'Preliminary reports of sedimentation experiments held at Glen Rose, Texas, March 2007'
See rotary flume experiment results showing multiple layers laid down, complex cross-bedding was produced & verified by water action. Other effects observed in geology.
Videos of it in action:
ianjuby. org/sedimentation/ (remove space)
Also, "Archimedes," a specially designed & constructed liquefaction tank. Demonstrations can also be seen in a video. Enjoy.
On Jan 23rd around 0359 UT, big sunspot 1402 erupted, producing a long-duration M9-class solar flare. The explosion's M9-ranking puts it on the threshold of being an X-flare, the most powerful kind. SpaceWeather. com
NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory caught an extreme ultraviolet flash from a huge eruption on the sun.."There is little doubt that the cloud is heading in the general direction of Earth," Space. com
@QuantumGh0st "You were^the one that^asserted without^evidence that^we should ^doubt the ability^of 'mere' atoms."
You bet, because no such tendency is observed. Only when elements are allocated by micro living machines bearing information & acted upon by such machines do they begin to resemble components of life. Remove all life or remnants of life from elements and they exhibit no such "biological state" or tendency to begin arrangement toward anything close to life AT ALL.
If I give the scientists a loaf of bread. They would hypothesize about how bread could happen on its own. They would have all these theories on how that could happen naturally.
But of course could never prove it. Sound familiar.
So they take the materials for bread into the lab and set up all the correct conditions, and surprise, they get bread. That is creation. Does it show that bread could happen on its own? NO.
@QuantumGh0st The loaf of bread is a good example, because it is all natural,and something scientists, could play around with. I would use life ( cell) but at this point they can not do it.The amount of ID in a cell is beyond them, still. But I think they are getting closer.
So with the scientists, we have a hypothesis, ('evolution' )that demands another hypothesis ('abiogenesis') be non creation. That is circular thinking and not scientific.
Really, creation and science , are the same thing.
An example of what? The fact that bread doesn't form without a baker indicates what exactly?
"I would use life ( cell) but at this point they can not do it.The amount of ID in a cell is beyond them, still. But I think they are getting closer."
And...people creating cells proves what? People can create fire but that doesn't prove that all fires require people.
"The amount of ID in a cell"
You haven't proven that complexity always indicates ID
@QuantumGh0st - " . Not knowing or seeing things doesn't leave a gap for whatever personal religion you have culturally adopted."
Well, that applies to atheists like you actually. Not knowing or seeing things doesn't mean the 'natural selection of naturalism' of separation of Church and State educated culture. Study the 'evolution chart'. From the 'Cambrain to the Holocene' are 101 'stages'. In fact, some museums and universities treat from Paloeocene to Holocene as if 'Periods'.
@QuantumGh0st "Bread isn't self replicating & is not subject to natural selection"
Amino acids in a prebiotic soup have no affinity for assembling into functional proteins. The odds of getting one of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance is no better than 1 in 10^164. That's 84 orders of magnitude smaller than the probability of finding 1 marked particle (proton, neutron, or electron) in the whole universe. (source: Stephen C. Meyer, "Signature in the Cell", pg. 212)
Once again the response doesn't respond to the heading. Why do you two fundies select a heading & then refuse to respond to it...
Meyer is a known liar, and his work is seen as poor among his peers. Meyer's (and others) rant about the impossibility of abio is a straw man & statistical fallacy. Talk Origins deals with it nicely.
"If I give the scientists a loaf of bread. They would hypothesize about how bread could happen on its own."
Why would they do that when we already know humans make bread? Use another analogy, your current one is flawed.
Let me give an example:
I give scientists a piece of diamond (in its natural form). Scientists eventually replicate this diamond...That's creation! Tada! How about eroded rocks? Scientists replicate erosion on rocks, TADA! Erosion can't happen on its own!
@TurboDally "I give scientists a piece of diamond (in its natural form). Scientists eventually replicate this diamond...That's creation! Tada! How about eroded rocks? Scientists replicate erosion on rocks, TADA! Erosion can't happen on its own!"
@QuantumGh0st "1 of the 2 idiots try^the watchmaker^fallacy again.
These^fundie's have^nothing"
An old belief:
Epicurus Atomist Theory 341–270BC:
"Denying any divine sanction for morality, & holding that the experience of pleasure & pain are the source of all value, Epicurus thought we can learn from atomist philosophy that pursuing natural & necessary pleasures...that our fears of the gods & of death are groundless will free us from our chief mental pains." plato. standford. edu
@matchlock "[atech tries to justify his] supernatural belief using naturalistic models"
Charles Darwin tried to justify supernatural belief using natural human logic. I say "natural" because evolutionists believe that non-intelligent physical laws of NATURE assembled matter into human logic.
"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty (CONT)
or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist." — Charles Darwin
So we're reduced to talking to internet flamers, who claim to laugh and hold their sides, and bang desks, and have a riotously good time don't-you-know, but who never wanted to interfere with other people making decisions on their own (they just help with presenting "both" sides).
Atech is reduced to admitting he never deliberately tried to justify his belief with hydroplates, moonponds, herbivorous cats etc, and rog, the court clown, reckons bones that stink must be new.
@atechworld "I don't need to prove my religious beliefs in the context of methodological naturalism than Darwin needed to prove his which he voiced in the last sentence of Origin of Species:"
Right, and Darwin's last sentence (if even meant literally) is not a scientific theory. Certain aspects of his work have been verified, and that's all that counts.
Nothing of yours has been verified. Nothing. There is no evidence that your God exists, and most Christians reject YEC. You have nothing.
@QuantumGh0st "There is no evidence that your God exists"
You failed again. One need not prove God's existence to author a science book, form a hypothesis, or build an earth or life science theory. Look at Darwin. Though he had personal religious beliefs, he skipped the origin of life issue in "Origin of Species". Obviously, his idea of God bent him toward a naturalistic position in life's origin but his theory addressed only CHANGE of preexisting life over time. (CONT)
Creationists can maintain their religious beliefs, skip your stupid mandate to prove God's existence using naturalism, and address CHANGE OVER TIME. The wind favors us, not you. I can cite plenty of evidence where our religious convictions allow us to be led by intuition and your convictions force you to choose counterintuitively. See my post entitled "WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?"
"If you interpreted my referencing Newton as evidence for you to "believe" in God's existence, then please cease that interpretation. I prefer Pascal's philosophy: "People are usually more convinced by reasons they discovered themselves than by those found by others."
"Maybe yourself or some comforting self-created strawman?".
No, pretty sure we been talking to you,
Hold your right hand up, and keep it up until something doesn't register with you : hydroplates, ventilation in arks via moonpools, white genetically superior peacock kinds, protein-plant eating giant cheetahs, earth debris hitting the farside of the moon, natural polyploids, dino DNA, 2nd law of TD, entropy, marsupial treks through China....
@matchlock [atech uses hydroplates to prove God's existence using naturalism]
Hopefully I paraphrased your thoughts correctly. Hydroplates can't prove God's existence anymore than Darwin's theory of evolution proves naturalism (nothing exists beyond the natural universe). Scientific ideas need not be scientifically derived. Such is the case with hydroplates (idea derived from Bible), and the ring shape of benzene molecules (shape revealed to Friedrich Kekulé by a dream).
"Hopefully I paraphrased your thoughts correctly".
Yeah right. Since you use the word "prove", and give it a context, then talk about the problems with "proof", we can see you can't lie straight in bed.
(We should run a book on when your first honest post will appear).
You are (and I repeat) trying to justify your supernatural belief using naturalistic models.
Hydroplates are to bible, and benzene rings are to dreams, what lotto numbers are to cloud shapes.
@matchlock [atech tries to justify his supernatural belief with naturalistic models]
If multiple ancient documents tell about a global flood & one set of documents with the greatest detail puts it at 2304 BC +/- 11 years, should I not investigate the veracity of that claim? If I find coal, oil & gas miles below earth's surface that is best explained by burial of plants & animals instead of the defunct abiogenic hypothesis, should I be ashamed for doubting uniformitarianism?
"If multiple ancient documents tell about a global flood".
Typical creo tactic. You mean "...tell about global floodS" of course, just the same as multiple ancient documents 'tell about godS' (not A god, certainly not YOUR god).
How many global floods were there, you might ask?
As many as there are accounts of them.
We have never located a single skerrick of evidence for such an event, so none of them can be entertained seriously.
@matchlock "You mean "...tell about global floodS"
Yes of course. The different languages, cultures, traditions, etc. could make one event look like many. E.g. Records of Abraham sacrificing his son could mistakenly be interpreted as 2 events: Hebrew account: Issac offered; Mohammed's account Ishmael offered. The Epic of Gilgamesh flood story is poetry with a cubical ark; The Hebrew (& more detailed) account is prose with ideal ark length/width ratio like modern transport vessels.
You rarely concede anything (unless it suits you), so why now?
Maybe you could relay the information to other fundies?
Many accounts, many floods, many gods.
It's surprising you didn't see this earlier??
Fundies and logic don't mix, I realize, but to think that the many differences between accounts is strong evidence for the few similarities seems absurd in the extreme.
@matchlock "multiple ancient documents 'tell about godS"
True. The Bible is such a document. When Jacob fled from Laban, Laban accused him of theft: "wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?" (Gen 31:30)
I personally think manufactured gods are a substitute for reality - like porn for a wife.
"Socrates often refers to God in the singular as opposed to the plural and actively rejected the Greek pantheon of Gods and Goddesses unless citing them as examples of their falseness." - Wiki
"I personally think manufactured gods are a substitute for reality...".
I agree.
Any god (Singular or Plural) manufactured to take the place of reality should be consigned to the waste bin, and its victims allowed to contribute in practical terms to positive outcomes.
@matchlock [Clarify "Set" of documents &. "Greatest detail"]
The manuscript evidence for Genesis is more than one document. There is a Hebrew Masoretic text, a Greek text (Septuagint) , numerous codices of both, Dead Sea scrolls, etc. Genesis provides detail of the flood that few realize.
Google with quotes "Table 22. Log of the Flood Year"
The surprising amount of chronological detail is derived in Gen 7 & 8 alone & doesn't even touch Gen 6, ark dim, constr, cargo or passengers.
"The manuscript evidence for Genesis is more than one document".
Blantantly incorrect.
You mean to say, honest one, and leader of the One True Way, that there are many versions of an ancient religious document, some of which contradict slightly, and others of which contradict strongly (Esp Gen 6 &7 !!!).
Its original authorship is unknown.
The "details" are assertions in religious writing, and are woefully incomplete compared to creation/rebirth myths around the world.
"...any versions of an ancient religious document"..."Im glad that we agree" .
You're what that we what, now?
The Masoretic text, Septuagint, DS scrolls etc are all versions of the one document. They don't add to the evidence for its (truth?/validity?/inerrancy?), any more than the various translations of "The War of the Worlds" makes it a historical document.
You ain't the sharpest tool in the shed, is ya atech?
@matchlock "The Masoretic text, Septuagint, DS scrolls etc are all versions of the one document"
I'm glad that we agree:
@atech "The manuscript evidence for Genesis is more than one document"
@matchlock "They don't add to the evidence for its [truth/validity/inerrancy]"
They most certainly do. If an argument was made that Israel's history was fabricated after 100 BC, that argument would fail because of the manuscript evidence adding to the historical validity.
I can send you hundreds of different tellings of the vast geological age of the earth. These add to the evidence numerically., and there are different language variations too.
@matchlock "I [have 100's] of different tellings of the vast geological age of the earth"
I don't doubt that.
"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations." - Sir Karl Popper
Once you theorized that I kept a log of your posting habits so I could schedule my posts during your absence. We know that jealous or desperate people like Aldous Huxley can always find confirmations. See Wiki's "List of cognitive biases"
@matchlock "2304 BC+/- 11 years... Based on what method?"
Obviously not radiometric since Jack Horner won't allow it for the dating of supposed 70 myo preserved T. rex tissues (presumed by creationists to be near the time of the flood). And considering that, "All of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments that we've done don't allow for this.", we shouldn't base our dating on such a questionable foundation.
Search "The Date of Noah’s Flood" by Dr John Osgood
"Obviously not radiometric since Jack Horner won't allow".
Now now, good christian, this childishly petulant tantrum doesn't do you any favors.
It's not even relevant - unless you feel you answer to Horner's 'edicts'?
If he won't send some of his property to be destructively tested by people who ALREADY KNOW what result they want (and how they will use it), more power to him!!
Get your own samples, do your own tests, little boy, stop blaming others.
@matchlock "If [Jack Horner] won't send some of his property to be destructively tested"
You are disingenuous. Schweitzer's T. rex bone was ALREADY sawed in half. The required amount of bone (extractable without destroying its value for museum display) is only 2-10 grams for AMS analysis. Horner himself said, "We're still trying to figure out what the actual soft tissue is", but he forbids C14 dating. If he doesn't know what it is, how can he logically discount C14 testing?
The disingenuous one would be the one who thinks that the only bone available for testing belongs to Horner, or that the only fossil with original minerals is that one "sawed in half".
But you're not disingenuous - you're dishonest. We've established that clearly (you make it very evident).
Anything trapped in 80myo rock is too old for C dating.
He knows the creos will use the errant results (between 5 to 12 X the desired creo date) to create mischief.
"We know the approximate age of the sandstone Schweitzer's bone was found in by the preservation quality of the T-rex tissue".
LOLOLOL
Yes. We can date landfill by the quality of the foodstuffs left in it.
Your "science" is tremendous - some might call it 'backwards', but it's entertaining nevertheless.
So one branch of science has presumed the decay rate of a certain tissue based on known conditions, and this presumption is to be used by creos to turn geology on its head.
Be sure, when you're re-writing the geological sciences, to include C14 dating of these fossils, because that will help confirm a recent flood. And make sure you explain how you learnt it (Collagen is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY CONFIRMED BY OTHER SCIENCE TO BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAINLY UNABLE TO LAST MORE THAN 15000 years buried in rock).
Well done on your fabulous armchair research.
(Careful to ignore the formaldehyde/oxidising lignite odor at that location).
"...should I be ashamed for doubting uniformitarianism".
The fantastic irony here is that the creofrauds love to put the big kibosh on uniformitarianism, yet depend on it UTTERLY for their naturalistic explanations for supernatural claims.
By the way, it was creationist geologists who in the 19th century first realized & documented that the earth was very, very old.
Creos must have been more honest in those days, because they could NOT deny what they saw.
@matchlock [19th century creationist geologists documented that the earth was very old]
Those men lived in an era where human reason was increasingly elevated to the supreme place of authority for determining truth. They succumbed & tried to reinterpret the scripture to accommodate the new authority. These new interpretations included the gap & day-age theories. They abandoned fundamentalism. Fortunately, the story didn't end there: (CONT)
"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition." - Issac Newton 1642-1727
(Re creationist geologists documenting a very, very old earth).
"Those men lived in an era where reason was....".
It's odd, isn't it, that you have also posted lists of "Scientists who were creationists", and when we reply with "Project Steve", you don't accept that the 'era' of their lifetime is at all relevant.
Yet these religious men, deeply imbued with a centuries-held belief in a recent creation/flood, WERE UNABLE TO LIE to confirm it, and instead documented what they saw
@matchlock "when we reply with "Project Steve", you don't accept..."
There is a difference between contributing to the advancement of science and signing a petition stating you endorse evolution. Any Tom, Dick, or Steve can sign a petition.
@matchlock "The "scientists who signed YOUR petition"
To my knowledge, Newton, Faraday, & Maxwell didn't resort to signing petitions for gathering scientific consensus. That's what I like about the hard sciences over the soft ones like Darwinian evolution — billions of years ago, we agree that such & such may have happened.
"This fascinating tale begins with a very big bang, and ends with you reading this article today on our website." — kidsbiology. com
Your appeal to authority is yet another diversion from all the unanswered questions.
No doubt Newton the alchemist and many others were't able to sign a creationist petition because those creo-fundies weren't around yet to use their "Deep & Applied Science" tactic ('Please sign our petition - say you're one of us, huh. please?) on these men who used NO religion in their scientific endeavors.
@matchlock [Newton & others] were't able to sign a creationist petition"
This is all the signature I need: "Though these bodies may, indeed, continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Isaac Newton
The above text is from Newton's Principia which is "justly regarded as one of the most important works in the history of science" & "so far exceeded anything that had ever gone before that it stood alone as the ultimate exemplar of science". His words certainly aren't an endorsment of your materialistic philosophy.
When I left this forum last night, I had pointed out how your "young collagen' argument was slapped in the face by the same scientists you were using as ammunition.
I left you with your own very obvious self-contradiction regarding lists of "creation-believing scientists". And I left you with your own ridiculously clear hypocrisy regarding the use and abuse of various Buble versions.
Imagine my smile when I see a dozen angry posts on OTHER topics.
When I left this forum last night, something funny crossed my mind. You effectively believe that matter assimilates itself into life & computers: primordial soup -> macromolecule -> protocell -> prokaryotic cell (bacteria) -> eukaryotic cell -> mufti-cellular organism -> fish -> amphibian -> mammal -> human -> humans build IBM Blue Gene computer. Therefore, non-intelligent matter turns into humans & supercomputers by non-intelligent causes. This is both funny & sad.
Atech, you believe in PRECISELY the same thing. EXCEPT that you think it couldn't have begun without the input of a supernatural being (whose actions you believe can be explained naturalistically), with a poor memory, many regrets, and a tendency to choose some people and slaughter the others (AND their pets, AND wild animals, AND trees etc).
This isn't sad, it's just plain funny, because I feel zero empathy for you and your ilk.
You'll be aware, good christian fisher of strawmen, that the creation "model" is so full of apologetics, concessions to the no-longer-arguable, and infighting between the various creo groups, that it is a fuzzy target.
Anti-creos don't know what to attack, as they intend, because they don't admit any firm model. See what I mean :
I can't be bothered addressing your little diversions piecemeal, though some of them will amuse me.
I'm just going to post a few times to move your arguments from incredulity down the page, and I'll revisit those more important questions in the future.
You must feel like that emperor with the new clothes - knowing beyond any doubt that the regular posters can see exactly who you are.
So as you prance around here naked, trying to impress any new readers, I'll try to help you.
@matchlock "I can't be bothered addressing your little diversions"
You're funny: "Matchlockfun is semi-retired, and has decided to contribute by exposing fundamentalists" I'm keeping you employed. In the last week alone, you bothered yourself no less than 67 times in addressing me.
@atechworld You may need to consider that he also is addressing other's "little diversions" besides your 67 received answers. With much fewer responses to us, it is ironic that you appear to be his life's effort & focus of attention. Actually, I would say it is from torment about his own destiny and with his time running out, I hope at some point he gains understanding that he possess a soul & sees like we do that it is crying out loudly.
No, we look forward to showing you creeps for what you are IMMENSELY.
We are about to start a book here - on when atech will post his first honest, non-ridiculous statement.
Unfortunately, you don't figure in our estimations, rog, because you are so dramatically childish and unintelligent we get little satisfaction from your anger (I think we all doubt you are a real creo, since you do all that could be asked of a Poe, working on our side).
"....bothered yourself no less than 67 times in addressing me".
Before you get carried away with the victory dancing there, wise christian, I was referring to your dozen or so angry (and short) posts to me in my absence, none of which referred to the 3 pressing questions at that time.
I intend to continue addressing your unrepentant christian witnessing about petitions from authority, anti-science, collagen longevity, dino DNA, natural polyploids, Ararat fossils, etc.
After telling me "Any Tom Dick or Steve can sign a petition", you neglect to mention that Newton (who you bizarrely claim as being on your team) is already on your petition.
As are the others.
You got caught lying. I know an apology is not forthcoming, but you could at least cease trying to cover it up with diversions, wise bringer of light.
@matchlock "Newton... is already on your petition"
What petition? I possess no petition signed by Newton and especially not a petition on the order of "Project Steve" which demeans whoever signs it since they become part of a "tongue-in-cheek parody" that "pokes fun" at those who disagree with them. I can't imagine Newton, Faraday, or Maxwell resorting to something so inane.
You may have the wrong idea about why "Project Steve" 'pokes fun' at the creofundies.
It's a beautifully simple way to show the INANITY of compiling lists of dead scientists, modern engineers and DENTISTS (???) who accepted, or are presumed to have accepted, a supernatural creation.
If anti-creos create anything in response to Dembski's pig noises in :
And of course, your angry post addresses nothing about the original point.
(The quotemining has dropped significantly recently, but it's been replaced by your relentless and transparent diversions).
The original point was that those creationist geologists knew nothing of Darwin's theory, and were deeply troubled by the fact that they could plainly see that the earth was VASTLY older than the genealogy of old guys in the many versions of that religious document.
@matchlock [creationist geologists could plainly see that the earth was VASTLY older than the Bible implied]
Old-earth geologists plainly denied evidence. Charles Lyell used the erosion rates of the Niagara gorge to conclude that it had taken 35,000 years to carve. He discarded the erosion rate estimates given by a local geologist's son in favor of his own 1 ft./yr. instead of 3 ft./yr. Actual rates were 5-8 ft./yr. putting it within 4,500 yrs of the Flood.
Yes, no doubt. Those creationists went out and studied the evidence, became perplexed that their centuries-held belief about creation stories-for-kids were obviously incorrect, and decided they'd prefer to go to hell and simply deny all the OTHER, OPPOSING evidence, for which none can be found today, except in the highlytrained geological halls of the creationist websites.
Lucky you're qualified to point out the errors, wise one.
Uniformitarianism of that kind has long been refuted, by the way, and those creationist geologists STILL under-estimated the ages considerably (torn between their old mistaken beliefs about Biblical uniformitarianism, and the evidence which plainly refuted it).
It fascinates me that your 'stance' is opposed to naturalistic explanations for nature, unless they "confirm" acts of supernature, and also opposed to the uniformitarianism that is required in Bible "science".
Let's recap, not the topic at hand, but the processes you've used to maintain your disagreement, allowing you to type as sarcastically as possible.
So the original topic remains valid, since it is easily available for confirmation. Your brain knows this, but instead of saying so, like an adult might, you talk about how they were influenced by the "times".
When the influence of their era is shown to be irrelevant, you complain about people signing petitions.
Your cognitive dissonance is far more interesting than the endless quibbles you offer.
You obviously know that the regular posters here aren't fooled by your diversions - you AND I know that your assertions are designed to require awkward effort in replies, therefore you MUST know that you've lost us (as "converts" to arkeology).
It can only be an audience of newbies you're hoping to impress.
Thus you DO KNOW ABSOLUTELY that you're wrong, in specifics AND generally.
Why do you think scientists join together to create the "Greatest Snow Job on Earth"?
Why are they trying to bury the real answers?
And if scientists around the world know what the "real answers" are, but choose to give the "Snow Job", how do they all unite across cultures and know what to do, and when?
They must get huge salaries to do this?
Maybe you should get into science yourself, go undercover and expose these con-artist bastards?
@matchlockfun The answer to this is simple. And it is education. You go to school and all that is offered are the scientists ideas.When you go to university still the same and with peer pressure. If you get a job, its best if you don't put the creation word on the resume' .If you want to be recognized by adding something new to science, makes sure it supports the scientific interpretations.
Yes imagine the money wasted on that stuff. Though, they have learned a lot of science as well.
@MrDunsapy "You go to school and all that is offered are the scientists ideas."
Isn't that terrible. Next we'll be going to the doctors and "ONLY" receiving the ideas of Doctors! Or going to a construction site and only acquire the ideas of Architects!
You're right, we should teach creation myths with science, demon possession with medicine, & telekinetic levitation with architectural design.
@matchlockfun The reason they are tying to bury, the real answer is that they consider their ideas more important, than the evidence. And actually use their hypothesis as evidence. They jumped on the Darwin band wagon,without thinking it through and now are stuck with it. And still can not prove it. Some say they may never be able to.
Their method of research, does not detect ID, so with the bread I mentioned, they could not detect that it was made.
@MrDunsapy "The reason they are tying to bury, the real answer is that they consider their ideas more important, than the evidence....They jumped on the Darwin band wagon,without thinking it through"
Yes, and the evil doctors are hiding the real truth of demon possession because it's more important to uphold the sacred legacy of Louis Pasteur. Those stupid trained scientists, who enabled us to create vaccines, were to quick to jump on the Pasteur band-wagon.
@QuantumGh0st I did not say that the scientists have not learned a lot of science and done many things. But at the same time they have given man the ability to ruin the earth, and man.That's not too bright. They went to Mars to find Martians. We now have nuclear bombs. Pollution that lasts a 1,000 years. A change in the atmosphere, and chemical poisons etc. Pasteur showed that life does not spontaneously start.
@MrDunsapy "But at the same time they have given man the ability to ruin the earth,"
Yes. Knowledge is power. But science doesn't ruin the world, it gives people the ability to choose to do either good or bad. Science in itself is a-moral.
"Pasteur showed that life does not spontaneously start. Which side are you on?"
Pasteur and others disproved the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved creationism. Evolution is rock solid.
Lol, who the hell told you that? Oh right you decided to make it up.
They went to mars mainly to analyse mar's surface and chemical makeup, and decided since it would cost next to nothing extra to send some equipment to check for martian microbes as well, just on the very small chance they might find some.
It's like betting 1pence on a 1/100 chance of winning £999,999,999,999,999. There's no point not doing it.
@9hello123 lol I saw them jump up and down when they found some evidence of water. Then they examined the it further to see if the could find life. But then went away when they didn't. A little time later they said the soil would kill any life that might start. That same scenario , could also have been the same on earth. But conditions were prepared. Just like in the lab experiments.
Take 4 colored dice with 10 sides to them. Now what you have to do if throw those dice a million times.
Now these dice have to come up correctly from a prearranged list you have , so every throw the right color has to come up in the right order with the correct number on it ( 10 on each dice). There can be no mistakes.
Scientists could calculate the odds, but you know it will never happen.
And that is assuming, life could happen with out creation.
The "inspiration" you get from Ussher's annotations on a patriarchal family tree are strangely anti-science. Have you noticed?
Everything that science claims, you know better. And you not only know better, you know the opposite is true.
When asked how you derive that, compared to the claims themselves being the next step in a compounding interpretive science, you claim it's a kind of 'rebellion' against your god.
This is unsupportable stupidity, you'd have to admit.
And just to confirm utterly and absolutely, scroll back to see your unrelenting quotes of agreement with the atheist Huxley about "crying wolf".
And if you STILL want to deny your own argument, just for the sake of continuing the argument, read your own words about Jesus "In the days of Noe"...
If your argument all along has been that supernatural phenomena aren't dependent on natural explanations, then someone has been logging on with your username to flame strangers.
I didn't use that to "prove" God's existence. I used that to show how figurative interpretations of literal people, places, & events create logical contradictions that even non-believers recognize. I agree with Dawkins that anyone brought up in the Christian faith who believes Adam & Eve were only symbolic must be barking mad. Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual?
@matchlock "And now you're putting your own strawman in quotes, as if I said it"
To clear the record, I admit that you were quoting me:
@matchlock "...skip your stupid mandate to prove God's existence using naturalism"
Since you followed that with, "Who've we been talking to for the past 3 years?", you obviously believe that I am trying "to prove God's existence using naturalism", since you use that statement to label me. I contest that I am not trying to prove God's existence.
Just "clarifying"(???) your stance here - so you agree with the world's leading anti-supernaturalist, and atheist Dawkins that you can't be a Christian AND believe that some parts of the Bible use symbolism?
Loaves & fishes, talking animals, conjuring tricks for Pharaoh, talking bushes, walking-dead saints, water/wine, water-walking, forbidden fruit trees, are ALL actual things?
"Aaron's story can easily be explained naturalistically. A previous calf mold may have existed...."
"A natural explanation for Jesus walking on water was that he actually stood on sand in a shallow area. A similar explanation for Israel crossing the Red Sea: a shallow marsh. You are right to criticize such naturalistic explanations which only create bigger problems: Pharaoh's army drowned in shallow water & big waves almost capsized the disciples' boat in 2" of water."
I prefer Pascal's philosophy 'People are usually more convinced by reasons they discovered themselves than those found by others'.".
So you're saying all my questions about why you post naturalistic guff, and quote from science, despite 'finding Jesus' 'unmolested by others', were just a waste of effort, aimed at someone who already agreed with me?
I may have admit to myself I've been had by an internet troll who doesn't care WHAT the disagreement is, as long as there IS one.
@atechworld "You failed again. One need not prove God's existence to author a science book, form a hypothesis,"
1. I can't ever fail against a dishonest fundie.
2. My point was that since you have no scientific evidence or anything else, your faith about the flintstones is made even weaker by the fact that there is no evidence for Yahweh.
@atechworld "No. Evolutionists do just the opposite."
I use the term "appearance" in the sense that I rationally, objectively & unbiasedly (as much as is possible) determine my beliefs, and you attempt to conflate that with Dawkins statement about the physical design of life.
Are you really this stupid? I mean... ARE YOU REALLY THIS STUPID?
I mean, it's so obvious that i'm not using the term "appear" in the sense that Dawkins is. Are you being dishonest (AGAIN) or are you...THAT STUPID! Lol..
@QuantumGh0st "what I rationally, objectively & unbiasedly... determine my beliefs"
You'd be more objective if you weren't from this planet or better yet, universe. If you were a true "outsider", and observed that earth's statues, arrowheads, automobiles, computers & software were all produced by sentient intelligent beings, would you deduct the same for humans or would you make an exception for them? I don't think you can answer without first knowing how you were created.
@atechworld One proposal is "Man is so complex that an uber intelligence was required to make him." Since no one can find hide nor hair of this uber intelligence it is claimed to somehow possess this uber intelligence without being complex itself & no one can prove this statement wrong.
The other proposal is that complexity accumulates & tech allows new tech that wasn't previously possible & continuously self compounds.This has been observed
You said that I said this: "You can't control a system that is more complex than yourself.'
And then responded to it. I'm not aware that I had a conversation like this. If you want to make a point that you think supports creationism, then I'll gladly debunk it.
Please refresh my memory or make your case crystal clear so that I can smash it.
@RogerS4JC "You haven't explained how limited response elements can do the constructing."
Lol...The whole objection is that your use of the word limited has no relative basis. You need to explain why atoms alone are unable to perform (x).
All we can currently know for certain is that we are atoms & we can reason. So unless you can A) indicate something other than atoms that makes reasoning valid, and B) why atoms are not sufficient...then your argument is useless.
Your variable (x) is truly variable and can be virtually most anything can't it? It is only limited by your imagination but unfortunately, that is all it is good for, imagination.
This is a classic example of burden of proof fallacy. If I played that card, I could claim, "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does." Your predictable response would be Lol, Lol!!! So dittos on that response.
@RogerS4JC "Your variable (x) is truly variable and can be virtually most anything can't it?"
Lol,...No, (x) is what you defined. You doubted that atoms are efficient to give rise to a reasoning mind, but have failed to explain why.
"This is a classic example of burden of proof fallacy."
No my very very very dim fundie friend.Let me help you: We know that we are made of atoms & we know that we can reason. That's my case made. it is YOUR burden to indicate the extra necessities. Good luck.
@QuantumGh0st "it is^YOUR burden^to indicate^the extra^necessities.[QGhOst's Atom to Human Evolution]
Atom Biological State:
The "necessities" are not easily understood. Atoms entering the biological state and evolving to humans requires millions of years. Fairies are very weak, small, and invisible. As they guide atoms toward meaningful arrangements, progress is very slow due to imperceptible weak forces and progress. They only make design mistakes from too much fairy ale.
@RogerS4JC "The "necessities" are not easily understood."
You're entire comment is an evasion & provides no rebuttal to my point. You haven't proven that atoms are insufficient for doing logic, proven that something else other than atoms is present, or explained how your crap about fairies has anything to do with anything. Please explain so that I can trample you.
The burden of proof for "necessities" resting on me to support your claim of "atoms to humans" by some inherent "biological state" properties of atoms because "we ARE atoms" is pure rubbish.
Similar to a begging the question fallacy: ..."an arguer might use phraseology that conceals the fact that the conclusion is masquerading as a premise." wiki
I could claim that metals tend toward complexity and given time will take various forms like watches & calipers. lol.
@RogerS4JC "I could claim that metals tend toward complexity and given time will take various forms like watches & calipers. lol."
No, my very dim bulb of a debater. You still haven't proven why atoms are insufficient or why your mythology enables proper use of reason. You've utterly failed, and so keep trying to evade and divert.
You seem to be confusing different arguments because you're so dumb. This debate wasn't about "atoms to humans". It was about the validity of logic. Lol....
Science does not simply assume claims are true with no explanation until critics prove it false. The one proposing the claim needs to put forth a reasonable explanation to support the claim (i.e. atoms build by themselves in some "biological state").
It fits 2 fallacies:
1.(shifting the) Burden of proof – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
2.Correlation does not imply causation fallacy -wiki
@RogerS4JC "The one proposing the claim needs to put forth a reasonable explanation to support the claim (i.e. atoms build by themselves in some "biological state")."
The one proposing the claim was you, not me. As it stands, all we can see is atoms doing interesting things apparently without intervention. Now i'm not asserting that there isn't an external influence, I'm saying that there is no evidence for one. You were the one who unjustifiably asserted that atoms are insufficient.
@RogerS4JC "I never made the claim atoms ever do these "interesting things" without being acted upon by life e.g. "life only comes from life."
Your original challenge was borrowed from atech. You asked why we should trust our ability to perform logical reasoning if we are just "mere" atoms. I responded by asking you why you didn't think atoms were sufficient--you never responded.
@RogerS4JC "1.Burden of proof (shifting the) – I need not^prove my^claim, you^must prove^it is false"
Then you don't understand the burden of proof. The burden is on the asserter. I am certainly not obliged to disprove your assertions any more than you are obliged to disprove my assertions e.g. that there's a teapot orbiting Jupiter.
My bad. Us kidds shood neaver kestion da teccher.
Now I will go to the chalk board and write 100 Xs, "Teacher says minerals can assemble into Michelangelo's David, it is my responsibility to prove why not. I was very bad to doubt teachers beliefs."
@RogerS4JC "The match is very simple except for those in strong delusion & such childish denials: You said, I didn't say, not mine, your responsibility."
If you don't want to follow the very simple rules of universal discourse, then go & have an exchange with someone on that level. If you say that something other than the atomic brain is required for logically reasoning then it is up to you to validate your claim with evidence. Neither I, no anyone else, has to dismiss baseless assertions.
@RogerS4JC "The burden of proof for "necessities" resting on me to support your claim of "atoms to humans" by some inherent "biological state" properties of atoms because "we ARE atoms" is pure rubbish."
Only to someone with minimal intelligence. This is very very very simple. Currently, all we can know for certain is that we are made of atoms and that we can perform logical reasoning. Therefore, it is your responsibility to indicate what else is necessary.
@QuantumGh0st "all^we can know^for certain is^that we are^made of^atoms & that we^can perform^logical reasoning."
Correlation doesn't imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other. -wiki
E.g. We know of atoms, man is composed of atoms, therefore atoms possess all that is necessary to arrange into humans by themselves.
You solved it! Can't wait to read your book! (Or do I need to write it?)
@RogerS4JC "E.g. We know of atoms, man is composed of atoms, therefore atoms possess all that is necessary to arrange into humans by themselves."
But again, that's not what I did. It may be that something other than atoms is necessary, but as it stands there is no indication of this something. We know that a brain is a collection of atoms that was designed by evolution to understand it's environment. That said, I see good reason to believe that an atomic brain is solely sufficient.
Atoms themselves have great complexity, utility, capability, tremendous energy (controlled), & therefore reflect a purpose as the periodic table provides a complete tool set worthy to be attributed to the all powerful God I serve.
However, regardless the potential such a tool set has, constructs with meaning & greater purposes such as MS windows & DNA don't materialize over time.
@RogerS4JC "Similar to a begging the question fallacy:"
Lol... No, nothing of the sort.
"I could claim that metals tend toward complexity and given time will take various forms like watches & calipers. lol."
LOL LOL LOL, YOU'RE STILL(!!!!!!!!!!) ATTEMPTING THE WATCHMAKER ARGUMENT AFTER I'VE, NOT ONLY DESTROYED IT, BUT, PROVEN THAT IT WORKS AGAINST YOU IN MORE WAYS THAN IT DOESN'T (EVEN IF IT WAS VALID (WHICH IT ISN'T))
Roger, you are actually the dumbest person I've ever known.
@atechworld "Those who serve it must learn to lap it" etc...
Your comment is a response to the fact that you're projecting, but your response, itself, is, too, a straw man projection. I NEVER claimed to know HOW life formed. What I've done is present a good argument that life probably arose naturally, evolutionarily, and from pre-existing material. This was achieved via simple philosophical and scientific evidences.
You still have nothing but personal faith & have defeated your own arguments.
@QuantumGh0st "[I presented] a good argument that life probably arose naturally"
I must have missed it. Did your explanation meet the criteria for methodological naturalism where life from non-life is observed & repeated in a lab or is it more wishful thinking like these folks offered:
@matchlock "we'll be putting it all together in no time"
@StevenABenner "getting molecules to make copies of themselves (which is a basic trait of life) could become a reality in a few years."
@atechworld When you hang your hat on a 'god of the gaps' argument do you run the risk that science will close that gap? Are you in effect "gambling on god"? I hate to ask but what will you hang you hat on if that horrible day comes? Do you switch sides?
You didn't because you failed to respond & refute anything that I said. I even showed you how your own watchmaker arguments work against you.
"Did your explanation meet the criteria for methodological naturalism where life from non-life is observed & repeated"
Who ever suggested that? I proved that everything else points to the scientific view & completely contradicts your idea. That's all I set out to achieve.
@QuantumGh0st "I proved that everything else points to the scientific view"
Non-living matter organizing itself into living systems with no outside intelligence, but only laws of nature, has never been observed, replicated, or proven. You have nothing but conjecture & wishful thinking:
@atechworld "Non-living matter organizing itself into living systems with no outside intelligence, but only laws of nature, has never been observed, replicated, or proven. You have nothing but conjecture & wishful thinking:"
Firstly, why are you cherry picking intelligence again when the physical, progressive and pre-existing material factors are just as necesary LOL LOL LOL? And, Again, I've proven that everything points to natural abio, and contradicts your myth. Care to have a rematch?
@QuantumGh0st "the physical, progressive and pre-existing material factors are just as necesary"
Indeed they're just as necessary as intelligence. But without intelligence, building materials + rain + wind + sun + gravity + magnetism + any other physical law isn't going to build you a living cell. Some guy said beryl crystal is like DNA gyrase. How close is beryl to life? 0% if we round it? Can you cite something closer to life that forms naturally without intelligence?
@matchlock "Prions are organic molecules that replicate"
Are prions dependent on cells or do you think cells evolved from prions? Wikipedia's "Abiogenesis" says nothing about them. If prions could be integrated into the abiogenesis hypothesis, would that increase or decrease the number of "may have", "could have", and "might have" phrases? Where on this earth do prions most often spontaneously generate?
"Are prions dependent on cells"? Yes. "or do you think cells evolved from prions"? Impossible. (What's the relevance)?
"Wikipedia's abiogenesis says nothing about them". You wouldn't go to Wiki for your info on origins, anyway, (too many 'maybes' in the many hypotheses, as you often illogically and comedically like to mention).
"Where on earth do prions most often spontaneously generate"?
Do they do that? I wish I knew. Pencil me in. I want to see humans do it too.
3) you don't know where/if prions spontaneously generate
If you believe life could have started as a self-assembling organic molecule, but cells didn't evolve from prions and the chicken-or-egg problem presents itself since prions depend on cells, AND you don't even know if prions can spontaneously generate, then how do prions support or relate to the abiogenesis hypothesis?
@matchlock "You spent an entire post explaining..."
I spent an entire post leading up to a question and it was worth it. I now have more knowledge about the unrelatedness of prions to the abiogenesis hypothesis. And I learned more about your limitations as a teacher.
@atechworld "I spent an entire post leading up to a question and it was worth it."
No, you lied. Matchlock responded validly and all you could do was move the goal posts like the dishonest scumbag that you are. We can all see your trickery.
"...AND you don't even know if prions can spontaneously generate".
This is incorrect. I know they can't (well, I'm quietly confident they can't).
So just think it through - a new prion is formed FROM an organic molecule, BY the actions/properties of another prion, which has ZERO, ZIP, NIL intelligence, guidance, purpose or paycheck.
Just like a creator that forgets that enabling sin will make men.......SINFUL! (strangely enough) thereby requiring their immediate liquidation.
Sure, I'll give you a quick teaser before finishing you off as your claims get more specific & thus easier to debunk. I'll qucikly respond your assertions using the numbers you applied to them.
1. The universe is finite, life emerged after the universe & so life must've come from non-life.
2. So you've contradicted the idea that a human came from a God.
3. There is design and we've observed natural section doing it. Where is your designer?
It seems that the logic portion of your brain is wanting. This may be the reason you have fallen for beliefs that seem right, but with closer inspection fall apart.
You have a major logic fallacy starting with reasoning out the beginning in #1.
Universe (emerged void of life) = X
Life = Y
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation not causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.
@RogerS4JC "It seems that the logic portion of your brain is wanting."
Coming from someone that has just attempted the watchmaker argument (AGAIN) after it was refuted years ago. But let's give you a chance, nevertheless.
And Atech throughly refuted Dawkin's falsely supporting 'Weasel Program' in 'The Blind Watchmaker' a while back. Against Atech's computer code skills, Dawkins program fallacy had little chance for survival; something like survival of the fittest. ;)
The experiment you speak of was never intended to be perfectly analogous to biological evolution, but to simply demonstrate the power of cumulative selection as compared to random selection, and show the complete unrealism of the popular notion of natural selection as "monkeys pounding on typewriters".
'Preliminary reports of sedimentation experiments held at Glen Rose, Texas, March 2007'
See rotary flume experiment results showing multiple layers laid down, complex cross-bedding was produced & verified by water action. Other effects observed in geology.
Videos of it in action:
ianjuby. org/sedimentation/ (remove space)
Also, "Archimedes," a specially designed & constructed liquefaction tank. Demonstrations can also be seen in a video. Enjoy.
RogerS4JC 2 days ago
Solar Maximum Peak: 2011-2013
On Jan 23rd around 0359 UT, big sunspot 1402 erupted, producing a long-duration M9-class solar flare. The explosion's M9-ranking puts it on the threshold of being an X-flare, the most powerful kind. SpaceWeather. com
NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory caught an extreme ultraviolet flash from a huge eruption on the sun.."There is little doubt that the cloud is heading in the general direction of Earth," Space. com
RogerS4JC 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QuantumGh0st "You were^the one that^asserted without^evidence that^we should ^doubt the ability^of 'mere' atoms."
You bet, because no such tendency is observed. Only when elements are allocated by micro living machines bearing information & acted upon by such machines do they begin to resemble components of life. Remove all life or remnants of life from elements and they exhibit no such "biological state" or tendency to begin arrangement toward anything close to life AT ALL.
RogerS4JC 1 week ago
Comment removed
RogerS4JC 1 week ago
is waiting for one of the two idiots to try the watchmaker fallacy again.
These fundie's have nothing.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st
Here's one for you
A loaf of bread.
If I give the scientists a loaf of bread. They would hypothesize about how bread could happen on its own. They would have all these theories on how that could happen naturally.
But of course could never prove it. Sound familiar.
So they take the materials for bread into the lab and set up all the correct conditions, and surprise, they get bread. That is creation. Does it show that bread could happen on its own? NO.
MrDunsapy 1 week ago
@MrDunsapy "Does it show that bread could happen on its own? NO."
Lol...Why would it? Bread isn't self replicating & is not subject to natural selection.
The watchmaker fallacy is being re-presented as bread now, in the world of creationism. Lol...
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st The loaf of bread is a good example, because it is all natural,and something scientists, could play around with. I would use life ( cell) but at this point they can not do it.The amount of ID in a cell is beyond them, still. But I think they are getting closer.
So with the scientists, we have a hypothesis, ('evolution' )that demands another hypothesis ('abiogenesis') be non creation. That is circular thinking and not scientific.
Really, creation and science , are the same thing.
MrDunsapy 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy "The loaf of bread is a good example"
An example of what? The fact that bread doesn't form without a baker indicates what exactly?
"I would use life ( cell) but at this point they can not do it.The amount of ID in a cell is beyond them, still. But I think they are getting closer."
And...people creating cells proves what? People can create fire but that doesn't prove that all fires require people.
"The amount of ID in a cell"
You haven't proven that complexity always indicates ID
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st - " . Not knowing or seeing things doesn't leave a gap for whatever personal religion you have culturally adopted."
Well, that applies to atheists like you actually. Not knowing or seeing things doesn't mean the 'natural selection of naturalism' of separation of Church and State educated culture. Study the 'evolution chart'. From the 'Cambrain to the Holocene' are 101 'stages'. In fact, some museums and universities treat from Paloeocene to Holocene as if 'Periods'.
Aresthanas 6 days ago
@Aresthanas "Not knowing or seeing things doesn't mean the 'natural selection of naturalism' "
I agree. All I can say is that natural explanations exist, but the supernatural has never been indicated.
QuantumGh0st 6 days ago
@QuantumGh0st "Bread isn't self replicating & is not subject to natural selection"
Amino acids in a prebiotic soup have no affinity for assembling into functional proteins. The odds of getting one of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance is no better than 1 in 10^164. That's 84 orders of magnitude smaller than the probability of finding 1 marked particle (proton, neutron, or electron) in the whole universe. (source: Stephen C. Meyer, "Signature in the Cell", pg. 212)
atechworld 23 hours ago
@atechworld "Amino acids in a prebiotic..."
Once again the response doesn't respond to the heading. Why do you two fundies select a heading & then refuse to respond to it...
Meyer is a known liar, and his work is seen as poor among his peers. Meyer's (and others) rant about the impossibility of abio is a straw man & statistical fallacy. Talk Origins deals with it nicely.
QuantumGh0st 5 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy
"If I give the scientists a loaf of bread. They would hypothesize about how bread could happen on its own."
Why would they do that when we already know humans make bread? Use another analogy, your current one is flawed.
Let me give an example:
I give scientists a piece of diamond (in its natural form). Scientists eventually replicate this diamond...That's creation! Tada! How about eroded rocks? Scientists replicate erosion on rocks, TADA! Erosion can't happen on its own!
TurboDally 5 days ago
@TurboDally "I give scientists a piece of diamond (in its natural form). Scientists eventually replicate this diamond...That's creation! Tada! How about eroded rocks? Scientists replicate erosion on rocks, TADA! Erosion can't happen on its own!"
Fantastic-debunking-analogy! Well done.
QuantumGh0st 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QuantumGh0st "1 of the 2 idiots try^the watchmaker^fallacy again.
These^fundie's have^nothing"
An old belief:
Epicurus Atomist Theory 341–270BC:
"Denying any divine sanction for morality, & holding that the experience of pleasure & pain are the source of all value, Epicurus thought we can learn from atomist philosophy that pursuing natural & necessary pleasures...that our fears of the gods & of death are groundless will free us from our chief mental pains." plato. standford. edu
RogerS4JC 6 days ago
@matchlock "[atech tries to justify his] supernatural belief using naturalistic models"
Charles Darwin tried to justify supernatural belief using natural human logic. I say "natural" because evolutionists believe that non-intelligent physical laws of NATURE assembled matter into human logic.
"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty (CONT)
atechworld 1 week ago
or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist." — Charles Darwin
atechworld 1 week ago
So we're reduced to talking to internet flamers, who claim to laugh and hold their sides, and bang desks, and have a riotously good time don't-you-know, but who never wanted to interfere with other people making decisions on their own (they just help with presenting "both" sides).
Atech is reduced to admitting he never deliberately tried to justify his belief with hydroplates, moonponds, herbivorous cats etc, and rog, the court clown, reckons bones that stink must be new.
Holy spit.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matchlock "[atech] tried to justify his belief with hydroplates"
See how well evolutionists are justified in their belief using plate tectonics:
Search with quotes "Table 3. Evidence vs. Theories"
"Faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them." - Blaise Pascal
atechworld 1 week ago
@atechworld "I don't need to prove my religious beliefs in the context of methodological naturalism than Darwin needed to prove his which he voiced in the last sentence of Origin of Species:"
Right, and Darwin's last sentence (if even meant literally) is not a scientific theory. Certain aspects of his work have been verified, and that's all that counts.
Nothing of yours has been verified. Nothing. There is no evidence that your God exists, and most Christians reject YEC. You have nothing.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st "There is no evidence that your God exists"
You failed again. One need not prove God's existence to author a science book, form a hypothesis, or build an earth or life science theory. Look at Darwin. Though he had personal religious beliefs, he skipped the origin of life issue in "Origin of Species". Obviously, his idea of God bent him toward a naturalistic position in life's origin but his theory addressed only CHANGE of preexisting life over time. (CONT)
atechworld 1 week ago
Creationists can maintain their religious beliefs, skip your stupid mandate to prove God's existence using naturalism, and address CHANGE OVER TIME. The wind favors us, not you. I can cite plenty of evidence where our religious convictions allow us to be led by intuition and your convictions force you to choose counterintuitively. See my post entitled "WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?"
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"...skip your stupid mandate to prove God's existence using naturalism".
Holy snapping duck-billed crocobat sonar, it's-still-a-gnat-man.
Who've we been talking to for the past 3 years?
Only 2 possiblities - a schizophrenic homebound denialist world-hater, or the end result of a successful campaign of truth and logic.
I don't think atech's given up trolling just yet, so I'd have to say he's schizophrenic.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock "Who've we been talking to for the past 3 years?"
Maybe yourself or some comforting self-created strawman?
@atechworld to @types10000 one year ago:
"If you interpreted my referencing Newton as evidence for you to "believe" in God's existence, then please cease that interpretation. I prefer Pascal's philosophy: "People are usually more convinced by reasons they discovered themselves than by those found by others."
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"Maybe yourself or some comforting self-created strawman?".
No, pretty sure we been talking to you,
Hold your right hand up, and keep it up until something doesn't register with you : hydroplates, ventilation in arks via moonpools, white genetically superior peacock kinds, protein-plant eating giant cheetahs, earth debris hitting the farside of the moon, natural polyploids, dino DNA, 2nd law of TD, entropy, marsupial treks through China....
No, it was definitely you, wise one.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock [atech uses hydroplates to prove God's existence using naturalism]
Hopefully I paraphrased your thoughts correctly. Hydroplates can't prove God's existence anymore than Darwin's theory of evolution proves naturalism (nothing exists beyond the natural universe). Scientific ideas need not be scientifically derived. Such is the case with hydroplates (idea derived from Bible), and the ring shape of benzene molecules (shape revealed to Friedrich Kekulé by a dream).
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"Hopefully I paraphrased your thoughts correctly".
Yeah right. Since you use the word "prove", and give it a context, then talk about the problems with "proof", we can see you can't lie straight in bed.
(We should run a book on when your first honest post will appear).
You are (and I repeat) trying to justify your supernatural belief using naturalistic models.
Hydroplates are to bible, and benzene rings are to dreams, what lotto numbers are to cloud shapes.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock [atech tries to justify his supernatural belief with naturalistic models]
If multiple ancient documents tell about a global flood & one set of documents with the greatest detail puts it at 2304 BC +/- 11 years, should I not investigate the veracity of that claim? If I find coal, oil & gas miles below earth's surface that is best explained by burial of plants & animals instead of the defunct abiogenic hypothesis, should I be ashamed for doubting uniformitarianism?
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"If multiple ancient documents tell about a global flood".
Typical creo tactic. You mean "...tell about global floodS" of course, just the same as multiple ancient documents 'tell about godS' (not A god, certainly not YOUR god).
How many global floods were there, you might ask?
As many as there are accounts of them.
We have never located a single skerrick of evidence for such an event, so none of them can be entertained seriously.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matchlock "You mean "...tell about global floodS"
Yes of course. The different languages, cultures, traditions, etc. could make one event look like many. E.g. Records of Abraham sacrificing his son could mistakenly be interpreted as 2 events: Hebrew account: Issac offered; Mohammed's account Ishmael offered. The Epic of Gilgamesh flood story is poetry with a cubical ark; The Hebrew (& more detailed) account is prose with ideal ark length/width ratio like modern transport vessels.
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"You mean " tell about global floodS"...
"Yes of course."
You rarely concede anything (unless it suits you), so why now?
Maybe you could relay the information to other fundies?
Many accounts, many floods, many gods.
It's surprising you didn't see this earlier??
Fundies and logic don't mix, I realize, but to think that the many differences between accounts is strong evidence for the few similarities seems absurd in the extreme.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock "multiple ancient documents 'tell about godS"
True. The Bible is such a document. When Jacob fled from Laban, Laban accused him of theft: "wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?" (Gen 31:30)
I personally think manufactured gods are a substitute for reality - like porn for a wife.
"Socrates often refers to God in the singular as opposed to the plural and actively rejected the Greek pantheon of Gods and Goddesses unless citing them as examples of their falseness." - Wiki
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"I personally think manufactured gods are a substitute for reality...".
I agree.
Any god (Singular or Plural) manufactured to take the place of reality should be consigned to the waste bin, and its victims allowed to contribute in practical terms to positive outcomes.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock [god(s) manufactured to take the place of reality are fit for the waste bin]
You rarely concede anything. Maybe you could relay this to @geminis & @mimikawaii
@g [Science is] maybe similar to a (GOD) like being
@m Science is [preferred] to their primitive gods
@g Science...stands by facts and truth as a belief system
@m Science is so beautiful
@g indeed is very greatly Beautiful & Amazing
@m we will only be free to evolve... when religion will be eliminated
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"Maybe you could relay this to gemins & mimkawali".
Who are they? Why would I? And relay what, exactly?
That your god, like the other manufactured ones, is a substitute for reality, and should be headed for the waste bin?
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@atech
"...one set of documents with the greatest detail"...
"Set" of documents? Can you clarify?
"Greatest detail"? In what sense? Online flood-myth comparisons don't show this. Can you explain?
"...puts it at 2304 BC+/- 11 years....".
Based on what method? Radio-dating? Eye witness? Geology? Astronomy? Ages of patriarchs who allegedly lived for many centuries?
Clearly, you're a lunatic, not to be trusted alone with unsuspecting children, but maybe you can put a better spin on this?
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock [Clarify "Set" of documents &. "Greatest detail"]
The manuscript evidence for Genesis is more than one document. There is a Hebrew Masoretic text, a Greek text (Septuagint) , numerous codices of both, Dead Sea scrolls, etc. Genesis provides detail of the flood that few realize.
Google with quotes "Table 22. Log of the Flood Year"
The surprising amount of chronological detail is derived in Gen 7 & 8 alone & doesn't even touch Gen 6, ark dim, constr, cargo or passengers.
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"The manuscript evidence for Genesis is more than one document".
Blantantly incorrect.
You mean to say, honest one, and leader of the One True Way, that there are many versions of an ancient religious document, some of which contradict slightly, and others of which contradict strongly (Esp Gen 6 &7 !!!).
Its original authorship is unknown.
The "details" are assertions in religious writing, and are woefully incomplete compared to creation/rebirth myths around the world.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock 'there are many versions of an ancient religious document"
I'm glad that we agree:
@atech "The manuscript evidence for Genesis is more than one document" - Masoretic text, Septuagint, numerous codices, Dead Sea scrolls, etc.
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"...any versions of an ancient religious document"..."Im glad that we agree" .
You're what that we what, now?
The Masoretic text, Septuagint, DS scrolls etc are all versions of the one document. They don't add to the evidence for its (truth?/validity?/inerrancy?), any more than the various translations of "The War of the Worlds" makes it a historical document.
You ain't the sharpest tool in the shed, is ya atech?
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock "The Masoretic text, Septuagint, DS scrolls etc are all versions of the one document"
I'm glad that we agree:
@atech "The manuscript evidence for Genesis is more than one document"
@matchlock "They don't add to the evidence for its [truth/validity/inerrancy]"
They most certainly do. If an argument was made that Israel's history was fabricated after 100 BC, that argument would fail because of the manuscript evidence adding to the historical validity.
atechworld 6 days ago
@atech
"They most certainly do".
If you say so.
I can send you hundreds of different tellings of the vast geological age of the earth. These add to the evidence numerically., and there are different language variations too.
Vast age of the earth is as good as confirmed.
I'm glad that we agree.
matchlockfun 6 days ago
@matchlock "I [have 100's] of different tellings of the vast geological age of the earth"
I don't doubt that.
"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations." - Sir Karl Popper
Once you theorized that I kept a log of your posting habits so I could schedule my posts during your absence. We know that jealous or desperate people like Aldous Huxley can always find confirmations. See Wiki's "List of cognitive biases"
atechworld 4 days ago
@atech
"(hundreds of different tellings of the vast geological age of the earth"...
"I don't doubt that....'It is easy to obtain confirmations.....'...."
Yes. Does this sound familiar?
"The manuscript evidence for Genesis is more than one document"(atech).
"They don't add to the evidence for its [truth/validity/inerrancy]"(MLF).
"They most certainly do"(atech).
"If you say so"(MLF).
Fantastic comedy, wise atech, if just slightly immature, dare i say?
matchlockfun 3 days ago
@matchlock "2304 BC+/- 11 years... Based on what method?"
Obviously not radiometric since Jack Horner won't allow it for the dating of supposed 70 myo preserved T. rex tissues (presumed by creationists to be near the time of the flood). And considering that, "All of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments that we've done don't allow for this.", we shouldn't base our dating on such a questionable foundation.
Search "The Date of Noah’s Flood" by Dr John Osgood
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"Obviously not radiometric since Jack Horner won't allow".
Now now, good christian, this childishly petulant tantrum doesn't do you any favors.
It's not even relevant - unless you feel you answer to Horner's 'edicts'?
If he won't send some of his property to be destructively tested by people who ALREADY KNOW what result they want (and how they will use it), more power to him!!
Get your own samples, do your own tests, little boy, stop blaming others.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock "If [Jack Horner] won't send some of his property to be destructively tested"
You are disingenuous. Schweitzer's T. rex bone was ALREADY sawed in half. The required amount of bone (extractable without destroying its value for museum display) is only 2-10 grams for AMS analysis. Horner himself said, "We're still trying to figure out what the actual soft tissue is", but he forbids C14 dating. If he doesn't know what it is, how can he logically discount C14 testing?
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"You are disingenuous".
The disingenuous one would be the one who thinks that the only bone available for testing belongs to Horner, or that the only fossil with original minerals is that one "sawed in half".
But you're not disingenuous - you're dishonest. We've established that clearly (you make it very evident).
Anything trapped in 80myo rock is too old for C dating.
He knows the creos will use the errant results (between 5 to 12 X the desired creo date) to create mischief.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock "Anything trapped in 80myo rock is too old for C dating"
We know the approximate date of the sandstone Schweitzer's bone was trapped in by the preservation quality of the T. rex tissue: < 15,000 years old:
atechworld. com/creationism/BioPreserve.pdf
See Table 1, Collagen, 20° C
This makes sense because of similar repeated findings. E.g. "Endogenous Proteins Found in 70 myo Mosasaur"
atechworld 4 days ago
@atech
"We know the approximate age of the sandstone Schweitzer's bone was found in by the preservation quality of the T-rex tissue".
LOLOLOL
Yes. We can date landfill by the quality of the foodstuffs left in it.
Your "science" is tremendous - some might call it 'backwards', but it's entertaining nevertheless.
So one branch of science has presumed the decay rate of a certain tissue based on known conditions, and this presumption is to be used by creos to turn geology on its head.
LOL
matchlockfun 3 days ago
@atech
Be sure, when you're re-writing the geological sciences, to include C14 dating of these fossils, because that will help confirm a recent flood. And make sure you explain how you learnt it (Collagen is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY CONFIRMED BY OTHER SCIENCE TO BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAINLY UNABLE TO LAST MORE THAN 15000 years buried in rock).
Well done on your fabulous armchair research.
(Careful to ignore the formaldehyde/oxidising lignite odor at that location).
LOLOL
matchlockfun 3 days ago
@atech
"...should I be ashamed for doubting uniformitarianism".
The fantastic irony here is that the creofrauds love to put the big kibosh on uniformitarianism, yet depend on it UTTERLY for their naturalistic explanations for supernatural claims.
By the way, it was creationist geologists who in the 19th century first realized & documented that the earth was very, very old.
Creos must have been more honest in those days, because they could NOT deny what they saw.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock [19th century creationist geologists documented that the earth was very old]
Those men lived in an era where human reason was increasingly elevated to the supreme place of authority for determining truth. They succumbed & tried to reinterpret the scripture to accommodate the new authority. These new interpretations included the gap & day-age theories. They abandoned fundamentalism. Fortunately, the story didn't end there: (CONT)
atechworld 1 week ago
"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition." - Issac Newton 1642-1727
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
(Re creationist geologists documenting a very, very old earth).
"Those men lived in an era where reason was....".
It's odd, isn't it, that you have also posted lists of "Scientists who were creationists", and when we reply with "Project Steve", you don't accept that the 'era' of their lifetime is at all relevant.
Yet these religious men, deeply imbued with a centuries-held belief in a recent creation/flood, WERE UNABLE TO LIE to confirm it, and instead documented what they saw
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock "when we reply with "Project Steve", you don't accept..."
There is a difference between contributing to the advancement of science and signing a petition stating you endorse evolution. Any Tom, Dick, or Steve can sign a petition.
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"There is a difference between contributing to the advancement of science and signing a petition".
A few points, wise one:
1) The "scientists who signed YOUR petition are often engineers & chemists.
2) Many of them were tricked into signing by the variations in the wording.
3) You know nothing about contributing to science (despite your intense "R & D" work, the quality of which is found on your cottage business homepage.
4) the 1100 Steves outnumber your duped engineers 4-1.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock "The "scientists who signed YOUR petition"
To my knowledge, Newton, Faraday, & Maxwell didn't resort to signing petitions for gathering scientific consensus. That's what I like about the hard sciences over the soft ones like Darwinian evolution — billions of years ago, we agree that such & such may have happened.
"This fascinating tale begins with a very big bang, and ends with you reading this article today on our website." — kidsbiology. com
atechworld 4 days ago
@atech
"To my knowledge, Newton, Faraday ....etc etc".
Your appeal to authority is yet another diversion from all the unanswered questions.
No doubt Newton the alchemist and many others were't able to sign a creationist petition because those creo-fundies weren't around yet to use their "Deep & Applied Science" tactic ('Please sign our petition - say you're one of us, huh. please?) on these men who used NO religion in their scientific endeavors.
Your logic is disgraceful, wise one.
matchlockfun 3 days ago
@matchlock [Newton & others] were't able to sign a creationist petition"
This is all the signature I need: "Though these bodies may, indeed, continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Isaac Newton
(CONT)
atechworld 3 days ago
The above text is from Newton's Principia which is "justly regarded as one of the most important works in the history of science" & "so far exceeded anything that had ever gone before that it stood alone as the ultimate exemplar of science". His words certainly aren't an endorsment of your materialistic philosophy.
atechworld 3 days ago
@atech
You know, it's a funny thing.
When I left this forum last night, I had pointed out how your "young collagen' argument was slapped in the face by the same scientists you were using as ammunition.
I left you with your own very obvious self-contradiction regarding lists of "creation-believing scientists". And I left you with your own ridiculously clear hypocrisy regarding the use and abuse of various Buble versions.
Imagine my smile when I see a dozen angry posts on OTHER topics.
matchlockfun 2 days ago
@matchlock
When I left this forum last night, something funny crossed my mind. You effectively believe that matter assimilates itself into life & computers: primordial soup -> macromolecule -> protocell -> prokaryotic cell (bacteria) -> eukaryotic cell -> mufti-cellular organism -> fish -> amphibian -> mammal -> human -> humans build IBM Blue Gene computer. Therefore, non-intelligent matter turns into humans & supercomputers by non-intelligent causes. This is both funny & sad.
atechworld 2 days ago
@atech
"You effectively believe that...".
Atech, you believe in PRECISELY the same thing. EXCEPT that you think it couldn't have begun without the input of a supernatural being (whose actions you believe can be explained naturalistically), with a poor memory, many regrets, and a tendency to choose some people and slaughter the others (AND their pets, AND wild animals, AND trees etc).
This isn't sad, it's just plain funny, because I feel zero empathy for you and your ilk.
matchlockfun 1 day ago
@atech
You'll be aware, good christian fisher of strawmen, that the creation "model" is so full of apologetics, concessions to the no-longer-arguable, and infighting between the various creo groups, that it is a fuzzy target.
Anti-creos don't know what to attack, as they intend, because they don't admit any firm model. See what I mean :
Abiogenesis = assisted, vestiges = not wasted/reusable, evolution = adaptation, clades = kinds.
And all to "save us" from their own god's violence?
matchlockfun 1 day ago
@atech
I can't be bothered addressing your little diversions piecemeal, though some of them will amuse me.
I'm just going to post a few times to move your arguments from incredulity down the page, and I'll revisit those more important questions in the future.
You must feel like that emperor with the new clothes - knowing beyond any doubt that the regular posters can see exactly who you are.
So as you prance around here naked, trying to impress any new readers, I'll try to help you.
matchlockfun 2 days ago
@matchlock "I can't be bothered addressing your little diversions"
You're funny: "Matchlockfun is semi-retired, and has decided to contribute by exposing fundamentalists" I'm keeping you employed. In the last week alone, you bothered yourself no less than 67 times in addressing me.
atechworld 2 days ago
@atechworld You may need to consider that he also is addressing other's "little diversions" besides your 67 received answers. With much fewer responses to us, it is ironic that you appear to be his life's effort & focus of attention. Actually, I would say it is from torment about his own destiny and with his time running out, I hope at some point he gains understanding that he possess a soul & sees like we do that it is crying out loudly.
RogerS4JC 2 days ago
@Rog
"...I would say it is from torment".
No, we look forward to showing you creeps for what you are IMMENSELY.
We are about to start a book here - on when atech will post his first honest, non-ridiculous statement.
Unfortunately, you don't figure in our estimations, rog, because you are so dramatically childish and unintelligent we get little satisfaction from your anger (I think we all doubt you are a real creo, since you do all that could be asked of a Poe, working on our side).
matchlockfun 1 day ago
@atech
"....bothered yourself no less than 67 times in addressing me".
Before you get carried away with the victory dancing there, wise christian, I was referring to your dozen or so angry (and short) posts to me in my absence, none of which referred to the 3 pressing questions at that time.
I intend to continue addressing your unrepentant christian witnessing about petitions from authority, anti-science, collagen longevity, dino DNA, natural polyploids, Ararat fossils, etc.
matchlockfun 1 day ago
@atech
"This is all the signature I need".
Well, that's not true, is it?
After telling me "Any Tom Dick or Steve can sign a petition", you neglect to mention that Newton (who you bizarrely claim as being on your team) is already on your petition.
As are the others.
You got caught lying. I know an apology is not forthcoming, but you could at least cease trying to cover it up with diversions, wise bringer of light.
matchlockfun 2 days ago
@matchlock "Newton... is already on your petition"
What petition? I possess no petition signed by Newton and especially not a petition on the order of "Project Steve" which demeans whoever signs it since they become part of a "tongue-in-cheek parody" that "pokes fun" at those who disagree with them. I can't imagine Newton, Faraday, or Maxwell resorting to something so inane.
atechworld 1 day ago
@atech
"What petition? I possess no such petition".
It's on your website, the one with the thoroughly professional layout, and the "Donate by Credit Card" button.
Newton couldn't sign it, obviously - he's been dead for some time.
Yet there he is, along with Maxwell & Faraday.
You don't suppose some rotten no-goods have PUT there names on that list without asking, do you?
Regardeless, those 3 men ARE on that "INANE" list, ON YOUR WEBPAGE.
Have a closer look.
matchlockfun 1 day ago
@atech
You may have the wrong idea about why "Project Steve" 'pokes fun' at the creofundies.
It's a beautifully simple way to show the INANITY of compiling lists of dead scientists, modern engineers and DENTISTS (???) who accepted, or are presumed to have accepted, a supernatural creation.
If anti-creos create anything in response to Dembski's pig noises in :
ht*p://w*w.overwhelmingevidence.c*m/id/JJ_school_of_law/
will you call that inane too, wise lordship?
matchlockfun 1 day ago
@matchlockfun
1) scientists who^signed YOUR^petition are^often engineers and chemists --Appeal to authority
2) Many of^them were^tricked --Hasty generalization
3) You know^nothing...your cottage^business... --Ad hominem
4) the 1,100 Steves out-number your^duped engineers 4 to 1. --Argumentum ad populum
You have failed to snatch the pebble from the master's hand, grasshopper. Your learning is not complete.
RogerS4JC 1 day ago
@atech
And of course, your angry post addresses nothing about the original point.
(The quotemining has dropped significantly recently, but it's been replaced by your relentless and transparent diversions).
The original point was that those creationist geologists knew nothing of Darwin's theory, and were deeply troubled by the fact that they could plainly see that the earth was VASTLY older than the genealogy of old guys in the many versions of that religious document.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock [creationist geologists could plainly see that the earth was VASTLY older than the Bible implied]
Old-earth geologists plainly denied evidence. Charles Lyell used the erosion rates of the Niagara gorge to conclude that it had taken 35,000 years to carve. He discarded the erosion rate estimates given by a local geologist's son in favor of his own 1 ft./yr. instead of 3 ft./yr. Actual rates were 5-8 ft./yr. putting it within 4,500 yrs of the Flood.
atechworld 4 days ago
@atech
"Old-earth geologists plainly denied evidence".
Yes, no doubt. Those creationists went out and studied the evidence, became perplexed that their centuries-held belief about creation stories-for-kids were obviously incorrect, and decided they'd prefer to go to hell and simply deny all the OTHER, OPPOSING evidence, for which none can be found today, except in the highlytrained geological halls of the creationist websites.
Lucky you're qualified to point out the errors, wise one.
matchlockfun 3 days ago
@atech
Uniformitarianism of that kind has long been refuted, by the way, and those creationist geologists STILL under-estimated the ages considerably (torn between their old mistaken beliefs about Biblical uniformitarianism, and the evidence which plainly refuted it).
It fascinates me that your 'stance' is opposed to naturalistic explanations for nature, unless they "confirm" acts of supernature, and also opposed to the uniformitarianism that is required in Bible "science".
matchlockfun 3 days ago
@atech
Let's recap, not the topic at hand, but the processes you've used to maintain your disagreement, allowing you to type as sarcastically as possible.
So the original topic remains valid, since it is easily available for confirmation. Your brain knows this, but instead of saying so, like an adult might, you talk about how they were influenced by the "times".
When the influence of their era is shown to be irrelevant, you complain about people signing petitions.
CONT....
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@atech
....CONT:
Your cognitive dissonance is far more interesting than the endless quibbles you offer.
You obviously know that the regular posters here aren't fooled by your diversions - you AND I know that your assertions are designed to require awkward effort in replies, therefore you MUST know that you've lost us (as "converts" to arkeology).
It can only be an audience of newbies you're hoping to impress.
Thus you DO KNOW ABSOLUTELY that you're wrong, in specifics AND generally.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlockfun "You obviously know that the regular posters here aren't fooled by your diversions"
But they are fooled by the scientists.
The scientists have created "The Greatest Snow Job on Earth" you know, a blizzard of bits of info, that tries to bury the real answers. A con.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 week ago
@MrDunsapy
Why do you think scientists join together to create the "Greatest Snow Job on Earth"?
Why are they trying to bury the real answers?
And if scientists around the world know what the "real answers" are, but choose to give the "Snow Job", how do they all unite across cultures and know what to do, and when?
They must get huge salaries to do this?
Maybe you should get into science yourself, go undercover and expose these con-artist bastards?
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlockfun The answer to this is simple. And it is education. You go to school and all that is offered are the scientists ideas.When you go to university still the same and with peer pressure. If you get a job, its best if you don't put the creation word on the resume' .If you want to be recognized by adding something new to science, makes sure it supports the scientific interpretations.
Yes imagine the money wasted on that stuff. Though, they have learned a lot of science as well.
MrDunsapy 1 week ago
@MrDunsapy "You go to school and all that is offered are the scientists ideas."
Isn't that terrible. Next we'll be going to the doctors and "ONLY" receiving the ideas of Doctors! Or going to a construction site and only acquire the ideas of Architects!
You're right, we should teach creation myths with science, demon possession with medicine, & telekinetic levitation with architectural design.
Lol...
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@matchlockfun The reason they are tying to bury, the real answer is that they consider their ideas more important, than the evidence. And actually use their hypothesis as evidence. They jumped on the Darwin band wagon,without thinking it through and now are stuck with it. And still can not prove it. Some say they may never be able to.
Their method of research, does not detect ID, so with the bread I mentioned, they could not detect that it was made.
MrDunsapy 1 week ago
@MrDunsapy "The reason they are tying to bury, the real answer is that they consider their ideas more important, than the evidence....They jumped on the Darwin band wagon,without thinking it through"
Yes, and the evil doctors are hiding the real truth of demon possession because it's more important to uphold the sacred legacy of Louis Pasteur. Those stupid trained scientists, who enabled us to create vaccines, were to quick to jump on the Pasteur band-wagon.
Lol...
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st I did not say that the scientists have not learned a lot of science and done many things. But at the same time they have given man the ability to ruin the earth, and man.That's not too bright. They went to Mars to find Martians. We now have nuclear bombs. Pollution that lasts a 1,000 years. A change in the atmosphere, and chemical poisons etc. Pasteur showed that life does not spontaneously start.
Which side are you on?
MrDunsapy 6 days ago
@MrDunsapy "But at the same time they have given man the ability to ruin the earth,"
Yes. Knowledge is power. But science doesn't ruin the world, it gives people the ability to choose to do either good or bad. Science in itself is a-moral.
"Pasteur showed that life does not spontaneously start. Which side are you on?"
Pasteur and others disproved the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved creationism. Evolution is rock solid.
QuantumGh0st 6 days ago
@MrDunsapy "They went to Mars to find Martians."
Lol, who the hell told you that? Oh right you decided to make it up.
They went to mars mainly to analyse mar's surface and chemical makeup, and decided since it would cost next to nothing extra to send some equipment to check for martian microbes as well, just on the very small chance they might find some.
It's like betting 1pence on a 1/100 chance of winning £999,999,999,999,999. There's no point not doing it.
9hello123 5 days ago
@9hello123 lol I saw them jump up and down when they found some evidence of water. Then they examined the it further to see if the could find life. But then went away when they didn't. A little time later they said the soil would kill any life that might start. That same scenario , could also have been the same on earth. But conditions were prepared. Just like in the lab experiments.
MrDunsapy 5 days ago
@9hello123 Here is a way to look at the odds.
Take 4 colored dice with 10 sides to them. Now what you have to do if throw those dice a million times.
Now these dice have to come up correctly from a prearranged list you have , so every throw the right color has to come up in the right order with the correct number on it ( 10 on each dice). There can be no mistakes.
Scientists could calculate the odds, but you know it will never happen.
And that is assuming, life could happen with out creation.
MrDunsapy 5 days ago
@atech
The "inspiration" you get from Ussher's annotations on a patriarchal family tree are strangely anti-science. Have you noticed?
Everything that science claims, you know better. And you not only know better, you know the opposite is true.
When asked how you derive that, compared to the claims themselves being the next step in a compounding interpretive science, you claim it's a kind of 'rebellion' against your god.
This is unsupportable stupidity, you'd have to admit.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@atech
And just to confirm utterly and absolutely, scroll back to see your unrelenting quotes of agreement with the atheist Huxley about "crying wolf".
And if you STILL want to deny your own argument, just for the sake of continuing the argument, read your own words about Jesus "In the days of Noe"...
If your argument all along has been that supernatural phenomena aren't dependent on natural explanations, then someone has been logging on with your username to flame strangers.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock "Huxley... crying wolf"
I didn't use that to "prove" God's existence. I used that to show how figurative interpretations of literal people, places, & events create logical contradictions that even non-believers recognize. I agree with Dawkins that anyone brought up in the Christian faith who believes Adam & Eve were only symbolic must be barking mad. Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual?
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"I didn't use that to "prove" God's existence...".
And now you're putting your own strawman in quotes, as if I said it.
Just to repeat, honest one, you keep trying to justify your belief in supernature with furphies about nature.
"Jesus had himself tortured & executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual?".
He wasn't the first, or the last.
Your relentless cries of "barking mad" and argument from incredulity about an observable natural universe don't change that.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock "And now you're putting your own strawman in quotes, as if I said it"
To clear the record, I admit that you were quoting me:
@matchlock "...skip your stupid mandate to prove God's existence using naturalism"
Since you followed that with, "Who've we been talking to for the past 3 years?", you obviously believe that I am trying "to prove God's existence using naturalism", since you use that statement to label me. I contest that I am not trying to prove God's existence.
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"I admit yhat you were quoting me".
Thanks. Big of you.
"Since you followed that with.....you obviously believe that I'm trying to prove God's existence using naturalism".
No. That's the nature of this kind of exchange. You fundies PROJECT what you'd prefer me to think or say, so that you can attack it.
This is partly (largely) why creationists are known as liars by all who aren't creationists.
You use naturalistic phenomena to explain the supernatural.
Utterly indefensible.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@atech
Just "clarifying"(???) your stance here - so you agree with the world's leading anti-supernaturalist, and atheist Dawkins that you can't be a Christian AND believe that some parts of the Bible use symbolism?
Loaves & fishes, talking animals, conjuring tricks for Pharaoh, talking bushes, walking-dead saints, water/wine, water-walking, forbidden fruit trees, are ALL actual things?
"Aaron's story can easily be explained naturalistically. A previous calf mold may have existed...."
matchlockfun 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matchlock "[atech says supernatural phenomena depend on natural explanations]"
False. @atech 1 wk ago:
"A natural explanation for Jesus walking on water was that he actually stood on sand in a shallow area. A similar explanation for Israel crossing the Red Sea: a shallow marsh. You are right to criticize such naturalistic explanations which only create bigger problems: Pharaoh's army drowned in shallow water & big waves almost capsized the disciples' boat in 2" of water."
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
I prefer Pascal's philosophy 'People are usually more convinced by reasons they discovered themselves than those found by others'.".
So you're saying all my questions about why you post naturalistic guff, and quote from science, despite 'finding Jesus' 'unmolested by others', were just a waste of effort, aimed at someone who already agreed with me?
I may have admit to myself I've been had by an internet troll who doesn't care WHAT the disagreement is, as long as there IS one.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atechworld "You failed again. One need not prove God's existence to author a science book, form a hypothesis,"
1. I can't ever fail against a dishonest fundie.
2. My point was that since you have no scientific evidence or anything else, your faith about the flintstones is made even weaker by the fact that there is no evidence for Yahweh.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@atechworld "No. Evolutionists do just the opposite."
I use the term "appearance" in the sense that I rationally, objectively & unbiasedly (as much as is possible) determine my beliefs, and you attempt to conflate that with Dawkins statement about the physical design of life.
Are you really this stupid? I mean... ARE YOU REALLY THIS STUPID?
I mean, it's so obvious that i'm not using the term "appear" in the sense that Dawkins is. Are you being dishonest (AGAIN) or are you...THAT STUPID! Lol..
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st "what I rationally, objectively & unbiasedly... determine my beliefs"
You'd be more objective if you weren't from this planet or better yet, universe. If you were a true "outsider", and observed that earth's statues, arrowheads, automobiles, computers & software were all produced by sentient intelligent beings, would you deduct the same for humans or would you make an exception for them? I don't think you can answer without first knowing how you were created.
atechworld 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atechworld One proposal is "Man is so complex that an uber intelligence was required to make him." Since no one can find hide nor hair of this uber intelligence it is claimed to somehow possess this uber intelligence without being complex itself & no one can prove this statement wrong.
The other proposal is that complexity accumulates & tech allows new tech that wasn't previously possible & continuously self compounds.This has been observed
ExtantFrodo2 1 week ago
@RogerS4JC "Could it be so rare that it is a unique one time special event?"
Maybe...???
"Could not intelligent scientists recreate the requirements needed for atoms to take on that special state?"
Possibly. We have created an environment capable of initiating the first steps.
"Is the "Biology State" a demonstrable & testable state or is it just a hope you embrace?"
We ARE the biology state of atoms. We may be a rare & unique combination of atoms, but we are, nevertheless, normal atoms.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@RogerS4JC
You said that I said this: "You can't control a system that is more complex than yourself.'
And then responded to it. I'm not aware that I had a conversation like this. If you want to make a point that you think supports creationism, then I'll gladly debunk it.
Please refresh my memory or make your case crystal clear so that I can smash it.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st
That phrase was a 'quote' within a "quote" from plektix.fieldofscience
and not intended to be attributed to you. Your memory hasn't set off any bells, it's the "logic area" I am finding some malfunction.
RogerS4JC 1 week ago
@RogerS4JC "You haven't explained how limited response elements can do the constructing."
Lol...The whole objection is that your use of the word limited has no relative basis. You need to explain why atoms alone are unable to perform (x).
All we can currently know for certain is that we are atoms & we can reason. So unless you can A) indicate something other than atoms that makes reasoning valid, and B) why atoms are not sufficient...then your argument is useless.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st "You need^to explain^why atoms alone^are unable^to perform (x)."
Your variable (x) is truly variable and can be virtually most anything can't it? It is only limited by your imagination but unfortunately, that is all it is good for, imagination.
This is a classic example of burden of proof fallacy. If I played that card, I could claim, "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does." Your predictable response would be Lol, Lol!!! So dittos on that response.
RogerS4JC 1 week ago
@RogerS4JC "Your variable (x) is truly variable and can be virtually most anything can't it?"
Lol,...No, (x) is what you defined. You doubted that atoms are efficient to give rise to a reasoning mind, but have failed to explain why.
"This is a classic example of burden of proof fallacy."
No my very very very dim fundie friend.Let me help you: We know that we are made of atoms & we know that we can reason. That's my case made. it is YOUR burden to indicate the extra necessities. Good luck.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st "it is^YOUR burden^to indicate^the extra^necessities.[QGhOst's Atom to Human Evolution]
Atom Biological State:
The "necessities" are not easily understood. Atoms entering the biological state and evolving to humans requires millions of years. Fairies are very weak, small, and invisible. As they guide atoms toward meaningful arrangements, progress is very slow due to imperceptible weak forces and progress. They only make design mistakes from too much fairy ale.
RogerS4JC 1 week ago
@RogerS4JC "The "necessities" are not easily understood."
You're entire comment is an evasion & provides no rebuttal to my point. You haven't proven that atoms are insufficient for doing logic, proven that something else other than atoms is present, or explained how your crap about fairies has anything to do with anything. Please explain so that I can trample you.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st
The burden of proof for "necessities" resting on me to support your claim of "atoms to humans" by some inherent "biological state" properties of atoms because "we ARE atoms" is pure rubbish.
Similar to a begging the question fallacy: ..."an arguer might use phraseology that conceals the fact that the conclusion is masquerading as a premise." wiki
I could claim that metals tend toward complexity and given time will take various forms like watches & calipers. lol.
RogerS4JC 1 week ago
@RogerS4JC "I could claim that metals tend toward complexity and given time will take various forms like watches & calipers. lol."
No, my very dim bulb of a debater. You still haven't proven why atoms are insufficient or why your mythology enables proper use of reason. You've utterly failed, and so keep trying to evade and divert.
You seem to be confusing different arguments because you're so dumb. This debate wasn't about "atoms to humans". It was about the validity of logic. Lol....
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st "You still^haven't proven^why atoms^are insufficient"
Science does not simply assume claims are true with no explanation until critics prove it false. The one proposing the claim needs to put forth a reasonable explanation to support the claim (i.e. atoms build by themselves in some "biological state").
It fits 2 fallacies:
1.(shifting the) Burden of proof – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
2.Correlation does not imply causation fallacy -wiki
RogerS4JC 1 week ago
@RogerS4JC "The one proposing the claim needs to put forth a reasonable explanation to support the claim (i.e. atoms build by themselves in some "biological state")."
The one proposing the claim was you, not me. As it stands, all we can see is atoms doing interesting things apparently without intervention. Now i'm not asserting that there isn't an external influence, I'm saying that there is no evidence for one. You were the one who unjustifiably asserted that atoms are insufficient.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st "The one^proposing the^claim was^you...all we can^see is atoms^doing interesting things^apparently without^intervention"
I never made the claim atoms ever do these "interesting things" without being acted upon by life e.g. "life only comes from life."
RogerS4JC 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RogerS4JC "I never made the claim atoms ever do these "interesting things" without being acted upon by life e.g. "life only comes from life."
Your original challenge was borrowed from atech. You asked why we should trust our ability to perform logical reasoning if we are just "mere" atoms. I responded by asking you why you didn't think atoms were sufficient--you never responded.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@RogerS4JC Thus, No.1 fallacy applies to you (not me). No.2 is irrelevant.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st "#.1 fallacy applies^to you [not me]."
Let's review:
1.Burden of proof (shifting the) – I need not^prove my^claim, you^must prove^it is false
Now let's look at what you had said for comparison:
@QuantumGh0st "Therefore, it^is your^responsibility to^indicate what^else is necessary [for the claim to occur]. Very very^simple."
The match is very simple except for those in strong delusion & such childish denials:
You said, I didn't say, not mine, your responsibility.
RogerS4JC 1 week ago
@RogerS4JC "1.Burden of proof (shifting the) – I need not^prove my^claim, you^must prove^it is false"
Then you don't understand the burden of proof. The burden is on the asserter. I am certainly not obliged to disprove your assertions any more than you are obliged to disprove my assertions e.g. that there's a teapot orbiting Jupiter.
This is elementary stuff.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st "Then you^don't understand^the burden^of proof.^The burden^is on^the asserter."
My bad. Us kidds shood neaver kestion da teccher.
Now I will go to the chalk board and write 100 Xs, "Teacher says minerals can assemble into Michelangelo's David, it is my responsibility to prove why not. I was very bad to doubt teachers beliefs."
RogerS4JC 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RogerS4JC "The match is very simple except for those in strong delusion & such childish denials: You said, I didn't say, not mine, your responsibility."
If you don't want to follow the very simple rules of universal discourse, then go & have an exchange with someone on that level. If you say that something other than the atomic brain is required for logically reasoning then it is up to you to validate your claim with evidence. Neither I, no anyone else, has to dismiss baseless assertions.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@RogerS4JC "The burden of proof for "necessities" resting on me to support your claim of "atoms to humans" by some inherent "biological state" properties of atoms because "we ARE atoms" is pure rubbish."
Only to someone with minimal intelligence. This is very very very simple. Currently, all we can know for certain is that we are made of atoms and that we can perform logical reasoning. Therefore, it is your responsibility to indicate what else is necessary.
Very very simple.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QuantumGh0st "all^we can know^for certain is^that we are^made of^atoms & that we^can perform^logical reasoning."
Correlation doesn't imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other. -wiki
E.g. We know of atoms, man is composed of atoms, therefore atoms possess all that is necessary to arrange into humans by themselves.
You solved it! Can't wait to read your book! (Or do I need to write it?)
RogerS4JC 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RogerS4JC "E.g. We know of atoms, man is composed of atoms, therefore atoms possess all that is necessary to arrange into humans by themselves."
But again, that's not what I did. It may be that something other than atoms is necessary, but as it stands there is no indication of this something. We know that a brain is a collection of atoms that was designed by evolution to understand it's environment. That said, I see good reason to believe that an atomic brain is solely sufficient.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@RogerS4JC Now that the straw men have been burnt down, could you please return to giving a good reason to believe that atoms are insufficient?
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st "could you^please return^to giving a^good reason^to believe^that atoms^are insufficient?"
Atoms themselves have great complexity, utility, capability, tremendous energy (controlled), & therefore reflect a purpose as the periodic table provides a complete tool set worthy to be attributed to the all powerful God I serve.
However, regardless the potential such a tool set has, constructs with meaning & greater purposes such as MS windows & DNA don't materialize over time.
RogerS4JC 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RogerS4JC "Similar to a begging the question fallacy:"
Lol... No, nothing of the sort.
"I could claim that metals tend toward complexity and given time will take various forms like watches & calipers. lol."
LOL LOL LOL, YOU'RE STILL(!!!!!!!!!!) ATTEMPTING THE WATCHMAKER ARGUMENT AFTER I'VE, NOT ONLY DESTROYED IT, BUT, PROVEN THAT IT WORKS AGAINST YOU IN MORE WAYS THAN IT DOESN'T (EVEN IF IT WAS VALID (WHICH IT ISN'T))
Roger, you are actually the dumbest person I've ever known.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@atechworld "Those who serve it must learn to lap it" etc...
Your comment is a response to the fact that you're projecting, but your response, itself, is, too, a straw man projection. I NEVER claimed to know HOW life formed. What I've done is present a good argument that life probably arose naturally, evolutionarily, and from pre-existing material. This was achieved via simple philosophical and scientific evidences.
You still have nothing but personal faith & have defeated your own arguments.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st "[I presented] a good argument that life probably arose naturally"
I must have missed it. Did your explanation meet the criteria for methodological naturalism where life from non-life is observed & repeated in a lab or is it more wishful thinking like these folks offered:
@matchlock "we'll be putting it all together in no time"
@StevenABenner "getting molecules to make copies of themselves (which is a basic trait of life) could become a reality in a few years."
atechworld 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atechworld When you hang your hat on a 'god of the gaps' argument do you run the risk that science will close that gap? Are you in effect "gambling on god"? I hate to ask but what will you hang you hat on if that horrible day comes? Do you switch sides?
ExtantFrodo2 1 week ago
@atechworld "I must have missed it."
You didn't because you failed to respond & refute anything that I said. I even showed you how your own watchmaker arguments work against you.
"Did your explanation meet the criteria for methodological naturalism where life from non-life is observed & repeated"
Who ever suggested that? I proved that everything else points to the scientific view & completely contradicts your idea. That's all I set out to achieve.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st "I proved that everything else points to the scientific view"
Non-living matter organizing itself into living systems with no outside intelligence, but only laws of nature, has never been observed, replicated, or proven. You have nothing but conjecture & wishful thinking:
WIKIPEDIA "ABIOGENESIS" PHRASE COUNT
17 may have; 11 could have; 7 could be
7 might; 4 may be; 1 may be from Mars
1 may require; 1 may contain; 1 may expand
1 may undergo; 1 may store; 1 may well be
atechworld 1 week ago
@atechworld "Non-living matter organizing itself into living systems with no outside intelligence, but only laws of nature, has never been observed, replicated, or proven. You have nothing but conjecture & wishful thinking:"
Firstly, why are you cherry picking intelligence again when the physical, progressive and pre-existing material factors are just as necesary LOL LOL LOL? And, Again, I've proven that everything points to natural abio, and contradicts your myth. Care to have a rematch?
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st "the physical, progressive and pre-existing material factors are just as necesary"
Indeed they're just as necessary as intelligence. But without intelligence, building materials + rain + wind + sun + gravity + magnetism + any other physical law isn't going to build you a living cell. Some guy said beryl crystal is like DNA gyrase. How close is beryl to life? 0% if we round it? Can you cite something closer to life that forms naturally without intelligence?
atechworld 1 week ago
@atechworld
"....any other physical law isn't going to build you a living cell.".
Says who?
An argument from incredulity is no argument at all.
Prions are organic molecules that replicate. The amount of intelligence in their life/replication is as close to zero as it's possible to get.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock "Prions are organic molecules that replicate"
Are prions dependent on cells or do you think cells evolved from prions? Wikipedia's "Abiogenesis" says nothing about them. If prions could be integrated into the abiogenesis hypothesis, would that increase or decrease the number of "may have", "could have", and "might have" phrases? Where on this earth do prions most often spontaneously generate?
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"Are prions dependent on cells"? Yes. "or do you think cells evolved from prions"? Impossible. (What's the relevance)?
"Wikipedia's abiogenesis says nothing about them". You wouldn't go to Wiki for your info on origins, anyway, (too many 'maybes' in the many hypotheses, as you often illogically and comedically like to mention).
"Where on earth do prions most often spontaneously generate"?
Do they do that? I wish I knew. Pencil me in. I want to see humans do it too.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock
Let's review:
1) prions depend on cells
2) cells didn't evolve from prions
3) you don't know where/if prions spontaneously generate
If you believe life could have started as a self-assembling organic molecule, but cells didn't evolve from prions and the chicken-or-egg problem presents itself since prions depend on cells, AND you don't even know if prions can spontaneously generate, then how do prions support or relate to the abiogenesis hypothesis?
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
Yes, let's review.
Your question was : "Can you cite something closer to life that forms naturally without intelligence"?
Prions are organic, and replicate without intelligence or purpose.
(The remainder of your long post is a diversion, known popularly as a "strawman").
No need to review further - but to recap:
1) You asked a question.
2) I answered it.
3) You spent an entire post explaining how I didn't address an entirely different question.
No need to apologize.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlock "You spent an entire post explaining..."
I spent an entire post leading up to a question and it was worth it. I now have more knowledge about the unrelatedness of prions to the abiogenesis hypothesis. And I learned more about your limitations as a teacher.
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
Oh, so much crying about things not going your way, little guy.
"....unrelatedness of prions to the abiogenesis hypothesis".
You asked for something close to life that made new things close to life. Asked, and answered.
"I learned more about your limitations as a teacher".
We all learned a little more about your inability to listen, wise little feller.
The anger in your tone tells us you wish you'd asked a different question that might have tripped us up.
But you didn't.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atechworld "I spent an entire post leading up to a question and it was worth it."
No, you lied. Matchlock responded validly and all you could do was move the goal posts like the dishonest scumbag that you are. We can all see your trickery.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@atech
"...AND you don't even know if prions can spontaneously generate".
This is incorrect. I know they can't (well, I'm quietly confident they can't).
So just think it through - a new prion is formed FROM an organic molecule, BY the actions/properties of another prion, which has ZERO, ZIP, NIL intelligence, guidance, purpose or paycheck.
Just like a creator that forgets that enabling sin will make men.......SINFUL! (strangely enough) thereby requiring their immediate liquidation.
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@atech "Where on earth do prions most often spontaneously generate"?
@matchlock "Do they do that? I wish I knew."
10 hours later...
@matchlock "I know they can't (well, I'm quietly confident they can't)"
atechworld 1 week ago
@atech
"I wish I knew..... I know they can't".
Compare this, wise Jesus follower, with:
"There are gods and pixies in my garden". - "Wow, I wish I knew.....I'm pretty sure there aren't any such things".
So your quibble (which the Bible warns its followers not to do), is incorrect, and more important, irrelevant.
It shows that your grasp on rhetoric and logic is poor to non-existent.
Maybe you shouldn't try to impress people with it?
matchlockfun 1 week ago
@matchlockfun Actually the belief in creation is based on real facts.
I will give you 3
1 life comes form life
2 a human comes from humans
3 there is design in life.
These are facts everyone knows is true. But the scientists go against all three.
So who really is following the facts?
MrDunsapy 1 week ago
@MrDunsapy Your 1 2 & 3 assertions are very easily contradicted.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st
Well I noticed you didn't.
So please give it a try.
MrDunsapy 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy "So please give it a try."
Sure, I'll give you a quick teaser before finishing you off as your claims get more specific & thus easier to debunk. I'll qucikly respond your assertions using the numbers you applied to them.
1. The universe is finite, life emerged after the universe & so life must've come from non-life.
2. So you've contradicted the idea that a human came from a God.
3. There is design and we've observed natural section doing it. Where is your designer?
Want more?
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st
It seems that the logic portion of your brain is wanting. This may be the reason you have fallen for beliefs that seem right, but with closer inspection fall apart.
You have a major logic fallacy starting with reasoning out the beginning in #1.
Universe (emerged void of life) = X
Life = Y
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation not causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.
Can you not see that?
RogerS4JC 1 week ago
@RogerS4JC "It seems that the logic portion of your brain is wanting."
Coming from someone that has just attempted the watchmaker argument (AGAIN) after it was refuted years ago. But let's give you a chance, nevertheless.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
@QuantumGh0st
And Atech throughly refuted Dawkin's falsely supporting 'Weasel Program' in 'The Blind Watchmaker' a while back. Against Atech's computer code skills, Dawkins program fallacy had little chance for survival; something like survival of the fittest. ;)
RogerS4JC 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RogerS4JC "And Atech throughly refuted Dawkin's falsely supporting 'Weasel Program'
The experiment you speak of was never intended to be perfectly analogous to biological evolution, but to simply demonstrate the power of cumulative selection as compared to random selection, and show the complete unrealism of the popular notion of natural selection as "monkeys pounding on typewriters".
So atech hasn't achieved anything, as usual.
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago