Unlike you I do say there is proof of design. There are designs. There is design.
Who or what is the designer?
(Bet he says "nature")
Who or what is the designer?
(Bet he says "nature")
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
Stu says -
Scientists certainly do know how life may have come from non life and there is a lot of science to explain it. (in other words science does not know how life came from non life - so cut the b.s..)
if one were and ID troll they could just as easily say science knows how God may d have designed the universe and there a lot of science to explain it.
Could you show any less credibility? Seriously, do trolls stoop that low? Stu, I mean axeman.
finally lets review... stu says if one believes there is evidence of design that means you are an IDer.
that means every scientists who says the evidence of design in our universe can be explained by the multiverse hypothessis is an IDer according to stu.
Scientists certainly do know how life may have come from non life and there is a lot of science to explain it. (in other words science does not know how life came from non life - so cut the b.s..)
if one were and ID troll they could just as easily say science knows how God may d have designed the universe and there a lot of science to explain it.
Could you show any less credibility? Seriously, do trolls stoop that low? Stu, I mean axeman.
finally lets review... stu says if one believes there is evidence of design that means you are an IDer.
that means every scientists who says the evidence of design in our universe can be explained by the multiverse hypothessis is an IDer according to stu.
There is a universe of what you call non ID staring you in the face.Quote from OPTIONAL777:
There is NO evidence of intelligent design.
An all caps no. Getting emotional again.
By the way, still waiting for evidence of non ID. Of course you have none, but still waiting patiently anyway.
But of course if it's good enough for you, then were intelligent design of that same reality, your current absurd argument should suffice. "Still waiting for evidence of ID. Of course you have none, but still waiting patiently."
Argument? Of course you have none, but still patiently struggling for one anyway.
An all quotation marks "nature". Getting emotional again.Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Unlike you I do say there is proof of design. There are designs. There is design.
Who or what is the designer?
(Bet he says "nature")
Not natural then, so despite your earlier protestations, you are a creationist , wishing for an intelligent designer.
Still purposely misrepresenting everything you can as a form of argument.Quote from jem:
Stu says -
Scientists certainly do know how life may have come from non life and there is a lot of science to explain it. (in other words science does not know how life came from non life - so cut the b.s..)
if one were and ID troll they could just as easily say science knows how God may d have designed the universe and there a lot of science to explain it.
Could you show any less credibility? Seriously, do trolls stoop that low? Stu, I mean axeman.
finally lets review... stu says if one believes there is evidence of design that means you are an IDer.
that means every scientists who says the evidence of design in our universe can be explained by the multiverse hypothessis is an IDer according to stu.
It's no use telling me I'm saying something different to what I am, any more than it is trying to pretend your selective quote mining from Nobel prize winners are saying something different to what they are.
There is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life. There is none whatsoever, nothing, to show or explain or even rationalize, how life came about by intelligent design. There is only absurd and dishonest argument for ID
As much as you hate that as an ID'er, it's how things are.
It's quite obvious you find deceit a comforter under such circumstances.
Non ID is an invention, not a discovery.
Quote from stu:
There is a universe of what you call non ID staring you in the face.
But of course if it's good enough for you, then were intelligent design of that same reality, your current absurd argument should suffice. "Still waiting for evidence of ID. Of course you have none, but still waiting patiently."
Argument? Of course you have none, but still patiently struggling for one anyway.
Dodge, non responsive.
Repeat:
You: "Unlike you I do say there is proof of design. There are designs. There is design."
Logical question: Who or what is the designer?
Repeat:
You: "Unlike you I do say there is proof of design. There are designs. There is design."
Logical question: Who or what is the designer?
Quote from stu:
An all quotation marks "nature". Getting emotional again.
Not natural then, so despite your earlier protestations, you are a creationist , wishing for an intelligent designer.
Quote from stu:
Still purposely misrepresenting everything you can as a form of argument.
It's no use telling me I'm saying something different to what I am, any more than it is trying to pretend your selective quote mining from Nobel prize winners are saying something different to what they are.
There is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life. There is none whatsoever, nothing, to show or explain or even rationalize, how life came about by intelligent design. There is only absurd and dishonest argument for ID
As much as you hate that as an ID'er, it's how things are.
It's quite obvious you find deceit a comforter under such circumstances.
Lets stick to one of your statements
you said there is plenty of science showing how life came from non life..
So... I say produce a link
show us one shred of scientific evidence of abiogensis.
You were wrong.Quote from jem:
When I present noble prize winners who state there is vidence our universe is designed and you all deny it without and counter to the scientists points...
I value credibility if I am wrong, I will admit it.
You're not going to have any credibility until you acknowledge it.
Quote from jem:
Lets stick to one of your statements
you said there is plenty of science showing how life came from non life..
So... I say produce a link
show us one shred of scientific evidence of abiogensis.
Asking for links to divert away from the mess you've already made but can't acknowledge is not going to help your credibility.
Fact is, there is nothing in science that supports intelligent design or even makes it a possibility.
The exact opposite is the case for abiogenesis, which is another diversion as it is by definition not even requiring anything to do with intelligent design anyway.
You are wrong and deceitful in purposely trying to misrepresent cherry picked partial quotes from scientists to paint a false picture for intelligent design and creationism.
But that is what ID'ers do, misrepresent.
That's what ID'ers are, deceitful.
Just like you have been.
Quote from jem:
Lets stick to one of your statements
you said there is plenty of science showing how life came from non life..
So... I say produce a link
show us one shred of scientific evidence of abiogensis.
De Duve quote was saying life did not come from non life on this earth by chance.
You said there is 'plenty of science" showing life from non life.
I ask for the proof of this "plenty of science".
simply question... troll response.
we can learn something from your response to the question - or lack thereof -
we can conclude there is not only --- not "plenty of science", there may be no evidence at all. Making your statement false and fraudulent.
when it comes to statements by Stu about design and science
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus