Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,227 Year: 3,484/9,624 Month: 355/974 Week: 244/130 Day: 38/43 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
Taz
Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 18 of 191 (533129)
10-29-2009 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 12:16 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Buzsaw writes:
Are you aware of any scientific models remotely depicting the random process which Bluejay explained?
I'm sorry, but I have to ask you a question. Being a christian, do you enjoy lying outright like this? Random process? Do you enjoy being a liar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 12:16 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 12:35 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 21 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 12:48 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 68 of 191 (533273)
10-29-2009 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 12:48 AM


Re: Play nice
Meldinoor writes:
I don't think Buzsaw was trying to disparage these processes by using the word "random".
Give me a break. If one is confident enough to raise objections to a scientific theory or concept, one should know better than to use the word "random" at all to describe a chemical process. If chemical reactions are random, then why the flying hell should we even have the field of chemistry? So, by proclaiming that chemical reactions (which are the basis of abiogenesis) are random, one must either be inadequate in one's knowledge to raise any objection or one is an outright liar.
Now, trying to talk about things to which one is clueless about makes one intellectually dishonest, which is pretty much lying.
As you can see, in either case, one is a liar.
Sorry, after years of dealing with creationists, I don't have any patience left in me. I'll point out the lies when I see them. It is, after all, one of the 10 commandments. And despite me pointing this particular lie out many many times in the past, I still see the same people throwing it out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 12:48 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 5:26 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 72 of 191 (533281)
10-29-2009 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 5:26 PM


Re: Play nice
Meldinoor writes:
Without going off on too much of a tangent here, I agree that random was not the right word to use. But Buzsaw wasn't discussing the randomness of evolution or abiogenesis, his post had nothing do with it. As such, while he may have used an unfortunate choice of words, you are still attacking his semantics rather than his post.
Whatever Buzsaw's knowledge on the topic, he is still entitled to ask questions and recieve answers to those questions.
It's a good thing you point this out. But rather than just saying "You're a liar!!", try to point out why and how he is lying. You'll notice that I had to explain to Buzsaw why you were upset, as it wasn't apparent in your post.
Here is why I think he's a liar. While the post wasn't about the supposed randomness of chemical reactions that brought about abiogensis, he threw out the word random as a way to deceive unsuspecting readers. By ignoring this, he's hoping that some readers might take it to mean evolutionists are acknowledging that abiogenesis and evolution are just random processes.
Here is a more obvious example of this form of dishonesty. There was an episode of law and order where the defense attorney was questioning the forensic scientist in court. While he was questioning her credentials, he asked the following question: while you were attending medical school and worked at a strip club, I understand that you studied...?
The question had nothing to do with her working as a strip dancer while she attended med school. And yet, he knew, the judge knew, and the jury knew that he threw the fact in as an attempt to discredit her. When the prosecutor objected, the defense lawyer said he was just innocently referencing her past work. Innocent my ass. If no one questioned it, the jury would have assumed that working as a stripper in the past somehow discredited her as a reliable forensic scientist. Goodness knows, I've been attacked in this way by defense lawyers while testifying in court before (no, I never worked as a stripper). It's their way of discrediting you in the eyes of the jury and still be able to back pedal when someone objected to the dishonesty.
When I objected to the use of the word "random" to describe the chemical reactions that resulted in abiogenesis, I was objecting to the intellectual dishonesty of throwing a lie out as a side comment and then not even have the balls to admit the dishonest intention.
The intention to lie is obvious. Let's drop the bullshit.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 5:26 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2009 6:41 PM Taz has replied
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 8:03 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 83 of 191 (533306)
10-29-2009 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by NosyNed
10-29-2009 6:41 PM


Re: Play nice
NosyNed writes:
He has demonstrated a total lack of comprehension to any of the science invovled. I doubt very much that he is being so tricky.
If anyone else used the word "random", I would have just let it go. But Buz has been here how many years? He's been told how many times that neither chemical reaction nor evolution is random?
Person A: The sky is green.
Person B: No, it is not.
1 month later.
Person A: The sky is green.
Person C: No, it is not.
2 months later.
Person A: The sky is green.
Person B: No, it is not.
2 weeks later.
Person A: The sky is green.
Person D: No, it is not.
3 months later.
Person A: The sky is green.
Person E: No, it is not.
5 months later.
Person A: The sky is green.
Heads explode.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2009 6:41 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Meldinoor, posted 10-30-2009 12:12 AM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024