Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

Well, I can go over it again if you like... but look, you just said

"I see no point in arguing with everyone about emotion"


So why did you jump in anyway!?

Because of this couplet:

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."



He made an emotionalism criticism, then you did. I wrote my comment speaking to both of you.

 

[stu]

A little parable maybe.

The kiddies are all playing in the schoolyard. Two opposing teams. They are all, of course, "emotionally involved".

One apparently letting emotion get the better of them, goes over to the opposite team, smacks someone in the eye and shouts "you have emotionalism".

Then as the teach, seeing only the result of the attack although you could have checked the cctv, your reaction is to go over to the thumpee, not the thumper, and say to him "You are both strongly emotionally attached, this thread shows that."

It is quite reasonably suggested you have a bias. Back to teacher training perhaps?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

A little parable maybe.

The kiddies are all playing in the schoolyard. Two opposing teams. They are all, of course, "emotionally involved".

One apparently letting emotion get the better of them, goes over to the opposite team, smacks someone in the eye and shouts "you have emotionalism".

Then as the teach, seeing only the result of the attack although you could have checked the cctv, your reaction is to go over to the thumpee, not the thumper, and say to him "You are both strongly emotionally attached, this thread shows that."

It is quite reasonably suggested you have a bias. Back to teacher training perhaps?

I'm well aware you feel he is more emotional than you. And again, my initial comment was not directed only at you.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

I'm well aware you feel he is more emotional than you. And again, my initial comment was not directed only at you.

Which is why I suggested you are making emotionalism the argument, just like ZZZ and Jem tried to.
It isn't the argument.
It's a red herring.
A fallacious issue thrown to divert.

You’ve done the same, but on far less egregious grounds. I’m guessing its mainly because of a built in bias against my position, not like the downright dishonesty and prejudices shown by the others.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

False.

I have stated a number of times that I don't want either ID or non ID taught in public schools.

I believe in design.

You believe in chance.

Neither belief needs to be taught to teach the process of biology, as the process of biology doesn't change one bit if one assumes design or non design.

I don't want children in public schools indoctrinated to either design or non design.

When they child asks why, the teacher speaks honestly..."I don't know, nobody knows."

The rest of your comments are just wildly swinging in the emotions and unwillingness to confront the flaws in non design speculations.

Quote from stu:

Of course you are arguing for ID. You've already stated on a number of occasions you want to see intelligent design taught in school.

How come creationists have to be so dishonest in everything they say.

There is no argument being made that resides completely on the concept of random ignorant chance.
That's just an ID'ers worse than strawman approach to everything.

How come you creationists can only concoct sham statements to shout against.

You've just produced yet another post trying to totally avoid any argument for ID which you also call "design" .

How come as an ID creationist, you can't offer anything to properly support ID...... not even its name.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

Which is why I suggested you are making emotionalism the argument, just like ZZZ and Jem tried to.
It isn't the argument.
It's a red herring.
A fallacious issue thrown to divert.

You’ve done the same, but on far less egregious grounds. I’m guessing its mainly because of a built in bias against my position, not like the downright dishonesty and prejudices shown by the others.

My only intent was to point out that all sides have an emotional committment to it. In that sense "emotionalism" is not so much a red herring as it is simply off-topic. I really was not trying to support either creationism or scientism.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

I wonder if you realize how much of a victim you sound like.

Feeling persecuted for your beliefs?

You sure come across that way.

Quote from stu:

Which is why I suggested you are making emotionalism the argument, just like ZZZ and Jem tried to.
It isn't the argument.
It's a red herring.
A fallacious issue thrown to divert.

You’ve done the same, but on far less egregious grounds. I’m guessing its mainly because of a built in bias against my position, not like the downright dishonesty and prejudices shown by the others.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

If you are not with him, in his mind, you must be against him.

Quote from Ricter:

My only intent was to point out that all sides have an emotional committment to it. In that sense "emotionalism" is not so much a red herring as it simply off-topic. I really was not trying to support either creationism or scientism.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

My only intent was to point out that all sides have an emotional committment to it. In that sense "emotionalism" is not so much a red herring as it is simply off-topic. I really was not trying to support either creationism or scientism.

Ok, I take your point, but then you were trying to support the idea both sides were involved with "emotionalism", which was something only being used as a misleading diversion by a creationist supporting creationism.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

No Jem, you try and control your emotion. "Fricken possible"??..... you should calm down.
Notice that Ricter ? Perhaps it would be more warranted in future if you directed comment first in response to the initial 'emotion' accusation, rather than to my reply, which I'd say would have been a more even handed approach with 777zz.

I don't make the argument -chance alone- caused abiogenesis. That's your strawman argument which is reflecting deceit in making it, and ignorance in expecting it to hold any credibility.

Both biochemistry and therefore abiogenesis are about chemical reaction. It is known how chemical reaction comes about. To a biochemist, chance, and chance alone is possibility (in this regard, of abiogenesis) due to favorable combinations of chemical reaction.

• "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.
So the favorable combinations of circumstances .. Life from nonliving matter....by which substances, molecules, chemicals, are changed .... that they even come into contact with each other.....that they react specifically…. "categorical: chance and chance alone.....with only natural selection to sift its effects."

You would understand that much if you were at all interested in getting to the science or the facts.

Changing the issue to Dr.Szostak , again trying to insert your own words and meaning over his as you did with Dr. de Duve, won't get away from the fact that de Duve said unambiguously .." categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all ".

There’s no room whatsoever for the supernatural creator you are always trying to force mendaciously as an ID creationist into Nobel prize winning science.
Unless that is, you are going to change the word God into Chance.

Stu... You do not seem to understand science therefore you exhibit no logic.... again.

I will make this simple because that is all you seem to comprehend... watch as we connect the dots.....

1. Do you Stu have proof of abiogenesis - answer no
2. Does science have proof of abiogenensis - answer no
3. Does De Duve have proof of abiogenesis - answer no
4. Does molecular biology have proof of abiogenesis - answer no
5. Is it Stu's argument that De Duve states modern molecular biology states that that chance alone caused abiogensis - yes.

6. Conclusion... either Noble prize winner De Duve is fraudulently misleading us about the state of molecular bio or Stu is a purposely presenting an out of context statement and then making an argument based on lies or Stu's own ignorance.