My current guest Christian, logicinlife, has asked the following questions in the comments here. If you are long time reader, the answers will be no surprise to you. Many of the questions are loaded questions or have some a priori assumption associated with them. You are invited, atheists, agnostics and theists, to answer the questions yourselves, or at least the non loaded non assumptive versions of these questions. It can be an interesting tour through your own mind. These are very typical questions from a certain type of Christian, who assumes he knows the answers and has never thought about how they might be answered by a real live person.
I do expect LIL to answer these questions himself since he has deigned to return.
1. What causes the origin of life?
Do you mean abiogenesis or the theory of evolution? What caused abiogenesis? We don’t know yet. “Yet” is the operative word. No one but some theists throw their hands up in the air and say “Goddidit” and stop looking.
The evidence as we currently have it indicates that the laws of physics causes abiogenesis. No god, yours or any other, needed.
2. If there is no God, why do you invest so much time in talking about Him?
Because the belief in god cause harm. Christians invest so much time talking about other gods and how they are not true. Why do you invest so much time talking about them?
3. Where does morality come from? (Do not define evil that is not the question.)
Humans. Here’s a question for you, why do Christians disagree on what their god finds moral and not moral? How can we tell which of you have the right version?
4. Explain your Christianity to me, if you can.
I’m going to guess you mean define Christianity. Explaining it is an entirely different question. 🙂 It is the belief in Jesus Christ as a divine being that holds the only way out of being tortured for eternity. One must accept this being as “savior”. How one does this depends on the sects of Christianity. These sects also disagree on whether there is free will to accept this character, if grace alone can get you saved, if works will get you saved, etc. These sects often claim that other sects are wrong at best and satanic at worst.
5.How old were you when you became a Christian?
When I knew what was actually going on and knowing what was meant? Around 8 years old. I was a Presbyterian. I had no reason to doubt the religion my family believed in because I trusted them.
6. How old were you when you became an atheist?
It was a gradual process, over at least a decade. I identified myself as an atheist, one who has come to the conclusion that there is no god or gods, in my 30s.
7. How can you trust that YOUR interpretation of scripture is correct whilst you have claimed to study it only by yourself?
I did not say that I studied it only by myself. I read the bible by myself. I went to quite a lot of Sunday School, for children and adults and went to a lot of church. I have read lots of apologetics. Where in the bible does it say that one has to study with others to understand this god and how does that work with free will or the lack thereof? How can we know that your interpretation is the only correct one as you have claimed?
8. Why do you have a complex regarding free will?
Nice attempt to use a poisoning the well fallacy and the classic loaded question (aka Have you stopped beating your wife yet, LIL? ). A “complex” eh? Since I have never had a “complex” about free will, your question is meaningless.
9.Why do you feel the need to generalize Christians into negative categories? Were you merely not supported in your walk?
Another loaded question, how nice. I have not generalized Christians into negative categories. I provide examples of what many Christians have done and the fact is that they much the same things so they can indeed be placed into categories by action. I do not know what you mean when you say “were you merely not supported in your walk”. I will make an educated guess that you want to pretend that I wasn’t taught the “right” Christianity. Your questions certainly do make baseless assumptions to try to get the answers you want. That’s a shame.
10. Why do you emphasize your assumption that I am a OneTrueChristian, were you caught up in pride to learn that YOU were not that Christian?
I was a Christian, as much “OneTrueChristian” as you in that I thought my version was the right one. I had the same amount of evidence as you do: none. I now find it amusing to watch Christians insist that they are the only true Christians when they have no evidence for the claim. You have claimed I could not have been a Christian. You have made repeated claims that your version of Christianity is the only right one. I have not made an assumption, I have observed your claims.
11. You are aware that if you are lost, you can always come back?
If one believes your bible, that is not true (Romans 1:18-27; Matt 12: 22-32). If one believes in your nonsense about a lack of free will, it is not true. It appears you have again added to your own version of Christianity.
12. You are aware that you present the trademark characteristics of one whose heart has been hardened, right?
I am aware that you want to pretend that my heart has been “hardened”. You haven’t quite been able to decide whether it was by me or by your god. Tell us of these “trademark characteristics”. I’m guessing the major one is “Vel dares not to blindly believe that LIL is the OneTrueChristian”.
13. Why do you hyper-focus on Christianity?
I focus on Christianity because I am an American, and I speak/write English and I was a Christian. Many Christians are trying to force their various versions of their religions on me here in the US. If you would look at my blog, you would see that I also address other religions. Your willful ignorance does you no favors when you try to make false accusations.
14. Why do you use the tactic of insults to throw?
Please show me where I used insults. I would be happy to acknowledge them if I did indeed do this. Nice loaded questions, again, by the way.
15. Explain the evidence that disproves God.
There is no evidence for any of the essential stories/claims of the bible. There is evidence other things happened instead. The magic Noah flood is one such example. The nonsense about Adam and Eve, another. I have addressed the flood nonsense multiple times on my blog, since I am a geologist. You can see those posts here, here (and all of its parts), here.
16. Why do you conclude there is no evidence for God when logic, reasoning and circumstantial evidences all points to A God?
Logic, reasoning and circumstantial evidence to not point to your God. I did note that you tried to just say “a God”, to try to avoid the problems of the God you believe in and claim as the one true god and itself/son as the only savior. But you are not just arguing for some vague deity, you are arguing for the god of the bible, which is an entirely different thing. I am glad to note that you do seem to understand that the various logical arguments could support any god, not just yours. I have asked you for your circumstantial evidence. I am waiting for that. Reasoning and logical argument and plenty of real evidence support the conclusion that there is not a Christian god nor any other.
17. Who was harmed that caused you to be angry with God?
Another a priori assumption you must make in order to make yourself feel superior. Do you want to follow up with such similar false claims as: I am just rebellious, I don’t like the idea of following morals, etc?
As Doug said, I am not angry with a fictional character. I can be angry about the lies and harm that so many Christians have told and caused. I can be angry about such people trying to take away rights from others. Alas, for you, I have not been “harmed” by anything that would make me angry with the boogeyman. I’m guess you’ll reply with your usual nonsense about good and evil.
18. Why are you angry with a God who doesn’t exist?
19. Explain why the earth is fine-tuned for life.
One more a priori assumption that is not true. The earth is not “fined-tuned” for life. A more correct observation is that we are “fined tuned for it” and even that is wrong because most of the earth is deadly for us. This is one of those classic questions that demonstrate that many Christians don’t think very carefully about what they are saying.
20. Do you believe that truth is relative or absolute?
Truth is absolute. For example, it’s the truth that if you hold a bar of white-hot steel in your bare hand you will be very badly burned. Reality is quite an arbiter. Still no god needed.
21. Why do you rely heavily on your emotions for interpretation?
I don’t, in the way you mean, that I only use emotion and I just want to make believe that your god doesn’t exist. I rely on context, anthropology, psychology, archaeology, linguistics, etc. What do you use for your rather interesting interpretations?
22. Why do you defame my character out of your pain?
Please show where I have done this. I have said that you were likely a decent human. I am in no pain, though it seems to be what you hope. How Christian.
I do hope LIL will answer his own questions, again at least the non-leading, non-assumptive versions of them.
61 thoughts on “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a list of questions”
Life happens when an extremely sophisticated state of order becomes present.
And yes, the laws of natures determine the order and how the order comes to be.
Ironically, and devastating to atheism, the work horses of life are proteins which are a huge family of precision designed, precision manufactured and precision tools.
And as we understand from anthropology and archeology, tool-making is hallmark proof of intelligence.
Consequently, we find in molecular biology proof of the existence of God.
Towards what end?
To what end is really a whole new conversation, no?
Not really, but it is contradictory to the whole Christian narrative. You don’t believe in evolution, you are Creationists, and therefore the end (although it wasn’t specified) was ordained in one moment. Evolution, of course, is an ongoing process, typically exampled as an impulse towards greater complexity. If one must posit a god hypothesis then pantheism (or even panatheism) is the more appealing theory.
The Catholic Church has no problem with the theory of evolution and neither do I.
Where there is a problem is when evolution is used to replace God as Creator.
As for other Christian evangelicals, they call me “troll” with as much feeling and sincerity as your average atheist (you being far above average, of course!), whenever I argue against New Earth Creationism.
The Catholic Church has no problem with the theory of evolution and neither do I.
So, you don’t believe in the Fall then? That’s odd. How can you have a religion selling a cure when you’ve just admitted there is no disease?
No disease, no need for Jesus. No Jesus, no Christianity.
The biblical explanation for why human nature is so hinky is actually a great supplement to the theory of evolution since that theory cannot explain why man is so fundamentally different from all the animals, being out of sync with nature and all.
That didn’t address my point, SOM.
And you’re dead wrong on human uniqueness. Try reading up on some behavioural studies with the great apes. We’re merely more potent, which is understandable as we have a fatter image processing plant up top.
Funny that the theory of evolution doesn’t mention a god or your god at all. Again, I see that a Christian attacks something that he is ignorant about.
Equivocation fallacy on the word “tools” try again
Please present your evidence that proteins are “a huge family of precision designed, precision manufactured and precision tools.” You might want to start with showing evidence that a “designer” exists and that it’s your god, SOM.
Many animals make and use tools. Are they intelligent?
Just study proteins and see for yourself.
There are videos on YouTube that show proteins at work in all sorts of sophisticated and specialized ways.
Each type of protein has a specific function.
Francis Crick, molecular biologist and discoverer of the shape of DNA (another molecule that proves the existence of God but for a different reason) even coined the “central dogma of molecular biology:”
DNA -> RNA -> Proteins http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/the_central_dog054581.html
Here is a short video whose narrator uses words like “machine,” “ratchet,” and “computer tape.”
I have studied proteins and your claims aren’t true. I was a bio major before I was a geology major.
oooh, someone uses comparisons. Look out, it’s a metaphor! Again, still no evidence that your god has done anything.
and oh look a creationist website, that has lots of lies on it. It’s hilarious that you have no idea what the partial quote that you copied even means. Here’s a link you might want to look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology
Here’s what Crick himself said about this: “I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful. … As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth. Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however plausible, had little direct experimental support.”
Congrats for being one more creationist who doesn’t even understand what he attacks.
Yes, tool making in animals indicates intelligence.
But human tool making far surpasses animal tool making indicating that human intelligence far surpasses animal intelligence.
No, it doesn’t since we’ve had 10’s of thousands of years to improve on what we started with. We started with sticks and stones. Only now we have computers, modern medicine and rockets.
People assuming that the theory of evolution explains the origin of life are funny. TOE explains the process where organisms change to adapt and such.
(I hope I got it right).
I once encountered a Muslim in a message board that said our morality is bad because it’s always changing. I say that’s a good thing – it’s always evolving. Morality is something humans came up in order to improve your life.
The problem with “How do you know your interpretation is correct…” is that it assumes you think you know everything. If you think someone is wrong, offer a rebuttle. Just asking “Are you sure?” means nothing.
Question 12 is meaningless.
The answer to Questioon 13 shows a certain self-centeredness. A lot of people criticize Christianity because it’s close to home, even though it’s not as bad as others. Then again, I’m more critical of Islam because it’s closer to me, but I’m more bothered by throwing gays off the roof than people trying to make you love Jesus.
Question 14 – Huh?
The questions degenerated to simple attacks. That was disappointing. Kudos for answering though. We have to confront crazy ideas, no matter how tiring they are.
“People assuming that the theory of evolution explains the origin of life are funny. TOE explains the process where organisms change to adapt and such.”
Pretty close. The TOE explains how environmental pressures select for qualities that improve survival in that environment. For instance, If a critter happens to have bigger webs between its toes and lives in a semi-aquatic environment, it will likely do better and pass the genes for bigger webs along.
You are quite right that crazy ideas must always be confronted.
“15. Explain the evidence that disproves God.”
The existence of the universe disproves God.
God is defined as all-perfect and immutable. Such an entity would remain completely self-fulfilled within its own existential bubble and desire for nothing.
“19. Explain why the earth is fine-tuned for life.”
Fine-tuning implies God’s activities were somehow constrained by the laws of physics. Why would an all-powerful being have to “fine-tune” anything, given that it (purportedly) created everything ex nihilo?
The universe is actually evidence that God exists.
For something to appear out of nothings needs a Creator.
And the Creator of everything, must know everything and must have power over everything.
Otherwise we are left with the absurdity that everything just happened all by itself, which is atheism.
Most, if not all religions, make the same claim as you SOM. Please provide evidence that your god created the universe and no other.
You also depend on nothing more than lies and willful ignorance when you claim that something needs a creator. You also use special pleading. How fun.
And more circular arguments.
It might have escaped your notice that my previous comment is based on simple common sense.
You, the atheist are still left standing there with your pants around your ankles, trying to distract from the fundamental dogma of atheism:
“Everything just happened all by itself.”
Your comment is simply an affirmation that all religion is based on common sense, which is may or may not be true.
You claim it is based on simple common sense. It isn’t, and we know that what people call “common sense” is often wrong. I’d be happy to agree that religion is based on what people call “common sense” because again, “common sense” is often wrong and without evidence, it is always wrong.
Your claim is the assumption of most, if not each, theists that their particular god “obviously” created the universe. They also claim common sense, SOM. Whom shall we believe? Do you believe anyone who cite “common sense”?
I’m still waiting for your evidence that your god was the creator, and no some other.
All evidence shows that there are no gods at all. So, as it appears, yep, things just happen by themselves, until we find evidence otherwise. I’ve asked you for such evidence repeatedly. Where is it?
It is common sense that everything has a cause and didn’t just happen all by itself.
Atheism is in fact a highly distilled superstition.
Evidence please. It’s rather hard to be a superstition if one doesn’t believe in the supernatural.
Believing that everything just happened all by itself could be classified as your basic superstition.
And if you believe in a superstition, you will never believe any evidence to the contrary as you and your atheist brethren demonstrate on a regular basis.
No it could not since I do not believe that it is magical that things could come into existence with no cause.
Why yes! If you do believe in a superstition, it is very hard to believe in anything to the contrary. Your religion is quite a superstition, SOM.
Superstition: a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
The universe grants evidence only for its own existence. Evidence for the existence of god(s) remains to be demonstrated. However, it can be stated with confidence that the Christian conception of God is invalidated by reality, for the reasons already outlined in my opening post.
And it bears reiterating that “theism” is defined as: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
So by corollary, atheism means: non-belief in the existence of god or gods—nothing more, nothing less.
Claiming that the universe only gives evidence of itself is the same as claiming that you only give evidence of yourself.
It’s like saying, 1 x 5 = 5. It’s basically just trivial.
The universe gives evidence for God’s existence because science has proven that the universe had a beginning.
So then it is required to explain how everything came from nothing.
Saying that God is the Creator makes much more sense and is consistent with science than is the fundamental dogma of atheism, that everything just happened all by itself; which is absurd and inconsistent with science.
Again, SOM, we are waiting for evidence that there is a god and that it is your god. The universe may have not had a beginning, and that the Big Bang may be cyclical.
By your claims, saying that any creator god makes more sense than physics. So, which of these gods made the universe, SOM? Yours? Evidence please.
My husband chimed in with some more question to point out your ignorance and lack of evidence for what you claim:
What did this god of yours make the universe out of? Did this stuff come from nothing?
Who created god? Where did god come from?
Your god was always here? The universe may have always been here.
Answer is we don’t know where it came from yet.
Physicists have a lot of ideas on what went on with the BB and what could have come before. I have taken the time to read the bible and read apologetics. It’s a shame that so many Christians don’t. You don’t even try to understand what the sciences have discovered and postulated, depending on willful ignorance to attack these things that you depend on to make your modern lives comfy.
“Proof” is for mathematics and alcohol content. Science doesn’t “prove” anything; it makes observations and formulates theories explaining those observations. The prevailing cosmological view posits the Universe expanded from a singularity. While that might be construed as a “beginning” of sorts, it in no way constitutes a beginning from nothing; so there’s no need to explain how everything came from nothing or engage the “god did it” hypothesis (much less the “My-Middle-Eastern-tribal-god-of-the Hebrews-named-Yahweh did it” hypothesis).
So my initial point remains untouched.
On use of insults. I first answer the challenge then tell the person their thinking is childish. There is no insult in pointing out an observation.
What a bunch of silly, childish questions. You did a great job.
SoM, so you believe in evolution, but a god created everything? Have you ever heard of CD?
There is plenty of evidence for one of those things, and absolutely none for the other. I’m not sure how CD works exactly but hey you are doing a great job of it!
CD does not invalidate the common sense conclusion that something cannot come from nothing.
Please explain CD and the evidence for it so that you can convince yourself that something cannot come from nothing.
Many of the best minds in this world have indeed concluded something does come from nothing, all the time. I have no need or desire to play the game you want to play.
I have seen your work.
How about you try some kind of internet search on the subject, and see if any of that information can get through your bias. Maybe then we can chat.
For a good overview of the science, try this. Please note the abundant evidence, and the once unproven theories, which have since been validated.
This one has a very nice graph giving you an idea of how close to the actual BB we have come. How about you show us anything close to this “pathetic level of detail” for your gods.
Could you folks define “CD” for the audience?
I’m pretty sure you know what CD is. I am certain you are much more learned than I. 🙂 But I’ll copy and paste from (where else) a Wiki page.
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.
Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals tend to become psychologically uncomfortable and they are motivated to attempt to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoiding situations and information which are likely to increase it.
…or by ignoring or dancing around evidence/ideas that make them uncomfortable. Also generally leading towards other lovely side effects such as moving goalposts and resorting to red herrings.
oh, hadn’t seen it referred by initials before. Sorry, my apologies. I know all about cognitive dissonance, and we certainly have quite some examples here on my blog.
Here’s an example of cognitive dissonance in your own words.
You ask for evidence that God exists. I give you the evidence. You answer:
“Again, SOM, we are waiting for evidence…”
Then you offer a claim for which there is absolutely no evidence, again in your own words:
“The universe may have not had a beginning, and that the Big Bang may be cyclical.”
I dub this sort of cognitive dissonance, “The atheist arguing with himself and losing.”
You have given no evidence, SOM. YOu have made the same claims of evidence that other religions have made. You have said that the “universe” is evidence for your god and so have other theists who do not agree with you. None of of you can support this claim. That is the evidence I am looking for, not a baseless claim.
You can “dub” the various theories and hypotheses a cactus pudding if you want. That does not make magically make them such. As I have said, we have yet to figure out exactly why the universe exists. Many, but not all, theists are desperate that everyone stop looking and accept their baseless claims. They want to claim that their god created everything and want everyone else to stop questioning and finding evidence that the myths about their god never happened. Your god has shrunk into the few gaps left and there is no sign that the gaps will stop closing.
Again , please present evidence for the claim that your god made the universe. Present evidence that the other transcendental gods of other religion didn’t do it.
Yes, I did provide evidence and here is you, again in your own words, refuting scientific evidence by establishing yourself as the authority for your own argument (which by the way, is logical fallacy):
“I have studied proteins and your claims aren’t true. I was a bio major before I was a geology major.”
You see, being a bio major before your were a geology major is just you confessing that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Nevertheless, you have rightly established yourself an authority on cognitive dissonance which is what is required to be an atheist.
Wow, that’s amazing, SOM. Somehow you have decided that if someone was one kind of major before they were another, they magically forget everything they’ve learned about when they were in the other major.
Now, assuming you have had more than one job in your life, this would mean that you have magically no idea what you would be talking about if someone asked you questions about that first job. Would this be true, SOM?
It’s nice that you now can type “cognitive dissonance”. It’s a shame that you cannot apply it correctly.
It’s also nice that you can type logical fallacy. However, I do require you to show that knowing about things and using that knowledge to support a point a “logical fallacy”. Again, we have that you can express the word but you have no idea what it means. It seems that, like many Christians, you hear a word used by a non-Christian that strikes you as intelligent and you believe that if you use the word, it will make you intelligent too. However, when you invariably misuse it, it has the opposite effect.
Here is some first hand CD for you. Taken from SoM’s own post.
“The Catholic Church has no problem with the theory of evolution and neither do I.
Where there is a problem is when evolution is used to replace God as Creator.”
So, no apparent problems with evolution, but oh my yes there must be a creator. I seriously doubt this guy has no other problems with evolution either…/eyeroll. Nevermind the attempt to confuse abiogenesis with evolution.
…and I was certain you were aware of CD, just thought maybe you wanted it shown for lurkers sake. 🙂
So, after SoM’s last post I am left wondering where was this supposed evidence left? At the train station? I didn’t see it here.
One must be in a state of cognitive dissonance to express what you just expressed.
The theory of evolution concerns how traits, as expressed in DNA, are passed on from one generation to the next.
Consequently, the theory of evolution is not about creation or God.
It is simply a scientific model whose purpose is to explain speciation and the diversity of life.
So, now we have one Christian claiming evolution is okay and one that says it isn’t. 🙂
Yes, because unlike atheists who all think alike about everything, Christians partake of and enjoy diversity of thought.
You trying to scandalize diversity of thought is you confessing that atheists are brainwashed into thinking the same thing about everything.
That’s not good. It’s bad. It’s shamefully bad as a matter of fact.
Please do show evidence that “atheists who all think alike about everything”. I’m waiting. I certainly haven’t “confessed” to your delusion that atheists “all think alike about everything”. Nice try to try to put words in my mouth. That’s trying to misrepresent me and you have been called on your deceitful actions before. One of the few things I find admirable about the Jewish and Christian bibles is that they decry lying (though they go a bit too far in decrying all deception, since deception can be used against evil to protect the innocent). If I catch a Christian intentionally trying to claim that I have said things that I have not, I have no reason to think that Christianity is true.
One just has to google “atheism plus” or “atheism gamergate” to see just how much atheists do not agree on many things.
It’s hilarious that you now are doing your best to try to claim that it’s great that Christians don’t agree on what their god said or meant. Yep, it’s great when they accuse each other of being mislead by Satan and of being heretics. It’s wonderful when Protestants claim that Catholics are satanic sun worshippers. It’s great when one set of Christians says that homosexuals should be killed, and another says that the Christian god has no problem at all with homosexuals.
It’s wonderful when one sect of Christians say that they got a whole new testament in the nineteenth century and the other sects claim that they are not Christians at all.
It’s wonderful when Catholics will have children baptized secretly against the wishes of the parents since they are sure that other versions of Christianity aren’t the true church straight from Peter (my great grandma did that to my mom).
Now, I’m going to make an educated guess that you will try to turn around and say that some of those people who say they are Christians really aren’t Christians. Will you?
What is this, the third grade? “you are a big fat poopyhead.” “nuh uh you are a big fat poopyhead.”
So you have some basic understanding of evolution, we will all clap for you.
Your circular arguments, the CD, your resistance to logic/evidence, the projection, are time stamped troll droppings.
So, where is your evidence again? I showed you mine. Show us yours. I want pathetic levels of detail. Misrepresentations, total fabrications, logic fallacies, and dodges get stale pretty quick. Show us the good stuff or I’m cranking my tractor and plowing a field somehwere else.
Here’s an example of cognitive dissonance in your own words.
You ask for evidence that God exists. I give you the evidence. You answer:
“Again, SOM, we are waiting for evidence…”
That would be true if you actually gave, say, evidence. Evidence that isn’t reliant on an appeal to ignorance.
I posted a video from a university about what is taught at all accredited universities, which proved my claim.
For you not to see the evidence placed before your very eyes is you confessing that you suffer from cognitive dissonance.
Ignorance is not a counter argument to evidence that has been proven long ago by science.
At what point in the video does the narrator mention gods?
The basic gist of the video is “we can’t conceive how this could have developed without design – therefore god” That’s called an appeal to ignorance. Just because it is “from a university” doesn’t change it is an appeal to ignorance. Just because you use and appeal to authority for your appeal to ignorance isn’t impressive.
The video you posted does not support your claims that “a huge family of precision designed, precision manufactured and precision tools.” or your attempt to claim that your god made these tools. The video is from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories. http://www.cshl.edu/About-Us.html
These “tools” are not the perfect things you wish to claim. They do not always work and this leads to genetic problems, which can and do prevent development or can kill an offspring after birth/germination. A couple of links about how the problems can occur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_surveillance
I’ve watched the video you posted, SOM. Doug asks a very good question, where does it mention your god? It seems that all you heard was words that you thought supported your claims of intelligent design, and did not pay attention to the rest. You seemed to have tried to assumed the words referring to mechanisms were literal.
You are quite right, your ignorance is not a counter argument to evidence that has been provided by science, that proteins do not support the idea that a god exists.
The basic gist of your interpretation of the video is “we can’t conceive how this could have developed without design – therefore god” That’s called an appeal to ignorance. Just because it is “from a university” doesn’t change it is an appeal to ignorance. Just because you use and appeal to authority for your appeal to ignorance isn’t impressive.
Actually Ron asked the question. And my first comment…I left out a critical phrase so I corrected it. but it all comes down to use of the word ‘tools’ to imply design, when it was just loose language in order to introduce more difficult concepts for a introductory audience.
LOL… did anyone notice how when presented with genuine biological evidence ( above) SOM terminated that particular thread immediately?
The supreme Dickhead: Hypocrite, Fraud and Liar.
The whole Trinity.
Nice trinity. 🙂 yep, it seems that all of my TrueChristians have run away when confronted with facts. Poor ol’ LIL/NSC even took down his post on his own website with all his hard work quote-mining my posts.
SOM will slink back at some point, as he always does.
I am surprised the prison wardens allow him access to so much erroneous material?
…or he’s a garden-variety troll. Because I’ve noticed he does the same thing (playing the contrarian and ruffling feathers) on theist blogs. It seems to be his leitmotif.
Yes, he does, doesn’t he? I have noticed this as well.
I think if he didn’t have someone to contradict he would open up another account simply so he could disagree with himself.
Or become a Protestant as well as a Catholic.