Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[bwolinsky]

Quote from stu:

Religion hence No proof will do.


...which just goes to show even now after all theses pages, how utterly determined you remain not to understand or comprehend anything.
Panspermia is an element of abiogenesis, so how exactly is life existing throughout the universe, reaching earth as bacteria in meteorites, going to evade any of your irrational denials either?


That's right , it changes nothing. My statement is still true.
Whereas you inserting words like "evolved" into it, is not.

Your problem is because of what has been proven and the research, there IS plenty of science to show how life can come from non life.
Just because you and other ET Creationists can't handle that fact, won't make the science go away.

Stu as far as carrying on a good debate it doesn't appear that you're reading comprehension is up to the task.

Life formed around heated areas. Water came from comets that impacted the earth. We have experiments that form amino acids and unicellular organisms in a vacuum heated to 1000 degrees. This is how life formed. No bacteria or any living thing can survive outerspace. Frozen water spread from a comet impact. That water when it's around basic elements and heated to exactly 1000 degrees forms life. We've done the experiments. We know that's what's happened, and we also know that that process is not unique to the Earth.

 

[stu]

Quote from bwolinsky:

Stu as far as carrying on a good debate it doesn't appear that you're reading comprehension is up to the task.

Life formed around heated areas. Water came from comets that impacted the earth. We have experiments that form amino acids and unicellular organisms in a vacuum heated to 1000 degrees. This is how life formed. No bacteria or any living thing can survive outerspace. Frozen water spread from a comet impact. That water when it's around basic elements and heated to exactly 1000 degrees forms life. We've done the experiments. We know that's what's happened, and we also know that that process is not unique to the Earth.

bwolinsky,

You're confusing my response to someone esle's irrational argument as if it was my own argument. You talk of reading comprehension?
Have you even bothered to check who is saying what in this thread at all?

 

[RickTheMan]

Quote from bwolinsky:

Stu as far as carrying on a good debate it doesn't appear that you're reading comprehension is up to the task.

Life formed around heated areas. Water came from comets that impacted the earth. We have experiments that form amino acids and unicellular organisms in a vacuum heated to 1000 degrees. This is how life formed. No bacteria or any living thing can survive outerspace. Frozen water spread from a comet impact. That water when it's around basic elements and heated to exactly 1000 degrees forms life. We've done the experiments. We know that's what's happened, and we also know that that process is not unique to the Earth.

I'm honestly curious to read some links/books about that. Can you share some?

 

[stu]

Quote from bwolinsky:

No bacteria or any living thing can survive outerspace.

Bacteria in the form of organisms known as Extremeophiles live in environments that are present on other planets and in outer space. Their tolerance to the most extremes of temperature, acidity and pressures allow them to thrive in environments that other living organisms wouldn't survive in for a second.

 

[Trader666]

Tell us specifically which "extremeophiles" [sic] are known to live in an environment where the temperature is -454 degrees F.

Quote from STUpid:

Extremeophiles live in environments that are present on other planets and in outer space.

 

[stu]

Quote from TraderSHITS:

Tell us specifically which "extremeophiles" [sic] are known to live in an environment where the temperature is -454 degrees F.

Why?

 

[jem]

Stu said
1. "Religion hence No proof will do."

Correct... it is religion to say there is no God without proof. Just as it is religion to day you believe in God.

2. Panspermia is also unproven. And it just kicks the can down the road. Nobel Prize winner Crick who suggested pan spermia in a peer reviewed journal... suggested pan spermia may one day be found to be the way life started on earth because he did not think there was enough time for life to evolve from non life here on earth.

3. None of my denials are irrational. That is pure stu bullshit. I am proffering science and the research of nobel prize winners... you deny their conclusions calling it "philosophy". Using you same denial framework you could call the work of darwin philosophy.


4. We are still waiting for you to show "plenty of science showing life coming from non life". What you lie about in your references is speculation about how science may one day find that life evolved from non life. Just like the speculation about pan spermia.

 

[RickTheMan]

Okay, guys, seriously, is there anything wrong with anybody saying that we simply don't 'effing know YET how things have come to be? It's blatantly obvious it isn't a "God" from a "Bible", and science is a slow moving method.....

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
Stu said
1. "Religion hence No proof will do."

Correct... it is religion to say there is no God without proof. Just as it is religion to day you believe in God.

That is so absurd it’s hardly credible a rational person could suggest it. No religion is religion - is not good reasoning .
It is religion to say there is no Santa - is not going to work either.

Quote from jem:

2. Panspermia is also unproven. And it just kicks the can down the road. Nobel Prize winner Crick who suggested pan spermia in a peer reviewed journal... suggested pan spermia may one day be found to be the way life started on earth because he did not think there was enough time for life to evolve from non life here on earth.

After biologists had described life based RNA, Francis Crick responded by saying he had been overly pessimistic about life originating on Earth.
Relying only upon religious apologetic websites for supplying out of date and fragmented perspectives as you do, does not represent the situation very well at all.

Quote from jem:

3. None of my denials are irrational. That is pure stu bullshit. I am proffering science and the research of nobel prize winners... you deny their conclusions calling it "philosophy". Using you same denial framework you could call the work of darwin philosophy.

Rubbish.
You are proffering an irrational unsupported assertion as being supposedly reasonable.

I call the flawed philosophical opinion you linked for what it is . Clearly not "the work of science and the research of nobel prize winners" , it describes itself as a "disagreement", snipping one attributed quote after another to draw only opinionated conclusions based on an opening flawed premise. That is something one would expect from a 3rd grader not an MIT philosophy (clue is in the name) faculty.

You jumped on it because you're always trying to drag any credibility from a college or a renowned institution or science toward your religious beliefs, no matter how badly presented or argued they are.

Quote from jem:

4. We are still waiting for you to show "plenty of science showing life coming from non life". What you lie about in your references is speculation about how science may one day find that life evolved from non life. Just like the speculation about pan spermia.

The statement is and always was "there is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life"
Because on just about every occasion you can't even write it without changing it, doesn't make the statement itself untrue, it just makes you appear either dishonest or unintelligent or both.

Abiogenesis contains proven science and research and is established. Because you won't acknowledge it, doesn't change the fact one iota.

 

[Hombre]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Evolution basically says we come from asexually reproducing micro-organisms and turned into the sexually reproducing organisms that we are today. So how did evolution PLAN that? Evolution does not have a mind. It cant plan for the future...its just random chance. But by separating male, & females, evolution would HAVE to have planned for those two to get together sometime in the future to reproduce. So how can random chance plan for the future like that?

Answer: It can't. It had to be planned consciously.

So the question is...who/what/where is that consciousness and what do we call it?

Answer: God.

My answer is : Mother Nature