Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 26 of 26
 [ 511 posts ] 
Science Law - Life Comes From Life
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 1879Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,


How naive and inept, even after so many months of being educated.

You can't even 'prove' (read, provide evidence for) the existence of Jesus, or the existence of your god. Therefore, 'proving' or not being able to 'prove' what they allegedly did or didn't do is irrelevant.

Naturally, if Jesus doesn't actually exist, you can't 'prove' that Jesus did something - the most parsimonious explanation possible.


leroy wrote: As I made it clear in the quote, what I was saying is that I am willing to have a conversation where I defend my specific design hypothesis (jesus did it) against dragan´s or HWN´s favorite and specific naturalistic hypothesis.


You don't have a specific design hypothesis, so stop pretending.

You have an assertion, ignorance, and a terminal disregard for reason and reality.


leroy wrote:I am still willing to have this conversation, I am just waiting for a “naturalist” to provide his specific naturalistic hypothesis and his justification for why is that hypothesis better than mine.


It's not a hypothesis because you are not defining a testable model that seeks to explain empirical evidence.

You look like a total clown when you use words you clearly don't understand. The typical Creationist pastime of aspiring to scientific legitimacy while failing to maintain anything like the standards of rigour required to do science.


leroy wrote:so in response to HWN:
I will defend Jesus did it, against any specific naturalistic hypothesis that you choose, Only after you have chosen your hypothesis and explain why you think is better than “Jesus did it”


Specific natural hypotheses require empirical evidence... got any?

Then so much for defending your religious convictions.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:54 am
leroyPosts: 1826Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:
You can't even 'prove' (read, provide evidence for) the existence of Jesus, or the existence of your god. Therefore, 'proving' or not being able to 'prove' what they allegedly did or didn't do is irrelevant.



Irrelevant, you are not following.

The point is that I told Dragan that we could ether have a conversation where he defends natural abiogenesis in the general sense and I defend design in a general sense or we can have a conversation where he defends a specific naturalistic hypothesis and I would defend “Jesus did it”

I was simply being open minded and letting dragan decide what type f conversation should we have. (at the end Dragan didn’t answer)

The thing is that anyone who reads WHN quote without looking at the link would have a wrong impression on what I actually said.

he_who_is_nobody
When are you going to start defending magic? You know, defend JesusDidIt like you claimed you would? Or are you just going to keep ignoring this?


This is why I asked WHN to quote my actual words

Anyone who would have followed the conversation would know that the ball is the atheist side and that I would defend “jesus did it” until the atheist adopts a specific naturalistic hypothesis and explains why is that better than “Jesus did it” I am not ignoring anything it is just that the ball is in the atheist side.

And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:42 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3366Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
On the bases that there is evidence that nature did it. You know, like I have said from the start. If only you would learn to read my posts, so much time would not be wasted with me having to repeat myself.



No you haven’t shown anything, relevant, all you are doing is posting the same random links to unrelated stuff.


:lol:

Only someone as dense and dishonest as dandan/leroy would think linking to a list of current models for abiogenesis is unrelated and random to a conversation about the origin of life.

:lol:

leroy wrote:Of all the models that the wiki article that you keep quoting is there any model that shows beyond reasonable doubt that molecules organized naturally in the order and pattern required to produce life? Would you provide an example of such a model?


You mean like I did here back in September? Hopefully, you will not run from it this time.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
I am not, and here is the link again for anyone to see.



I am fine with that, anyone who is honestly interested can look at the link and see how you are making a strawman.


I guess straw-man is another word we can put on the list of words dandan/leroy does not understand. That or he is just lying, again.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I have provided evidence, several times. Rumraket has provided evidence, several times as well.


Rumraket provided evidence supporting the idea that early life was made out of aminoacids that where relatively abundant in the past. As I said before I grant his evidence.

What I am asking for is evidence that molecules naturally organize in the order and pattern required to produce life.


:facepalm:

Which he provided. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:
leroy wrote:HWN Changed his original argument, because he was cornered, my original question was “what would convince you that a miracle took place”



he_who_is_nobody wrote:What a liar. It is telling that I am able to link to everything I say you did, yet there is no link to this event of me being cornered and having to change my original argument. Telling, but not unexpected from the lying slavery-apologist.


[It is not a lie, and you know it, it is a fact that I did asked that question and it is a fact that you answered what I claim you answered,
Why don’t you prove that I am lying by quoting my actual original question and your original answer?


The lie is that you cornered me and that I changed my answer. Beyond that, you are making the claim, you provide the links to demonstrate you are right. Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Nope, therefore I'm not honest?

No you are not honest


:lol:

Again, how sad can one person get.

leroy wrote:Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,


When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

leroy wrote:As I made it clear in the quote, what I was saying is that I am willing to have a conversation where I defend my specific design hypothesis (jesus did it) against dragan´s or HWN´s favorite and specific naturalistic hypothesis.


You mean like when I provided one here? However, you did not defend anything, you just ran.

leroy wrote:I am still willing to have this conversation, I am just waiting for a “naturalist” to provide his specific naturalistic hypothesis and his justification for why is that hypothesis better than mine.


Done, and to sum it up; because there is actual evidence for it. Now, we wait to see you run away, again.

leroy wrote:so in response to HWN:
I will defend Jesus did it, against any specific naturalistic hypothesis that you choose, Only after you have chosen your hypothesis and explain why you think is better than “Jesus did it”


:facepalm:

So much time would not be wasted if you only took the time to read my posts. What you are asking for was provided back in September (and before that), yet we have you here making mountains out of nothing (there is not even a molehill) in this case. Honestly, how sad can one person get?

leroy wrote:The thing is that anyone who reads WHN quote without looking at the link would have a wrong impression on what I actually said.

he_who_is_nobody
When are you going to start defending magic? You know, defend JesusDidIt like you claimed you would? Or are you just going to keep ignoring this?


This is why I asked WHN to quote my actual words


What? Me linking to your post and using your own words when talking about it would give people the wrong impression how exactly? Did you not say you would defend JesusDidIt In that post? Was that not you saying, "No problem, If you what I can defend my specific design hypothesis (the Christian God did it) against your favorite naturalistic theory,"? I guess one has to be as dense as dandan/leroy to see how I am giving a wrong impression there.

leroy wrote:And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.


Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:10 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1879Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
You can't even 'prove' (read, provide evidence for) the existence of Jesus, or the existence of your god. Therefore, 'proving' or not being able to 'prove' what they allegedly did or didn't do is irrelevant.



Irrelevant, you are not following.


Oh I am following the conversation, just not your transparent attempts at misdirection.



leroy wrote:The point is that I told Dragan that we could ether have a conversation where he defends natural abiogenesis in the general sense and I defend design in a general sense or we can have a conversation where he defends a specific naturalistic hypothesis and I would defend “Jesus did it”


And pray tell, what the fuck would be the point of that?

All you'd do is assert or cite the Bible - that's not equal. It's like having a grand battle between a fleet of AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and a dude with a peashooter, it's not a fair or balanced contest in the slightest. Fuck off back to the Bronze Age where you mentally belong - there your ideas would no doubt be very impressive to all the ignorant savages.

Of course you want to have this conversation because you just want the chance to repeatedly express your vapid belief in your handed-down and uncritically accepted belief system, but in reality, we all know how much utility your belief system has in terms of explanatory power because there were no fucking inventions or discoveries made as a result of it in the thousand years it held primacy over the Western world's minds.

As soon as we abandoned it, that's when we really started making sense of the universe and our place in it.

Sorry, but fanatic literalist assumptions don't have a place at the modern table of discourse.

Further, we've literally only just had an example of what you consider 'defending a design hypothesis' and it amounts to you wholly begging the question with fictional scenarios.

What a joke you are, LEROY. Utterly clueless in every way.



leroy wrote:I was simply being open minded and letting dragan decide what type f conversation should we have. (at the end Dragan didn’t answer)


I expect that the list of things Dragan has that would be more appealing to do is considerable.

You're like a horny dog rubbing itself against our legs - don't be surprised if no one wants to aid and abet that.



leroy wrote:The thing is that anyone who reads WHN quote without looking at the link would have a wrong impression on what I actually said.


The thing is that if people have read the conversation, they know you're playing your standard game of evasion, goalpost shifting, and the occasional attempt to sow misdirection between other members.

Thus the only way someone might possibly be fooled here is if they happened to have never read any of your other posts, and then they might be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. No one who's interacted with you here before is remotely inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.


leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody
When are you going to start defending magic? You know, defend JesusDidIt like you claimed you would? Or are you just going to keep ignoring this?


This is why I asked WHN to quote my actual words

Anyone who would have followed the conversation would know that the ball is the atheist side and that I would defend “jesus did it” until the atheist adopts a specific naturalistic hypothesis and explains why is that better than “Jesus did it” I am not ignoring anything it is just that the ball is in the atheist side.


Fuck off, LEROY - your gymnastics is not remotely interesting to anyone, you lack any ability to perform any of the grand claims you make about yourself, and no one is obliged to jump through hoops on your command.

Get over yourself, eh?


leroy wrote:And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.


Except that everyone can see that he cited your exact words, that his rendition of the exchange is accurate, and you're just being a total fucking LEROY.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:17 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2974Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Greetings,

Leroy, I already answered you back on page 22.

Your response was to assert that a non-existent "law of biogenesis" prevents life from coming into being through natural processes.

On page 23, Sparhafoc addressed this nonsense in several consecutive posts.

I saw no reason to discuss this matter further with you - hence why I stopped posting.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:48 pm
leroyPosts: 1826Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[


You mean like I did here back in September? Hopefully, you will not run from it this time.


You mean the article on the “metabolism first hypothesis”?

https://sandwalk.blogspot.mx/2009/05/me ... -life.html


As far as I can remember I showed you why the model fails, and you seemed to have accepted my critique.

Let me ask you a simple yes or no question.
Do you affirm that the model described in the article is better that “jesus did it”?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Last edited by leroy on Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:51 pm
leroyPosts: 1826Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
The lie is that you cornered me and that I changed my answer. Beyond that, you are making the claim, you provide the links to demonstrate you are right. Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.

You are the one who is accusing me for being a liar; therefore you are the one who has to prove it.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:55 pm
leroyPosts: 1826Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:
Oh I am following the conversation, just not your transparent attempts at misdirection.


As you made it obvious in your last post, no you are no following, the conversation.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:58 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1879Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
The lie is that you cornered me and that I changed my answer. Beyond that, you are making the claim, you provide the links to demonstrate you are right. Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.

You are the one who is accusing me for being a liar; therefore you are the one who has to prove it.



Easy: the thing you claimed to be true doesn't actually exist.

You claimed that he_who_is_nobody changed his argument because you cornered him.

But this didn't happen.

Of course, the actual burden is with you when you make the claim, and because you can't show the alleged situation, then there's no reason to lend it credulity. Further, as we are all well versed in LEROYism, and as we know you routinely lie through your teeth, then unfortunately the benefit of the doubt is no longer granted to you.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:20 am
SparhafocPosts: 1879Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
Oh I am following the conversation, just not your transparent attempts at misdirection.


As you made it obvious in your last post, no you are no following, the conversation.



As your deranged punctuation shows; you're just evading addressing the content I've produced.

Of course, if anyone else in this conversation were to be asked whether or not I am following the conversation, they'd undoubtedly agree that you are being evasive, tossing out distractions, and doing all you can to obfuscate.

That's what makes you such a fucking LEROY.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:22 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3366Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Look at that, dandan/leroy mindlessly responded three times spending less than five minutes between each post. Again, how pathetic can one person get? In his mindless rush, he forgot all the places that he needs to cite or apologize for lying.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,


When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

[...]

leroy wrote:And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.


Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.


Now, an honest person would take the high road and admit to their mistakes, but dandan/leroy has already demonstrated that he is less than honest.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:[


You mean like I did here back in September? Hopefully, you will not run from it this time.


You mean the article on the “metabolism first hypothesis”?

https://sandwalk.blogspot.mx/2009/05/me ... -life.html


No, not exactly. I mean the one I linked to (strange how the link was dropped from your reply), in which Rumraket explained how metabolism first was not falsified in full, only in part. If only you would follow the posts I keep linking you to.

leroy wrote:As far as I can remember I showed you why the model fails, and you seemed to have accepted my critique.


Here is a perfect example of why one should not solely rely on their memory, but should also check and confirm that what they remember is correct. Thanks for demonstrating another point you have made several times is false.

I put forward the metabolism first hypothesis, than you posted that it was falsified, to which I than put up a host of other hypotheses, and you whined about it. However, at that same time, Rumraket explained how metabolism first was not completely falsified, to which, all you offered was incongruity as a rebuttal.

leroy wrote:Let me ask you a simple yes or no question.
Do you affirm that the model described in the article is better that “jesus did it”?


Yes, because there is actual evidence behind the current model. Does this mean you are going to start defending JesusDidIt? I cannot wait. However, my money is on you running, again.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
The lie is that you cornered me and that I changed my answer. Beyond that, you are making the claim, you provide the links to demonstrate you are right. Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.

You are the one who is accusing me for being a liar; therefore you are the one who has to prove it.


Dandan/Leroy, did you not claim that you cornered me and that I changed my answer because of that? Yes, that was you making that claim. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:41 pm
YIM WWW
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 26 of 26
 [ 511 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
cron