Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[buckshot24]

Biological life? You mean as distinct from "non-biological life"? What is that?

Spiritual life.

If you want to introduce a novel distinction between "biological life" and so-called "non-biological life" you are invited to justify said distinction. All life is biological, by definition. You've merely resorted to inventing terms in order to justify your non-sensical arguments.

Not my terms. I'm not going to go back and forth for 2 pages on this so...

That is precisely what you said. Don't blame me that your own reasoning looks stupid when distilled to its core idiocy.

No, you've created a caricature.

Oh, so when you spoke about the "assumption that there was a time life did not exist," you weren't talking about that assumption. Right. Jesus, can you pull it together, dude?

No, when I said what I did about life and there needing to be a thing that started to replicate there was an assumption that life didn't always exist. You idiotically thought I was trying to establish that life didn't always exist. Your stupid quibbling was the problem, not any argument I made.

Uh huh. Go ahead and try to make that argument. Don't you think you look stupid enough already?

No, I don't want to take on any new arguments with you. Your douchie quibbling are really getting old.

No, it isn't true regardless of whether or not life actually began to exist.

Of course it is.

Yes, you lacked the sophistication to understand the rebuttal you were supplied. We've gathered that.

What I lacked was the ability to think somebody would make such irrelevant arguments as you have. That is totally on me.

Nope. It doesn't follow that we wouldn't be here if there wasn't a first living thing, even if there was a first living thing.

Hello Mr. Absurd.

You yourself have conceded that it is possible that there is no first living thing. That represents a condition where your own reasoning does not obtain.

Why would I concede something that was never an issue? You brought up that pointless possibility. It's also possible that you're a spam bot.

You can't even read your own mind... what makes you think I would belive you can read everyone else's?

Because the idea that (biological) life has always existed is held by nobody. Nobody should take it seriously because it is an absurd idea. People here are talking about abiogenesis because they all know life didn't always exist. You know it as well.

 

[buckshot24]

buckshot24 keep on calling what I wrote is a fairy tale, but you have no understanding of what I was writing. It IS NOT A STORY, those statements are just that statements. You shouldn't read them as a story.

They certainly aren't evidence.

It's actually rather simple, ok lets say I think think that life came through chemistry and created the first life. What would you expect the first life to be like? What sort of chemistry would have to exist to create the first life? What sort of conditions, and time frame would be needed for this to happen?

Saying you'd expect xyz if what I believe to be true then telling how it would happen under those restrictions isn't evidence. You're telling a story about what it would be like if what you believed was true.

 

[buckshot24]

What other processes are there?

You can stuff your questions. I've no more time for a pedantic quibbler such as yourself.

Bottom line is that you have no evidence for any even semi plausible origin of life. All this BSing doesn't change any of that.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Spiritual life.

I'm sorry, not every concatenation of english letters automatically has meaning. Want to try answering the question?

Not my terms. I'm not going to go back and forth for 2 pages on this so...

"Non-biological life" is an oxymoron in the English language. If you intend to employ it as a term in your arguments, you must give it actual meaning, or else you're simply speaking gibberish.

No, you've created a caricature.

Assertions are not arguments.

No, when I said what I did about life and there needing to be a thing that started to replicate there was an assumption that life didn't always exist.

It doesn't matter what you assume. It's still a false dichotomy.

You idiotically thought I was trying to establish that life didn't always exist. Your stupid quibbling was the problem, not any argument I made.

You presented a dichotomy with one option obviously false ("we're not here"). The implication is that the remaining proposition is necessarily true. I explained why the other option is not necessarily true.

No, I don't want to take on any new arguments with you.

As poorly as you argue, I wouldn't want to if I were you.

Your douchie quibbling are really getting old.

Here "quibbling" stands for "pointing out my poor arguments, meaningless gibberish, and errors in fact."

Yeah, I bet that gets old. Maybe you should try being honest and intelligent for once. It won't hurt, I promise.

Of course it is.

Gainsaying. You haven't rebutted my argument at all.

What I lacked was the ability to think somebody would make such irrelevant arguments as you have. That is totally on me.

It isn't irrelevant. You made a false statement as a premise of your arguments. Pointing out its falsehood is of the utmost relevance.

Hello Mr. Absurd.

Hello Mr. Too Stupid to Recognize Fallacious Inference.

Why would I concede something that was never an issue? You brought up that pointless possibility. It's also possible that you're a spam bot.

The possibility is precisely what makes your stupid dichotomy a false one. That's its point, and why you are wrong again.

Because the idea that (biological) life has always existed is held by nobody.

Who has claimed that it is?

Nobody should take it seriously because it is an absurd idea.

What contradiction does it entail?

People here are talking about abiogenesis because they all know life didn't always exist.

How do they know it?

You know it as well.

I know nothing of the sort, as I have insisted repeatedly. Why do you feel compelled to lie so freely? Have you no dignity? Have you no integrity?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You can stuff your questions. I've no more time for a pedantic quibbler such as yourself.

So you're just talking out of your ass. Well, that surprises absolutely nobody.

Bottom line is that you have no evidence for any even semi plausible origin of life.

What origin of life?

HEY, YOU HAVE NO EBIDENCE OF THE LEPRECHAUNS SO HA HA ON YOUR BS!!1!!1!

Whatever

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I'm sorry, not every concatenation of english letters automatically has meaning. Want to try answering the question?

"Non-biological life" is an oxymoron in the English language. If you intend to employ it as a term in your arguments, you must give it actual meaning, or else you're simply speaking gibberish.

Assertions are not arguments.

It doesn't matter what you assume. It's still a false dichotomy.

You presented a dichotomy with one option obviously false ("we're not here"). The implication is that the remaining proposition is necessarily true. I explained why the other option is not necessarily true.

As poorly as you argue, I wouldn't want to if I were you.

Here "quibbling" stands for "pointing out my poor arguments, meaningless gibberish, and errors in fact."

Yeah, I bet that gets old. Maybe you should try being honest and intelligent for once. It won't hurt, I promise.



Gainsaying. You haven't rebutted my argument at all.


It isn't irrelevant. You made a false statement as a premise of your arguments. Pointing out its falsehood is of the utmost relevance.


Hello Mr. Too Stupid to Recognize Fallacious Inference.

The possibility is precisely what makes your stupid dichotomy a false one. That's its point, and why you are wrong again.

Who has claimed that it is?

What contradiction does it entail?

How do they know it?

I know nothing of the sort, as I have insisted repeatedly. Why do you feel compelled to lie so freely? Have you no dignity? Have you no integrity?

I refuse to agree with your definitions. You're simply typing gibberish.

 

[Juddog]

I refuse to agree with your definitions. You're simply typing gibberish.

Please stop it with the giant colored letters. You come across as a child trying to scribble out responses in crayon.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

...

Christians make such persuasive arguments.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Please stop it with the giant colored letters. You come across as a child trying to scribble out responses in crayon.

Christians make such persuasive arguments.

LMAO.

Cerpin Taxt is in tears because his troll methods are being used against him.

QQ more Juddog.

LoL

You need a week off.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[Paul98]

They certainly aren't evidence.
Saying you'd expect xyz if what I believe to be true then telling how it would happen under those restrictions isn't evidence. You're telling a story about what it would be like if what you believed was true.

I am saying that if life came the way we think it did, this evidence supports that. If life started from simple chemistry what would the first life be like? Would it be large complex? no it would be what it is like it would be small and simple.

What sort of chemistry would have to exist to create the first life? It would have to be chemistry that can create the building blocks of life such as amino acids, and organic compounds. We know it does create these things.

If life started out complex, or made out of things that couldn't occur through chemistry. You would have evidence against life starting that way.

I am sorry but I know you know I am right and that you are wrong. You know this is evidence, but you don't want to admit it because you can't admit being wrong. So please don't bother replying and making yourself look more foolish.

 

[Paul98]

Christians make such persuasive arguments.

Yeah ignore list is your friend for idiots like that.

 

[Juddog]

...

Typing out giant colored retarded sounding comments isn't going to win you any arguments, just as a heads up; it just makes you look dumb. If you enjoy looking dumb, by all means keep scribbling out nonsensical replies in crayon.

 

[werepossum]

I am saying that if life came the way we think it did, this evidence supports that. If life started from simple chemistry what would the first life be like? Would it be large complex? no it would be what it is like it would be small and simple.

What sort of chemistry would have to exist to create the first life? It would have to be chemistry that can create the building blocks of life such as amino acids, and organic compounds. We know it does create these things.

If life started out complex, or made out of things that couldn't occur through chemistry. You would have evidence against life starting that way.

I am sorry but I know you know I am right and that you are wrong. You know this is evidence, but you don't want to admit it because you can't admit being wrong. So please don't bother replying and making yourself look more foolish.

By your logic, we would have building abiogenesis and unguided evolution, for buildings too started small and simple, then eventually became larger and more complex. Yet although nature can produce some of the building blocks of buildings such as stone and logs, not many people actually argue that nature randomly produced and perfected buildings without intelligent guidance.

 

[Darwin333]

Right, nobody knows but what you all believe is that it happened without a god. In other words it happened through purely natural processes.

Completely and totally incorrect. I think it is far more likely to have occured via natural processes, processes that we are understanding more and more of everyday. I do not "believe" that it is impossible for some god(s) to have done it but given the entirety of the evidence that we currently have your god creating us has as much evidence as farting unicorns. What is worse is that unless your god comes down and provides proof we will never have proof so its worse than a dead end scientifically it is a nonstarter. I would rather spend my time on theories and hypothesis that can eventually be furthered or falsified (believe it or not, both are equally as exciting).

What we do have is the entirety of the fossil record which is evidence that life started out as very simple single cell life, approximately 3.5 billion years ago, that took over a billion years to develop into more complex multicellular organisms. According to all of the evidence we have to date, things like worms and jellyfish showed up rather recently, approx 700 million years ago.

(Side note: There is an interesting debate going on about the date of the first single cell fossil. If it is proven to be accurate and/or corroborating evidence is found the date might get pushed back a few hundred million years.)

I do not "believe" that god did NOT create us. I simply see no reason to blindly believe that he did, especially considering the context of man made religion over the course of just about all of recorded history. Quite frankly it is intellectually lazy to automatically dismiss the unknown as "divine" imho.

OTOH, there is FAR more evidence and reason to posit that religion, including yours, is a creation of man meant to help control the unwashed masses. Its quite effective at that too. That isn't an argument against some sort of god(s) because obviously I don't have evidence one way or the other on some unprovable supernatural being but plenty of evidence exists for religion.

It doesn't. The point is I'm speaking under the assumption that it is true. Otherwise we'd spend hours defining terms and you'll never get to the meat of the matter. Look at what that Cerpin dude is doing, he's a prime example of what I'm talking about. Quibbling incessantly about definitions and terms when he really agrees with the assumptions I've made.

Depends on your definition of "is"! (I kid I kid)

 

[Darwin333]

Why would I concede something that was never an issue? You brought up that pointless possibility. It's also possible that you're a spam bot.
Because the idea that (biological) life has always existed is held by nobody. Nobody should take it seriously because it is an absurd idea. People here are talking about abiogenesis because they all know life didn't always exist. You know it as well.

Yet somehow the concept that "spiritual life" has always existed is not equally as absurd? This is one of the things that truly baffles me.

 

[Darwin333]

Bottom line is that you have no evidence for any even semi plausible origin of life. All this BSing doesn't change any of that.

That is sort of why we are running experiments such as those that you are damning, albeit I don't necessarily agree with your "semi plausible" statement. That is exactly WHY experiments such as the ones you are debating are done, not to necessarily prove that is exactly what happened but to show that it is at least plausible.

In the future we will either come up with better experiments or we will falsify the current one and move on to something else. That is something that I love about science.

 

[Paul98]

By your logic, we would have building abiogenesis and unguided evolution, for buildings too started small and simple, then eventually became larger and more complex. Yet although nature can produce some of the building blocks of buildings such as stone and logs, not many people actually argue that nature randomly produced and perfected buildings without intelligent guidance.

Your analogy fails so hard it's just plain stupid.

Building's are not grown, they are built. One building was not produced from another building. Screws, bolts, boards, i beams are not made in nature, they are made by man. A screw will not screw itself into a board, it will not replicate,... These comparisons are so stupid it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

[buckshot24]

I am saying that if life came the way we think it did, this evidence supports that. If life started from simple chemistry what would the first life be like? Would it be large complex? no it would be what it is like it would be small and simple.

Yes, if life arose like that then yes.

What sort of chemistry would have to exist to create the first life? It would have to be chemistry that can create the building blocks of life such as amino acids, and organic compounds. We know it does create these things.

Ok, but you're probably being a little generous here. There aren't vast amounts of these floating around. Other non-conducive to life molecules would be in much higher concentration.

If life started out complex, or made out of things that couldn't occur through chemistry. You would have evidence against life starting that way.

Yes, if you had evidence that it started out complex. But we don't have evidence that it started out "simple" either. Starting out "simple" is simply a requirement for your story to be true. It isn't evidence that it happened.

I am sorry but I know you know I am right and that you are wrong.

No, I don't.

You know this is evidence, but you don't want to admit it because you can't admit being wrong.

No, I don't. You've laid out a story and called it evidence.

So please don't bother replying and making yourself look more foolish.

Don't crap in the toilet if you don't want it flushed.

The giant leap where you suddenly say "when the first replication started" with nothing to support that it did start was your biggest fictional moment. You're basically running on 1860 level of our understanding of what a "living" thing is. Also you've placed a "billions of years did it" fallacy into the mix. Time can't do anything.

Also this "self replicating molecule" experiment should show just how hard it is to get replication started. Even after all the tinkering and timed release of full segments of the RNA strand, all the buffer solutions, all the rinsing and cleaning to get rid of "linkers" and zero contaminates they could only get half the molecule to copy itself.

 

[buckshot24]

By your logic, we would have building abiogenesis and unguided evolution, for buildings too started small and simple, then eventually became larger and more complex. Yet although nature can produce some of the building blocks of buildings such as stone and logs, not many people actually argue that nature randomly produced and perfected buildings without intelligent guidance.

It's amazing how unskeptical skeptics are of stuff like this. This sort of thing should be dismissed out of hand for the hand waving story telling that it is; if their skepticism was sincere and unbiased.

 

[buckshot24]

Your analogy fails so hard it's just plain stupid.

Building's are not grown, they are built. One building was not produced from another building. Screws, bolts, boards, i beams are not made in nature, they are made by man. A screw will not screw itself into a board, it will not replicate,... These comparisons are so stupid it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Yes, when we see designed things made by man we know that they were designed. When we see designed things where we don't know who made them we think "billions of years did it". Living cells are much more complex than a building is.

 

[buckshot24]

So you're just talking out of your ass. Well, that surprises absolutely nobody.

How many people have you surveyed to be able to claim that "absolutely nobody" was surprised? Could you cite your sources? Also, do you have evidence that people can vocalize words out of their rear ends? You're talking nonsense. Are you drinking the blue kool aid under the sink again?

 

[Abraxas]

Typing out giant colored retarded sounding comments isn't going to win you any arguments, just as a heads up; it just makes you look dumb. If you enjoy looking dumb, by all means keep scribbling out nonsensical replies in crayon.

You just don't get it son, we're playing by animal kingdom rules now. He's bigger and more colorful so he automatically wins.

Just don't mention survival of the fittest.

 

[ThinClient]

It's amazing how unskeptical skeptics are of stuff like this. This sort of thing should be dismissed out of hand for the hand waving story telling that it is; if their skepticism was sincere and unbiased.

Funny how someone who claims to be religious is pretending to know anything about skepticism.

 

[buckshot24]

Funny how someone who claims to be religious is pretending to know anything about skepticism.

I used to be one TC.

 

[buckshot24]

Yet somehow the concept that "spiritual life" has always existed is not equally as absurd? This is one of the things that truly baffles me.

Do you think biological life has always existed? Is there any reason to believe it? Do you know anyone who believes it? Do you think I need to disprove it in order to talk about the origin of life?

I believe in spiritual life for religious reasons. We're talking science here so could you please leave God out of the classroom?()