Hiero5ant, I too have never encountered anyone who thinks life
has always existed and never began to exist. If I ever come
across someone that thinks the universe has always existed and
never began to exist, perhaps that person will in addition think
life has always existed and never began to exist.
Regarding your reconstruction of my comments, let me state for
the record that I think life can come from non-life with the
input of an intelligent entity. In a similar fashion, a working
car/automobile can come from a pile of auto parts with the input
of an intelligent car mechanic or a team or series of intelligent
car mechanics.
Considering that you poorly reconstructed my comments, you will
perhaps excuse me if I have my doubts about how well the other
reconstructed 'arguments' were reconstructed.
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:55:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: Hiero5ant <vze4knfn@verizon.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.atheism, sci.skeptic, talk.atheism
Subject: Re: Quote Mine Project - Part II
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310010102250.26912-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu...
Correct me if I am wrong, Charles & Mambo, but you believe that
life came from non-life in the distant past, correct?
What is the basis for your belief that life came from non-life?
Perhaps partly your atheism?
<snip>
This criticism alternates between being the most exasperating and the
most amusing in the entire "debate": the only people who believe life
*didn't* come from non-life are people who believe that life has always
existed, and I've never met any of those people.
The structure of DF's criticism can be succicntly stated as follows:
1) It is impossible for life to come from nonlife.
2) Therefore, life came from nonlife.
This structure is incorporated into numerous other creationist
arguments, to wit, "It is impossible to violate the 2nd law of
thermodynamics, therefore the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been violated";
"It is impossible for new information to be created, therefore new
information has been created"; and "It is impossible for investigation of
origins to be undertaken scientifically, therefore creationism is a
science".
.
|
