechanisms,” while at the same time you felt free to state “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

“Everything you just said? It completely depends on this little “assertion” right here

——–>”No god is necessary for “quite natural mechanisms,””

Since you failed to present any evidence except “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god,” it’s not an assertion. Your dishonesty is annoying.

We both have agreed that the universe exist. And, in the last few messages, we both have agreed that natural mechanisms exist. Yet we don’t agree that your goddit.

Do you have any evidence for your god, except “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god?”

You keep talking but none is forthcoming. And you are wasting my time.