What flaws did you point out? I didn't notice any arguments from you only insults. Please point me to where you pointed out faulty logic. Now you are a LIAR.
What flaws did you point out? I didn't notice any arguments from you only insults. Please point me to where you pointed out faulty logic. Now you are a LIAR.
You probably wouldn't notice any arguments coming from me, since it is quite clear you do not understand what one is or how to construct one. I direct your attention to the post from you that I originally commented on. To whit:
In science, one neve knows the destination, but you can observe trends. The trend, for several hundred years now, is that naturalistic explanatations continue to grow in power. Every time someone declares something to be irreducibly complex, it gets reduced. As for whether you can "explain" the origin of life through laboratory experiments -- show me the difference between water freezing in your home freezer and water freezing in a northern lake.
Who do you think you are talking to - some idiotic dimwit? I want to know the SCIENTIFIC explanation for the origin of life. Since you said life comes form non-life, and you believe it so dogmatically, you are obligated to back that up with evidence. Let's have it. I don't want to hear any guesses or "trends" or speculation - I want evidence. Anyone can guess. What is a "trend"?
Now, let's play "Deconstruct the House of Cards"
Who do you think you are talking to - some idiotic dimwit?
You had to ask? Clearly, he believed he was talking to an idiotic dimwit.
I want to know the SCIENTIFIC explanation for the origin of life. Since you said life comes form non-life, and you believe it so dogmatically, you are obligated to back that up with evidence. Let's have it.
It is evident from the statement you were responding to that the poster most certainly did not state that life comes from non-life. He/she stated that it was an assertion on your part, and maintained that it was testable. Further, after you assume and state the the poster indeed does hold this position, you then state that he/she does so dogmatically, which is clearly both (a) false and (b) a fact not in evidence. Therefore, the poster is not obligated to supply any evidence for something he/she has not stated.
The problem seems to lie in your inability to grasp that you must respond to the actual arguments made by other posters, not try and attribute positions to them and then, like some macho drunk at a bar, call them out when they don't bother to repond to your rather predictable and formulaic challenges.
I'm glad I could clear that up for you, Tinkerbell.