MatYahu wrote:Natty: Your first comment was a little inappropriate. Actually the vagina is much more well designed for the penis.
Oh? Let's talk about ducks. As you may or may not know, ducks are one of the few birds who have actual genitals, ie. penises and vaginas, instead of cloacas.
There's a species of ducks where the females have a vagina shaped like a corkscrew. The males of that species have a penis shaped like a corkscrew, too.
At first thought, you might think "oh, see, that duck penis was designed for that duck vagina". But when you look to it more closely... turns out, the female ducks' vaginas are screwed in the opposite direction than the male ducks' penises. So the female duck can, when she wants, prevent a forced penetration by the male duck, thus controlling who gets to breed with her. Instead of being designed that way, they have evolved over a long time, as a result of a sort of "genital arms race" between the genders of that species.
See, when you make too hasty assumptions, you always fall awry of the truth. Just because something seems to you that it "must have been designed" does not mean that it is so. When you look into it more closely, you can find the actual cause of things, which is often very different than what you thought at first impression.
Biogenesis does suggest all life came from an eternal life. If life exists there was a first life.
Define "life". Are bacteria alive? Viruses? Amoebas?
Since abiogenesis is a myth, why believe the first life came from non-life?
Abiogenesis is a myth, therefore whatever I want to believe is right instead, therefore abiogenesis is wrong.
Round and round we go...
Can you give me an example of these alleged "leaps of logic" and "circular reasoning"? I would like to address them.
I believe I just did. I doubt you can "address them" in any meaningful fashion, though. Pretty much the only thing you can do now to save face is to apologize, say you were mistaken about all of this, and promise everyone you will spend the next 2 years educating yourself on real science instead of all this poppycockery.
Just because you don't understand the math doesn't mean it's wrong. Perhaps you could present Deem's math to a professor, and post the errors. Saying his math is wrong doesn't do anything, you must show where it is incorrect. His math makes perfect sense, and like I said if it doesn't, and your set on disproving him get the evidence and post it.
I already told you. He's taking one arbitrary number, multiplying it with another arbitrary number, and comes up with another arbitrary number that he claims is the "least likely event that can happen". That's just pure bullshit. It's simplistic crackpot pseudoscience that has no bearing on any real science.
We CAN know for sure what kind of conditions are needed for carbon based life to exist. I'm not sure why you would say otherwise.
We are sure of what kind of conditions are needed within our universe. We can say nothing about possible other universes. Their laws could be so different from ours that we wouldn't even understand them, for all we know.
My evidence or logical reasoning for believing that these laws of physics would apply anywhere in reality is because they do so far. On earth, in space, they stay the same.
That's all inside this universe. How do you know they would be the same outside this universe? You're just assuming, because it makes "sense" to you, so you just decide it "must" be so.
Give me an example of a claim I have made on something I can't observe.
How about the previous quote?
What does the law of conservation of energy have to do with anything?
Actually the case is energy always existed. What else existed other than that energy to be the cause of the universe?
Within this universe, energy has always existed. Before this universe, we don't know, and neither do you, you can make guesses but they're only guesses. You go a step further and decide that whatever you guess must be true. That's not how it works.
Whatever the cause was (say something else existed other then energy) it was intelligent.
Because you say so?
Intelligent enough to design the universe, and powerful enough to trigger or cause the big bang. An intelligent life that all life came from WHICH IS IN SYNC WITH BIOGENESIS.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
Again.. biogenesis DOES NOT say anything about the origin of life. Biogenesis is a theory that describes how
already existing life reproduces. Get your facts straight.
Since life is energy though, and its our souls or energies that animates the bodies it's logical to conclude all energy came from the Eternal Energy rather than something that existed with the energy pre-creation or pre-big bang.
Ok... "soul" is not a scientific concept. It can't be (dis)proven. "Life" does not equal energy, life is an abstract concept and can't be measured like energy. When the basis for your argument is so shaky, it's not logical to conclude anything at all about it.
These are not assumptions they are conclusions drawn from the weighing of evidence.
No. They are leaps of logic based on assumptions and beliefs, nothing more. You don't even know what "evidence" is.
We don't have to just say "every effect has a cause" every effect does have a cause. If I am in error please correct me by giving an example of an effect that doesn't have a cause. You could clear this up real quick with just one example.
Every effect has a cause... except that "first cause" of yours?
Like I said above, if another suspect exists, its still a higher power, a creator.
It doesn't have to be.
1. The law of energy conservation.
2. The energy isn't an effect.
3. There is a cause to everything that happens. The energy never happened, just always was. For there to be anything there has to be an eternal something. Otherwise it would be your position that matter (which is energy) just pops out of thin air and blindly organizes itself.
Even if your assumption is correct, it does not prove that the energy is intelligent, nor that it is a god, nor that it designed the universe.
We do not know what happened before the big bang. We do not know if the conservation of energy applies before it. Seeing as it is "outside" of this universe, there's no reason to assume any of the internal laws of our universe apply to it.
Also, there are other options: the universe could be cyclic. The universe could be constantly creating itself and contracting back, in an infinite loop.
You don't have any proof of anything, you just have assumptions and beliefs.
