Your shitty argument reminds me of this meme…
4 Likes
…and then just move their deity into a new gap of course. T’was ever thus…
But…but…but…what else done it then?
Eww, no deity deserves to see that…Nigella Lawson cooking a sumptuous dessert, while I try to pull it clean orf… 
With some feeling you cunts, it means nothing if you don’t convince yourself it is working… 
Actually, scientists do have answers for both, as even an elementary perusal of the relevant peer reviewed scientific literature reveals.
Indeed, with regard to the origin of the universe, I’ve already covered in some detail Steinhardt and Turok’s braneworld collision model here.
Likewise, with respect to the origin of life, over 100,000 peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, the laboratory experiments establishing that every chemical reaction implicated in the origin of life works. The research in question has now moved on to successful experiments with synthetic model protocells. Again, I’ve devoted considerable posting effort to this topic here myself.
Mythology fanboys have nothing to offer here but the usual mix of bluster, ex recto apologetic fabrications and outright lies, just as is the case with their feculent prattling about evolution.
Indeed, you’ll find I’ve been relentless with respect to pounding their bullshit on all three topics.
1 Like
I think they already know this is a strong argument for them. I don’t think avoiding the subject gets us anywhere closer to a resolution.
I think you mean String Theory. There are many loose ends in String Theory and there isn’t agreement within the scientific community that String Theory is valid.
What argument do theists use that you think is their best argument?
What the scientific literature reveals is that there is a gap right at the point where theists insert their god. When scientists can generate life from non-life, that gap will be filled. When scientists have a cohesive explanation about the origin of the universe we inhabit, then that gap will be filled as well. I have no doubt they will do so.
And I agree, postulating that a god MUST exist because of that gap just isn’t looking at the data objectively. There are many explanations, but what we need is better evidence.
Theists don’t have answers to these two questions–they have assertions–assertions without evidence.
1 Like
Good one! I’ll have to remember that.
In fact, “string theory” should actually be called the “string hypothesis” because “theory” is a word used in science to denote something that has been extensively tested and shown to be correct. It’s well-known that “string theory” is virtually untestable, and, in fact, makes few, if any predictions that can be tested.
Actually, if you read the prebiotic chemistry literature, the “gap” is tiny. I’ve already mentioned that the researchers in the field have conducted successful experiments with synthetic model protocells, and that on its own should be enough to scupper most, if not all, of the mythology fanboy cant on this topic.
Plus, with respect to Steinhardt and Turok’s braneworld collision model for the origin of the universe, this includes a testable prediction, one that we now have the apparatus to test. The mythology fanboys have nothing of this sort for their “Magic Man did it” fantasy.
Here’s a good question for you.
What ever gave you the idea that Atheists believe in Creationism Theory?
No shit. But man did create religion.
Figured you were going to knock anything that doesn’t line up with that holy book of yours.
And what makes you think that proselytizing religious theory to a group of Atheists was ever going to work out for you?
Well they’re wrong obviously, as I explained it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to imply any belief has merit because of the lack of an alternative, ipso facto it is a weak argument.
I never said we should avoid it, on the contrary if one care about the truth then one must in a debate identify weak irrational arguments. I have no idea what is being resolved, or how? My purpose for debate is to seek the truth by critically examining all ideas and beliefs, religious faith is the very antithesis of that process.
It seems unlikely that this will change, as the core belief is usually considered an immutable truth, the theists I encounter who become atheists generally do so because they learn to reason rationally. They must want to do this of course, and if they know it will likely mean losing their belief, they are generally not interested in thinking rationally.
Exactly, and that fact alone is sufficient reason to withhold belief, I need no alternative to their assertions in order to disbelieve them, indeed it is irrational to claim otherwise.