Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[jem]

I reread your argument stu...

if you are trying to say chance alone is a possibility for the cause of abiogensis... than you have accepted my argument... because now that argument is not inconsistent with the original quote I presented from De Duve...


So one way or the other I was not fraudulently presenting a quote... you were.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

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.

You are not making anything simple nor are you connecting dots, you are merely scribbling all over the page with a big fat thick headed marker pen.

Asking simplistic uninformed questions with false, question-begging presuppositions and then answering them yourself , is well, just plain dumb.

Here is the simple part: You are dishonest and willfully ignorant.
You've been caught outright using deceit and misinformation, misrepresenting scientists in trying to make a very silly case for intelligent design.

From the comments you post, just words and meaning let alone any science, must be very confusing to you.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I reread your argument stu...

if you are trying to say chance alone is a possibility for the cause of abiogensis... than you have accepted my argument... because now that argument is not inconsistent with the original quote I presented from De Duve...


So one way or the other I was not fraudulently presenting a quote... you were.

Face it Jem, you are out of your depth. So muddled up you're appearing to no longer even understand what it is you are arguing about.

• " 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 single clearly defined explanation, it is nothing short of being utterly dishonest and deceptive of you to try and pretend by the original quote you presented, or by anything else Christian de Duve is saying, there is anything in them whatsoever to suggest or give room for intelligent design and creationism.

In this thread you've tried all kinds of frantic duplicity to say otherwise.

I realize your position on this is desperate, but after all these exchanges such serial dishonesty on your behalf is something you really shouldn't be proud of.

 

[jem]

Once again Stu quotes out of context...
so I will present the same argument.

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.

Quote from stu:

Face it Jem, you are out of your depth. So muddled up you're appearing to no longer even understand what it is you are arguing about.

• " 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 single clearly defined explanation, it is nothing short of being utterly dishonest and deceptive of you to try and pretend by the original quote you presented, or by anything else Christian de Duve is saying, there is anything in them whatsoever to suggest or give room for intelligent design and creationism.

In this thread you've tried all kinds of frantic duplicity to say otherwise.

I realize your position on this is desperate, but after all these exchanges such serial dishonesty on your behalf is something you really shouldn't be proud of.

 

[stu]

Asking simplistic uninformed questions with false question-begging presuppositions in them, and then answering them yourself , is dumb

Repeatedly doing so is even dumber.

Quote from jem:

Once again Stu quotes out of context...
so I will present the same argument.

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.

 

[stu]

• The frustrated Creationists' pitfall,
  And the Intelligent Designers' downfall,
  Is that they try and they try,
  But can't reason why,
  Science should make sense of the real world at all.

 

[jem]

I will not make my proof even more elegant....

...
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.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

There once was an atheist name stu,
Who worshiped chance as so many atheists do,
When asked for a proof of such chance,
He squirmed like there were ants in his pants,
And began smearing message boards with his own poo.

Quote from stu:

• The frustrated Creationists' pitfall,
  And the Intelligent Designers' downfall,
  Is that they try and they try,
  But can't reason why,
  Science should make sense of the real world at all.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Conclusions

The whole notion of abiogenesis is a construction built by evolutionists so that they can dismiss the whole notion of God from the generation of life. Rather than a supernatural being creating the life found on this earth through His own Wisdom, evolutionists seek to find an entirely naturalistic means by which to explain the existence of life on this planet. Yet, as seen above, the whole notion of abiogenesis rests upon an exceedingly weak foundation which is actually contrary to much of the scientific knowledge which we actually have obtained through extensive experimentation. Abiogenesis, in fact, violates several basic principles of chemistry and biochemistry which are so universally held as to be axiomatic. To get around these difficulties, evolutionary scientists have turned to various means of modifying their basic abiogenetic theory so as to resolve one or another of the problems presented. Yet, while pointing to directing clays, undersea thermal vents, interstellar amino acid generation, or several of the other more esoteric and generally dismissed theories, evolutionists manage to resolve (or often, just give the illusion of resolving, in the popular image framed by the media) one problem, while yet failing to address the other difficulties. Thus, abiogenesis, as far as can be seen from the actual experimental work and knowledge (apart from any concern for philosophical arguments or pure theory), is not supportable from true science. While debunking abiogenesis does not necessarily imply the truth of special Creation, it does help to eliminate one of the foundations of the false construct of evolution which humanistic scientists hope to erect in opposition to Creation. As such, there is no reason for the rational person to accept evolutionist assertions about the "truth" of abiogenesis, nor to consider the various abiogenetic theories as a reason to disbelieve in the creation of life by God's hand.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
I will not make my proof even more elegant....

...no kidding.

Quote from jem:

...
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.

Well done
...dumb then dumber and then dumber again.