Have you had time to READ the papers by Szostak and Sutherland, demonstrating that the relevant chemical reactions WORK via actual laboratory experiments?
You don’t need to, they demonstrate the facts elegantly without any input from you. Nor I imagine is anyone surprised that your initial hubris is being deflated by @Calilasseia’s fastidious reproduction of objective evidence.
In your case it’s possible the sententious and dishonest tone you set is causal, and you certainly provoked that response from @CyberLN, and since this is just one isolated response as well, this again merely highlights the dishonesty you have revealed throughout. Try showing some humility and integrity and you might learn something from many of the posters here. Though of course you;d need to have an open mind for that, and blind adherence to irrational superstition is not conducive.
You’ve had 7 months to offer some examples of the very good reasons you claim exist to believe the gospels were supernatural in origin, or any objective evidence for any deity, and have offered just evasion and obfuscation. So this hypocrisy will be challenged every time from now on.
1 Like
And the duplicity in-tray is full again …
Since your “question” was merely dishonest apologetic rhetoric, there was no point in wasting time with an answer.
I thought you were touting Lee Cronin as one such individual? Oh wait, he’s working on an entirely different, and competing, project.
Stop lying about this. I’ve already told you that I have no problem with honest questioning of postulates. Dishonest questioning such as yours, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.
Bullshit. oh wait, how many actual peer reviewed scientific papers from the relevant discipline have I presented here to date, all of them documenting direct experimental test of the relevant postulates? And all of which you have mendaciously avoided even acknowledging the existence of, let alone reading?
Stop lying.
Blatant projection.
Now, once again, since I have asked you if you have actually READ any of the papers you claim to be in a position to dismiss, your above duplicitious apologetic fabrications are just that - duplicitous apologetic fabrications. Which also expose the lie you peddled when you claimed you were a “scientist”. Because any proper scientist, when faced with a claim about work of other scientists, would turn to the relevant works by those scientists, and determine independently if the claim in question was a valid one. Turning to the primary sources is one of the FIRST actions that a proper scientist would take, NOT treat third-hand assertions uncritically as fact the way you did, and certainly not third-hand assertions from questionable sources.
Once again, your post is a tissue of lies from start to finish, and a particularly odious example thereof at that.
1 Like
You are quite aware it wasn’t an atheist argument! You are being dishonest. I told you to fuck off because you pulled some parental bullshit on me and you know it.
1 Like
You are quite aware it wasn’t an atheist argument! You are being dishonest. I told you to fuck off because you pulled some parental bullshit on me and you know it.
1 Like
It is also of course another of his relentlessly dishonest poisoning of the well fallacies. Doubly dishonest of course, is the faux indignation at being told to fuck off, as if this is somehow more egregious than being persistently lied about and misrepresented, as he has done from the very first about atheists, careful to to do this in a generic way, but no less trolling for all that. You will note his pretence of afrontary in accusing me of “personal insults” when I pointed at evidence of his mendacity, yet it is ok for him to lie relentlessly, if that is not trolling, then one can only marvel at that lack of self awareness.
Which is worse, relentless mendacity, or someone pointing to evidence of that mendacity, it’s hard to imagine anyone would think the latter to be wrong, but the former ok, yet that is precisely what @Sherlock-Holmes did.
FYI, well done everyone involved in getting the site back up and running. Much appreciated as always.
2 Likes
That website is a rather desperate move I’m afraid. It’s likely nothing more than a weak AI based screen scraping site. My source is Stanfod University, one of the leading science institutions in the world:
it appears your self congratulatory post was a tad…how shall I put it…ridiculous. Read the site’s about page, the English is even worse than some of the writing I see in this forum:
We pay proper attention to reading your compliments and suggestions and will our best to overcome weakness in providing you the perfect package. Hope you will give more support than we want in order to give us consolation, confidence, and encouragement. Please contact us via our About us page for further information on Popularbio or e-mail us at: (biographymask@gmail.com ) for any technical/ non-technical inquiries.
It’s a kid’s hobby project at best.
And shame on you for not checking, is this an example of the scientific “rigor” we can expect from you two?
The site was suspiciously also edited in Sept, 2023 - I wonder what those changes were and who made them…
So that’s a “no” then, there are no practicing prebiotic chemists who do not already believe in abiogenesis. If you want to argue that there are then supply evidence please.
I am not a scientist and I was not conducting science, this is a debate forum,a nd your track record for dishonesty is manifest. I don’t particularly care whether he’s an atheist or not as I said ordinally, since not believing in imaginary deities on its own doesn’t tell me anything about someone’s rationale or their claims. I leave sweeping biased generalisation about atheists to you, you seem to enjoy it.
So that’s a no from you then, you lied when you claimed “there are many good reasons to believe the gospels were supernatural in origin”?
You seem to want to berate someone on this one issue, even though he has answered and you don’t like the answer, while ignoring countless questions addressed to you.
Discussing the historicity and veracity of the New Testament with someone unschooled in said discipline would be as fruitless as discussing relativity with an unschooled person.
If you’re truly interested in reviewing the gospels and their credibility there are plenty of scholarly sites that can do a better job than I.
So definitely a no then you did lie, since you can’t present a single good reason for your superstitious claim. Two things to note, this is a no true Scotsman fallacy if ever there was one, and when I first asked you, you did respond and presented an argumentum ad populum fallacy citing the subjective and unevidenced beliefs of biblical scholars and theologians. Odd that you would lead with a known logical fallacy is you had anything credible, the only inference is that you were indulging hubristic rhetoric, and are lying to save face.
One last point is very important, principles of validation fr historical claims are available for anyone to see, I have posted on them here many times for apologists like you, who wrongly conflate the subjective superstitious beliefs of biblical scholars as scholarly, both generically like the irrational bare appeals to numbers that you used, and specifically involving appeal to authority fallacies that I have seen used a lot.
The fact you resorted to unevidenced and personal claim about me here, to evade offering even a single example to support your claim, is manifestly an attempt to evade both my question, and supporting your sweeping claim. Again the hypocrisy cannot be lost on anyone, alongside your petulant repletion of your question to @Calilasseia which he answered, but not to your satisfaction.
Funny how you failed to provide that information before I began my fact checking, isn’t it? More of your duplicity.
It’s also notable that despite your mendacious bleating about “scientific rigour”, you never once bothered to check the actual scientific papers by Szostak and Sutherland , but instead uncritically accepted third hand assertions about the contents. You’re in no position to lecture anyone on discoursive conduct as a result.
1 Like
But you think it’s acceptable to treat third hand assertions about scientific papers as fact, without checking the actual papers themselves.
Hypocrite.
2 Likes
You had only to ask me. Attacking my integrity for not answering an unasked question is a bit low, even for you.
1 Like
YOU were the one presenting the requisite assertions, therefore YOU were required to support those assertions. Basic Discourse 101.
Though your refusal to answer numerous honest questions presented to you disqualifies you as being in a position to lecture me on discoursive conduct.
1 Like
If you’d wanted a source for my stating that Lee Cronin was an atheist you only had to ask, instead you found some ridiculous website that said he wasn’t an atheist and then had the temerity to imply I’d been in error when in fact it was you who was in error, do we see an admission of error though? do we see an apology? of course we don’t because atheists by definition are incapable of error.
Spare me your hypocritical bleating. You’ve been asked to answer pertinent questions repeatedly here, and have responded with obfuscation, bluster and cant.
Stop lying.
3 Likes
No, but if they wandered in and accidentally heard the word that’s different. I mean it’s not like they are being forced to unwittingly attend churches, and being indoctrinated into irrational archaic superstitious prejudices and bigotries. Or have their educations blighted by creationist lies and propaganda.
Compared to that accidently hearing or reading the odd vituperation is pretty tame. I can’t speak for others but I had heard pretty much all there was in the school playground by the time I was 7 years old, I can’t say it left any lasting damage.
1 Like