Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[stu]

What de Duve said is unambiguous
So you try to make it ambiguous by introducing silly and confused arguments like the one below.

You seem to think that creating blurred misunderstanding about a categorical statement is a form of argument.

It's dishonest and deceitful.
It is quite clear that's what you are all about.

Quote from jem:

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."

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

What de Duve said is unambiguous
So you try to make it ambiguous by introducing silly and confused arguments like the one below.

You seem to think that creating blurred misunderstanding about a categorical statement is a form of argument.

It's dishonest and deceitful.
It is quite clear that's what you are all about.

as always in our discussion of science, I quote experts and top prize winners in the scientific community, then you distort.
here is the quote for de duve...


"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.


After reading that what type of person would argue that De Duve really meant chance and chance alone caused the birth of a bacterial cell?

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

as always in our discussion of science, I quote experts and top prize winners in the scientific community, then you distort.
here is the quote for de duve...


"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.


After reading that what type of person would argue that De Duve really meant chance and chance alone caused the birth of a bacterial cell?

What type of person? Why, a de Duve type of person that's what type, who said the answer is chance and chance alone.

You won't get science to support intelligent design creationism no matter how much you absurdly and pointlessly re-quote the same stuff whilst all the time ignoring and denying the obvious.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

""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."

Is the above quote of Dr. Duve an opinion of his or is it a statement of a fact of science?

Quote from stu:

What type of person? Why, a de Duve type of person that's what type, who said the answer is chance and chance alone.

You won't get science to support intelligent design creationism no matter how much you absurdly and pointlessly re-quote the same stuff whilst all the time ignoring and denying the obvious.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

""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."

Is the above quote of Dr. Duve an opinion of his or is it a statement of a fact of science?

The above quote of Dr. Duve starts with the word If.
So don't you think you should include a hypothetical in your alternatives?

Nevertheless, put this against it, or alongside anything de Duve provides, whether it is opinion, statement of fact, or science, as there is nothing he has said to oppose it…..

• "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."

In light of that, arguing de Duve is having anything to do with intelligent design creationism in any way is not just being ludicrous, it's plain dishonest.

Id'ers propose misconception, re-interpretation and confusion no matter how utterly absurd as a form of argument. A cheap tactic.
From the complete lack of any credibility in id comes the fraudulent attempt to force some science into religion by any means.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Yes, as I have mentioned before, the theories of chance non ID begin with an if...

Quote from stu:

The above quote of Dr. Duve starts with the word If.
So don't you think you should include a hypothetical in your alternatives?

Nevertheless, put this against it, or alongside anything de Duve provides, whether it is opinion, statement of fact, or science, as there is nothing he has said to oppose it…..

• "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."

In light of that, arguing de Duve is having anything to do with intelligent design creationism in any way is not just being ludicrous, it's plain dishonest.

Id'ers propose misconception, re-interpretation and confusion no matter how utterly absurd as a form of argument. A cheap tactic.
From the complete lack of any credibility in id comes the fraudulent attempt to force some science into religion by any means.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

The above quote of Dr. Duve starts with the word If.
So don't you think you should include a hypothetical in your alternatives?

Nevertheless, put this against it, or alongside anything de Duve provides, whether it is opinion, statement of fact, or science, as there is nothing he has said to oppose it…..

• "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."

In light of that, arguing de Duve is having anything to do with intelligent design creationism in any way is not just being ludicrous, it's plain dishonest.

Id'ers propose misconception, re-interpretation and confusion no matter how utterly absurd as a form of argument. A cheap tactic.
From the complete lack of any credibility in id comes the fraudulent attempt to force some science into religion by any means.

First of all I am am not an IDer as much as I am saying there is evidence of Design. I do not go the next step and say there is proof of design.

You keep lying about what I say. It is a very cheap straw man tactic.

if you were honest you would have mentioned... that before your quote he said this...

"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.""

you would have mentioned where he explains the hard part is getting from non life to life,

you would be honest and state that De Duve and just all scientists in the field hold out an idea that science may discover how life came from non life, but at the moment they do not know.

Stu you are the goon trying to argue technical bullshit... when the truth is, science has no proof of abiogenesis....

so what is the point off all the b.s. you write.

Are you arguing that you feel abiogenesis came about by chance?

Good for you.. I hope your feelings make you feel scientific.

 

[MarketMasher]

OH CRAP!! THIS THREAD IS STILL GOING!!

Way back when I was peeking in and goofing around in here, I remember somebody posted a sarcastic(?) question "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it", or something like that....

Now with Easter season approaching again, I was thinking about that and also the old "Is God incapable of stopping evil" thing....

Turns out they are the same question. And if you answer one, you answer the other.

Thought the Big question still remains - Who was the one that associated Marshmellow Peeps with Easter??

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
First of all I am am not an IDer as much as I am saying there is evidence of Design. I do not go the next step and say there is proof of design.

You think there is evidence of intelligent design. You are an ID'er.

Unlike you I do say there is proof of design. There are designs. There is design.
There is NO evidence of intelligent design .
By calling what you clearly mean to be Intelligent design , design, at best you're being the usual disingenuous, dishonest ID'er.

Quote from jem:
You keep lying about what I say. It is a very cheap straw man tactic.

if you were honest you would have mentioned... that before your quote he said this...

"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.""

That quote has nothing to do with 'design' , intelligent design. Has it!. So why are you trying to suggest it has?

Quote from jem:
you would have mentioned where he explains the hard part is getting from non life to life,

Why should I mention that?.... non life to life is an entirely separate subject.

Quote from jem:
you would be honest and state that De Duve and just all scientists in the field hold out an idea that science may discover how life came from non life, but at the moment they do not know.

Scientists certainly do know how life may have come from non life and there is a lot of science to explain it.

But then trying to argue because a scientist isn't confirming something not to do with ID, therefore it must mean he is saying intelligent design is a possibility, is the kind of vacuous argument an ID'er will frequently use.
It Displays the mentality of someone who is prepared to say anything, no matter how absurd, misleading or dishonest, to try and defend some imaginary creator.

Quote from jem:
Stu you are the goon trying to argue technical bullshit... when the truth is, science has no proof of abiogenesis....

so what is the point off all the b.s. you write.

Are you arguing that you feel abiogenesis came about by chance?

Good for you.. I hope your feelings make you feel scientific.

My feelings|?? What are you talking about now!?
It's Dr. de Duve the Nobel Prize winning scientist who you decided to quote, who speaks of abiogenesis and says categorically NO to intelligent design.
You chose to rely on science for some hope of intelligent design and the science said NO.

If you don't truly realize how bad, how altogether dishonest your argument is, then I can do no more than feel very sorry for you.

Earlier in this thread you started out with this......
"When I present noble prize winners who state there is evidence our universe is designed....

You quoted de Duve in an attempt to support the unsupportable nonsense that is intelligent design creationism, which you like to call 'design'.
You've been caught out and so I think it's your own feelings you should be considering, and how they lead you to be so utterly dishonest about the whole subject.

 

[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.

Quote from stu:

You think there is evidence of intelligent design. You are an ID'er.

Unlike you I do say there is proof of design. There are designs. There is design.
There is NO evidence of intelligent design .
By calling what you clearly mean to be Intelligent design , design, at best you're being the usual disingenuous, dishonest ID'er.

That quote has nothing to do with 'design' , intelligent design. Has it!. So why are you trying to suggest it has?

Why should I, non life to life is a entirely separate subject.

Scientists certainly do know how life may have come from non life and there is a lot of science to explain it.

But then trying to argue because a scientist isn't confirming something not to do with ID, therefore it must mean he is saying intelligent design is a possibility, is the kind of vacuous argument an ID'er will frequently use.
It Displays the mentality of someone who is prepared to say anything, no matter how absurd, misleading or dishonest, to try and defend some imaginary creator. Commonly known as ID'ers.

My feelings|?? What are you talking about now!?
It's Dr. de Duve the Nobel Prize winning scientist who you decided to quote, who speaks of abiogenesis and says categorically NO to intelligent design.
You chose to rely on science for some hope of intelligent design and the science said NO.

If you don't truly realize how bad, how altogether dishonest your argument is, then I can do no more than feel very sorry for you.

Earlier in this thread you started out with this......
"When I present noble prize winners who state there is evidence our universe is designed....

You quoted de Duve in an attempt to support the unsupportable nonsense that is intelligent design creationism, which you like to call 'design'.
You've been caught out and so I think it's your own feelings you should be considering, and how they lead you to be so utterly dishonest about this whole subject.