Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[Trader666]

This is your STUpid "idea" of a proof

Quote from STUpid:

Oh and you missed out proofs......

 

[stu]

Quote from Trader666:

This is your STUpid "idea" of a proof

Who took your picture? It's a credit to them 'cause I'll bet it helps you look a lot more intelligent than you actually are.

 

[Trader666]

Your moronic STUpor, dunce cap and clueless quotes capture the essence of your STUpidity. All in all, a very accurate portrayal even if a bit flattering.

Quote from STUpid:
Edited for accuracy:
Who took my picture? It's a credit to them 'cause it helps me look a lot more intelligent than I actually am.

 

[RickTheMan]

The fundamental difference between Religion and Science:

SCIENCE:
1) Science admits it doesn't know everything; and strives to continue learning.
2) Science uses an objective monitoring system called the "Scientific Method", which is used to determine everything from what life is, to how life can continue to exist, or even as to why something cannot work. It's emotionless, objective, and it's the most closely resembled to how real Nature works.
3) Concepts in Science, although sometimes intangible, are built on tangibles and tangible material constructs that exist in the real world. We may not be able to see the "atom", but we can prove it's by by doing such-and-such and we can manipulate in such-and-such way.
4) In order for something in Science to ultimately become "true", it must be repeatable and, obviously observable over time.

RELIGION:
1) Religions state everything has a starting point of their God - and that their God is the correct version while all others are not.
2) Religion uses no objective method to view the world. It's all done so in a subjective lens of emotion and "belief".
3) Anything goes. The greater the fantasy, the better the Biblical story.
4) No proof needed to prove any statement in the Bible or any miracle in the world other than, "It's God's Will."

As you can see, the differences are quite stark and absolutely contrast each other. As with religious differences, there are differences with people. Some people have the ability and strength to understand that a higher power called GOD, doesn't exist, and can view the world through a lens that Nature has given us. Other people can't.

Let me specifically state that religion is not spirituality - as those two things are drastically different. Religious people scare me, spiritual people do not.

My 0.02. Have a nice day.

 

[Trader666]

What about atheist crackpots like STUpid? Who are so extreme and detached from reality that they contradict themselves in the same sentence and make up nonsensical "proofs" in their desperation to validate their beliefs?
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3294316#post3294316
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3295476#post3295476

Quote from RickTheMan:

The fundamental difference between Religion and Science:

SCIENCE:
1) Science admits it doesn't know everything; and strives to continue learning.
2) Science uses an objective monitoring system called the "Scientific Method", which is used to determine everything from what life is, to how life can continue to exist, or even as to why something cannot work. It's emotionless, objective, and it's the most closely resembled to how real Nature works.
3) Concepts in Science, although sometimes intangible, are built on tangibles and tangible material constructs that exist in the real world. We may not be able to see the "atom", but we can prove it's by by doing such-and-such and we can manipulate in such-and-such way.
4) In order for something in Science to ultimately become "true", it must be repeatable and, obviously observable over time.

RELIGION:
1) Religions state everything has a starting point of their God - and that their God is the correct version while all others are not.
2) Religion uses no objective method to view the world. It's all done so in a subjective lens of emotion and "belief".
3) Anything goes. The greater the fantasy, the better the Biblical story.
4) No proof needed to prove any statement in the Bible or any miracle in the world other than, "It's God's Will."

As you can see, the differences are quite stark and absolutely contrast each other. As with religious differences, there are differences with people. Some people have the ability and strength to understand that a higher power called GOD, doesn't exist, and can view the world through a lens that Nature has given us. Other people can't.

Let me specifically state that religion is not spirituality - as those two things are drastically different. Religious people scare me, spiritual people do not.

My 0.02. Have a nice day.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

What a pathetic thing to say. Of course building blocks are the 'issue' here.
Furthermore I did not say 'there is science showing how life evolved from non life'.. wtf is wrong with you?
Do you imagine altering what I said somehow helps you reason ?

Why don't you go try and read what I did actually say, if you are at all capable of any comprehension ability that is.

It's the fact that those building blocks, essential for all life on earth, can develop completely naturally, which makes the whole 'life from non life issue' possible.

Emanating from that alone, there is in fact plenty of science to show how life can come from non life.
Apparently unhappy with that, for no logical or rational reason you've been able to provide, YOU introduce the word evolved into the 'issue'.

Quote from Jem

" [If]... there is plenty of science showing life evolved from non life..."
"It is whether there is science showing how life evolved from non life."

The word evolved is not present in any of the statements I made which you are wetting yourself about.
So how come you introduced it?

However, this is from whom you like to keep referring to as a Nobel prize winning scientist whilst tying to pretend he makes some kind of devastating point against 'life from non life'. Yet the science is all about how 'life evolved from non life'
Your own hero expects to be able to turn the how into did.

• "We are interested in the chemical and physical processes that facilitated the transition from chemical evolution to biological evolution on the early earth. As a way of exploring these processes, our laboratory is trying to build a synthetic cellular system that undergoes Darwinian evolution.
  ...................
  Such a system should, given time and the right environment, begin to evolve in a Darwinian fashion, potentially leading to the spontaneous emergence of genomically encoded catalysts and structural molecules. " Dr. Jack Szostak

But that's what your irrational argument relies on isn't it?
Trying to ignore all the scientific proofs within abiogenesis along with any other science which provides a well-substantiated explanation using the words how life can come from 'non life ' , so you scream and kick and contort the whole question about as if you have anything like an argument , just so long as there is no statement yet to say life did come from 'non life'. At that point a different style of denial will no doubt issue forth from your ridiculous confusion.

Well, all your name calling and childish nonsense won't change the fact that there IS actually - plenty of science to show how life can come from non life.

what a fricken troll.
He is trying to change the meaning of his initial quote.

he is trying to equate

"There is plenty of science showing Stu is a crackpot"

with

[If] there is plenty of science showing Stu is a crackpot.

Nice try Stu but there was no "if" in front of your crackpot statement. (which I quoted in context with a link.)

 

[jem]

Quote from jem:

This is what Stu called philosophy on this thread because these scientists show Stu to be a crackpot.


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table

 

[jem]

Quote from RickTheMan:

The fundamental difference between Religion and Science:

SCIENCE:
1) Science admits it doesn't know everything; and strives to continue learning.
2) Science uses an objective monitoring system called the "Scientific Method", which is used to determine everything from what life is, to how life can continue to exist, or even as to why something cannot work. It's emotionless, objective, and it's the most closely resembled to how real Nature works.
3) Concepts in Science, although sometimes intangible, are built on tangibles and tangible material constructs that exist in the real world. We may not be able to see the "atom", but we can prove it's by by doing such-and-such and we can manipulate in such-and-such way.
4) In order for something in Science to ultimately become "true", it must be repeatable and, obviously observable over time.

RELIGION:
1) Religions state everything has a starting point of their God - and that their God is the correct version while all others are not.
2) Religion uses no objective method to view the world. It's all done so in a subjective lens of emotion and "belief".
3) Anything goes. The greater the fantasy, the better the Biblical story.
4) No proof needed to prove any statement in the Bible or any miracle in the world other than, "It's God's Will."

As you can see, the differences are quite stark and absolutely contrast each other. As with religious differences, there are differences with people. Some people have the ability and strength to understand that a higher power called GOD, doesn't exist, and can view the world through a lens that Nature has given us. Other people can't.

Let me specifically state that religion is not spirituality - as those two things are drastically different. Religious people scare me, spiritual people do not.

My 0.02. Have a nice day.

Anyone who claims they have the strength to understand that a higher power called God does not exist is as much of a crackpot as any religious person they feel superior too.

Sorry to be rude... I do not really have a problem with what your wrote... but there is a strong chance you are a sock puppet.

 

[fhl]

The atheists know deep down that science doesn't prove, nor does it "exclude the alternatives" that they hold so dear.

Thus, the necessity of silencing their opponents.
To keep them quiet.

Just look at any communist regime.
Or look at any institution in the US that is dominated by pinko commies. You see nothing more than operations to stamp out opposition.

First, they agitate to have guns taken away.
Then, they rewrite history.
Then, they silence opposition.

If you want to know the real reason, for gun control, forget what they say, just look at all history's example of what happens when guns are taken away by atheists.

Need further examples? How about the latest. Obama's new jobs creation speech. NPR published a transcript of the speech, of course deleting the sentence where Obama gaffed about Abraham Lincoln. In NPR's world, that sentence no longer exists.

And if their gun control were enacted, I wouldn't be allowed to reveal what they deleted it, either.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

what a fricken troll.
He is trying to change the meaning of his initial quote.

he is trying to equate

"There is plenty of science showing Stu is a crackpot"

with

[If] there is plenty of science showing Stu is a crackpot.

Nice try Stu but there was no "if" in front of your crackpot statement. (which I quoted in context with a link.)

I'm trying to equate no such thing you tosser.

Quote from Jem
"It is whether there is science showing how life evolved from non life."
I merely used [If] instead of 'It is whether' ....
" [If]... there is plenty of science showing life evolved from non life..."

So actually by your own standards
"It is whether there is science showing how life evolved from non life. You said there was... you are a crackpot.

....I never did say that - which makes you the crackpot.


Here is my 'initial quote'
"there is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life."

Here it is where you are now trying to pretend I've changed it
"there IS actually - plenty of science to show how life can come from non life. "


But don't let that stop you from making ineffectual infantile remarks just because you, like your own sock puppet Trader Shits, can't address any of the substance.

Mind you, anyone like yourself who is arguing for an imaginary Sky Woo over science itself, has to be a few amino acids short of a protein to start with.