Search results

"No in fact you can't define god into existence." Is what I said prior to your gaumless remark. At least try to get the actual quote straight. ...and Apart from ignoring them,throwing your own infantile comments right back is the most they're ever going to warrant.

Careful now crummie . You should just stick with staring at that stone you're waiting to turn to gold. It's less ambitious, you won't need leave your yard, whereby you may become a danger to yourself and others.

There is plenty of science showing life from non life It's called abiogenesis. Your mindless denial does not make it go away.

You are brainlessly repeat posting the viewpoint of a philosopher pontificating on what he says scientists are saying. That is not the weight of the scientific community. It is at the most, the subjective opinions of a philosopher. Idiot.

All you are actually doing is brainlessly repeating what a philosopher is saying the scientists are saying.

That's it crummie, I know you can be as dumb as a rock by random chance postings too.

Of course I can! THAT is what all the research is about. With the weight of scientific evidence all pointing in that direction and no other proper explanation at all, any reasonable person can assume that. If you can't assume "the building blocks of life... they evolved into life on earth...

There certainly is more to life , but what has that to do with scientific proof those chemical building blocks for life arise from inorganic - non living matter?

Those building blocks of life.... are not for.... "not life". What do you expect they are going to synthesize into? Jesus dolls? And you should really stop brainlessly repeating the same old philosophy cut and paste. Just because it's from mit does not make you look any less idiotic than...

Go back then and re read the thread. It's all there. Go and Google. It's there too. Because you can't accept a true statement does not make me delusional

You're suggesting non living matter has all the building blocks of life. Ok.

Then wait no longer. There is plenty of observation and proof in the science called abiogenesis, also referred to as biopoesis, showing how the essential components of life come from 'non life'. Proof of life from non life is your red herring strawman false interminable statement in place...

"can you read... Jem.. why can't you think... is it too emotional for you? too hard to admit I did not mention anything about proof of random evolution from non life to life..." I did say science proves the essential building blocks of life itself originate from material unrelated to...

The talk was about building up of organisms not the breaking down. Dead bodies are more to do with death than life. Don't you think?

Exactly not. Science states and proves how the essential components of all life can and do start from 'non life'. Well certainly I’m not going to bend to the false assertions and accusations, and the word and meaning changes you employ to develop your silly red herring arguments...

It’s been pointed out on numerous occasions there is no science in there, let alone a 'chorus of science' . It is philosophy written by a philosopher. The science in abiogenesis IS science however, and that shows how those ubiquitous (oops… new word there.. watch out) elements of all life...

So which one of your twin identities is referring to the other as "we" now? There's nothing arrogant in the statement I made particularly when considering how science has already proved the point I was making . Not the same as the statement you said I made, which was not only arrogant but...

Not sure jem's and a few others' denials supported by false and illogical assertion can be classed as debunking.

"We" have been informed of that in this thread. Your persistent dumb refusal to acknowledge it, does not mean it isn't there..

If yet another absurd remark contrary to reality is the only way you can concede, then so be it.