You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hawking: God did not create Universe
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
give us the links...
2. the second quote is clearly out of context as I just made it a few days ago and said you admit the truth once ever five years or so.
3. your first quote is a correct statement show us the link and I will prove it.
show us the link to that quote... it should be fun.
As an utterly dishonest person, you sound like an armed bank robber caught red-handed in the act who can only be heard mumbling - what gun, what bank.
There is no question in my mind abiogenesis could have happened.
(but that is not the same as saying there is science showing it.)
Of course it is the same thing. Abiogenesis IS science. What else would it be showing if it doesn't show what it shows.
You really should try to employ a modicum of intellect to at least understand what the hell it is you're trying to assert.
So lets say his opinion is correct. Abiogenesis happened.
Was there a drive for life in the building blocks?
Abiogenesis wouldn't require "a drive for life in the building blocks". Abiogenesis is all about science and natural chemical reactions. There is no scientific reason why chemical reaction would not be sufficient by itself.
There is planty of science showing how life could arise from non living matter. There is no science to disprove what abiogenesis confirms.
ayn rand, queen capitalist & rationality
1. no links no proof... vs the links I presented showing stu lied.
2. stu bullshitting and playing with words again to misrepresent the state of science.
whether is science or not is not the issue... the fact is there is no science showing life evolved from non life. its speculation until we have a complete plausible pathway.
3. no one said it had to require a drive for life. its is a possibility given the overwhelming odds against abiogenesis happening on earth given the relative short amount of time (only a few billion years) and difficult conditions scientists have speculated it was more than just random chance that created it.
I have no idea why you can't accept simple facts about the state of science and you just have to bullshit over and over. If it were easy accomplished science would have already figured it out
its really odd you resist simple facts about the state of science.
2. stu bullshitting and playing with words again to misrepresent the state of science.
whether is science or not is not the issue... the fact is there is no science showing life evolved from non life. its speculation until we have a complete plausible pathway.
3. no one said it had to require a drive for life. its is a possibility given the overwhelming odds against abiogenesis happening on earth given the relative short amount of time (only a few billion years) and difficult conditions scientists have speculated it was more than just random chance that created it.
I have no idea why you can't accept simple facts about the state of science and you just have to bullshit over and over. If it were easy accomplished science would have already figured it out
its really odd you resist simple facts about the state of science.
As an utterly dishonest person, you sound like an armed bank robber caught red-handed in the act who can only be heard mumbling - what gun, what bank.
Of course it is the same thing. Abiogenesis IS science. What else would it be showing if it doesn't show what it shows.
You really should try to employ a modicum of intellect to at least understand what the hell it is you're trying to assert.
Abiogenesis wouldn't require "a drive for life in the building blocks". Abiogenesis is all about science and natural chemical reactions. There is no scientific reason why chemical reaction would not be sufficient by itself.
There is planty of science showing how life could arise from non living matter. There is no science to disprove what abiogenesis confirms.
1. no links no proof... vs the links I presented showing stu lied.
2. stu bullshitting and playing with words again to misrepresent the state of science.
whether is science or not is not the issue... the fact is there is no science showing life evolved from non life. its speculation until we have a complete plausible pathway.
3. no one said it had to require a drive for life. its is a possibility given the overwhelming odds against abiogenesis happening on earth given the relative short amount of time (only a few billion years) and difficult conditions scientists have speculated it was more than just random chance that created it.
I have no idea why you can't accept simple facts about the state of science and you just have to bullshit over and over. If it were easy accomplished science would have already figured it out
its really odd you resist simple facts about the state of science.
Lying again. There is lots of science showing that abiogenensis happened. You see, early earth had no life, then it had simple life, then it had complex life. That's science.
It's obvious that you really have no idea what science is. And that you are a pathological liar. Or a lawyer....same thing.
think of all the science we would not have if scientists has no wondered why and how.
if all they did was observe and say " That's science".
if all they did was observe and say " That's science".
Lying again. There is lots of science showing that abiogenensis happened. You see, early earth had no life, then it had simple life, then it had complex life. That's science.
It's obvious that you really have no idea what science is. And that you are a pathological liar. Or a lawyer....same thing.
regarding the lying thing... show us one lie.
and then explain why you are an agw nutter but as an ac salesmen you sell greenhouse gases 2000 times more powerful than co2.
and then explain why you are an agw nutter but as an ac salesmen you sell greenhouse gases 2000 times more powerful than co2.
Lying again. There is lots of science showing that abiogenensis happened. You see, early earth had no life, then it had simple life, then it had complex life. That's science.
It's obvious that you really have no idea what science is. And that you are a pathological liar. Or a lawyer....same thing.
AM HARRIS CHANNEL
at 2:30 , 'science is narrow', idiot says, that strength it very narrow need much evidence culled. but "reason" the child or master of philosophy proper, your metaphor? is compelling, unassailable, and 'broad' in scope & force.