Hey God, you're fired!

tyanak_me · July 2002

molecular 'spark of life' discovered:

artificial life created:

ancient rock points to life's origin:

freakster2k1 · July 2002

All it proved is God did not create life. Its already a given anyways. My parents created me in a motel. However those points u raised does not prove that the universe was created by humans.

I am not saying that God created the universe, i am just pointing to the fact.. that life is not the focus point in the arguments of design ( although those that read Hume's dialogues will argue other wise). The argument of design focuses on cosmological accounts, which you did not try to provide evidence against a supreme being.

Ischaramoochie · July 2002

these articles all the more prove that life is contingent, and must have some necessary initiator for them to be.

tyanak_me · July 2002

Brilliant. Now I have to move on to subjects like cosmology and initiation. Another thread maybe. By the way, he's still fired.

Hyperion · July 2002

These titles are more appropriate and more accurate:

molecular catalyst for cell division in human zygotes discovered:

( The PLC-zeta enzyme might well be the catalyst in human embryos, but it might not be the case for other lifeforms. Besides, which came first - life or this enzyme? )

virus duplicated from existing gene sequence:

(Scientists duplicated (not created) this polio virus clone from the polio virus' gene sequence. Let's see em create an original virus with a man-made gene sequence before we announce "artificial life created"

)

ancient rocks could point to life's origin:

(Quoted from the article: "The discovery that ancient tectonic plates were shifting could throw some light on the origin of life on Earth." )

In short ... the title should be: Hey God, you could be fired

freakster2k1 · July 2002

ah. tyanak's stand is God is fired til he is proven otherwise.

However, it seems to me based on ur stand U considered him to be hired to begin with. It means that the onus to prove that he is fired is on ur side.

It means he is hired til u find causes for him to be fired. Since this thread failed to show that.. Thus i can only conclude that he is still hired.

The moment u said that someone is fired, u need to make a pre-supposition that he was hired to begin with. since u dont have strong points to show his firing.. thus, u cannot say he is fired.

U need to check out cosmological arguments. U need to focus on it. As long as u have, u created ur own problem. U should have said is there a God? but the moment u fired God as god; u also accepted that he was formerly a god until..... but ur ..... is insufficient to dismiss him.

U created ur own mess!

tyanak_me · July 2002

Originally posted by Hyperion
These titles are more appropriate and more accurate:

molecular catalyst for cell division in human zygotes discovered:
( The PLC-zeta enzyme might well be the catalyst in human embryos, but it might not be the case for other lifeforms. Besides, which came first - life or this enzyme? )

virus duplicated from existing gene sequence:
(Scientists duplicated (not created) this polio virus clone from the polio virus' gene sequence. Let's see em create an original virus with a man-made gene sequence before we announce "artificial life created" )

ancient rocks could point to life's origin:
(Quoted from the article: "The discovery that ancient tectonic plates were shifting could throw some light on the origin of life on Earth." )

First, nothing could represent the creation of new life more than a fertilized human ovum. Second, creating new life, whether through duplication or full construction, seems now to be a mere engineering issue. New life was created. No need to marginalize things.

Third, let me reinterpret the ancient rock article for you. The significant finding was the age of the rock: more than 2 billion years old. This is the first rock to throw light on how the shift from non-life to life may have occurred then.

tyanak_me · July 2002

Originally posted by freakster2k1
ah. tyanak's stand is God is fired til he is proven otherwise.

However, it seems to me based on ur stand U considered him to be hired to begin with. It means that the onus to prove that he is fired is on ur side.

It means he is hired til u find causes for him to be fired. Since this thread failed to show that.. Thus i can only conclude that he is still hired.

The moment u said that someone is fired, u need to make a pre-supposition that he was hired to begin with. since u dont have strong points to show his firing.. thus, u cannot say he is fired.

U need to check out cosmological arguments. U need to focus on it. As long as u have, u created ur own problem. U should have said is there a God? but the moment u fired God as god; u also accepted that he was formerly a god until..... but ur ..... is insufficient to dismiss him.

U created ur own mess!

Wrong. You did. I'm even dumber than you think. I was forced to accept the doG as my boss by force and coercion. Now that I'm slowly wising up, I realize I don't have to work for him. And now, I'm finding grounds to fire him altogether.

Ischaramoochie · July 2002

TThe main issue here is that life itself was not itself created, only the conditions were manipulated so that a lifeform could be "built" from the two factors.

freakster2k1 · July 2002

U said u have grounds to fire him? which grounds? surely not the stuff u presented here. All I am saying is u cannot change the status quo without having strong proof against it. U accepted God blindly before hand. The moment u do that, by force coersion or plain stupidity and ignorance, is insignificant. U still need to prove his non-existent with strong proof.

That is the problem I see in ur argument. U pre suppose the status quo by saying god is fired. The moment u do so, u accepted him as a God then fired him. U havent showed any strong proof to de-god him.

for background purposes, I am not a theist nor an atheist. I am in between, an agnostic. I am just showing the problems u created by putting pre suppositions in this thread. I understand that U find God to be not needed. I respect ur opinion that for U, God is dead. however u also need to acknowledge that the way u created the topic... it seems the onus to prove his non-existence fall on you. Having said that, it seems to me that u have no choice but to attack God in its very problem, the account of cosmology. As long as u havent adress this problem, u cannot win against theists here.

U have shown that Life is not by design. but it doesnt mean the conditions for life's existence is not design. I am only analyzing the topic thread, the way it was set up. And i see the problems of this thread because of the uncareful choice of words

Ischaramoochie · July 2002

i think that freakster is asking you to demolish each and every "valid proof" of God's existence to prove your claim. Since something cannot be disproved unless proven, you must first establish why these so-called "proofs" would not suffice in proving his existence, and after that, explain why a lack of proof would constitute non-existence of God.

freakster2k1 · July 2002

ohno. that is not my intent. My intention is to show him the consequences of his own claim. The pre suppositions that are involve with the statement, Hey God, ur fired.

The moment he realized the pre suppositions he will re open a new thread or rephrase the topic in such a way that the onus to prove the existence of God falls to the theists.

tyanak_me · July 2002

Scaramuche,

You got that right. Life is not conjured by an intelligent being but by natural physico-chemical processes which man is inexhorably meaning to accomplish. Man will be the first intelligent creator.

Freakster,

You say "All I'm saying, and so forth..." Well, the status quo was I half-believe and now I'm on the verge of disbelieving altogether. So you reject that as sufficient gronds for me firing the doG. I can't go the a judge. He'll throw out the case saying, "Your 'boss' is not a permanent resident of this municipality." A superior court judge will likewise throw it out saying, "there has been no reply from the respondent despite the preponderance of evidence." So what grounds do you want me to show you that I now am a non-believer?

So from your careful analysis of this very young thread, you detect lack of argument. Very well. For my part, you are guilty of two things: failing to understand my qualifications for the 'status quo' and failing to understand the evidences presented even as I introduce new ones.

Hyperion · July 2002

First, nothing could represent the creation of new life more than a fertilized human ovum.

Why? Because man is God's special creation? You are far too religious for an atheist hehehe.

Whether it is a human zygote, or a lowly bacterium - it is life. But the human genome is only a few million years old - compare that to the billion years old genome of the Archias and other thermophiles. Answers to questions about the origin of life are likelier to be found on lifeforms far more ancient and far simpler than man.

Second, creating new life, whether through duplication or full construction, seems now to be a mere engineering issue. New life was created. No need to marginalize things.

Can you copy someone else's poem then say "new poem created"? Besides, that virus was assembled with a gene sequencer which does not occur in nature. Let's see a virus assemble itself in a vat of organic molecules with no technology involved.

The significant finding was the age of the rock: more than 2 billion years old. This is the first rock to throw light on how the shift from non-life to life may have occurred then.

There is no certainty or significance to "may have occured". This is just a speculation, not a conclusion.

tyanak_me · July 2002

First you ask a question, then you derive your conclusion. Galing.

One article spoke of ovum fertilization, the other spoke of virus duplication. The third spoke of who knows-what-life. are you sure you're not confused?

Hyperion · July 2002

Your arguments are full of holes and now you are evading the issue. That first line was a joke.

tyanak_me · July 2002

I still think you're as confused as freakster.

Hyperion · July 2002

If anybody's confused here, it's not I nor freakster but you.

tyanak_me · July 2002

next...

Ischaramoochie · July 2002

why don't we just all drink hemlock...

tyanak_me · July 2002

socrates drank poison hemlock,
vincent van goh took digitalis
shakespeare smoked pot (doobie or not doobie)
edgar allan poe liked bourbon.

i'll take absolut currant vodka

Hey God, you're fired!

Comments

Welcome to PinoyExchange!

Forums

In this Discussion