"give us one miracle and we will explain the rest"

To imagine it would be ,is to believe in a miracle even more stupendous than creation by an omnipotent God and infinitely less credible.

You have this backwards. The origin of life is more stupendous, for sure, but it is infinitely more credible to say it happened naturalistically. Because all the evidence points to that conclusion. Saying 'god created us' isn't a solution at all. It's a placeholder phrase for 'it happened magically', because you can't say anything about any of it other than what you can interpret out of a book that romans wrote. That's ridiculous to me, not even on the spectrum of credibility. It's magic, pure and simple.

If you're imagining thinking beings "popping" into existence formed wholesale from inanimate matter, then that may explain why you think it's so incredible. But the truth is the process has happened incrementally over a billion years. Bit by bit and piece by piece, order has increased. The first life forms not only didn't think, they didn't react. They were like snowflakes, existing as structures. But at some point they were able to replicate. The chemistry isn't difficult.

From that point, evolution explains how the most simple life can evolve to react, then evolve to think, then evolve to be conscious.

"give us one miracle and we will explain the rest"

As opposed to "everything I don't understand must be a miracle".

As opposed to "everything I don't understand must be a miracle".

no not everything.
I wasn't referring to everything and I think you know that.

You just can't get Richard Dawkins out of your system.
Try being original for a change.

You just can't get Richard Dawkins out of your system.
Try being original for a change.

What does RD have to do with my comment? Did he say the same thing? If so, I commend him. Because it's precisely what appears to be the case with so many people. Believe it or not, even people who reject religion. I more than one friend who, when they can't see how something could happen, jump to the conclusion that it happened supernaturally. It's an extremely common response, as much as you may think it isn't.

If someone else arrives at the truth before me, then how can I be original about it?

Actually, this IS an "RD" thread, but you've effectively changed the subject and are actually moving everyone to another thread, you little epistemic spook.

So, I've got it backwards.O.k let's see.Unintelligent matter produced intelligent life.Right, got it!

Flann 5 wrote:So, I've got it backwards.O.k let's see ,unintelligent matter produced intelligent life.Right. got it!

Just be on the lookout for something about aBiogenesis really soon.
The theory is flooded with evidential disconnects but it's good enough to explain the eventual rise of consciousness from unconscious matter.
Just another example of "dumb nature" producing intelligent creatures.

Flann wrote:So, I've got it backwards.O.k let's see ,unintelligent matter produced intelligent life.Right. got it!

A good deal more amazing than to say we were "created". But I wonder why you wrote it as if you don't believe it. Is there something unbelievable about your statement? The transition has intermediary steps that we understand well enough that we can it's true. Do you not believe in evolution Flann?

ant wrote:The theory is flooded with evidential disconnects but it's good enough to explain the eventual rise of consciousness from unconscious matter.
Just another example of "dumb nature" producing intelligent creatures.

Abiogenesis does not explain the eventual rise of consciousness from unconsciousness. That falls under the domain of evolution. Are you in Stahrwe's camp now, rejecting not only abiogenesis but evolution as well?

Interbane wrote:

Flann wrote:So, I've got it backwards.O.k let's see ,unintelligent matter produced intelligent life.Right. got it!

A good deal more amazing than to say we were "created". But I wonder why you wrote it as if you don't believe it. Is there something unbelievable about your statement? The transition has intermediary steps that we understand well enough that we can it's true. Do you not believe in evolution Flann?

ant wrote:The theory is flooded with evidential disconnects but it's good enough to explain the eventual rise of consciousness from unconscious matter.
Just another example of "dumb nature" producing intelligent creatures.

Abiogenesis does not explain the eventual rise of consciousness from unconsciousness. That falls under the domain of evolution. Are you in Stahrwe's camp now, rejecting not only abiogenesis but evolution as well?

As reduced, yes, it is supposed to offer an explanation for the ultimate rise of consciousness.
It wouldn't be full explanatory power if science couldn't reduce to the root, Interbane.
You know that but are playing dumb on this.
Good job.

We've already had a conversation about your greatS Grandfather coming from the ocean, remember?
But going further into the past, life started in some gooey hot puddle of soup, right?
Ultimately. that's where your consciousness originated from - got it's chance at intelligence, right?
I won't bother asking for evidence, but you do believe that, don't you?

It wouldn't be full explanatory power if science couldn't reduce to the root, Interbane.
You know that but are playing dumb on this.

Don't think of causation as a tree, think of it as chainlink webbing. There is no "root", but a consecutive series of causes and effects. You don't "reduce" a causal chain by identifying earlier causes. Evolution explains the rise of intelligence.

Ultimately. that's where your consciousness originated from - got it's chance at intelligence, right?

Ultimately? No, ultimately, the chance at intelligence came from the big bang(or however the universe came to be). Even abiogenesis is a link somewhere in the middle. Intelligence arose during evolution, no matter how you spin the language.