Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
You said: "Everyone sane believes in abiogenesis."
So on the principle of generosity, I assumed you think yourself sane. And its a fact that there is zero evidence to support abiogenesis.
Are we made in God's image?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
So on the principle of generosity, I assumed you think yourself sane. And its a fact that there is zero evidence to support abiogenesis.
And since what appears to be the Poster Boy for the Dunning-Krueger Effect brought it up :
“Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know”
― Bertrand Russell
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/108461-science-is-what-you-know-philosophy-is-what-you-don-t
Coming from someone who has been recently labeled a troll, and known for his attraction to my posts, and who was known to dishonestly use the quote function until warned by James, plus the usual inane criticism and lies, and then known for his extreme obsession in following me over to SFN, ]where he was known as et pet] and where he was quickly corralled and tied up by the mods, for you guessed it, for trolling, I take what you say as a compliment dmoe
^^...Ad Hominem ad Nauseum...^^
"An ad hominem attack against an individual, not against an idea, is highly flattering. It indicates that the person does not have anything intelligent to say about your message. "
- Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
All false dichotomies. None of those conflict with creationism. And geocentrism isn't a Biblical doctrine.
There are no parts of religion that conflict with science, because religion doesn't speak to scientific fact, predating, as it did, science itself.
I've explained how they do, several times. I know you don't understand. Yet all of those things have been used by literalists to argue against science.
Other than the parts that have been codified in various religious tomes that directly contradict science.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Then go find a literalist. Otherwise, you're just pissing into the wind.
Again, religions don't make scientific claims, as they were written prior to science. Let that sink in for a bit.
" Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition).
This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.
Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "
- http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad nauseam
argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition
Problem - Theist keep putting forward stupid ideas (ad nauseam) as if they expect atheists to "see the light" and start to believe
Ain't going to happen
What theist DON'T do is show evidence
Hey dmoe, if you don't like it leave. I mean you have whinged often enough and played the victim often enough when cornered. Not to mention your general trolling as recognised by James, and your infatuation with little old me.
One could say again grow up, but one knows better.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
What atheists DON'T do is show evidence...for their belief in things like abiogenesis.
We know that from the expected compounds in the early atmosphere we can get complex organic compounds including amino acids, the building blocks of life. Earth life uses 20 amino acids. 25 have been detected in experiments simulating lightning in early atmospheres.
Evidence.
We know that fairly simple molecules (ribozymes) can duplicate parts of themselves, show heritance and last a long time. Evidence.
We know that sets of molecules (again, simple molecules made from inorganic precursors) can, together, make copies of themselves forever. Evidence.
So lots of evidence. No proof yet.
Them bloody evil atheists again!!! Are they worse then the evil lefties? Again, just to re-enforce it.....Abiogenesis is a fact, the question exists as to the methodology.
Problem - Atheists keep putting forward stupid ideas (ad nauseam) as if they expect Theists to no longer "see the light" and start to believe as the Theists.argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition
Problem - Theist keep putting forward stupid ideas (ad nauseam) as if they expect atheists to "see the light" and start to believe
Ain't going to happen
What theist DON'T do is show evidence
REAL PROBLEM - neither Theists nor Atheists can actually truly substantiate any claims that purport the "beginning/origin" of the Universe nor Life in that Universe, regardless of whether we consider Human Scientific Knowledge or Human Religious Knowledge.
Science has it's Theories/Models/Beliefs, different Religions have their Theories/Models/Beliefs...
Human knowledge is still in less than its infancy concerning just this Planet, let alone The Universe - again, whether we consider Human Scientific Knowledge or Human Religious Knowledge.
^^...Ad Hominem ad Nauseum...^^Hey dmoe, if you don't like it leave. I mean you have whinged often enough and played the victim often enough when cornered. Not to mention your general trolling as recognised by James, and your infatuation with little old me.
"An ad hominem attack against an individual, not against an idea, is highly flattering. It indicates that the person does not have anything intelligent to say about your message. "
- Nassim Nicholas Taleb
That's wrong as most know. Are you a closet religious fanatic dmoe? I believe so. Science certainly has theories, models and beliefs...beliefs based on experience and history.
religion simply has beliefs...beliefs based on myth...an ancient book written in an ancient age, by unknown men. Science has theories as our best estimates, and the more they align and match observational and experimental evidence, the more certain they become...but always open for improvement and/or modification. The theory of evolution and Darwinism is fact...The BB, GR, and SR are overwhelmingly supported, despite your own rejection of the BB...
Except one is based on the scientific method and evidence, the other on myth, hearsay, hand me down stories, etc etc.
yes, I see a closeted creationist!
Last edited:
Coming from someone who has been recently labeled a troll, and known for his attraction to my posts, and who was known to dishonestly use the quote function until warned by James, plus the usual inane criticism and lies, and then known for his extreme obsession in following me over to SFN, ]where he was known as et pet] and where he was quickly corralled and tied up by the mods, for you guessed it, for trolling, I take what you say as a compliment dmoe
...shakes head...
^^...Ad Hominem ad Nauseum...^^
You have known that I am not in any way Religious for 'nigh on 7 years, paddoboy!
again...shakes head...
Coming from someone who has been recently labeled a troll, and known for his attraction to my posts, and who was known to dishonestly use the quote function until warned by James, plus the usual inane criticism and lies, and then known for his extreme obsession in following me over to SFN, ]where he was known as et pet] and where he was quickly corralled and tied up by the mods, for you guessed it, for trolling, I take what you say as a compliment dmoe
...^^ Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition) ^^...
-see Post #186
Argumentum ad nauseam and Ad Hominem ad Nauseum
Last edited:
So no religion ever penalized anyone for claiming the Earth orbits the Sun, or that the lungs facilitate gas exchange between the blood and the air, or banned any books about zoology, botany or medicine?
Think carefully about your answer.
I know that you are a troll, and have questionable mental capabilities based on your trolling and obsession with me. Is that more adhoms or just truth?
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
I know "organic compound" sounds very life-like, but amino acids and other organic compounds only contain chemical bonds. No life.
No life, just chemical reactions.
Again, no life. Just fooling yourself with life-like chemistry.
Evidence of chemistry, but no evidence of abiogenesis. Be honest with or educate yourself.
Not by Biblical doctrine. But you could ask the same of science. So no people ever used science to justify genocide, eugenics, etc.? What people do does not necessarily impugn the source of what they espouse. Correlation is not causation, otherwise science caused genocide.
Again, be honest with yourself.