Do you think/believe that your body was designed/created?

[McBell]

So whole the world think abiogenesis is used by atheists to deny creation, you don't know that ?

Wrong.
Only creationists make the bold empty strawman claim that atheists "deny" creation.

 

[McBell]

Let's analyze it :

Godobeyer:
If you want to believe in lie, that your problem.
theory abiogenesis is not fact.

Mestemia :
If you want to believe in lie, that your problem.
Creation is not fact.


Actuatly it's about please.

It's just dishonest again ,if you try say that you meant by rate :
I respect/appreciate Mestemia because he repeated what Godobeyer said, and he said "creation is not fact".

Still trying to foist your misunderstanding into it?

 

[McBell]

Some atheists use it as an argument for atheism, yes. But it is not intrinsically a "pro-atheist" idea. Do you know what 'intrinsically' means? If not I can explain.



Why are you second-guessing my motives? I thought his post did a good job at pointing out the emptiness of your assertion. That's it.

He is getting extremely upset.
You can tell because his sentence structure is much worse.

 

[Kirran]

He is getting extremely upset.
You can tell because his sentence structure is much worse.

I just don't know what's happening at all.

But I hope you're happy at the amount he's had me repeat my appreciation of your post which I liked the point of but did not agree with the word-for-word of!

 

[Kirran]

What does it mean to deny creation, exactly? Presumably it's about denying a personal intent to it?

 

[McBell]

I just don't know what's happening at all.

But I hope you're happy at the amount he's had me repeat my appreciation of your post which I liked the point of but did not agree with the word-for-word of!

i understand why you tagged that post.
I seriously doubt that he ever will.

 

[McBell]

What does it mean to deny creation, exactly? Presumably it's about denying a personal intent to it?

The way he is using it seems to indicate he is claiming that atheists use abiogenesis to refuse "admitting to the truth" of creation.
Now since creation has not been shown to be the truth, it cannot be denied.

 

[Kirran]

The way he is using it seems to indicate he is claiming that atheists use abiogenesis to refuse "admitting to the truth" of creation.
Now since creation has not been shown to be the truth, it cannot be denied.

You've managed to extract more meaning than I have.

 

[Godobeyer]

Sadly for you, your links do not support your claim.

The video and links proved you wrong and lieing.

You claim that atheists never used abiogenesis to "deny" creation.is big lie,in links you caught defend abiogenesis to deny the creationism.

 

[McBell]

The video and links proved you wrong and lieing.

You claim that atheists never used abiogenesis to "deny" creation.is big lie,in links you caught defend abiogenesis to deny the creationism.

That you do not understand the definition of the word "deny" is your downfall.
That you refuse to learn only digs you deeper.

 

[Godobeyer]

That you do not understand the definition of the word "deny" is your downfall.
That you refuse to learn only digs you deeper.

Ah,it's about "refuse/refute" , you know what I meaning.

 

[McBell]

Ah,it's about "refuse/refute" , you know what I meaning.

You are claiming that atheists refuse to accept the truth of creation, right?

 

[Godobeyer]

You are claiming that atheists refuse to accept the truth of creation, right?

That's was long discussion with Kirran about atheists used theory of abiogenesis to refute the creationism/God.

 

[McBell]

That's was long discussion with Kirran about atheists used theory of abiogenesis to refute the creationism/God.

You did not answer the question.

Care to try it again?

 

[Godobeyer]

You did not answer the question.

Care to try it again?

It was not my point in discussion with kirran.
but ok.
Yes,every theist may think that way.

 

[Godobeyer]

Some atheists use it as an argument for atheism, yes. But it is not intrinsically a "pro-atheist" idea. Do you know what 'intrinsically' means? If not I can explain.

pro-atheist or top important argument seems same to me.

Why are you second-guessing my motives? I thought his post did a good job at pointing out the emptiness of your assertion. That's it.

I see no motivation , he don't creat new point, he cut/paste my post as usual ,then reject the creation( your belief).

 

[Kirran]

pro-atheist or top important argument seems same to me.

I can see why you'd think so, but I see a distinction myself.

I see no motivation , he don't creat new point, he cut/paste my post as usual ,then reject the creation( your belief).

The way he made the point was quite subtle. He was essentially turning your statement around on you, so it was clear the structure you were using. By making the opposite baseless assertion in the same format, it made it clearer. For someone still learning English, this is a subtle point, and it is somewhat unfair that we've expected you to understand it. Shall we leave it?

 

[McBell]

It was not my point in discussion with kirran.
but ok.
Yes,every theist may think that way.

Please present the "truth" of creation.
Not your beliefs.
Not the beliefs of others.
The "truth" of creation.

 

[Godobeyer]

Please present the "truth" of creation.
Not your beliefs.
Not the beliefs of others.
The "truth" of creation.

Forget/isolate the names that you belief in.
and go look to mirror,and imagine how your body get encoded in zygote.

We theists see it as truth of creation,our imgination don't stop at limite of labels "biology,natural selection...etc".

 

[McBell]

Forget/isolate the names that you belief in.
and go look to mirror,and imagine how your body get encoded in zygote.

We theists see it as truth of creation,our imgination don't stop at limite of labels "biology,natural selection...etc".

and you accuse others of dishonesty?
Your hypocrisy is noted.