Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Except you've ignored critical posts from other people in this thread, strongly indicating that your issue isn't with me, but with people who criticize your posts.StanJ said:Actually I've graduated to recognizing that discussing anything with you is a waste of time
Pretty hypocritical coming from a person who only responds to "pats on the back" posts.The older I get the less willing I am to engage in fruitless discussions with people who are so inculcated they can't see the forest for the trees.
What in th.........???????? :blink: First you claim that abiogenesis being an unanswered question is a problem for evolution, now you're saying that calling it unanswered is "arbitrary"?ChristianJuggarnaut said:How convenient for science to be able to arbitrarily decide what is simply "unanswered"
Explain how.even when that unanswered question makes their entire position untenable.
Who did that, and where?Starting with the supposition that Darwinian theory is objective truth
As I've shown, creationists make themselves out to be "crazy" ("dishonest" is a more accurate word IMO). I mean, you can't go around saying all the goofy stuff some creationists say (e.g., some of the things Stan linked to in the OP), and not expect people to respond "you're nuts".and labeling all dissent as crazy creationists
I'd bet that's because the real problem here is that you don't know the first thing about the actual science.while using a "Charles in Gaps" approach to abiogenesis just seems intellectually weak to me.
???????????? :wacko:ChristianJuggarnaut said:If evolution as a paradigm is settled science, then there simply can't be an "unanswered" first cell.
You can't scream from the roof tops that "this is not a theory, this is fact" if you have no foundation.
You are actually disputing that the origin of the first life form is an unanswered question? Really? :blink:You changed my conclusion to "unanswered question" and then proceeded to beat that straw man silly. Fallacy number 1.
I certainly agree there's some stupidity going on here. I wonder if you hold all fields of science to this standard? Do you demand that oceanographers first explain the origin of the oceans before they can say for sure how currents and waves behave? Do you demand meteorologists explain the origin of the atmosphere before they can see for sure how clouds behave? Do you demand your doctor first explain the origin of the first life forms before he examine and diagnose you? :blink:Without life, Darwinism is untenable.
"The origin of species"
Really? With no foundation?
This is the logical fallacy of complete stupidity.
Looks like I was spot on."You don't know the first thing about science."
You should probably learn the fallacies before citing them. It's only an ad hominem fallacy if someone attacks the person and ignores the argument. I've obviously addressed your arguments. Also, it's not really much of an "attack" if it's true, is it?Attack the man fallacy.
Which is why I don't understand why you continue wasting your time even having a discussion to them.StanJ said:Deflection and obfuscation are the tools of choice for many who claim to be Christian yet support evolution when it is anti-creation.