|
Post by yezziqa on Jun 14, 2018 14:37:57 GMT
Give me empirical evidence that your great great great great great great great great grandmother existed. I can trace my family 1200 years back, would that do? That is far more generations than 11 as you asked for. There are castles, court records, paintings etc that proves that these people existed.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 14, 2018 14:40:56 GMT
Give me empirical evidence that your great great great great great great great great grandmother existed. The fact that graham exist is proof. If his great great great great great great great great grandmother did not exist neither would he. You’re using logic(cause and effect) to come to that determination. What I’m asking for is empirical evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 14, 2018 14:41:06 GMT
Because every time I've asked anybody for evidence of god's existence, their answers have lacked such evidence. Every time I've read or watched any source that claimed to have such evidence, it turned out not to. In short, the claim "god exists" has not met its burden of proof. Give me empirical evidence that your great great great great great great great great grandmother existed. Son in other words, the problem is that you don't really understand what empirical evidence is?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 14, 2018 14:43:56 GMT
Give me empirical evidence that your great great great great great great great great grandmother existed. Not quite what you're asking, but DNA evidence pretty much confirms were related to neanderthals (whether or not you'd like to admit it). In any case it's a silly comparison, we know ancient people existed (we have historical and DNA evidence), so there's no need to prove his ancestors existed since it's self evident, unless you want to argue he was artificially created in a lab or something. We also know that life comes from life. Life does not come from non-life. So where did the first living single celled organism come from?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 14, 2018 14:46:14 GMT
Give me empirical evidence that your great great great great great great great great grandmother existed. I can trace my family 1200 years back, would that do? That is far more generations than 11 as you asked for. There are castles, court records, paintings etc that proves that these people existed. How do I know that your family records and all that other stuff is 100% accurate and reliable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 14:48:07 GMT
Give me empirical evidence that your great great great great great great great great grandmother existed. I can trace my family 1200 years back, would that do? That is far more generations than 11 as you asked for. There are castles, court records, paintings etc that proves that these people existed. The fundamental issue here is ordinary versus extraordinary claims and the principle that the evidence should scale to that. Having a great great great great great great great great grandmother is a perfectly ordinary thing. Literally everyone had one. In fact everyone had five hundred and twelve of them! And as you say, there is plenty of empirical evidence that people existed back then, and at least some people can directly trace their lineage back to the particular individuals. (I can't.) This is not really comparable to god. There is literally no empirical evidence that any god does exist or has ever existed. It's not an ordinary claim, like having an ancestor, but an extraordinary one. Indeed "god exists" is arguably the most extraordinary claim it's possible to make. One should need an extraordinary amount of evidence to establish such a thing. But there is none at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 14:49:41 GMT
Not quite what you're asking, but DNA evidence pretty much confirms were related to neanderthals (whether or not you'd like to admit it). In any case it's a silly comparison, we know ancient people existed (we have historical and DNA evidence), so there's no need to prove his ancestors existed since it's self evident, unless you want to argue he was artificially created in a lab or something. We also know that life comes from life. Life does not come from non-life. No, we do not know that. I don't claim to know. As far as I'm aware, whilst there are plenty of indicators that life can indeed emerge from non-life, exactly how this happened or could happen is as yet an unsolved question in science.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 14:50:51 GMT
I can trace my family 1200 years back, would that do? That is far more generations than 11 as you asked for. There are castles, court records, paintings etc that proves that these people existed. How do I know that your family records and all that other stuff is 100% accurate and reliable? Accepting a conclusion from empirical evidence does not require the evidence to be 100% accurate and reliable.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 14, 2018 14:51:41 GMT
Not quite what you're asking, but DNA evidence pretty much confirms were related to neanderthals (whether or not you'd like to admit it). In any case it's a silly comparison, we know ancient people existed (we have historical and DNA evidence), so there's no need to prove his ancestors existed since it's self evident, unless you want to argue he was artificially created in a lab or something. We also know that life comes from life. Life does not come from non-life. So where did the first living single celled organism come from? "Life does not come from non-life."
No, actually you don't know that. I suggest getting your "science" from somewhere other than Answer in Genesis.
"So where did the first living single celled organism come from?"
I dunno, there's several theories though, you're welcome to research them yourselves. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 14, 2018 14:59:13 GMT
We also know that life comes from life. Life does not come from non-life. So where did the first living single celled organism come from? "Life does not come from non-life."
No, actually you don't know that. I suggest getting your "science" from somewhere other than Answer in Genesis.
"So where did the first living single celled organism come from?"
I dunno, there's several theories though, you're welcome to research them yourselves. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
Well is there any evidence to the contrary? All the observable evidence we have suggests life comes from life. You’re welcome to educate me. Abiogenesis....you think will ever come when sciencists accept that it’s an impossibility?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 14, 2018 15:12:28 GMT
It's kind of the "Default" after all childhood notions fall to the wayside.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 14, 2018 15:18:36 GMT
Not quite what you're asking, but DNA evidence pretty much confirms were related to neanderthals (whether or not you'd like to admit it). In any case it's a silly comparison, we know ancient people existed (we have historical and DNA evidence), so there's no need to prove his ancestors existed since it's self evident, unless you want to argue he was artificially created in a lab or something. We also know that life comes from life. Life does not come from non-life. So where did the first living single celled organism come from? Actually the evidence suggests otherwise. You're mistaking not being able to reproduce the conditions in a lab yet with a lack of evidence. And you're apparently unaware of the fuzzy conceptual boundaries of just what counts as a living thing.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2018 15:19:45 GMT
Because every time I've asked anybody for evidence of god's existence, their answers have lacked such evidence. Every time I've read or watched any source that claimed to have such evidence, it turned out not to. In short, the claim "god exists" has not met its burden of proof. Give me empirical evidence that your great great great great great great great great grandmother existed. Never heard of genetics and DNA testing then, huh? Through such techniques researchers can readily prove the existence of ancestors - and where they lived - back thousands of years.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jun 14, 2018 15:20:23 GMT
I can trace my family 1200 years back, would that do? That is far more generations than 11 as you asked for. There are castles, court records, paintings etc that proves that these people existed. How do I know that your family records and all that other stuff is 100% accurate and reliable? What do you mean? That someone bought ancient parchment and signed with made up peoples names? And why would someone do that? If you haven't figured it out, i'm noble and it was so damn important that the lords wife didn't stray and have some other mans children, that she wasn't allowed to be alone. So I trust that I am the offspring, I have even seen paintings of my ancestors that physically look like me in a specific way (we have really dark circles under our eyes).
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 14, 2018 15:20:25 GMT
I can trace my family 1200 years back, would that do? That is far more generations than 11 as you asked for. There are castles, court records, paintings etc that proves that these people existed. How do I know that your family records and all that other stuff is 100% accurate and reliable? Yet another post that announces, "I don't understand the idea of empirical evidence." The idea of empirical evidence isn't that it's "100% accurate and reliable."
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2018 15:27:25 GMT
How do I know that your family records and all that other stuff is 100% accurate and reliable? Yet another post that announces, "I don't understand the idea of empirical evidence." The idea of empirical evidence isn't that it's "100% accurate and reliable." If only Cody applied the (correct) notion of empirical evidence to his god.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 15:46:39 GMT
"Life does not come from non-life."
No, actually you don't know that. I suggest getting your "science" from somewhere other than Answer in Genesis.
"So where did the first living single celled organism come from?"
I dunno, there's several theories though, you're welcome to research them yourselves. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
Well is there any evidence to the contrary? Yes, plenty. Go do some reading on abiogenesis. Again, this is something you have just made up. Certainly - they'll accept that it's an impossibility on the day that somebody proves it to be. So far, however, all evidence indicates that it's perfectly possible, if still somewhat mysterious.
|
|
|
Post by redhorizon on Jun 14, 2018 16:05:37 GMT
I picked the last option. My path towards atheism started with hating religion and being angry with God. Some of the significant first few steps I took were to stop praying and remove all traces of religion from my room. A simple explanation to explain the anger and loathe was that religion was brutally forced down my throat. I resisted it and I was alone in my fight. But if I were to live my life again, I'd still choose to be an atheist.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 14, 2018 16:57:44 GMT
We also know that life comes from life. Life does not come from non-life. So where did the first living single celled organism come from? We know and understand how life comes from life. That's actually a property of life, to reproduce. No problems here. We don't understand fully how life comes from non-life. Scientists are working on that question. We have ideas about how it happens, but not a 100 % clear picture. You probably know/understand practically nothing about these things (applies to me too, I confess) so you use your common sense (hammers don't come to life etc.) and conclude that life can't come from non-life. Your mistake is assuming your common sense is adequate to address a question of this level of complexity. It is not. You need hard science and that takes years for anyone to get into properly. Your options are to study abiogenesis yourself properly, believe people who know this stuff or make silly claims based on your common sense and observations of everyday life, which are quite improper to apply to a thing like abiogenesis. Where did the first single cell organism come from? I'm probably wrong, but my guess is two half-cell organisms came together. Even if wrong, it's more rational than to scream "God did it!"Oh, yeah, sure...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 19:20:24 GMT
Where did the first single cell organism come from? I'm probably wrong, but my guess is two half-cell organisms came together. Even if wrong, it's more rational than to scream "God did it!"Oh, yeah, sure... Yes, it really is. Life is, when you get right down to it, a set of chemical reactions. There's plenty of empirical evidence of this. Thus it is absolutely plausible that the type of chemistry we call life could emerge from the types of chemistry we don't call life. We may not fully understand how it could or did happen, but it's absolutely within the realm of plausibility. To scoff at that idea is no more sensible than looking at a pile of bricks and laughing at the idea that they could ever form a cathedral. But there's no evidence at all that there even is such a thing as a god, and no reason to think that any god that might exist would or even could create life. As an explanation for life, "god did it" is literally the least likely possibility - in fact so far as we know it's not even a possibility. Any other answer is inherently more rational.
|
|