christopher hitchens

[buckshot24]

"Please cease with this line of argument, I do not have a rational rebuttal to it."

Who are you quoting?

I've made it easy on you. Demonstrate a simple RNA molecule could form and start replicating via unguided processes in realistic conditions. We don't need to worry about whether it is alive or not.

 

[buckshot24]

Even if theists are inconsistent about what we consider "life" that doesn't make your fairy tale of abiogenesis via unguided processes any more tenable. Hackery isn't going to change any of that.

 

[fskimospy]

Who are you quoting?

I've made it easy on you. Demonstrate a simple RNA molecule could form and start replicating via unguided processes in realistic conditions. We don't need to worry about whether it is alive or not.

We'll make it easy on you as well: demonstrate when god has created life from non-life.

You are trying to hold other people to standards that you actively reject yourself. That's called being a hypocrite.

 

[buckshot24]

And it doesn't need to be RNA, any self replicating molecule will do.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Even if theists are inconsistent about what we consider "life" that doesn't make your fairy tale of abiogenesis via unguided processes any more tenable. Hackery isn't going to change any of that.

"Oh yeah?? Oh yeah?? Well... you're still a poophead!!"

The issue is to decide which proposition is more rational than the other. As incomplete as our knowledge may be with respect to a particular phenomenon, giving up and just saying "magic did it" is the epitome of irrationality. It's pathetic.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Who are you quoting?

I've made it easy on you. Demonstrate a simple RNA molecule could form and start replicating via unguided processes in realistic conditions. We don't need to worry about whether it is alive or not.

Define "unguided process" -- please include your method to determine whether a "guide" has affected the experiment or not.

Please also define "realistic conditions" -- this should include some examples of which conditions are "unrealistic," and why they must be so described.

You do have answers to these questions, yes? You wouldn't be so disingenuous as to make such lofty demands without a clear understanding of what would satisfy them, would you?

No, not you. You're a fine upstanding Christian. Doing the Lord's work, in Jesus' name.

I bet you make Him proud.

 

[soulcougher73]

We'll make it easy on you as well: demonstrate when god has created life from non-life.

You are trying to hold other people to standards that you actively reject yourself. That's called being a hypocrite.

Wonder if i should start a new word. 'Hypochristians'?

"Oh don't listen to that guy. He's a hypochristian"

Remember where you heard it first 😛

 

[buckshot24]

"Oh yeah?? Oh yeah?? Well... you're still a poophead!!"

The issue is to decide which proposition is more rational than the other. As incomplete as our knowledge may be with respect to a particular phenomenon, giving up and just saying "magic did it" is the epitome of irrationality. It's pathetic.

You don't like "God did it" so any ridiculously unrealistic hopeful thinking explanation is better.

Is engineering "magic"?

 

[buckshot24]

Define "unguided process" -- please include your method to determine whether a "guide" has affected the experiment or not.

See what idiocy you have to employ? Define "unguided"?

Not guided. Happening on its own solely by the laws of chemistry.

Please also define "realistic conditions" -- this should include some examples of which conditions are "unrealistic," and why they must be so described.

Completely sterile aren't realistic and adding chunks of RNA into the mixture on a timed basis isn't realistic.

You do have answers to these questions, yes? You wouldn't be so disingenuous as to make such lofty demands without a clear understanding of what would satisfy them, would you?

Instead of offering any evidence you play games.

 

[buckshot24]

Please show that any self replicating molecule could spontaneously form at all. We'll determine if there was design put into the experiment. Do you have ANYTHING?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You don't like "God did it"

Why should I like it? In what way would that statement increase our knowledge about how life started?

...so any ridiculously unrealistic hopeful thinking explanation is better.

If it is testable then absolutely yes.

You see, the root of your problem, and the reason why everyone knows you're a intellectually dishonest douchebag, is that you only reject the presuppositions of methodological naturalism when it suits you. You perceive the conclusions produced by that method to be in conflict with your religious beliefs. That's your problem, not any fault of science.

Is engineering "magic"?

Do you have God's blueprints?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

See what idiocy you have to employ? Define "unguided"?

Not guided. Happening on its own solely by the laws of chemistry.

How do we know that a process is "unguided"? Your definition does not answer this question, so it is useless. Maybe you can give us an example of a process that you think is "unguided."

Completely sterile aren't realistic...

Why not?

...and adding chunks of RNA into the mixture on a timed basis isn't realistic.

Why not?

Instead of offering any evidence you play games.

I'm trying to play YOUR game, but you won't tell me the rules. I don't think you know the rules. You're just telling everybody that you're the winner already.

 

[buckshot24]

How do we know that a process is "unguided"? Your definition does not answer this question, so it is useless. Maybe you can give us an example of a process that you think is "unguided."

A simple acid titration is an example of unguided chemistry of acids.

Why not?

Because you're a hack.

Why not?

Because you are a dishonest hack.

I'm trying to play YOUR game, but you won't tell me the rules. I don't think you know the rules. You're just telling everybody that you're the winner already.

You know you have no such experiments. I'll put you back on ignore if you continue NOT providing any evidence.

 

[buckshot24]

You see, the root of your problem, and the reason why everyone knows you're a intellectually dishonest douchebag, is that you only reject the presuppositions of methodological naturalism when it suits you. You perceive the conclusions produced by that method to be in conflict with your religious beliefs. That's your problem, not any fault of science.

If it can be shown that self replicating molecules do form on their own in any kind of realistic conditions then I'll believe it. Why don't you just show me that it can?

Do you have God's blueprints?

Is engineering magic, yes or no?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

A simple acid titration is an example of unguided chemistry of acids.

And you ruled out God's guidance in acid titration... how?

Because you're a hack.

I'm not the one who is refusing to defend his claims.

Because you are a dishonest hack.

This is not an answer to the question.

You know you have no such experiments.

I'm not sure. Maybe I do. I just need to know what you're looking for.

I'll put you back on ignore if you continue NOT providing any evidence.

You won't tell me what you're looking for. It's pretty clear that it's because you don't honestly know. You're not debating in good faith. That's why everybody shits on you. Grow up.

 

[buckshot24]

And you ruled out God's guidance in acid titration... how?

You're as transparent as clean air. Back to the list, hack.

 

[fskimospy]

Wonder if i should start a new word. 'Hypochristians'?

"Oh don't listen to that guy. He's a hypochristian"

Remember where you heard it first 😛

Haha, indeed.

What I'm curious about is if he doesn't realize he's being a hypocrite or if he's rationalizing it away somehow. He seems conscious enough of the holes in his arguments otherwise in order to avoid ever addressing them, so he's probably rationalizing his own hypocrisy here.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If it can be shown that self replicating molecules do form on their own in any kind of realistic conditions then I'll believe it.

How can we tell if they "form on their own"?

Why don't you just show me that it can?

I want to know how the criteria will be evaluated. Why won't you tell me?

Is engineering magic, yes or no?

I don't really know what "magic" is. Do you?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Back to the list, hack.

That's what I thought.

 

[buckshot24]

I'll come back later to see if anybody has any valid lab results of ANY self replicating molecule forming under realistic conditions.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Haha, indeed.

What I'm curious about is if he doesn't realize he's being a hypocrite or if he's rationalizing it away somehow. He seems conscious enough of the holes in his arguments otherwise in order to avoid ever addressing them, so he's probably rationalizing his own hypocrisy here.

I've seen this shit a thousand times. He's not actually here to convince anyone else about his beliefs. He's here to convince himself.

 

[Retro Rob]

You don't like "God did it" so any ridiculously unrealistic hopeful thinking explanation is better.

Is engineering "magic"?

Actually, believe "God did it" has tremendous implications on humanity as a whole. So there are moral and philosophical reasons why they don't like that answer.

Obviously, that puts them under someone else's rules and not their own.

There is PLENTY incentive in removing God from the picture, particularly since the gods represented by the three major religions in the world puts restrictions on what people can do, especially morally.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually, believe "God did it" has tremendous implications on humanity as a whole. So there are moral and philosophical reasons why they don't like that answer.

Obviously, that puts them under someone else's rules and not their own.

There is PLENTY incentive in removing God from the picture, particularly since the gods represented by the three major religions in the world puts restrictions on what people can do, especially morally.

Whether or not you think people have an incentive to deny god's involvement in creation, surely you can recognize that buckshot is requiring evidence for other theories of how life came to be that he explicitly rejects for his own view.

That seems awfully hypocritical, no? While I have almost nothing in common with you in terms of our religious views, I've found you to be a person that tries to engage with others honestly. It's almost impossible to believe that buckshot is doing the same.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Actually, believe "God did it" has tremendous implications on humanity as a whole. So there are moral and philosophical reasons why they don't like that answer.

I'd be reeeeaaaallllllyyyy interested in the steps you take:

1.) To arrive at the conclusion that a god did it.

2.) To move from (1) to "My God did it."

Getting to (1) is something you still haven't accomplished, but even if you could get to (1), getting from there to (2) is still another hurdle.

Obviously, that puts them under someone else's rules and not their own.

Yeah, Loki's rule. He's awesome. He wants exactly what I want.

There is PLENTY incentive in removing God from the picture,

Like the fact that there's no evidence he exists?

...particularly since the gods represented by the three major religions in the world puts restrictions on what people can do, especially morally.

It is not a bolster to your position when you have to resort to "You're just afraid to accept my claims."

 

[Retro Rob]

Wait, I thought life couldn't come from non-life? Does god get a free pass?

How does God "get a free pass"?

I stated that God is "non-terrestrial life". Wouldn't aliens be "life", though extraterrestrial?