Hawking: God did not create Universe

you are desperate and wrong. there is not a complete plausible pathway and just because they hope to find one does not mean they will. hence there is no science showing life (evolved) from non life right now.

none, zero, nada zilch... as of the last time I did the research.

if something showed up recently... show us the link.

how did the primordial soup turn into life on earth.
did it come from outerspace... was it RNA interacting with a protein? how

the truth is we don't know... we don't have any science showing it.

hence you are wrong or a liar or both.






futurecurrents said:
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.
More...
 
jem said:
you are desperate and wrong. there is not a complete plausible pathway and just because they hope to find one does not mean they will. hence there is no science showing life (evolved) from non life right now.

none, zero, nada zilch... as of the last time I did the research.

if something showed up recently... show us the link.

how did the primordial soup turn into life on earth.
did it come from outerspace... was it RNA interacting with a protein? how

the truth is we don't know... we don't have any science showing it.

hence you are wrong or a liar or both.
More...


There is NO question in his mind ( one of the world's leading experts) 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 as befitting a slimy lawyer.

 
Quote from Jem
"For years you said we had proof that life came from non life."

Liar

Quote from Jem
"you just conceded the point about God as the possible explanation for creation"

Liar

Quote from Jem
"you can't point to a single mistaken statement I have made which I would not admit or did admit was a mistake."

Liar

Now all that's needed is a cock crowing and there'd be something positively friggin biblical about that :D




jem said:
there is not a complete plausible pathway and just because they hope to find one does not mean they will. hence there is no science showing life (evolved) from non life right now.
More...

By the same form of perverted logic there is not a complete plausible pathway for gravity and just because they hope to find one does not mean they will. hence there is no science showing gravity from non gravity.
Yes, you do sound that dumb.

jem said:
none, zero, nada zilch... as of the last time I did the research.
More...

Dreaming up an imaginary creator and calling it God is not what normal folks call research.

Like evolution, abiogenesis is science. It fits with everything scientific.
There's nothing scientific to refute evolution or abiogenesis and no scientific alternatives. There is no other scientifically intuitive plausible pathway other than one of abiogenesis. Fundamentally, chemical reaction.

Credible explanation only starts where supernatural stops.
Life scientifically is a chemical process.
God is just you practicing some brain chemistry. Really, get over it.
 
future currents you have no idea what I think or why.
I have no problem with evolution. I totally believe the primordial soup bit until I was educated by someone here at et.

There is no question in my mind abiogenesis could have happened.
(but that is not the same as saying there is science showing it.)
you really need to learn some science fc.

we are here?
what are the choices?

1. an outside agent put life here
2. we got here from outer space (pushing the question down the road)
3. the building blocks of life were seeded with a drive for life
4. random chance did it.


So lets say his opinion is correct. Abiogenesis happened.

Was there a drive for life in the building blocks?
This something discussed by nobel prize winners in the field because random chance is such and unlikely explanation.







futurecurrents said:
There is NO question in his mind ( one of the world's leading experts) 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 as befitting a slimy lawyer.
More...
 
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.










stu said:
Quote from Jem
"For years you said we had proof that life came from non life."

Liar

Quote from Jem
"you just conceded the point about God as the possible explanation for creation"

Liar

Quote from Jem
"you can't point to a single mistaken statement I have made which I would not admit or did admit was a mistake."

Liar

Now all that's needed is a cock crowing and there'd be something positively friggin biblical about that :D






By the same form of perverted logic there is not a complete plausible pathway for gravity and just because they hope to find one does not mean they will. hence there is no science showing gravity from non gravity.
Yes, you do sound that dumb.



Dreaming up an imaginary creator and calling it God is not what normal folks call research.

Like evolution, abiogenesis is science. It fits with everything scientific.
There's nothing scientific to refute evolution or abiogenesis and no scientific alternatives. There is no other scientifically intuitive plausible pathway other than one of abiogenesis. Fundamentally, chemical reaction.

Credible explanation only starts where supernatural stops.
Life scientifically is a chemical process.
God is just you practicing some brain chemistry. Really, get over it.
More...
 
jem said:
future currents you have no idea what I think or why.
I have no problem with evolution. I totally believe the primordial soup bit until I was educated by someone here at et.

There is no question in my mind abiogenesis could have happened.
(but that is not the same as saying there is science showing it.)
you really need to learn some science fc.

we are here?
what are the choices?

1. an outside agent put life here
2. we got here from outer space (pushing the question down the road)
3. the building blocks of life were seeded with a drive for life
4. random chance did it.


So lets say his opinion is correct. Abiogenesis happened.

Was there a drive for life in the building blocks?
This something discussed by nobel prize winners in the field because random chance is such and unlikely explanation.
More...



Numbers 1 and 3 are absurd. But you love absurd arguments.

Random chance within the confines of the properties of matter and energy is not really random. It's dictated by the physical properties.
 
Apparently scientists have been able to create "mini big bangs" in the laboratory recently. Who knows, if we survive, what our scientists will be able to create in a thousand years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top