Abiogenesis is impossible

[Faith No More]

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.

It's amazing that a person can have such conviction that their explanation is the only explanation while being so utterly ignorant of the alternative.

You make Ray Comfort proud.

[Mister Agenda]

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT.

I am.

There's no god.

I found that incredibly easy.

Easy, but not very helpful.

---

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.

[Cyberman]

then some backing and filling took place to get the focus correct.

Snowy - my focus has never been correct. I have had to wear corrective lenses, and latterly contacts for aesthetic as well as other reasons, since I was about five years old and was in point of fact born with pronounced astigmatism. That is, my eyeballs are physically longer than they ought to be in order that the focal point of the lenses coincide with the retinae. Everybody in my family has to wear corrective lenses. What happened, God was off his tits on crack or something and just jammed in whatever he had in his spares box? As a designer, the kindest that could be said about him is he's an idiot.

[Tonus]

What happened, God was off his tits on crack or something and just jammed in whatever he had in his spares box? As a designer, the kindest that could be said about him is he's an idiot.

God works in mysterious ways, Stimbo. (That is the go-to quote whenever someone is wondering why things are so fucked up, as opposed to "god is great!" and "god loves us!" when good things happen. Which is to say that "god works in mysterious ways" is a euphemism for "god is a miserable shitheel.")

[Doubting Thomas]

Yeah, I've had pretty bad eyes all my life. Next time some idiot talks about eyes being intelligently designed, I need to ask them why I was short changed.

[snowtracks]

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.

So, you're a goddamn idiot: the evolution of the eye is amazingly well mapped, from simply light sensitive cells, through to a cupped proto-socket to allow for directional light, and so on and so forth. And of course the brain came first, but you seem to have this idiotic idea- befitting your status as an arrogant moron- that both evolved instantaneously, separately, and within a single organism. As I've mentioned multiple fucking times, across multiple fucking threads, these changes are gradual, and occur within the framework of the changes that have come before; it's not whoosh, brain, whoosh, eye, whoosh connection between the two.

Maybe you could actually fucking know what you're talking about next time, before you start spouting your mouth off like a goddamn fool?

this one seems angry about something.

---

since i posted, haven't really seen any cogent rebuttal argument from the atheist who like portray themselves as the 'intellectual ones'. have some dawkins (do the evolutionist genuflect every time his name is mentioned?) , squid eyes, and ranting but beyond that, not anything of substance.
must be something to what i posted since it's appear "she's protesting too much". beginning to think, must be a philosophy that's being protected since no one is stepping forward to explain how those busy little molecules, like bees buzzing around, just want to seek and achieve greater complexity.

[Bad Wolf]

Since your rebuttal had no substance, I think its only fair that my'n has none either:
Fuck off

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

@snowtracks

I think it's probably more frustration. You know, what with the whole eye thing being debunked. And yet creationists keep bringing it up over and over again. There's only so many times a person can explain before their patience wears out.

Since you possess a creationist world view, perhaps you could answer a question for me. Why do creationists think that biology is like lego?

[MitchBenn]

A con? Really? Let's say a god created the first simple organism then stepped back and let evolution take over. Would you accept that?

P.S. You stating that abiogenesis is impossible doesn't make it impossible. No matter how many times you say it.

If you are willing to acknowledge that God exists and that God created the first living thing, then we can discuss the rest.

Bye then.

[Jackalope]

Since your rebuttal had no substance, I think its only fair that my'n has none either:
Fuck off

Yours at least has the virtue of being brief.