So you’re saying life doesn’t exist? I have to say I am dubious, I also know natural phenomena are possible, so before I can believe your risible claim ruling out any as yet undiscovered natural explanation, you will need to offer sufficient objective evidence that supernatural causation is even possible, and then your work will of course all be before you.
FYI your argument is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is by far the most used logical fallacy by religious apologists I have encountered. Then again religion is and always has been an appeal to mystery, and the claim a deity dd anything has no explanatory powers whatsoever.
James Tour pseudoscientific claims about creationism are well known and well debunked by the way. I do hope you try to cite his credentials though, I dare you.
Oh your god, you did it…well I did warn you…
Hmm, I am going to need an irony meter, you just broke mine.
Kapow, and the hits just keep on coming…odd how credentials only seem to matter to you when they belong to someone you want to use an appeal to authority fallacy.
#FYI not knowing or being unable to explain, how life first emerged doe not evidence any deity or anything supernatural. That unevidenced assumption is not scientific at all, it’s not even a sound rational argument.
They are contradictory claims, stand by them alternately if you want, the hypocrisy is as manifest as the risible bias.
Ah the old appeal to authority, propped up with a straw man by oversimplifying the position of others. I don’t regard credentials alone as sufficient, as that would be an appeal to authority fallacy, like the one you used when you touted creationist espousing inexplicable magic, but with credentials in science. You also described someone as “a fake professor” which is breathtaking hypocrisy since you also claimed credentials are unimportant?
So what, I have met plenty of bat shit crazy atheists, espousing insane nonsense. Not that I am suggesting this to be the case here just for clarity. Merely pointing out that I attach no credence to any assertions or ideas based on whether someone believes in a deity.
Even assuming this is true, and I am not, not being to explain how something happened, is not an open door for unevidenced superstition. So this overused tired old canard based an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is not going to get any traction. I shall let @Calilasseia deal with the scientific claims, as he is busy tearing you a new one already.
No, but I’m incline to accept that they are elite experts in the field they received the award for, rather than making an appeal to authority fallacy here as you are doing by citing the subjective religious beliefs one “scientist”, based on the fallacy of using unevidenced assumption a deity did stuff using magic, because we don’t currently have an explanation for something. On that basis we’d still think earthquakes, tsunamis and lightning were supernatural events from an angry deity.
I am getting tired of pointing out that not having an explanation, is not an open door for unevidenced superstition, it is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
What do you imagine peer reviewed means?
Brilliant, I have never seen a creationist appeal to authority so neatly slam dunked.
Another bullseye.
You owe me another irony meter.
