Evolution is crap! Squawk! (Page 42)
I never intend too I've already watched and read enough of their assumptions and opinions to last a lifetime.
If they had a ounce of real science. They would have already created life from non-life in the laboratory long ago. Only God knows how much time and money's they've spent trying to prove the impossible as plausible.
Abiogenesis is naturalistically IMPOSSIBLE
Biogenesis is a scientific FACT
Note, also even if they somehow succeed in creating life from nonlife in the laboratory, that in no way makes it possible that nature could make the impossible real.
We have built Boeing 767 from the materials from Earth. Nature has never been able to create a single paper airplane!
I have given you valid scientific facts and evidence! You refuse to accept them. Never seeing past your own bias, beliefs, and worldview. The futility is yours', not me, I listen and have more than an open mind to real science. I reject assumptions and opinions that cannot be shown nor verified. (Edited by Blackshoes)"
his answer when I tell him he even did not look the two videos debunking J Tour.
BelgianStrider: Let's analyse again such "creationists demanding proofs of evolution" reply
"I never intend too I've already watched and read enough of their assumptions and opinions to last a lifetime."
Wait you ask proofs of a-biogenises and you refute to look the video where I say you will have some ideas? Is that not a clear case of cognitive dissonance???
Claiming you ask proof but even don't bother to look at the presented ones? It is also not very respectful and thus quite dishonest. Even whenever you creationists gives us new "blabla" full of contradictions we take the time to read them (except when it comes from the same guy with the same rant in a different place).
BelgianStrider: "If they had a ounce of real science. They would have already created life from non-life in the laboratory long ago. Only God knows how much time and money's they've spent trying to prove the impossible as plausible."
It is first of all an irrelevant strawman falasy and it is even not important anyway if we could create life in a lab. The only thing we could prove is a-biogenesis is possible (what is a clear "fact" beyond reasonable doubt, more and more evidencesis telling us that);thus useless and the way it might be created will be in no way that what happened on earth - it seems that in some way selfreplicating proteines has been made artificially. TADAAA some life can be created in a lab.
"Abiogenesis is naturalistically IMPOSSIBLE
Biogenesis is a scientific FACT"
Where are you scientific peered reviews for that claim??? None, nada, rien, niente, niets...
If any please show us.
BelgianStrider: "Note, also even if they somehow succeed in creating life from nonlife in the laboratory, that in no way makes it possible that nature could make the impossible real."
Of course; every scientific evidence has to be refuted dogmatically by your kind.
"We have built Boeing 767 from the materials from Earth. Nature has never been able to create a single paper airplane!"
Again the typical strawman falacy that is totaly and completely irrelevant. A Boeing is man-made: the origami for folding a paperplane is man-thought (although if we continue the logic, man is made by nature.. so in some way ..YES "nature" made the Boeing 767 - is it already operational the Boeing767 btw?).
BelgianStrider: "I have given you valid scientific facts and evidence! You refuse to accept them. Never seeing past your own bias, beliefs, and worldview. The futility is yours', not me, I listen and have more than an open mind to real science. I reject assumptions and opinions that cannot be shown nor verified. (Edited by Blackshoes)"
Eeeuuh those of kent hovind (I can debunk his without problem, he has no scientific degree at all: that self atributed Dr who spent 9 years behind gray iron bars for tax fraud) and J Tour have been debunked and proved to know nothing about domains outside his expertise.
So, nope you gave us nada,rien, niente, nichts, none of any valid scientific facts and evidences. Just all sort of debunked "blabla" of so called experts completely out of their domain. They have been all debunked rationaly, logically and even scientifically.
You are comming up with assumptions and opinions that are scientifically even invalid.
So,all your claims are, pitty enoughfor you, totally debunked, idem ditto those of your authoritative examples.
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
BelgianStrider: To end blackshoes: as you are like zeffie a typical history-science denier, I give you the same advice I did forzeffie. Stop using all those satanic electronic devices and go back to live as in the 17-18 th century...
kittybobo34: youtube does have allot of BS videos. I guess there is no restrictions on who can post.
"Can you also please enlighten me what you mean with "accepting observable science facts"?"
IE: "Facts" which conform to his biblical world view and don't make him feel sad that he's an idiot.
MJ59: Found this on another forum:
I don’t know why it is the hubris-filled hypocrisy of the man that makes my blood boil more than his invincibly arrogant ignorance, or his success in shilling the nonsense he does. But that impossible combination of bibliolatry and misrepresentation of the text that does it, every time.
Sound like anyone around here?
kittybobo34: I know I spent quite a bit of time trying to teach him about science and the logic behind evolution, but its square pegs and round holes. I finally gave up.
BelgianStrider: Just put it here
the probability that it will be deleted starts to be quite high:
BelgianStrider: "Have you any evidence whatsoever of abiogenesis?"
Again "origin of live" is completely irrelevant for "evolution".
First of all there is till now NO THEORY at all concerning "origin of live", only several plausible hypotheses, but no evidences concerning how it might have started.
Secondly: life do exists here on Earth with its "evolution"
That means that how live might have started, it has no impact on "evolution" itself.
It is similar to say: "give evidences what was before the bigbang, as compelling evidences for "evolution" "
Two complete different topics without any relation at all. Idem dito "origin of live" has no impact at all on how "evolution" occured.
That are your constantly two complete irrelevant repeating topics "a-biogenesis" and "cats or dogs becoming birds or fish".
No don't expect to have "crocoducks", it will never happen (neither rabbinoceros)
YES, it is correct: there are no evidences of a-biogenesis, that can not be denied.
But: again, giving any evidences (or not) of any possible a-biogenesis will not change in any way how evolution occured. Capiche???
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
2 hours ago • Edit • Delete • Report
BelgianStrider: oh Yes, sure, the compeletly erronous "scientific evidence" of variable isotopic decay.
So, mate, if you really believe that: you better stop using any electronic device. Because those devices are based on quantum mechanics and that speciality clearly stipulates isotopic decay is CONSTANT in time and even have undeniable compelling evidences for that. (if not: a nuclear reactor would even not be feasible)
If that is a "satanic" believe of "god-hating" atheists, be consequent stop using that PC you are using and go to live like in the 18th century. (Edited by BelgianStrider)
2 hours ago
BelgianStrider: If you really want some clear irrefutable evidences of Noah's story, better come with some fossils of kangaroos, lemurs and sloths in in the Middle East.
Variable isotopic decay will not do the case, as it is completely and purely ANTI-scientific (it even can not be called "pseudo-science" ) (Edited by BelgianStrider)
1 hour ago
BelgianStrider: Criticasts that refute everything, but never comes up with evidences for their claims like the selfdeclared phd (in what btw??) k hovind and PhD J Tour giving his opinion in domains completely out of his competences are also not convincing and compelling.
BelgianStrider: Enkidu don't worry, those inputs has been used in anothe forum of blackshoes, but when it starts to be too tricky for him, he tend to delete that