Summations Only

Rahvin, hopefully I can respond to your message by and by. There's a lot here to think about and assess before responding.

For advocates of the primordial soup, both that and abiogenesis are prerequisite to evolution. No?Btw, Dwise, this mean-spirited and demeaning message of yours enforces my point elsewhere that by and large, it is your type of evolutionist members who post off topic hateful content in your messages here at EvC.A number of you are this type whereas. hardly any creationists post hateful and demeaning messages.Imo, it would've been great for you to make your point in a good spirited manner like Straggler and many other kinder spirited members do. Your type here has a lot to do why good creationist debaters avoid this site.

The answer, quite simply and for the n'th time, is no. Neither the primordial soup nor abiogenesis is nor has it ever been prerequisite to evolution.
The only thing that is prerequisite to evolution, is lief/Why do you persistently refuse to understand that simple statement?My understanding of fundamentalist psychology (having been a "fellow traveller" in the "Jesus Freak" days of circa 1970) is that your theology-based psychology mandates that several things must be false and hence any inroads that might be made to understanding them must immediately be squelched, since by understanding those things your faith would be placed in peril. Well, any belief that must be so afraid of simple truths is not worth keeping. But as long as you choose to keep those unworthy beliefs, then you also choose to deliberately blind yourself to the truth, AKA "keeping your head wedged up your rectum", though burying your head in the sand could serve as a euphemism.Now, instead of bitching and moaning about particular wording, wouldn't it be so much better if you were to instead address the actual issues? Like, your presuppositions about what are prerequisite to evolution are completely and utter wrong. And that deliberately blinding yourself to that glaring and obvious fact is a deliberate act of self-deception, AKA "having your head up your arse".Or, are you going to bitch and moan about wording, or address the issue?

The problem is that Buz lumps evolution and abiogenesis together because they are one and the same to him; an attack on baby Jeebus. He feels the need to defend against both at once because they both undermine his bibble fantasies. And, since he's incapable of understanding the basis for the difference in science, he simply assumes science lumps them both together the way he does.In essence, he's projecting his ignorance of both subjects onto science and concludes that science is as ill-informed as he is.

True and understood. By me, at least.But as long as he continues to confuse/conflate the two, the situation remains the same: head, arse, together as always.Only he can correct the situation. All we can do is to point out his problem so that lurkers can understand.

Your answer is pure bullshit and indecipherable. And on top of all that, it completely avoids the question, all too typical of creationists.Why don't you even dare to attempt to address my Message 104 (reproduced here with but two corrections (refer to the link for the original)):

quote:

---

We're missing something here. Chuck77 copy-and-pasted a ludicrous joke. What does he have to say about it? What does he have to say about why he had posted it? Especially why he had not posted it in the Humor topic, which would indicate that he was thinking that he had a serious point that he was wanting to make.

​

Let's see. The OP was posted at 3:01 AM PST. What was he doing up at that hour? Late night drunk? With unresolved anger over feeling persecuted (most of which is just a fundamentalist self-fulfilling prophecy that seems to go with the territory -- IOW, they create it themselves), he decided to strike out at others instead of realizing the problem is within himself? Though if he lives on the east coast it would have been 0600 for him, but anyone up that early would be busy getting ready for work or for school, not surfing for and copying such clap-trap with its obvious malicious intent.

​

So, we still need Chuck77's input on this. What point was he trying to make with that post? Does he actually agree with all those points? Does he actually believe all those false things said there about atheists are true? If yes, why does he believe that? If not, then why did he copy-and-paste it?

​

There is so much material for discussion here. Atheists have long known that Christians have many really bizarre ideas about atheists, but have never been able to get any real explanation of where those ideas come from, only increasing hostility and belligerence from those "loving" Christians. Here we have an opportunity to learn why you believe those things about atheists that you do and you have an opportunity to learn from atheists what they really think and believe.

​

Chuck77, all you need to do is to engage in discussion, instead of always running away from it.

---

Nu?Of course, if you truly believe that your non sequitur was meant to mean something, then you can support that.No, I didn't think you would.

Not, it is not. Since the balloon is being added to constantly from an external source. However, this particular analogy is flawed in re the expanding universe and should not be considered. The expansion of a closed system and the expansion of an open system drawing its expansion from external source(s) are not comparable.Nonetheless, that says nothing about whether the expanding universe is closed or open, nor does it lend any support whatsoever to your ludicrous claim that we define open and closed systems at will and completely arbitrarily.Edited by dwise1, : last paragraph

Really? Selective memory perhaps.Personally, I'm not going to forget these in a hurry; if ever. Message 129Dawn Bertot writes:
He was a filthy piece of garbage and a piece of dung. Recieve that which you have reaped Mr Hitchens
and
speaking of puerile dickheads, did you hear that Hitch died? Portilo writes:
So like a cockroach, rat, bacteria or pondscum, Hitch did his job. Artemis writes:
I am glad he is dead, fuck him.
And
LOL the rationale of a dick sucking bitch like yourself. too funny. eat shit and die.Christianity at it finest.

A complete and utter bullshit question/response/coverup/whatever.What does it matter what anybody's beliefs are?OK, here's what I have encountered far too many times in the past. We all know what's written in the Bible, since we all have access to that resource. So we witness some super-Christians (AKA "berchristen", AKA "absolutely holier that anybody else conceivable") doing things that appear to be contrary to what the Bible says they should be doing (absolutely nothing out of the ordinary there). So we ask those berchristen how their obviously unchristian actions can be reconciled with the Bible. And those berchristen's response is that if we are not ourselves Christian, then we cannot question any of their actions. No fucking shit! That is their reaction and that is their position.The ironic thing is that they also would insist on trying to convert me to Christianity. Now, ever since 2200 hours, 24 October 2002, my conversion to Christianity would constitute a truly monstrous act on my part (to put it extremely mildly) since as of that moment such conversion would require me to consign my beloved son to everlasting H*E*L*L -- any "true Christians" who have since then attempted to convert me are truly the most incredible monsters ever to exist. Fuck you, any who would try to attempt it, and fuck off!But here's the tactical situation. Fundamental Christians, especially those of the creationist variety (since they are the most deceptive and deceitful kind), want at all costs to keep others from questioning their actions in re the Bible, so they adopt this deception that nobody but a Christian of the exact same type could ever examine what they do. Which is complete and utter bullshit!The truth is the truth, regardless of who says it.Evidence for the truth is evidence for the truth, regardless of who presents it.If you have the truth, then present it. If you have evidence supporting the truth, then present.If you do not, then please shut the fuck up!BTW, your choice of shutting the fuck up will be taken as your concession.

Even if your point were true (and it had already been refuted) it would not address the question of whether the list item itself was true. Or even sensible. Do you not agree that the item from the list is just a lame attempt at parody that falls flat on it's face?

Now look, Subbie. both you and Dwise are wrong. I did not lump them together. If so, cite precisely where I have and explain why!I said that they both came before evolution, did I not?Btw, do you have any idea what he means by lief/? To me lief is an adverb expression. (Perhaps you can explain. Dwise gets no more responses from me unless they are civil.)

OK, Tangle. Your post is well taken. I stand corrected. I'm no prude but I see some of the kind like what Dwise does as hateful off topic personal attacks rather than addressing points in a civil manner.

Hi Buz,About your feelings of mistreatment, you might be casting blame in the wrong direction. Everyone's limit of frustration is different and some will maintain a polite demeanor longer than others, but thanks and gratitude are not the normal response to what you've been doing here for so many years. Those attempting discussion with you are met with persistent ignorance, intransigent stubbornness, and a blank wall of incomprehension. Naturally people are going to have difficulty maintaining composure.It's a two way street. If you'd like to be treated better then you should treat others better. If you stop subjecting others to nonsense and begin taking the time and making the effort to understand what people are actually saying, then you might find your situation improving. You don't have to agree, but you should give at least the impression of trying to understand.About Point 9, if you think it accurately represents a claim of evolution then I shant try to talk you out of it, but only because no one is ever able to talk you out of anything, but before I move on I would like to place the two point 9's side by side: As can be plainly seen, your Point 9 is a caricature of evolution, while our Point 9 is an accurate representation of the story in Genesis where it says, "The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground."Moving on to Point 8. I'll put the two Point 8's side by side again: Your Point 8 about not questioning Darwin or Dawkins is wrong, while our Point 8 about fundamentalist Christians seeing a distinction between polytheism and the trinity is true.Because many here do not share my views about Dawkins, I'll speak just for myself. I received his book The God Delusion for Christmas one year, and after reading one chapter I found it so detestable that I gave it away. I think his selfish gene idea is, to be necessarily brief because I'm already running on, stupid. Yet I loved his book The Blind Watchmaker. Stephen Jay Gould didn't like Dawkins much, either. I think that most people in science view most things with a skeptical eye, accepting that for which there is adequate evidence and rejecting or withholding judgment where there is not.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

No, you did not. You said that the primordial soup and abogenesis were prerequisites for evolution. You then referred us back to that message in Message 192 to emphasise your point. So, prerequisite does not mean "came before". Life itself is a prerequisite for evolution since it's life that evolution acts on. However how that life came about is irrelevant to the acion of evolution. As someone else pointed out, it could have arrived on an asteroid (panspermia), it could have been created by an omnipotentbeing or it could have arisen by abiogenesis. It matters not a jot which is responsible. Evolution is a process which doesn't care two hoots about the origin of the life it is acting on.Edited by Trixie, : Formatting gremlins

Hi Trixie,It might also be worth calling Buzz's attention to the fact that a sizable number of creationists also believe that the origin of life and evolution are two different concepts. These creationists believe that God created life, and that after the flood life went through a period of accelerated evolution to produce the vast diversity of species we see today.--Percy