If it is there for all to see, but you won't outline it, the default is to simply reject it as false, barring evidence. Your claim, your burden of proof.
Lazy again, and all your junior high posturing won't change that, dude.
Sure. Whatever you say.Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
do recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.[5]
Uh-huh. You asked for evidence, it was given to you, and you pretend you weren't given anything.
You don't really care about what is true, and that is pretty obvious. Create a thread, run away.
meh.
So your "free thinking" and "open mind" about the JW bible extends only as far as what you are told to think about it.
Do you hold any opinion about what the Bible says that differs from JW orthodoxy, i.e. what the elders say about it?
lol subtle change doesn't change the meaning.
"we all" = "everyone"
You're still held up on this lie.
It isn't actually "chance".
Component molecules of RNA and DNA are commonly occurring organic molecules found in the soup of our forming solar system.
Molecules and chemistry follow some very specific patterns, dictated in no small part by the categories we see in the periodic table.
Sodium does not "randomly" (HA!) bond with any other atom, it more readily bonds with other ions that have the appropriate amount of "extra" electrons.
Organic molecules as units follow similar, observable, reproducible patterns.
Lipids clump, smaller building block are pre-disposed to go together in certain ways, and catalytic reactions do the rest.
There is more than a little research done on it, and none of it requires an intelligent "guiding hand" to kick off.
Why are you telling me what RNA/DNA is, we all know what they are. That isn't the point. Regardless of what they are or are about...................how did they come about? How can something that complex just happen?
So you think they just....here we are!!! Isn't that pretty hard to buy?
yep just like that, it all happened in 5 minutes
I can see my last post went right over your head.
Also it seems your so worried about what I think you may have said that you forget it's all still here for us to read.
I said to post something your willing to support and I will be happy to help you see where your misguided and you have not done so. I was willing to start fresh and your so stuck on words in your mouth rants it's interfering in the debate.
A perfect example is you telling xmas1997 it took 5 minutes and when I call you out you don't post any evidence you go on another rant.
go ahead, have at it
I don't know exactly how the first self-replicating molecules came about, nor do I have to.
It isn't hard to buy once one learns a bit about chemistry.
Do you think that because we haven't explained it, and my never be able to conclusively do so, that means some god thing did it?
For reference, here are a couple of logical fallacies.
Anyone want to see which one Avante is committing?
Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination[edit]
Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.I will give an internet cookie to the first person who figures out which logical fallacy is being used in his post...Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic)[edit]
Arguments from self-knowing take the form:
If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
If P were false then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be false.
How did your master designer get here?
Here I am!!!!
then admit your guessing at best
you do if you want to continue debatingnor do I have to.
not true. "i don't know" or "we don't know" are perfectly acceptable answers. pretending to know something is worse than accepting that it is an unknown because it closes the book on the topic
argument from incredulity/lack of imagination
He's got ya there, mate.
Or we can always go with...
Avante....so where did RNA/DNA originate?
RandomGuy....well..yakyakblahblahblahyakblahetcetc etcyaketyyak and on and on and on and on.
Avante...so ya don't know, right?
RandomGuy...ok ok....right.
psssssst! its a debate not paper rock scissors.
all I read is bull circular reasoning and lame excuses for not having any evidence for Evolution and to think I actually thought there was intelligent people in this debate topic.
Intelligent question: "Post evidence of Evolution."
Misguided Evolution supporters : " No one knows" "Science is still exploring" "I never said there was no DNA" "your setting up a strawman"
"I don't have to know how matter got here" "it took place its in the science books"
Intelligent question: So how did the matter form and why did it explode?
Misguided Evolution supporters : " No one knows" "Science is still exploring" "I never said there was no DNA" "your setting up a strawman"
"I don't have to know how matter got here" "it took place its in the science books"
I can't believe RandomLie pulled out the "Soup" card that is so lame.
I told you misguided Darwin supporters They found a mathematical code in the DNA that Science can't explain the code shows up in all life on earth the Evolution debated ended years ago Darwin lost big. Stop making yourselves look so ignorant and post some evidence already!
RandomLie explain this
Debunk this if you can
/ End of Debate
this has nothing of substance in it at allRandomLie explain this
Debunk this if you can
darwin was in the 1800's, the video says 'scientific advancements debunked it" and yet the maggot experiment they refer to was ran in the 1600's. by darwins time they were WELL aware that spontaneous generation was not a thing
i also love how it brings up the miller-urey experiment and says "the gas composition was wrong" because when they redid the same experiment with the corrected composition it actually gave rise to EVEN MORE diverse molecules
THE BIG BANG...poof-DNA
A Master Designer...DNA.
Boy that's a tuff one.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote