Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[OPTIONAL777]

"If blind ignorant chance was all evolution has to work with..."

Blind ignorant chance is evolutionary theory.

And thanks for pointing out that blind ignorance chance is an if proposition.

Lacking any means of proof, blind ignorant chance is not a fact in evidence...just a guess to make a belief system work.

No different in essence than someone who makes a first assumption of design. The model works the same in every case.

So why blind ignorant chance over design?

If the answer is "because there is no proof of design" is terribly fallacious.

I'll concede to no proof of design, as there is no proof of non design.

Which renders the theory of blind ignorant chance just a religion when it is embraces so tightly and without logical scrutiny, that the followers repeatedly deny, deny, deny that the foundation of evolutionary theory is not a fact in evidence.

"Richard Dawkins actually admits in his book, Climbing Mount Improbable that “The original replicator probably was not DNA. We don’t know what it was...”

http://www.ministrymaker.com/richar...improbable-blind-chance-or-intelligent-design

The fallacy of the cornerstone of evolutionary theory is a modus tollens fallacy.

If P then Q
Q therefore P

That's the evolutionary theory foundation in a nutshell. It is fallacious from the very beginning.

Blind ignorant chance is an assumption without proof or fact.

Even you admit so in the following:


"If blind ignorant chance..."

The entire theory is founded on an if...and accepted as fact?

Absurdity at its finest, and misrepresentation of real science at its worst.

" it's certainly done a far better job of proving itself "

It hasn't proved itself...again, are you even thinking deeply about what you are typing?

"It" has not proved itself by any measure. "If" the majority of scientists embraced deistic design, that would make it true and proved?

Again, another fallacy, which is an appeal to authority of scientists to establish what is fact.

Scientists don't establish fact, they discover it. Facts are true independent of the opinions of scientists. Not a single scientist has ever discovered a fact of blind ignorant chance. They guess that as a possibility, but not a fact in evidence.

Theory of evolution was not discovered, it was invented based on a conditional proposition lacking proof or fact, and the logical fallacies and gaps in evolution, if someone really looks at it critically...are immense.

Starting a theory with an unknown, i.e. If______, and then claiming the antecedent is fact and conclusive...is the reality of atheistic thinking. It is bad science and bad logic simultaneously. However, it provides a possible explanation that comforts the atheists, just like theists are comforted in an different explanation.

You practice your faith, I practice mine. You deny your faith, I admit to mine.

You believe your faith is better than mine. I believe your faith is just your faith, and my faith is just my faith.

Quote from stu:

Your responses contain the same intellectual content as a Flat Earther's.

If blind ignorant chance was all evolution has to work with, it's certainly done a far better job of proving itself , than random blind ignorant faith ever has for the creationists’ intelligent design.

Evolution : proven
intelligent design: well, um err, science sucks

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Like I said deceit boy, you'd deny deny deny, and you have.
Screaming anything, no matter how ridiculous, is the basis of your argument for a creator of the universe. lol. This time it's about "fricken page numbers".
So I give you the page number the volume and the publication, and then you deny it's even printed. That’s what you do. It’s all you have.

I just covered all the aspects including whether or not any quotes were being taken out of context.

There is no way de Duve is putting anything down to other than chance as the science shows it to be. Arguing any absurd claim to the contrary merely compounds your deceit.

You protest too much. You were caught again trying to peddle another in a long line of misrepresentations in the name of your imaginary creator.




So fact and proof is always needed for evolution but never for intelligent design.
You deny, deny, deny, fact and proof of evolution, to blindly accept imaginary intelligent design.
Deal with that, then you might make some progress.

you lie and distort.

1. just provide the link where you copied the quote and stop your bullshit...

2. you did not provide the page number...... when you provided the quote. .

You refused to provide a ink... you know I wanted the context. Why are you lying... are you hiding the context?
Are you waiting for the book to get delivered by amazon? so you can answer the question.



3. You distort and misunderstand my argument again dirtball.
I do not argue for ID... I state that there is some evidence of design and I provided you the science and the scientists...

 

[stu]

Well that certainly flipped your switch.
Steady there or you'll do yourself an injury.

Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so, however much you refuse to accept the fact. You'll never be able to change that.

Intelligent design creationism, just like flat earth only worse – at least there is an earth, has no evidence, is unproven and is , you are right, merely blind faith.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"If blind ignorant chance was all evolution has to work with..."

Blind ignorant chance is evolutionary theory.

And thanks for pointing out that blind ignorance chance is an if proposition.

Lacking any means of proof, blind ignorant chance is not a fact in evidence...just a guess to make a belief system work.

No different in essence than someone who makes a first assumption of design. The model works the same in every case.

So why blind ignorant chance over design?

If the answer is "because there is no proof of design" is terribly fallacious.

I'll concede to no proof of design, as there is no proof of non design.

Which renders the theory of blind ignorant chance just a religion when it is embraces so tightly and without logical scrutiny, that the followers repeatedly deny, deny, deny that the foundation of evolutionary theory is not a fact in evidence.

"Richard Dawkins actually admits in his book, Climbing Mount Improbable that “The original replicator probably was not DNA. We don’t know what it was...”

http://www.ministrymaker.com/richar...improbable-blind-chance-or-intelligent-design

The fallacy of the cornerstone of evolutionary theory is a modus tollens fallacy.

If P then Q
Q therefore P

That's the evolutionary theory foundation in a nutshell. It is fallacious from the very beginning.

Blind ignorant chance is an assumption without proof or fact.

Even you admit so in the following:


"If blind ignorant chance..."

The entire theory is founded on an if...and accepted as fact?

Absurdity at its finest, and misrepresentation of real science at its worst.

" it's certainly done a far better job of proving itself "

It hasn't proved itself...again, are you even thinking deeply about what you are typing?

"It" has not proved itself by any measure. "If" the majority of scientists embraced deistic design, that would make it true and proved?

Again, another fallacy, which is an appeal to authority of scientists to establish what is fact.

Scientists don't establish fact, they discover it. Facts are true independent of the opinions of scientists. Not a single scientist has ever discovered a fact of blind ignorant chance. They guess that as a possibility, but not a fact in evidence.

Theory of evolution was not discovered, it was invented based on a conditional proposition lacking proof or fact, and the logical fallacies and gaps in evolution, if someone really looks at it critically...are immense.

Starting a theory with an unknown, i.e. If______, and then claiming the antecedent is fact and conclusive...is the reality of atheistic thinking. It is bad science and bad logic simultaneously. However, it provides a possible explanation that comforts the atheists, just like theists are comforted in an different explanation.

You practice your faith, I practice mine. You deny your faith, I admit to mine.

You believe your faith is better than mine. I believe your faith is just your faith, and my faith is just my faith.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

you lie and distort.

1. just provide the link where you copied the quote and stop your bullshit...

2. you did not provide the page number...... when you provided the quote. .

You refused to provide a ink... you know I wanted the context. Why are you lying... are you hiding the context?
Are you waiting for the book to get delivered by amazon? so you can answer the question.



3. You distort and misunderstand my argument again dirtball.
I do not argue for ID... I state that there is some evidence of design and I provided you the science and the scientists...

I already gave you the source, it makes no difference to you it is in his book, nor when someone makes a video and speaks the words themself. Like Susskind , you just deny people say what do.

The quote you intended to misrepresent de Deuv with is a rhetorical question of his.
The quote I showed is not rhetorical but categorical and he is against notions of intelligent design.
The fact that he said what he said is all the context any normal person would need to confirm his position against ID.

Here's another separate source, in a link for you this time to click and then make up some pathetic excuse as to why you think a rhetorical question taken out of context with the obvious intention to mislead is more believable.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1DD1E3DF937A35754C0A963958260&pagewanted=all

You couldn't find that yourself? Really?


Thing is obviously you're fundamentally deceitful and dishonest. That's why you cannot see the truth even when it bites you in the face.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Keep repeating to your self on you finger your rosary beads:

Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so
Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so
Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so

No need to apply critical thinking, no need to examine the issues logically, but be a good atheist solder and repeat to yourself as you finger your mala beads:

Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so
Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so
Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so

...and flat earthers had scientific support in their days, nearly the whole world believe in a flat earth, and they have proof, as ships sailed out and never came back.

So much for any rigorous logic, or common sense.

"Well it looks like chance to me...so it must be chance. The scientists that agreed with me told me so..."

If the history of science weren't littered with more unproved, unprovable, and replaced theories than are currently in favor...you might have a point...but since that's not the case, scientists are wrong much more than they are right when generating fanciful theories of something from nothing, or energy from no energy, or life from non life, or intelligence from ignorant chance...clearly you have no point when it comes to applying critical thinking...

Quote from stu:

Well that certainly flipped your switch.
Steady there or you'll do yourself an injury.

Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so, however much you refuse to accept the fact. You'll never be able to change that.

Intelligent design creationism, just like flat earth only worse – at least there is an earth, has no evidence, is unproven and is , you are right, merely blind faith.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Keep repeating to your self on you finger your rosary beads:

Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so
Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so
Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so

No need to apply critical thinking, no need to examine the issues logically, but be a good atheist solder and repeat to yourself as you finger your mala beads:

Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so
Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so
Evolution is proven, has proved itself, and continuously does so

...and flat earthers had scientific support in their days, nearly the whole world believe in a flat earth, and they have proof, as ships sailed out and never came back.

So much for any rigorous logic, or common sense.

"Well it looks like chance to me...so it must be chance. The scientists that agreed with me told me so..."

If the history of science weren't littered with more unproved, unprovable, and replaced theories than are currently in favor...you might have a point...but since that's not the case, scientists are wrong much more than they are right when generating fanciful theories of something from nothing, or energy from no energy, or life from non life, or intelligence from ignorant chance...clearly you have no point when it comes to applying critical thinking...

So I make the sentence once ever and you repeat it six times in one post. That means by your faith and belief styled logic system, it's me with a finger on the repeat button.
You've sent that critical thinking and rigorous examining of issues logically straight out the window already.

The same nonsensical argument you use for intelligent design creationism is used to this day by flat earthers trying to prop up their ridiculous claims too.
Like you , they seem to think it is intelligent to just ignore, dispute, deny and decry science along with any fact that get in the way of their beliefs.

Rigorous logic? Don't be absurd.
Your so called logic would have you moaning whenever you get your sums wrong ..."math is littered with more unproved, improvable, and replaced theories than are currently in favor"

There is no critical thinking in faith and belief. That's the idea, there is no thinking, you get to flunk class altogether.

Appraisal based on careful analytical evaluation to show up error, to guide discovery of fact, that's critical thinking.
Of course using it will leave the place littered with the unproved and improvable and the plain wrong.
But that’s the point. Those things are able to be firmly identified by critical thinking , as science and fact also do .
They are not, nor are they intended to be identified, by faith and belief.

I suggest you try beliefing your next response by faith, and not at the speed of light by the discoveries of science littered with all those improvables. That way cyber space will be saved from one less absurd remark of yours.

Intelligent design creationism. Flat earthers’ logic - only less so.

 

[killthesunshine]

+1 stu. way to expose his nonsense

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from stu:

So I make the sentence once ever and you repeat it six times in one post. That means by your faith and belief styled logic system, it's me with a finger on the repeat button.

Yes, you have your finger on the repeat button.

You've sent that critical thinking and rigorous examining of issues logically straight out the window already.

Make it about me is to deny your lack of rigorous examining of issues logically.

Childish way of not responding to my claim.

The same nonsensical argument you use for intelligent design creationism is used to this day by flat earthers trying to prop up their ridiculous claims too.

I'm not making an argument for creationism. I'm making an argument that non ID has no logical foundation when the cornerstone is an assumption of blind ignorant chance, an assumption lacking falsification, direct evidence, or knowledge of how, why, or where this imagined force of blind random chance works.

Simply claiming "it must be an accident" because of ignorance is sloppy stuff.

Like you , they seem to think it is intelligent to just ignore, dispute, deny and decry science along with any fact that get in the way of their beliefs.

Again, the pattern repeats. You have no defense nor actual rebuttal, buy make up some lie that I am denying science.

Repeatedly I have asked for fact and proof of random ignorant blind chance, and the atheists just go mute and then begin with the ad hominems.

Rigorous logic? Don't be absurd.
Your so called logic would have you moaning whenever you get your sums wrong

Non responsive.

..."math is littered with more unproved, improvable, and replaced theories than are currently in favor"

So you are suggesting that math is blah, blah, blah.

My comments went to the history of theories in science, not math.

The current love affair with a theory that is not self evident nor founded on fact, but appeals to atheists.

There is no critical thinking in faith and belief.

Then suspend your belief in random ignorant chance, or stay in your faith and belief. Your option.

That's the idea, there is no thinking, you get to flunk class altogether.

Correct, the thinking ended with assuming something that is a modus tollens fallacy.

If random ignorant chance, then blind evolutionary process.

Since I believe blind evolutionary theory is true therefore random ignorant chance is a fact.

It is so fundamentally flawed. Beginning with an assumption, then a second assumption of a theory then claimed to be a fact, not one possible theory. Then the the first assumption is claimed to be true without doubt because the assumed theory now stated as fact proves that random ignorant chance is fact.

It really shows the strength of faith, than even when presented with the logical fallacy, the only response I have seen is repeated claim and testifying that "evolution is a fact."

Appraisal based on careful analytical evaluation to show up error, to guide discovery of fact, that's critical thinking.

There has been no discovery or any fact of a force or process of blind ignorant random chance. It is just one possibility, and a guess.

Of course using it will leave the place littered with the unproved and improvable and the plain wrong.

Yes, assuming something as fact, when fact is not proved does belong in the litter box.

But that’s the point. Those things are able to be firmly identified by critical thinking , as science and fact also do .

Blind random ignorant chance has not been firmly identified, by either critical thinking, or science, and as such is not fact.

They are not, nor are they intended to be identified, by faith and belief.

Yes, science doesn't intend scientists to be willfully ignorant or to assume some force or pattern of random ignorant chance. It can be proposed as a possibility, but a fact?

Not a fact.

I suggest you try beliefing your next response by faith, and not at the speed of light by the discoveries of science littered with all those improvables. That way cyber space will be saved from one less absurd remark of yours.

More blather.

Intelligent design creationism.

You are really hung up with creationism, which I'll repeat, is not what I am suggesting. I suggest non design is not a fact, but rather a belief.

Flat earthers’ logic - only less so.

Yes, I know your opinion. Now how about some fact for a change.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

I already gave you the source, it makes no difference to you it is in his book, nor when someone makes a video and speaks the words themself. Like Susskind , you just deny people say what do.

The quote you intended to misrepresent de Deuv with is a rhetorical question of his.
The quote I showed is not rhetorical but categorical and he is against notions of intelligent design.
The fact that he said what he said is all the context any normal person would need to confirm his position against ID.

Here's another separate source, in a link for you this time to click and then make up some pathetic excuse as to why you think a rhetorical question taken out of context with the obvious intention to mislead is more believable.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1DD1E3DF937A35754C0A963958260&pagewanted=all

You couldn't find that yourself? Really?


Thing is obviously you're fundamentally deceitful and dishonest. That's why you cannot see the truth even when it bites you in the face.

Troll response by stu. how much time are you going to spend, avoiding a simple response...

show us the link...

Its pretty funny...so I will do it again.

show us the link. thats all I ask.
I expect you will... but this is the about the 10th time I have asked for it. whats is up?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Just ask a simple straight question, like:

What is the proof of blind random ignorant chance?

Have scientists ever produced life from non life?

Have scientists ever observed complex organ evolution directly?


http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/252-evolutions-useless-organ-argument

Arguing against non ID is reasonable. Assuming that an argument against non ID is necessarily a claim for creationism is not true.

I get the same type of crap from the right wing ET crowd, who assume a fallacy of a false dilemma that because I argue against ultra right wing extremism, that I must be an ultra left wing extremist.

It is possible to have reasonable discussions with some people, who don't feel threatened by having their positions critically examined. Those people are secure in their beliefs, and are open minded to any new information, or exposition on their logic which shows a false step, as they are seeking only the truth, not looking to perpetuate a dogma that emotionally driven.

Maybe it is because the atheists are such a minority group, that they feel insecure and threatened by the majority, and take a "you are either with the atheists, or against us" position.

Quote from jem:

Troll response by stu. how much time are you going to spend, avoiding a simple response...

show us the link...

Its pretty funny...so I will do it again.

show us the link. thats all I ask.
I expect you will... but this is the about the 10th time I have asked for it. whats is up?