Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[OPTIONAL777]

If it doesn't make a difference, then start with a design assumption.

It won't change any of our knowledge, it won't change biological processes.

So you have no reason to object to design.

Design is a concept.

Non design concept came after the concept of design.

Non design is founded in a lack of what atheists demand for evidence of design.

What evidence would convince an atheist of design?

This is where the atheists start getting quite silly...

Quote from killthesunshine:

what difference does it make what came first? "design" is not really a concept (it's not definitive enuf to be a concept, too arbitrary & vague)it's more of a whimsical "notion" assumed not on basis of supporting evidence but for the LACK OF. (as well as anthropometric emotional "failings")

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from stu:

"I don't believe you actually read what I said."

I don't think you must understand what you said.

Prove that.

Instead of rambling off into long rhetorical disconnects you might try to deal with what you did say.

Make your argument. All you are doing is making opinion based statements.

The credibility of your argument for intelligent design lies equally with the flat earthers.

Prove it.

They will say to (to put it in the kinds of terms you use) "you cannot prove there is non flat earth"

Prove that is what "they" will say.

They will ask and answer for a child like you do does the earth look round or flat. Of course its looks flat. It is natural to assume flat .

It does look flat from one point of view. From a more elevated point of view, it looks round.

Point of view matters.

They will say like you do " neither can prove their position whether the earth is flat or round, so we happen to think flat is a better first proposition"

The earth can be proved round by getting away from the earth, changing the point of view to a more objective, and less subjective point of view.

Empiricism matters when empiricism is the correct tool for the job.

Empiricism doesn't work to establish the truth or falsity of random ignorant chance though.

It is why evolution is a theory that is not an empirical fact. Lacking empirical fact, and the fact that a first assumption of design doesn't change the results in biological science...there remains no valid reason to assume either design or non design.

Naturalists are often said to believe in the design of nature. Whether that design is to produce random chance change in biology, it still is a function of the design of nature, the programming of nature.

Evolutionary atheists don't suggest that the process of random chance is itself random. They suggest that this "force" of random chance is always at work...just like physicists suggest the law of gravity is always at work, or that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is always at work pushing for entropy in systems. But they are entitled to call these laws because they have the math to support it. Evolutionary theorists don't have any math to prove random ignorant chance...they just have a lack of knowledge of how to rule out design, and cannot rule out design.

So it is just a belief, not a fact.

They will claim like you do to be rationalists.

Lots of people claim to be rationalists, when they don't even know what definition of rationalists is being offered.

I showed you the difference between the two schools of rationalism (a priori) and the empiricists (a posteri).

If you are still confused, seek some help.

You, like them, will ignore ALL the evidence to the contrary to make the claim for a logical argument or position based only on a fallacy of assumption.

Evolutionary theory is abased on assumption of random unguided unplanned non programed chance, an assumption that offers no method of proof or falsifiability.

But flat earthers like intelligent designers (pun intended) will not really want to understand.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but I don't, so your flat earthers is just a stawman.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Again, I don't claim the quote out of context or half out of context.
This is your trouble .
The second time I’ve said to you, remember it took 4 or 5 goes before I could get you to spell the word cite correctly …..

The quote is not out of context…. it's fraudulent.

Purposely doctored to give the impression it is saying the opposite of what it does to try and support a groundless intelligent design argument.

It's easy to find the complete paragraph which is the actual quote. Claiming as you do the offending misrepresentation comes from a Jewish apologist , but he's from MIT so it must be ok , is actually quite pathetic even for you.

It shouldn't matter which side of the argument you are on, some easy simple fact checking would have shown the post you made to be a fraud.

The full quote was posted and from that it is as plain as day what your apologist website has done. , You responded to it by just ignoring the deception in your usual way.

Instead of being honest about it all, why don't you shout troll or sock puppet and post more of the same. You know like you usually do in so many of the acts of deceit you care to perform.

give the link... I could not find your quote when I typed it in to google.

If at the end of my research you are correct and duve meant the opposite I will concede that I was fooled by the website I read it on.

But, nevertheless you have failed to accurately counter the dozens of other quotes.

The quote from professor Carr being the easiest for you to understand.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"I don't believe you actually read what I said."

I don't think you must understand what you said.

Prove that.

Instead of rambling off into long rhetorical disconnects you might try to deal with what you did say.

Make your argument. All you are doing is making opinion based statements.

The credibility of your argument for intelligent design lies equally with the flat earthers.

Prove it.

They will say to (to put it in the kinds of terms you use) "you cannot prove there is non flat earth"

Prove that is what "they" will say.

They will ask and answer for a child like you do " does the earth look round or flat. Of course its looks flat. It is natural to assume flat ".

It does look flat from one point of view. From a more elevated point of view, it looks round.

Point of view matters.

They will say like you do " neither can prove their position whether the earth is flat or round, so we happen to think flat is a better first proposition"

The earth can be proved round by getting away from the earth, changing the point of view to a more objective, and less subjective point of view.

They will claim like you do to be rationalists.

Lots of people claim to be rationalists, when they don't even know what definition of rationalists is being offered.

I showed you the difference between the two schools of rationalism (a priori) and the empiricists (a posteri).

If you are still confused, seek some help.

You, like them, will ignore ALL the evidence to the contrary to make the claim for a logical argument or position based only on a fallacy of assumption.

Evolutionary theory is abased on assumption of random unguided unplanned non programed chance, an assumption that offers no method of proof or falsifiability.

But flat earthers like intelligent designers (pun intended) will not really want to understand.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but I don't, so your flat earthers is just a stawman.

i'll reply shortly (busy closing my positions in a dozen markets!)

stu feel fee to field this one if you wish

 

[stu]

Quote from killthesunshine:

i'll reply shortly (busy closing my positions in a dozen markets!)

stu feel fee to field this one if you wish

Lol kts, which part of that mess of redherrings strawman and false claims would warrant a response?

Well, maybe if an IDer's responses to specific statements are reasonable, like for instance response to -Evolution is a Fact- I could maybe use them to field with.....
Let's try.

• 
  Prove it.
  Prove that
  Point of view matters.
  So it is just a belief, not a fact.
  Maybe they do, maybe they don't
  All you are doing is making opinion based statements.

There. I think that covers it. Much the same as a Flat Earthers reply.
hmmm somehow ID is not sounding too clever a thing to be worthy of a response eh?

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

give the link... I could not find your quote when I typed it in to google.

If at the end of my research you are correct and duve meant the opposite I will concede that I was fooled by the website I read it on.

But, nevertheless you have failed to accurately counter the dozens of other quotes.

The quote from professor Carr being the easiest for you to understand.

Are you feeling ok?
You didn't use crude insult or name calling. There are none of the ignorant dishonest and deceitful accusations that are always in ALL your responses.

You say " If at the end of my research" RESEARCH !? puleeze
This is nothing to do with your so called research. I'm here to tell you your research sucks.
You can't even find the quote YOU posted and the response I made which follows it.
Why don't you select search - here in ET - type user name : jem, keyword : duve.
Then follow through the posts to my following response. It's all there.
Or are you having another personality login relapse, resjudica alt-alias style?

So much for your research.

The fact is that given the agenda of the people pushing all the quotes, which includes yourself, the quote referred to and for that reason probably many others too, are clearly intended to misrepresent and deceive.

A jewish religious apologist from MIT is mine quoting so you think it's ok to re-post them, without doing your "research" no doubt, as if that would make any difference, just so you can blindly jump toward a supposition of intelligent design.

Owning up to this one if you ever have enough integrity to do so, does not mean any other has merit. No more than your Susskind nonsense or Bernard Carr.

But then for those, you can simply revert to "your research" to resume the insults and crude remarks.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Between the lines paraphrase of stu:

"You mean I have to prove it? But I can't do that...I mean, I know it because I believe it...but prove it?"

Random ignorant unplanned chance is not a fact. You and your lapdog kts know that, but yall would not ever admit it, because that is the cornerstone that, if pulled would cause the whole building of atheistic belief in evolutionary dogma to collapse.

Quote from stu:

Lol kts, which part of that mess of redherrings strawman and false claims would warrant a response?

Well, maybe if an IDer's responses to specific statements are reasonable, like for instance response to -Evolution is a Fact- I could maybe use them to field with.....
Let's try.

• 
  Prove it.
  Prove that
  Point of view matters.
  So it is just a belief, not a fact.
  Maybe they do, maybe they don't
  All you are doing is making opinion based statements.

There. I think that covers it. Much the same as a Flat Earthers reply.
hmmm somehow ID is not sounding too clever a thing to be worthy of a response eh?

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Are you feeling ok?
You didn't use crude insult or name calling. There are none of the ignorant dishonest and deceitful accusations that are always in ALL your responses.

You say " If at the end of my research" RESEARCH !? puleeze
This is nothing to do with your so called research. I'm here to tell you your research sucks.
You can't even find the quote YOU posted and the response I made which follows it.
Why don't you select search - here in ET - type user name : jem, keyword : duve.
Then follow through the posts to my following response. It's all there.
Or are you having another personality login relapse, resjudica alt-alias style?

So much for your research.

The fact is that given the agenda of the people pushing all the quotes, which includes yourself, the quote referred to and for that reason probably many others too, are clearly intended to misrepresent and deceive.

A jewish religious apologist from MIT is mine quoting so you think it's ok to re-post them, without doing your "research" no doubt, as if that would make any difference, just so you can blindly jump toward a supposition of intelligent design.

Owning up to this one if you ever have enough integrity to do so, does not mean any other has merit. No more than your Susskind nonsense or Bernard Carr.

But then for those, you can simply revert to "your research" to resume the insults and crude remarks.

you are such a fricken troll...
I am not asking for where the quote is on ET.... I am asking for a link to where the quote came from on the internet.

I would like to read the context of the quote.
The longer you wait to produce the more I suspect you are the one who is taking quotes out of context.

right now all we have is your word for the fact you provided a real quote or an accurate quote.

 

[jem]

here are more quotes from the phd's website... which I also gave you.

and I don't give that shit about you not claiming they are out of context... there is no fraud if they are not contrary to the authors thesis on the subject...

I see you never gave the link where your supposed quote came from. at least none that I found.

here were quotes. now show de duve was out of context...

like I said, if you do I will apologize for wasting time cutting and pasting his quote. but, I do not think you will provide a link to where your quote came from.


“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.

--


The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.”

- Albert Einstein
---



Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

- Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.

---

It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.”

“It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

-Anthony Flew
Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater

---
There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter—not of course our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown, exist as thoughts.”

- Sir James Jeans knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer who helped develop our understanding of the evolution of stars, wrote this in his book The Mysterious Universe (Cambridge, 1931).

--

16O has exactly the right nuclear energy level either to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen or to facilitate sufficient production of 16O for life. Fred Hoyle, who discovered these coincidences in 1953, concluded that “a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”

- Hoyle, Fred. “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20. (1982), p.16
(for more of these coincidences click here)

---

“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”

- Christian de Duve. “A Guided Tour of the Living Cell” (Nobel laureate and organic chemist)


http://www.simpletoremember.com/art...science-quotes/

and there more at that link...

 

[jem]

stu you are so full of shit...you are the fraud....

would you like to read some more quotes...



Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has called for “a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.” DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life. Inanimate nature provides us with a variety of mixtures of small molecules, whose behavior is governed by scientific laws, rather than by human intervention.

Here he gives a golf-analogy:

The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=156910


troll --

the one who takes quotes out of context having no proof of his own context and then and then uses those out of context quotes to accuse others of that transgression.