She did it again - ros claims - The first life formed by chemistry

ferengi

Well-known member
She claims - The first life formed by chemistry -


Post - 348

Where is her evidence?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
...
Where is her evidence?
Are we counting links as evidence today, ferengi? I so, we can address this.

If not - and that is your usual position - then you have zero evidence rossum actually said that, so it is not worth addressing.
 

ferengi

Well-known member
Are we counting links as evidence today, ferengi? I so, we can address this.
If not - and that is your usual position - then you have zero evidence rossum actually said that, so it is not worth addressing.
Avoiding the OP - prove it
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Avoiding the OP - prove it
Far from it, I specifically addressed the fact that you have no evidence for your claim in the OP. I will do it again:

Your OP is based on a claim with, according to your usual rules, zero evidence. Therefore your OP is nonsense.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
FALSE - since you presented no evidence ros' claims are true you aovid
I am asking you to support the claim that rossum even said it. If you just made it up, why does anyone need to address it?

The simple fact is you cannot support your claim - not according to your own rules.

It is almost like you made it up!
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
She claims - The first life formed by chemistry -


Post - 348

Where is her evidence?
What a minute. Where did the chemicals come from?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Are we counting links as evidence today, ferengi? I so, we can address this.

If not - and that is your usual position - then you have zero evidence rossum actually said that, so it is not worth addressing.
deflection time?

Can you apply "chemistry" and demonstrate life forming from non-life?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Irrelevant. The first life formed by chemistry, and chemistry is not a 'chance alone' process. If chemistry were a chance process, then there would be equal amounts of H₂O and HO₂ in the universe. There are not. You need to include the non-random effects of chemistry in your calculation for it to have any relevance

Wild assertions from Darwin's dullards.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Shifting the burden - avoiding the OP and still evidence for evo
The burden is on you to support the claim you made in the OP. Hmm, I am seeing a pattern here.
  • You demand others support their claims, but consistently fail to support your own
  • You accuse me of shifting the burden of proof when that is exactly what you are doing
  • You declare links are not evidence, then use links as evidence
  • You falsely accuse me of avoiding the OP, and yet that is exactly what you do (eg here).
  • You accuse others of projection (see here), and yet all the above.
The word for that pattern is "hypocrisy".

I appreciate you will continue to do this, because that is what you do; it is clear you have nothing of substance to contribute. But I can - and will - expose you for what you are.

May be you should read what Jesus said about this?

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
...
13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

I see even some Christians are getting wise to your shenanigans now.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
The burden is on you to support the claim you made in the OP. Hmm, I am seeing a pattern here.
  • You demand others support their claims, but consistently fail to support your own
  • You accuse me of shifting the burden of proof when that is exactly what you are doing
  • You declare links are not evidence, then use links as evidence
  • You falsely accuse me of avoiding the OP, and yet that is exactly what you do (eg here).
  • You accuse others of projection (see here), and yet all the above.
The word for that pattern is "hypocrisy".

I appreciate you will continue to do this, because that is what you do; it is clear you have nothing of substance to contribute. But I can - and will - expose you for what you are.

May be you should read what Jesus said about this?

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
...
13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

I see even some Christians are getting wise to your shenanigans now.
Normally, a request to support claims, identifying a shifting of the burden, etc., are legitimate moves, but they all can be abused when applied indiscriminately and hypocritically. Just like a child can continually ask "why" in response to a previous question of "why," so too can an intellectually dishonest poster imitate a bot and repeat the elements of the pattern you have identified.

It's important to name it and call it out when we see it. Thanks.
 

ferengi

Well-known member
Normally, a request to support claims, identifying a shifting of the burden, etc., are legitimate moves, but they all can be abused when applied indiscriminately and hypocritically. Just like a child can continually ask "why" in response to a previous question of "why," so too can an intellectually dishonest poster imitate a bot and repeat the elements of the pattern you have identified.

It's important to name it and call it out when we see it. Thanks.
You are avoiding the OP - because you must
 
Top