|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 7, 2018 1:25:39 GMT
Yes, Arlon, I'm well aware of your fallacious Argument from Incredulity ("I can't believe abiogenesis happened, so it must be false") against abiogenesis. It fails on three fronts: one, it fails to disprove abiogenesis (because it's a blatant fallacy); two, even if it was successful, it wouldn't make ID/creationism any more scientific. You don't prove one theory (or even make it a theory) by disproving another theory; and three, it basically ignores all of the research that is actually out there on abiogenesis, an as usual you mistake your ignorance for the ignorance of science. The Miller/Urey experiment is a billion times more scientific/credible than anything that has been produced on the side of ID, which is nothing. Also: Comedy gold! Are you in charge of the rules now? Guess who else thinks they're in charge of the rules? None of you are. I know how the rules work. I know I win in the end. Why? Because open your eyes, that's why. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 3:50:18 GMT
You have no need to prove relativity if you want to grant it cannot be proven, otherwise yes you have a need. No, because I've already done it. And in truth you have no idea what I've seen about relativity. Yet you pontificate about it. No Refusing to accept the evidence of intelligent design is in fact for the purposes of honesty, since there is no evidence for intelligent design and what purports to be such evidence is, in every case, an expression of ignorance or a lie. Yes, they could. If the case were overturned - something you have frequently claimed you were about to do yourself over the last few years - then it would make no difference at all to the case for or against god. |
|
