you just don't read what you write I suppose.
Ok, this will be my final post in this thread, unless you come up with some kind of an argument that actually makes sense,
you haven't come up with anything that actually makes sense
to me , you have basically stated that biscuit ingredients could make their own biscuits because flour and water and
sugar and milk and ovens exist.
I am saying that the biscuit ingredients cannot come together by themselves and make their own biscuits and cook themselves.
instead of just basically saying "I don't believe it".
and that is also exactly what you are doing you haven't provided any sound evidence , you and science have only provided assumption.
As far as I can tell you are making a case that only (unobservable) intelligence can create life.
well of course , who could have observed life as it was created other than the creator of life?
likewise , who could have observed life as it was developed
if there were no observers to observe?
I have been making a case that life is the result of observable chemical reactions.
no, you have been asserting assumptions previously made
by science.
there are no observable chemical reactions that could
be used as evidence that life could be the result of
chemical reactions.
there are chemical reactions that can produce some of the ingredients of life , but without all of the ingredients
and a baker you just don't end up with biscuits.
Therefore your position, which you have stated previously, is that God is the only way to explain the presence of life in the universe.
exactly.
My position is that there are observable laws of nature which can be used to explain the development of life without the direct intervention of God.
Im open to evidence if you have any evidence.
and to win a case you need evidence of some sort
that the jury will consider.
I highly doubt that you do have evidence , in fact I think
its impossible for you to have any evidence.
but lets do this.
and remember your the one on sciences side claiming that science can explain how life developed.
and an explanation is not a gathering of assumptions and
speculations.
also any possible explanation will require a exact result
the only changes would be the events or processes that lead up
to the result.
but were not talking about possible explanations because
you already have the purported evidence of the events that
lead up to the result.
and you claim that the events were observed or can be
observed and can be reproduced or duplicated as is required
by the scientific method that is currently maintained ,
because you and science make these claims you and science
must provide evidence that support these claims.
therefore you are also bringing witnesses into the court room.
you may be able to avoid any negative findings of the court
by buying the judge and jurors and the prosecutor and the defense.
but there is a crowd slowly forming outside the court house
and they will have the final say and will be the final
barrier to clear.
