Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

Quote from Lucrum:

930 posts and zero converts. Not a very good ROI.
More...
LOL. That's true. The only one I'm aware of on this board who has changed affiliations on anything is CaptainOblivious and even that change took place because of external forces.
 
Quote from stu:

Seeing how it is proven inorganic matter does produce the essential ingredients for life, and those ingredients do in a natural process, form all types of life on earth, your ridiculous argument is to say they must stop forming life because they came from inorganic matter.

Or even more unavailingly, you say well science says they might develop into all forms of life from material which is not connected to life , if they came from other planets.

Your dumb argument is tantamount to saying inorganic material can only get a little bit pregnant unless it was shagged in outer space.

What exactly is your problem with life from non life as you put it. Just that the science is incomplete. Really!? Is that all?
More...

more amorphous b.s. --- "in a natural process" is code for STU is full of shit and does not know, understand or have a pathway.
 
So equal unfalsifiability only means equal implausibility when you want it to :p
Quote from STUpid:

I too can give any number of examples that are equally unfalsifiable but NOT equally implausible.
More...
Quote from STUpid:

Simply because God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is the Teapot , they're equally implausible .
More...
 
Quote from jem:

more amorphous b.s. --- "in a natural process" is code for STU is full of shit and does not know, understand or have a pathway.
More...

It's ok JEM I already knew you didn't have a rational response.
 
Quote from stu:

It's ok JEM I already knew you didn't have a rational response.
More...

I was very rational. I illustrated your fraud.

You have no proof non life became life "in a natural process." That is the entire fricken issue we have been discussing. Nobel prize winners would not be proposing directed evolution or pan spermia if they had proof non life became life in a natural process here on earth.

You could not be a bigger fraud.
 
Quote from jem:

I was very rational. I illustrated your fraud.

You have no proof non life became life "in a natural process." That is the entire fricken issue we have been discussing. Nobel prize winners would not be proposing directed evolution or pan spermia if they had proof non life became life in a natural process here on earth.

You could not be a bigger fraud.
More...

So life becomes life 'in an unnatural process' !!? Do you even bother to think what you’re saying at all.

Wholly natural origin of life originating on earth, jointly or separtely originating through wholly natural panspermia. It could be both or either.
Just shows how little you understand about this.

So come on why are you avoiding the question. Why so anti life from non life?
Threatens your beliefs too much the only reason?
 
Quote from stu:

So life becomes life 'in an unnatural process' !!? Do you even bother to think what you’re saying at all.

Wholly natural origin of life on earth would not make any difference to it originating through wholly natural panspermia. It could be both or either.
Just shows how little you understand about this.

So come on why are you avoiding the question. Why so anti life from non life?
Threatens your beliefs too much the only reason?
More...

If you wish to have faith in random chance over directed evolution or some other option, that is fine with me.
Just understand you have been spouting faith not science.
 
Is this thread still going? So much for 1 paragraph.

Insanity: posting the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top