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 25 of 28
 [ 549 posts ] 
Science Law - Life Comes From Life
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:Sparhafoc,

Should I repeat my words?
LEROY wrote:
I won’t reply until you proof to me that you understand what I mean by entropy problems, explain with your own words what I mean with entropy problem, and provide examples and analogies.



Yes, please do as predicted.

As always, it will show that you lack the capacity to discuss the subject you're pretending mastery of, and that reasoned discourse is completely alien to you.

So I'll repeat my reply to you, you'll ignore it and copy and paste your distraction, and so it goes for 4 or 5 pages until the conversation has shifted enough that you think that no one will notice that you dropped it, then in 17 pages you'll refer to this as if you had already supported your claim and it was undefeated.

Yes, we know.

Here you go...


Quick summary of comment order...


LEROY wrote:However it is true that every time we encounter an analogous entropy problem we solve it with a designer.


Sparhafoc wrote:Every time?

Great, so then it will be easy for you to show dozens of historical examples of 'entropy problems' being solved by inferring a designer. Let's be blunt LEROY, we all know you're talking out of your rectal passage... again.


LEROY wrote:I won’t reply until you proof to me that you understand what I mean by entropy problems, explain with your own words what I mean with entropy problem, and provide examples and analogies.


i) claimant makes a very confident, absolutist claim. A clear assertion.
ii) assertion is challenged - examples of the claim requested.
iii) refusal to provide evidence prior to challenger engaging in a guess who game about what the claimant means when they make their absolutist claim.

I shall not give you evidence, good sir - my assertion is to be taken as self-evident, and pox be upon thee shouldst thou denieth my claim for you make mock of yourself! Now perform thee this trick!



LEROY wrote:I have the impression that you don’t understand what I mean by entropy problems, maybe it is my fault maybe I am very bad in explaining stuff, but I honestly did my best effort in explaining it. If you don’t understand what I mean by entropy problems there is nothing I can do.


If I don't understand your bad explanations, then there's just nothing I can do?

Um, ok. Sorry, if I was standing on your ego's shadow or something. I'll get out of your world immediately! ;)

Could you even spell narcissism were it not written in this very sentence? I highly doubt it, even though in Spanish it shares a Latin etymological root with the English, unfortunately the latter language had the tendency to be a bit of an asshole when it comes to spelling Latin derived words, so it would have but one 's' everywhere else, yet 2 in English.

Fun isn't it? Our little talks. Yeah.


LEROY wrote:But maybe I am wrong, maybe you do understand which is why I am kindly asking you to show that you understand.


It is indeed very kind of you to gate providing evidence for your claims behind demanded tricks being performed such as showing that X person knows what Y person means when they say Z, because it's obviously not the responsibility of Y to state what they mean, and if they fail to correctly explicate it, obviously it's entirely the obligation of X to engage in circular activities to delay and obfuscate.

I agree.

Let's do this for 4... no 5 more pages, then drop the subject completely before referring to it again in 17 pages time pretending that all the evil atheist clones utterly failed and the masterful LEROY vanquished all?


But... well....

I know it might sound blasphemous... but we've... well, you've - let's be blunt - have kind of done that 232,324,643,231 times before, and it's getting a little tired now.

So how about this eh?

How about you acknowledge the fact that you are just winging it, stop pretending you're something you're not to strangers on the internet for silly, silly reasons, and become a better person thereby in 2018?

Merry Christmas and hopefully a dramatically more evolved New Year!
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:56 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1887Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
I do not quote you, because why waste the time? You will just mindlessly respond after taking 5-20 minutes of looking at a post.

Second, no one has ever claimed it was solved or that natural abiogenesis happened with 100% certainty.



Ok so in conclusion :
1 the “entropy problems” are there and have not been solved
2 we don’t know with 100% certainty that natural abiogenesis took place
3 there is room for reasonable doubt, perhaps "natural abiogenesis" didn’t took place

1 and 2 have been granted explicitly
What about 3?

Do you also agree with 3?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
I do not quote you, because why waste the time? You will just mindlessly respond after taking 5-20 minutes of looking at a post.

Second, no one has ever claimed it was solved or that natural abiogenesis happened with 100% certainty.



Ok so in conclusion :
1 the “entropy problems” are there and have not been solved
2 we don’t know with 100% certainty that natural abiogenesis took place
3 there is room for reasonable doubt, perhaps "natural abiogenesis" didn’t took place

1 and 2 have been granted explicitly
What about 3?

Do you also agree with 3?



1) nonsensical wittering suggesting that your alleged mastery of the topic is purely bluff and you lack even the most elementary comprehension of entropy as evidenced in this very thread.

2) We never know anything with 100% absolute certainty - that's religion's blindness. Science operates on error bars and orders of magnitude, as you've been told before, science measures its own uncertainty and works to minimize it. What we do know is that natural abiogenesis cannot be falsified - it works according to every principle of nature we know and appears to solve a specific question. Exactly how it took place, less sure; that it took place, reasonable degree of confidence functionally equivalent to vast tracts of useful modern scientific knowledge.

3) No, you don't argue your way out of empirical reality, that's clownery. As hard as you may try to kick holes in the edifice of knowledge to make gaps for your god, it just makes you a religiously motivated Herostratus.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:03 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1887Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Like Jesus did in the Bible story. You know, the one were he used magic. Honestly, have you been missing this this whole time? I can go to any winery and see water turn into wine all day, that is not magic.

You are the one who is not following, we both agree that design would be the best explanation if water in a cup turns in to wine. agree?

Because it would be very improbable that molecules from the air somehow organized themselves naturally in the exact ratio of molecules required to do wine, somehow ended up in the cup. agree?........if you disagree please explain under what basis do you afirm that water can not turn in to wine naturally Like Jesus did in the Bible?

I would argue that abiogenesis cant occur naturally for the same reason it would be very improbable that molecules somehow organize in the order and pattern required to create life,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:17 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:You are the one who is not following, we both agree that design would be the best explanation if water in a cup turns in to wine. agree?


Pages ago.

Grapes ferment without any external agency, so that's the end of that foray into fantasy.


leroy wrote:Because it would be very improbable that molecules from the air somehow organized themselves naturally in the exact ratio of molecules required to do wine,...


This which and the what now?

You do know what wine is, right?

Do you know what fermentation is?

If yes to these two questions, then you must know your point is nonsensical because agency is not required for water to turn into wine, it's what grape plants do under certain circumstances.


leroy wrote: somehow ended up in the cup. agree?


A cup?

From whence cometh the cup? Are we going to go straight to question-begging?

No cups are required for water to become wine.


leroy wrote:........if you disagree please explain under what basis do you afirm that water can not turn in to wine naturally Like Jesus did in the Bible?


Your sentence is completely garbled.

I clearly and unarguably have 'affirmed' many times that you are talking hogwash because we know very well that grape plants turn water into wine under very specific circumstances, ergo there's no intent required to make wine.

Does that now mean you cease believing in the necessity for agency?

Of course it doesn't, which shows why your 'arguments' (to use the phrase very loosely) are not real, not honest, not well-considered... they're apologetics unfortunately mistargeted at people who aren't brainwashed into accepting those apologetics, and consequently, they attain no host.

In reality, you'd never accept that your argument reversed mean god = no, so you should really question why you'd bother arguing in the first place.

Of course, this is way beyond your sophistication.


leroy wrote:I would argue that abiogenesis cant occur naturally for the same reason it would be very improbable that molecules somehow organize in the order and pattern required to create life,


How improbable; please show your working.

I would say that probability is a bit of a pointless misdirection because of the scenario under which chemical abiogenesis could have occurred would have made billions of concurrent trials occur repeatedly, so even if the 'chance' is very low, run enough trials and it will occur.

Again, way beyond your comprehension, though.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:27 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1887Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:
If yes to these two questions, then you must know your point is nonsensical because agency is not required for water to turn into wine, it's what grape plants do under certain circumstances.




If you are not following the conversation that I am having with HWN, then please do not comment, when we talk about water turning in to wine, we mean “like Jesus did it according to the bible”

In other words, if you have water in a cup, (or some other container) and this water turns in to wine, surly you would say that design is the best explanation.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:52 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3386Joined: 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 ignored the vast majority of what I wrote (and it was not much in the first place), spent 9 minutes looking at my post, and mindlessly responded. Yet he wonders why I will not waste time quoting things for him.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
I do not quote you, because why waste the time? You will just mindlessly respond after taking 5-20 minutes of looking at a post.

Second, no one has ever claimed it was solved or that natural abiogenesis happened with 100% certainty.



Ok so in conclusion :


Conclusion? Is this another example of dandan/leroy not knowing the correct definition of a word?

leroy wrote:1 the “entropy problems” are there and have not been solved
2 we don’t know with 100% certainty that natural abiogenesis took place


If only you would learn to read the post that people write on this forum, instead of mindlessly responding, you would have already realized both of those.

leroy wrote:3 there is room for reasonable doubt, perhaps "natural abiogenesis" didn’t took place


Image


:lol:

I do not think you and reasonable have been acquaintances for many years now. There can be less than 100% certainty in something and it still be unreasonable to doubt it.

leroy wrote:1 and 2 have been granted explicitly
What about 3?


No. Not granted.

leroy wrote:Do you also agree with 3?


No.

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?

-|-


Look at that, dandan/leroy actually took the time to re-look at my previews post. Perhaps old dogs can learn new tricks.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Like Jesus did in the Bible story. You know, the one were he used magic. Honestly, have you been missing this this whole time? I can go to any winery and see water turn into wine all day, that is not magic.

You are the one who is not following, we both agree that design would be the best explanation if water in a cup turns in to wine. agree?


:facepalm:

As I keep spelling out for you, since you were to dense to get it in the first place; If it were done by magic. Hince the reason I was talking about the Bible story. You know, the book with ghosts, talking snakes, and dead people coming back to life.

leroy wrote:Because it would be very improbable that molecules from the air somehow organized themselves naturally in the exact ratio of molecules required to do wine, somehow ended up in the cup. agree?........if you disagree please explain under what basis do you afirm that water can not turn in to wine naturally Like Jesus did in the Bible?


You do realize that Jesus is magic, right? The story in the Bible is him preforming a magic trick. That is why it is not natural, because he is magically changing water into wine. Again, I have to now point this out to you since I now realize that you are to dense to have realized this was my point from the start.

leroy wrote:I would argue that abiogenesis cant occur naturally for the same reason it would be very improbable that molecules somehow organize in the order and pattern required to create life,


Yeah. We know that you would argue this, yet you have failed to support it. Rumraket has done a fine job dispelling all your misconceptions on this topic. You have been reduced to just repeating yourself to him, while his explanations still stand un-refuted.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:11 am
YIM WWW
leroy
Online
Posts: 1887Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
I

I do not think you and reasonable have been acquaintances for many years now. There can be less than 100% certainty in something and it still be unreasonable to doubt it.

leroy wrote:1 and 2 have been granted explicitly
What about 3?


No. Not granted.



Fine, then here is our main point of disagreement, even though we both agree that these problems exists, you claim that these problems are minor, irrelevant and that don’t affect the “nature did it” hypothesis in any meaningful way.

Under what basis do you justify your claim?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Look at that, dandan/leroy ignored the vast majority of what I wrote (and it was not much in the first place), spent 9 minutes looking at my post, and mindlessly responded. Yet he wonders why I will not waste time quoting things for him.

1 Not answering for the 20th time something that has been answered 19 times doesn’t count as “ignoring”

2 the reason why I am asking you to quote my actual words, is because you are clearly misrepresenting what I said

3 why don’t you grow up and admit that 99% of your comments are red hearings intended to distract the attention. You are the one who is taking a positive position, you are the one who claims with almost 100% certainty that natural abiogenesis took place and that there is no room for reasonable doubt, the burden proof is on you, you have to provide very strong evidence for “natural abiogenesis” the evidence has to be so strong so that there would be no room for reasonable doubt.

As an example (analogy) we all agree (hopefully) that the universe probably will expand forever, but there is room for reasonable doubt, perhaps the universe is cyclic.

When you say that natural abiogenesis is almost 100% certain and beyond reasonable doubt , you are affirming that the evidence for natural abiogenesis is stronger in comparison with the evidence for the ever expanding universe.

So you have a heavy burden, lets see if you can carry it. So please support your assertion and teach me a lesson on how smart and honest people support their assertions.

Yeah. We know that you would argue this, yet you have failed to support it. Rumraket has done a fine job dispelling all your misconceptions on this topic. You have been reduced to just repeating yourself to him, while his explanations still stand un-refuted


This is as wrong as something can be, since I openly and clearly said that I grant all the conclusions presented in the articles that he provided.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:35 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
If yes to these two questions, then you must know your point is nonsensical because agency is not required for water to turn into wine, it's what grape plants do under certain circumstances.




If you are not following the conversation that I am having with HWN, then please do not comment, when we talk about water turning in to wine, we mean “like Jesus did it according to the bible”

In other words, if you have water in a cup, (or some other container) and this water turns in to wine, surly you would say that design is the best explanation.



How very typical of you LEROY, such a shame.

i) You've ignored the contents of two long posts addressed directly to you full of ideas that are, I think, worth addressing. And you've done so with a pointless evasion.

ii) I am following the conversation, but funnily I don't recognize any previous iterations of the nonsensical spin you've just offered.

You've now made your argument into: if divine powers really did allow Jesus, incidentally God as the son-of-God as per the Bible, to turn water into wine in a vessel in his mortal shell's hand.... then 'design' is the best explanation.

How laughably inept.

After all the hundreds of words of nonsense you've posted in this thread, you're now saying that your totally pointless foray into fictional fermentation was solely to arrive at a begged question?

You deserve a definition in the Oxford Dictionary: LEROY, verb, to dig so far down a hole of your own creation, you pop out of your own rectum inside out.

iii) I will comment when I like, what I like, how I like, to whom I like, wherever I like insofar as LEROY's capacity to arbitrate my right to speak my mind is concerned. I've told you many times before what you can do with such commands.

iv) how inept you look when everyone notes you ignore so much content to protect your fragile little notions.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:21 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:From whence cometh the cup? Are we going to go straight to question-begging?


:(

Is it naive to be disappointed that LEROY is still so predictable?

LEROY wrote:when we talk about water turning in to wine, we mean “like Jesus did it according to the bible”
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:23 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1887Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:

If you are not following the conversation that I am having with HWN, then please do not comment, when we talk about water turning in to wine, we mean “like Jesus did it according to the bible”

In other words, if you have water in a cup, (or some other container) and this water turns in to wine, surly you would say that design is the best explanation.


How very typical of you LEROY, such a shame.

i) You've ignored the contents of two long posts addressed directly to you full of ideas that are, I think, worth addressing. And you've done so with a pointless evasion.

ii) I am following the conversation, but funnily I don't recognize any previous iterations of the nonsensical spin you've just offered.

You've now made your argument into: if divine powers really did allow Jesus, incidentally God as the son-of-God as per the Bible, to turn water into wine in a vessel in his mortal shell's hand.... then 'design' is the best explanation.

How laughably inept.

After all the hundreds of words of nonsense you've posted in this thread, you're now saying that your totally pointless foray into fictional fermentation was solely to arrive at a begged question?

You deserve a definition in the Oxford Dictionary: LEROY, verb, to dig so far down a hole of your own creation, you pop out of your own rectum inside out.

iii) I will comment when I like, what I like, how I like, to whom I like, wherever I like insofar as LEROY's capacity to arbitrate my right to speak my mind is concerned. I've told you many times before what you can do with such commands.

iv) how inept you look when everyone notes you ignore so much content to protect your fragile little notions.


Well yes that would be a circular reasoning, of course if Jesus turn water in to wine, Jesus did it would be the best explanation (in fact the only possible explanation)

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

His answer: if an individual who claims to be God, knocks my door and transforms a cup of water in to a cup of wine (+ doing other stuff like creating talking flowers) I would call it a miracle, if you would have followed the conversation you would have known this and you would have understand why your comments on fermentation are stupid and pointless.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:08 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:Well yes that would be a circular reasoning, of course if Jesus turn water in to wine, Jesus did it would be the best explanation (in fact the only possible explanation)


Well yes that would be circular reasoning, of course if God exists and imbued himself into a mortal body then used divine powers to change water into wine then it would be the best explanation of itself.

Of course, that's not what happened, and there's no reason whatsoever to believe that Jesus turned water into wine, nor that Jesus was God, nor that God exists.



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


You've never cornered anyone in your life.

What actually happened is that he ran round you dozens of times paddling your little buttocks like the buffoon you are, but you still thought you were doing well because you didn't sit down.


leroy wrote:His answer: if an individual who claims to be God, knocks my door and transforms a cup of water in to a cup of wine (+ doing other stuff like creating talking flowers) I would call it a miracle, if you would have followed the conversation you would have known this and you would have understand why your comments on fermentation are stupid and pointless.


My comments on fermentation utterly demolish your vacuous meandering, LEROY.

You can see that because you've just acknowledged that the only point you've managed to make is a begged question through and through.

To repeat an idea I just used in another post to you...

If I say that orcs are the foul product of Sauron's experiments on breeding humans and elves, that doesn't then provide a reason why you should believe that Lord of the Rings is a documentary because orcs don't actually exist.

There is no reason to believe that Jesus performed magical parlor tricks, that water can be turned into wine with divine power, or that divine power exists, or even that a divine entity exists.

You can't appeal to a fictional story as an analogy to validate an allegedly factual claim.

Sorry.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:21 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3386Joined: 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:
No. Not granted.



Fine, then here is our main point of disagreement, even though we both agree that these problems exists, you claim that these problems are minor, irrelevant and that don’t affect the “nature did it” hypothesis in any meaningful way.

Under what basis do you justify your claim?


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.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Look at that, dandan/leroy ignored the vast majority of what I wrote (and it was not much in the first place), spent 9 minutes looking at my post, and mindlessly responded. Yet he wonders why I will not waste time quoting things for him.

1 Not answering for the 20th time something that has been answered 19 times doesn’t count as “ignoring”


:lol:

When have you answered anything? You know, it was better when you said you were ignoring things you felt irrelevant instead of just lying.

leroy wrote:2 the reason why I am asking you to quote my actual words, is because you are clearly misrepresenting what I said


I am not, and here is the link again for anyone to see.

leroy wrote:3 why don’t you grow up and admit that 99% of your comments are red hearings intended to distract the attention.


Seeing as how you only ever take a few minutes to glean my post and you do not actually know what red hearing means, this is nothing but a falsehood on your part.

leroy wrote:You are the one who is taking a positive position, you are the one who claims with almost 100% certainty that natural abiogenesis took place and that there is no room for reasonable doubt, the burden proof is on you, you have to provide very strong evidence for “natural abiogenesis” the evidence has to be so strong so that there would be no room for reasonable doubt.


I have provided evidence, several times. Rumraket has provided evidence, several times as well. Beyond that, as I said, you and reasonable have not been acquaintances for some time now. Thus, forgive me if I do not take your doubts as reasonable. Especially from someone that admitted that they would deny evidence if it suited them and admitted to not reading sources when they are provided.

leroy wrote:As an example (analogy) we all agree (hopefully) that the universe probably will expand forever, but there is room for reasonable doubt, perhaps the universe is cyclic.

When you say that natural abiogenesis is almost 100% certain and beyond reasonable doubt , you are affirming that the evidence for natural abiogenesis is stronger in comparison with the evidence for the ever expanding universe.

So you have a heavy burden, lets see if you can carry it. So please support your assertion and teach me a lesson on how smart and honest people support their assertions.


By providing evidence, again, as I have been doing since the beginning.

leroy wrote:
Yeah. We know that you would argue this, yet you have failed to support it. Rumraket has done a fine job dispelling all your misconceptions on this topic. You have been reduced to just repeating yourself to him, while his explanations still stand un-refuted


This is as wrong as something can be, since I openly and clearly said that I grant all the conclusions presented in the articles that he provided.


If you truly granted everything he has said, than you would not repeat yourself to him as if you had something new to say. He addressed your points to the letter.

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


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.

Sparhafoc 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”


You've never cornered anyone in your life.

What actually happened is that he ran round you dozens of times paddling your little buttocks like the buffoon you are, but you still thought you were doing well because you didn't sit down.


Thank you.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:51 pm
YIM WWW
leroy
Online
Posts: 1887Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:
Of course, that's not what happened, and there's no reason whatsoever to believe that Jesus turned water into wine, nor that Jesus was God, nor that God exists.


Which is completely irrelevant to the conversation, you are not following,



I will help you so that you can catch up….HWN and I agree on that there are entropy problems (+ other type of problems) regarding the origin of live that have not been solved.

The only point of disagreement is on whether if these problems are minor and insignificant or if this problems are big obstacles and there is room for reasonable doubt regarding “natural abiogenesis”
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:02 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1887Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

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.

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?


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.



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.



.

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?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Last edited by leroy on Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:33 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

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


Nope, therefore I'm not honest?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:42 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Yet again you're trying to avoid the awkwardness of your position.

You're trying to argue for a deity - a supernatural creator-entity. Attempting to avoid this by "just arguing for a designer" is sophistry.


No problem, If you what I can defend my specific design hypothesis (the Christian God did it) against your favorite naturalistic theory,


so please provide a specific naturalistic hypothesis and let us know why you think that this specific naturalistic theory is better than my specific design theory.



You don't have a specific design theory.

You have a bunch of poorly formed assumptions packaged as assertions.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:43 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1887Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

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


Nope, therefore I'm not honest?

No you are not honest
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:24 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1887Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:
Yet again you're trying to avoid the awkwardness of your position.

You're trying to argue for a deity - a supernatural creator-entity. Attempting to avoid this by "just arguing for a designer" is sophistry.


No problem, If you what I can defend my specific design hypothesis (the Christian God did it) against your favorite naturalistic theory,


so please provide a specific naturalistic hypothesis and let us know why you think that this specific naturalistic theory is better than my specific design theory.


.


Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,

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.


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.


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”
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:32 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

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


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


leroy wrote:No you are not honest


Which stands as testament to what passes for reasoning inside your thick skull.

I think potatoes probably have higher processing power.

Of course, by 'anyone', you meant 'only LEROY'.

As usual, you toss these stupid assertions out to avoid the points others have made destroying your contentions.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:48 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 25 of 28
 [ 549 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gnug215 and 5 guests