Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[stu]

Confirming once more that it is not reasoned argument but peevish whinges, uniformed conclusions, willfull ignorance, denial and misinformation at the core of intelligent design creationism.....

Quote from 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

 

[OPTIONAL777]

It would be nice for a change to see you do something more than just prattle about an argument being "not reasoned, peevish whinges, uninformed conclusions, willful ignorance, denial and misinformation."

Your only rebuttal these days is to blather like Glenn Beck...

Quote from stu:

Confirming once more that it is not reasoned argument but peevish whinges, uniformed conclusions, willfull ignorance, denial and misinformation at the core of intelligent design creationism.....

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

It would be nice for a change to see you do something more than just prattle about an argument being "not reasoned, peevish whinges, uninformed conclusions, willful ignorance, denial and misinformation."

Your only rebuttal these days is to blather like Glenn Beck...

Obviously it wasn't "nice" as you kept up the unreasoned peevish whinges regardlessly.

Godunnit is no argument and when you think like Glen Beck, rebuttal would seem like blather.

 

[jem]

Notice stu refuses to address the science and the point... so once again I will let the elegance stand...

Quote from 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]

"Obviously it wasn't "nice" as you kept up the unreasoned peevish whinges regardlessly."

Oh, it is nice to see you dodge critiques of abiogenesis.

Shows that you are not scientific at all. Being faithful in what scientists say, is actually not terribly scientific.

Quote from stu:

Obviously it wasn't "nice" as you kept up the unreasoned peevish whinges regardlessly.

Godunnit is no argument and when you think like Glen Beck, rebuttal would seem like blather.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Stu will become more and more emotional as it is clear that he cannot defend his own position logically or scientifically.

It happens whenever someone's core beliefs are challenged. stu's world will come crashing down if the truth that the foundation of his beliefs are unproved and unprovable, so he has to stay in denial and come out swinging.

Desperately he want to appear reasonable and not faithful, when the reality is that his faith is not much different than anyone else.

Guesses of science have nothing at all to do with scientific proofs or evidence.

Science and atheism are stu's religion, without question.

Quote from jem:

Notice stu refuses to address the science and the point... so once again I will let the elegance stand...

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Notice stu refuses to address the science and the point... so once again I will let the elegance stand...

I address them , you ignore them, just so you can say I refuse to address them.

That's what creationists do.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:


Oh, it is nice to see you dodge critiques of abiogenesis.

Shows that you are not scientific at all. Being faithful in what scientists say, is actually not terribly scientific.

And what you call 'critiques of abiogenesis' are no such thing. They are willfully ignorant remarks made by ID creationists.

"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."

So if it doesn't have God in , evolution and science is nothing but a conspiracy against religion.
What a hopelessly idiotic opening line.
Another creationist whose only argument for intelligent design is to repeat the phrase... science is wrong.

It's revealing how you find that kind of thing "nice"

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Stu will become more and more emotional as it is clear that he cannot defend his own position logically or scientifically.

It happens whenever someone's core beliefs are challenged. stu's world will come crashing down if the truth that the foundation of his beliefs are unproved and unprovable, so he has to stay in denial and come out swinging.

Desperately he want to appear reasonable and not faithful, when the reality is that his faith is not much different than anyone else.

Guesses of science have nothing at all to do with scientific proofs or evidence.

Science and atheism are stu's religion, without question.

.....dream on.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

You ignore them, just so you can refuse to address them.

That's what atheists do.

Quote from stu:

I address them , you ignore them, just so you can say I refuse to address them.

That's what creationists do.