Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

[DOTR]

A New Clue to How Life Originated

Found the abstract: https://www.researchgate.net/public..._and_stabilize_prebiotic_fatty_acid_membranes

Have you read Nick Lane? If not then get to reading. He’s a little bit dense for popular science writings but not so much as to put him out of reach.
His theory is undersea vents. Makes a very thorough case for the first cells forming in olivine cavities.
Not only that but he describes the many filters life went through on its way to where we are now. The odds are stupendous for each of a long series of unique events...the endosymbiotic event for instance....each one as necessary as the origination event and each one as crazily unlikely.
But they each happened obviously.

 

[DOTR]

Life formed rather quickly *once*.

Correct, which definitvely shows it can form quickly.

And if it is unique on this, a planet we know to be conducive to life, it bodes no good for the chances of it forming anywhere else.

So, if it is unique...then it's probably unique? Wow, that is some..... Special logic.

You want it to be very badly.

Irrelevant. Try to focus.

And of course, you got nothing else.

Tackling the actual argument has proven, it appears, to be much tougher for you than grappling with shit you make up to argue against.

Absolutely not. You’ve been taught that sophistry trumps truth. It doesn’t though it may obscure it.

I don’t care to change your religion. I just care that I’ve demonstrated some science to you. While you claimed “circumstantial evidence “ lol.

That’s real rigorous scientific method you got there. Bucko. “Circumstantial evidence”.

No wonder liberalism is destroying science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The odds are stupendous

By what math? Trillions of reactions occurring every second over millions of years...

While the odds of something happening a certain way may seem steep, the odds of it happening at all become much less so, when one considers trillions of trillions of trillions of trials.

Also, be careful not to fall victim to Hoyle's fallacy, or a reiteration of it, by which the probability of any event can be speciously reduced to zero.

 

[DOTR]

Btw the way I’m not arguing against anything. I’m staying a fact. By all evidence available...life originated once.
And that is a fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Absolutely not. You’ve been taught that sophistry trumps truth. It doesn’t though it may obscure it.

Irrelvant whining. Not a good substitute for an actual counterargument.

While you claimed “circumstantial evidence “ lol.

Which, nevertheless, is evidence. Just as we only had circumstantial evidence of black holes a century ago.

That’s real rigorous scientific method you got there.

What a silly comment. The scientific method enters the equation when the hypothesis is tested. In this case, when we systematically search for empirical evidence of life elsewhere (just as we searched for black holes). You know, the part YOU completely mangled with your absurd comments on "the evidence showing us there is no life anywhere else".

So, of the two of us, clearly it is only you who is beset by a severe misunderstanding of the scientific method.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

By all evidence available...life originated once.

Hey, by all the evidence in my bathtub, giant squids dont exist. I should stop looking for them.

 

[DOTR]

Absolutely not. You’ve been taught that sophistry trumps truth. It doesn’t though it may obscure it.

Irrelvant whining. Not a good substitute for an actual counterargument.

While you claimed “circumstantial evidence “ lol.

Which, nevertheless, is evidence. Just as we only had circumstantial evidence of black holes a century ago.

That’s real rigorous scientific method you got there.

What a silly comment. The scientific method enters the equation when the hypothesis is tested. In this case, when we systematically search for empirical evidence of life elsewhere (just as we searched for black holes). You know, the part YOU completely mangled with your absurd comments on "the evidence showing us there is no life anywhere else".

So, of the two of us, clearly it is only you who is beset by a severe misunderstanding of the scientific method.

You’ve always been dishonest. That’s another way of saying you are a liar.
I never said “the evidence showing us there is no life anywhere else". I did say that by all the evidence we have life originated just once.
Debating stupid was one thing. But stupid and dishonest? Off to ignore. Tell Penelope hello.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I never said “the evidence showing us there is no life anywhere else".

Wrong. That is the equivalent of saying that the evidence shows us life only formed once. It's the literal equivalent, in the contextbof our discussion.. Unless you would like to make the claim that you wre leaving open the possibility that there is life elsewhere, but all of it originitaed at the one place where it formed. Which, given your penchant for tantrums, you might very well dishonestly attempt.

If this bothers you, then correct your statement and try not to make the same error in the future. Maybe brush up on the logic, too.

And you aren't fooling anyone. You are tucking tail and running , because you know your silly argument got obliterated.

 

[DOTR]

Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.

You even format your answers in the weird way as BreezeWood. He doesn't even know how to use the forum tools properly.

As described in the first two chapters of Genesis or ...

"It is possible to believe in both evolution and the Catholic church’s teaching on creation, Pope Francis has said, as he cautioned against portraying God as a kind of magician who made the universe with a magic wand.

“The big bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it,” the pope said in an address to a meeting at the pontifical academy of sciences.

“Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”

Francis, 77, said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis, according to which God created heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh.

“When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything,” he said.

“But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.”

Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right
Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right

BTW, what does the Tanakh say BreezeWood book of antiquity? How did he get to eternal universe from that? Are you lying?

The Big Bang theory was proposed by a Catholic monk at a Catholic university. Christianity doesn’t have a problem with that cosmology or evolution as a rule.

 

[DOTR]

Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.

You even format your answers in the weird way as BreezeWood. He doesn't even know how to use the forum tools properly.

As described in the first two chapters of Genesis or ...

"It is possible to believe in both evolution and the Catholic church’s teaching on creation, Pope Francis has said, as he cautioned against portraying God as a kind of magician who made the universe with a magic wand.

“The big bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it,” the pope said in an address to a meeting at the pontifical academy of sciences.

“Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”

Francis, 77, said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis, according to which God created heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh.

“When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything,” he said.

“But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.”

Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right
Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right

BTW, what does the Tanakh say BreezeWood book of antiquity?

What is your perception of God?

Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.

Let's not change the subject. We are discussing the above.

What did you mean by you believe "it was created by nothing?"

I didn’t say by. I said from.

And I wasn’t changing the subject. I was correcting you.

I believe so as well. ex nihlo.

 

[DOTR]

Hasn't abiogenesis been destroyed in this thread? 1) There is no primordial soup. 2) Lightning will cause hydrogen and oxygen to explode in early atmosphere. 3) The geysers have water which dissolves the amino acids. 4) Atheists/ags and their religious scientists are usually wrong.

The origin of life includes more possibilities than the “primordial soup”.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So science, which operates in a deterministic universe that follows laws, tells us that abiogenesis is a fact.

Just as star formation is a fact.

Who seem to be the only people who have a problem with this rather mundane, obvious fact?

Religious people. It's all right here in the thread, in black and white.

 

[james bond]

You didn't pose questions, you made statements you could never hope to support.

Your unsupported claims to your gods creating everything is identical to those promoting different gods creating everything. Not surprisingly, none of the claims to any of these creator, designer gods are supportable.

I provided scientific statements backed up by observable evidence. What did you provide? Did you continue with peptide bonding? Its thesis was an air-water interface for peptide bonding because the water below it would dissolve the amino acids (which is what I said). Not much primordial soup in an air-water level. Also, why was Miller-Urey abandoned? Was it the oxygen problem? The primary volcanic gases do not form amino acids of which I provided a video of an experiment. Your claim was the lesser gases of methane and sulfur did the work with no evidence nor explanation for it. What happened?

Why don't you read this instead of your false websites -- Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible Don't just read to learn about how your process works, but down to the end to see it debunked.

I couldn't find any "scientific statements" you claim to have made. As your earth history and human experience on the planet only date back 6,000 years, the angst you project regarding the planet's biological history means little.

Your reference to Jerry Bergman is actually laughable. As you should know, the charlatans at the ICR are hacks who do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals. Their "Statement of Faith" is another laughable joke.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #23: Jerry Bergman

Our next loon is a young earth creationist at the Institute for Creation Research.

Another staunch and thoroughly confused front fighter whose main argument is how persecuted the dissidents to the tyranny of evolution are – in short, your standard ‘I cannot discuss the evidence, so I’ll try to frame my opponents instead’. Admits that ID doesn’t really have a strong theory, but that it doesn’t need it since it’s got all the facts (whatever that means). Discussed here.

Bergman is a dishonest whiner, snower and conspiracy theorist who fabricates stories about persecution of religious scientists. His most nauseating feature is his tendency to snow debates and avoid dealing with devastating objections. Bergman is utterly crazy and ignorant, and his version of the irreducible complexity argument is bizarre even for that mess of an argument.

A summary of a debate Bergman was involved in, which well describes his tactics, is here.

Diagnosis: typical village idiot; despicably dishonest, crazy, paranoid wingnut and kook, and another extreme case of confirmation bias and persecution complex. His ardent efforts seem to have gained him some level of influence among his peers, and he is a medium threat to school curricula everywhere.

You didn't answer my questions, so you are not capable of learning new things. As for the rest, it's your usual weak arguments from the websites I just mentioned. Thus, we are done and I am done here with another victory.

 

[james bond]

The origin of life includes more possibilities than the “primordial soup”.

Primordial soup is anything with amino acids. What else do you have?

 

[Ringtone]

Have you read Nick Lane? If not then get to reading. He’s a little bit dense for popular science writings but not so much as to put him out of reach.

His theory is undersea vents. Makes a very thorough case for the first cells forming in olivine cavities.

Not only that but he describes the many filters life went through on its way to where we are now. The odds are stupendous for each of a long series of unique events...the endosymbiotic event for instance....each one as necessary as the origination event and each one as crazily unlikely.

But they each happened obviously.

I read his The Vital Question and, a few years ago, an article about his ideas, but that's all.

 

[james bond]

I didn’t say by. I said from.

And I wasn’t changing the subject. I was correcting you.

You said BreezeWood believes in an eternal universe. I think you lied about that. Moreover, you didn't answer my question of creation ex nihilo or universe ex nihilo? I'll assume you don't know. Even your Pope Francis knows.

 

[Ringtone]

The importance of Genesis is that it describes our relationship with God. We are given heaven and eternal life and the one thing we must obey is not to disobey God and that was what the tree of knowledge represented. We had free will just like Lucifer. However, in short time Adam and Eve disobeyed God and you know the rest. They were swayed by the lie and trickery of Satan in telling them that they will not die by eating the fruit and disobeying God's one command. A negatvie test. The second part is that it is the only supernatural that we are to believe in regards to today's science and world that is described in the first two chapters or books. God created the universe and the world in six days and rested on the seventh. With this belief and understanding of what happened, then we are one with God and understand that we live in a fallen world. The evidence is that we will all die and that Noah's Flood killed all of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve except for Noah's family. Like them, we are given a second chance, but this time God gave us a positive test in John 3:16 which you know, as well. "For God so loved ithe world, jthat he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Many people start their Christian life with this verse. This is what they believe.. However, they may not understand their relationship with God and that he created adult humans and animals and provided the universe and everything it it to us. They are easily swayed or cannot believe such a thing could happen in the natural world. It wasn't natural to begin with. There was no space and time. It had to have a beginning. People believed in an eternal universe before the big bang instead of an eternal God. When the CMB was discovered, then they knew it had a beginning because of evolutionary thinking science and that story changed to the big bang. What they believed about the eternal universe before became pseudoscience while the big bang replaced it. Jesus warns us about the false prophets to the believers and that they will be misled. Satan is devious in that he masquerades as the angel of light. All of evolution contradicts what God said in regards to Genesis. It was there in ancient times, as well. Jesus understood the power of Satan as the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air." He knew he had the power to give him that power if he would bow down to him and worship him. However, Jesus instead states one should only worship the Lord thy God and for Satan to get lost. You may think it is only today that we do not believe the first two books of Genesis, but those in ancient times didn't believe it either. The Jews prized science and they didn't buy into it. There are even some today who do not believe the Jesus was the Messiah for he didn't deliver the paradise of Israel to them -- Genesis As Allegory | My Jewish Learning.

Actually, the CMB affirmed the Big Bang scenario implied by Friedmann-Lemaître's solution to Einstein's field equations.

From an article I recently wrote:

Recall that before the unvarnished ramifications of Einstein's theory of general relativity (1915) were disclosed, most scientists held that the universe was infinitely static (or stationary), i.e., temporarily and spatially infinite, and neither expanding nor contracting. However, Einstein proposed a static universe that was temporarily infinite and spatially finite in 1917 when he applied the field equations of general relativity to cosmology. Ironically, he added a positive cosmological constant to the calculi of the spacetime metric tensor as his preferred cosmology would otherwise collapse or expand forever. In 1922, Alexander Friedmann was the first to take the field equations of general relativity at face value cosmologically and in 1924 published an exact solution giving a homogeneous, isotropic and expanding universe. See "About the possibility of a world with constant negative curvature."

In 1927, Georges Lemaître independently derived the same solution as Friedmann and posited that the galactic recession first observed by the astronomer Vesto Slipher is explained by an expanding universe. (Slipher discovered the Doppler effects of redshift in 1912 before Einstein posited his revolutionary theory of gravity, so he never made the connection and assumed spiral nebulae were moving within the fixed background of space.) Accordingly, Lemaître was actually the first to posit the essence of Hubble's law: galaxies are receding in every direction at velocities directly proportional to their distance from each other; i.e., the greater the distance between any two galaxies, the greater their relative speed of separation. In other words, these galaxies are not moving away from one another under their own steam within the fixed background of space; they're moving away from one another as the fabric of space itself expands. Lemaître also made the first estimation of the rate of expansion, which is known today as the Hubble constant. Finally, he posited what became known as the Big Bang theory, what he called "the hypothesis of the primæval atom", which he elaborated on in 1931: https://www.nature.com/articles/127706b0.

However, like Friedmann's paper, Lemaître's "A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae" of 1927 was published in an obscure journal. It was translated into English in 1931 and republished by the Royal Astronomical Society, but in 1929 Edwin Hubble published his paper on the velocity-distance relation with a more precise constant for the rate of expansion: "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae". Notwithstanding, Hubble used virtually the same input data as that previously used by Lemaître, and, once again, Lemaître was the first to unequivocally attribute the pertinent astronomical observations to the expanding universe described by the field equations of general relativity!

Lemaître got his due in 1931 for connecting galactic recession directly to an expanding universe per the pertinent calculi of general relativity, and the velocity-distance relation is sometimes more properly referred to as Hubble-Lemaître's law in the literature. (Lemaître struck his estimation of the expansion rate from his translated paper in deference to Hubble's more accurate calculations.) The myth that Hubble was the first to discover that the universe is expanding persists because Hubble's 1929 calculi for the rate of expansion were more accurate and because his and Milton Humason's follow-up paper "The Velocity-Distance Relation among Extra-Galactic Nebulae" (1931) provided an even more decisively comprehensive observational foundation for an expanding universe, which put the matter beyond all reasonable doubt. What Einstein's relativity theories were to physics, Lemaître and Hubble's discovery was to cosmology—a seismic event. Finally, in this wise, physicists Howard Robertson and Arthur Walker working together but independently of Friedmann and Lemaître, derived a variant of Friedmann's solution in 1934. Hence, the classic solution of the Einstein field equations giving a dynamically homogeneous and isotropic universe is referred to as the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) space-time metric (or the standard model of modern cosmology). In the face of the findings of Hubble-Humason of 1931, Einstein finally accepted that the universe was expanding, of course, but rejected Lemaître's apparent beginning.

Einstein and others briefly considered the possibility of an oscillatory/cyclic universe predicated on the notion that the universe would expand for a period of time before the gravitational attraction of matter caused it to collapse, but then Richard C. Tolman showed in 1934 that entropy would only increase with each cycle. (Beginning in the later 1960s, the oscillatory/cyclic scenario was revived and has since been variously tweaked by the theoretical mechanisms of some form of quantum or inflationary theory, but as we have seen thus far to no avail in terms of past-eternality.) In the meantime, the Big Bang theory's main rival was the Steady State theory, which also depicted a homogeneous, isotropic and expanding universe. However, it is said to be past-eternally expanding everywhere as matter is continuously created via the intrinsic energy of space. Thus, while the amount of matter increases over time, the density of matter is everywhere constant.

Friedmann's solution is equally compatible with both the Big Bang and Steady State theories, but the later has always been held by many to be a faux alternative in terms of origin given that it implies, not a past-eternally expanding universe at all, but a universe with an even more decisive beginning than that depicted by the former. As extrapolated backwards, the Big Bang model implies either "a primæval atom of maximum compaction" or an initial point of zero volume and infinite density, while the Steady State model implies an initial point of zero volume and density. In other words, the Steady State model is not so much a paradox as a scenario that implies the opposite of what it asserts. It was assumed that some future discovery would somehow resolve this apparent contradiction. This was thought to be necessarily so because the absolute beginning implied by the Big Bang violated the perfect cosmological principle, which states that the spatial distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneously and isotropically changeless when viewed on a large scale. While the long-held principle is arguably consistent with a static universe, imposing it on an expanding universe is utterly arbitrary. Hence, the key distinction between them: Big Bang theory predicts an evolving universe that is homogeneous and isotropic in the sense that matter density is uniformly changing, while Steady State theory predicts a changeless universe that is homogeneous and isotropic in the sense that matter density is uniformly constant.

Einstein briefly regarded a steady state scenario of his own in 1931. Long before the discovery of the CMB in 1964 and its increasingly detailed analyses drove the final nail into its coffin, he insightfully understood then what would become increasingly obvious over the next few decades from astronomical observations in general: the Steady State model is an arbitrary contrivance and entails an improbable degree of ad hoc fine-tuning. As for the decades of astronomical observations prior to the discovery of the CMB, the universe was definitely observed to have undergone evolutionary material change in the past.

While virtually all of the predictions of an expanding universe with a beginning in the finite past were affirmed over the next few decades—including the prediction regarding the existence of the CMB itself!—it became apparent that an arbitrary "explosion" of energy and matter was not entirely compatible with the observed conditions of the CMB. As discussed in the above, these discrepancies were resolved by inflationary theory beginning in 1980 ("The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems", Alan H. Guth), whereby the epoch of the Big Bang state, as discussed in the above, is actually a big conversion of energy following the epoch of rapid, exponential inflation of space itself: http://tucana.astro.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~cfech/lectures/galkos/guth1981.pdf.

Alexei Starobinsky, Andreas Albrecht and Andrei Linde further developed the theory of cosmic inflation in the early 1980s. They resolved the "unacceptable consequences" for which "modifications must be sought" by elaborating on the microscopic inflationary region of Guth's scenario. They posited a coherent, natural mechanism for cosmic inflation and the metric expansion of space, specifically, a causal and regulatory scalar field which permeates the universe. This eliminated the reliance on the percolation of a large number of small bubbles to end the inflationary epoch so that the Big Bang epoch could begin. In Guth's scenario, inflation tunnels out of a false vacuum state, which happily sets up the condition that naturally leads to the percolation of the bubbles. Alas, while this condition and the bubbles thereof would solve the transitional problem, it's incompatible with the condition that would solve two of the three cosmic problems. Guth showed that inflation solved the transitional problem and, if he suppressed the condition that facilitated this, the cosmic problems. Hence, inflation was key, but his quantum-tunneling mechanism was either incomplete or entirely wrong. On the Starobinsky-Albrecht-Linde scenario coupled with the quantum fluctuations in the underlying field of space: inflation smoothly ensues via a "slow roll" of a scalar field along a relatively flat potential, which gradually increases, ends exponential inflation, ignites the transitional epoch of the Big Bang and resolves all three of the cosmic problems, including the magnetic monopole problem, in one stroke. Despite the guff of its occasional detractors, inflationary theory has not only held up against numerous challenges over the years, but has been strengthened by the proofs for several, likely scalar fields. This fact was recently underscored again by Mishra-Sahni-Toporensky (2018): https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.04948.pdf.
​

Cosmological evolution from the Big Bang doesn't necessarily imply biological evolution at all, and while none of this necessarily proves that our spacetime is the first and only to have ever existed, all of the evidence tells us that our spacetime most certainly began to exist in the finite past. Also, Lemaître's cosmogony was already known as the Big Bang before the discovery of the CMB, and, as I pointed out in the above, actually predicted it's discovery. I don't know what dback's theology is, but I do know that he, like me, believes that the cosmos was created from nothing. Breezewood strikes me as a pantheist of the Hindu tradition, though, I might be wrong about that. But he does hold to the Hindu notion of an eternally cycling cosmogony.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

And, worth noting:

Abiogensis is a foregone conclusion. While we may not know how it happened, we can safely assume it is a fact and did, indeed, happen.

No it's not. Life may very well have originated elsewhere and been brought here via meteorites and other space debris...

Panspermia - Wikipedia

In which case life may be much older than many believe. It may even date back to the beginning of everything.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[MoonPie]

I think not

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

Yes, sounds like an ignorant child's description of the universe. Clearly they were totally ignorant.

Seriously? How old is Genesis? 6,000+ years old? That was a profoundly intuitive guess.

 

[Hollie]

You didn't pose questions, you made statements you could never hope to support.

Your unsupported claims to your gods creating everything is identical to those promoting different gods creating everything. Not surprisingly, none of the claims to any of these creator, designer gods are supportable.

I provided scientific statements backed up by observable evidence. What did you provide? Did you continue with peptide bonding? Its thesis was an air-water interface for peptide bonding because the water below it would dissolve the amino acids (which is what I said). Not much primordial soup in an air-water level. Also, why was Miller-Urey abandoned? Was it the oxygen problem? The primary volcanic gases do not form amino acids of which I provided a video of an experiment. Your claim was the lesser gases of methane and sulfur did the work with no evidence nor explanation for it. What happened?

Why don't you read this instead of your false websites -- Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible Don't just read to learn about how your process works, but down to the end to see it debunked.

I couldn't find any "scientific statements" you claim to have made. As your earth history and human experience on the planet only date back 6,000 years, the angst you project regarding the planet's biological history means little.

Your reference to Jerry Bergman is actually laughable. As you should know, the charlatans at the ICR are hacks who do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals. Their "Statement of Faith" is another laughable joke.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #23: Jerry Bergman

Our next loon is a young earth creationist at the Institute for Creation Research.

Another staunch and thoroughly confused front fighter whose main argument is how persecuted the dissidents to the tyranny of evolution are – in short, your standard ‘I cannot discuss the evidence, so I’ll try to frame my opponents instead’. Admits that ID doesn’t really have a strong theory, but that it doesn’t need it since it’s got all the facts (whatever that means). Discussed here.

Bergman is a dishonest whiner, snower and conspiracy theorist who fabricates stories about persecution of religious scientists. His most nauseating feature is his tendency to snow debates and avoid dealing with devastating objections. Bergman is utterly crazy and ignorant, and his version of the irreducible complexity argument is bizarre even for that mess of an argument.

A summary of a debate Bergman was involved in, which well describes his tactics, is here.

Diagnosis: typical village idiot; despicably dishonest, crazy, paranoid wingnut and kook, and another extreme case of confirmation bias and persecution complex. His ardent efforts seem to have gained him some level of influence among his peers, and he is a medium threat to school curricula everywhere.

You didn't answer my questions, so you are not capable of learning new things. As for the rest, it's your usual weak arguments from the websites I just mentioned. Thus, we are done and I am done here with another victory.

Your usual tactic. When your attempts at argument fail because your sources are hack creation ministries, you declare victory and scurry away.

Such childish games are an embarrassment.