Ah, Blake talked a little about this.

For one thing, "freshly" "abiogenerated" complex, multicellular organisms are never going to appear within a few thousand years. Based on the evidence that we have, it seems that it took well over a billion years just for eukaryotes to evolve. So, IF we discovered something that was unambiguously new life, it should be at least many millions of years old. It just takes too long; we're not going to be able to observe the process in real time just like we're not going to observe a lizard change into a bird in real time. Plus, it would be an extremely small, local population, so we'd have to get pretty lucky for scientists to just happen to sample that little group of newly "abiogenerated" organisms.

Ultimately, it's doubtful that this would happen since once life has already filled this planet, it becomes quite a tough neighborhood. Anything new that tries to evolve will almost certainly get gobbled up before it makes much progress.

Would you believe, today my grandma told me about a trial on court in Strassbourg that believers won. It was about allowing to put a cross into classrooms. I had no idea why. Apparently, it is necessary to let God know that we take all knowledge from him, by nailing the cross on every wall in the school. WTF? That let me speechless, I found out a suitable answer only much later. 
Well, that's where I am, exploring my grandma's unbelievable belief system. My estimate is, that by disclosing me her cherished details of religious belief is an act of trust and I must be careful to not show much of doubt. It's obvious she'd take it personally. 

The goal is to invent some mutually interesting topic of chitchat, because I'm really bad at talking about cooking and old (sometimes dying) neighbours whom I don't really know. Religious beliefs are much better, it's a risky and deep topic, but I'd welcome the challenge. In case of eventual total success I could assert my position without attacking her position, that would be great. 

So the goal is really to open up some way of relating to her. That is great. In fact, that should come well ahead of trying to introducing here to the wild world of atheism. In fact, I almost see no point in trying to rip the preconceptions out from under an old woman.

She is your gramma and in no small part, your connection to the past from which you came. I would make a case that it is primally important to get the conversation going and see what comes of that. I would not want to worry about getting into religion so much as finding out what it means to be the person whom you are (as relates to whom your forebears have been).

As an example, my grandmother was hugely into classical music. As a your teen, I remember that she felt that “my music” was all about men with women's hair saying “yeah, yeah yeah” over and over. However, growing up with classical music as I did, once I started to become more sophisticated in my tastes, I was able to show her many examples of rock music which were inspired by classical music. That really helped me to get a feeling for who she was and I think that it hepled her to understand that I was not “just into bad music” so much as into music that came from the music that she liked.

Belief in evolution and even the possibility of abiogenesis does not demand their acceptance as a substitute for God. Only a narrow, fundamentalist, anthropomorphic idea of “god” is incompatible with evolutionary science. We can view the rejection of this fundamentalist “god” by atheistic scientists as valid, while refusing to grant validity to an outright rejection of a Supreme and Conscious Intelligence operating at the cosmically comprehensive level Whom some of us deem to call God.

Such a rejection merely because God is not accessible to local, special-case sensory perception and conception, simply because those who reject  have never caught “god” hiding behind a tree, is just the secular equivalent of their religious counterparts who expect to literally “walk with God” someday in a thus far undisclosed location somewhere in space called Heaven. The following points elaborate this perspective:

1.       Scientific method attempts to optimize the reliability of our communications with natural structure, ideally in the service of understanding its function and engineering life-supporting technology and a consequently more efficient and comfortable existence.

2.       Scientific method is structured as rational inference from empirical evidence using a social noise reduction system that employs noise filtering (experimental design) and replicability (communications redundancy) in its attempts to optimize reliability.

3.       Empirical epistemology historically respects replicable sensory experience and its technological extensions as the ultimate arbiters of reliability along with rational inference and advanced mathematical tools to evolve practical, applicable intellectual models of natural structure.

4.       The most fundamental premises undergirding any model of natural structure are empirically derived and constitute the axioms of the rational system that defines the model.

5.       Earlier, classical models have turned out to be local, special-case versions of evermore comprehensive, general-case models (e.g., Newtonian mechanics vs. Einstein’s General Relativity).

6.       The more comprehensive, general-case models ironically contain within them the previous, locally applicable models as special cases while finding their roots in axioms that contradict those of the special-case models.

7.       This clearly implies that premises based on local sensory experience can be locally serviceable while comprehensively untenable.

8.       Our modern, increasingly comprehensive and general-case models have shown themselves to have enormously practical technological power while simultaneously becoming increasingly counterintuitive to our local, special-case sensory perception and conception that form the roots of classical models.

9.       The obvious implication is that sensory experience is intrinsically local and special-case and so is not comprehensively valid in terms of its utility in assessing the fundamental nature of existence.

10.  The ultimate character of natural structure is therefore unavailable via local, special-case sensory perception and conception, especially when we consider that these senses evolved in different and relatively arbitrary ways in different living species.

11.   Axioms are in principle unprovable while remaining the basis, the essential roots, of the rational systems they imply.

12.   Since scientific method places replicable empirical experience at the axiomatic root of its theoretical models and uses reason as the means to assess the practical implications regarding relationships among the elements of natural structure and their conceptual unification, in science the conscious experience we call observation is primary and reason, vital but secondary, a tool evolved for dealing more appropriately and practically with experience.

13.   Truly ultimate questions are by definition axiomatic and so unprovable.

14.   Empirical epistemology, rather than implying that the impossibility of proof for axioms somehow means they are inaccessible to experience, clearly implies quite the opposite, so an absence in principle of proof is no implication that ultimate questions are inaccessible to experience.

15.   Lawfulness in natural structure is both easily confirmed by experience, is rationally an assumption based on that experience, and forms the axiomatic basis of all scientific endeavor.

16.   Information theory rightly fails to make any distinction between lawfulness and intelligence, since such a distinction is an arbitrary, meta-scientific assumption and Occam’s razor demands elimination as theoretically uneconomical any conceptual appendage we cannot in principle demonstrate to have any explanatory value.

17.   An intelligence/lawfulness dualism is merely an apparently secular corollary of the Cartesian spirit/matter dualism, never mind what criteria we might employ to categorize either as secular or not.

18.   A subjective/objective dualism is simply another corollary of Cartesian dualism, since we cannot in principle acquire any knowledge that is somehow other than conscious experience and since objectivity is simply a label with which we certify some aspects of conscious experience as consistent and reliable.

19.   The evolution of theoretical modeling in physics has moved toward an increasingly disappearing distinction between natural law and what it governs, a distinction that has indeed already virtually disappeared, so our understanding of natural law is apparently evolving toward a limit-case, lawful abstraction that interacts comprehensively, exclusively, and recursively with itself.

20.   Even in less abstract, classical terms, the recursive nature of evolution at the cosmic level is self-evident, since natural structure uniquely determines the flow of energy throughout itself, which in turn modifies its structure.

21.   More briefly, at the level of cosmically comprehensive, limit-case generality, abstract natural law interacts exclusively and recursively with itself to generate all locally perceptible phenomena.

22.   If we use Occam’s razor to slice away the dualistic intelligence/lawfulness corollary, intelligence interacts self-referentially to generate all local, special-case phenomena and their resulting appearance with regard to our locally specific modes of perception and conception.

23.   The limit-case abstraction of recursively interacting natural law at the cosmic level viewed as self-referent intelligence is a compelling definition for a Cosmic Antecedent to our own, locally reflected self-awareness; we become small, local points within a holographic universe who consequently reflect the essential nature of the whole.

24.   Together with our current knowledge of cosmic evolution, this implies that nature is so structured that it produces evolutionary pressure everywhere to evolve locally subsystems within itself that increasingly reflect its comprehensively essential, axiomatic nature until it evolves creatures that experience this locally as self-awareness, a consciousness that intuitively looks back and wonders about its source...another wondrously specific example of the recursive nature of cosmic evolution.

25.   This is the scientific equivalent of the scriptural statement that we are made in the image of God.

26.   The profound inner silence cultivated by multiple cultures at vastly different times and its resulting practical implications have been called the perennial philosophy, which represents an individual social noise reduction system in contrast with that represented in the collective character of scientific method, and so reflects the enduring nature of the most truly ultimate and intimate empirical experience of abstract individual consciousness, inaccessible to sensory perceptions while axiomatically essential to them…a local reflection of its Cosmic Antecedent, Whose existence is no less provable in experiential, empirical terms than our own awareness.

27.   This has been metaphorically stated by the most highly positive cognitive outliers throughout the ages: in the eastern world  as “many ponds, one moon”, in the Zen Bhuddist world as “knowledge by Being”, in the Abrahamic religions as “Be still and know that I am God”, and in the Vedic tradition of India as “Curving back on myself, I create again and again.”

A lot of words, but not much was said...

I don't see any reason why the process of abiogenesis couldn't be ongoing, however, any new organism would enter an environment already full of organisms that have evolved to fill the niche. I think we'd have to call them 'fast food'...

LC >;-}>

Empirical data from observation and experiment is NOT limited by how accurately our senses convey reality to us, since now that data, especially where more detail and accuracy is required as our investigations proceed, is mostly gathered by instruments, so our raw senses only need to be acute enough to read dial positions and words and numbers in digital displays. The same skills required to read holy books. so any argument based on the limitations of our senses is void.

Whereas anything based on purely mental experiences is limited by our very fallible minds, so could only ever be subjective, still requiring verification by empirical observation and testing.

Since the God Hypothesis has no empirical evidence going for it, at least nothing pointing specifically to attributes only identifiable with a 'God', AND there is no fundamental mystery that can only be 'explained' by such a hypothesis, "God" has no standing in the serious pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

If you don't understand French, French poetry sounds like a lot of meaningless words. If you lack any basis in experience for understanding the science behind my words OR your own POTENTIAL for inner silence, then my words will naturally fall on deaf ears. Do you even know what special-case and general-case means? Do you understand that a model can be a special case of a more general-case model while the  premises at the roots of both rational systems contradict each other? That's a very significant point in itself, with extremely global and powerful implications.

If you don't get that, you don't get much. What I find in most "scientific" atheists is they have only a technical knowledge of science without any genuine depth and a very fragmented view of existence with little understanding if any of conceptual unification. That's why their scientific understanding, no matter how sophisticated, is so shallow and their thinking so fundamentally fragmented. They plug up a logical hole in their conceptual dike here and fail to realize they just pulled the other thumb out of its hole. They consequently cannot think comprehensively enough to understand that the whole field of modern theoretical (non-classical) physics with its enormously productive conceptual output in terms of enabling practical, technological advancement is predicated on the premise that nature is literally and fundamentally unified. Merological reductionism assumes the opposite: that the universe is fundamentally fragmented at the quantum level. I suppose the exquisitely coordinated microcosmic probabilities that result in statistically coherent macroscopic phenomena is the result of some kind of magical thinking on their part, which they then project onto others.

I used scientific and philosophical language that are trivial in their 
fields and considered to be accessible to scientifically literate 
laypeople. Sorry if you find it difficult to understand.

Allow me to use language any lay person can understand, when you pop onto a thread, and insult the people on it even though none of them have responded to you... you sir, are a douche.

LC >;-}>

 ...but not intended to insult anyone. I do not consider any language I used to be so arcane as to be unintelligible to scientifically and mathematically literate laypeople. I therefore wonder why you do not consider it an insult of roughly the same order to have called my language so difficult. I also wonder why you assume no one has responded when the very "insult" you impute to me was a response to someone who responded that my language was very difficult.

And an idiot if you think you said anything intelligent. More like a plethora of fallacy featuring strawmen, ad hominem, and a few others.

Uh, actually not.

There is more to the Universe than "science".  There are things which cannot be proven through Science.  There are things which cannot even be =known= through Science.

Consider this -- you can't even prove anything outside your head exists.  "I think therefore I am" is NOT a proof of your existence, it isn't even (contrary to Descartes) proof that you think.  It is a fallacy -- you think you think.  You could just as easily be a part of someones imagination, imagining you and your thought processes.

This is the danger of worshiping Science as a religion -- you are led through the process of examining the physical Universe into the fallacy of thinking that you are actually =examining= the =physical= universe.  Your senses are not the things they sense.  Your senses are electrical signals, at best.  At worst, they are the imagination of someone else =thinking= about your senses.

The ultimate irony is that not only can Science not prove G-d exists, Science can't prove you exist.

Welcome to the forum, robert_13.

Concerning the difficulty in understanding your posts, I don't think it is your generous usage of scientific and philosophical terms as much as your style and amount of writing itself. People on the Internet do not have that much patience. Many individuals, if they sense that you disagree with them and used three compound words where one imprecise word was probably sufficient, will reject your position automatically. Their lack of understanding does not even faze them; actually, that becomes an argument in their favor e.g. 'your position is flawed, so you must use flowery language profusely to hide every fallacy from being spotted.' 

I'm not saying you are 'in the wrong' or that every respondent did not understand though. 

 I appreciate your kind comments. If indeed I'm using flowering language or excess verbiage, that is certainly not my intention. Most people have the opposite reaction: that my language is too densely packed and therefore difficult to follow. I get the feeling here that people don't want to understand my position, since most responses so far simply make broad slams at what I've said without any specificity whatsoever or just say it's all meaningless, which to anyone both intelligent and scientifically informed is an unmitigated crock. With a notable exception or two, this remains true despite my request for the contrary. I've clearly asked that critics point out what they feel to be specific fallacies. This is not a simple declaration that something is a fallacy merely because the critic disagrees, but a clear demonstration of the nature of the fallacy and what makes it so.

This requires some genuine understanding of the points made, which I feel some here just don't want to bother with. A simple cop out is to say it's all a bunch of meaningless gibberish, which it may indeed be to some people incapable of any kind of abstraction. (I once talked to a PhD in cognitive psychology who showed me research that 60% of PhDs in the USA are incapable of very simple abstract reasoning. I don't have any trouble believing that, since I've witnessed it countless times in the academic world.)

 your opinions and throw insulting epithets, eh? Wow! Really useful debate style there! However, I have some suggestions to improve even further your stellar skills at Platonic dialectic:

1. Back up your broad statements regarding alleged fallacies with some kind of cogent and specific statements as to what makes them so. Your broad attacks essentially translate to "I'm right and you're wrong, nya-ya-ya!"

2. Refrain from silly epithets despite the tasteless color they add to the thread.

3. Research my points before you arbitrarily decide whether they're matters of opinion or scientifically well-founded statements of long-established principles.

4. Since I'm not aware of any original ideas or "assumptions" made in that list other than the elimination of the Cartesian spirit/matter dualism and their logical equivalents or corollaries, the intelligence/lawfulness and subjective/objective dualisms, please prove me wrong by finding anything in my initial numbered list of step-by-step arguments that is NOT a well-established scientific principle or fact, excluding my elimination of rationally useless and counterproductive dualism.

I would also like to know whether you have any clue that science beyond classical physics undermines the premises underlying the latter, which as a comprehensive theoretical model has been obsolete for about a century. Your statements and that of others that attempt to refute that sensory observation and all its technological extensions are intrinsically local and special-case indicate that you're stuck in an obsolete classical perspective, since nothing in biology, for example, would make that matter. It sure would in either quantum theory or relativity!

So if anyone here can give me a simple instance of a special-case situation for which Euclidean geometrical principles work, but which then fail in a more comprehensive context, I will at least know whether there is anyone here who has a serious grasp of cosmological issues. Is there no one here who can grasp this well-accepted principle of theoretical modeling? Does no one here know that there exist physics principles that are very serviceable locally, but completely break down comprehensively? The irony is that the more general-case theory contains within it as a special case the one that is apparently valid locally, yet the premises underlying each completely contradict those of the other. This is a trivial and utterly incontrovertible principle for anyone familiar with non-classical physics even at a lay level. My reasoning completely hinges on this understanding. To call that an assumption by anyone, let alone mine, demonstrates utter ignorance of long-established and critically important cosmological principles, not to mention a very basic understanding of modern theoretical models.

If people here are as impatient as one response has indicated, then while they have a right to their opinions, that in no way contributes to their value. People who want to make bold statements concerning fundamental cosmological ideas should be willing to think deeply and beyond their own narrow disciplines and seriously consider arguments to the contrary. Otherwise, this is a wasteland of opinions acquired only for the purpose of satisfying their owners' emotional and psychological preferences, something that atheists are fond of projecting onto theists. I have to admit that most of the time, they're right about that, but living on the opposite side of the same sandbox just leaves them in the same sandbox. 

Evidence?

1: Evidence?
2: Define: "a level deeper than space-time". Because on the face of it, it's as broken and meaningless as spiritual and supernatural. ie: Completely.

Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the

 Vastet, I agree that Kant's "definition" is in the same category as that of the first grader who defined potatoes as a food that's so everybody can have enough. However, you also seem to accuse me of having defined time. I have not. No one has ever defined time, as you clearly point out, but don't forget that includes both you and me.

What you seem to think is my attempt to define time is merely a statement of the commonly conceived, special-case but self-contradictory character of time as only existing as a single point, since it would seem on the surface that the past no longer exists and the future doesn't exist yet. Yet we represent it mathematically in scientific charts of every kind as a linear progression and a continuum. These representations and mathematical treatments are not mine. I'm simply recounting the evidently commonplace conception of time with no attempt to define it myself.

You do not address the universal understanding among theoretical physicists that neither time nor space can be measured except in reference to themselves. A rod that serves to standardize length in space does not represent any kind of absolute, since it simply allows the comparing of lengths in space. Time is in principle not measurable except by comparing an interval with some other temporal phenomenon such as some electromagnetic frequency. It is meaningless to talk about time as having any absolute dimension, since even if we could conceive of anything other than itself to measure it against, its relationship to that would have no physically detectable effect. Time and space would maintain precisely the same relationships they already have despite how large or small any absolute against which we could compare them might be, if such thing existed in the first place. Einstein had to recognize this in order to conceive of relativity. To impute such ideas to me is absurdly naive.

So you seem to be fond of demonstrating how many simple facts you're utterly unaware of while accusing me of the same. All praise be to classical Jungian projection, to which we apparently owe the really silly elements of this discussion. Your conceptual reach is extremely lacking in any significant scope beyond large numbers of alleged, poorly integrated factoids you're apparently fond of spouting, many of which are intellectually myopic in the extreme. You don't address anything I suggest, such as the universal recognition among theoretical physicists that more general-case models of reality contain within them locally accurate special-case models while their underlying premises contradict.

The Supreme and Conscious Intelligence at the axiomatic root of existence I am proposing exists beyond space-time. I don't pretend to understand what space and time truly are. I'm certainly not capable of defining what a level of existence deeper than space-time is except as the empirical experience of my own pure consciousness alone with itself without any object of perception, including thoughts, images, sounds, or memories of any kind. That is an experience that in the view I'm presenting here is rationally unprovable because consciousness is an axiomatic property of natural structure and therefore extra-rational just as any axiom is by definition. Do you even understand the simple principle that axioms are by definition extra-rational, logically transcending the rational systems for which they form the root? I don't get that you do, but it's a basic principle in mathematical thought. You never even touch ideas like that with your critiques. You just stay right up on the surface with your assessments of sensory appearances as ultimate reality. No one who knows anything about modern physics holds that view, barring some freak crackpots somewhere of whom I'm unaware. Yet you seem to think I'm just expressing personal opinions. Wow! Do a little research. 

You attack my statement about correlated particles being related via a level deeper than space-time. Why me? Why don't you attack the probably atheistic physicists who are hypothesizing that on the basis of relatively recent experiments at the LHC in Europe, if you even know what that is? In case you're so incapable of understanding anything I've said to realize it, I'm not a creationist in any sense in which that word is currently used. I don't believe in a "god" who created the universe at some specific time in the past. I avidly follow evolutionary theory and am perfectly comfortable with having descended from a common ancestor to us and apes. I have no problem with abiogenesis, and strongly hope I live to see it demonstrated in our labs.

Are you aware that the Neanderthal genome has been fully sequenced? Do you know that everyone who is not of pure African descent has DNA that is from one to four percent Neanderthal? I like the irony of that. Whites or mixed race people are the only ones who have Neanderthal in their DNA. No homo sapiens genes are found in Neanderthal DNA and there is only male Neanderthal contribution to homo sapiens DNA. This has been interpreted as meaning that only male Neanderthals impregnated homo sapiens females and the latter raised the offspring in a homo sapiens environment or there would otherwise be homo sapiens DNA in the Neanderthal genome. Hmmm....sounds like rape has been around for awhile. That, my friend, is evidence. The easy demonstration of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and of Bell's Inequalities are evidence. The lack of any effect of relativistic manipulation of space-time on the quantum relationships in correlated particles is EVIDENCE, SILLY! It points to a level of reality deeper than space-time, and yes, no one has yet defined that, but it's interesting that research is pointing there just as the Michelson-Morley experiment with the speed of light violated Newtonian mechanics and got Einstein thinking about how we could reconcile this special-case evidence with our opposite special-case experience at insignificantly small fractions of the speed of light and still have Newtonian mechanics fall out as a special case when we restrict the parameters to local conditions at low velocities.

So go do some darn research on something other than classical views of microbial and molecular behavior. If you don't know it, dig up some information about how the apparent acceleration of the expansion of the universe is necessitating the hypotheses of dark energy and dark matter if we hold on to our current view of things. The only other alternative is to assume our theoretical models are in need of a fundamental, Einstein-like leap forward and that the new understanding will not require these assumptions. If dark matter and energy do indeed exist, then they constitute 96% of the universe, they are completely invisible to us, and we have no clue as to what they are. 

I've proposed a perspective that eliminates what I consider to be unnecessary dualism and used reason from there. My reasoning is based on well-established scientific principles that have proved to have immense practical value in terms of technological advancement. I consider that evidence...evidence of which you're apparently utterly ignorant and fond of demonstrating that to boot. Nevertheless, every physicist worth the name knows that current theory is incomplete. There is hard evidence that the Standard Model (quantum physics) is incomplete. Einstein's theory of general relativity has been confirmed accurate by all kinds of evidence and in spades, yet we have so far been unable to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity and the latter fails to shed any light on the hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy or explain the acceleration of cosmic expansion. 

So considering the current state of our cosmological ignorance, I would suggest we be a bit humbler about our assertions. I'm merely suggesting that there is good reason to consider the possibility that my experience is in common with many throughout history and has a basis in reality, the reality of our own noise-free awareness as a self-evident reflection of a Cosmic Counterpart. I suggest that dualism is not merely unnecessary, contributing zero explanatory power. It destroys theoretical economy, necessitates all kind of inelegant assumptions and internal contradictions, and so invites Occam's razor to the party.

I will leave it to any intelligent, scientifically informed readers who happen by, readers with the ability to distinguish valid logic from thoughtless rhetoric, to judge the intelligence or lack of it in my posts. Your assessments are blatantly specious and very small-minded in scope, not to mention rude.

 ... that neither time nor space can be measured except in reference to themselves and so are not absolute, but relative. Guess you can't read, goofball! Your reading comprehension is less than zero. I scored post-graduate level reading comprehension when I was in the seventh grade. There is no desire on your part to address anything I've said. Anything that even mentions something specific I've said demonstrates zero comprehension of what it actually means. You don't know anything about current theoretical models that have anything to do with cosmological issues. Why don't you actually say something intelligent sometime instead of just demonstrating zero comprehension of anything? 

For intelligent readers who happen by, my posts do indeed included hypotheses based on my own experience attested to by others throughout the ages. I have taken the trouble to support this with arguments based on scientific principles that are not mine, nor are they merely hypotheses, but time-tested, practical, widely accepted principles. This ignoramus simply yells out repeatedly his own ideas or calls you a fool for repeating standard scientific principles and reasoning based on them and the elimination of any kind of dualism between consciousness and local, special-case perception of matter and energy.

I think we all know we experience all three: consciousness, matter, and energy. My reasoning connects them on the basis of my own and others'experience and scientific principles and cutting away any dualism with Occam's razor. Quoting standard names for logical fallacies without applying them to anything specific is useless blabber. Vastet calls hypotheses assertions without evidence while he ignores everything leading to the hypotheses. When I point out that he hasn't addressed an issue, he pretends there was nothing to address and is still waiting for it because he apparently can't read. He refuses to accept well-established scientific principles and pretends they're my unsupported assumptions. All you have to do is read to confirm what I'm saying, a skill that Vastest apparently doesn't have.

If readers who happen by are NOT simply already so stuck in Vastet's camp philosophically and so biased they can't be at all objective, then they will NOT just think what they already want to think. Any intelligent, informed, and objective readers will have great difficulty in finding any cogent arguments regarding my posts coming from Vastet, since they don't exist. He does not ever answer with any line of reasoning my retorts to his claims about my allegedly unsupported assumptions. He calls my hypotheses unsupported assumptions, when in fact hypotheses are by definition assumptions, but I have supported them with all kinds of well-supported, widely accepted evidence and a line of reasoning allegedly full of fallacies he never specifies. He ignores my invitations to do so, probably because of his well-demonstrated inability to do so. A list of formal names of logical fallacies does not address any specific, alleged fallacy in my reasoning. 

So I've just registered for this site, but I'm on the verge of forgetting about it, since I just get crap slung at me by some fool who lives by the following old proverb:

"A man convinced against his will

is of the same opinion still."

Of course, this one is not ever convinced of anything he doesn't already think in the first place, so this proverb is being far to generous. If this is just a back-slapping society of like-minded people who don't wish any challenge to their positions and are uninterested in dealing seriously, responsibly, coherently and respectfully to opposing ideas. I'm not interested

 Yeah, right. Anything you say. Kudos to your obvious genius. You're really smart for a fourth grader. I bet you're about nine now?

P.S. Oh, and by the way, it's P.S. followed by a space, no comma. Fourth-grade English. 

Incoherent thinkers think anything coherent and intelligent is rigid. By the way, Nazi is not possessive, so you don't need the stupid apostrophe and it's a proper noun, so it's capitalized. Inability to distinguish linguistic function extends to reading, understanding, thinking. I'm really starting to seriously wonder whether you're a grade school kid masquerading as an adult. Ciao.

Some mutations stink. Evolution is not synonymous with a bunch of stupid, dysfunctional mutations.

Sigh...

Further proof of your stupidity, as if any were required.

Hypocrisy now. The theist has no limits to how low he will sink.