The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[Hollie]

actually no....
Seed Biology and Germination

A seed is a living, respiring organism, despite usually appearing inert or even dead. To remain alive, the embryo must have access to food and oxygen. Eventually if it runs out of food or is subjected to physical damage, including attack by insects or fungi, it will die. If you want the seed to be sown to produce another plant, a dead seed is of no value whatever.
What is a Seed and How Does it Work

You don't believe in the bible or the worldwide flood. What do you care?

well that makes sense.......you don't have to be wrong about whether dead seeds can come back to life, because I don't believe in a world-wide flood.......classic atheist' argument, I believe.....

Welcome to Hollie's and Taz's world in which inconvenient scientific facts are articles of scientific ignorance. Most atheists, particularly the sort you run into on forums like this one, are not very well-versed in the actualities of things at all, including the standards and conventions of logic and science.

Welcome to the conspiratorial world of Rawling.

Most religious zealots are simply "cut and pasters", lacking in any science vocabulary. We'll soon be assaulted with a host of Rawling'isms wherein the boy will rattle on with meaningless banter about his various gawds.

Always so much fun to see you, Hollie, always such a pleasure.

Always a disappointment to see you fundie zealots giving all religion a foul odor.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

Oh, no, none at all! The logical proofs of human psychology are imaginary. Do you know the difference between logical proofs and scientific affirmations? The former as premised on the a priori axioms of human cognition are more sure than the tentative affirmations of the latter.

 

[Hollie]

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

Oh, no, none at all! The logical proofs of human psychology are imaginary. Do you know the difference between logical proofs and scientific affirmations? The former as premised on the a priori axioms of human cognition are more sure than the tentative affirmations of the latter.

Just do it.

Copy and paste your nonsensical spam from the other thread. You know you want to.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You don't believe in the bible or the worldwide flood. What do you care?

well that makes sense.......you don't have to be wrong about whether dead seeds can come back to life, because I don't believe in a world-wide flood.......classic atheist' argument, I believe.....

Welcome to Hollie's and Taz's world in which inconvenient scientific facts are articles of scientific ignorance. Most atheists, particularly the sort you run into on forums like this one, are not very well-versed in the actualities of things at all, including the standards and conventions of logic and science.

Welcome to the conspiratorial world of Rawling.

Most religious zealots are simply "cut and pasters", lacking in any science vocabulary. We'll soon be assaulted with a host of Rawling'isms wherein the boy will rattle on with meaningless banter about his various gawds.

Always so much fun to see you, Hollie, always such a pleasure.

Always a disappointment to see you fundie zealots giving all religion a foul odor.

My favorite snapshot of Hollie. Caught her in one of her better mood . . . swings.

 

[Hollie]

well that makes sense.......you don't have to be wrong about whether dead seeds can come back to life, because I don't believe in a world-wide flood.......classic atheist' argument, I believe.....

Welcome to Hollie's and Taz's world in which inconvenient scientific facts are articles of scientific ignorance. Most atheists, particularly the sort you run into on forums like this one, are not very well-versed in the actualities of things at all, including the standards and conventions of logic and science.

Welcome to the conspiratorial world of Rawling.

Most religious zealots are simply "cut and pasters", lacking in any science vocabulary. We'll soon be assaulted with a host of Rawling'isms wherein the boy will rattle on with meaningless banter about his various gawds.

Always so much fun to see you, Hollie, always such a pleasure.

Always a disappointment to see you fundie zealots giving all religion a foul odor.

My favorite snapshot of Hollie. Caught her in one of her better mood . . . swings.

When your arguments have failed, you're left to snivel and whimper like a petulant child sent to his room for a timeout.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Welcome to Hollie's and Taz's world in which inconvenient scientific facts are articles of scientific ignorance. Most atheists, particularly the sort you run into on forums like this one, are not very well-versed in the actualities of things at all, including the standards and conventions of logic and science.

Welcome to the conspiratorial world of Rawling.

Most religious zealots are simply "cut and pasters", lacking in any science vocabulary. We'll soon be assaulted with a host of Rawling'isms wherein the boy will rattle on with meaningless banter about his various gawds.

Always so much fun to see you, Hollie, always such a pleasure.

Always a disappointment to see you fundie zealots giving all religion a foul odor.

My favorite snapshot of Hollie. Caught her in one of her better mood . . . swings.

When your arguments have failed, you're left to snivel and whimper like a petulant child sent to his room for a timeout.

Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion
that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations,
demonstrations of failed arguments. Heck, if Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she
actually grasped the ideas she argues rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat
just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the mean-
time, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's
always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh.

 

[Hollie]

Welcome to the conspiratorial world of Rawling.

Most religious zealots are simply "cut and pasters", lacking in any science vocabulary. We'll soon be assaulted with a host of Rawling'isms wherein the boy will rattle on with meaningless banter about his various gawds.

Always so much fun to see you, Hollie, always such a pleasure.

Always a disappointment to see you fundie zealots giving all religion a foul odor.

My favorite snapshot of Hollie. Caught her in one of her better mood . . . swings.

When your arguments have failed, you're left to snivel and whimper like a petulant child sent to his room for a timeout.

Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion
that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations,
demonstrations of failed arguments. Heck, if Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she
actually grasped the ideas she argues rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat
just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the mean-
time, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's
always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh.

You poor dear. How sad that you're left to stutter and mumble after your flaccid attempts at furthering a coherent argument have failed.

 

[Justin Davis]

So what you are really saying is that at the moment, his is the most rational theory to you therefore you accept it as fact, however should another theory be presented that appears more rational to you in the future, then you would accept that theory as face. OK. Just depends upon which idea is packaged and sold to you as to which you will accept as face.

Nah. I think abiogenesis is bonkers. Sensible people understand that life doesn't come from non-life and there's no way to prove that it did. I'm just saying that what exists is rational because what God creates will always be rational except for the irrational thoughts of fallen creatures.

 

[Hollie]

So what you are really saying is that at the moment, his is the most rational theory to you therefore you accept it as fact, however should another theory be presented that appears more rational to you in the future, then you would accept that theory as face. OK. Just depends upon which idea is packaged and sold to you as to which you will accept as face.

Nah. I think abiogenesis is bonkers. Sensible people understand that life doesn't come from non-life and there's no way to prove that it did. I'm just saying that what exists is rational because what God creates will always be rational except for the irrational thoughts of fallen creatures.

Right. Life comes from one or more gawds by magical means.

 

[the_human_being]

So what you are really saying is that at the moment, his is the most rational theory to you therefore you accept it as fact, however should another theory be presented that appears more rational to you in the future, then you would accept that theory as face. OK. Just depends upon which idea is packaged and sold to you as to which you will accept as face.

Nah. I think abiogenesis is bonkers. Sensible people understand that life doesn't come from non-life and there's no way to prove that it did. I'm just saying that what exists is rational because what God creates will always be rational except for the irrational thoughts of fallen creatures.

Right. Life comes from one or more gawds by magical means.

You may eventually get it if you keep trying. I'm beginning to expect a miracle with you.

 

[the_human_being]

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

lol....I love it when science ignorant religious zealots put their profound ignorance on display.

Not honest at all. You and all the other atheists simply cannot abide it when you see Christians are not as miserable as you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Always so much fun to see you, Hollie, always such a pleasure.

Always a disappointment to see you fundie zealots giving all religion a foul odor.

My favorite snapshot of Hollie. Caught her in one of her better mood . . . swings.

When your arguments have failed, you're left to snivel and whimper like a petulant child sent to his room for a timeout.

Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion
that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations,
demonstrations of failed arguments. Heck, if Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she
actually grasped the ideas she argues rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat
just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the mean-
time, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's
always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh.

You poor dear. How sad that you're left to stutter and mumble after your flaccid attempts at furthering a coherent argument have failed.

You know, Hollie, I tease you a bit, but what's wrong with just talking with me like we were real folk, you and I, because we are. Why do always talk at theists as if they were things, not real people?

 

[Hollie]

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

lol....I love it when science ignorant religious zealots put their profound ignorance on display.

Not honest at all. You and all the other atheists simply cannot abide it when you see Christians are not as miserable as you.

On the contrary, you hyper-religious types are the most self-loathing, angry people on the planet.

 

[Hollie]

Always a disappointment to see you fundie zealots giving all religion a foul odor.

My favorite snapshot of Hollie. Caught her in one of her better mood . . . swings.

When your arguments have failed, you're left to snivel and whimper like a petulant child sent to his room for a timeout.

Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion
that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations,
demonstrations of failed arguments. Heck, if Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she
actually grasped the ideas she argues rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat
just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the mean-
time, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's
always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh.

You poor dear. How sad that you're left to stutter and mumble after your flaccid attempts at furthering a coherent argument have failed.

You know, Hollie, I tease you a bit, but what's wrong with just talking with me like we were real folk, you and I, because we are. Why do always talk at theists as if they were things, not real people?

Because you're not.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I can prove abiogenesis: take a seed. It's not a living thing. Plant it and it grows into a living thing.

actually no....
Seed Biology and Germination

A seed is a living, respiring organism, despite usually appearing inert or even dead. To remain alive, the embryo must have access to food and oxygen. Eventually if it runs out of food or is subjected to physical damage, including attack by insects or fungi, it will die. If you want the seed to be sown to produce another plant, a dead seed is of no value whatever.
What is a Seed and How Does it Work

You don't believe in the bible or the worldwide flood. What do you care?

well that makes sense.......you don't have to be wrong about whether dead seeds can come back to life, because I don't believe in a world-wide flood.......classic atheist' argument, I believe.....

Welcome to Hollie's and Taz's world in which inconvenient scientific facts are articles of scientific ignorance. Most atheists, particularly the sort you run into on forums like this one, are not very well-versed in the actualities of things at all, including the standards and conventions of logic and science.

Welcome to the conspiratorial world of Rawling.

not a conspiracy, Hollie.....just your mass ignorance.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

I can prove abiogenesis: take a seed. It's not a living thing. Plant it and it grows into a living thing.

actually no....
Seed Biology and Germination

A seed is a living, respiring organism, despite usually appearing inert or even dead. To remain alive, the embryo must have access to food and oxygen. Eventually if it runs out of food or is subjected to physical damage, including attack by insects or fungi, it will die. If you want the seed to be sown to produce another plant, a dead seed is of no value whatever.
What is a Seed and How Does it Work

You don't believe in the bible or the worldwide flood. What do you care?

well that makes sense.......you don't have to be wrong about whether dead seeds can come back to life, because I don't believe in a world-wide flood.......classic atheist' argument, I believe.....

You're not even a christian, so what are you?

Why would you assume he's not a Christian just because he doesn't necessarily hold to a literal, worldwide Noahic Flood? I don't necessarily hold to that notion either, and I'm a Christian. The term "world" can readily be understood to apply to the continental range of the human race of that time.

because like Hollie, he only knows how to win one argument.....therefore, he is forced to pretend that everyone who argues with him has made that argument......

 

[PostmodernProph]

So what you are really saying is that at the moment, his is the most rational theory to you therefore you accept it as fact, however should another theory be presented that appears more rational to you in the future, then you would accept that theory as face. OK. Just depends upon which idea is packaged and sold to you as to which you will accept as face.

Nah. I think abiogenesis is bonkers. Sensible people understand that life doesn't come from non-life and there's no way to prove that it did. I'm just saying that what exists is rational because what God creates will always be rational except for the irrational thoughts of fallen creatures.

Right. Life comes from one or more gawds by magical means.

You may eventually get it if you keep trying. I'm beginning to expect a miracle with you.

Hollie "getting it" is more of a miracle than mudpuddles and lightning turning into life......

 

[Hollie]

actually no....
Seed Biology and Germination

A seed is a living, respiring organism, despite usually appearing inert or even dead. To remain alive, the embryo must have access to food and oxygen. Eventually if it runs out of food or is subjected to physical damage, including attack by insects or fungi, it will die. If you want the seed to be sown to produce another plant, a dead seed is of no value whatever.
What is a Seed and How Does it Work

You don't believe in the bible or the worldwide flood. What do you care?

well that makes sense.......you don't have to be wrong about whether dead seeds can come back to life, because I don't believe in a world-wide flood.......classic atheist' argument, I believe.....

Welcome to Hollie's and Taz's world in which inconvenient scientific facts are articles of scientific ignorance. Most atheists, particularly the sort you run into on forums like this one, are not very well-versed in the actualities of things at all, including the standards and conventions of logic and science.

Welcome to the conspiratorial world of Rawling.

not a conspiracy, Hollie.....just your mass ignorance.....

Actually, yes, a conspiracy. The twisted, conspiratorial mindset of you hyper-religious loons is notable for your inability to operate in the rational world.

 

[Hollie]

So what you are really saying is that at the moment, his is the most rational theory to you therefore you accept it as fact, however should another theory be presented that appears more rational to you in the future, then you would accept that theory as face. OK. Just depends upon which idea is packaged and sold to you as to which you will accept as face.

Nah. I think abiogenesis is bonkers. Sensible people understand that life doesn't come from non-life and there's no way to prove that it did. I'm just saying that what exists is rational because what God creates will always be rational except for the irrational thoughts of fallen creatures.

Right. Life comes from one or more gawds by magical means.

You may eventually get it if you keep trying. I'm beginning to expect a miracle with you.

Hollie "getting it" is more of a miracle than mudpuddles and lightning turning into life......

As usual, you YEC'ists are wholly ignorant as to the science involved regarding life on the planet.

Your time spent at the Harun Yahya madrassah has been a waste of time.

 

[Hollie]

actually no....
Seed Biology and Germination

A seed is a living, respiring organism, despite usually appearing inert or even dead. To remain alive, the embryo must have access to food and oxygen. Eventually if it runs out of food or is subjected to physical damage, including attack by insects or fungi, it will die. If you want the seed to be sown to produce another plant, a dead seed is of no value whatever.
What is a Seed and How Does it Work

You don't believe in the bible or the worldwide flood. What do you care?

well that makes sense.......you don't have to be wrong about whether dead seeds can come back to life, because I don't believe in a world-wide flood.......classic atheist' argument, I believe.....

You're not even a christian, so what are you?

Why would you assume he's not a Christian just because he doesn't necessarily hold to a literal, worldwide Noahic Flood? I don't necessarily hold to that notion either, and I'm a Christian. The term "world" can readily be understood to apply to the continental range of the human race of that time.

because like Hollie, he only knows how to win one argument.....therefore, he is forced to pretend that everyone who argues with him has made that argument......

Presenting an argument supported by facts and evidence is what you YEC'ists fail at on every occasion.

For starters, it is you YEC'ists with your silly claims to magical gawds performing "miracles" who are not even participating in an argument. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the affirmative position. You YEC'ists know that, and that’s why you are always posting the most profoundly nonsensical examples of “scientific proofs” of the bibles. These “proofs” are uniformly nonsensical, and require the believer to be ignorant of BOTH the various bibles AND science to believe them.