“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#82 Sep 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have to believe in your magic Jew due to the lack of evidence.
Let me point out your stupidity. You keep refereeing to Jew magic. Really?? That is not God, that would be Jesus you are referring to and he did not create life. Which alone shows how daft you are in understanding anything. Nothing left to say since you are so lost.

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#83 Sep 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
"when they LIE LIKE HELL for Jesus.
Define hell. What is hell? If hell is a place that you claim does not exist, how can one lie like hell?

Level 2

Since: Sep 13

Germany

#84 Sep 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiot. There is more than one way to define abiogenesis. The usage that I was using should have been clear. You should not rely only on dictionaries and articles for definitions of words.
So on which definition should I rely on? On yours? Abiogenesis is clearly a term of natural science. If you put god in, use genesis if you will. That term is by the way, far older than the term "abiogenesis". So if anything, that would be the official term.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You should be able to figure out definitions by reading the words themselves. When you do that you can see that a god creating the first cell would be an abiogenesis event. Of course you want to use bad logic. If we can't "prove" abiogenesis you seem to think that will harm the theory of evolution.
No I don't think that. But certain scientiest with a naturalistic worldview certainly wouldn't like it, if abiogenesis were false.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#85 Sep 4, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
<quoted text>
So on which definition should I rely on? On yours? Abiogenesis is clearly a term of natural science. If you put god in, use genesis if you will. That term is by the way, far older than the term "abiogenesis". So if anything, that would be the official term.
<quoted text>
No I don't think that. But certain scientiest with a naturalistic worldview certainly wouldn't like it, if abiogenesis were false.
You rely on the definition as it was used in a sentence.

What do you do when a word has several meanings? Context is always king when it comes to understanding someone. But then I keep forgetting that creatards have very poor reading comprehension as a rule.

Genesis is not the right term either since that implies the whole Adam and Even and talking snake myth.

And of course scientists would not like it if the world were suddenly at the whim of some capricious god. No one would like that.

Just think of all of the flaws of the God of Genesis. He purposefully does not give his creation to know what was right and wrong and then gets pissed off when they do wrong. He is so evil that his own angels, that know he is omnipotent, rebel anyway. I could spend an hour or two going over all of this mythical god's flaws. But it is just a complicated bedtime story and is no reason to get all that mad.

Level 2

Since: Sep 13

Germany

#86 Sep 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>You rely on the definition as it was used in a sentence.
What do you do when a word has several meanings? Context is always king when it comes to understanding someone. But then I keep forgetting that creatards have very poor reading comprehension as a rule.
ASAF, I was the first who used "abiogenesis" in this thread, and TheDude, MikeF and you gave it several meanings. So can I attest all of you bad reading comprehension then?

Saying that abiogenesis does also stand for creation by god is just bullshit. It is the supposedly natural creation of life from organic compounds, and that's the only meaning it has in scientific discours. Otherwise you couldn't differenciate it from Creationism.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Just think of all of the flaws of the God of Genesis. He purposefully does not give his creation to know what was right and wrong and then gets pissed off when they do wrong. He is so evil that his own angels, that know he is omnipotent, rebel anyway. I could spend an hour or two going over all of this mythical god's flaws. But it is just a complicated bedtime story and is no reason to get all that mad.
God gave humanity a free will. It is probably impossible to find out the purpose of creation, but it's fact that there is good and evil in this world. Many materialistic persons seem to blend that out, I think.
Angels rebelling against god is not necessary canon, likewise it's not canon that satan was originally an angel named Lucifer. I think depends on your christian belief. There is more than just one.

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#87 Sep 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>You rely on the definition as it was used in a sentence.
What do you do when a word has several meanings? Context is always king when it comes to understanding someone. But then I keep forgetting that creatards have very poor reading comprehension as a rule.
Genesis is not the right term either since that implies the whole Adam and Even and talking snake myth.
And of course scientists would not like it if the world were suddenly at the whim of some capricious god. No one would like that.
Just think of all of the flaws of the God of Genesis. He purposefully does not give his creation to know what was right and wrong and then gets pissed off when they do wrong. He is so evil that his own angels, that know he is omnipotent, rebel anyway. I could spend an hour or two going over all of this mythical god's flaws. But it is just a complicated bedtime story and is no reason to get all that mad.
When laws are laid down they have to be enforced or the one that laid them down looks useless and weak. Take mans laws, you either abide by them or it costs you financially, costs your freedom or costs your life.

Like the US saying to Syria if you use chemical weapons we will make you pay, well now we have to back up our word/laws. Many think we shouldn't but we have no choice but to intervene and show force or look useless and weak.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#88 Sep 4, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
<quoted text>
ASAF, I was the first who used "abiogenesis" in this thread, and TheDude, MikeF and you gave it several meanings. So can I attest all of you bad reading comprehension then?
Saying that abiogenesis does also stand for creation by god is just bullshit. It is the supposedly natural creation of life from organic compounds, and that's the only meaning it has in scientific discours. Otherwise you couldn't differenciate it from Creationism.
<quoted text>
God gave humanity a free will. It is probably impossible to find out the purpose of creation, but it's fact that there is good and evil in this world. Many materialistic persons seem to blend that out, I think.
Angels rebelling against god is not necessary canon, likewise it's not canon that satan was originally an angel named Lucifer. I think depends on your christian belief. There is more than just one.
No,since you are the only one who cannot follow the debate you are the one with bad reading comprehension. We all knew what each other meant. You may have too, but creationism can turn the brightest person into an idiot, as it has you.

And no, the god of genesis is an indefensible monster. To do so you have to either have no logic or no empathy.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#89 Sep 4, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When laws are laid down they have to be enforced or the one that laid them down looks useless and weak. Take mans laws, you either abide by them or it costs you financially, costs your freedom or costs your life.
Like the US saying to Syria if you use chemical weapons we will make you pay, well now we have to back up our word/laws. Many think we shouldn't but we have no choice but to intervene and show force or look useless and weak.
Laws cannot be arbitrary. Supposedly Adam and Even has no knowledge of right and wrong, that was one of the flaws that God gave them. When they ate of the tree they then knew what was right and what was wrong. Syria knew ahead of time that what it was doing was wrong. So your analogy fails.

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#90 Sep 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws cannot be arbitrary. Supposedly Adam and Even has no knowledge of right and wrong, that was one of the flaws that God gave them. When they ate of the tree they then knew what was right and what was wrong. Syria knew ahead of time that what it was doing was wrong. So your analogy fails.
Wrong. Genesis 2:16-17; And the Lord God commanded the man,“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

He told them not to eat from that tree. They did not obey his word/law paid the price.

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#91 Sep 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws cannot be arbitrary. Supposedly Adam and Even has no knowledge of right and wrong, that was one of the flaws that God gave them. When they ate of the tree they then knew what was right and what was wrong. Syria knew ahead of time that what it was doing was wrong. So your analogy fails.
You know it is wrong to kill. Do you need to kill before you understand it?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#92 Sep 4, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Genesis 2:16-17; And the Lord God commanded the man,“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
He told them not to eat from that tree. They did not obey his word/law paid the price.
Nope, I am right.

What was the fruit of the tree?

Don't you know your own book of myth?

Try to use some logic instead of emotion this time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#93 Sep 4, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You know it is wrong to kill. Do you need to kill before you understand it?
I know it is wrong to kill because I learned it was wrong. You don't have to do something to learn that it is wrong, but you do have to learn.

Your analogy still fails.

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#94 Sep 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I am right.
What was the fruit of the tree?
Don't you know your own book of myth?
Try to use some logic instead of emotion this time.
We weren't there. We don't know which tree it was. The people that wrote the bible weren't there. They have no clue what tree it was. Did God make it clear to Adam? I don't know if he did as well as you don't know he didn't.

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#95 Sep 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I know it is wrong to kill because I learned it was wrong. You don't have to do something to learn that it is wrong, but you do have to learn.
Your analogy still fails.
But you only learned it is wrong to kill in certain situations. Is it right to kill if protecting yourself? Your kids? Your wife? As you see them it turns out killing is right. So what we were learned growing up is that killing is wrong but certain things make killing right. But many people can't handle it even in certain situations. So I ask you; Is killing right or wrong?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#96 Sep 5, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
I can only repeat myself as it seems. Try Wikipedia:
"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is a natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds."
Everybody noticed? A natural process, emphasis on natural. So no god included. If you mean that, call it genesis if you will
Your problem is you feel threatened by science. What start the abiogenesis rolling is unknown. It might have been a god, ET or nothing at all. There isn't anything in the hypothesis that excludes the possibility of external involvement.

Has it ever occurred to you that your god simply created the rules of chemistry to allow abiogenesis? That he/she/it was far more clever than you give credit for?

Genesis is a collection of nice stories but not reality.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#97 Sep 5, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
nope
Life is here.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
mathematics is no science? You are just clueless. Mathematics is widely considered as the queen of sciences, google it if you will.
Quite ironic since that's a tool you seem to be unable to use
Freddy Quinn wrote:
It's funny cause you're saying "true science" like physics uses mathematics.
It can also use English. English isn't science either.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Then I ask you how can physics be a science, when mathematics is no science, but almost everything in the theory of physics is based on math?
Actually it's based on physical phenomena. I don't NEED math to observe that apples fall from a tree. But I CAN apply math and measure the distance it fell, speed etc.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Mathematics is the purest science there is, as it entirely relies on pure logic.
Pure logic is not science. It's logic.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
You make certain assumptions, that's true, but that's what mathematics is about.
And making calculations based on those axioms. But I can have a totally internally consistent mathematical model which has no bearing at all on reality. However if I make my axioms match reality as closely as possible then math is being applied to reality. Math is a language, not a science. If you happen to see Polymath or DS around here then you can ask them, since they are both mathematicians. They agree with me. Or should I say I agree with them.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
The theory of abstract structures. You only have to define the structures, but up from there, anything is based on proof.
Where as science doesn't deal with abstracts like math does. That's the difference.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
And you think other sciences don't rely on axioms?
Of course they do. But those axioms are supposed to represent reality. Math has no such constraints.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
If you wouldn't make these assumptions, there would be no physics at all, even the scientific experiment would rather useless.
Indeed.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Every science makes certain assumption, I urge you to learn a bit about the theory of science.
As an anti-science creationist you owe me a new irony meter.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Philosophy mate, which is also abstract, but relies on logic.
So they like to think. It can also rely on a physical chair where they can sit on their fat azzes and make up BS that has no bearing on reality while science actually does the legwork and finds stuff out.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Which is why I'd consider Philosophy a science too.
No wonder you're confused. Saw it coming though.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
The fault that many atheists are making, is that they take their subjective interpretation as fact.
Go take it up with them if you think so. I couldn't care less about atheism. It's not relevant to the validity of science. Science works the same way whether you're atheist or atheist. Liberal or conservative. But all too often we see too many fundies calling me an evil atheist Darwinist evolutionist Communist Nazi anti-Christian God-hating baby-eating Satan-worshipping world-wide illuminati conspiracy member for just mentioning something scientific.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#98 Sep 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me point out your stupidity. You keep refereeing to Jew magic. Really?? That is not God, that would be Jesus you are referring to and he did not create life. Which alone shows how daft you are in understanding anything. Nothing left to say since you are so lost.
The Jewish wizard that created the universe was spoken of before Jesus was born. Oh, and Jesus IS God. The living incarnation of God Himself on Earth. It's a whole big thing, some trinity or something, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, three parts of the one whole. Apparently it makes sense to some people.

So no, I'm not wrong.

Don't worry man, you'll get me one day. In fact didn't you get me last week? Typo if I recall.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99 Sep 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Define hell. What is hell? If hell is a place that you claim does not exist, how can one lie like hell?
If hell is a place I have not claimed does not exist then how can one claim I've claimed that hell does not exist?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100 Sep 5, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
So on which definition should I rely on? On yours? Abiogenesis is clearly a term of natural science. If you put god in, use genesis if you will. That term is by the way, far older than the term "abiogenesis". So if anything, that would be the official term.
Yes, it's a term of natural science as there is only one main hypothesis of abiogenesis. But if God is responsible and you can come up with a scientific hypothesis then abiogenesis would have another hypothesis to choose from.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
No I don't think that. But certain scientiest with a naturalistic worldview certainly wouldn't like it, if abiogenesis were false.
Not really, as now they could investigate the aliens that made us.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#101 Sep 5, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
ASAF, I was the first who used "abiogenesis" in this thread, and TheDude, MikeF and you gave it several meanings. So can I attest all of you bad reading comprehension then?
Saying that abiogenesis does also stand for creation by god is just bullshit. It is the supposedly natural creation of life from organic compounds, and that's the only meaning it has in scientific discours. Otherwise you couldn't differenciate it from Creationism.
As you're an expert in BS, you should know. However it literally means 'life from a lack of life', which is what occurred over 3 billion years ago. Any science referring to abiogenesis does tend to involve the development of life via natural chemical processes, but that's because no-one's presented a valid scientific abiogenesis alternative involving Godmagic.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
God gave humanity a free will.
No he didn't.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
It is probably impossible to find out the purpose of creation, but it's fact that there is good and evil in this world. Many materialistic persons seem to blend that out, I think.
You don't even know the difference between good and evil. You have not eaten from the tree. All you have is a set of directives from wizard who gets his jollys by wiping out people and babies for rather petty reasons. Luckily there is no evidence this wizard of yours even exists.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Angels rebelling against god is not necessary canon, likewise it's not canon that satan was originally an angel named Lucifer. I think depends on your christian belief. There is more than just one.
Precisely, which is why your opinions on the subject are worthless. As they are no more valid than anyone else's. Especially as they have no determinable relevance to reality, beyond a cultural level that is.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min MikeF 117,513
Darwin on the rocks 51 min The Dude 192
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 55 min MikeF 137,390
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 13 hr Bluenose 659
Humans DID evolve from apes! 17 hr Daz Ma Taz 3
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? 18 hr John K 3
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 22 hr Dogen 174,462

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE