Disproving atheists in 82 seconds

Quote from Free Thinker:

It is always amusing to hear theists proclaim that they dont believe in a natural process because it sounds too complicated yet they will readily believe that some grey haired old deity in the sky just spoke and everything we see today popped up from nothing.
--Freethinker
More...

How many times do I have to inform the slow witted Free Thinker that he is responding to the wrong person? I don't like miraculous explanations for anything. I certainly don't like the "God made it so" explanation for the origin of life. (That of course, is no explanation at all.) But the fact is that existing theories have enormous gaps and we are no where near having a satisfactory naturalistic theory for the origin of life. That doesn't mean we will never have one, it does mean that those who claim that abiogenesis is a solved problem, and that critics of the existing theories are fools, are themselves the fools.
 
No, YOU'RE the idiot because earth is not a closed system and might very well have been "seeded," intentionally or not.
Quote from futurecurrents:
Quote from Trader666:

Speaking of brainless dropouts, tell us why you "thought" that because life exists on earth, that somehow "proves" it "came from simple terrestrial processes." :p
More...
Because there is no other logical explanation.
More...
 
Quote from jem:

you are a troll. I have been presenting science this whole time. I rarely interject my own beliefs. Of course it is possible. I lean towards the idea that directed evolution is probably correct.
The point I have been making this entire time is that there is no proof that we evolved from non life by random chance.

Note.. the rest of what you wrote is pure bullshit. What does this mean?

"though not through those natural processes as they are observed of course"

as if someone has observed natural process in which life evolved from non life. --- you are a troll.
More...


Name calling all the time won't make you right.

You have been presenting your own twisted version of science, more commonly known as pseudo science. You've also brought up the same old dead beat cut and paste articles from people who should know better, and whose arguments fall over at their first sentence anyway.

You can lean or tilt toward directed evolution (God did it) all you like, but you won't do it scientifically. That's a fact.
Nobel prize winners may suggest 'directed evolution' to you, but then when you read your bible, you can make it say anything you want too. Doesn't mean you're right.

I think you ARE interjecting your beliefs into this all the time. It's what leads people like you and TRADERsixshits to have comprehension problems with everything that is actually said, and then read things into them to always leave room and conclude in favor of your invisible God friend.

TRADERshits constantly makes an ass out of himself by always name calling (you never see me do that:D) and linking to his errors and blaming me. You by always name calling and constantly reposting the the same articles already refuted a thousand times.

You two really should get a room.
 
Quote from jem:

still waiting for you to show where I lied about being an atheist.
More...
Oh dear me come on Jem wake up for christsakes. Here..a big fat clue for you.

still waiting for you to show where I said there was proof of life from non life.
 
Quote from rew:
Except that those theories require a lot of magic. Magically, proteins form. By chance, some lipid bubbles last longer because they got more of the good, stabilizing proteins. But having good, stabilizing proteins doesn't mean that as the lipid bubble gets bigger it is any more likely than any other bubble to absorb *more* of the good proteins. So when it splits the good proteins get divided among two bubbles, which will then just accumulate average, not so good proteins as they grow. So rather than the inheritance of superior traits we get instant regression to the mean. Since there is no actual copying of information there is no evolution. I guess more magic is needed here.

Really, when you look into the details of these theories you see miracle after miracle.
More...

You may as well have stopped at those first and second sentences. Of course there is scientific explanation of how proteins form. Even in school books. Nothing to do with miracles. So why say that?

The only ones basing claims to do with proof and abiogenesis here are those who will ignore facts , much like you just did, to proudly pronounce there is no proof.
Yet all the time there sits laboratory loads of proven fact, observations, repeatable tests, prediction and demonstrable outcomes that support a formal scientific study which is the highly complex subject of abiogenesis, way away from any suggestion of 'miracles'.

By the tone of your comments , the currently un-resolved, un-proven parts of research you call gaps, is where apparently you find science most appealing, rather than the actual progress in the research of such matters.
 
"Man was born

To die, nor aught exceeds in this respect

The vilest brute. Both transient, frail, and vain,

Draw the same breath; alike grow old, decay,

And then expire: both to one grave descend;

There blended lie, to native dust return'd."

- C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top