Search results

It's not like saying that though, is it. One is plausible the others not. The plausible one will have a lot of fact and empirical evidence in support. Only one of those options has that. As it's not 2. and it's not 'both sides', then the only likely scenario is going to be 1. life...

No you did not and you're being extremely untruthful in saying you did. Why do you keep repeating that strawman line all the time? Show me where exactly I ever said there is "proof of life from non life" or "proof of evolution from non life to life". There is a mass of highly advanced...

To you Loocrumb it's Lord stewie, who famously and appropriately said….. "Fooking is one of those words you can fooking put anywhere in a fooking sentence , so as you've fooking obviously nothing to fooking contribute, would you please fooking do us all a fooking enormous favor and get...

How many times are you going to falsify what I actually said? As many times as you've misrepresented your mined scientist quotes? In that way for one you proved yourself a liar Jem. That's a bit different to proving me one, to say the least. Why don't you try and deal with what is actually...

I realize of course after dumping one false assertion after the other and ignoring all and any reasonable response to your nonsense , the only one you're going to have left is that false accusation of lying. Reasonable factual substantive argument has been given to you, even if rather...

I refuse to believe you are seriously trying to make any logical point. wtf are you attempting to do here? Just horse around? I too can give any number of examples that are equally unfalsifiable but NOT equally implausible. Anyone can. So what? I can make examples of plausible and...

What is it with you creationist types? You make an outright lie like that and then accuse others of lying! Religious logic. It's truly unbelievable. What exactly IS your point? Why didn't you post this from the same link ....Have you read it or is it just that you want to constantly post...

No I meant inferred. If you do not have to imply anything, why link to MIT. Was it to imply something? The science which explains a universe from nothing. The natural science of how biological life originates from inorganic matter. The science which explains and proves evolution. All quite...

Trouble is Jem you're a one trick pony with no trick left. Your top scientists' science has never said , suggested or inferred what you want it to or wish it did. There is no sign of your God in science. That's not what science is for anyway. Get used to it.

Lol Give me a shout if ever you get a rational moment.

The problem is I have given more than one reason on a number of occasions. But here's just one of them for you to get all confused about again. God cannot be tested for. The Teapot cannot be tested for. There's your reason why . Reason why one is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim...

So... First, one is NOT just as much of an unfalsifiable claim .....because you say so ..... and even if it was, the relative reasons for their same implausibility, does not necessarily mean anything in particular, for instance, that they are equally implausible....because you say so. Lol...

.....It's very apparent you also seem to think false assertion is a form of argument………...did you miss that? I've already explained a number of times why there is an equal implausibility and why so particularly, based on unfalsifiability. You've provided no argument yet which has...

Confusing faith and belief with science and knowledge is not valid. Science is the antithesis of belief. Science is organized systematic rational skepticism towards proof without conclusion, and couldn't be further from belief. Responses are not being made to invoke science. They are to...

1. The universe is inconceivably vast and mostly full of space completely hostile to life. With only around an estimated 0.000000000000000000004 % matter in it, how is that 'fine tuned for life' exactly? Life happens, apparently despite the overwhelming constraints of the universe. As...

They are equally implausible. If it was nonsense, there should be no problem in refuting it however, you've not been able to. It's very apparent you also seem to think false assertion is a form of argument.

Atheist might be its single positive attribute. The killer is theist.

I agree.

In your dreams, as usual. I understand that, like Lucrum and the rest of your bunch, you are only going to be capable of making false assertions which you think is a form of argument. That apparently, is the best you'll do.