HOW TO ARGUE LIKE AN ATHEIST DARWINIAN.
 
Step 1  Attempt to use experimental and observational science for your beliefs. Once that fails, we go to. ...
 
Step 2 Work with unobserved events and hypothetical assumptions. Once that fails,we go to... 

 Step 3 Extrapolate contrived historical theories you have no evidence for. Once that fails,we go to... 
 
Step 4 Attempt to say that like you the other side of the argument is "guessing the past". Once that fails we go too... 
 
Step 5 Claim that the universe came from nothing out of nowhere, that mud brought itself to life,turned mud into mind, goo into you via the zoo, and earth into Einstein, and that a monkey like ancestor “one day started talking”.  
 
Step 6  If a hurled squashed tomato hits you in the face, just assume the tomato made and hurled itself.  
 
If you can believe all that special creation by God is a comparative stroll in the park

dsdm: Yet the evidence is there, and is sufficiently rational and convincing, at least to others,

Where? Don't point to the Bible. I've already explained that it is a Man Made Book written & added to , to control the Masses. It, the Torah, & the Koran have as much validity as "Alice & Wonderland."

dsdm: if you are prepared to look at the evidence with the right perspective, or prepared to wear an alternative set of glasses (paradigm).

What? a perspective that ignores Geology, The millions of years of the movement of Earths Crustal Plates & so on & so forth. Having fish fossils found on top of Mt. Everest only proves the movement of Earth Crustal Plates.

dsdm: The majority of the erosion and deposition of the Earth’s surface took place during the runoff of the Flood water, when the mountains and continents rose and the ocean basins sank. The water first flowed as wide currents during the Ablative Phase.

& all this happened in a few days? Yair right. If the waters were that high where did they run off to? To the Centre of the Earth maybe? Must remember to look for a big hole in the Earths surface next time I'm out & about or did it fill up with the mud runoff?

dsdm: ‘mysteries’ of geomorphology.

This is getting sillier & sillier.

David f: Atheists do not hate God, tooth fairy, Zeus or Santa Claus. Why hate what does not exist?

You can't hate something that doesn't exist. I certainly don't hat God Lovers. If that's their thing, so be it. It's Just that they try to shove their stupidity down everyone's throats & kill them if they don't play along with their stupidity. You don't get atheist's killing people for believing in a God, except in Communistic Countries like Nth. Korea.

grateful,

I failed to mention earlier that, aside from being factually incorrect, Flew’s marvelling at the improbability of a sophisticated “code” like DNA forming by chance is the Argument from Incredulity. But since you were only citing someone else, I'm happy to leave your fallacy count at six.

Dan,

Disbelief isn’t just “one perspective to start from”, it’s the only reliable perspective to start from if one wants to help ensure that the conclusions that they reach are reliable.

As for Batten’s list of three possibilities, they are in all likelihood a false trichotomy where the universe is concerned. We simply don’t know enough to make that determination. Batten missed a fourth one that I just recently mentioned too: it may not make sense to ask. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#325077) With regards to life (and maybe the universe) there’s a fourth possibility that Batten failed to mention: they occurred naturally. "They created themselves" is an emotive caricature more suggestive of a desire to mock rather than engage in any sort of serious inquiry.

There are many plausible hypotheses that explain how life may have started, so Batten’s claim that no-one has a clue is simply false. A quick Google search will show this. Here’s one of the most plausible explanations to date: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE.

<<Evolution is the materialists’ myth about how things made themselves.>>

You are conflating evolution and abiogenesis. They are two different areas of science. The evidence for evolution is so strong that you could prove abiogenesis to be impossible and you still wouldn’t have disproved evolution.

Continued…

…Continued

<<If the materialist explanation of origins is shown to be inadequate, then that leaves creation [or vice versa].>>

No, this is a false dichotomy.

<<Creationists did not invent this line of reasoning; evolutionists have been using it since Darwin.>>

Then they’re wrong. Although I’ve never heard that from those who accept evolution before.

<<[Dawkins] argues that the human eye is badly designed, so therefore it could not have been created by an omnipotent Creator; it must have evolved...">>

That’s not dismissing a third, fourth, or fifth possibility. It’s just ruling one out. And he's right too.

<<(the details of how [the eye evolved] are sidestepped)>>

No they're not, it's pretty much common knowledge for those of us who have investigated evolutionary biology beyond the pamphlets handed out at church. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye)

With regards to God revealing himself to me, there is no fault in my logic. If an eternity of torture is the consequence for not believing, then your god has an obligation to reveal himself to everyone, or remove his punishment. It’s that simple.

I wouldn’t be pointing to creationism as your evidence for a god either. There are no creationist arguments that withstand even the most cursory criticism, as evinced in this response of mine and many others in the past. The video I linked to above, for example, discredits the quotes of Batten that you provide. How am I supposed to trust the opinions of those who consistently make false analogies like the one describing a tornado assembling a 747, for example? All that proves is that they don't understand the sciences that they criticise.

As for Flew, I’ve already discredited the reasoning behind his deism in my discussion with grateful, so I’m not sure why you would bring him up.

johnheininger,

grateful and I have just gone through a lengthy discussion discrediting the nonsense you posted in that last contribution of yours. I’m sorry you missed it.

Hi Dan

I don’t think that in science the majority must be right. In fact, we would never have made scientific progress unless minority voices successfully challenged accepted wisdom. But if you are to challenge the majority opinion you must do it with scientifically credible evidence and argument. Young earth creationists don’t do this. They garble science to try to make it confirm to their preconceptions. The material you quote is a good example. In fact, geologists have no difficulty at all explaining the origins of plateaus and mesas.

http://www.scienceclarified.com/landforms/Ocean-Basins-to-Volcanoes/Plateau.html

And even if the majority scientific opinion is wrong on a particular issue, it doesn’t mean your alternative hypothesis is correct. The confluence of evidence that contradicts young earth creationism is so vast, and from such diverse sciences – astronomy, biology, geology – that the probability of all of them being wrong is infinitesimal.

ATHEISM-EVOLUTION:IT HAPPENED ALL BY ITSELF, THEY SAID

http://thegodreality.org/tomato.htm