http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis Ah yes, you take merit of this theory without peer review and ability to repeat the test. Now who's reaching?!?! LMAO!
A hypothesis is just an interesting idea until there's empirical evidence to support it. All you have to do is show me even one iota of empirical evidence of a god and I'll be a believer. Has to be measurable with some instrument, like a camera or a spectrometer or something along those lines.
Sweet so since there is no measurable data that a self replicating molecule can manifest from non genetic material, we can discount this hypothesis then?
But there is. You can deny it, but it doesn't mean there's a lack of such evidence. I already posted it once. Go back and read it this time.
Exactly... You can choose to deny the evidence of the testimonies, but it is still evidence and especially empirical. Your denial doesn't make it "lack of evidence". You just choose to discount it. But if you ask anyone that is actually a scientist, and not some "wannabe one" like you are, they will 100% agree with me. In fact, I had this same conversation with our biologists and they said it is empirical.
Testimony is not "especially" or otherwise empirical. That's where you fall down with this silly argument.
What are your credentials? Are you a PhD? I think I put more merit to those with the credentials. They still don't believe in God, but they definitely believe personal testimony is empirical. But go on bro... Scream until your head explodes. The hole is already to your neck and it won't take much longer to be in over your head.
LOL You're just downright silly when you talk about these things. All you keep doing is confirm to me there is no empirical evidence of a god. I gave you a simple means of proof and you cannot do it because there is no god.
Ahhh but the argument we are debating isn't God exists. I am debating that your argument that God does not exist because there is no evidence that God exists. I have already given 1 very strong argument that is truly empirical. We can go on and use the Kalam argument or many others that all can and have been used in debates before. What made you lose was your "BOLD" statement that there is zero evidence that God exists. Then you tried to go further and say "empirical". Both are wrong. You dug your own grave when you made a statement that is easily refuted. Notice that I don't have to prove God exists, knowing that was your intent. I merely had to prove that there "IS" evidence that God exists.
My argument is that there is no credible evidence he exists. Just like there is no credible evidence that leprechauns exist. Zero empirical evidence. I stand by it. And you cannot provide any, so I am satisfied in my position.
Not a shred of evidence of god. I stand by it. Mass delusion is no evidence at all. I ask you to provide one simple bit of evidence that you can measure with a device, like a camera or spectroscope or whatever. You can't because there is no evidence at all.
Just agree to disagree and move on, holy shit. I debated this same shit in high-school, to the same effect, nobody changed their views and all it did was get people upset at each other. Move along. Each person should understand that the other guy can believe in what he/she wants and that should be totally acceptable. Time will tell which edition of the story comes out to be true.
I thank this forum for their time. The debate is over and I thank my opponent for his efforts, despite the bleak outlook. I really didn't have to prove much, since my opponent used such a broad and bold statement that he had no business stating as fact.
Not a footprint. Not a molecule. No energy. Nothing in his handwriting. Nothing. No evidence of any god.
