Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[stu]

Quote from jem:

wtf... he says in plain english says there is no complete plausible pathway of non life to life.

Bullshit . He says no such thing.

Quote from jem:

this is my point, because I believe that this noble prize winners understands the science.

That is your point and for the many reasons given to you, it is obviously wrong , rather pathetic and a very silly point.

Quote from jem:

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.

now he said that in 2009..

if he now says.. they have discovered proof of abiogenesis... I will accept that unless somewhat presents better science to the contrary.

Not science, it is a general explanation and some philosophizing.

• 
  Szostak: 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.

It's perfectly obvious to anyone not trying to misinterpret or purposely misunderstand Szostak when he says it would be great to have even one complete plausible pathway though they end up with ultimately two or three or more different ways.

One would be good but we have more.

Religion must have messed up your rationality to a greater extent than first realized.

 

[stu]

Quote from ProfitMagnet:

You're quoting people who disprove your point.

Jem wants science or a scientist to say something in support of his religious beliefs. Of course they don't.
So he repeatedly reads his own personal contorted interpretations into a few words taken out of context from a number of quotes he's hauled via some philosophical religious website or other.

Apparently assuming people will fall for that kind of deceit and trickery rather than just recognizing what is actually being said, as you've done.

 

[jem]

there are no complete pathways. so you are completely full of shit, and a troll.

But, let me make this simple so all can no how full of shit you are...

do we have a complete plausible pathway from non life to life.

yes or no stu.

Quote from stu:

Bullshit . He says no such thing.


That is your point and for the many reasons given to you, it is obviously wrong , rather pathetic and a very silly point.


Not science, it is a general explanation and some philosophizing.

• 
  Szostak: 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.

It's perfectly obvious to anyone not trying to misinterpret or purposely misunderstand Szostak when he says it would be great to have even one complete plausible pathway though they end up with ultimately two or three or more different ways.

One would be good but we have more.

Religion must have messed up your rationality to a greater extent than first realized.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

there are no complete pathways. so you are completely full of shit, and a troll.

But, let me make this simple so all can no how full of shit you are...

do we have a complete plausible pathway from non life to life.

yes or no stu.

Yes you are full of shit.

No one has claimed there are complete pathways you goon. All that's happened is another of your religiously motivated quote picks has backfired right in your face yet again.

The fact is science demonstrates multiple plausible pathways for abiogenesis as Szostak mentions.

The suggestion is not as you wish it were, that because there is not one complete plausible pathway, then there are none.

Abiogenesis is extraordinarily sophisticated science, highly advanced containing exceptional ground breaking discovery, in what is an infinitely complicated subject.

All you're really trying to do is drag everything down to your pathetic infantile -don't completely know so it must have been God- nonsense.

 

[Wallet]

Quote from stu:



The fact is science demonstrates multiple plausible pathways for abiogenesis as Szostak mentions.

The FACT is plausible not proven. You stand on your soap box and criticize others for holding onto theories..... pluck the beam out of your own eye brother.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Wallet:

The FACT is plausible not proven. You stand on your soap box and criticize others for holding onto theories..... pluck the beam out of your own eye brother.

Ouch that's gonna leave a mark on stewie's little butt.

 

[stu]

Quote from Wallet:

The FACT is plausible not proven. You stand on your soap box and criticize others for holding onto theories..... pluck the beam out of your own eye brother.

Yet another argument by false assertion. No wonder Lucrum found it attractive.

To have the scientifically plausible FACT not proven - is essentially strong evidence for something

I criticize others like you for making silly comments and relying upon no facts and no plausibility , just so as to stand on your ivory tower, generally finding fault with science and knowledge in general , for no other reason other than to try and get some perverse credibility in dumbing everything down to the level of superstitious religious belief.

Now don't you get to burn forever bearing false witness?

 

[Wallet]

Quote from stu:

Yet another argument by false assertion. No wonder Lucrum found it attractive.

To have the scientifically plausible FACT not proven - is essentially strong evidence for something

I criticize others like you for making silly comments and relying upon no facts and no plausibility , just so as to stand on your ivory tower, generally finding fault with science and knowledge in general , for no other reason other than to try and get some perverse credibility in dumbing everything down to the level of superstitious religious belief.

Now don't you get to burn forever bearing false witness?

Bearing false witness deals with distorting facts (which you have none) not assumptions, plausibilities or probabilities cause if we did then the probability of spontaneous life generation is beyond the realm of chance.

Scientists "think" they know, have "theories" about, but do not have proven facts about how life formed, representing theory as fact is what you criticize, unless it fits your own little Stu-colored glasses world.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stuPID:

bla bla bla yada yada yada

Go get'em tiger!

 

[stu]

Quote from Wallet:

Bearing false witness deals with distorting facts (which you have none) not assumptions, plausibilities or probabilities cause if we did then the probability of spontaneous life generation is beyond the realm of chance.

Scientists "think" they know, have "theories" about, but do not have proven facts about how life formed, representing theory as fact is what you criticize, unless it fits your own little Stu-colored glasses world.

Dear me Wallet. You are the one bearing false witness.
You stand on your soap box and criticize others for holding onto theories.....
Fact is I do no such thing. You are distorting fact.

You did the biblical reference so I just thought you should be aware in making your factually incorrect assertion in that regard you will be bearing false witness.

It's quite clear, I and others have criticized certain ET religious creationist evangelists for distorting and misrepresenting the scientific position only so their personal beliefs might hold some weight in an area where they emphatically do not.

Scientists don't have "theories". They have scientific theory, based on, supported by and including fact. That is exactly how religionists like to distort that fact.

I'm not sure how you are using the word spontaneous in the context of abiogenesis, but there is no evidence or need for it anyway , if you mean what I think you do.
An ordinary natural process is not something necessarily describable as spontaneous.

Chance yes certainly, though I think you would, like other religious responders, misuse that word too.

You have in natural sciences abiogenesis and versions of the same, or nothing gets explained. Especially not by stories of Fairies, God Goblins and magic.