> The idea that life came about by luck is completely absurd
Argument by ridicule is a fallacy.
> even more so than thinking that a computer chip was created by chance erosion of a silicone wafer in exactly the right pattern.
But, as I'm sure you have been told many times, that's an absurd strawman, and suggests that you didn't read TFA or anything else that discusses how life may have arisen, including any of the other comments here. Life didn't spring up fully formed, it developed in stages.
> As I see it
I can't think of anything less compelling.
> life was clearly designed by God.
That is semantically incoherent, as well as being a violation of HN guidelines ("Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle.")
> Life didn't spring up fully formed, it developed in stages.
Have these stages been observed, or are they merely a speculative story? No one has ever demonstrated life arising from non-life (a violation of the Law of Biogenesis).
What is semantically incoherent about my perspective that life was clearly designed?
4 days to respond? I had to scroll pretty far in my threads to see this. And no response to my points about bad faith argumentation and not having read TFA? And you still want to argue theology and metaphysics despite my pointing out that it is a violation of the guidelines? I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you why "God designed life" is semantically incoherent, which would just get us deeper into an ideological/metaphysical dispute. And beyond that, you say "clearly" but billions of intelligent scientifically educated people think otherwise, so in addition to be stupid and ignorant it's smugly arrogant bad faith.
> a violation of the Law of Biogenesis
An obviously circular argument, as any intellectually honest person with any sense acting in good faith can see. That life generally comes from life rather than, say, maggots spontaneously generating from meat as was once believed does not mean that abiogenesis isn't possible -- this is a grossly dishonest argument crafted by those despicable worms at "Answers in Genesis". And by basic logic if there were a "law" that abiogenesis violates then theogenesis would violate it too. Adam and Eve weren't born so they violate this supposed law. This is obvious and only the most profoundly stupid and dishonest people could deny it. The fact is that there is no such "law" and people who idiotically base arguments on it don't understand what empirical (as opposed to those imposed by governments) laws are.
As my LLM put it, "The entire apologetics argument relies on a massive equivocation fallacy and historical semantic games".
I despise willfully ignorant intellectually dishonest godbot science denying trash so I won't see any further comments from you (muted with my frontend to HN) and you won't hear further from me.
Argument by ridicule is a fallacy.
> even more so than thinking that a computer chip was created by chance erosion of a silicone wafer in exactly the right pattern.
But, as I'm sure you have been told many times, that's an absurd strawman, and suggests that you didn't read TFA or anything else that discusses how life may have arisen, including any of the other comments here. Life didn't spring up fully formed, it developed in stages.
> As I see it
I can't think of anything less compelling.
> life was clearly designed by God.
That is semantically incoherent, as well as being a violation of HN guidelines ("Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle.")