'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[SteveB28]

There is a qualitative difference between what you are proposing and what theists believe. Why you are suddenly resorting to obfuscation via the ubiquitous: "I cain't see!" atheist response at this point is totally beyond me.

BTW

Smart chemicals!

Pardon? I have never said that. Even at my age, I see very well thank you.

 

[SteveB28]

That Behe fellow did that? LOL!
Well, I wouldn't cut my own throat that way but if he felt he had to-to each his own.

Possibly because he was in a court of law and realised that he had to tell the truth!

 

[Radrook]

No. As it happens, I was a very poor chemistry student.

Really? Just chemistry? Others might readily perceive malevolent pre-programmed purpose and intent. But then again, once the ""Ï cain't see!"" policy is in full swing, then nothing is obvious if it indicates what we wish to ignore. That's why they call it invincible and that's why I am very averse to wasting my time with those who subscribe to it.

 

[Radrook]

Pardon? I have never said that. Even at my age, I see very well thank you.

It is inferred from the repeated same supposedly confused way you respond.

 

[SteveB28]

It is inferred from the repeated same supposedly confused way you respond.

You put those words in quotation marks. Those who know the basics of English don't use them unless they are DIRECTLY QUOTING someone!

Improve your game.


.

 

[Radrook]

Possibly because he was in a court of law and realised that he had to tell the truth!

As I said, I don't know him, and really not interested in knowing him or his ideas. However, you are arousing my curiosity and I might just delve into that trial to see what exactly happened since you seem focused on relating him to me

 

[Speedwell]

Really? Just chemistry? Others might readily perceive malevolent pre-programmed purpose and intent. But then again, once the ""Ï cain't see!"" policy is in full swing, then nothing is obvious if it indicates what we wish to ignore. That's why they call it invincible and that's why I am very averse to wasting my time with those who subscribe to it.

I wasn't talking about "intent" but about the actual manipulation of chemicals which would be required.

 

[Radrook]

I wasn't talking about "intent" but about the actual manipulation of chemicals which would be required.

I know. But intent can easily be inferred from such an activity.

Use of Quotation Marks
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Quotation-Marks

 

[bhsmte]

I know. But intent can easily be inferred from such an activity.

Use of Quotation Marks
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Quotation-Marks

You have a habit to infer, whatever meets your agenda.

 

[Radrook]

You have a habit to infer, whatever meets your agenda.

Not really. I follow where the data clearly leads. If indeed there is a need to ignore something in that scenario it is the glaring fact that such a microscopic thing should KNOW what to do within the total darkness of that living cell, know exactly where it should go with an exact purpose-self replication. Under any other circumstances you would readily conclude pre-programming. Right?

 

[bhsmte]

Not really. I follow where the data clearly leads. If indeed there is a need to ignore something in that scenario it is the glaring fact that such a microscopic thing should KNOW what to do within the total darkness of that living cell, know exactly where it should go with an exact purpose-self replication. Under any other circumstances you would readily conclude pre-programming. Right?

Data? LOL

 

[46AND2]

There are self evident truths that do not need tests to display themselves as self evident.
That is why they are considered self evident truths.
BTW
You place great value on falsification with tests, yet all your desperate attempts at proving abiogenesis true have falsified it but you stubbornly refuse to deal with the results and the implications of such results. Instead, you grab at straws by claiming limited chemical reactions as evidence of abiogenesis and interpret failure as success. Had these same tests offered the same results in reference to ID you would have claimed immediate success in disproving an ID's existence. That is the inconsistency which strongly indicates bias and a biased approach to science is no science at all but a self-serving mockery of it.

Would you please cite one "failure" where scientists tried to create life, by reproducing abiogenesis, and failed?

 

[Radrook]

Here is a relevant article on the subject
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis/

 

[Radrook]

Data? LOL

Well, data is information. Are you absentmindedly thinking about the Star Trek Next Generation Android? Or perhaps unfamiliar with basic English? If not then your chortling is baffling.

 

[Speedwell]

Here is a relevant article on the subject
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis/

Not even AiG supports your contention that Miller and Urey expected to create life.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, data is information. Are you absentmindedly thinking about the Star Trek Next Generation Android? Or perhaps unfamiliar with basic English? If not then your chortling is baffling.

But information is not necessarily data.

 

[Radrook]

Not even AiG supports your contention that Miller and Urey expected to create life.

I did not say that the experiment was striving to create life. I said that the article is relevant.

 

[Radrook]

But information is not necessarily data.

But you know what I mean. I think this discussion has run its course. Thanks for the conversation.
I guess we simply disagree.
Merriam Webster

Simple Definition of data

• : facts or information used usually to calculate, analyze, or plan something
  

Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

 

[Radrook]

I don't think so. One of the things that sinks ID is that no test for the presence of irreducibly complex biological structures has ever been developed. The only alternative is to say that everything is intelligently designed, which reduces ID to ordinary theistic evolution--a non-falsifiable proposition.

Nahhh! Anyone familiar with the basics of the scientific method will easily see that you are violating its very foundation whenever you deem it convenient.

In fact, you might even be doing it because of lack of proper knowledge of what the scientific method entails.

Actually, whenever I explain exactly how atheists are violating the scientific method via irrationality they simply respond with "Ï caint see!""

So the solution is to become at least basically familiar with what you are striving to defend before attempting to defend it. Otherwise you will wind up defending not the scientific method but a method which is completely incompatible with it because it entails quackery..

The sad part is that the scientists who practice the chicanery are very aware of what they are doing. It is the followers who try to imitate them that don't.

In any case, I'll let other ID supporters take over the discussion if they wish.
I'm moving on to other subjects.

 

[46AND2]

Here is a relevant article on the subject
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis/

That experiment was a raging success. They accomplished exactly what they set out to do. Care to try again?