Search results

They're a creationist's organization. They know about creationism. Not facts or science.

It's more than obvious by now, especially perhaps from that post, how incapable you are of understanding the most basic facts whenever you think they clash with your preconceived religious belief. You think scientists are going to suggest that the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen to make...

It can't be said like that, unless you practice to deceive. Whether you can deal with it or not, the universe exists specifically. God does not. So to call what is ostensibly the universe - god , is at best being merely disingenuous. I have a pencil on my desk that exists specifically...

Fair enough Hansel, then in answer to your main point: Changing the name of something to something else, doesn't make that something else exist. If what he calls god is actually the universe, why is he being guileful by changing the name universe to god?

The same who thing that put a God together in "exactly the right combination" ?

You're still squirming. No change there. The fundamental single undivided FACT is that all of life's building blocks, the necessities of life, can come and do occur from inorganic material. You can cut & paste all the papers you want to do with showing, speculating, theorizing...

Hey Hansel, nice to hear from you after so long. Would you please be good enough to read again what I said before re-interpreting my words to say something they don't. If the universe is everything we call god then what we call god is included in the universe. No. The universe is...

So the proof, the fact, that the building blocks of life themselves can and are formed naturally by chemical reaction from inorganic material, is beside the point? Hard evidence for 'life from non-life' ....and it is beside the point.? The next questions following from that knowledge is...

Someone incessantly blurts out 'stupid' in every post they make , so you only noticed others saying something they've never said. Really? I suppose with no argument and nothing sensible to contribute, you would say something like that

The universe is everything you’re calling God , except the universe exists in actuality. All a religious person like you really does is replace the word Universe with the word God .

Just a darn minute Ricter, you’re almost starting to sound reasonable. Apparently ET's religiously provoked seem to think that repeatedly creating a link and continuously making silly assertions is all that's needed to present legitimate argument against any evidence, wherever evidence is...

The fact that the building blocks of life can form from inorganic material, is just that . A fact. A scientific fact. The complete and detailed process of how and everything else that goes with it, is not yet known. So it’s not possible to know whether there was enough time or not...

Don't make me laugh you don't want to see evidence at all. You've made it clear how you don't want to see evidence for evolution, as like gravity it is 'ONLY a theory' These things no doubt being put purposely in that particular blind spot, considering the evidence.

Non life / inorganic matter / unrelated non-organic chemical reaction forms amino acids / building blocks of life. ie: life itself. That's proven. There's your evidence. What don't you get? Stovak, in looking to figure out plausible pathways, is one of many working to discover the...

Keep dodging :p

The building blocks of life form from inorganic matter. Szostak’s work is to scientifically explain the process. What on earth has any of that to do with me vs nobel prize winners, and why is it that all you can do is repeat your silly comments?

OMG! Even if God exists, according to Pascal's Wager conditions, you cannot know if the correct understanding should be that God IS. jeez it's a wonder you've worked out how to breath

…There you go again. You just don't get it . Can't you help yourself at all? This thread, like many others, is full of refutation and links in answer to your silly comments. You don't answer them. You just make the same silly comments. There is no proof that would suit some people...

No. It's that I don't accept your nonsensical version of the Wager. That's a different thing altogether. That's right, see if you can deal with the refutation I gave for once. It will be the first time you have done so. You don't know that. According to Pascal, you can't know that ...

As I said, let me know when you have anything like a reasonable argument.