It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
There is no doubt abiogenesis was caused by an act of God. The probabilities of it happening by chance are so large life existing at all is probably the most convincing evidence God does exist. What other evidence would ever qualify as proof for the existence of God than something so ridiculously improbably happening that it cannot be measured.
Despite the theistic implications, abiogenesis is a fascinated science to study and should be revered.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
...that is not because of an inability to convince them on my behalf, but an inability to be persuaded on theirs.
originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
The inability to be persuaded on their part is because you aren't convincing.
If you were convincing you could persuade them.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Out of curiosity what would you consider to be convincing? As a theistic individual, who commits science for a living, including research into DNA (and thus evolution). I find the argument for evolution convincing.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
You are trying to convince me that I am the problem because I am incapable of persuading a person so invested in their belief(s) that they ignore mountains of links and data supporting my stance.
You are both failing and verifying my claim all at the same time, and I don't think that you even realize it.
originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Out of curiosity what would you consider to be convincing? As a theistic individual, who commits science for a living, including research into DNA (and thus evolution). I find the argument for evolution convincing.
For something to be convincing it has to convince people.
An evolutionist is unconvincing to a creationist and vice versa. I'm not interested in which is right as I've already made up my mind anyway and without convincing arguments I will stay where I am.
There just doesn't seem to be convincing arguments as evidenced by those who aren't convinced.
If you had a convincing argument you would convince.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Your logic is flawed. If someone is unwilling to be convinced they can not be convinced.
originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Your logic is flawed. If someone is unwilling to be convinced they can not be convinced.
Is it logically flawed to say that if you can't convince someone you're unconvincing?
Seems pretty sound to me.
originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: TzarChasm
Is that your fault?
Or is it mine for being unconvincing?