Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Lol. So this is what a message board looks like when creationists get hysterical.

You guys have made it quite obvious there is no real argument for your imaginary intelligent designer, other than needfull ignorance and antagonism toward science.


here ya go Jem repeat this 20 times a day....

"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."

Dr. Christian de Duve
Professor Emeritus
1974 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

try quoting in context..


"Dr. Christian de Duve, a Belgian microbiologist awarded the 1974 Nobel prize for his investigation of the structures of cells, dismisses the panspermia notion as unnecessary.

"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.""

(JEM --- this is the quote STU does not understand...
here we see in plain english what I have been saying...
No chance of the birth of a bacterial cell by chance.... so science just accepts it happened on earth... (the unstated sentence being... God or at least cause unknown but not chance. Now to understand that this is what really means I provided the quote from Crick the founder of DNA who also says no chance of life from non life on earth. Stu of course dismisses science in favor of his preferred 1960s views.)

Then the article contintues...)


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."

(JEM says... again Stu missed this point... evolution after the first specialized cells... but evolution did not cause the first cell per the sentence before.)


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."



( Essentially science says by definition it must be chance even though De Duve and crick and others know abiogensis did not happen by chance on earth. )


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:

Could you make a logical argument with a logical proof to show how ID arguments posted are wrong?

I didn't think so...

.....perhaps you just didn't think.

ID and creationists never make arguments for ID.

ID only ever diverts making any argument for ID, by cranking out attacks on the logical proofs and knowledge from science with fallacy and misrepresentation, as you've just proved within your 9 post hysteria.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
try quoting in context..

try being honest

Quote from jem:
Dr. Christian de Duve, a Belgian microbiologist awarded the 1974 Nobel prize for his investigation of the structures of cells, dismisses the panspermia notion as unnecessary.

"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.""

You talk about context...
See that If right there.... In what context do you imagine that puts things in ?
Now look below for Christian de Duve's non-conditional, unqualified, categorical statement. What context would that be in?

Quote from jem:
(JEM --- this is the quote STU does not understand...
here we see in plain english what I have been saying...
No chance of the birth of a bacterial cell by chance.... so science just accepts it happened on earth... (the unstated sentence being... God or at least cause unknown but not chance. Now to understand that this is what really means I provided the quote from Crick the founder of DNA who also says no chance of life from non life on earth. Stu of course dismisses science in favor of his preferred 1960s views.)

Here we see in plain English why you are wrong, and why your "unstated sentence" is absurd, and why persistently misrepresenting the way you do as a creationist is deceitful.

• "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." Christian de Duve

Unequivocal in any context.

Evidently as a creationist you really don't care how untruthful or ludicrous you are.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Do you even realize that what you write below is not actually an argument or rebuttal for what was posted previously?

Have you gotten to the stage that all you do is seethe and boil like a pot of primordial soup at the concept of design to the point where you can not be reasonable nor rational.

If design theory is so off base, it should be easy for you to demonstrate how non design is proven (it is not) and how chance is assumed from a known or a logical proof (it is not) and how the certainty that oozes from your pores like pus from a huge zit is something other than emotionalism, and faith in non God...

Quote from stu:

.....perhaps you just didn't think.

ID and creationists never make arguments for ID.

ID only ever diverts making any argument for ID, by cranking out attacks on the logical proofs and knowledge from science with fallacy and misrepresentation, as you've just proved within your 9 post hysteria.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Do you even realize that what you write below is not actually an argument or rebuttal for what was posted previously?

Have you gotten to the stage that all you do is seethe and boil like a pot of primordial soup at the concept of design to the point where you can not be reasonable nor rational.

If design theory is so off base, it should be easy for you to demonstrate how non design is proven (it is not) and how chance is assumed from a known or a logical proof (it is not) and how the certainty that oozes from your pores like pus from a huge zit is something other than emotionalism, and faith in non God...

The answers to your questions are be specific, and no

In response to your other comment...

There is actually no such thing as an intelligent design theory. It's conjecture at best. Wild and more often than not, just a silly guess. Trying to suggest science is wrong by getting science wrong. ID is no theory.

It is not logical of you to assert it's proof of something else that's needed in order to prove ID is so off base.

To use your terminology, chance is known from logical proof, within practical logical and scientific proof. You even have Jem's own internationally acclaimed Nobel prize winner biochemist confirming the fact.
Although as creationists it's the intentional denial of anything to do with proof which both of you rely upon so heavily for ideas of ID.

With over a dozen sequential postings of cut&paste creationist nonsense, and those zit issues, it doesn't look like emotionalism is being a stranger to you.

 

[Ricter]

You are both strongly emotionally attached, this thread shows that.

 

[stu]

With the lowest total posts on ET between the three of us, I'm gonna claim the least emotional attachment overall.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

With the lowest total posts on ET between the three of us, I'm gonna claim the least emotional attachment overall.

You make up with doggedness on this topic what you lack in quantity elsewhere. I'm not saying you're alone on that.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

You make up with doggedness on this topic what you lack in quantity elsewhere. I'm not saying you're alone on that.

Ok, now it's not so much emotionally attached then, but doggedness. Is persistence any kind of a problem to you?
I take your point, but is there something perhaps wrong to your mind, in replying to posts on one specific subject?

I would just mention in regards to quantity, you are also posting in ET persistently more than I

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

Ok, not so much emotional then, but doggedness. Is persistence any kind of a problem to you?
I take your point, but is there something perhaps wrong to your mind, in replying to posts on one specific subject?

I would just mention in regards to quantity, you are also posting in ET persistently more than I

No, I have no objection to persistence or focus, per se. I was making my comment in response to your reply to 777 that he was emotional about this, and implying that you are less so, or not at all.

The decision to be an unemotional rationalist is itself an emotionally laden decision. And committment to that decision requires ongoing emotion. It's belief in the "rightness" of the decision.