A question for Global Warming Alarmists who are Unbelievers

[Hagbard Celine]

I beg to differ. "The Mother Nature Process" has gotten rid of a whole lot of once livng things. Was this all just an accident or can it be attributed to the consequence of a process?

With the exception of the meteor that wiped-out a great many species, I'd say all the other extinctions can be attributed either to humans or to natural processes--if you consider humans to be separate from "natural processes" that is. I don't. We are the way we are naturally so whatever we do is natural--that's a whole different thread though.

If you would give examples of what you mean maybe I could more adequately comment.

[Hagbard Celine]

Because the chance of it being true is So small as to be non-existent? Yet that same level-of-chance is of no consequence when it's viewed with "chemicals spinning around in primordial ooze accidentally developing into Life"?

I find it even less likely that magic had anything to do with it dmp.

[darin]

I find it even less likely that magic had anything to do with it dmp.

Logic. Science. Biology. Point to Intelligent Design.

Since the impossibility of spontaneous generation is a conclusion that leads to a supernatural creative act by God, it is a conclusion that many choose not to accept. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present politically correct climate, undesirable philosophic and religious implications. It is for that unfortunate and illogical reason (some people) continue to cling to the unscientific, disproved theory that life arose from non-life through spontaneous generation.

[Hagbard Celine]

Logic. Science. Biology. Point to Intelligent Design.

The only thing you can prove is that we can't prove how life began. To me, this doesn't automatically point to the hand of god. To me, it says we don't yet know how life began.

*don't know the answer--must've been god*

Since I've never seen anything ever in my entire life that would point towards the existence of a god, logic in fact does NOT point to I.D. Since every other thing that happens in the universe is a product of natural forces, logic points toward natural forces also being behind the presence of life here on earth.

Since there is not a single letter of scientific theory that includes a god or some other miraculous factor, science also does NOT point to I.D.

And finally, since every biological process we currently know about uses absolutely zero point zero religious theory and has nothing to do with god, magic or any other paranormal forces, it also does NOT point to I.D.

[darin]

Since I've never seen anything ever in my entire life that would point towards the existence of a god, logic in fact does NOT point to I.D. Since every other thing that happens in the universe is a product of natural forces, logic points toward natural forces also being behind the presence of life here on earth.

Since there is not a single letter of scientific theory that includes a god or some other miraculous factor, science also does NOT point to I.D.

And finally, since every biological process we currently know about uses absolutely zero point zero religious theory and has nothing to do with god, magic or any other paranormal forces, it also does NOT point to I.D.

There is TONS....Literally TONS of information and data pointing to God. What's Keeping you from SEEING God, however, is your own stubbornness.

[Hagbard Celine]

There is TONS....Literally TONS of information and data pointing to God. What's Keeping you from SEEING God, however, is your own stubbornness.

The existence of god is a question to be pondered by philosophers. Since there isn't any corporeal evidence to support god's existence it's a question that isn't suited to the realm of science. Science deals with facts and reality. Scientific theories are built around observable evidence.

Frankly, I find it way more likely that life was formed naturally--just like everything else in our universe--than that it was formed by some unseen, magical deity who left no proof of its existence behind.

And you're wrong. There isn't TONS of evidence to support god's existence. Of course, I almost forgot to mention something there IS tons of evidence to support: evolution.

[darin]

The existence of god is a question to be pondered by philosophers. Since there isn't any corporeal evidence to support god's existence it's a question that isn't suited to the realm of science. Science deals with facts and reality. Scientific theories are built around observable evidence.

Frankly, I find it way more likely that life was formed naturally--just like everything else in our universe--than that it was formed by some unseen, magical deity who left no proof of its existence behind.

And you're wrong. There isn't TONS of evidence to support god's existence. Of course, I almost forgot to mention something there IS tons of evidence to support: evolution.

Dude - Science POINTS to God. You choose to believe the least-likely explanation of things.

[edit] The irony of your statement above is this: You believe things 'just sorta happened'...THAT is Magic. I believe Things were created with a Purpose, by design - no magic required.

[Hagbard Celine]

Dude - Science POINTS to God. You choose to believe the least-likely explanation of things.

Science points to the same thing it has always pointed to: natural processes. What you're saying is completely illogical. Why would the sciences: chemistry, biology, geology, genetics, etc. point toward a supernatural explanation when every theory they've ever produced explains phenomena naturally? Why would the origin of life be any different from any other question science has ever explained?

[darin]

Science points to the same thing it has always pointed to: natural processes. What you're saying is completely illogical. Why would the sciences: chemistry, biology, geology, genetics, etc. point toward a supernatural explanation when every theory they've ever produced explains phenomena naturally? Why would the origin of life be any different from any other question science has ever explained?

Science points to God; see my quote above re: People choose to avoid inconvenient results/suggestions of data because they don't like result to which the data points: Intelligent Design is easily the most-logical and rational explanation of how life started.

[Hagbard Celine]

Science points to God; see my quote above re: People choose to avoid inconvenient results/suggestions of data because they don't like result to which the data points: Intelligent Design is easily the most-logical and rational explanation of how life started.

It's certainly the easiest, but it's not in the least bit rational. It has zero evidence to support it. How can you consider something like that rational?

[darin]

It's certainly the easiest, but it's not in the least bit rational. It has zero evidence to support it. How can you consider something like that rational?

Because all credible evidence supports the idea of Intelligent Design. (shrug)

[Hagbard Celine]

Because all credible evidence supports the idea of Intelligent Design. (shrug)

What are you talking about? If you're going to keep repeating this nonsense over and over again I think you really need to atleast pony-up with some of this so-called credible evidence supporting id. The truth is that there isn't any and what you're referring to when you say "credible evidence" is actually half-baked philosophical arguments about how biological structures are so complex and amazing that they couldn't possibly have come about through gradual changes over time. This is a faux-smart way of saying *I don't know the answer, so it must've been god*

If you took the time to understand how evolution works you might gain some insight into why id is nothing more than a flawed philosophical argument grasping for straws in a world that has moved past explaining-away natural phenomenon by attributing it to magic or supernatural forces.

(shrugs/farts into hand/releases it in the face of coworker)

[Missileman]

Logic. Science. Biology. Point to Intelligent Design.

Actually, Religion, Pseudo-science and Baloney point to ID.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Read up for a little while.

[darin]

What are you talking about? If you're going to keep repeating this nonsense over and over again I think you really need to atleast pony-up with some of this so-called credible evidence supporting id. The truth is that there isn't any and what you're referring to when you say "credible evidence" is actually half-baked philosophical arguments about how biological structures are so complex and amazing that they couldn't possibly have come about through gradual changes over time. This is a faux-smart way of saying *I don't know the answer, so it must've been god*

If you took the time to understand how evolution works you might gain some insight into why id is nothing more than a flawed philosophical argument grasping for straws in a world that has moved past explaining-away natural phenomenon by attributing it to magic or supernatural forces.

(shrugs/farts into hand/releases it in the face of coworker)

You are closed-minded, young man.

[Hagbard Celine]

You are closed-minded, young man.

Nice. I'm perfectly willing to debate this so-called credible evidence you keep lauding.