Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Drop the STUpid smokescreens about evolution and gravity.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3223058&#post3223058
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3225106&#post3225106
Now let's see the "evidence."
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3223058&#post3223058
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3225106&#post3225106
Now let's see the "evidence."
you are such a troll.
amino acids / building blocks of life. ie: life itself.
you think writing that twisted sentence means you have proof that life came from non life.
We have scientists who state there was not enough time for non life to turn into life, here on earth.
And stu troll is trying to argue all the scientists are wrong... he stu has proof of abigenesis.
its even stu vs the dictionary again... from mirriam websters
Definition of ABIOGENESIS
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
â abi·og·e·nist noun
finally troll - I have never insisted that life could have only been created in one manner. I grew up believing in God and evolution. After being educated I have learned that evolutionist no longer claim we have proof we came out of the primordial goo.
I learned they have retracted just about all the shit they taught me in school. The ape walking into man. The sperm becoming a fish before we become humans.
Now we know evolution is far more limited. I am fine with that.
What I am not fine with... is clowns like you stuck in the 60s. Spouting all sort of garbage... like you have proof man evolved from inorganic matter.
I can't believe this is your position. I respect, and to some degree share, your feeling that there is "something" unseen, to put it mildly, but to think that chemistry can't manage the subtle shift to self-replication (and beyond)... in my view that can only subtract from the awesomeness of the universe set in motion.
I am not "feeling" anything... I am stating the science I have learned in the last few years.
There is zero proof life came from non life at the moment. I quoted a nobel prize winner earlier in the thread.
And many of top scientists in the field say there was not enough time on the earth for abiogenesis. I quoted nobel prize winners in earlier threads. This is the key.... top minds say there is no way inorganic had time to become organic... give the odds. Crick the nobel prize winner, knowing the odds proposes pan spermia in a peer reviewed journal. If you read the journal... you will see the article was bit tongue in cheek.
My feelings are irrelevant as evolution would not conflict with my reading of the bible.
=================
Ric;
I see your point;
& would agree thats not even logical, within religion's or redermptions framework
In Word/redemption's framework[Bible framework ]he has done both;
resurrections from dead bones have happened more that once[Elijah/Elisha...pattern]
Gov of TX,
Gov of OK are calling for praying for rain[Elijah pattern, Elisha pattern]
The fact that the building blocks of life can form from inorganic material, is just that . A fact. A scientific fact.
The complete and detailed process of how and everything else that goes with it, is not yet known. So itâs not possible to know whether there was enough time or not.
Youâve been caught out before selectively quote mining paragraphs out of context . How do you possibly know what Professor Szostak is actually describing when you do that? You canât even be bothered to spell his name, why would you understand properly what he means?.
In your cut&paste there is mention of finding pathways.
He could just as well find that a pathway from inorganic to life with evolution had plenty of time.
Considering that life can form from inorganic material , and that there are many scientific variations , pathways and processes which could have occurred, some of them may well be found to allow for life to arise and end up as it is today, well within the billions of years timescale available.
All you really want to do is make silly comments about sound bites you pull out of some religious websiteâs ass, and for an obscure reason or other, consider it enough to make your imaginary God somehow worthy.
More like pathetic.
Just a darn minute Ricter, youâre almost starting to sound reasonable.
Apparently ET's religiously provoked seem to think that repeatedly creating a link and continuously making silly assertions is all that's needed to present legitimate argument against any evidence, wherever evidence is perceived to threaten their personal belief.
Jem wants to drag science into religion or religion into science. Probably either would do for him. I agree it's not logical.
Others seem to want to just make links back to the start of exchanges, as if they hadn't already lost the argument.
Some prefer to insinuate God anywhere a false argument can be concocted.
To hold personal religious beliefs separate and distinct from science and fact and things known about the natural world is reasonable, even when the belief is not.