Replies

Your emotional response to having the flaws in your 'logic' pointed out to you indeed indicate someone who would not have lasted through a tour of duty in the Corps. I'm pleased they saw fit to throw you out and protect its honor.

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.

Actually, other posters here have found my arguments quite plausible, your insipid vituperations notwithstanding. By extension then, you are also calling into question the intellectual capacity and logic of others on this thread. You have expounded very little logically, but your primary purpose seems to be to disrupt and "bait" people into harsh exchanges. I will not play your game any further. You do not have the guts to state your positions on any matter whatsoever as you are well aware that once exposed, you become extremely vulnerable; thus, you hurl your scurrilous insults at people you do not even know as a means of protecting yourself and your worldview (whatever that may be) from scrutiny. I made the mistake of responding in kind which I see now was a mistake. I have no desire to sink to your level of gutter discourse. This exchange is ended.