Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

Quote from stu:

…There you go again. You just don't get it . Can't you help yourself at all?

This thread, like many others, is full of refutation and links in answer to your silly comments. You don't answer them.
You just make the same silly comments.

There is no proof that would suit some people that the Earth isn't Flat.
There is no proof that would ever suit you that the building blocks of life form from inorganic matter. But they do.

Funny though how you need no proof whatsoever, that life came from a non life-invisible, unknowable, imaginary, magic man.




More like weird actually.

gay too.
More...

once again stu vs nobel prize winners...

This nobel prize winners said in 2009... we have no know pathways, yet.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/p...ak-and-09-10-05


Szostak: Absolutely! I mean what we're interested in is figuring out plausible pathways for the origin of life. It would be great to have even one complete plausible pathway, but what we find often is when we figure out how one little step might have worked, it gives us ideas, and then we end up with ultimately two or three or more different ways in which a particular step could have happened. So that makes us think the overall process might be more robust. So, you know, ultimately it would be nice, I think, if it turned out that there were multiple plausible pathways; then, of course, we might never know what really happened on the early Earth.
 
If God exists, then the "correct understanding" is that God IS, NOT that God is not. I realize you don't "think" that's rational but then again, you're STUpid :p
Quote from STUpid:

As I said, let me know when you have anything like a reasonable argument.
More...
 
OMG!
Even if God exists, according to Pascal's Wager conditions, you cannot know if the correct understanding should be that God IS.
jeez it's a wonder you've worked out how to breath

Quote from Trader666:

If God exists, then the "correct understanding" is that God IS, NOT that God is not. I realize you don't "think" that's rational but then again, you're STUpid :p
More...
 
Quote from jem:
once again stu vs nobel prize winners...

This nobel prize winners said in 2009... we have no know pathways, yet.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/p...ak-and-09-10-05
Szostak: Absolutely! I mean what we're interested in is figuring out plausible pathways for the origin of life. It would be great to have even one complete plausible pathway, but what we find often is when we figure out how one little step might have worked, it gives us ideas, and then we end up with ultimately two or three or more different ways in which a particular step could have happened. So that makes us think the overall process might be more robust. So, you know, ultimately it would be nice, I think, if it turned out that there were multiple plausible pathways; then, of course, we might never know what really happened on the early Earth.
More...
The building blocks of life form from inorganic matter.
Szostak’s work is to scientifically explain the process.

What on earth has any of that to do with me vs nobel prize winners, and why is it that all you can do is repeat your silly comments?
 
Quote from stu:

The building blocks of life form from inorganic matter.
Szostak’s work is to scientifically explain the process.

What on earth has any of that to do with me vs nobel prize winners, and why is it that all you can do is repeat your silly comments?
More...

you said you have evidence of non life to life.

the nobel prize winner in the field said there are no known pathways.

one of you is therefore wrong.
stu vs. science, once again.
 
Quote from jem:

you said you have evidence of non life to life.

the nobel prize winner in the field said there are no known pathways.

one of you is therefore wrong.
stu vs. science, once again.
More...

Non life / inorganic matter / unrelated non-organic chemical reaction
forms
amino acids / building blocks of life. ie: life itself.

That's proven. There's your evidence. What don't you get?

Stovak, in looking to figure out plausible pathways, is one of many working to discover the exact process.

So what is this actually ? .....
Jem v science in general, under the guise of silly comments posing as false argument, in order to insist on the pretence that life could only come from an imaginary supernatural sky wizard .
 
Quote from Lucrum:

How about that evidence of non life to life you mentioned, I'd like to see that.
More...
Don't make me laugh you don't want to see evidence at all.

You've made it clear how you don't want to see evidence for evolution, as like gravity it is 'ONLY a theory'
These things no doubt being put purposely in that particular blind spot, considering the evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top