LordReed:


Can you stay on topic for once? I asked you to get me a source that says abiogenesis is a spontaneous process and here you are changing the topic. Tomorrow you'll call me dishonest and out of depth when you can't even stay on a simple subject.

I think you may be picking and choosing what conversations you want to have here. Let's do a recap:

You wanted a defense for Genesis since you claimed that it is used to underscore the anti-evolution claim that life comes from life.

I answered that Genesis holds that God created life from non-living material, not that life spontaneously sprang from non-living material.

Your problem with that defense now is apparently that I am assuming spontaneity without any just cause.

But your post was about the Christian defense against evolution.

I have gone on to explain that there are two worldviews for evolution, one of which allows for an external agent driving evolution, and the other does not.

I went on to explain that in so far as you allow for an agent driving evolution, then your grouse can be entertained. That is, it would make sense for you to say: how can you say that life cannot arise out of non-living material if God is part of the equation? God is an external agent and a driver here. It is reasonable to assume that He could hypothetically do things that way. But if that is what you wish to say, you cannot then attack Genesis. Obviously, the Christian who argues that life cannot arise out of non-living material is taking for granted that this is an issue of spontaneity. That is what he is arguing against: the notion that non-living material can spontaneously produce life.

That is what I was explaining with abiogenesis. Now, even if I was wrong to use the term "abiogenesis," and that remains to be seen, my point still stands that Genesis does not uphold such an idea.

When you then say that I am not sticking to the topic, you see that it is you who have picked on a term and tried to turn it into a new argument to completely circumvent the issue that you yourself raised. That is a show of either dishonesty or ineptitude.

LordReed:


Can you stay on topic for once? I asked you to get me a source that says abiogenesis is a spontaneous process and here you are changing the topic. Tomorrow you'll call me dishonest and out of depth when you can't even stay on a simple subject.

Shebi I told you that you will not get any sane response from theist

Ihedinobi3:

I think you may be picking and choosing what conversations you want to have here. Let's do a recap:

You wanted a defense for Genesis since you claimed that it is used to underscore the anti-evolution claim that life comes from life.

I answered that Genesis holds that God created life from non-living material, not that life spontaneously sprang from non-living material.

Your problem with that defense now is apparently that I am assuming spontaneity without any just cause.

But your post was about the Christian defense against evolution.

I have gone on to explain that there are two worldviews for evolution, one of which allows for an external agent driving evolution, and the other does not.

I went on to explain that in so far as you allow for an agent driving evolution, then your grouse can be entertained. That is, it would make sense for you to say: how can you say that life cannot arise out of non-living material if God is part of the equation? God is an external agent and a driver here. It is reasonable to assume that He could hypothetically do things that way. But if that is what you wish to say, you cannot then attack Genesis. Obviously, the Christian who argues that life cannot arise out of non-living material is taking for granted that this is an issue of spontaneity. That is what he is arguing against: the notion that non-living material can spontaneously produce life.

That is what I was explaining with abiogenesis. Now, even if I was wrong to use the term "abiogenesis," and that remains to be seen, my point still stands that Genesis does not uphold such an idea.

When you then say that I am not sticking to the topic, you see that it is you who have picked on a term and tried to turn it into a new argument to completely circumvent the issue that you yourself raised. That is a show of either dishonesty or ineptitude.

Why this is so hard for you is material for a comedy. I ask quite a simple question, show me a source that says abiogenesis is a spontaneous process. Instead of answering you launch into a long non-answer. Are you now ready to provide a source? Have you gotten the weight of your chest?

Michellekabod2:

Shebi I told you that you will not get any sane response from theist

LoL! You know what they say, if wishes were horses...

LordReed:


Why this is so hard for you is material for a comedy. I ask quite a simple question, show me a source that says abiogenesis is a spontaneous process. Instead of answering you launch into a long non-answer. Are you now ready to provide a source? Have you gotten the weight of your chest?

As I said, you are a dishonest person. So you would pretend to completely miss the point if it suits you to. Your question was anticipated and answered before you asked it. It has been answered twice again. I am not about to waste time and energy running around in circles with you.

Ihedinobi3:

As I said, you are a dishonest person. So you would pretend to completely miss the point if it suits you to. Your question was anticipated and answered before you asked it. It has been answered twice again. I am not about to waste time and energy running around in circles with you.

Look at this piece of shit who refuses to honestly answer a simple question accusing me of dishonesty. LMFAO! You know you have no such source but instead of admitting it, you deflect. You are garbage.

To illustrate how simple this question will be to an honest person, the question is asked to a master Baker "what was this cake made from?". An honest person will respond with the list of ingredients they used to create the cake. A person who wants to obfuscate maybe for proprietary reasons will not list the ingredients but it would be clear they have not answered the question.

What was life made from? Very simple question that seems to be missing an honest answer.

LordReed:


Look at this piece of shit who refuses to honestly answer a simple question accusing me of dishonesty. LMFAO! You know you have no such source but instead of admitting it, you deflect. You are garbage.

You once told me that I'm not the only Christian on Nairaland. I assumed then that you had other Christians you could converse with whenever you wanted. So I was surprised when you tagged me for this discussion. I came to this thread out of courtesy, and I have made an effort to lay aside my opinions of you and treat the conversation as though I had no history with you.

It seems to me that all you want in a conversation with me is some excuse for abuse. I neither particularly care if you want to abuse me nor do I particularly like abuse. So, I will disregard any future tags of me in discussions you want to have. If I discuss with you again, it will be entirely at my own discretion.

You are free to consider this hypocritical of me since I always call you dishonest, but such an accusation is, to my mind, defensible. I am happy to give reasons for holding such an opinion of you. I doubt that there is any sense to your own preferred appellate for me beyond your need to be vindictive, since the appellate itself is nonsensical.

LordReed:
To illustrate how simple this question will be to an honest person, the question is asked to a master Baker "what was this cake made from?". An honest person will respond with the list of ingredients they used to create the cake. A person who wants to obfuscate maybe for proprietary reasons will not list the ingredients but it would be clear they have not answered the question.

What was life made from? Very simple question that seems to be missing an honest answer.

As for this, if your question is what life was made from, according to the Bible, there are two ways to answer you:

1. Organic molecules were made from inanimate elements by God. That is, He called the physical bodies of the flora and fauna of the earth into existence out of the earth and the water.

2. All animate organisms, that is, all animals as well as man too, were animated by the breath of life, that is, by a spirit that God created and put into them so that they can live and operate in a different manner than plant life.

That is the Bible's position.

With respect to evolution, the Bible does not hold such a view. The entire Universe was created in an instant by a fiat command of God. After the destruction of the universe of prehistoric times, God remade it all in seven days, not because He needed time to do so, but in order to leave a witness regarding His Plan for Man's History, which is to last seven thousand years - a millennium for each of those seven days.

Not all Christians believe the foregoing, however, so some of them do hold that the Universe was created by evolution through God's agency, such that He caused physical life to arise out of inorganic materials over eons of time. Such a person would not believe in the spontaneous generation of organic material from inorganic. So, they would argue that life cannot come from non-living material without agency, although they would agree that it can happen when an agent of sufficient ability causes it to.

Those who do believe what I have described above will also agree that with God all things are possible. That is, both the Christian who believes in evolution and the Christian who does not will not argue that organic material can never be made out of inorganic, because they both agree that God can produce life from such material. What they would argue against is that organic material will arise spontaneously out of inorganic.

That issue of spontaneity is necessarily assumed in your narrative, unless you wish to redefine the Christian's argument for him. That would be dishonest, the very malady that I always say that you are plagued with. If then it is assumed, Genesis is not a problem at all for such Christian apologists.

As for abiogenesis, I introduced the term in this conversation, using it to describe the spontaneous generation of organic material from inorganic. In the resources I offered you, I'll grant you that none said explicitly that this generation was spontaneous, but by the same token, none of them claimed or admitted that it was not. I assumed spontaneity because atheistic evolution is a more popular evolution theory with many academics than theistic evolution.

Now, if I were to grant that abiogenesis is not necessarily spontaneous, that would only mean that I used the wrong term to describe the concept that we were discussing, not that my arguments are wrong or false at all. However, it is not a completely wrong term. It is only one that needs a qualifier for clarity. If there is a possibility that abiogenesis, as a term, can describe the process of generating organic material from inorganic by an agent of sufficient ability, then all I need to do is change the term I used to "spontaneous abiogenesis." My argument then would still be fine, but your challenge would still fail.

That is why I have answered you by refocusing each time on the conversation that you started, because the issue is not whether I used the term correctly, but whether what occurred in Genesis makes the Christian's anti-evolution arguments hypocritical.

Ihedinobi3:

You once told me that I'm not the only Christian on Nairaland. I assumed then that you had other Christians you could converse with whenever you wanted. So I was surprised when you tagged me for this discussion. I came to this thread out of courtesy, and I have made an effort to lay aside my opinions of you and treat the conversation as though I had no history with you.

It seems to me that all you want in a conversation with me is some excuse for abuse. I neither particularly care if you want to abuse me nor do I particularly like abuse. So, I will disregard any future tags of me in discussions you want to have. If I discuss with you again, it will be entirely at my own discretion.

You are free to consider this hypocritical of me since I always call you dishonest, but such an accusation is, to my mind, defensible. I am happy to give reasons for holding such an opinion of you. I doubt that there is any sense to your own preferred appellate for me beyond your need to be vindictive, since the appellate itself is nonsensical.

Indeed you are not and as you can see you were not the only Christian I copied. I also considered it a courtesy to include you but if it is too much trouble I will never refer to you again.

The wonderful thing about our conversations is everything you accuse me of you do them with what seems like a lack of self awareness, like a default mode. You started this conversation with how dishonest I am yet you accuse me of seeking to insult you. I too have my reasons for what I call you and I will gladly give them.

As for this, if your question is what life was made from, according to the Bible, there are two ways to answer you:

1. Organic molecules were made from inanimate elements by God. That is, He called the physical bodies of the flora and fauna of the earth into existence out of the earth and the water.

2. All animate organisms, that is, all animals as well as man too, were animated by the breath of life, that is, by a spirit that God created and put into them so that they can live and operate in a different manner than plant life.

Now this is an answer worthy of discussion. Could you show me where Yahweh gave non-human organisms the breath of life?

With respect to evolution, the Bible does not hold such a view. The entire Universe was created in an instant by a fiat command of God. After the destruction of the universe of prehistoric times, God remade it all in seven days, not because He needed time to do so, but in order to leave a witness regarding His Plan for Man's History, which is to last seven thousand years - a millennium for each of those seven days.

Not all Christians believe the foregoing, however, so some of them do hold that the Universe was created by evolution through God's agency, such that He caused physical life to arise out of inorganic materials over eons of time. Such a person would not believe in the spontaneous generation of organic material from inorganic. So, they would argue that life cannot come from non-living material without agency, although they would agree that it can happen when an agent of sufficient ability causes it to.

Those who do believe what I have described above will also agree that with God all things are possible. That is, both the Christian who believes in evolution and the Christian who does not will not argue that organic material can never be made out of inorganic, because they both agree that God can produce life from such material. What they would argue against is that organic material will arise spontaneously out of inorganic.

That issue of spontaneity is necessarily assumed in your narrative, unless you wish to redefine the Christian's argument for him. That would be dishonest, the very malady that I always say that you are plagued with. If then it is assumed, Genesis is not a problem at all for such Christian apologists.

As for abiogenesis, I introduced the term in this conversation, using it to describe the spontaneous generation of organic material from inorganic. In the resources I offered you, I'll grant you that none said explicitly that this generation was spontaneous, but by the same token, none of them claimed or admitted that it was not. I assumed spontaneity because atheistic evolution is a more popular evolution theory with many academics than theistic evolution.

Now, if I were to grant that abiogenesis is not necessarily spontaneous, that would only mean that I used the wrong term to describe the concept that we were discussing, not that my arguments are wrong or false at all. However, it is not a completely wrong term. It is only one that needs a qualifier for clarity. If there is a possibility that abiogenesis, as a term, can describe the process of generating organic material from inorganic by an agent of sufficient ability, then all I need to do is change the term I used to "spontaneous abiogenesis." My argument then would still be fine, but your challenge would still fail.

That is why I have answered you by refocusing each time on the conversation that you started, because the issue is not whether I used the term correctly, but whether what occurred in Genesis makes the Christian's anti-evolution arguments hypocritical.

None of the resources claimed that it was a spontaneous process because they reckon it was a long drawn out process which by implication eliminates spontaneity. Also none of the resources claims that there was no external agent. They wouldn't because they can't be sure of that and even if I discountenance a supernatural agent it doesn't completely exclude external agency.

The main crux of all of this is, life can arise from non-living matter, how it does so is a separate discussion. It's that simple.

LordReed:


Indeed you are not and as you can see you were not the only Christian I copied. I also considered it a courtesy to include you but if it is too much trouble I will never refer to you again.

The wonderful thing about our conversations is everything you accuse me of you do them with what seems like a lack of self awareness, like a default mode. You started this conversation with how dishonest I am yet you accuse me of seeking to insult you. I too have my reasons for what I call you and I will gladly give them.



Now this is an answer worthy of discussion. Could you show me where Yahweh gave non-human organisms the breath of life?



None of the resources claimed that it was a spontaneous process because they reckon it was a long drawn out process which by implication eliminates spontaneity. Also none of the resources claims that there was no external agent. They wouldn't because they can't be sure of that and even if I discountenance a supernatural agent it doesn't completely exclude external agency.

The main crux of all of this is, life can arise from non-living matter, how it does so is a separate discussion. It's that simple.

As for tagging me, I think that any sane person would consider it too much trouble to be called to a discussion only to have abuse heaped on them. So, thank you for the courtesy, but no thanks.

As for accusations, when I say that you are dishonest, I do so because of things that you have done and continue to do. In other words, I can defend my accusations of you - and have in other threads where we have discussed. In this thread, my very first post said,

"It should be noted that you incorrectly (probably dishonestly) stated the argument to include a claim that God made life from life."

I did not instantly call you dishonest. I pointed out that it may have been an honest error. The parentheses reflect my view of atheists in general, rather than a view of you specifically. In other words, I was communicating a suspicion of a typical atheist tactic of making straw men, rather than accusing you again.

This then shows that you are wrong that I started the post with how dishonest you are. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in spite of all our previous history.

So, what then have I done here or anywhere else that in any way smacks of dishonesty?

As to having your reasons for calling me what you call me, pray tell exactly what makes anybody a piece of shit. What exactly does that appellate accuse anybody of? What is the proof you can offer that anybody at all is a piece of shit? How is that not an insult for nothing more than to abuse someone? If you were accusing me of something, then at least I should understand the accusation and have the opportunity to defend myself from it? How does anybody merit being labelled a piece of shit in your book, LordReed?

As to non-human organisms having the breath of life...

Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.
Genesis 7:22-23 ESV

Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?
Ecclesiastes 3:21 ESV

As to spontaneity, I think that at least you are mistaken. Spontaneity is not a matter of time in this context.

Definition of spontaneous

3 : controlled and directed internally : SELF-ACTING
spontaneous movement characteristic of living things

5 : developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spontaneous

In thermodynamics, this is a little more technical - and, therefore closer to what it really means in the context of evolution:

A spontaneous process is an irreversible process. However, you can actually reverse it by the application of some external agents.
https://www.toppr.com/guides/chemistry/thermodynamics/spontaneity/

Spontaneity is a question of the presence or absence of external agents.

As for the resources, as I said, they say nothing about external agency, whether to confirm or to deny it. You are only repeating what I said here.

As for the main crux of the conversation, this again is the sort of thing that I accuse you for. In so far as you say that it does not matter how life arises from non-living material, you are no longer addressing Christian arguments against evolution. Since I am speaking for Christians here - per your request through your tag, I might add - I am saying that it is never a Christian argument that life never arises from non-living material regardless of agency or lack thereof. The whole Christian argument revolves around the presence or absence of an external agent driving the process. If you remove that, you create a straw man. That is what I call dishonesty. If I correct you about it and you persist in doing it, I can only conclude that you are doing it deliberately. If you are, it is no more an error, it is brazen dishonesty.

Ihedinobi3:

As for tagging me, I think that any sane person would consider it too much trouble to be called to a discussion only to have abuse heaped on them. So, thank you for the courtesy, but no thanks.

Well noted. I will never refer to you again.

As for accusations, when I say that you are dishonest, I do so because of things that you have done and continue to do. In other words, I can defend my accusations of you - and have in other threads where we have discussed. In this thread, my very first post said,

"It should be noted that you incorrectly (probably dishonestly) stated the argument to include a claim that God made life from life."

I did not instantly call you dishonest. I pointed out that it may have been an honest error. The parentheses reflect my view of atheists in general, rather than a view of you specifically. In other words, I was communicating a suspicion of a typical atheist tactic of making straw men, rather than accusing you again.

This then shows that you are wrong that I started the post with how dishonest you are. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in spite of all our previous history.

So, what then have I done here or anywhere else that in any way smacks of dishonesty?

As to having your reasons for calling me what you call me, pray tell exactly what makes anybody a piece of shit. What exactly does that appellate accuse anybody of? What is the proof you can offer that anybody at all is a piece of shit? How is that not an insult for nothing more than to abuse someone? If you were accusing me of something, then at least I should understand the accusation and have the opportunity to defend myself from it? How does anybody merit being labelled a piece of shit in your book, LordReed?

[url=https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=A%20piece%20of%20shit]A piece of shit
1. An annoying and apparently retarded individual who often only succeeds at irritating the people around him/her.[/url]

This opinion is not only held by me even if I am the only one who would call you such. You irritate people when you second guess their motivations, thought patterns and answer this imagination as though it were true. Look at it, you come in here already suspecting me of dishonesty and even when I tell you the reason I mention the agent is because I just finished quoting places that mention the agent, you completely ignore that and go on to say I have confirmed being dishonest. You do this over and over again then you wonder why I call you a piece of shit. Ask anyone who you've had interactions with and had a grouse with you, I can bet that 7 out of 10 of them will agree with this assessment.

When it comes to responding to questions you seem to think that if you write a long post then it counts as a reply to the question even when you completely fail to answer said question. Look at it here, I asked you to provide a source for something you said, it took several back and forth posts before you'd admit you had nothing meanwhile when you ask me for a source, I do not equivocate or vacillate, I give you excerpts and links. Another thing is how you respond, look at the other thread where I responded with excerpts and links, you didn't bother to look at them but you were ready to dismiss them. These are not the actions of a person who is acting with integrity.

As to non-human organisms having the breath of life...

Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.
Genesis 7:22-23 ESV

Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?
Ecclesiastes 3:21 ESV

Ok so why was it not mentioned in genesis except when it came to man?

As to spontaneity, I think that at least you are mistaken. Spontaneity is not a matter of time in this context.

Definition of spontaneous

3 : controlled and directed internally : SELF-ACTING
spontaneous movement characteristic of living things

5 : developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spontaneous

In thermodynamics, this is a little more technical - and, therefore closer to what it really means in the context of evolution:

A spontaneous process is an irreversible process. However, you can actually reverse it by the application of some external agents.
https://www.toppr.com/guides/chemistry/thermodynamics/spontaneity/

Spontaneity is a question of the presence or absence of external agents.

As for the resources, as I said, they say nothing about external agency, whether to confirm or to deny it. You are only repeating what I said here.

The alternative panspermia hypothesis[20] speculates that microscopic life arose outside Earth by unknown mechanisms, and spread to the early Earth on space dust[21] and meteoroids.[22] It is known that complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.[23][24][25][26] An extreme speculation is that the biochemistry of life may have begun shortly after the Big Bang, some 13.8 billion years ago, during a habitable epoch, and that life may exist throughout the universe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

To say that abiogenesis does not take into cognisance external agency is to show you really haven't looked into it. If spontaneity is about time and agency then there is nothing like it in abiogenesis because both have possible explanations for.

As for the main crux of the conversation, this again is the sort of thing that I accuse you for. In so far as you say that it does not matter how life arises from non-living material, you are no longer addressing Christian arguments against evolution. Since I am speaking for Christians here - per your request through your tag, I might add - I am saying that it is never a Christian argument that life never arises from non-living material regardless of agency or lack thereof. The whole Christian argument revolves around the presence or absence of an external agent driving the process. If you remove that, you create a straw man. That is what I call dishonesty. If I correct you about it and you persist in doing it, I can only conclude that you are doing it deliberately. If you are, it is no more an error, it is brazen dishonesty.

When I acknowledge an agent you accuse me of dishonesty, when I say the focus is not on the agent or process you accuse me of dishonesty. What then do you want?

I did not oppose the argument that Yahweh must always be present for life to arise here in this thread. I said it was not a consideration, how can that then be a strawman? I am looking at the material used to create life and saying hey look this agrees with my position and you come to say no, how? The material is non-living both in abiogenesis and in the creation description so I am not seeing what you are calling a strawman.

Continuing with the analogy of a baker and a cake. We look at the receipe book listing the ingredients and say ha this list of ingredients is the same as the list of ingredients in the other receipe book then someone says the skills of the bakers are different though and I say yes I know but all I am interested in right now is the ingredients. What exactly is my fault in this scenario?

LordReed:


Well noted. I will never refer to you again.



[url=https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=A%20piece%20of%20shit]A piece of shit
1. An annoying and apparently retarded individual who often only succeeds at irritating the people around him/her.[/url]

This opinion is not only held by me even if I am the only one who would call you such. You irritate people when you second guess their motivations, thought patterns and answer this imagination as though it were true. Look at it, you come in here already suspecting me of dishonesty and even when I tell you the reason I mention the agent is because I just finished quoting places that mention the agent, you completely ignore that and go on to say I have confirmed being dishonest. You do this over and over again then you wonder why I call you a piece of shit. Ask anyone who you've had interactions with and had a grouse with you, I can bet that 7 out of 10 of them will agree with this assessment.

When it comes to responding to questions you seem to think that if you write a long post then it counts as a reply to the question even when you completely fail to answer said question. Look at it here, I asked you to provide a source for something you said, it took several back and forth posts before you'd admit you had nothing meanwhile when you ask me for a source, I do not equivocate or vacillate, I give you excerpts and links. Another thing is how you respond, look at the other thread where I responded with excerpts and links, you didn't bother to look at them but you were ready to dismiss them. These are not the actions of a person who is acting with integrity.



Ok so why was it not mentioned in genesis except when it came to man?



The alternative panspermia hypothesis[20] speculates that microscopic life arose outside Earth by unknown mechanisms, and spread to the early Earth on space dust[21] and meteoroids.[22] It is known that complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.[23][24][25][26] An extreme speculation is that the biochemistry of life may have begun shortly after the Big Bang, some 13.8 billion years ago, during a habitable epoch, and that life may exist throughout the universe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

To say that abiogenesis does not take into cognisance external agency is to show you really haven't looked into it. If spontaneity is about time and agency then there is nothing like it in abiogenesis because both have possible explanations for.



When I acknowledge an agent you accuse me of dishonesty, when I say the focus is not on the agent or process you accuse me of dishonesty. What then do you want?

I did not oppose the argument that Yahweh must always be present for life to arise here in this thread. I said it was not a consideration, how can that then be a strawman? I am looking at the material used to create life and saying hey look this agrees with my position and you come to say no, how? The material is non-living both in abiogenesis and in the creation description so I am not seeing what you are calling a strawman.

Continuing with the analogy of a baker and a cake. We look at the receipe book listing the ingredients and say ha this list of ingredients is the same as the list of ingredients in the other receipe book then someone says the skills of the bakers are different though and I say yes I know but all I am interested in right now is the ingredients. What exactly is my fault in this scenario?

Regarding your definition, I suppose what I wonder is why anyone who thinks I am annoying and retarded, and irritating to boot, would seek me out to converse with me. Either such a person enjoys being annoyed and irritated (a very weird thing for any human), or else they may be lying about what they think of me. As I have said before, I've had more conversations on Nairaland with you than with any other atheist since I got back to posting here late last year. In not a few of them, you sought me out by entering a conversation I was having with other people or challenging answers I gave to posts. How annoying and irritating must I be to warrant such interest from you?

Furthermore, the tendency of atheists (including yourself certainly) in general to resort to verbal abuse in debates about God makes your argument less credible. Is there any Christian at all on this board, for example, whom you haven't found worthy of some "accusation" of this nature? Perhaps, but I doubt it, and if there is, they are probably so few as to probably not exceed a couple or so in spite of the many that you debate here.

As for what I have done to merit such an *accusation," I could ask you for proof of my "mind-reading" and " second-guessing" of people I discuss with, but rather than take that route - as fair as I believe that it is - let me just explain what I think you are talking about.

Everything people say and do witnesses to what goes on in their hearts. While we cannot tell anywhere near completely what is in another person's heart, we can do so with some accuracy judging by the consistency of their words and actions. So, for example, if someone says something untrue once, it would not therefore mean that they are necessarily dishonest. They may be mistaken. It is a bad idea to make a conclusion about the person from that single incident. But if that person says something untrue several times, ignoring correction each time, then it is reasonable to assume that they are dishonest people with a vested interest in distorting and misrepresenting the facts of whatever it is that they always lie about.

I could never say with much certainty what goes on in your heart, LordReed, but I can certainly judge what your words and actions mean or indicate about the general state of your heart. So when I notice a consistency of action, I am not just being irritating by pointing it out where it may be relevant to do so. That that irritates you does not mean that I am being irritating any more than that your catching a cold means that cold weather was out to get you. It is important to always keep in mind that how people react to a person is not necessarily the same as how the person really is.

This also shows that the argument that other people feel about me the way that you do is really not very compelling. People who share an attitude to a given thing will react in the same way to it. That is not necessarily a fault with the thing itself. For example, some people have a sweet tooth and will eat sugared donuts and chocolate and whatnot at the drop of a hat, but others who don't might be indifferent to it, with yet others completely hating sweet things. This has nothing to do with sugar itself, just with the physiology (and perhaps psychology) of the people involved. Likewise, it is not necessarily a great way to judge people to measure them by other people's reactions to them. Granted that people can react negatively to someone purely because that person is a bad person, people can also react negatively to someone purely because that person is a good person while they themselves are bad people. Therefore, it is always important to ask why people feel or react to someone the way that they do. It can be just as easily because something is wrong with them as it is because something is wrong with that person.

In the example you gave of my ignoring your lack of interest in an agent, you say that I kept ignoring your explanations and instead asserted your dishonesty. But I did explain to you that you were asking for a defense of a Christian position to which the presence of that agent was central. If you had not mentioned the agent, I (or another good Christian apologist) would have brought it up because that is why the Christian insists that life cannot arise from non-living material.

As for the question of my integrity, I have said to others, if not to you too, that when your kind crafts trick questions, I don't feel obliged to give you the answers that you think I have been rigged into. If you ask me questions that, for example, distract from the issue being discussed, I don't feel obliged to respond to them in the manner that does distract from the issue. Of course, when I do that, you can consider me evasive or even dishonest, but the very question itself was the problem. In my experience debating atheists and other antichristians, this is a common tactic resorted to when a poorly thought out challenge to Christianity is defeated.

You say here, for example, that after several posts I admitted that I had nothing when you demanded for sources. I have already explained that when you demand that a Christian explain how other Christians can argue that life cannot come from non-living materials in the face of Genesis 1, it is beside the point to demand a source for defining abiogenesis. You could simply point out that abiogenesis is not necessarily the right word for describing the phenomena, if you don't think that it is. It is a non-issue in the discussion itself. Your making it into one is attempting to throw a red herring into the debate to derail it. That is why anyone who wants to keep the matter in focus will not take the bait and spiral into another conversation that has no bearing on the issue at hand.

As for long posts, I do try to lay out my position as clearly as possible, so long posts often are necessary. Additionally, because there are often many misconceptions and even quite a bit of mischief, many challenges to Christianity and many questions come with false premises and bad assumptions and large knowledge gaps that I find I must address in order to answer them. Long posts then are not then automatically non-answers. This one I'm writing right now certainly isn't.

Regarding your question about the breath of life, a principle need only be set by one precedent and confirmed by later references. So, when God made Man, that story was enough to explain how all physical creatures are made, with only the difference that Man was made "in the image of God and according to His Likeness" (that is, possessing a free will and a sense of individuality). Furthermore, Genesis was about Mankind. That is also why we are only given a hint of pre-human creature history in it. The whole Bible was written for the human race, therefore the focus is always on the Truth as it applies to human beings, so in Genesis and elsewhere, we will find principles like the breath of life animating all physical creatures spoken of only where it is relevant to do so in connection with the human responsibility to God.

This,

"To say that abiogenesis does not take into cognisance external agency is to show you really haven't looked into it. If spontaneity is about time and agency then there is nothing like it in abiogenesis because both have possible explanations for,"

implies that I said or argue in some way that abiogenesis does not account for external agency and that spontaneity is about time, but this is actually what I said:

"As for abiogenesis, I introduced the term in this conversation, using it to describe the spontaneous generation of organic material from inorganic. In the resources I offered you, I'll grant you that none said explicitly that this generation was spontaneous, but by the same token, none of them claimed or admitted that it was not. I assumed spontaneity because atheistic evolution is a more popular evolution theory with many academics than theistic evolution"

and

"As to spontaneity, I think that at least you are mistaken. Spontaneity is not a matter of time in this context."

In the first, obviously I said that the resources did not say anything one way or another about the existence of an external source. That is what is in the actual text. I did not say that abiogenesis does not take into cognizance external agency, unless you mean by that that the text somehow says something about external agents being involved in the process of generating life out of non-living material. If perhaps that was what you intended to demonstrate with the excerpt you posted, you still failed in actually doing so because "unknown mechanisms" necessarily implies a lack of knowledge as to how exactly life arose out of non-living material. This lack of knowledge obviously embraces the involvement of external agency. So, again, the text says nothing one way or another about the involvement of external agency.

Also, again, this was a term I used myself. I had a reason for using it. Therefore, if it is a term that poses a problem in communication, rather than turn it into another argument that essentially muddies the waters, you can simply ask me to withdraw the term if I cannot justify using it. Again, what you are choosing to do instead is what amounts to dishonesty, because it distracts from the issue being discussed.

In the second, I was responding to your claim that spontaneity had to do with time. I provided definitions that made it clear that spontaneity refers to self-action, that is, to activity occurring independent of external agency. And, obviously, I said that spontaneity is NOT a matter of time.

As for acknowledging an agent, I don't believe I understand you very well here. You have been trying to turn the argument toward the definition of abiogenesis for some time now. And your effort seems to be in order to say that the Christian was not arguing against the spontaneity of atheistic evolution. That is disingenuous. But perhaps you will also say that it is not what you are doing at all. So, let me just say straight out that as soon as atheistic evolution allows for the possibility of external agency, then the Christian can only argue about whether or not evolution is a legitimate way to expect God to create the Universe. That is, external agency will completely eliminate any atheism in evolution, because whatever drives the process of abiogenesis would then equate to a competing God with the God in the Bible.

The point then is that in so far as the atheist believes that life came into existence out of non-living material without anything outside of the Universe causing it to, that is a fundamentally different argument from what is in Genesis. There is then no agreement between your position and the Christian's.

Ihedinobi3:

Regarding your definition, I suppose what I wonder is why anyone who thinks I am annoying and retarded, and irritating to boot, would seek me out to converse with me. Either such a person enjoys being annoyed and irritated (a very weird thing for any human), or else they may be lying about what they think of me. As I have said before, I've had more conversations on Nairaland with you than with any other atheist since I got back to posting here late last year. In not a few of them, you sought me out by entering a conversation I was having with other people or challenging answers I gave to posts. How annoying and irritating must I be to warrant such interest from you?

Furthermore, the tendency of atheists (including yourself certainly) in general to resort to verbal abuse in debates about God makes your argument less credible. Is there any Christian at all on this board, for example, whom you haven't found worthy of some "accusation" of this nature? Perhaps, but I doubt it, and if there is, they are probably so few as to probably not exceed a couple or so in spite of the many that you debate here.

As for what I have done to merit such an *accusation," I could ask you for proof of my "mind-reading" and " second-guessing" of people I discuss with, but rather than take that route - as fair as I believe that it is - let me just explain what I think you are talking about.

Everything people say and do witnesses to what goes on in their hearts. While we cannot tell anywhere near completely what is in another person's heart, we can do so with some accuracy judging by the consistency of their words and actions. So, for example, if someone says something untrue once, it would not therefore mean that they are necessarily dishonest. They may be mistaken. It is a bad idea to make a conclusion about the person from that single incident. But if that person says something untrue several times, ignoring correction each time, then it is reasonable to assume that they are dishonest people with a vested interest in distorting and misrepresenting the facts of whatever it is that they always lie about.

I could never say with much certainty what goes on in your heart, LordReed, but I can certainly judge what your words and actions mean or indicate about the general state of your heart. So when I notice a consistency of action, I am not just being irritating by pointing it out where it may be relevant to do so. That that irritates you does not mean that I am being irritating any more than that your catching a cold means that cold weather was out to get you. It is important to always keep in mind that how people react to a person is not necessarily the same as how the person really is.

This also shows that the argument that other people feel about me the way that you do is really not very compelling. People who share an attitude to a given thing will react in the same way to it. That is not necessarily a fault with the thing itself. For example, some people have a sweet tooth and will eat sugared donuts and chocolate and whatnot at the drop of a hat, but others who don't might be indifferent to it, with yet others completely hating sweet things. This has nothing to do with sugar itself, just with the physiology (and perhaps psychology) of the people involved. Likewise, it is not necessarily a great way to judge people to measure them by other people's reactions to them. Granted that people can react negatively to someone purely because that person is a bad person, people can also react negatively to someone purely because that person is a good person while they themselves are bad people. Therefore, it is always important to ask why people feel or react to someone the way that they do. It can be just as easily because something is wrong with them as it is because something is wrong with that person.

In the example you gave of my ignoring your lack of interest in an agent, you say that I kept ignoring your explanations and instead asserted your dishonesty. But I did explain to you that you were asking for a defense of a Christian position to which the presence of that agent was central. If you had not mentioned the agent, I (or another good Christian apologist) would have brought it up because that is why the Christian insists that life cannot arise from non-living material.

As for the question of my integrity, I have said to others, if not to you too, that when your kind crafts trick questions, I don't feel obliged to give you the answers that you think I have been rigged into. If you ask me questions that, for example, distract from the issue being discussed, I don't feel obliged to respond to them in the manner that does distract from the issue. Of course, when I do that, you can consider me evasive or even dishonest, but the very question itself was the problem. In my experience debating atheists and other antichristians, this is a common tactic resorted to when a poorly thought out challenge to Christianity is defeated.

You say here, for example, that after several posts I admitted that I had nothing when you demanded for sources. I have already explained that when you demand that a Christian explain how other Christians can argue that life cannot come from non-living materials in the face of Genesis 1, it is beside the point to demand a source for defining abiogenesis. You could simply point out that abiogenesis is not necessarily the right word for describing the phenomena, if you don't think that it is. It is a non-issue in the discussion itself. Your making it into one is attempting to throw a red herring into the debate to derail it. That is why anyone who wants to keep the matter in focus will not take the bait and spiral into another conversation that has no bearing on the issue at hand.

As for long posts, I do try to lay out my position as clearly as possible, so long posts often are necessary. Additionally, because there are often many misconceptions and even quite a bit of mischief, many challenges to Christianity and many questions come with false premises and bad assumptions and large knowledge gaps that I find I must address in order to answer them. Long posts then are not then automatically non-answers. This one I'm writing right now certainly isn't.

Regarding your question about the breath of life, a principle need only be set by one precedent and confirmed by later references. So, when God made Man, that story was enough to explain how all physical creatures are made, with only the difference that Man was made "in the image of God and according to His Likeness" (that is, possessing a free will and a sense of individuality). Furthermore, Genesis was about Mankind. That is also why we are only given a hint of pre-human creature history in it. The whole Bible was written for the human race, therefore the focus is always on the Truth as it applies to human beings, so in Genesis and elsewhere, we will find principles like the breath of life animating all physical creatures spoken of only where it is relevant to do so in connection with the human responsibility to God.

This,

"To say that abiogenesis does not take into cognisance external agency is to show you really haven't looked into it. If spontaneity is about time and agency then there is nothing like it in abiogenesis because both have possible explanations for,"

implies that I said or argue in some way that abiogenesis does not account for external agency and that spontaneity is about time, but this is actually what I said:

"As for abiogenesis, I introduced the term in this conversation, using it to describe the spontaneous generation of organic material from inorganic. In the resources I offered you, I'll grant you that none said explicitly that this generation was spontaneous, but by the same token, none of them claimed or admitted that it was not. I assumed spontaneity because atheistic evolution is a more popular evolution theory with many academics than theistic evolution"

and

"As to spontaneity, I think that at least you are mistaken. Spontaneity is not a matter of time in this context."

In the first, obviously I said that the resources did not say anything one way or another about the existence of an external source. That is what is in the actual text. I did not say that abiogenesis does not take into cognizance external agency, unless you mean by that that the text somehow says something about external agents being involved in the process of generating life out of non-living material. If perhaps that was what you intended to demonstrate with the excerpt you posted, you still failed in actually doing so because "unknown mechanisms" necessarily implies a lack of knowledge as to how exactly life arose out of non-living material. This lack of knowledge obviously embraces the involvement of external agency. So, again, the text says nothing one way or another about the involvement of external agency.

Also, again, this was a term I used myself. I had a reason for using it. Therefore, if it is a term that poses a problem in communication, rather than turn it into another argument that essentially muddies the waters, you can simply ask me to withdraw the term if I cannot justify using it. Again, what you are choosing to do instead is what amounts to dishonesty, because it distracts from the issue being discussed.

In the second, I was responding to your claim that spontaneity had to do with time. I provided definitions that made it clear that spontaneity refers to self-action, that is, to activity occurring independent of external agency. And, obviously, I said that spontaneity is NOT a matter of time.

As for acknowledging an agent, I don't believe I understand you very well here. You have been trying to turn the argument toward the definition of abiogenesis for some time now. And your effort seems to be in order to say that the Christian was not arguing against the spontaneity of atheistic evolution. That is disingenuous. But perhaps you will also say that it is not what you are doing at all. So, let me just say straight out that as soon as atheistic evolution allows for the possibility of external agency, then the Christian can only argue about whether or not evolution is a legitimate way to expect God to create the Universe. That is, external agency will completely eliminate any atheism in evolution, because whatever drives the process of abiogenesis would then equate to a competing God with the God in the Bible.

The point then is that in so far as the atheist believes that life came into existence out of non-living material without anything outside of the Universe causing it to, that is a fundamentally different argument from what is in Genesis. There is then no agreement between your position and the Christian's.

Suprising how you dude incept the name calling and then cry foul when it is reciprocated.
This ain't ass-licking or eye service,but I have known lordreed as one of the few Nlander that is quite objective. He will not insult a theist for being a theist but based on what the theist posts,he is slow to anger,and he doesn't carry on grudges.He may have a fierce e-war with you and the next minute he may back up your post. So don't take this personal, you called him dishonest SEVERALLY before he called you a poo. I myself will not have been as merciful as he was,will have rained a litany of insults on from the onset

Michellekabod2:

Suprising how you dude incept the name calling and then cry foul when it is reciprocated.
This ain't ass-licking or eye service,but I have known lordreed as one of the few Nlander that is quite objective. He will not insult a theist for being a theist but based on what the theist posts,he is slow to anger,and he doesn't carry on grudges.He may have a fierce e-war with you and the next minute he may back up your post. So don't take this personal, you called him dishonest SEVERALLY before he called you a poo. I myself will not have been as merciful as he was,will have rained a litany of insults on from the onset

My sista I just tire.

I appreciate your input.

LordReed:
One of the anti-evolution claims is that life can only come from life and it is underscored by the creation claims like that of the Bible in the book of Genesis.

Let's take a closer look:

Creation of plants:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Creation of sea and air creatures:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Creation of land creatures:
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

In all of the preceding passages, we are told the god speaks to the elements to bring forth living things. None of these elements are living in themselves so how can the claim be made that the god creates life from life? On the contrary the bible actually seems to favour abiogenesis that is life from non-life.

It would be instructive to see how this matter is answered by believers in creation.

CC; budaatum, jesusjnr, michellekabod2, hakeem4, johnydon22, plaetton, HappyPagan, CAPSLOCKED, tingtingz, Niflheim, NPComplete, Maximus69, TV01, ihedinobi3

Why are you worrying yourself nau? I thought God doesn't exists? Why not just carry your life and do something and stop worrying about a none existent God?

Anas09:

Why are you worrying yourself nau? I thought God doesn't exists? Why not just carry your life and do something and stop worrying about a none existent God?

Prince Hamlet is a nonexistent fictional character yet people write dissertations about him.

LordReed:


Prince Hamlet is a nonexistent fictional character yet people write dissertations about him.

Why aren't you losing sleep about him? How many threads have you opened claiming he was not the prince?

Get well soon.

Anas09:

Why aren't you losing sleep about him? How many threads have you opened claiming he was not the prince?

Get well soon.

Yawn �

LordReed:


Yawn �

Guy, give it a rest. You have chosen a path walk on it, whatever you see when you die enjoy it.

All this noise you make here won't change a thing. Frederick Nietzsche made the loudest noise, he went mad before he went to meet his maker. When you die, argue with your Maker, because, whether or not you like it, you'd meet him. Lol

Anas09:

Guy, give it a rest. You have chosen a path walk on it, whatever you see when you die enjoy it.

All this noise you make here won't change a thing. Frederick Nietzsche made the loudest noise, he went mad before he went to meet his maker. When you die, argue with your Maker, because, whether or not you like it, you'd meet him. Lol

LoL! The best of the Christian arsenal, the threat of eternal damnation. LMFAO!

LordReed:


LoL! The best of the Christian arsenal, the threat of eternal damnation. LMFAO!

Whatever you say won't change the fact that someday soon, you'll die when you do, this your mouth go shut.


Someday soon.

Anas09:

Whatever you say won't change the fact that someday soon, you'll die when you do, this your mouth go shut.


Someday soon.

Sure that will happen, same as it will happen to everyone on this planet until they find a cure for death.

Deep down in the vaults of thought, Earth lives, so technically, even things that sprung up from the Earth, like plants, animals, humans, you, indeed came from a living earth. We are after all discussing a text written so far in the past translated many times in which we read a report of what God is supposed to have done. Or they were there, my Lord, recording what God did?

I'm seeing strawpeople my Lord!

budaatum:
Deep down in the vaults of thought, Earth lives, so technically, even things that sprung up from the Earth, like plants, animals, humans, you, indeed came from a living earth. We are after all discussing a text written so far in the past translated many times in which we read a report of what God is supposed to have done. Or they were there, my Lord, recording what God did?

I'm seeing strawpeople my Lord!

Your Sixth and a half sense has awoken my dear buda. LoL!

LordReed:


Sure that will happen, same as it will happen to everyone on this planet until they find a cure for death.

Good luck finding a cure for the sickness called death.

I didn't know you were this stu.pid, true.

Michellekabod2:

Suprising how you dude incept the name calling and then cry foul when it is reciprocated.
This ain't ass-licking or eye service,but I have known lordreed as one of the few Nlander that is quite objective. He will not insult a theist for being a theist but based on what the theist posts,he is slow to anger,and he doesn't carry on grudges.He may have a fierce e-war with you and the next minute he may back up your post. So don't take this personal, you called him dishonest SEVERALLY before he called you a poo. I myself will not have been as merciful as he was,will have rained a litany of insults on from the onset

First, there is a difference between an accusation and an insult or name-calling, as you put it. If I call someone dishonest, it is not an insult. It is an accusation. If it is unwarranted, then I am maligning the person and defaming their character. That is why the right thing to do is to demand proof of such an accusation, rather than to resort to insults in response. Until LordReed's post defining the term "piece of shit" as he did, I had never even seen it used as any sort of accusation, but apparently it is supposed to be an accusation of being irritating and slow. Not sure how that is supposed to be an offence when it is only a perception at best. So, you are quite wrong: I did not at any point insult LordReed.

Second, maybe your comments are proof why I don't discuss with you. You are probably one of the most abusive people I have seen on this board. I have never had a meaningful conversation with you, even when I tried. Whereas I hold an opinion of LordReed that he obviously dislikes, I often discuss with him because he actually does make an effort to have a clean, non-abusive conversation with me. I have a reason for not letting up on him whenever we talk, and for continuing to talk with him in spite of his abuses whenever he gets too upset. But you are another matter altogether. So I never feel inclined to talking with you. And your post could not be clearer about how that is an excellent idea.

Anas09:

Good luck finding a cure for the sickness called death.

I didn't know you were this stu.pid, true.

And you are just another piece of shít so I am not surprised.

LordReed:


And you are just another piece of shít so I am not surprised.

Hahahahahahahahahahaahha. you are already in Sifia pain, wait until you enter Hellfire.

Michellekabod2:

Don't expect a sane response from theists....

Seems you took more from your onetime mentor than one thought. Pity its the wrong bit. For some reason, I expect better. And from you too 09, with your hell! Did you just write off your neighbours as insane because they know different to you?

You, my Lord. I guess it depends on the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills, which one might lack, or have and not know one has. Imagine an advocate of evolution refusing to evolve and you'll get what is meant.

hakeem4:

I still do not understand how god a spiritual being can have contact with we material beings. If you claim he can create life that means he can have contact with us then god should be measurable

Indeed, you do not understand, and your honesty, for what its worth, is commended.

I'd admit, "then god should be measurable". But have you the instruments to measure a god, if such a thing exists, I'm wondering.

Anas09:

Hahahahahahahahahahaahha. you are already in Sifia pain, wait until you enter Hellfire.

Delusional. SMH

LordReed:


Delusional. SMH

Wait until we die, we shall know who ia delusional. E go clear for ya eye when you go see satan dey laf you for your stupidity.