No. I have many beliefs. I've told you some of them, but I suspect you've transformed them. For example, I've told you that I believe that life must have come from a supernatural source or arisen naturalistically, because I can think of no other possibilities. I've also told you that I have no way to rule either of these in or out, so I have not done so. I also told you that I consider any naturalistic explanation more likely than any supernaturalistic one, so that although I cannot eliminate either of these, I can order them in terms of likelihood both because only one has supporting evidence, and one is much more parsimonious than the other, meaning that I believe that naturalisitic abiogenesis is probably the correct choice (I add naturalistic to abiogenesis to distinguish it from the supernaturalistic abiogenesis of the creationist).
And, as ever, you have made no attempt to explain why you consider that analysis flawed, just that you do (dismissal without rebuttal), which is meaningless in dialectic, and the end of debate.
I'm guessing that you have converted all of that to me believing in abiogenesis by faith, and that being my religion.
Yes I have, but since you refuse to look at that evidence, of course, you see nothing to rebut.
But you rebut nothing, not just that. I've explained to you why no other form of dissent but rebuttal has any meaning or value in dialectic. If one doesn't give a counterargument, then the discussion ended with the last unrebutted comment. No other form of dissent has any persuasive power, such as calling something impossible without explaining why, or calling sound conclusions faith, as you have seen. Such comments are treated as unsupported claims, which are treated as opinion as persuasive as saying that one likes chocolate better than vanilla.
But they are science. They are hypotheses proposed to account for the existence of the universe. Maybe to you, science is confirmed conclusions. That would be incorrect.
*********
Why do you ignore so much of what is written to you? I made what I thought was a compelling argument for creationist apologetics being counterproductive when offered to scientifically literate critical thinkers. I even mentioned that no creationist has ever responded to that argument, which I would expect to be important to them, enough to make one want to explain why one disagrees if he does. But that's never going to happen, is it?
I wonder why. What is one to make of your indifference to this? I have to conclude that since you have no interest in investigating even the possibility that I am correct, you either didn't understand what was written and so naturally can't disagree, or that you don't care either way if you are damaging creationism or your ethos, which seems odd. Either of those possibilities would motivate me to rebut the argument if I could, or reconsider my position if I couldn't.
But not the creationists. They just ignore and proceed as before without comment, not even the usual hand waving, which at least indicates that the comment was seen and rejected even if not rebutted. I know that they and I don't think alike, but some of these differences are inscrutable to me. I can understand having different beliefs or values, but not being so different that one has no interest in how he is perceived when arguing, or what effect his claims are having on his audience. I suppose I never will if I can't get a single creationist willing to discuss the matter.
Yes, Paul's message varied from Jesus's. This has already been covered. I don't see any value in discussing how again. You also don't rebut, so why present the same arguments to be waved away again?
Last edited:
