Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

Quote from jem:

this is all part of your troll. you make b.s. statements on other threads... like "you have proof life came from non life".

you use that b..s statement to support your lies, as you misrepresent the work of a noble prize winner. Dr. De Duve. You were stating that in context... De Duve was saying life came about from random chance.

Then when I spend the time to educate you on the fact there is no proof that life evolved from non life ... yet alone by chance...
you start in with your b.s. parsing of your original statement.

I am sure in a few weeks you will spread your atheist disinformation and pretend this thread never happened.

good trolling to you.
More...
Nowhere have I ever said I have proof life came from non life.

I have said it is proven that the essential building blocks of life can and do come from inorganic material.
The scientific study of how life on earth would have originated by that means or others within that scope is abiogenesis.

That is what I have said repeatedly.

You obviously don't want to or don’t care to understand what I have actually said.

Also, constantly trying to twist context and meaning , like you did with De Duve and still are, does not make you right.
It is clear what he said and must have meant by *chance*, in context and out.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Actually I'm an in the middle "undecided" so to speak. You know, someone willing to listen to both/all sides with an open mind, someone who doesn't care what the answer/truth turns out to be, someone with no personal agenda, someone who doesn't feel the overwhelming need to convince everyone else that my belief in this area also has to be their belief.

Oh...have I told you today to go fuck yourself?
More...

Thing is the majority of your posts indicate you are no such thing.

My argument with you is there are those who, like creationists, prefer to insinuate all belief is the same , all theory is the same, and therefore stretch that to arguing their belief and their theories are every bit as valid as science.
They are not.
You do that when you say things like - evolution is "ONLY a theory".

"go fuck yourself?".......What's that about, why so rattled?
How come you have to be so contemptuous of someone questioning your claims, which do by the way sound like a creationist's?
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Actually I'm an in the middle "undecided" so to speak. You know, someone willing to listen to both/all sides with an open mind, someone who doesn't care what the answer/truth turns out to be, someone with no personal agenda, someone who doesn't feel the overwhelming need to convince everyone else that my belief in this area also has to be their belief...
More...
Really? "Undecided?" "Open mind?" Then what are some of your equal-opportunity criticisms regarding creationism?
 
Quote from jem:

if you were to read the paper from MIT, I linked to earlier in this thread... you will see that the scientific community is almost unanimous in saying that as of now, there is no way non life had enough time to turn into life on this earth.

now some say, yet it obviously happened. some say they are still working on it... and few say something else may have happened.

but, the author notes... it is a given in the field you can not suggest a rational agent caused it - as your conclusion.

so you see professors starting off their speeches with...

unless you are a creationist..... and some make a joke saying... and we know we can't be that. Then they go on to present their discussion.

I saw Dr. De Duve give a speech at UCSD on t.v.
He did that then explained he figures pan spermia must be the cause.... he said which is good since his speech was being sponsored by NASA.
More...

Your post as I read it has nothing to do with my post on a computer simulation that demonstrates order can arise from disorder.

Your comment, I think, is on abiogensis. Science still has no clue on that one.
 
Quote from jem:

I really tried to lay out for you, so you could read it for yourself.

I presented your quote in the book excerpt...

where you would have also read...

The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator....

You could have gone and read your quote about the laws of gravity and multiple universes in the book excerpt.


"That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many."


betapeg...

do you see the word universes...
do you see the words... "If it is true"

you see it reduces fine tuning to environmental factors.

That is a big if... as no alternate universes have been found to exist.

---
More...

Really wish we could find out for sure which will never happen in our lifetime. Bummer.
 
Quote from Trader666:

It's not about experience level, it's about not "thinking" you know more than you do. And people who don't know what they don't know about simple stuff probably don't know it about complex stuff. What's irrelevant about that?
More...


It's a pathetic attempt to discredit the person, not the argument. You're certainly welcome to return to the discussion at hand, and away from me personally.

Again, you don't know what you don't know. Tell me what special knowledge you have to be able to make that definitive statement. Zeus and Thor can have their own Pascal's wager but they'd be different.
More...

Tell me what special knowledge you have to prove the Christian god is more real than Zeus or Thor. The burden of proof is on you. Where is your god?

Pascal didn't intend it as a proof. My point has been that because it was formulated for the Christian God, one can't say it fails when applied to other deities.
More...

I didn't say anything about Pascal himself or his motives. I was referring to the fact that Pascal's Wager is used by Christian apologists on a routine basis. What is unfortunate for any believer in any deity is that their deity is no more or less real than any other. That is why I said, "The Christian god is no more real than Zeus or Thor." I wish it weren't so but it is.

That's not the only conclusion that can be drawn from what I said.
More...

Right, how about concentrating on the arguments instead of myself???
 
Quote from seneca_roman:

Your comment, I think, is on abiogensis. Science still has no clue on that one. [/B]
More...

You would be surprised. Scientists can now make amino acids from basic organic compounds founds all over the universe. We know what chemicals make up life and especially DNA but the problem is the process in which this occurred is still unknown. Within just a few years, we will know, most definitely.
 
Quote from Betapeg:

You would be surprised. Scientists can now make amino acids from basic organic compounds founds all over the universe. We know what chemicals make up life and especially DNA but the problem is the process in which this occurred is still unknown. Within just a few years, we will know, most definitely.
More...

They've known that since the Miller–Urey experiment done about 60 years ago; so don't get your hopes up.

What is your cite for your comment "we will know, most definitely"?

Seneca
 
It's not a "pathetic attempt." You discredited yourself and I pointed it out.

Wrong. You made the original claim so the burden of proof is on you.

I didn't say you did. Again, prove your claim.

Your "arguments" in the options forum prove you don't know what you don't know, so how likely is it that you know the unknown? You can stomp your little feet and pretend that doesn't matter but it does.
Quote from Betapeg:

It's a pathetic attempt to discredit the person, not the argument. You're certainly welcome to return to the discussion at hand, and away from me personally.

Tell me what special knowledge you have to prove the Christian god is more real than Zeus or Thor. The burden of proof is on you. Where is your god?

I didn't say anything about Pascal himself or his motives. I was referring to the fact that Pascal's Wager is used by Christian apologists on a routine basis. What is unfortunate for any believer in any deity is that their deity is no more or less real than any other. That is why I said, "The Christian god is no more real than Zeus or Thor." I wish it weren't so but it is.

Right, how about concentrating on the arguments instead of myself???
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top