Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[Sonofason]

In essence, Clownboat was stating that he doesn't know if God is necessary for evolution to take place. And neither do you. And neither do I.

You are either lying or misunderstood, I'm just not sure.
I very specifically said that a god is un-needed for evolution to happen!

In no way can stating a god is un-needed mean that I don't know if a god is necessary. All it means is that one is not needed, full stop.

A god causing it is just as likely and just as un-needed as fairy farts causing it. If you want to take that to mean that I'm not sure if fairy farts caused evolution, that is on you.

Fairy farts and a god are both un-needed for evolution to happen. Give me a reason to believe that fairy farts or a god causes it and I am all ears, because it seems that evolution will happen without either of them being involved.

If you are going to make a positive claim, it is only reasonable for me to ask for the evidence of your claim. Please provide evidence that a God is not needed for evolution to take place. Either provide the evidence or stop making the unsupported claim. This is my final offer. On the other hand, you could simply admit the truth, which is that you don't know if a god is needed for evolution to take place. That is the only honest answer one could put forth. So what's it gonna be?

You ready?

- Humans are complex.
- Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

Please point out if you can how this is not logical and then explain why you add a god concept to the mix.

Well, this is not entirely true.
Your first premise seems true enough to me. Humans are complex.
Your second premise is somewhat flawed. Even single celled organisms are highly complex. They are so complex that we have not so far been able to create one from scratch. Cloning would not be an example of creating living cells from scratch. Growing organs from stem cells would not be an example of creating cells from scratch. You see, even the simplest life forms, like prokaryotic bacteria are extraordinarily complex. And so one could argue that we have not become complex at all. We've always been complex. While it may be true that we have become more complex, we've always been complex.

How is it that a complex living cell came to exist in the first place? Well, you don't have to answer that, because I know that you can't. Evolution doesn't explain it. Science so far can't explain it. Yet they exist.

But this is not the reason I object to your argument. The reason I object to your argument is that your conclusion does not follow from the premises that you provided.

If it is true that;
A. Humans are complex.
and
B. Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw from these two premises is:

Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we are complex.

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

You do agree, don't you, that evolution can cause a species to become less complex over time?

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

Abiogenesis deals with how life formed from simple organic compounds. You are the evidence for this.
Evolution explains how this life evolved to become other species. This idea of "progression" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions. You are the evidence for this. Humans are complex, more complex than many other species that live today or have existed before, but probably not the most complex (now or compared to the past). Our sweat glans alone makes us complex.
Therefore, evolution does indeed explain how these other species came to be; explain their existence, it does explain how animals evolved to become humans. It just does not explain the very first life (the process of how the last universal ancestor formed), but it does explain human complexity.

In conclusion, your responds to Clownboat fails. You are merely offering a fallacy of ignorance here due to your biased. You already decided your god did it, that you reject evolution, and now you try and justify it my misrepresenting Evolution / Abiogenesis and projection.

Can you tell us why you think you god is needed for this Evolution or for Abiogenesis?
Do you even accept that Evolution or for Abiogenesis is real, Abiogenesis happened ~3.5 billion years ago, Evolution started then and is still happening today?

No, I have not offered any such fallacy. What I've said is reasonable and true.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God. No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment. Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God.

YOU.
My tomato plant.
Want more evidence?

No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment.

Therefore your god did not create Adam from dust as per Genesis 2:7. Your god is not not sceintific at all, he can not do anything sceintific, he is useless. Therefore YOU are the evidence that life can be started without God, you just stated it and I agree!

Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

We have been over this Sonofason. We concluded that you do not understand what is faith, or what is evidence.

All you are now doing is you are rejecting Genesis 2:7, saying faith is a bad thing. Or are you saying that you accept Genesis 2:7 based on faith (no evidence) and faith is a good thing?

You see, you can not even decide if faith is a good thing or a bad thing. That is besides not even understanding what faith is. And here you come and try formulate an argument around it. Hu?


You are the evidence for 'how life formed from non-life'.
We both accept that, we differ on the process (the mechanisms).
You say some god did it, and can offer zero evidence, only faith. You seem to reject Gen 2:7 and can not decide if faith is good or bad thing.
I say it was natural processes, and can offer evidence (you & all of the components of life, and a tract record of solving problems showing that natural processes exist / explain things). All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms, reflecting their common descent; based on these observations, hypotheses on the origin of life attempt to find a mechanism explaining the formation of a universal common ancestor, from simple organic molecules via pre-cellular life to protocells and metabolism. Models have been divided into "genes-first" and "metabolism-first" categories, but a recent trend is the emergence of hybrid models that combine both categories -
Coveney, Peter V.; Fowler, Philip W. (2005). "Modelling biological complexity: a physical scientist's perspective". Journal of the Royal Society Interface 2 (4): 267"280. doi:10.1098/rsif.2005.0045

You can not formulate a hypothesis in science if you have no evidence. Also, do you really think that all of these scientists working on Abiogenesis are doing this work without any evidence? You are now demonstrating that you do not understand science.


Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence.

You can not even formulate a logical explanation why we would think your god was in involved on Abiogenesis, or Evolution.

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started. I am merely evidence that life started. It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science. You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

[10CC]

In essence, Clownboat was stating that he doesn't know if God is necessary for evolution to take place. And neither do you. And neither do I.

You are either lying or misunderstood, I'm just not sure.
I very specifically said that a god is un-needed for evolution to happen!

In no way can stating a god is un-needed mean that I don't know if a god is necessary. All it means is that one is not needed, full stop.

A god causing it is just as likely and just as un-needed as fairy farts causing it. If you want to take that to mean that I'm not sure if fairy farts caused evolution, that is on you.

Fairy farts and a god are both un-needed for evolution to happen. Give me a reason to believe that fairy farts or a god causes it and I am all ears, because it seems that evolution will happen without either of them being involved.

If you are going to make a positive claim, it is only reasonable for me to ask for the evidence of your claim. Please provide evidence that a God is not needed for evolution to take place. Either provide the evidence or stop making the unsupported claim. This is my final offer. On the other hand, you could simply admit the truth, which is that you don't know if a god is needed for evolution to take place. That is the only honest answer one could put forth. So what's it gonna be?

You ready?

- Humans are complex.
- Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

Please point out if you can how this is not logical and then explain why you add a god concept to the mix.

Well, this is not entirely true.
Your first premise seems true enough to me. Humans are complex.

Is it this complexity that makes your god necessary?

How have you determined this complexity?

What that is uncomplex have you compared it to?

[JohnA]

In essence, Clownboat was stating that he doesn't know if God is necessary for evolution to take place. And neither do you. And neither do I.

You are either lying or misunderstood, I'm just not sure.
I very specifically said that a god is un-needed for evolution to happen!

In no way can stating a god is un-needed mean that I don't know if a god is necessary. All it means is that one is not needed, full stop.

A god causing it is just as likely and just as un-needed as fairy farts causing it. If you want to take that to mean that I'm not sure if fairy farts caused evolution, that is on you.

Fairy farts and a god are both un-needed for evolution to happen. Give me a reason to believe that fairy farts or a god causes it and I am all ears, because it seems that evolution will happen without either of them being involved.

If you are going to make a positive claim, it is only reasonable for me to ask for the evidence of your claim. Please provide evidence that a God is not needed for evolution to take place. Either provide the evidence or stop making the unsupported claim. This is my final offer. On the other hand, you could simply admit the truth, which is that you don't know if a god is needed for evolution to take place. That is the only honest answer one could put forth. So what's it gonna be?

You ready?

- Humans are complex.
- Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

Please point out if you can how this is not logical and then explain why you add a god concept to the mix.

Well, this is not entirely true.
Your first premise seems true enough to me. Humans are complex.
Your second premise is somewhat flawed. Even single celled organisms are highly complex. They are so complex that we have not so far been able to create one from scratch. Cloning would not be an example of creating living cells from scratch. Growing organs from stem cells would not be an example of creating cells from scratch. You see, even the simplest life forms, like prokaryotic bacteria are extraordinarily complex. And so one could argue that we have not become complex at all. We've always been complex. While it may be true that we have become more complex, we've always been complex.

How is it that a complex living cell came to exist in the first place? Well, you don't have to answer that, because I know that you can't. Evolution doesn't explain it. Science so far can't explain it. Yet they exist.

But this is not the reason I object to your argument. The reason I object to your argument is that your conclusion does not follow from the premises that you provided.

If it is true that;
A. Humans are complex.
and
B. Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw from these two premises is:

Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we are complex.

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

You do agree, don't you, that evolution can cause a species to become less complex over time?

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

Abiogenesis deals with how life formed from simple organic compounds. You are the evidence for this.
Evolution explains how this life evolved to become other species. This idea of "progression" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions. You are the evidence for this. Humans are complex, more complex than many other species that live today or have existed before, but probably not the most complex (now or compared to the past). Our sweat glans alone makes us complex.
Therefore, evolution does indeed explain how these other species came to be; explain their existence, it does explain how animals evolved to become humans. It just does not explain the very first life (the process of how the last universal ancestor formed), but it does explain human complexity.

In conclusion, your responds to Clownboat fails. You are merely offering a fallacy of ignorance here due to your biased. You already decided your god did it, that you reject evolution, and now you try and justify it my misrepresenting Evolution / Abiogenesis and projection.

Can you tell us why you think you god is needed for this Evolution or for Abiogenesis?
Do you even accept that Evolution or for Abiogenesis is real, Abiogenesis happened ~3.5 billion years ago, Evolution started then and is still happening today?

No, I have not offered any such fallacy. What I've said is reasonable and true.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God. No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment. Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God.

YOU.
My tomato plant.
Want more evidence?

No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment.

Therefore your god did not create Adam from dust as per Genesis 2:7. Your god is not not sceintific at all, he can not do anything sceintific, he is useless. Therefore YOU are the evidence that life can be started without God, you just stated it and I agree!

Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

We have been over this Sonofason. We concluded that you do not understand what is faith, or what is evidence.

All you are now doing is you are rejecting Genesis 2:7, saying faith is a bad thing. Or are you saying that you accept Genesis 2:7 based on faith (no evidence) and faith is a good thing?

You see, you can not even decide if faith is a good thing or a bad thing. That is besides not even understanding what faith is. And here you come and try formulate an argument around it. Hu?


You are the evidence for 'how life formed from non-life'.
We both accept that, we differ on the process (the mechanisms).
You say some god did it, and can offer zero evidence, only faith. You seem to reject Gen 2:7 and can not decide if faith is good or bad thing.
I say it was natural processes, and can offer evidence (you & all of the components of life, and a tract record of solving problems showing that natural processes exist / explain things). All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms, reflecting their common descent; based on these observations, hypotheses on the origin of life attempt to find a mechanism explaining the formation of a universal common ancestor, from simple organic molecules via pre-cellular life to protocells and metabolism. Models have been divided into "genes-first" and "metabolism-first" categories, but a recent trend is the emergence of hybrid models that combine both categories -
Coveney, Peter V.; Fowler, Philip W. (2005). "Modelling biological complexity: a physical scientist's perspective". Journal of the Royal Society Interface 2 (4): 267"280. doi:10.1098/rsif.2005.0045

You can not formulate a hypothesis in science if you have no evidence. Also, do you really think that all of these scientists working on Abiogenesis are doing this work without any evidence? You are now demonstrating that you do not understand science.


Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence.

You can not even formulate a logical explanation why we would think your god was in involved on Abiogenesis, or Evolution.

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started. I am merely evidence that life started. It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science. You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

You have not answered my questions at all:
Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence. Correct?

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started.

Why not?
When Abiogenesis scientists study life, do you think they look and looked at human life as well? Or are you saying you are not human, not a form of life at all?

I am merely evidence that life started.

And how it started. Am glad you at least agree one something!

It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

Surely you need to show WHY my arguments are false and unreasonable. Actually, you first need to show that I am indeed presenting any arguments here.
How can I HAVE a bias, when you are the only one BEING biased? And let's not forget about faulting reason filters.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science.

You have not asked me for this, that is why I have not provided it.
What is good science?
Clearly your Gen2:7 is not good science, since you reject that. So you are rejecting that your god are the process (mechanism) for Abiogenesis? OK. You just argued again that your god can not have created life.

You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

But you just wrote:

I am merely evidence that life started.

And you can not tell me why you are not, at all, evidence of how life started.
Furthermore, you have the burden to show that your god started life. And all you offered so far is your rejecting of Gen2:7 and a faulty understanding of evidence, no answer on if faith if a good or bad, and no understanding of faith, period.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

1) Science has a 100% success rate showing that natural processes are the explanation for open questions in science. All questions answered was using natural processes, not once did we have to refer to the supernatural. That does not mean all questions were or are answered, but this is evidence that Abiogenesis will and can explain how life started (because we have evidence (you) for it).
2) Your faith (not my lack of faith) is evidence that your god did not create life because your faith says there is no evidence for it, and there can not be any evidence for it.
You have NO evidence at all that your god did it. NONE. All you have is faith. And you do not understand your own faith, not can you tell me if faith is a good thing or a bad thing.



Can you no answer my questions? Or shall I assume you are agreeing that "You do not accept Abiogenesis or Evolution. And the reason for this is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence."

[Sonofason]

In essence, Clownboat was stating that he doesn't know if God is necessary for evolution to take place. And neither do you. And neither do I.

You are either lying or misunderstood, I'm just not sure.
I very specifically said that a god is un-needed for evolution to happen!

In no way can stating a god is un-needed mean that I don't know if a god is necessary. All it means is that one is not needed, full stop.

A god causing it is just as likely and just as un-needed as fairy farts causing it. If you want to take that to mean that I'm not sure if fairy farts caused evolution, that is on you.

Fairy farts and a god are both un-needed for evolution to happen. Give me a reason to believe that fairy farts or a god causes it and I am all ears, because it seems that evolution will happen without either of them being involved.

If you are going to make a positive claim, it is only reasonable for me to ask for the evidence of your claim. Please provide evidence that a God is not needed for evolution to take place. Either provide the evidence or stop making the unsupported claim. This is my final offer. On the other hand, you could simply admit the truth, which is that you don't know if a god is needed for evolution to take place. That is the only honest answer one could put forth. So what's it gonna be?

You ready?

- Humans are complex.
- Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

Please point out if you can how this is not logical and then explain why you add a god concept to the mix.

Well, this is not entirely true.
Your first premise seems true enough to me. Humans are complex.
Your second premise is somewhat flawed. Even single celled organisms are highly complex. They are so complex that we have not so far been able to create one from scratch. Cloning would not be an example of creating living cells from scratch. Growing organs from stem cells would not be an example of creating cells from scratch. You see, even the simplest life forms, like prokaryotic bacteria are extraordinarily complex. And so one could argue that we have not become complex at all. We've always been complex. While it may be true that we have become more complex, we've always been complex.

How is it that a complex living cell came to exist in the first place? Well, you don't have to answer that, because I know that you can't. Evolution doesn't explain it. Science so far can't explain it. Yet they exist.

But this is not the reason I object to your argument. The reason I object to your argument is that your conclusion does not follow from the premises that you provided.

If it is true that;
A. Humans are complex.
and
B. Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw from these two premises is:

Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we are complex.

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

You do agree, don't you, that evolution can cause a species to become less complex over time?

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

Abiogenesis deals with how life formed from simple organic compounds. You are the evidence for this.
Evolution explains how this life evolved to become other species. This idea of "progression" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions. You are the evidence for this. Humans are complex, more complex than many other species that live today or have existed before, but probably not the most complex (now or compared to the past). Our sweat glans alone makes us complex.
Therefore, evolution does indeed explain how these other species came to be; explain their existence, it does explain how animals evolved to become humans. It just does not explain the very first life (the process of how the last universal ancestor formed), but it does explain human complexity.

In conclusion, your responds to Clownboat fails. You are merely offering a fallacy of ignorance here due to your biased. You already decided your god did it, that you reject evolution, and now you try and justify it my misrepresenting Evolution / Abiogenesis and projection.

Can you tell us why you think you god is needed for this Evolution or for Abiogenesis?
Do you even accept that Evolution or for Abiogenesis is real, Abiogenesis happened ~3.5 billion years ago, Evolution started then and is still happening today?

No, I have not offered any such fallacy. What I've said is reasonable and true.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God. No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment. Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God.

YOU.
My tomato plant.
Want more evidence?

No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment.

Therefore your god did not create Adam from dust as per Genesis 2:7. Your god is not not sceintific at all, he can not do anything sceintific, he is useless. Therefore YOU are the evidence that life can be started without God, you just stated it and I agree!

Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

We have been over this Sonofason. We concluded that you do not understand what is faith, or what is evidence.

All you are now doing is you are rejecting Genesis 2:7, saying faith is a bad thing. Or are you saying that you accept Genesis 2:7 based on faith (no evidence) and faith is a good thing?

You see, you can not even decide if faith is a good thing or a bad thing. That is besides not even understanding what faith is. And here you come and try formulate an argument around it. Hu?


You are the evidence for 'how life formed from non-life'.
We both accept that, we differ on the process (the mechanisms).
You say some god did it, and can offer zero evidence, only faith. You seem to reject Gen 2:7 and can not decide if faith is good or bad thing.
I say it was natural processes, and can offer evidence (you & all of the components of life, and a tract record of solving problems showing that natural processes exist / explain things). All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms, reflecting their common descent; based on these observations, hypotheses on the origin of life attempt to find a mechanism explaining the formation of a universal common ancestor, from simple organic molecules via pre-cellular life to protocells and metabolism. Models have been divided into "genes-first" and "metabolism-first" categories, but a recent trend is the emergence of hybrid models that combine both categories -
Coveney, Peter V.; Fowler, Philip W. (2005). "Modelling biological complexity: a physical scientist's perspective". Journal of the Royal Society Interface 2 (4): 267"280. doi:10.1098/rsif.2005.0045

You can not formulate a hypothesis in science if you have no evidence. Also, do you really think that all of these scientists working on Abiogenesis are doing this work without any evidence? You are now demonstrating that you do not understand science.


Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence.

You can not even formulate a logical explanation why we would think your god was in involved on Abiogenesis, or Evolution.

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started. I am merely evidence that life started. It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science. You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

You have not answered my questions at all:
Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence. Correct?

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started.

Why not?
When Abiogenesis scientists study life, do you think they look and looked at human life as well? or are you saying you are not human, not a form of life at all?

I am merely evidence that life started.

And how it started. Am glad you at least agree one something!

It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

Surely you need to show WHY my arguments are false and unreasonable. Actually, you first need to show that I am indeed presenting any arguments here.
How can I HAVE a bias, when you are the only one BEING biased? And let's not forget about faulting reason filters.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science.

You have not asked me for this, that is why I have not provided it.
What is good science?
Clearly your Gen2:7 is not good science, since you reject that.

You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

But you just wrote:

I am merely evidence that life started.

And you can not tell me why you are not, at all, evidence of how life started.
Furthermore, you have the burden to show that your god started life. And all you offered so far is your rejecting of Gen2:7 and a faulty understanding of evidence, no answer on if faith if a good or bad, and no understanding of faith, period.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

1) Science has a 100% success rate showing that natural processes are the explanation for open questions in science. All questions answered was using natural processes, not once did we have to refer to the supernatural. That doe snot mean all questions were or are answered, but this is evidence that Abiogenesis will and can explain how life started (because we have evidence (you) for it).
2) Your faith (not my lack of faith) is evidence that your god did not create life because your faith says there is no evidence for it, and there can not be any evidence for it.
You have NO evidence at all that your god did it. NONE. All you have is faith. And you do not understand your own faith, not can you tell me if faith is a good thing or a bad thing.



Can you no answer my questions? Or shall I assume you are agreeing that "You do not accept Abiogenesis or Evolution.
And the reason for this is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence."

Whether or not I accept evolution and abiogenesis is moot.

I asked for evidence. You didn't provide any. That is what I expected.

[JohnA]

You are either lying or misunderstood, I'm just not sure.
I very specifically said that a god is un-needed for evolution to happen!

In no way can stating a god is un-needed mean that I don't know if a god is necessary. All it means is that one is not needed, full stop.

A god causing it is just as likely and just as un-needed as fairy farts causing it. If you want to take that to mean that I'm not sure if fairy farts caused evolution, that is on you.

Fairy farts and a god are both un-needed for evolution to happen. Give me a reason to believe that fairy farts or a god causes it and I am all ears, because it seems that evolution will happen without either of them being involved.

If you are going to make a positive claim, it is only reasonable for me to ask for the evidence of your claim. Please provide evidence that a God is not needed for evolution to take place. Either provide the evidence or stop making the unsupported claim. This is my final offer. On the other hand, you could simply admit the truth, which is that you don't know if a god is needed for evolution to take place. That is the only honest answer one could put forth. So what's it gonna be?

You ready?

- Humans are complex.
- Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

Please point out if you can how this is not logical and then explain why you add a god concept to the mix.

Well, this is not entirely true.
Your first premise seems true enough to me. Humans are complex.
Your second premise is somewhat flawed. Even single celled organisms are highly complex. They are so complex that we have not so far been able to create one from scratch. Cloning would not be an example of creating living cells from scratch. Growing organs from stem cells would not be an example of creating cells from scratch. You see, even the simplest life forms, like prokaryotic bacteria are extraordinarily complex. And so one could argue that we have not become complex at all. We've always been complex. While it may be true that we have become more complex, we've always been complex.

How is it that a complex living cell came to exist in the first place? Well, you don't have to answer that, because I know that you can't. Evolution doesn't explain it. Science so far can't explain it. Yet they exist.

But this is not the reason I object to your argument. The reason I object to your argument is that your conclusion does not follow from the premises that you provided.

If it is true that;
A. Humans are complex.
and
B. Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw from these two premises is:

Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we are complex.

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

You do agree, don't you, that evolution can cause a species to become less complex over time?

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

Abiogenesis deals with how life formed from simple organic compounds. You are the evidence for this.
Evolution explains how this life evolved to become other species. This idea of "progression" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions. You are the evidence for this. Humans are complex, more complex than many other species that live today or have existed before, but probably not the most complex (now or compared to the past). Our sweat glans alone makes us complex.
Therefore, evolution does indeed explain how these other species came to be; explain their existence, it does explain how animals evolved to become humans. It just does not explain the very first life (the process of how the last universal ancestor formed), but it does explain human complexity.

In conclusion, your responds to Clownboat fails. You are merely offering a fallacy of ignorance here due to your biased. You already decided your god did it, that you reject evolution, and now you try and justify it my misrepresenting Evolution / Abiogenesis and projection.

Can you tell us why you think you god is needed for this Evolution or for Abiogenesis?
Do you even accept that Evolution or for Abiogenesis is real, Abiogenesis happened ~3.5 billion years ago, Evolution started then and is still happening today?

No, I have not offered any such fallacy. What I've said is reasonable and true.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God. No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment. Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God.

YOU.
My tomato plant.
Want more evidence?

No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment.

Therefore your god did not create Adam from dust as per Genesis 2:7. Your god is not not sceintific at all, he can not do anything sceintific, he is useless. Therefore YOU are the evidence that life can be started without God, you just stated it and I agree!

Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

We have been over this Sonofason. We concluded that you do not understand what is faith, or what is evidence.

All you are now doing is you are rejecting Genesis 2:7, saying faith is a bad thing. Or are you saying that you accept Genesis 2:7 based on faith (no evidence) and faith is a good thing?

You see, you can not even decide if faith is a good thing or a bad thing. That is besides not even understanding what faith is. And here you come and try formulate an argument around it. Hu?


You are the evidence for 'how life formed from non-life'.
We both accept that, we differ on the process (the mechanisms).
You say some god did it, and can offer zero evidence, only faith. You seem to reject Gen 2:7 and can not decide if faith is good or bad thing.
I say it was natural processes, and can offer evidence (you & all of the components of life, and a tract record of solving problems showing that natural processes exist / explain things). All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms, reflecting their common descent; based on these observations, hypotheses on the origin of life attempt to find a mechanism explaining the formation of a universal common ancestor, from simple organic molecules via pre-cellular life to protocells and metabolism. Models have been divided into "genes-first" and "metabolism-first" categories, but a recent trend is the emergence of hybrid models that combine both categories -
Coveney, Peter V.; Fowler, Philip W. (2005). "Modelling biological complexity: a physical scientist's perspective". Journal of the Royal Society Interface 2 (4): 267"280. doi:10.1098/rsif.2005.0045

You can not formulate a hypothesis in science if you have no evidence. Also, do you really think that all of these scientists working on Abiogenesis are doing this work without any evidence? You are now demonstrating that you do not understand science.


Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence.

You can not even formulate a logical explanation why we would think your god was in involved on Abiogenesis, or Evolution.

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started. I am merely evidence that life started. It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science. You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

You have not answered my questions at all:
Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence. Correct?

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started.

Why not?
When Abiogenesis scientists study life, do you think they look and looked at human life as well? or are you saying you are not human, not a form of life at all?

I am merely evidence that life started.

And how it started. Am glad you at least agree one something!

It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

Surely you need to show WHY my arguments are false and unreasonable. Actually, you first need to show that I am indeed presenting any arguments here.
How can I HAVE a bias, when you are the only one BEING biased? And let's not forget about faulting reason filters.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science.

You have not asked me for this, that is why I have not provided it.
What is good science?
Clearly your Gen2:7 is not good science, since you reject that.

You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

But you just wrote:

I am merely evidence that life started.

And you can not tell me why you are not, at all, evidence of how life started.
Furthermore, you have the burden to show that your god started life. And all you offered so far is your rejecting of Gen2:7 and a faulty understanding of evidence, no answer on if faith if a good or bad, and no understanding of faith, period.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

1) Science has a 100% success rate showing that natural processes are the explanation for open questions in science. All questions answered was using natural processes, not once did we have to refer to the supernatural. That doe snot mean all questions were or are answered, but this is evidence that Abiogenesis will and can explain how life started (because we have evidence (you) for it).
2) Your faith (not my lack of faith) is evidence that your god did not create life because your faith says there is no evidence for it, and there can not be any evidence for it.
You have NO evidence at all that your god did it. NONE. All you have is faith. And you do not understand your own faith, not can you tell me if faith is a good thing or a bad thing.



Can you no answer my questions? Or shall I assume you are agreeing that "You do not accept Abiogenesis or Evolution.
And the reason for this is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence."

Whether or not I accept evolution and abiogenesis is moot.

I asked for evidence. You didn't provide any. That is what I expected.

Whether or not I accept evolution and abiogenesis is moot.

WHY?

I asked for evidence. You didn't provide any. That is what I expected.

I did give evidence. In fact, you provided evidence as well:

I am merely evidence that life started.

But you rejected it and gave no reason. All you did was conflate and project that as if you and I provided no evidence. Some would call that dishonest debate, or intellectual dishonesty due to a biased and a broken reason filter.


You refuse to answer any of my questions.
Why is that Sonofason?
What are you hiding here?
What are you afraid of?

You already admitted that you have NO evidence for your god. Why are you now trying to shift the burden? Why do you think that if a theist offers a biased and faith it is a good argument when you have demonstrated that one is broken and the other one is faulty therefore can not yield any rationality? Can you explain this?

Why do you need something else as an answer if previous questions were answered by answers and chance? Why would the simple known not be a better explanation than the complex unknown? Why offer something you admit you have no evidence for and you can not know anything about as an answer? What kind of logic is that?

[Sonofason]

If you are going to make a positive claim, it is only reasonable for me to ask for the evidence of your claim. Please provide evidence that a God is not needed for evolution to take place. Either provide the evidence or stop making the unsupported claim. This is my final offer. On the other hand, you could simply admit the truth, which is that you don't know if a god is needed for evolution to take place. That is the only honest answer one could put forth. So what's it gonna be?

You ready?

- Humans are complex.
- Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

Please point out if you can how this is not logical and then explain why you add a god concept to the mix.

Well, this is not entirely true.
Your first premise seems true enough to me. Humans are complex.
Your second premise is somewhat flawed. Even single celled organisms are highly complex. They are so complex that we have not so far been able to create one from scratch. Cloning would not be an example of creating living cells from scratch. Growing organs from stem cells would not be an example of creating cells from scratch. You see, even the simplest life forms, like prokaryotic bacteria are extraordinarily complex. And so one could argue that we have not become complex at all. We've always been complex. While it may be true that we have become more complex, we've always been complex.

How is it that a complex living cell came to exist in the first place? Well, you don't have to answer that, because I know that you can't. Evolution doesn't explain it. Science so far can't explain it. Yet they exist.

But this is not the reason I object to your argument. The reason I object to your argument is that your conclusion does not follow from the premises that you provided.

If it is true that;
A. Humans are complex.
and
B. Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw from these two premises is:

Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we are complex.

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

You do agree, don't you, that evolution can cause a species to become less complex over time?

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

Abiogenesis deals with how life formed from simple organic compounds. You are the evidence for this.
Evolution explains how this life evolved to become other species. This idea of "progression" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions. You are the evidence for this. Humans are complex, more complex than many other species that live today or have existed before, but probably not the most complex (now or compared to the past). Our sweat glans alone makes us complex.
Therefore, evolution does indeed explain how these other species came to be; explain their existence, it does explain how animals evolved to become humans. It just does not explain the very first life (the process of how the last universal ancestor formed), but it does explain human complexity.

In conclusion, your responds to Clownboat fails. You are merely offering a fallacy of ignorance here due to your biased. You already decided your god did it, that you reject evolution, and now you try and justify it my misrepresenting Evolution / Abiogenesis and projection.

Can you tell us why you think you god is needed for this Evolution or for Abiogenesis?
Do you even accept that Evolution or for Abiogenesis is real, Abiogenesis happened ~3.5 billion years ago, Evolution started then and is still happening today?

No, I have not offered any such fallacy. What I've said is reasonable and true.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God. No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment. Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God.

YOU.
My tomato plant.
Want more evidence?

No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment.

Therefore your god did not create Adam from dust as per Genesis 2:7. Your god is not not sceintific at all, he can not do anything sceintific, he is useless. Therefore YOU are the evidence that life can be started without God, you just stated it and I agree!

Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

We have been over this Sonofason. We concluded that you do not understand what is faith, or what is evidence.

All you are now doing is you are rejecting Genesis 2:7, saying faith is a bad thing. Or are you saying that you accept Genesis 2:7 based on faith (no evidence) and faith is a good thing?

You see, you can not even decide if faith is a good thing or a bad thing. That is besides not even understanding what faith is. And here you come and try formulate an argument around it. Hu?


You are the evidence for 'how life formed from non-life'.
We both accept that, we differ on the process (the mechanisms).
You say some god did it, and can offer zero evidence, only faith. You seem to reject Gen 2:7 and can not decide if faith is good or bad thing.
I say it was natural processes, and can offer evidence (you & all of the components of life, and a tract record of solving problems showing that natural processes exist / explain things). All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms, reflecting their common descent; based on these observations, hypotheses on the origin of life attempt to find a mechanism explaining the formation of a universal common ancestor, from simple organic molecules via pre-cellular life to protocells and metabolism. Models have been divided into "genes-first" and "metabolism-first" categories, but a recent trend is the emergence of hybrid models that combine both categories -
Coveney, Peter V.; Fowler, Philip W. (2005). "Modelling biological complexity: a physical scientist's perspective". Journal of the Royal Society Interface 2 (4): 267"280. doi:10.1098/rsif.2005.0045

You can not formulate a hypothesis in science if you have no evidence. Also, do you really think that all of these scientists working on Abiogenesis are doing this work without any evidence? You are now demonstrating that you do not understand science.


Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence.

You can not even formulate a logical explanation why we would think your god was in involved on Abiogenesis, or Evolution.

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started. I am merely evidence that life started. It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science. You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

You have not answered my questions at all:
Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence. Correct?

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started.

Why not?
When Abiogenesis scientists study life, do you think they look and looked at human life as well? or are you saying you are not human, not a form of life at all?

I am merely evidence that life started.

And how it started. Am glad you at least agree one something!

It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

Surely you need to show WHY my arguments are false and unreasonable. Actually, you first need to show that I am indeed presenting any arguments here.
How can I HAVE a bias, when you are the only one BEING biased? And let's not forget about faulting reason filters.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science.

You have not asked me for this, that is why I have not provided it.
What is good science?
Clearly your Gen2:7 is not good science, since you reject that.

You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

But you just wrote:

I am merely evidence that life started.

And you can not tell me why you are not, at all, evidence of how life started.
Furthermore, you have the burden to show that your god started life. And all you offered so far is your rejecting of Gen2:7 and a faulty understanding of evidence, no answer on if faith if a good or bad, and no understanding of faith, period.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

1) Science has a 100% success rate showing that natural processes are the explanation for open questions in science. All questions answered was using natural processes, not once did we have to refer to the supernatural. That doe snot mean all questions were or are answered, but this is evidence that Abiogenesis will and can explain how life started (because we have evidence (you) for it).
2) Your faith (not my lack of faith) is evidence that your god did not create life because your faith says there is no evidence for it, and there can not be any evidence for it.
You have NO evidence at all that your god did it. NONE. All you have is faith. And you do not understand your own faith, not can you tell me if faith is a good thing or a bad thing.



Can you no answer my questions? Or shall I assume you are agreeing that "You do not accept Abiogenesis or Evolution.
And the reason for this is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence."

Whether or not I accept evolution and abiogenesis is moot.

I asked for evidence. You didn't provide any. That is what I expected.

Whether or not I accept evolution and abiogenesis is moot.

WHY?

I asked for evidence. You didn't provide any. That is what I expected.

I did give evidence. In fact, you provided evidence as well:

I am merely evidence that life started.

But you rejected it and gave no reason. All you did was conflate and project that as if you and I provided no evidence. Some would call that dishonest debate, or intellectual dishonesty due to a biased and a broken reason filter.


You refuse to answer any of my questions.
Why is that Sonofason?
What are you hiding here?
What are you afraid of?

You already admitted that you have NO evidence for your god. Why are you now trying to shift the burden? Why do you think that if a theist offers a biased and faith it is a good argument when you have demonstrated that one is broken and the other one is faulty therefore can not yield any rationality? Can you explain this?

Why do you need something else as an answer if previous questions were answered by answers and chance? Why would the simple known not be a better explanation than the complex unknown? Why offer something you admit you have no evidence for and you can not know anything about as an answer? What kind of logic is that?

Indeed, you and I are evidence that life started. We are evidence of our existence. But knowing that life started does not explain why it started. Abiogenisis has theories as to how it may have started, but they do not have any substantial evidence to show that life can be started without God.

What I have is nothing more than an assertion, and that is that God allowed life to form on the earth. I am not even suggesting that God actually started life, but that as a minimum He allowed it to start.

Genesis 1 states that God said, "...Let the earth bring forth grass..." and the Bible goes on to state that, "...the earth brought forth grass..."

Later God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" and later the Bible states that in this process, "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly

[JohnA]

You ready?

- Humans are complex.
- Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

Please point out if you can how this is not logical and then explain why you add a god concept to the mix.

Well, this is not entirely true.
Your first premise seems true enough to me. Humans are complex.
Your second premise is somewhat flawed. Even single celled organisms are highly complex. They are so complex that we have not so far been able to create one from scratch. Cloning would not be an example of creating living cells from scratch. Growing organs from stem cells would not be an example of creating cells from scratch. You see, even the simplest life forms, like prokaryotic bacteria are extraordinarily complex. And so one could argue that we have not become complex at all. We've always been complex. While it may be true that we have become more complex, we've always been complex.

How is it that a complex living cell came to exist in the first place? Well, you don't have to answer that, because I know that you can't. Evolution doesn't explain it. Science so far can't explain it. Yet they exist.

But this is not the reason I object to your argument. The reason I object to your argument is that your conclusion does not follow from the premises that you provided.

If it is true that;
A. Humans are complex.
and
B. Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw from these two premises is:

Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we are complex.

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

You do agree, don't you, that evolution can cause a species to become less complex over time?

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

Abiogenesis deals with how life formed from simple organic compounds. You are the evidence for this.
Evolution explains how this life evolved to become other species. This idea of "progression" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions. You are the evidence for this. Humans are complex, more complex than many other species that live today or have existed before, but probably not the most complex (now or compared to the past). Our sweat glans alone makes us complex.
Therefore, evolution does indeed explain how these other species came to be; explain their existence, it does explain how animals evolved to become humans. It just does not explain the very first life (the process of how the last universal ancestor formed), but it does explain human complexity.

In conclusion, your responds to Clownboat fails. You are merely offering a fallacy of ignorance here due to your biased. You already decided your god did it, that you reject evolution, and now you try and justify it my misrepresenting Evolution / Abiogenesis and projection.

Can you tell us why you think you god is needed for this Evolution or for Abiogenesis?
Do you even accept that Evolution or for Abiogenesis is real, Abiogenesis happened ~3.5 billion years ago, Evolution started then and is still happening today?

No, I have not offered any such fallacy. What I've said is reasonable and true.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God. No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment. Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God.

YOU.
My tomato plant.
Want more evidence?

No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment.

Therefore your god did not create Adam from dust as per Genesis 2:7. Your god is not not sceintific at all, he can not do anything sceintific, he is useless. Therefore YOU are the evidence that life can be started without God, you just stated it and I agree!

Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

We have been over this Sonofason. We concluded that you do not understand what is faith, or what is evidence.

All you are now doing is you are rejecting Genesis 2:7, saying faith is a bad thing. Or are you saying that you accept Genesis 2:7 based on faith (no evidence) and faith is a good thing?

You see, you can not even decide if faith is a good thing or a bad thing. That is besides not even understanding what faith is. And here you come and try formulate an argument around it. Hu?


You are the evidence for 'how life formed from non-life'.
We both accept that, we differ on the process (the mechanisms).
You say some god did it, and can offer zero evidence, only faith. You seem to reject Gen 2:7 and can not decide if faith is good or bad thing.
I say it was natural processes, and can offer evidence (you & all of the components of life, and a tract record of solving problems showing that natural processes exist / explain things). All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms, reflecting their common descent; based on these observations, hypotheses on the origin of life attempt to find a mechanism explaining the formation of a universal common ancestor, from simple organic molecules via pre-cellular life to protocells and metabolism. Models have been divided into "genes-first" and "metabolism-first" categories, but a recent trend is the emergence of hybrid models that combine both categories -
Coveney, Peter V.; Fowler, Philip W. (2005). "Modelling biological complexity: a physical scientist's perspective". Journal of the Royal Society Interface 2 (4): 267"280. doi:10.1098/rsif.2005.0045

You can not formulate a hypothesis in science if you have no evidence. Also, do you really think that all of these scientists working on Abiogenesis are doing this work without any evidence? You are now demonstrating that you do not understand science.


Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence.

You can not even formulate a logical explanation why we would think your god was in involved on Abiogenesis, or Evolution.

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started. I am merely evidence that life started. It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science. You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

You have not answered my questions at all:
Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence. Correct?

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started.

Why not?
When Abiogenesis scientists study life, do you think they look and looked at human life as well? or are you saying you are not human, not a form of life at all?

I am merely evidence that life started.

And how it started. Am glad you at least agree one something!

It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

Surely you need to show WHY my arguments are false and unreasonable. Actually, you first need to show that I am indeed presenting any arguments here.
How can I HAVE a bias, when you are the only one BEING biased? And let's not forget about faulting reason filters.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science.

You have not asked me for this, that is why I have not provided it.
What is good science?
Clearly your Gen2:7 is not good science, since you reject that.

You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

But you just wrote:

I am merely evidence that life started.

And you can not tell me why you are not, at all, evidence of how life started.
Furthermore, you have the burden to show that your god started life. And all you offered so far is your rejecting of Gen2:7 and a faulty understanding of evidence, no answer on if faith if a good or bad, and no understanding of faith, period.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

1) Science has a 100% success rate showing that natural processes are the explanation for open questions in science. All questions answered was using natural processes, not once did we have to refer to the supernatural. That doe snot mean all questions were or are answered, but this is evidence that Abiogenesis will and can explain how life started (because we have evidence (you) for it).
2) Your faith (not my lack of faith) is evidence that your god did not create life because your faith says there is no evidence for it, and there can not be any evidence for it.
You have NO evidence at all that your god did it. NONE. All you have is faith. And you do not understand your own faith, not can you tell me if faith is a good thing or a bad thing.



Can you no answer my questions? Or shall I assume you are agreeing that "You do not accept Abiogenesis or Evolution.
And the reason for this is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence."

Whether or not I accept evolution and abiogenesis is moot.

I asked for evidence. You didn't provide any. That is what I expected.

Whether or not I accept evolution and abiogenesis is moot.

WHY?

I asked for evidence. You didn't provide any. That is what I expected.

I did give evidence. In fact, you provided evidence as well:

I am merely evidence that life started.

But you rejected it and gave no reason. All you did was conflate and project that as if you and I provided no evidence. Some would call that dishonest debate, or intellectual dishonesty due to a biased and a broken reason filter.


You refuse to answer any of my questions.
Why is that Sonofason?
What are you hiding here?
What are you afraid of?

You already admitted that you have NO evidence for your god. Why are you now trying to shift the burden? Why do you think that if a theist offers a biased and faith it is a good argument when you have demonstrated that one is broken and the other one is faulty therefore can not yield any rationality? Can you explain this?

Why do you need something else as an answer if previous questions were answered by answers and chance? Why would the simple known not be a better explanation than the complex unknown? Why offer something you admit you have no evidence for and you can not know anything about as an answer? What kind of logic is that?

Indeed, you and I are evidence that life started. We are evidence of our existence. But knowing that life started does not explain why it started. Abiogenisis has theories as to how it may have started, but they do not have any substantial evidence to show that life can be started without God.

What I have is nothing more than an assertion, and that is that God allowed life to form on the earth. I am not even suggesting that God actually started life, but that as a minimum He allowed it to start.

Genesis 1 states that God said, "...Let the earth bring forth grass..." and the Bible goes on to state that, "...the earth brought forth grass..."

Later God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" and later the Bible states that in this process, "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly

Still refusing to answer my questions.

Indeed, you and I are evidence that life started.

And Abiogenesis studies how life started, you and I are evidence for that. Am glad that you corrected your earlier mistake.

But knowing that life started does not explain why it started.

Why not?

Abiogenisis has theories as to how it may have started, but they do not have any substantial evidence to show that life can be started without God

Theories? What are that? Are you saying ideas or hypothesis or scientific theories?
Why do you need something else as an answer if previous questions were answered by answers and chance? Why would the simple known not be a better explanation than the complex unknown? Why offer something you admit you have no evidence for and you can not know anything about as an answer? What kind of logic is that?
In fact, I have already provided this evidence that there are hypotheses of how life started. And NONE of these hypotheses postulates that your god did it. You can not formulate a hypothesis without evidence. So, why would this not tell you about what the evidence says?
You are still demonstrating that you have no understanding of BASIC science and are still rejecting your own writing ("Indeed, you and I are evidence that life started"). You do not even know what faith is, nor if it is a good thing or a bad thing.

What is wrong with you?

What I have is nothing more than an assertion, and that is that God allowed life to form on the earth. I am not even suggesting that God actually started life, but that as a minimum He allowed it to start.

Yes, it is useless. You may as well said that the invisible unicorn allowed life to form on earth.
How do you even know he allowed it - remember you have NO evidence for your claim that your god exists.


Am glad that you admit you have no evidence that your god started life. You are now also rejecting your scripture that claims that your god started/created life. And for your rejection you are offering your scripture ("And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth...").
WOW, What kind of logic is that?

[Sonofason]

Well, this is not entirely true.
Your first premise seems true enough to me. Humans are complex.
Your second premise is somewhat flawed. Even single celled organisms are highly complex. They are so complex that we have not so far been able to create one from scratch. Cloning would not be an example of creating living cells from scratch. Growing organs from stem cells would not be an example of creating cells from scratch. You see, even the simplest life forms, like prokaryotic bacteria are extraordinarily complex. And so one could argue that we have not become complex at all. We've always been complex. While it may be true that we have become more complex, we've always been complex.

How is it that a complex living cell came to exist in the first place? Well, you don't have to answer that, because I know that you can't. Evolution doesn't explain it. Science so far can't explain it. Yet they exist.

But this is not the reason I object to your argument. The reason I object to your argument is that your conclusion does not follow from the premises that you provided.

If it is true that;
A. Humans are complex.
and
B. Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw from these two premises is:

Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we are complex.

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

You do agree, don't you, that evolution can cause a species to become less complex over time?

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

Abiogenesis deals with how life formed from simple organic compounds. You are the evidence for this.
Evolution explains how this life evolved to become other species. This idea of "progression" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions. You are the evidence for this. Humans are complex, more complex than many other species that live today or have existed before, but probably not the most complex (now or compared to the past). Our sweat glans alone makes us complex.
Therefore, evolution does indeed explain how these other species came to be; explain their existence, it does explain how animals evolved to become humans. It just does not explain the very first life (the process of how the last universal ancestor formed), but it does explain human complexity.

In conclusion, your responds to Clownboat fails. You are merely offering a fallacy of ignorance here due to your biased. You already decided your god did it, that you reject evolution, and now you try and justify it my misrepresenting Evolution / Abiogenesis and projection.

Can you tell us why you think you god is needed for this Evolution or for Abiogenesis?
Do you even accept that Evolution or for Abiogenesis is real, Abiogenesis happened ~3.5 billion years ago, Evolution started then and is still happening today?

No, I have not offered any such fallacy. What I've said is reasonable and true.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God. No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment. Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God.

YOU.
My tomato plant.
Want more evidence?

No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment.

Therefore your god did not create Adam from dust as per Genesis 2:7. Your god is not not sceintific at all, he can not do anything sceintific, he is useless. Therefore YOU are the evidence that life can be started without God, you just stated it and I agree!

Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

We have been over this Sonofason. We concluded that you do not understand what is faith, or what is evidence.

All you are now doing is you are rejecting Genesis 2:7, saying faith is a bad thing. Or are you saying that you accept Genesis 2:7 based on faith (no evidence) and faith is a good thing?

You see, you can not even decide if faith is a good thing or a bad thing. That is besides not even understanding what faith is. And here you come and try formulate an argument around it. Hu?


You are the evidence for 'how life formed from non-life'.
We both accept that, we differ on the process (the mechanisms).
You say some god did it, and can offer zero evidence, only faith. You seem to reject Gen 2:7 and can not decide if faith is good or bad thing.
I say it was natural processes, and can offer evidence (you & all of the components of life, and a tract record of solving problems showing that natural processes exist / explain things). All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms, reflecting their common descent; based on these observations, hypotheses on the origin of life attempt to find a mechanism explaining the formation of a universal common ancestor, from simple organic molecules via pre-cellular life to protocells and metabolism. Models have been divided into "genes-first" and "metabolism-first" categories, but a recent trend is the emergence of hybrid models that combine both categories -
Coveney, Peter V.; Fowler, Philip W. (2005). "Modelling biological complexity: a physical scientist's perspective". Journal of the Royal Society Interface 2 (4): 267"280. doi:10.1098/rsif.2005.0045

You can not formulate a hypothesis in science if you have no evidence. Also, do you really think that all of these scientists working on Abiogenesis are doing this work without any evidence? You are now demonstrating that you do not understand science.


Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence.

You can not even formulate a logical explanation why we would think your god was in involved on Abiogenesis, or Evolution.

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started. I am merely evidence that life started. It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science. You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

You have not answered my questions at all:
Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence. Correct?

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started.

Why not?
When Abiogenesis scientists study life, do you think they look and looked at human life as well? or are you saying you are not human, not a form of life at all?

I am merely evidence that life started.

And how it started. Am glad you at least agree one something!

It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

Surely you need to show WHY my arguments are false and unreasonable. Actually, you first need to show that I am indeed presenting any arguments here.
How can I HAVE a bias, when you are the only one BEING biased? And let's not forget about faulting reason filters.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science.

You have not asked me for this, that is why I have not provided it.
What is good science?
Clearly your Gen2:7 is not good science, since you reject that.

You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

But you just wrote:

I am merely evidence that life started.

And you can not tell me why you are not, at all, evidence of how life started.
Furthermore, you have the burden to show that your god started life. And all you offered so far is your rejecting of Gen2:7 and a faulty understanding of evidence, no answer on if faith if a good or bad, and no understanding of faith, period.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

1) Science has a 100% success rate showing that natural processes are the explanation for open questions in science. All questions answered was using natural processes, not once did we have to refer to the supernatural. That doe snot mean all questions were or are answered, but this is evidence that Abiogenesis will and can explain how life started (because we have evidence (you) for it).
2) Your faith (not my lack of faith) is evidence that your god did not create life because your faith says there is no evidence for it, and there can not be any evidence for it.
You have NO evidence at all that your god did it. NONE. All you have is faith. And you do not understand your own faith, not can you tell me if faith is a good thing or a bad thing.



Can you no answer my questions? Or shall I assume you are agreeing that "You do not accept Abiogenesis or Evolution.
And the reason for this is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence."

Whether or not I accept evolution and abiogenesis is moot.

I asked for evidence. You didn't provide any. That is what I expected.

Whether or not I accept evolution and abiogenesis is moot.

WHY?

I asked for evidence. You didn't provide any. That is what I expected.

I did give evidence. In fact, you provided evidence as well:

I am merely evidence that life started.

But you rejected it and gave no reason. All you did was conflate and project that as if you and I provided no evidence. Some would call that dishonest debate, or intellectual dishonesty due to a biased and a broken reason filter.


You refuse to answer any of my questions.
Why is that Sonofason?
What are you hiding here?
What are you afraid of?

You already admitted that you have NO evidence for your god. Why are you now trying to shift the burden? Why do you think that if a theist offers a biased and faith it is a good argument when you have demonstrated that one is broken and the other one is faulty therefore can not yield any rationality? Can you explain this?

Why do you need something else as an answer if previous questions were answered by answers and chance? Why would the simple known not be a better explanation than the complex unknown? Why offer something you admit you have no evidence for and you can not know anything about as an answer? What kind of logic is that?

Indeed, you and I are evidence that life started. We are evidence of our existence. But knowing that life started does not explain why it started. Abiogenisis has theories as to how it may have started, but they do not have any substantial evidence to show that life can be started without God.

What I have is nothing more than an assertion, and that is that God allowed life to form on the earth. I am not even suggesting that God actually started life, but that as a minimum He allowed it to start.

Genesis 1 states that God said, "...Let the earth bring forth grass..." and the Bible goes on to state that, "...the earth brought forth grass..."

Later God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" and later the Bible states that in this process, "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly

Still refusing to answer my questions.

Indeed, you and I are evidence that life started.

And Abiogenesis studies how life started, you and I are evidence for that. Am glad that you corrected your earlier mistake.

But knowing that life started does not explain why it started.

Why not?

Abiogenisis has theories as to how it may have started, but they do not have any substantial evidence to show that life can be started without God

Theories? What are that? Are you saying ideas or hypothesis or scientific theories?
In fact, I have already provided this evidence that there is hypothesis of how life started. You can not formulate a hypothesis without evidence.
You are still demonstrating that you have no understanding of science and are still rejecting your own writing ("Indeed, you and I are evidence that life started").

What is wrong with you?

What I have is nothing more than an assertion, and that is that God allowed life to form on the earth. I am not even suggesting that God actually started life, but that as a minimum He allowed it to start.

Yes, it is useless. You may as well said that the invisible unicorn allowed life to form on earth.

Am glad that you admit you have no evidence that your god started life. You are now also rejecting your scripture that claims that your god started/created life. And for your rejecting you are offering your scripture.
WOW, What kind of logic is that?

You know John, words are important. When I use a particular word, it is my attention that that word is not overlooked. You and I are not examples of how life started. We are examples that life started.
Thus, I have not made a mistake as great as the one you are making right now. You are drawing false conclusions based upon premises that are true. I can't help you to see it. You actually need to listen to what people are saying, or you will never understand.

[otseng]

What is wrong with you?

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any comments of a personal nature.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JohnA]

Abiogenesis deals with how life formed from simple organic compounds. You are the evidence for this.
Evolution explains how this life evolved to become other species. This idea of "progression" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions. You are the evidence for this. Humans are complex, more complex than many other species that live today or have existed before, but probably not the most complex (now or compared to the past). Our sweat glans alone makes us complex.
Therefore, evolution does indeed explain how these other species came to be; explain their existence, it does explain how animals evolved to become humans. It just does not explain the very first life (the process of how the last universal ancestor formed), but it does explain human complexity.

In conclusion, your responds to Clownboat fails. You are merely offering a fallacy of ignorance here due to your biased. You already decided your god did it, that you reject evolution, and now you try and justify it my misrepresenting Evolution / Abiogenesis and projection.

Can you tell us why you think you god is needed for this Evolution or for Abiogenesis?
Do you even accept that Evolution or for Abiogenesis is real, Abiogenesis happened ~3.5 billion years ago, Evolution started then and is still happening today?

No, I have not offered any such fallacy. What I've said is reasonable and true.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God. No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment. Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God.

YOU.
My tomato plant.
Want more evidence?

No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment.

Therefore your god did not create Adam from dust as per Genesis 2:7. Your god is not not sceintific at all, he can not do anything sceintific, he is useless. Therefore YOU are the evidence that life can be started without God, you just stated it and I agree!

Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

We have been over this Sonofason. We concluded that you do not understand what is faith, or what is evidence.

All you are now doing is you are rejecting Genesis 2:7, saying faith is a bad thing. Or are you saying that you accept Genesis 2:7 based on faith (no evidence) and faith is a good thing?

You see, you can not even decide if faith is a good thing or a bad thing. That is besides not even understanding what faith is. And here you come and try formulate an argument around it. Hu?


You are the evidence for 'how life formed from non-life'.
We both accept that, we differ on the process (the mechanisms).
You say some god did it, and can offer zero evidence, only faith. You seem to reject Gen 2:7 and can not decide if faith is good or bad thing.
I say it was natural processes, and can offer evidence (you & all of the components of life, and a tract record of solving problems showing that natural processes exist / explain things). All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms, reflecting their common descent; based on these observations, hypotheses on the origin of life attempt to find a mechanism explaining the formation of a universal common ancestor, from simple organic molecules via pre-cellular life to protocells and metabolism. Models have been divided into "genes-first" and "metabolism-first" categories, but a recent trend is the emergence of hybrid models that combine both categories -
Coveney, Peter V.; Fowler, Philip W. (2005). "Modelling biological complexity: a physical scientist's perspective". Journal of the Royal Society Interface 2 (4): 267"280. doi:10.1098/rsif.2005.0045

You can not formulate a hypothesis in science if you have no evidence. Also, do you really think that all of these scientists working on Abiogenesis are doing this work without any evidence? You are now demonstrating that you do not understand science.


Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence.

You can not even formulate a logical explanation why we would think your god was in involved on Abiogenesis, or Evolution.

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started. I am merely evidence that life started. It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science. You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

You have not answered my questions at all:
Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence. Correct?

I am not, at all, evidence of how life started.

Why not?
When Abiogenesis scientists study life, do you think they look and looked at human life as well? or are you saying you are not human, not a form of life at all?

I am merely evidence that life started.

And how it started. Am glad you at least agree one something!

It is apparent to me that all of your arguments here are false and unreasonable, and based solely on your extreme bias against God.

Surely you need to show WHY my arguments are false and unreasonable. Actually, you first need to show that I am indeed presenting any arguments here.
How can I HAVE a bias, when you are the only one BEING biased? And let's not forget about faulting reason filters.

You have not shown any evidence that abiogenesis is good science.

You have not asked me for this, that is why I have not provided it.
What is good science?
Clearly your Gen2:7 is not good science, since you reject that.

You have not shown that life can be started by any means other than God.

But you just wrote:

I am merely evidence that life started.

And you can not tell me why you are not, at all, evidence of how life started.
Furthermore, you have the burden to show that your god started life. And all you offered so far is your rejecting of Gen2:7 and a faulty understanding of evidence, no answer on if faith if a good or bad, and no understanding of faith, period.

So I suggest you try again, and show some evidence to support your claim.

1) Science has a 100% success rate showing that natural processes are the explanation for open questions in science. All questions answered was using natural processes, not once did we have to refer to the supernatural. That doe snot mean all questions were or are answered, but this is evidence that Abiogenesis will and can explain how life started (because we have evidence (you) for it).
2) Your faith (not my lack of faith) is evidence that your god did not create life because your faith says there is no evidence for it, and there can not be any evidence for it.
You have NO evidence at all that your god did it. NONE. All you have is faith. And you do not understand your own faith, not can you tell me if faith is a good thing or a bad thing.



Can you no answer my questions? Or shall I assume you are agreeing that "You do not accept Abiogenesis or Evolution.
And the reason for this is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence."

Whether or not I accept evolution and abiogenesis is moot.

I asked for evidence. You didn't provide any. That is what I expected.

Whether or not I accept evolution and abiogenesis is moot.

WHY?

I asked for evidence. You didn't provide any. That is what I expected.

I did give evidence. In fact, you provided evidence as well:

I am merely evidence that life started.

But you rejected it and gave no reason. All you did was conflate and project that as if you and I provided no evidence. Some would call that dishonest debate, or intellectual dishonesty due to a biased and a broken reason filter.


You refuse to answer any of my questions.
Why is that Sonofason?
What are you hiding here?
What are you afraid of?

You already admitted that you have NO evidence for your god. Why are you now trying to shift the burden? Why do you think that if a theist offers a biased and faith it is a good argument when you have demonstrated that one is broken and the other one is faulty therefore can not yield any rationality? Can you explain this?

Why do you need something else as an answer if previous questions were answered by answers and chance? Why would the simple known not be a better explanation than the complex unknown? Why offer something you admit you have no evidence for and you can not know anything about as an answer? What kind of logic is that?

Indeed, you and I are evidence that life started. We are evidence of our existence. But knowing that life started does not explain why it started. Abiogenisis has theories as to how it may have started, but they do not have any substantial evidence to show that life can be started without God.

What I have is nothing more than an assertion, and that is that God allowed life to form on the earth. I am not even suggesting that God actually started life, but that as a minimum He allowed it to start.

Genesis 1 states that God said, "...Let the earth bring forth grass..." and the Bible goes on to state that, "...the earth brought forth grass..."

Later God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" and later the Bible states that in this process, "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly

Still refusing to answer my questions.

Indeed, you and I are evidence that life started.

And Abiogenesis studies how life started, you and I are evidence for that. Am glad that you corrected your earlier mistake.

But knowing that life started does not explain why it started.

Why not?

Abiogenisis has theories as to how it may have started, but they do not have any substantial evidence to show that life can be started without God

Theories? What are that? Are you saying ideas or hypothesis or scientific theories?
In fact, I have already provided this evidence that there is hypothesis of how life started. You can not formulate a hypothesis without evidence.
You are still demonstrating that you have no understanding of science and are still rejecting your own writing ("Indeed, you and I are evidence that life started").

What is wrong with you?

What I have is nothing more than an assertion, and that is that God allowed life to form on the earth. I am not even suggesting that God actually started life, but that as a minimum He allowed it to start.

Yes, it is useless. You may as well said that the invisible unicorn allowed life to form on earth.

Am glad that you admit you have no evidence that your god started life. You are now also rejecting your scripture that claims that your god started/created life. And for your rejecting you are offering your scripture.
WOW, What kind of logic is that?

You know John, words are important. When I use a particular word, it is my attention that that word is not overlooked. You and I are not examples of how life started. We are examples that life started.
Thus, I have not made a mistake as great as the one you are making right now. You are drawing false conclusions based upon premises that are true. I can't help you to see it. You actually need to listen to what people are saying, or you will never understand.

You refuse to answer my questions, yet you blame me for not understanding. This logic is not working for you.

What about a hypothesis do you not understand? Do you fail to understand that you need evidence to formulate a hypothesis? Or do you fail to understand what a hypothesis is, period?

If life is not evidence for how life started then you have no evidence at all. Life itself is the evidence of HOW life started, it is the building blocks of life. You can not study how life started if you have no examples of life.

If I have no evidence for X, how on earth can I assert X? You can only do that via faith. That is irrational illogical FAITH. That is what you present as your offer.

You are way off.

And the irony is that you can not even recognize this. That is because you adopted someone else's faith (some religious authority's faith based belief). And their reason filter has been installed so long that neither you or them realize that the filter is faulty - it lets rubbish get through, especially when based on a biased. "Is what I'm being asked to accept here based on solid reasoning and sound logic?" is not something that I find in your posts at all. Your posts are always flawed in some critical aspect. For example, your unwillingness to accept the outcome of logic is to me as fatally flawed as this is the very method of reasoning you claim to use, except, it seems, when it does not agree with your belief.

I am not one of these faulty reasoning biased people as you so disparagingly describes them. Please do not patronize me by assuming so. Or are subtle snide pejoratives your last refuge in losing an argument? Are you now also offering When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. as per Socrates ?

Am convinced you are bright enough to spot the irony; you are refusing to address your fallacies that I have so painstakingly pointed out, but are running from criticism by attempting to redefine the content of your comments so absurdly that anybody can question your baseless claims.

"Religion is true to the common man, false to the wise man and use full to the politician." These words are from Seneca, an ancient Roman philosopher and teacher, scholar of his day. Bear in mind Seneca was NOT talking about Christianity as the Gospels were yet to be penned. He recognized the utility of religion as did Constantine centuries later. My interest is benevolent, to see you "surrender your critical faculties to accept you were made ill and are now being ordered well" and not intervene is not conducive to human survival.

All the best.