Science Law - Life Comes From Life

[leroy]

If yes to these two questions, then you must know your point is nonsensical because agency is not required for water to turn into wine, it's what grape plants do under certain circumstances.

If you are not following the conversation that I am having with HWN, then please do not comment, when we talk about water turning in to wine, we mean “like Jesus did it according to the bible”

In other words, if you have water in a cup, (or some other container) and this water turns in to wine, surly you would say that design is the best explanation.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Look at that, dandan/leroy ignored the vast majority of what I wrote (and it was not much in the first place), spent 9 minutes looking at my post, and mindlessly responded. Yet he wonders why I will not waste time quoting things for him.

I do not quote you, because why waste the time? You will just mindlessly respond after taking 5-20 minutes of looking at a post.

Second, no one has ever claimed it was solved or that natural abiogenesis happened with 100% certainty.

Ok so in conclusion :

Conclusion? Is this another example of dandan/leroy not knowing the correct definition of a word?

1 the “entropy problems” are there and have not been solved
2 we don’t know with 100% certainty that natural abiogenesis took place

If only you would learn to read the post that people write on this forum, instead of mindlessly responding, you would have already realized both of those.

3 there is room for reasonable doubt, perhaps "natural abiogenesis" didn’t took place

:lol:

I do not think you and reasonable have been acquaintances for many years now. There can be less than 100% certainty in something and it still be unreasonable to doubt it.

1 and 2 have been granted explicitly
What about 3?

No. Not granted.

Do you also agree with 3?

No.

When are you going to start defending magic? You know, defend JesusDidIt like you claimed you would? Or are you just going to keep ignoring this?

-|-​

Look at that, dandan/leroy actually took the time to re-look at my previews post. Perhaps old dogs can learn new tricks.

Like Jesus did in the Bible story. You know, the one were he used magic. Honestly, have you been missing this this whole time? I can go to any winery and see water turn into wine all day, that is not magic.

You are the one who is not following, we both agree that design would be the best explanation if water in a cup turns in to wine. agree?

:facepalm:

As I keep spelling out for you, since you were to dense to get it in the first place; If it were done by magic. Hince the reason I was talking about the Bible story. You know, the book with ghosts, talking snakes, and dead people coming back to life.

Because it would be very improbable that molecules from the air somehow organized themselves naturally in the exact ratio of molecules required to do wine, somehow ended up in the cup. agree?........if you disagree please explain under what basis do you afirm that water can not turn in to wine naturally Like Jesus did in the Bible?

You do realize that Jesus is magic, right? The story in the Bible is him preforming a magic trick. That is why it is not natural, because he is magically changing water into wine. Again, I have to now point this out to you since I now realize that you are to dense to have realized this was my point from the start.

I would argue that abiogenesis cant occur naturally for the same reason it would be very improbable that molecules somehow organize in the order and pattern required to create life,

Yeah. We know that you would argue this, yet you have failed to support it. Rumraket has done a fine job dispelling all your misconceptions on this topic. You have been reduced to just repeating yourself to him, while his explanations still stand un-refuted.

 

[leroy]

I

I do not think you and reasonable have been acquaintances for many years now. There can be less than 100% certainty in something and it still be unreasonable to doubt it.

1 and 2 have been granted explicitly
What about 3?

No. Not granted.

Fine, then here is our main point of disagreement, even though we both agree that these problems exists, you claim that these problems are minor, irrelevant and that don’t affect the “nature did it” hypothesis in any meaningful way.

Under what basis do you justify your claim?

Look at that, dandan/leroy ignored the vast majority of what I wrote (and it was not much in the first place), spent 9 minutes looking at my post, and mindlessly responded. Yet he wonders why I will not waste time quoting things for him.

1 Not answering for the 20th time something that has been answered 19 times doesn’t count as “ignoring”

2 the reason why I am asking you to quote my actual words, is because you are clearly misrepresenting what I said

3 why don’t you grow up and admit that 99% of your comments are red hearings intended to distract the attention. You are the one who is taking a positive position, you are the one who claims with almost 100% certainty that natural abiogenesis took place and that there is no room for reasonable doubt, the burden proof is on you, you have to provide very strong evidence for “natural abiogenesis” the evidence has to be so strong so that there would be no room for reasonable doubt.

As an example (analogy) we all agree (hopefully) that the universe probably will expand forever, but there is room for reasonable doubt, perhaps the universe is cyclic.

When you say that natural abiogenesis is almost 100% certain and beyond reasonable doubt , you are affirming that the evidence for natural abiogenesis is stronger in comparison with the evidence for the ever expanding universe.

So you have a heavy burden, lets see if you can carry it. So please support your assertion and teach me a lesson on how smart and honest people support their assertions.

Yeah. We know that you would argue this, yet you have failed to support it. Rumraket has done a fine job dispelling all your misconceptions on this topic. You have been reduced to just repeating yourself to him, while his explanations still stand un-refuted

This is as wrong as something can be, since I openly and clearly said that I grant all the conclusions presented in the articles that he provided.

 

[Sparhafoc]

If yes to these two questions, then you must know your point is nonsensical because agency is not required for water to turn into wine, it's what grape plants do under certain circumstances.

If you are not following the conversation that I am having with HWN, then please do not comment, when we talk about water turning in to wine, we mean “like Jesus did it according to the bible”

In other words, if you have water in a cup, (or some other container) and this water turns in to wine, surly you would say that design is the best explanation.

How very typical of you LEROY, such a shame.

i) You've ignored the contents of two long posts addressed directly to you full of ideas that are, I think, worth addressing. And you've done so with a pointless evasion.

ii) I am following the conversation, but funnily I don't recognize any previous iterations of the nonsensical spin you've just offered.

You've now made your argument into: if divine powers really did allow Jesus, incidentally God as the son-of-God as per the Bible, to turn water into wine in a vessel in his mortal shell's hand.... then 'design' is the best explanation.

How laughably inept.

After all the hundreds of words of nonsense you've posted in this thread, you're now saying that your totally pointless foray into fictional fermentation was solely to arrive at a begged question?

You deserve a definition in the Oxford Dictionary: LEROY, verb, to dig so far down a hole of your own creation, you pop out of your own rectum inside out.

iii) I will comment when I like, what I like, how I like, to whom I like, wherever I like insofar as LEROY's capacity to arbitrate my right to speak my mind is concerned. I've told you many times before what you can do with such commands.

iv) how inept you look when everyone notes you ignore so much content to protect your fragile little notions.

 

[Sparhafoc]

From whence cometh the cup? Are we going to go straight to question-begging?

Is it naive to be disappointed that LEROY is still so predictable?

when we talk about water turning in to wine, we mean “like Jesus did it according to the bible”

 

[leroy]

If you are not following the conversation that I am having with HWN, then please do not comment, when we talk about water turning in to wine, we mean “like Jesus did it according to the bible”

In other words, if you have water in a cup, (or some other container) and this water turns in to wine, surly you would say that design is the best explanation.


How very typical of you LEROY, such a shame.

i) You've ignored the contents of two long posts addressed directly to you full of ideas that are, I think, worth addressing. And you've done so with a pointless evasion.

ii) I am following the conversation, but funnily I don't recognize any previous iterations of the nonsensical spin you've just offered.

You've now made your argument into: if divine powers really did allow Jesus, incidentally God as the son-of-God as per the Bible, to turn water into wine in a vessel in his mortal shell's hand.... then 'design' is the best explanation.

How laughably inept.

After all the hundreds of words of nonsense you've posted in this thread, you're now saying that your totally pointless foray into fictional fermentation was solely to arrive at a begged question?

You deserve a definition in the Oxford Dictionary: LEROY, verb, to dig so far down a hole of your own creation, you pop out of your own rectum inside out.

iii) I will comment when I like, what I like, how I like, to whom I like, wherever I like insofar as LEROY's capacity to arbitrate my right to speak my mind is concerned. I've told you many times before what you can do with such commands.

iv) how inept you look when everyone notes you ignore so much content to protect your fragile little notions.

Well yes that would be a circular reasoning, of course if Jesus turn water in to wine, Jesus did it would be the best explanation (in fact the only possible explanation)

HWN Changed his original argument, because he was cornered, my original question was “what would convince you that a miracle took place”

His answer: if an individual who claims to be God, knocks my door and transforms a cup of water in to a cup of wine (+ doing other stuff like creating talking flowers) I would call it a miracle, if you would have followed the conversation you would have known this and you would have understand why your comments on fermentation are stupid and pointless.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well yes that would be a circular reasoning, of course if Jesus turn water in to wine, Jesus did it would be the best explanation (in fact the only possible explanation)

Well yes that would be circular reasoning, of course if God exists and imbued himself into a mortal body then used divine powers to change water into wine then it would be the best explanation of itself.

Of course, that's not what happened, and there's no reason whatsoever to believe that Jesus turned water into wine, nor that Jesus was God, nor that God exists.

HWN Changed his original argument, because he was cornered, my original question was “what would convince you that a miracle took place”

You've never cornered anyone in your life.

What actually happened is that he ran round you dozens of times paddling your little buttocks like the buffoon you are, but you still thought you were doing well because you didn't sit down.

His answer: if an individual who claims to be God, knocks my door and transforms a cup of water in to a cup of wine (+ doing other stuff like creating talking flowers) I would call it a miracle, if you would have followed the conversation you would have known this and you would have understand why your comments on fermentation are stupid and pointless.

My comments on fermentation utterly demolish your vacuous meandering, LEROY.

You can see that because you've just acknowledged that the only point you've managed to make is a begged question through and through.

To repeat an idea I just used in another post to you...

If I say that orcs are the foul product of Sauron's experiments on breeding humans and elves, that doesn't then provide a reason why you should believe that Lord of the Rings is a documentary because orcs don't actually exist.

There is no reason to believe that Jesus performed magical parlor tricks, that water can be turned into wine with divine power, or that divine power exists, or even that a divine entity exists.

You can't appeal to a fictional story as an analogy to validate an allegedly factual claim.

Sorry.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

No. Not granted.

Fine, then here is our main point of disagreement, even though we both agree that these problems exists, you claim that these problems are minor, irrelevant and that don’t affect the “nature did it” hypothesis in any meaningful way.

Under what basis do you justify your claim?

On the bases that there is evidence that nature did it. You know, like I have said from the start. If only you would learn to read my posts, so much time would not be wasted with me having to repeat myself.

Look at that, dandan/leroy ignored the vast majority of what I wrote (and it was not much in the first place), spent 9 minutes looking at my post, and mindlessly responded. Yet he wonders why I will not waste time quoting things for him.

1 Not answering for the 20th time something that has been answered 19 times doesn’t count as “ignoring”

:lol:

When have you answered anything? You know, it was better when you said you were ignoring things you felt irrelevant instead of just lying.

2 the reason why I am asking you to quote my actual words, is because you are clearly misrepresenting what I said

I am not, and here is the link again for anyone to see.

3 why don’t you grow up and admit that 99% of your comments are red hearings intended to distract the attention.

Seeing as how you only ever take a few minutes to glean my post and you do not actually know what red hearing means, this is nothing but a falsehood on your part.

You are the one who is taking a positive position, you are the one who claims with almost 100% certainty that natural abiogenesis took place and that there is no room for reasonable doubt, the burden proof is on you, you have to provide very strong evidence for “natural abiogenesis” the evidence has to be so strong so that there would be no room for reasonable doubt.

I have provided evidence, several times. Rumraket has provided evidence, several times as well. Beyond that, as I said, you and reasonable have not been acquaintances for some time now. Thus, forgive me if I do not take your doubts as reasonable. Especially from someone that admitted that they would deny evidence if it suited them and admitted to not reading sources when they are provided.

As an example (analogy) we all agree (hopefully) that the universe probably will expand forever, but there is room for reasonable doubt, perhaps the universe is cyclic.

When you say that natural abiogenesis is almost 100% certain and beyond reasonable doubt , you are affirming that the evidence for natural abiogenesis is stronger in comparison with the evidence for the ever expanding universe.

So you have a heavy burden, lets see if you can carry it. So please support your assertion and teach me a lesson on how smart and honest people support their assertions.

By providing evidence, again, as I have been doing since the beginning.

Yeah. We know that you would argue this, yet you have failed to support it. Rumraket has done a fine job dispelling all your misconceptions on this topic. You have been reduced to just repeating yourself to him, while his explanations still stand un-refuted

This is as wrong as something can be, since I openly and clearly said that I grant all the conclusions presented in the articles that he provided.

If you truly granted everything he has said, than you would not repeat yourself to him as if you had something new to say. He addressed your points to the letter.

HWN Changed his original argument, because he was cornered, my original question was “what would convince you that a miracle took place”

What a liar. It is telling that I am able to link to everything I say you did, yet there is no link to this event of me being cornered and having to change my original argument. Telling, but not unexpected from the lying slavery-apologist.

HWN Changed his original argument, because he was cornered, my original question was “what would convince you that a miracle took place”

You've never cornered anyone in your life.

What actually happened is that he ran round you dozens of times paddling your little buttocks like the buffoon you are, but you still thought you were doing well because you didn't sit down.

Thank you.

 

[leroy]

Of course, that's not what happened, and there's no reason whatsoever to believe that Jesus turned water into wine, nor that Jesus was God, nor that God exists.

Which is completely irrelevant to the conversation, you are not following,



I will help you so that you can catch up….HWN and I agree on that there are entropy problems (+ other type of problems) regarding the origin of live that have not been solved.

The only point of disagreement is on whether if these problems are minor and insignificant or if this problems are big obstacles and there is room for reasonable doubt regarding “natural abiogenesis”

 

[leroy]

On the bases that there is evidence that nature did it. You know, like I have said from the start. If only you would learn to read my posts, so much time would not be wasted with me having to repeat myself.

No you haven’t shown anything, relevant, all you are doing is posting the same random links to unrelated stuff.

Of all the models that the wiki article that you keep quoting is there any model that shows beyond reasonable doubt that molecules organized naturally in the order and pattern required to produce life? Would you provide an example of such a model?

I am not, and here is the link again for anyone to see.

I am fine with that, anyone who is honestly interested can look at the link and see how you are making a strawman.

I have provided evidence, several times. Rumraket has provided evidence, several times as well.

Rumraket provided evidence supporting the idea that early life was made out of aminoacids that where relatively abundant in the past. As I said before I grant his evidence.

What I am asking for is evidence that molecules naturally organize in the order and pattern required to produce life.



.

HWN Changed his original argument, because he was cornered, my original question was “what would convince you that a miracle took place”

What a liar. It is telling that I am able to link to everything I say you did, yet there is no link to this event of me being cornered and having to change my original argument. Telling, but not unexpected from the lying slavery-apologist.

[It is not a lie, and you know it, it is a fact that I did asked that question and it is a fact that you answered what I claim you answered,
Why don’t you prove that I am lying by quoting my actual original question and your original answer?

 

[Sparhafoc]

I am fine with that, anyone who is honestly interested can look at the link and see how you are making a strawman.

Nope, therefore I'm not honest?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Yet again you're trying to avoid the awkwardness of your position.

You're trying to argue for a deity - a supernatural creator-entity. Attempting to avoid this by "just arguing for a designer" is sophistry.

No problem, If you what I can defend my specific design hypothesis (the Christian God did it) against your favorite naturalistic theory,


so please provide a specific naturalistic hypothesis and let us know why you think that this specific naturalistic theory is better than my specific design theory.

You don't have a specific design theory.

You have a bunch of poorly formed assumptions packaged as assertions.

 

[leroy]

I am fine with that, anyone who is honestly interested can look at the link and see how you are making a strawman.

Nope, therefore I'm not honest?

No you are not honest

 

[leroy]

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:
Yet again you're trying to avoid the awkwardness of your position.

You're trying to argue for a deity - a supernatural creator-entity. Attempting to avoid this by "just arguing for a designer" is sophistry.


No problem, If you what I can defend my specific design hypothesis (the Christian God did it) against your favorite naturalistic theory,


so please provide a specific naturalistic hypothesis and let us know why you think that this specific naturalistic theory is better than my specific design theory.

.

Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,

As I made it clear in the quote, what I was saying is that I am willing to have a conversation where I defend my specific design hypothesis (jesus did it) against dragan´s or HWN´s favorite and specific naturalistic hypothesis.


I am still willing to have this conversation, I am just waiting for a “naturalist” to provide his specific naturalistic hypothesis and his justification for why is that hypothesis better than mine.


so in response to HWN:
I will defend Jesus did it, against any specific naturalistic hypothesis that you choose, Only after you have chosen your hypothesis and explain why you think is better than “Jesus did it”

 

[Sparhafoc]

I am fine with that, anyone who is honestly interested can look at the link and see how you are making a strawman.

Nope, therefore I'm not honest?

No you are not honest

Which stands as testament to what passes for reasoning inside your thick skull.

I think potatoes probably have higher processing power.

Of course, by 'anyone', you meant 'only LEROY'.

As usual, you toss these stupid assertions out to avoid the points others have made destroying your contentions.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,

How naive and inept, even after so many months of being educated.

You can't even 'prove' (read, provide evidence for) the existence of Jesus, or the existence of your god. Therefore, 'proving' or not being able to 'prove' what they allegedly did or didn't do is irrelevant.

Naturally, if Jesus doesn't actually exist, you can't 'prove' that Jesus did something - the most parsimonious explanation possible.

As I made it clear in the quote, what I was saying is that I am willing to have a conversation where I defend my specific design hypothesis (jesus did it) against dragan´s or HWN´s favorite and specific naturalistic hypothesis.

You don't have a specific design hypothesis, so stop pretending.

You have an assertion, ignorance, and a terminal disregard for reason and reality.

I am still willing to have this conversation, I am just waiting for a “naturalist” to provide his specific naturalistic hypothesis and his justification for why is that hypothesis better than mine.

It's not a hypothesis because you are not defining a testable model that seeks to explain empirical evidence.

You look like a total clown when you use words you clearly don't understand. The typical Creationist pastime of aspiring to scientific legitimacy while failing to maintain anything like the standards of rigour required to do science.

so in response to HWN:
I will defend Jesus did it, against any specific naturalistic hypothesis that you choose, Only after you have chosen your hypothesis and explain why you think is better than “Jesus did it”

Specific natural hypotheses require empirical evidence... got any?

Then so much for defending your religious convictions.

 

[leroy]

You can't even 'prove' (read, provide evidence for) the existence of Jesus, or the existence of your god. Therefore, 'proving' or not being able to 'prove' what they allegedly did or didn't do is irrelevant.

Irrelevant, you are not following.

The point is that I told Dragan that we could ether have a conversation where he defends natural abiogenesis in the general sense and I defend design in a general sense or we can have a conversation where he defends a specific naturalistic hypothesis and I would defend “Jesus did it”

I was simply being open minded and letting dragan decide what type f conversation should we have. (at the end Dragan didn’t answer)

The thing is that anyone who reads WHN quote without looking at the link would have a wrong impression on what I actually said.

he_who_is_nobody
When are you going to start defending magic? You know, defend JesusDidIt like you claimed you would? Or are you just going to keep ignoring this?

This is why I asked WHN to quote my actual words

Anyone who would have followed the conversation would know that the ball is the atheist side and that I would defend “jesus did it” until the atheist adopts a specific naturalistic hypothesis and explains why is that better than “Jesus did it” I am not ignoring anything it is just that the ball is in the atheist side.

And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

On the bases that there is evidence that nature did it. You know, like I have said from the start. If only you would learn to read my posts, so much time would not be wasted with me having to repeat myself.

No you haven’t shown anything, relevant, all you are doing is posting the same random links to unrelated stuff.

:lol:

Only someone as dense and dishonest as dandan/leroy would think linking to a list of current models for abiogenesis is unrelated and random to a conversation about the origin of life.

:lol:

Of all the models that the wiki article that you keep quoting is there any model that shows beyond reasonable doubt that molecules organized naturally in the order and pattern required to produce life? Would you provide an example of such a model?

You mean like I did here back in September? Hopefully, you will not run from it this time.

I am not, and here is the link again for anyone to see.

I am fine with that, anyone who is honestly interested can look at the link and see how you are making a strawman.

I guess straw-man is another word we can put on the list of words dandan/leroy does not understand. That or he is just lying, again.

I have provided evidence, several times. Rumraket has provided evidence, several times as well.

Rumraket provided evidence supporting the idea that early life was made out of aminoacids that where relatively abundant in the past. As I said before I grant his evidence.

What I am asking for is evidence that molecules naturally organize in the order and pattern required to produce life.

:facepalm:

Which he provided. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

HWN Changed his original argument, because he was cornered, my original question was “what would convince you that a miracle took place”

What a liar. It is telling that I am able to link to everything I say you did, yet there is no link to this event of me being cornered and having to change my original argument. Telling, but not unexpected from the lying slavery-apologist.

[It is not a lie, and you know it, it is a fact that I did asked that question and it is a fact that you answered what I claim you answered,
Why don’t you prove that I am lying by quoting my actual original question and your original answer?

The lie is that you cornered me and that I changed my answer. Beyond that, you are making the claim, you provide the links to demonstrate you are right. Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.

Nope, therefore I'm not honest?

No you are not honest

:lol:

Again, how sad can one person get.

Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,

When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

As I made it clear in the quote, what I was saying is that I am willing to have a conversation where I defend my specific design hypothesis (jesus did it) against dragan´s or HWN´s favorite and specific naturalistic hypothesis.

You mean like when I provided one here? However, you did not defend anything, you just ran.

I am still willing to have this conversation, I am just waiting for a “naturalist” to provide his specific naturalistic hypothesis and his justification for why is that hypothesis better than mine.

Done, and to sum it up; because there is actual evidence for it. Now, we wait to see you run away, again.

so in response to HWN:
I will defend Jesus did it, against any specific naturalistic hypothesis that you choose, Only after you have chosen your hypothesis and explain why you think is better than “Jesus did it”

:facepalm:

So much time would not be wasted if you only took the time to read my posts. What you are asking for was provided back in September (and before that), yet we have you here making mountains out of nothing (there is not even a molehill) in this case. Honestly, how sad can one person get?

The thing is that anyone who reads WHN quote without looking at the link would have a wrong impression on what I actually said.

he_who_is_nobody
When are you going to start defending magic? You know, defend JesusDidIt like you claimed you would? Or are you just going to keep ignoring this?

This is why I asked WHN to quote my actual words

What? Me linking to your post and using your own words when talking about it would give people the wrong impression how exactly? Did you not say you would defend JesusDidIt In that post? Was that not you saying, "No problem, If you what I can defend my specific design hypothesis (the Christian God did it) against your favorite naturalistic theory,"? I guess one has to be as dense as dandan/leroy to see how I am giving a wrong impression there.

And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.

Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You can't even 'prove' (read, provide evidence for) the existence of Jesus, or the existence of your god. Therefore, 'proving' or not being able to 'prove' what they allegedly did or didn't do is irrelevant.

Irrelevant, you are not following.

Oh I am following the conversation, just not your transparent attempts at misdirection.

The point is that I told Dragan that we could ether have a conversation where he defends natural abiogenesis in the general sense and I defend design in a general sense or we can have a conversation where he defends a specific naturalistic hypothesis and I would defend “Jesus did it”

And pray tell, what the fuck would be the point of that?

All you'd do is assert or cite the Bible - that's not equal. It's like having a grand battle between a fleet of AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and a dude with a peashooter, it's not a fair or balanced contest in the slightest. Fuck off back to the Bronze Age where you mentally belong - there your ideas would no doubt be very impressive to all the ignorant savages.

Of course you want to have this conversation because you just want the chance to repeatedly express your vapid belief in your handed-down and uncritically accepted belief system, but in reality, we all know how much utility your belief system has in terms of explanatory power because there were no fucking inventions or discoveries made as a result of it in the thousand years it held primacy over the Western world's minds.

As soon as we abandoned it, that's when we really started making sense of the universe and our place in it.

Sorry, but fanatic literalist assumptions don't have a place at the modern table of discourse.

Further, we've literally only just had an example of what you consider 'defending a design hypothesis' and it amounts to you wholly begging the question with fictional scenarios.

What a joke you are, LEROY. Utterly clueless in every way.

I was simply being open minded and letting dragan decide what type f conversation should we have. (at the end Dragan didn’t answer)

I expect that the list of things Dragan has that would be more appealing to do is considerable.

You're like a horny dog rubbing itself against our legs - don't be surprised if no one wants to aid and abet that.

The thing is that anyone who reads WHN quote without looking at the link would have a wrong impression on what I actually said.

The thing is that if people have read the conversation, they know you're playing your standard game of evasion, goalpost shifting, and the occasional attempt to sow misdirection between other members.

Thus the only way someone might possibly be fooled here is if they happened to have never read any of your other posts, and then they might be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. No one who's interacted with you here before is remotely inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.

he_who_is_nobody
When are you going to start defending magic? You know, defend JesusDidIt like you claimed you would? Or are you just going to keep ignoring this?

This is why I asked WHN to quote my actual words

Anyone who would have followed the conversation would know that the ball is the atheist side and that I would defend “jesus did it” until the atheist adopts a specific naturalistic hypothesis and explains why is that better than “Jesus did it” I am not ignoring anything it is just that the ball is in the atheist side.

Fuck off, LEROY - your gymnastics is not remotely interesting to anyone, you lack any ability to perform any of the grand claims you make about yourself, and no one is obliged to jump through hoops on your command.

Get over yourself, eh?

And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.

Except that everyone can see that he cited your exact words, that his rendition of the exchange is accurate, and you're just being a total fucking LEROY.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Leroy, I already answered you back on page 22.

Your response was to assert that a non-existent "law of biogenesis" prevents life from coming into being through natural processes.

On page 23, Sparhafoc addressed this nonsense in several consecutive posts.

I saw no reason to discuss this matter further with you - hence why I stopped posting.

Kindest regards,

James