(May 11, 2011 at 7:40 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
Aww, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Nicely done.
People who actually understand physics and relativity realize that there is no issue with ASC.
Evidence? You mean you directly observed abiogenesis over 3 billion years ago? Wow, you are old. You guys need to get your stories straight, one atheist says there is no real evidence for abiogenesis, and then you come in here and say it's all based on evidence, huh?
This is not a "no true scotsman", the cretinists are not scientists.
For the simple reason that they start with the premise that the bible is true and bend the evidence to fit that premise. That does not fit ANY definition of real science.
"People who actually understand physics and relativity realize that there is no issue with ASC."
Really? name them then.
Where did I mention abiogenesis?
I was referring to to evidence for your god( of which there is none)
As to abiogenesis, although it is the preferred hypothesis there is nothing to say that it is the case.
But research continues, although a cretinist "scientist" would just give up and say "goddidit"
On the same vein since we have been unable to sustain a fusion reaction in the laboratory mean that stars don't actually work that way?
And does that mean goddidit?
BTW it is entirely possible that the universe had an intelligent first cause.
We don't know, and probably never will.
But that intelligent cause started the universe 13-14 billion years ago and isn't the god of your bible.
And I'll bet you don't address that idea.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.