Al-Quran has 1400 years ago and Muslim Scientists has been declared "He (God) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness".
Al Quran sura Az Zumar;6
".....He (God) makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. . . ."
Have the Bible and scientists states "He (God ) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness"?
Part of the problem with the origin of life is of course defining what "life" actually is. In fact this problem applies even if you are disregarding origins entirely; viruses for example are still a matter of significant contention.
However, abiogenesis posits a progression from non-living chemical systems to living cells of some description, so a solid definition of "life" would only really show where the transition occurred, not whether it did.
Yeah, the robomonkeys one was the unsound argument, as opposed to the invalid argument. At least one of the premises has to be untrue for the argument to be unsound which of course means that whether or not it implies the conclusion on its own, it's still wrong.
Your first argument is faulty; additional qualifying parameters are required to make it fully precise. Some humans live on the International Space Station. Hehehe.
The astronuats on the ISS *live* on earth, but *are currently living* on the ISS. You're right in that we need to specify parameters of what it means precisely to say person A lives in/on B but only a truly tragic nitpicker would point that out. Or answer it... :oP
hey man, there's a little white dot on your video. At first glance I thought it was a dead pixel or something on my end, but it's not. It's definitely on your end.
Wow in his video he does a lot of appealing to emotions. Anyway...He used the same old tired argument that life can't come from non-life. When they make that argument jst tell them to read this: "Cello, J; Paul, A; Wimmer, E, Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template, Science 2002 297: 1016-1018"
Where scientist created a virus from synthetic chemicals.
This has been flagged as spam show
Al-Quran has 1400 years ago and Muslim Scientists has been declared "He (God) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness".
Al Quran sura Az Zumar;6
".....He (God) makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. . . ."
Have the Bible and scientists states "He (God ) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness"?
mollenth 1 year ago
This is good.
smoothintentions 2 years ago
Are you saying that a single DNA-cell is alive?
thyran 2 years ago
Not sure what you mean by "single DNA-cell".
Part of the problem with the origin of life is of course defining what "life" actually is. In fact this problem applies even if you are disregarding origins entirely; viruses for example are still a matter of significant contention.
However, abiogenesis posits a progression from non-living chemical systems to living cells of some description, so a solid definition of "life" would only really show where the transition occurred, not whether it did.
starfedrogue 2 years ago
Thank you for explaining it to him.
I'm glad you're not brainwashed. :-P
Farfargryde 2 years ago
the wrong deductive arguement is wrong...
you should have used this one instead;
p1: no stones can fly
p2: you can't fly
C : you are a stone.
TheDivineCellphone 2 years ago
By "wrong" do you mean the invalid argument or the unsound argument?
starfedrogue 2 years ago
im not sure...
you say:
p1: all robomonkeys live on earth
p2: jazzyhap live on earth
C: jazzyhap is a robomonkey
which is false - beacuse it not implicit that jazzyhap should be a robomonkey.
TheDivineCellphone 2 years ago
Yeah, the robomonkeys one was the unsound argument, as opposed to the invalid argument. At least one of the premises has to be untrue for the argument to be unsound which of course means that whether or not it implies the conclusion on its own, it's still wrong.
starfedrogue 2 years ago
ugh cud u make the first 3 minutes more boring.. I was like, "Grill him already!" lol good vid
charbroiledmonk1033 2 years ago
Yes. Yes I could!
starfedrogue 2 years ago
Your first argument is faulty; additional qualifying parameters are required to make it fully precise. Some humans live on the International Space Station. Hehehe.
ArtificialCleverenAI 2 years ago
It's sufficiently close, gravitationally-bound, and Earth-dependent for me. Next! :-p
starfedrogue 2 years ago
Very shoddy. :)
ArtificialCleverenAI 2 years ago
The astronuats on the ISS *live* on earth, but *are currently living* on the ISS. You're right in that we need to specify parameters of what it means precisely to say person A lives in/on B but only a truly tragic nitpicker would point that out. Or answer it... :oP
Timbul53525253 2 years ago
Space holiday! There, problem solved.
starfedrogue 2 years ago
Perfect.
Well, *I'd* go on one.
If I had a few tens of millions of dollars spare...
Timbul53525253 2 years ago
"All humans live on earth"
you forgot space stations. heh heh.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
We don't have any that are outside the planet's gravity well and the staff are posted there temporarily.
starfedrogue 2 years ago
Ah, so you're considering anything within earth's gravity well as being "on" earth, and to "live" somewhere as being an entire lifespan. ;)
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
As a general rule. We wouldn't want Jazzyhap to spend his life and his savings on transatlantic flights just to prove me wrong.
starfedrogue 2 years ago
It's a good video, I was only giving you a hard time for fun. I'm sure everyone gets the meaning of your example.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
I'm a truly tragic nitpicker.
I wasn't being entirely serious, of course.
For another layer of pedantry: I live in my brain, which is positioned a single-digit number of feet above the surface of the ball we call Earth.
ArtificialCleverenAI 2 years ago
yey! he said new zealand :B
FlowerPickingCow 2 years ago
good video =)
stuckvanilla 2 years ago
hey man, there's a little white dot on your video. At first glance I thought it was a dead pixel or something on my end, but it's not. It's definitely on your end.
Zetimenvec 2 years ago
Yeah, I think it's a dead pixel on my cam's sensor.
It's so annoying.
starfedrogue 2 years ago
That sucks. You going to be looking for a new one? or are you gonna tough it out?
Zetimenvec 2 years ago
Well, it's only a couple of months old so I might send it back.
starfedrogue 2 years ago
robomunky EPIK
Leadman1989 2 years ago
Jazzyhap is like the gift that keeps on taking. Good job in trying to reply to his strange logic Rogue.
dualranger 2 years ago 2
I keep expecting to see him throw an "Out of cheese" error.
starfedrogue 2 years ago
the first non pwnage video i have seen that pwned the shit out of someone lmao
science the ultimate pwnage tool
10phoenix01 2 years ago
Did Ponder forget to feed Hex again? :p
naughtypagan72 2 years ago 3
Wow in his video he does a lot of appealing to emotions. Anyway...He used the same old tired argument that life can't come from non-life. When they make that argument jst tell them to read this: "Cello, J; Paul, A; Wimmer, E, Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template, Science 2002 297: 1016-1018"
Where scientist created a virus from synthetic chemicals.
LittleTruckingBozo 2 years ago
Jazzmaster does not read cited references. He simply googles the title and reads back whatever he finds by way of reply.
See "An Intelligent Atheist Replies" Parts 3 & 4 for his very entertaining crash and burn using the argument from google searches.
starfedrogue 2 years ago
the crows in black and grey here in sweden if we see a black crow we need to call the ornithologic institute of sweden and report it in.
Gripen1974 2 years ago
o wow, i'm back in sociology 101. lol
5 stars
snoggerforce76 2 years ago