Summations Only

Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but that's it for me, I'm converted! Bwahahahahahahah!Chuck, is this supposed to be evidence? Since others have tackled it item by item, I won't bother. I can't be arsed dissecting a bunch of half-baked, erroneous, false and dowright dishonest statements which seem to have their origin in a mind so uneducated about the subject that the author is writing about that their head has disappeared up their own backside.Do you really think it makes any points? Do you really think it's an argument? Do you really think it's going to convince anyone? The entire thing looks like it's been taken from the pages of "Fundies say the darndest things". It's fantasic evidence against the creationist claim that creationism is science or that creationists have two neurones to rub together to keep warm.Keep it up, Chuckieboy, you'll have everyone accepting evolution in a flash using shite like this.

Do you honestly believe that people who do not believe in the existence of God, blame God for the bad things that happen Are you sure this is what you want to say?Is it not more accurate to say that people who do not believe in the existence of God justify this non-belief by pointing out that bad things happening doesn't really gel with an omnipotent, loving God who has a finger in every pie?Think of it this way. How can they blame a (from their point of view) non-existent being for all the ills of the world? I suggest you have a wee think about this because it's a nonsensical position to hold.Edited by Trixie, : To lassoo and return a runaway colon to it's rightful place.

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

NO!FFS Buz how many different ways can you find to misunderstand what people write? Abiogenesis is one of several possibilities for the "genesis of life" or as most people call it, the origin of life on this planet

But Buz, it's very much on topic. You translated cosmic ooze into primordial soup, then declared it a prerequisite to evolution. I've already told you what prerequisite means, but you didn't get it. Others have told you what prerequisite means, you still didn't get it.We've shown you how "primordial soup" isn't a prerequisite for evolution. You could say that the primordial soup is a prerequisite for evolution in the hypothesis that life arose from primordial soup. However, if you say that life arrived riding on a comet or asteroid, then the primordial soup is definitely not a prerequisite for evolution in the panspermia hypothesis.. If you say that God created lifeforms which then evolved (which many people do hold), then the primordial soup is not a prerequisite for the "God did it" hypothesis. Do you get it now?Once more, with feeling, evolution acts on life regardless of how the first life arose. Life is life is life. I don't know how many different ways we can say the same thing. There's a serious misunderstanding here somewhere. Is it because you think that all scientists hold that life arose from the primordial soup? You've already been corrected on this by others.If you accept that there are a number of theories as to how life arose, then you have no choice but to admit that you were in error when you stated that the primordial soup is a prerequisite for evolution to occur. Stop grandstanding and declaring victory and read what we're trying to say to you.ABE I'd also like to point out that the "cosmic slime" would be more akin to the panspermia hypothesis than the primordial soup hypothesis. If you feel that point 2 in the original list is correct, that scientists believe life arose from cosmic slime, then you have to admit that all of your primordial soup stuff is contradictory to point 2.Edited by Trixie, : No reason given.

But, to Buz, a victory is when he can obfuscate and be wrong and refuse to accept any correction until a thread reaches the end of it's life, usually at 300 posts. He sees the activity bar as some sort of metre to measure his effectiveness. Then he'll tout that as Buz holding off a horde of "atheists" with his "irrefutable" argument, declare victory and move on to another thread where he can start all over again with the same refuted, false and idiotic statements and cite the first thread as proof of his "unrefuted" argument.In layman's terms, its sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la".

Considering that point 2 uses the term COSMIC slime, it is definitely not off topic. Therefore you can't be in agreement with point 2. So why are you defending it?We don't need you to officially retract your claim that the primordial soup is a prerequisite to evolution since it's evident to everyone reading this that you were wrong. I've given up trying to get you to see that what you post is nonsense. You will never see it because you don't want to see it - you'd rather be stubborn and wrong than learn and be right.

You know Buz, when you posted that mine and Percy's point's were "taken" about number 10 being nonsense, I almost hit the "Cheer" button because it showed you'd actually taken on board what had been said about the illogic of it.I'm so glad I decided to hold off on that "Cheer" because now all I hear is loud squeaking noises as you frantically backpedal. You now claim you never supported point10, yet the record shows otherwise. So that's a falsehood.You claimed that the primordial soup was a prerequisite to evolution, equating cosmic slime with primordial soup. You then denied having made the prerequisite claim until your own posts were quoted back at you. You attempted to change the definition of prerequisite to one that is news to any other English speaker in a ridiculous attempt to show that you never said the primordial soup was a prior requirement for evolution and now you've ditched the "cosmic" part of cosmic slime.While doing all of this, you've accused everyone else of being trolls, of deliberately misrepresenting your position and of being guilty of stalling the thread. You've thrown unfounded ad hominem attacks at Percy and others and you've continually and blatantly dodged questions asked of you by slinging mud and insults at those who asked the questions. All this is interspersed with posts which say nothing on the subject, but whinge about the posters you are ignoring and their very on-topic questions.I know admin frown on this sort of post, but I'm making it anyway because it's time you were properly called on this. You have engaged in lies, debating in bad faith, misrepresentation of others, self-contradiction, deceitfulness and insults. I've always liked to think that you meant none of this when you did it in other threads, that it was unintentional, but the evidence in this thread alone is enough to tell me that I was sadly mistaken. If anyone thought that giving you the benefit of the doubt was only fair, a quick read of this thread would soon put them right.I rarely accuse someone of telling lies because it implies a deliberate attempt to deceive and I know that the forum guidelines and admin are not in favour of this. However, I see no alternative but to finally call you out on your lies. If Admin requires it, I will provide concrete evidence that you have deliberately lied, in fact I've already supplied it earlier in this thread.My apologies to Admin for this post, but it's about time that Buz was called on his dishonesty in this thread, instead of pussyfooting around the issue. I take no pleasure in saying this about Buz because I do believe that his heart is (usually) in the right place and he does try very hard. If you wish to apply the forum guidelines and suspend me for what I have said, I won't argue with that, but this needed to be said.

I quite agree with you except for one thing. Buz didn't claim that life was a prerequisite for evolution. He claimed that the primordial soup was a prerequisite for evolution and he made this claim to support the assertion that foolish atheists believe that life arose from "cosmic slime".

If that's the case why did he then go on to deny ever having said that the primordial soup is a prerequisite for evolution? If, in this denial he's denying what you think he's denying, then he's denying that life is a prerequisite for evolution (sorry for all the denyings ).His position has been completely inconsistent.

Do you really need it pointing out to you that your parents were alive when they begat you? Life from life means evolution can act there, genetic traits exist and are important medically.Your post is utter nonsense. Christianity isn't a religion?? Let's see. The Oxford English Dictionary says What on earth are you defining religion to mean?Anyway, back on topic, evolution acts on life. Yes, there has to be life for it to act, but it doesn't matter how that life arose. It could be abiogenesis, it could be panspermia, it could be God. Once there is life, evolution will act.

I gave an opinion on this thread a few posts ago which summed up the progress made (or lack thereof).I think that, given the way this thread developed, it would have been better named "Top Ten Fallacies used by YECs, OECs and IDists which makes them appear foolish".Attempts at supporting the first two on the list effectively stalled this thread as it became clear that the main supporter didn't have a clue what he was talking about and the originator seemed to hide behind him. We've had arguments about A-biogenesis which used the term biogenesis, thinking they were synonymous. We've had blanket statements made which are wrong by supporters who later denied having made them and then went on to supporting their denied statements! All this done using words which don't mean what they think they mean, so they're saying stuff that they don't even know they're saying. God help us if we'd ever got onto the remaining points. One poster, even after accepting that point 10 was wrong, went on to deny having accepted that point 10 was wrong and accused others of misrepresenting him. In the face of behaviour such as this it is very difficult to make headway.We all get impatient and annoyed when faced with tactics such as these, but this thread has served a very useful purpose. While there was never any chance of getting a coherent argument from Buz, it demonstrated in all it's awful clarity the depths that some will go to in a failed attempt to make their case. Any lurkers who read this thread will be struck by the astonishingly blatant lies which some will use in support of their God.By the end of the thread we have still been unable to get them to understand that how life arose has nothing to do with how evolution acted on that life. Time and again requests were made for explanations of how the origin would affect subequent evolution. There has not been a single post attempting to answer this, yet it goes to the very heart of their assertion.I think a new thread to discuss the remaining points would be valuable, not because we're in any danger of changing the minds of Buz and Chuck, but to demonstrate the idiocy of the original list for lurkers.