geeze. the lack of rigorous thinking is on display in this thread. atheism is a lack of belief in a deity based on lack of evidence. how would one prove atheism wrong? by providing evidence for that deity. do you have any?
There's been no claim by anyone there was proof that life evolved from non life. What has been said is all real indications point towards it can. You've clearly become so convinced by your own messed up religious irrationality in trying to support some freaky theistic bullshit, by altering what anyone says you must actually believe they said it. Face it Jem, you lost the plot a long time ago. Everything you post you can never support, turns out to be either batshit crazy, or is based on a lie.
geeze no kidding. A measure of thinking required to defend belief in an imaginary deity so abysmally inadequate, it can only suppose to require proof for everything but the deity.
Yes, but no matter how close you bring the dots for him to connect, unless they connect themselves before his eyes, he will continue to believe in something that has no dots whatsoever.
You prove to be more of troll moron everyday. I produce the science and you and bitter et atheists... argue with the leading scientists. nobel prize winner says no known plausible pathways for origin of life at this time. Szostak- is perhaps the top man in the field. http://www.scientificamerican.com/p...ak-and-09-10-05 Szostak: Absolutely! I mean what we're interested in is figuring out plausible pathways for the origin of life. It would be great to have even one complete plausible pathway, but what we find often is when we figure out how one little step might have worked, it gives us ideas, and then we end up with ultimately two or three or more different ways in which a particular step could have happened. So that makes us think the overall process might be more robust. So, you know, ultimately it would be nice, I think, if it turned out that there were multiple plausible pathways; then, of course, we might never know what really happened on the early Earth.
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. - Bertrand Russell this so fits jem. i dont want to call him stupid because he clearly is not but he is acting stupid because he is so indoctrinated that can only see one thing. i guess a more accurate term is willful ignorance. Willful ignorance Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict oneâs inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias. It differs from the standard definition of âignoranceâ â which just means that one is unaware of something â in that willfully ignorant people are fully aware of facts, resources and sources, but refuse to acknowledge them. Indeed, calling someone âignorantâ shouldnât really be a pejorative, but intentional and willful ignorance is an entirely different matter. In other cases, slightly more extreme cases, willful ignorance can involve outright refusal to read, hear or study in any way anything that does not conform to the personâs worldview. With regard to oneself, this can ever extend to fake locked-in syndrome with complete unresponsiveness. Or with regard to others, to outright censorship of the material from others. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance
We see the moron you are. You would rather be full of shit and protect your 1950s atheist weltanschauung than learn today's science. This is not a report... it is a 2009 quote from the Nobel prize winner in the field. http://www.scientificamerican.com/p...ak-and-09-10-05 Szostak: Absolutely! I mean what we're interested in is figuring out plausible pathways for the origin of life. It would be great to have even one complete plausible pathway, but what we find often is when we figure out how one little step might have worked, it gives us ideas, and then we end up with ultimately two or three or more different ways in which a particular step could have happened. So that makes us think the overall process might be more robust. So, you know, ultimately it would be nice, I think, if it turned out that there were multiple plausible pathways; then, of course, we might never know what really happened on the early Earth.
do you really think this statement means "god did it"? "It would be great to have even one complete plausible pathway, but what we find often is when we figure out how one little step might have worked, it gives us ideas, and then we end up with ultimately two or three or more different ways in which a particular step could have happened."
you are a total moron and now you change the subject. Actually I know you are smarter than that. It means you have a been a disgusting troll and now you were caught. I have never said it means God did it. It does mean there is no proof that evolution by random chance did it.