Search results

Caught yourself again, hook line and sinker. So you admit it , this was not real....... Quote from jem: "For years you said we had proof that life came from non life." There it is then, incontrovertible, you have 'for years' been lying that I said something I did not. In hankering...

... already refuted and debunked a hundred times in a hundred threads. If you knew anything about it, you'd soon realize both yourself and the author should understand how natural selection removes those false notions of so called chance. You have an insanity in endlessly repeating the...

Well, wouldn't that make life inevitable rather than a little less improbable? We are talking the straightforward reality of chemical reaction that will result in molecule chains forming given a correspondingly accommodating environment in many and various locations. I'm not sure what...

Yes you have been lying for years and you want me to present YOUR own false assertion. What a clown you are. ..my comment.. "there is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life" ..you altered to say.. "there is plenty of science to show how life came from non life"...

Quote from jem: "There is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life." Quote from jem For years you said we had proof that life came from non life. You see, you can't reason. It's why you're forever arguing like a red neck creationist. The first statement is mine and...

If I understand your point I think it might be an academic one. The current common ancestors of all living things, bacteria / eukaryote / archaea may indeed have had multiple forbear lineages. There may well be many organisms preceding those ones, but at that level of molecular science, would...

The two are incompatible. My first statement is true. The second you own and it is not true. Now you've even started lying to yourself. It's all about god with you. It's all you're ever trying on is to do with bs god behind everything suggestions, like this one you've just repeated for...

You alter what I do say jem, It's not me who has lied. You know we've been through this so many times before and if you weren't so hell bent on squeezing the words Creator and God into everything, you'd understand as any normal person would, how Susskind gives no truck for the...

In your dreams.

As I say, that same old tired argument already refuted and debunked a hundred times in a hundred threads. There is no science whatsoever anywhere that suggests anything but the constants are at the values they are due to the laws of physics as they are indeed manifested by the Higgs boson.

Attaching some sort of non existent exceptional importance to cosmological constants only because of their calculated values, when you can't show those values wouldn't be inevitable anyway in line with the laws of physics, is nothing to do with science. You are wrong in constantly trying to...

I think the technical term is doughnut, but Reducio de profoundus is so basically COOL ! :D

I suggest it's because for some reason Jem so enthusiastically promotes the wacky interpretations creationists and some other general extremists like to concoct, he's obliged to maintainin the only arguments he has. Absurd ones. Then compounding the nonsense by repeating it ad infinitum as if...

I see Jem is still of the mind that when the tired old confused nonsense he keeps pushing has been refuted and debunked a hundred times in a hundred threads, the best thing to do is just repeat it all yet again in another one. The insanity of reiterating the same bs and expecting different...

Here you go Jem. The kind of nutters you're aligning with.....

Hoofhearted, You're welcome. Have a good holiday.:)

It is you reading the economist and scientist. It's you reading 2+2 and getting the answer 3, as per usual. I didn't say it did. You read what I say as badly as you read the economist and scientist. I said Higgs MAY extend and indeed revolutionize The Standard Model, which of course it will...

... you just did it again.

...and so you too prove the point for arguing faulty statements to delude yourself.