Unprovable Atheistic Evolutionary Notions

[KillerArgument]

I have presented my arguments in proper logical form. They cannot be refuted. My intent was to show you that you atheistic evolutionists BELIEVE in a SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE position.

I didn't need to do victory laps. It's obvious I have won this debate by virtue of the fact that no one has even attempted to refute the two logical arguments I have presented.

You wanna know why? Because Mr Immature over here (me), happens to be RIGHT.

The complaint several times was about me being against linking stuff excessively in internet debates.

But because there is no winning response to my two logical arguments, they were left untouched.

They were left untouched because you know you can't win. YOU BELIEVE IN NONSENSE, AND I BELIEVE THAT AT SOME LEVEL YOU KNOW IT.

Fellers, debate is about WINNING, and I JUST WON.

In short, you believe in nonsense, unsupported by science.

Wanna hear what killed all your arguments again? The killer argument? Here it is (AMPLIFIED FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED):


Atheistic evolution is held by FAITH. It is LOGICALLY AND RATIONALLY UNPROVABLE and SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Want absolute proof?


Atheism:

1) Unprovable statements can only be held by FAITH.

2) "There is no God" (Strong Atheism) is an UNPROVABLE statement.

3) Therefore, atheism can only be held by FAITH.



Evolutionary Origins:

1)Life from non-life (spontaneous generation) is a SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY. (Louis Pasteur)

2) Evolutionary origins demand life from non-life.

3) Therefore, evolutionary origins are SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.


These are my unassailable, irrefutable simple arguments.

Prove me wrong, or I keep winning--forever.

Obviously, you have shown that you cannot defend your position against my claims or refute my arguments, which have been presented as a debate challenge in proper logical form. All you can do is insult me and say I'm ignorant and ridiculous. Hate to tell all of you masterdebaters, them ain't arguments. Them's ad hominem attacks. Why can't you refute my arguments with your ideas?

BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG.


KILLER ARGUMENT


__________________
Jesus saves all who believe that He died on the cross for their sins, was buried, and rose on the third day. Please see my website and blog links at www.graceandtruth.name

[Jack]

Fellers, debate is about WINNING, and I JUST WON.

When you base your entire point of view on a false assumption, the rest of your case just collapses. Your style of posting makes you an uninteresting opponent.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: KillerArgument I have presented my arguments in proper logical form. They cannot be refuted. My intent was to show you that you atheistic evolutionists BELIEVE in a SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE position. I didn't need to do victory laps. It's obvious I have won this debate by virtue of the fact that no one has even attempted to refute the two logical arguments I have presented. You wanna know why? Because Mr Immature over here (me), happens to be RIGHT. The complaint several times was about me being against linking stuff excessively in internet debates. But because there is no winning response to my two logical arguments, they were left untouched. They were left untouched because you know you can't win. YOU BELIEVE IN NONSENSE, AND I BELIEVE THAT AT SOME LEVEL YOU KNOW IT. Fellers, debate is about WINNING, and I JUST WON. In short, you believe in nonsense, unsupported by science. Wanna hear what killed all your arguments again? The killer argument? Here it is (AMPLIFIED FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED): Atheistic evolution is held by FAITH. It is LOGICALLY AND RATIONALLY UNPROVABLE and SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Want absolute proof? Atheism: 1) Unprovable statements can only be held by FAITH. 2) "There is no God" (Strong Atheism) is an UNPROVABLE statement. 3) Therefore, atheism can only be held by FAITH. Evolutionary Origins: 1)Life from non-life (spontaneous generation) is a SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY. (Louis Pasteur) 2) Evolutionary origins demand life from non-life. 3) Therefore, evolutionary origins are SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. These are my unassailable, irrefutable simple arguments. Prove me wrong, or I keep winning--forever. Obviously, you have shown that you cannot defend your position against my claims or refute my arguments, which have been presented as a debate challenge in proper logical form. All you can do is insult me and say I'm ignorant and ridiculous. Hate to tell all of you masterdebaters, them ain't arguments. Them's ad hominem attacks. Why can't you refute my arguments with your ideas? BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG. KILLER ARGUMENT __________________ Jesus saves all who believe that He died on the cross for their sins, was buried, and rose on the third day. Please see my website and blog links at www.graceandtruth.name

Does anyone get the feeling we've cracked this one? He's lost it.. dunno if that's good or bad.

[Zinkovich]

KillerArgument, have fun riding that glorious feeling brought on by the endorphins most likely now running through your "victorious" brain. Once you snap out of it(if ever), maybe then you'll realise a lot of the premises behind your "arguments" against athiesm are flawed and have already been corrected/discussed in this very thread.

For example:
-Athiesm does not say "there is no god". Athiesm says, in the classical sense, "there is no conclusive proof of god, and therefore no reason for me to believe in him". There's a huge logical and connotational difference.
-Evolution has evidence, but none that can be shown without links. I can't prove an theory based on external evidence through my own inuitional logic, which is why I usually link to talkorigins- because it mentions and documents the externalized evidence in ways I cannot.
-Evolutionary origins do not demand life from nonlife, because the theory in its purest form describes an ongoing process and not a thoery of origin at all! SPONTANEOUS GENERATION AND EVOLUTION ARE SEPERATE THEORIES.

Edit:

Right, if it is someone else's writing...

You wrote the bible?

[Jagged]

Atheism is a belief, or an opinion. Its not proved. If you want to call that faith, fine. Some people think that Atheism takes faith- its a valid argument. However, I dont see how that disproves Atheism in any sense, or what that has to do with anything.

With respect to the second argument- . Suppose the case in which Life has existed forever. You can't prove it didn't, or that life didn't luckily form when atoms were scattered after the BB. Its a perfectly valid proposition, so you didn't win anything. Give me back your cookie.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Isherwood When you base your entire point of view on a false assumption, the rest of your case just collapses. Your style of posting makes you an uninteresting opponent.

Weed-smoker, PROVE that it's a false assumption, huh? In a debate, junior, you don't just asume that you are correct without backing it up. Please see my two three-part arguments for examples of proper logical argument form. I will re-post them if you would like.

I have a huge number of responses to my thread for precisely the reason that I am "uninteresting." Your logic is unparalleled.

Based on this, I can imagine how competent you must feel yourself to be to evaluate the validity of scientific and philosophical arguments,

~~~

Wow. that's really impressive, Isherwood. I just wiped the floor with your butt, philosophically, and all you can say is that you don't like the color of shirt that I'm wearing.

[KillerArgument]

[quote=Zinkovich;319524]KillerArgument, have fun riding that glorious feeling brought on by the endorphins most likely now running through your "victorious" brain. Once you snap out of it(if ever), maybe then you'll realise a lot of the premises behind your "arguments" against athiesm are flawed and have already been corrected/discussed in this very thread.

For example:
-Athiesm does not say "there is no god". Athiesm says, in the classical sense, "there is no conclusive proof of god, and therefore no reason for me to believe in him". There's a huge logical and connotational difference.
-Evolution has evidence, but none that can be shown without links. I can't prove an theory based on external evidence through my own inuitional logic, which is why I usually link to talkorigins- because it mentions and documents the externalized evidence in ways I cannot.
-Evolutionary origins do not demand life from nonlife, because the theory in its purest form describes an ongoing process and not a thoery of origin at all! SPONTANEOUS GENERATION AND EVOLUTION ARE SEPERATE THEORIES.


Finally we are back on topic.

If atheism truly said what you say it says, I would have little problem with it, You don't believe in the God who nevertheless exists. Ok. No problem. Just don't try to shove your evolution religion on public school kids. Keep your despair to yourself, ok?

~~~

Yes, but I very clearly WAS talking about ORIGINS in my syllogism.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Jagged Atheism is a belief, or an opinion. Its not proved. If you want to call that faith, fine. Some people think that Atheism takes faith- its a valid argument. However, I dont see how that disproves Atheism in any sense, or what that has to do with anything. With respect to the second argument- . Suppose the case in which Life has existed forever. You can't prove it didn't, or that life didn't luckily form when atoms were scattered after the BB. Its a perfectly valid proposition, so you didn't win anything. Give me back your cookie.

Hi Jagged. I hope you are as beautiful as you are wise.

I never attempted here to disprove atheism (though I do feel it is false and foolish). I merely proved conclusively and absolutely that strong atheism is a FAITH. And no one has even attempted to refute this fact.

~~~

I think it IS a valid proposition. If you go back to the Big Bang, obviously, there was no life present then, so logically, yes, life DID have a beginning, even from an evolutionary point of view. And abiogenesis is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Atheistic evolutionists place their FAITH in the SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

This is the killer argument because it forces atheistic evolutionists onto a level playing field with other people of faith. Atheism is no more "rational" than Christianity. Atheists do not have a corner on the market for rationality. They cannot patent it.

Believers in evolutionistic origins (abiogenesis, life from non-life, spontaneous generation) can also no longer say that they don't believe in the scientifically impossible:: *miracles*.

I proved the points I set out to prove when I started this thread, and no one has refuted these points.

[Zinkovich]

abiogenesis is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

What experimental/physical data or proof do you have to support this?

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Zinkovich What experimental/physical data or proof do you have to support this?

None needed, because God wrote it down, in scriptures. Obviously you haven't read the bible, or you'd know this. Anyway, someone thought it might be a good idea to jot down the minutes of these important meetings on some handy stone tablets as proof God said it. Funny story, Abraham suggested big letters in the sand with a stick. Yeah, we had a good laugh at that one. Boy, those were the days huh?

[LOOP]

Quote by: KillerArgument There is NO fair, scientific, observed, testable, experimental knowledge of what happened when life first came into being. PERIOD.

Quote by: KillerArgument Please, I won't go to links and I don't want extended scientific treatises quoted. What I want is the simple reasons why YOU believe.

[/LOOP]

[pahl]

@KillerArgument

I would still very much like an answer to this question:

Is not "There is no pink unicorns" just as much a faith as "There is no God"?

If that is true, then does it matter if atheism can be called a faith?

The only question left is if evulution is impossible or not.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: KillerArgument I have presented my arguments in proper logical form. They cannot be refuted. My intent was to show you that you atheistic evolutionists BELIEVE in a SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE position. I didn't need to do victory laps. It's obvious I have won this debate by virtue of the fact that no one has even attempted to refute the two logical arguments I have presented. You wanna know why? Because Mr Immature over here (me), happens to be RIGHT. The complaint several times was about me being against linking stuff excessively in internet debates. But because there is no winning response to my two logical arguments, they were left untouched. They were left untouched because you know you can't win. YOU BELIEVE IN NONSENSE, AND I BELIEVE THAT AT SOME LEVEL YOU KNOW IT. Fellers, debate is about WINNING, and I JUST WON. In short, you believe in nonsense, unsupported by science. Wanna hear what killed all your arguments again? The killer argument? Here it is (AMPLIFIED FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED): Atheistic evolution is held by FAITH. It is LOGICALLY AND RATIONALLY UNPROVABLE and SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Want absolute proof? Atheism: 1) Unprovable statements can only be held by FAITH. 2) "There is no God" (Strong Atheism) is an UNPROVABLE statement. 3) Therefore, atheism can only be held by FAITH. Evolutionary Origins: 1)Life from non-life (spontaneous generation) is a SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY. (Louis Pasteur) 2) Evolutionary origins demand life from non-life. 3) Therefore, evolutionary origins are SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. These are my unassailable, irrefutable simple arguments. Prove me wrong, or I keep winning--forever. Obviously, you have shown that you cannot defend your position against my claims or refute my arguments, which have been presented as a debate challenge in proper logical form. All you can do is insult me and say I'm ignorant and ridiculous. Hate to tell all of you masterdebaters, them ain't arguments. Them's ad hominem attacks. Why can't you refute my arguments with your ideas? BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG. KILLER ARGUMENT __________________ Jesus saves all who believe that He died on the cross for their sins, was buried, and rose on the third day. Please see my website and blog links at www.graceandtruth.name

Interesting...

... I can honestly say that I've never seen such a seemless blend of preaching & trolling. Kudos for not letting little things like "logic" and "the truth" slow you down, KA.

[RickSp]

Quote by: KillerArgument I have presented my arguments in proper logical form. They cannot be refuted. My intent was to show you that you atheistic evolutionists BELIEVE in a SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE position. They were left untouched because you know you can't win. YOU BELIEVE IN NONSENSE, AND I BELIEVE THAT AT SOME LEVEL YOU KNOW IT. Fellers, debate is about WINNING, and I JUST WON. In short, you believe in nonsense, unsupported by science. Atheistic evolution is held by FAITH. It is LOGICALLY AND RATIONALLY UNPROVABLE and SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Why can't you refute my arguments with your ideas? BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG. KILLER ARGUMENT

I believe the young gent has lost it enitrely. He makes no argument whatsoever. (He seems to mistake repetition for argument.) Now he is reduced to shouting out his madness. Oh well.

[Kuroko]

Isher, transition of a species is one thing, for instance,
Humans from Neanderthals, what I am wondering is where then lies the transition of the species.

I dare not argue that there exists NO fossil records of insects, however I have to wonder where did insects come from, evolution would dictate that they diverged from some thing and over the course of many transitional stages they became what we would call in the traditional sense insects, however fossils are lacking in that department..

There are also designs which appear terminal if done in a progressed sense.

For instance, amphibious and fish life cycles in comparison to a reptiles/birds.

Or to be more precise, hard shells from soft eggs

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Zinkovich What experimental/physical data or proof do you have to support this?

Absolutely none. What proof do you have that the abiogenesis you believe in by faith is true?

[Kuroko]

Man, killer don't take this the wrong way but, even I am tempted to call myself an atheist, spurt out every reference to evolution leading directly to where we are now (I need to remind people that I follow evolution, that evolution is true to where we are now) just so I can insult the ever living crap out of you.

Stating you are correct, that you have won and that your evidence though some what lacking cannot be refuted is not just lunatic for a debate, it is also a poorly strung argument in itself.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: KillerArgument Absolutely none. What proof do you have that the abiogenesis you believe in by faith is true?

I don't believe in any theory of abiogenesis. I do, however, believe in evolution as an ongoing process that warrants proper respresentation and study in the field of science.

I think you'll find most atheists share this opinion.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Kuroko Man, killer don't take this the wrong way but, even I am tempted to call myself an atheist, spurt out every reference to evolution leading directly to where we are now (I need to remind people that I follow evolution, that evolution is true to where we are now) just so I can insult the ever living crap out of you. Stating you are correct, that you have won and that your evidence though some what lacking cannot be refuted is not just lunatic for a debate, it is also a poorly strung argument in itself.

Dear Kuroko,

There is no "proof" of evolution--none. Evolution is a concept, a theory, a faith.

Evidence is objective, but the interpretation of evidence is not objective. If there is truth, it is held by faith.

I stated a thread here that issued a debate challenge and laid two logical arguments. I answered all challenges to those two arguments. I refuted all challenges to those two arguments. (I was wrong on a couple of points and conceded a couple of things, but overwhelmingly, I won.)

I won.

I won because I used God's truth, which cannot be conquered..

The purpose of a debate is not to be nice, humble, nor to debate endlessly, off-topic. The purpose of debating is to win.

I won, and the major players on this board cannot refute my logical killer arguments, They can only insult and try to humiliate me. That ain't workin'.

[Jack]

The only thing you've won is the disdain of the regular members here who know how to debate.

And don't complain about insults. You've been pretty free with those yourself.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Isherwood The only thing you've won is the disdain of the regular members here who know how to debate. And don't complain about insults. You've been pretty free with those yourself.

And you know, I am really terrified of being disapproved of. Please don't make me cry again.

Where should I go to kiss the arse of the exalted "regular members?"

You got me there, on the insults.

Now, how about addressing my arguments?

"The regular members here" know how to debate, but they don't now how to advance unassailable arguments that WIN.