RE: Abiogenesis is impossible
November 4, 2013 at 3:54 pm
(This post was last modified: November 4, 2013 at 4:30 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(October 13, 2013 at 12:19 pm)snowtracks Wrote: the guy throw out some odds, and no rebuttal to those odds came forth. instead we get bats not classified correctly in the bible, questions does life begin at the atomic level, or where?
what odds do the atheist have? by the way, the 'God the gap' responds only has a limited shelf life.
His odds were pulled out of his ass. They were all unsupported assertions that didn't require rebuttal because he gave no reason to think they might be true in the first place. No citations, no calculations, nothing that needs more of a rebuttal than 'you got those numbers from your ass'. When called on that, he did not produce his sources or calculations, he just dug in his heels.
What do you think was the single most solid number he threw out?
(October 14, 2013 at 2:34 am)snowtracks Wrote: so a day goes by after the gauntlet was thrown down about the odds that had to overcome and we get nothing (that's the new theory the atheist have attached themselves to) relevant. one even said not up to them to provide a defense. so will have to conclude that the are odds truly are near infinity and the micro-evolutionary biologist are on the longshot side; a chink in the armor has been exposed.
It wasn't a gauntlet, it was just a handful of assertions. No armor needed to withstand Nurf weapons. You're welcome to conclude what you want, the more inane the people arguing against evolution are, the less effort I have to expend on them. If there is a God, I'm grateful he didn't put you and Grace on our side.
(October 14, 2013 at 3:20 pm)snowtracks Wrote:(October 14, 2013 at 3:08 pm)daandaan Wrote: CREATIONIST DEBATING TIPS: LESSON 58.
well, it's obvious this website was constructed to have atheist tell each other how wonderful they are.
Too bad you couldn't read the post two up from this one you made, where an atheist was correcting the poster you're quoting on how they were posting.
(October 20, 2013 at 7:36 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:(October 4, 2013 at 12:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote: NOBODY IS SAYING THAT.
I am.
There's no god.
I found that incredibly easy.
Easy, but not very helpful.
(November 3, 2013 at 9:15 pm)snowtracks Wrote: so we have this situation: naturalism is propounding the idea that without a blueprint, that the eye was assembled, likewise the brain; each assembled independent of the other. then the idea came up - that it would be good to connect them with an optic nerve. then some backing and filling took place to get the focus correct. in the meantime, it was decided that chemicals and blood would be needed to supply the energy and that was hook-up.
If my own understanding of evolution was this profoundly awful, I wouldn't believe it either.
If I were paying you and writing your script, I couldn't ask for someone to do a better job of making the creationist position look abysmally ignorant. When someone brings up the evolution of eyes, I feel like I've been handed a gift, because every stage in the development of eyes is so well understood and there are extant examples of every major stage of their development.
Will you please bring up 'what good is half of a wing?' next? I'm sure you won't have any more trouble with selectively forgetting all the species of gliding animals, including species of frogs, fish, snakes, and lizards that get great use out of 50% or less of a wing.