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
just keep this in print. I responded to this statement.
Stu never said that. He knows better. You are a liar and a crazed troll.
on this thread page 20 the 3rd paragraph down stu said...
"So for the umpteenth time I have never said "plenty of science showing life evolved from non life.""
"So for the umpteenth time I have never said "plenty of science showing life evolved from non life.""
...and there it is again and just as I said. Yet another example of your fundamental dishonesty. At the core you must truly be a deceitful person who really can't help themself.
Of course I can and have pointed to numerous repetitive dishonest comments you make which you never admit to and here we are again, you're making two of them simply because you're incapable of being honest in what you say.
So for the umpteenth time I have never said "plenty of science showing life evolved from non life."
That you have to stoop to distorting my statement to curve fit your untruthful position speaks volumes about your thorough lack of honesty.
My statement has always been in clear terms of "plenty of science showing how life can evolve from non life". Which is a completely true comment. I have never made the definitive strawman statement you misrepresent with, that "science shows life evolved from non life."
Now as you stated above, will you or did you ever admit you've at least made a mistake? No, didn't think so.
Then there's your deception about me acting as if God is a possible explanation for anything let alone all of creation. I have never said or implied that unless you utterly distort the meaning of language itself, which of course you will do to feed the nonsense you pathetically try to defend.
Are you trying to pretend when anyone uses a capital C in Creator they can only mean God despite everything else? I distinctly put Gravity as the Creator of the Universe and you say that means I implied God. Only a fibber would insist I did any such thing.
Normally one would put that down to you just being stupid but of course you have form. Purposely misrepresenting in order to lie about what's actually being said is what you do instinctively and why you must be a fundamentally dishonest person.
Now as you stated above, will you or did you ever admit you've at least made a mistake? No, didn't think so.
Then your comments have been riddled with the falsehood that science and scientists are saying categorically the Universe IS fine tuned, although all any reputable scientist has ever remarked is that the Universe APPEARS fine tuned. There simply is no science to confirm it IS fine tuned.
Another blatant distortion that fits perfectly in the realms of your constant lies and deceptions to support nothing more than a delusion for imaginary God.
Now as you stated above, will you or did you ever admit you've at least made a mistake? No, didn't think so.
You're basically too much of a dishonest person to admit to your dishonesty.
on this thread page 20 the 3rd paragraph down stu said...
"So for the umpteenth time I have never said "plenty of science showing life evolved from non life.""
No he didn't. You have no proof. Besides, there is plenty of science showing how abiogenesis happened. Only a fool would think God did it. So of course you do.
You really need to learn some recent science fc.
in the past during the arguments I cited noble prize winner Jack Szostak because he stated we have no plausible pathway from non life to life.
so I looked him up and found this article from 2014. It looks to me like there is still no plausible pathway and he is probably still the top guy in the field.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/jack-szostak-life-in-the-lab_b_5540478.html
...
Suzan Mazur: We may never know precisely the origin of life, but how much insight into the actual origin of life do you think a protocell like yours might give us, say, on a scale of 1 to 10?
Jack Szostak: We've been working on one part of the problem. Other people are working on other parts of the pathway. I don't worry, at this point, whether we'll know exactly how it happened on the early Earth. What we're trying to do is to work out a plausible pathway where all of the steps seem chemically and physically reasonable, and maybe we'll end up with multiple pathways which are all possibilities.
in the past during the arguments I cited noble prize winner Jack Szostak because he stated we have no plausible pathway from non life to life.
so I looked him up and found this article from 2014. It looks to me like there is still no plausible pathway and he is probably still the top guy in the field.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/jack-szostak-life-in-the-lab_b_5540478.html
...
Suzan Mazur: We may never know precisely the origin of life, but how much insight into the actual origin of life do you think a protocell like yours might give us, say, on a scale of 1 to 10?
Jack Szostak: We've been working on one part of the problem. Other people are working on other parts of the pathway. I don't worry, at this point, whether we'll know exactly how it happened on the early Earth. What we're trying to do is to work out a plausible pathway where all of the steps seem chemically and physically reasonable, and maybe we'll end up with multiple pathways which are all possibilities.
No he didn't. You have no proof. Besides, there is plenty of science showing how abiogenesis happened. Only a fool would think God did it. So of course you do.
You really need to learn some recent science fc.
in the past during the arguments I cited noble prize winner Jack Szostak because he stated we have no plausible pathway from non life to life.
so I looked him up and found this article from 2014. It looks to me like there is still no plausible pathway and he is probably still the top guy in the field.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/jack-szostak-life-in-the-lab_b_5540478.html
...
Suzan Mazur: We may never know precisely the origin of life, but how much insight into the actual origin of life do you think a protocell like yours might give us, say, on a scale of 1 to 10?
Jack Szostak: We've been working on one part of the problem. Other people are working on other parts of the pathway. I don't worry, at this point, whether we'll know exactly how it happened on the early Earth. What we're trying to do is to work out a plausible pathway where all of the steps seem chemically and physically reasonable, and maybe we'll end up with multiple pathways which are all possibilities.
Yes of course you think there is no plausible pathway. You have proved time and time again that you really don't understand science. But you are so intellectually dishonest that it's hard to know what you really DO think.
I think it because that is the state of science right now.
try escaping your ignorance fc.
Could they prove that we evolved from the primordial soup by chance... yes.
but they might also show there was a drive for life implanted in the early building blocks as another prize winner in the field has suggested.
try escaping your ignorance fc.
Could they prove that we evolved from the primordial soup by chance... yes.
but they might also show there was a drive for life implanted in the early building blocks as another prize winner in the field has suggested.
Yes of course you think there is no plausible pathway. You have proved time and time again that you really don't understand science. But you are so intellectually dishonest that it's hard to know what you really DO think.
And once again the intellectually dishonest lawyer misrepresents what Szostak thinks. Just because they currently have no complete plausible pathway it does not mean he can't imagine any plausible pathways. There are multiple pathways that are possible and he says as much.
There is NO question in his mind that abiogenesis happened which is the key thing here, but of course you are not interested in essential truths only in shifty intellectually dishonest argument.
There is NO question in his mind that abiogenesis happened which is the key thing here, but of course you are not interested in essential truths only in shifty intellectually dishonest argument.