Search results

"We" now know no such thing. It's philosophy. Not science. The author is philosophizing.

Dear me Wallet. You are the one bearing false witness. You stand on your soap box and criticize others for holding onto theories..... Fact is I do no such thing. You are distorting fact. You did the biblical reference so I just thought you should be aware in making your factually...

Yet another argument by false assertion. No wonder Lucrum found it attractive. To have the scientifically plausible FACT not proven - is essentially strong evidence for something I criticize others like you for making silly comments and relying upon no facts and no plausibility , just so...

Yes you are full of shit. No one has claimed there are complete pathways you goon. All that's happened is another of your religiously motivated quote picks has backfired right in your face yet again. The fact is science demonstrates multiple plausible pathways for abiogenesis as Szostak...

Jem wants science or a scientist to say something in support of his religious beliefs. Of course they don't. So he repeatedly reads his own personal contorted interpretations into a few words taken out of context from a number of quotes he's hauled via some philosophical religious website or...

Bullshit . He says no such thing. That is your point and for the many reasons given to you, it is obviously wrong , rather pathetic and a very silly point. Not science, it is a general explanation and some philosophizing. Szostak: It would be great to have even one complete plausible...

....apparently though, it's by dopes.

Your creationist ignorance is not intentional? :eek: so you're just a dope.

"It would be great to have even one complete plausible pathway," "but what we find often is" "we end up with ultimately two or three or more different ways in which a particular step could have happened." It would be great to have even one pathway but there are often more than one...

Lol. Not a creationist per se? What, like not being a communist per se would make someone skeptical about capitalism ? Saying things a creationist would say is not being skeptical. It's agenda driven intentional ignorance . Come on crummie, stop trying to pull the wool.

When talking to creationists like yourself...agreed. I'm surprised you were aware of it , although it is rather sad how you seem to think it's some sort of achievement..

You're the one name calling throwing insults and getting their pants in a knot at the slightest thing. Thick skin? Yeah right, don't make me laugh. It's clear you're as thick skinned and skeptical as a creationist is open minded. In denial is nearer the mark. You use the same line...

Woo.... you're always so touchy. Abiogenesis, universes from nothing, are based upon hard science. Just what is your objection to that which makes your open minded abuse so quick to surface?

Good now why not carry on with your new non-troll approach and refrain from trying to read science as if it were your bible, where you fill in your own personal conclusions to everything.

End of story ? .....How is that anything like healthy objective skepticism? What exactly are you trying to say by "scientific" anyway? Either it's scientific or it isn't. Science essentially is healthy objective skepticism, it's how discovery happens. A "fantastical "scientific"...

That's pretty much the same argument Flat Earthers use. It's just hard to believe in globes since they haven't been observed. Flat discs are. So when all that fallible human knowledge, fact and evidence explains how things look ,walk, and quack like a duck, in the way a Flat Earther...

You're right with nothing to contribute but that kind of cheap shot insult, you do display a haughty arrogant self righteous condescending mentality. It’s not my fault the facts and the science to do with evolution, abiogenesis and universes from nothing get under your skin. Blaming...

Apart for the last third of your sentence, that's probably about as scientific a creationist is going to get.

Taking cheap false assertion drive by shots at a peer of the realm, is not cool dude.

Well let's see if I can play at this game of mis-quoting and misrepresenting.... You certainly did just say evolution does run contrary to your reading of the bible. So as a creationist you are now agreeing the Bible does state the earth is only 6000 years old and is flat. Although there...