Atheists on the march in America

[Drew Smith]

That consciousness can create form does not allow us to conclude that whatever creates form is conscious.
<quoted text>
How does anything in that definition tell us that whatever creates form is conscious?

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
The word "aware" should be your first clue.

How do you conclude that whatever creates form must be "aware"?

[Drew Smith]

Independent wrote:

She was able to outwit and out muscle two men, enough proof to me that God takes care of his own.

If God takes care of his own, then why do so many innocent children die horrible deaths?

[Drew Smith]

I notice that you've provided no alternative scientific theory as to where life came from, if not from non-life. Why is that?

nanoanomaly wrote:

And you still can't prove what the catalyst was that created life from non-life.

Why would it need a "catalyst"? Do you mean the fact that molecules on a sterile Earth would be constantly altered and mixed together by natural forces, such as gravity, heat from the Sun, heat from the internals of the Earth, impacts from icy comets, water currents, lightning, and so forth?

Now, I ask you again: What is your alternative scientific theory as to where life came from?

[Drew Smith]

Independent wrote:

Look, I can't explain why things happen as they do.

If you can't explain why things happen as they do, then why do you attribute some of those things to a "god", and why do you fail to attribute other of those things to the same "god"? It sounds as if you only attribute good things to your "god" but fail to blame him for the bad things. Isn't that rather one-sided?

[Drew Smith]

Independent wrote:

where are all the pre existing evolutionary fossils for insects?

Why would you expect insects to fossilize?

Independent wrote:

Insects discovered in sap and supposedly millions of yrs old look exactly as they do today, exactly.

Who says that they look "exactly" as they do today?

Independent wrote:

Also bats, where are the relatives of bats? or any pre fossils of them?

I guess you missed this from 8 years ago:

http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-11-11-82718-510....

[Drew Smith]

postscript wrote:

The fossil record that does exist, the one you point to with exuberant pride, is shamefully paltry compared to what should be a vast trove of fossilized evidence if the theory of evolution were actually true.

Already addressed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1...

[Givemeliberty]

Well I won't waste time trying to figure out how a peon half wit like yourself comprehends proven scientific data.

You lack the skills set that we do.

Reject!

Independent wrote:

<quoted text>I have seen this in the past, looks like just another extinct bat to me, no developing wings, or feet. Just another extinct bat.

[nanoanomaly]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Erm, what? Insects several hundred million years ago were huge. Imagine a dragonfly that could eat you, and that looks the same as they do today?

I don't recall any giant dragonflies in the fossil record. Linky?

xD

[nanoanomaly]

Drew Smith wrote:

I notice that you've provided no alternative scientific theory as to where life came from, if not from non-life. Why is that?
<quoted text>
Why would it need a "catalyst"? Do you mean the fact that molecules on a sterile Earth would be constantly altered and mixed together by natural forces, such as gravity, heat from the Sun, heat from the internals of the Earth, impacts from icy comets, water currents, lightning, and so forth?
Now, I ask you again: What is your alternative scientific theory as to where life came from?

It looks as if we are at a stalemate, Drew. Do you feel shame in that?

[nanoanomaly]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
If you can't explain why things happen as they do, then why do you attribute some of those things to a "god", and why do you fail to attribute other of those things to the same "god"? It sounds as if you only attribute good things to your "god" but fail to blame him for the bad things. Isn't that rather one-sided?

It is just as reasonable a fantasy as yours, so why begrudge a stranger his beliefs until there is proof either way?

[BBSting]

Drew Smith wrote:

That consciousness can create form does not allow us to conclude that whatever creates form is conscious.
<quoted text>
How does anything in that definition tell us that whatever creates form is conscious?
<quoted text>
How do you conclude that whatever creates form must be "aware"?

Have you ever seen a comatose patient paint a picture?

[nanoanomaly]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
No such thing as random, we perceive randomness because we lack the complex computations required to identify the patterns in everything, our computers do that better now. But atomic reactions, chemical reactions, are structured based on the atomic structures, that's not even close to conscious reaction, it's the same as what happens when you drop a ball.

You are a clueless twit.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion&... ;

I'm getting tired of educating you.

Go take a physics class.

[nanoanomaly]

Givemeliberty wrote:

...
You lack the skills set that we do.
Reject!
<quoted text>

You are nothing more than parrots lacking even their endearing qualites.

[Drew Smith]

Why would it need a "catalyst"? Do you mean the fact that molecules on a sterile Earth would be constantly altered and mixed together by natural forces, such as gravity, heat from the Sun, heat from the internals of the Earth, impacts from icy comets, water currents, lightning, and so forth?

Now, I ask you again: What is your alternative scientific theory as to where life came from?

nanoanomaly wrote:

It looks as if we are at a stalemate, Drew. Do you feel shame in that?

No stalemate. Just your refusing to answer the questions. The only person who should feel any shame in that is you.

[Drew Smith]

How do you conclude that whatever creates form must be "aware"?

BBSting wrote:

Have you ever seen a comatose patient paint a picture?

Nope. Then again, comatose patients do not represent the totality of that which is not aware, and painted pictures do not represent the totality of that which is a form.

I've seen mindless forces of nature create patterns. Ever heard of a rainbow, for instance?

So I ask again: How do you conclude that whatever creates form must be "aware"?

[Drew Smith]

nanoanomaly wrote:

I don't recall any giant dragonflies in the fossil record.

Just look what the tiniest shred of research can reveal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura

[Drew Smith]

If you can't explain why things happen as they do, then why do you attribute some of those things to a "god", and why do you fail to attribute other of those things to the same "god"? It sounds as if you only attribute good things to your "god" but fail to blame him for the bad things. Isn't that rather one-sided?

nanoanomaly wrote:

It is just as reasonable a fantasy as yours,

It's reasonable to assume that everything that happens in the Universe that is "good" was due to a "god", but that everything that isn't "good" wasn't due to the same "god"?

How is that reasonable, exactly?

[nanoanomaly]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Just look what the tiniest shred of research can reveal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura

Having a wingspan "up to 2.1 feet wide hardly makes it a giant that could eat me like your friend suggested.

Geez, I was expecting to see something pteradactyl-sized the way you carried on.

[nanoanomaly]

Drew Smith wrote:

If you can't explain why things happen as they do, then why do you attribute some of those things to a "god", and why do you fail to attribute other of those things to the same "god"? It sounds as if you only attribute good things to your "god" but fail to blame him for the bad things. Isn't that rather one-sided?
<quoted text>
It's reasonable to assume that everything that happens in the Universe that is "good" was due to a "god", but that everything that isn't "good" wasn't due to the same "god"?
How is that reasonable, exactly?

I never mentioned attributing anything to a god; you did.

[Drew Smith]

nanoanomaly wrote:

Having a wingspan "up to 2.1 feet wide hardly makes it a giant that could eat me like your friend suggested.

Your exact words were: "I don't recall any giant dragonflies in the fossil record."

I provided an example of one.

And you were also wrong about Kitten being a friend.