Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[stu]

You can only play the denial card so many times until it turns into deceit and dishonesty, which in your case happened many posts ago.

"....chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence." Christian de Duve

Quote from jem:

more proof you have a science comprehension problem.

why don't you produce a quote in which De Duve says it is his opinion that chance created it all... (including abiogenesis).

Answer... you know you can not.

therefore you either just lied your ass off

or you have a science comprehension problem.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Thanks for revealing the depth of your point of view...

Quote from stu:

Lol
No, seriously, that is funny.
Dumb yes and crazy too.....but definately funny.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Thanks for revealing the depth of your point of view...

You're welcome.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Any time I can illustrate shallow and monolithic thinking like yours, it is my pleasure.

Quote from stu:

You're welcome.

 

[stu]

Then pleasure must be a total stranger to you.
Any time you can illustrate a coherent argument would do.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Any time I can illustrate shallow and monolithic thinking like yours, it is my pleasure.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

You don't understand my argument, so it may be incoherent to you, due to your flat earth style thinking.

Reminiscent to the Newtonian thinkers when Quantum mechanical thinking came along.

Your thinking is relativistic, with no absolute foundation.

Quote from stu:

Then pleasure must be a total stranger to you.
Any time you can illustrate a coherent argument would do.

 

[stu]

You don't understand your own argument, so reminiscent of the flat earthers.
Thinking in absolutes is no foundation for coherent argument.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You don't understand my argument, so it may be incoherent to you, due to your flat earth style thinking.

Reminiscent to the Newtonian thinkers when Quantum mechanical thinking came along.

Your thinking is relativistic, with no absolute foundation.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

So let me get this.

You understand my argument, but I don't?

Fascinating.

You think it is absurd that the universe exists everywhere at all times, and all places....but that each particular time and each particular exists only in relationship to a different time and a different place.

Again, fascinating.

You don't think it is absurd however to embrace a theory of life from non life, or randomness as cause, or programming without a program.

Again, fascinating the lengths some people will go to in order to deny the obvious.

Quote from stu:

You don't understand your own argument, so reminiscent of the flat earthers.
Thinking in absolutes is no foundation for coherent argument.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

You can only play the denial card so many times until it turns into deceit and dishonesty, which in your case happened many posts ago.

"....chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence." Christian de Duve

this is what you said... de duve was saying..
"He said the actor was chance, and chance alone did it all."

then you take the quote above out of context... to make it look like de duve was stating that it was his belief that chance alone was the actor..

when if you were to quote the beginning of the sentence you would see that de duve stated that a branch of science (modern molecular biology) was says says that not de duve...

you are the fraud here.

here is the ny times article you cited.... quoted in pertinent part.


...
"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacterial cell to that of the chance assembly of its component atoms," Dr. de Duve wrote in his textbook, "A Guided Tour of the Living Cell," "even eternity will not suffice to produce one for you. So you might as well accept, as do most scientists, that the process was completed in no more than one billion years and that it took place entirely on the surface of our planet."

The hard part, he wrote, was getting from the simplest chemicals to the first specialized cells, after which "it took no more than 150,000 generations for an ape to develop into the inventor of calculus."

As to whether some guiding hand was needed for the process, Dr. de Duve commented:

"The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence."

But the succession of chances that created life did not operate in a vacuum, he said. "It operated in a universe governed by orderly laws and made of matter endowed with specific properties. These laws and properties are the constraints that shape evolutionary roulette and restrict the numbers that can turn up. Among these numbers are life and all its wonders, including the conscious mind."

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

So let me get this.

You understand my argument, but I don't?

Fascinating.

You think it is absurd that the universe exists everywhere at all times, and all places....but that each particular time and each particular exists only in relationship to a different time and a different place.

Again, fascinating.

You don't think it is absurd however to embrace a theory of life from non life, or randomness as cause, or programming without a program.

Again, fascinating the lengths some people will go to in order to deny the obvious.

Let you get this? Be honest, you just don't want to get this.

I understand your argument yes.
It's bizarre, self-contradictory, batty, shallow.... but funny too.
At least you have that much going for it. Don't be so upset.

There is an overbearing self-importance in your argument also , by which you, tell me, what I find absurd.
Nevertheless no, I don't find it absurd that "the universe exists everywhere at all times, and all places", if that is supposed to mean the universe is everything that exists anywhere.

So why tell me I do find that absurd?


I do find it absurd to "embrace a theory of life from non life, or randomness as cause, or programming without a program."

So why tell me I don't find that absurd?

I find it infinitely more than reasonable to consider as strong likelihood, life from inorganic matter in light of what is known.
And proved beyond all reasonable doubt, is the reduction of randomness as cause shown by natural selection and evolution, not by what you are imagining as some assumed need for programming.

However, it's nice how much you are fascinated.
Bless.