As if abiogenesis, chemicals to life isn't conceptual? Why can't you prove life has a natural origin?

@@VernonChitlen Because I don't have to. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

@@JMUDoc You're not claiming there's is a natural origin of life, therefore no need for a creator? My claim is there is a Creator and the evidence is the appearance of design and purpose in biology and scientists inability to duplicate it's simplest example. And there is enough research data from studies of origin of life that the basic chemistry couldn't take place in any natural scenario. It cannot be done in a laboratory by scientists, how could it be rational it could in a mindless, "warm little pond?" (darwins words)

@@VernonChitlen *You're not claiming there's is a natural origin of life, therefore no need for a creator?* I'm not claiming there IS a natural origin for life; I'm claiming that a creator has not been PROVEN to have been necessary. *My claim is there is a Creator and the evidence is the appearance of design and purpose in biology and scientists inability to duplicate it's simplest example* Evolution by natural selection can also explain the _appearance_ of design, and the fact that a scientist can't do something is irrelevant. *And there is enough research data from studies of origin of life that the basic chemistry couldn't take place in any natural scenario.* "Enough research" in your opinion - are you a biochemist? If not, your opinion on the research is worthless to me. *It cannot be done in a laboratory by scientists, how could it be rational it could in a mindless, "warm little pond?" (darwins words)* Scientists have been trying for how long? A hundred years? How long did nature have to "try"? Billions of years. And even if scientists NEVER manage it, so what? Concluding that something never happened because it can't be duplicated would be idiotic.

@@JMUDoc The burden of proof fallacy? I'm not talking about evolution. You have to get from chemicals to life where evolution supposedly could begin with an organism that can replicate itself. You are fine with Bo Derek ultimately being one example of time and randomness? You don't understand "natural selection" is non sequiter? What is there to select from? Only the random mutation of the previous organism. Getting cold, need hair? Tough potatoes until that mutation occurs to "select" from, nada. Hello? Scientist have a working model to reverse engineer from that a warm little pond provides them with. What did it have? No direction, guidance, purpose, goal?

No shit, I want one.

werelemur1138 sadly, I have yet to see a debate like that, at least with a religious opponent

@@bookwermofthefandoms that's because so long as your not dodging, everything you say falls apart even more than it already has.

"The Slick Dodge"

Martin Pfefferle when making a classical reference, it's acceptable to allude rather than directly quote the subject of the allusion ;-)

I was waiting until he started a victorious strut before adding that. :)

Matt Dillahunty Since Bill Craig won't debate you, will the other better known Christian apologists debate you? Like D'souza and Lennox? Or are they similar to Craig, PhD only?

@Joe .... and a criminal record.

Please no more debates with D'Souza ever... the brains of both theists and atheist alike have suffered enough. As for Craig, there's not much point since his brilliant philosophical approach is to always make the same argument, wave away any criticisms without answering them and then claim his opponent hasn't made any case of their own to prove a negative. Lennox ... maybe? I seem to remember him being just sort of fudgily dishonest and arrogant, not an *outright* brainfrazzler.

On proverbial piles of money from the people that listen to him and buy(in both senses of the word) his arguments.

Slick as shit. His stinking thinking has consistency of diarrhea. Matt D is a saint for maintaining composure while enduring this arrogant, patronizing terd

Matt is not the brightest in the apologetics circle. He needs to phrase his arguments in a way that would actually exude meaning and veracity.

He prays for sleep. And takes two Nytol.

@@Avicaris the ones that fill his rice bowl.

I think the problem is that he's just bad at reasoning and logic. Which is perfectly fine by itself, those aren't really survival skills. But he is frequently surrounded by and communicates with some of the greatest logical/rational minds in the world...how could he not pick up something from them?

FighterDoken Right, no one is a perfect thinker...which is why we often bounce ideas off each other to look for flaws and weaknesses in our positions. The honest person will accept those criticisms and either fix or abandon their position. The dishonest person, as Matt Slick seems to be (though I genuinely don't like insulting people) will ignore all of that input. And the MOST dishonest people will fall back to presuppositional apologetics. To be fair, he could just be so compartmentalized in his beliefs that his mind refuses to let new information in.

+Michael Gorka The thing is, while he may make fun of Sye, Slick **is** a presuppositionist! He just doesn't fully understand what presuppositional apologetics are (he has just heard that they are worthless/indefensible) and so he acts like he is not that.

FighterDoken ha! are you serious?! I never heard him say that, but it's both hilarious and ironic. Really, the only difference between them is that Slick uses bigger words.

DId you make these assumptions after analyzing both sides or after watching M.D.s response?

I'm sure he knows what he's doing. There seems to be an unwritten law of apologetics that if you can appear to "win" by dishonesty, your god will permit lying as long as it's attacking an atheist.

Windwar attack No, but the idea that I'm better than you did. Thank you for that wonderful comment.

Windwar attack I cam

Yes and 6 naked women dancing would be a nice addition also

Ashamanic haha yes, Matt S went with the 'I'm gonna take my ball and go home strategy"

a waste of time to debate turek. i would like to see dillahunty pummel slick again.

EvilToaster cosmic skeptic debated him on morality

TownDrunk Yeah, you want to see someone exhibit "God-like" patience with an impetuous little baby, watch Alex spend hours putting up with Matt Slick

Jim J And then talking with that actual child Jason Peterson. Painful in so many ways.

Glad I checked that out. Very entertaining. Alex is a cool guy.

That's not much different than the one with Slick. 'THAT'S YOUR BRAIN TALKING, NOT YOU'.

Sye: "Same as you do. God revealed it." omg facepalm!

Slick’s little “I don’t understand” dance was exactly how I knew that he understood the question *perfectly*

You're definitely not wrong. I wish at one point Matt D. would have said in response to slick, "Your God made you say that."

Matt Slicks proof for the christian viewpoint is the bible. When asked for proof that the bible is true, he says because god revealed himself in the bible. Circular reasoning. When you point out it is circular, he says that the bible is needed to account for the logical absolutes and you need to account for the logical absolutes, so the bible is true because it accounts for the absolutes. Again circular. And the reason why he says it isn't circular, is because without the bible, he can't prove the bible. He admits this. But does not aknowledge that it is a fallacy. Even though he admits it's circular, at the same time he claims it's not circular, but necessary. A conversation with Slick is useless for Slick. It is useful for people who believe Matt's argument or are on the fence, or are interested in his stance: it exposes him for using fallacies.

that's...actually a great metaphor for what happened

he didn't win by default though. If anything, he lost by default, because he didn't adress the debates topic. Also, his "meta answers" were so dumb, he couldn't win against a snail

StygianEmperor I very much doubt it. In the second conversation between Slick and Alex Malpass, Alex asked him to look at the written form of the refutation at his blog because it might be easier to digest than hearing someone talk. Slick said he wouldn't with the excuse, it's more fun talking.