Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by peilthetraveler, Jun 19, 2011.

  1. stu

    stu

    Nowhere have I ever said I have proof life came from non life.

    I have said it is proven that the essential building blocks of life can and do come from inorganic material.
    The scientific study of how life on earth would have originated by that means or others within that scope is abiogenesis.

    That is what I have said repeatedly.

    You obviously don't want to or don’t care to understand what I have actually said.

    Also, constantly trying to twist context and meaning , like you did with De Duve and still are, does not make you right.
    It is clear what he said and must have meant by *chance*, in context and out.
     
    #651     Jul 22, 2011
  2. stu

    stu

    Thing is the majority of your posts indicate you are no such thing.

    My argument with you is there are those who, like creationists, prefer to insinuate all belief is the same , all theory is the same, and therefore stretch that to arguing their belief and their theories are every bit as valid as science.
    They are not.
    You do that when you say things like - evolution is "ONLY a theory".

    "go fuck yourself?".......What's that about, why so rattled?
    How come you have to be so contemptuous of someone questioning your claims, which do by the way sound like a creationist's?
     
    #652     Jul 22, 2011
  3. Really? "Undecided?" "Open mind?" Then what are some of your equal-opportunity criticisms regarding creationism?
     
    #653     Jul 22, 2011
  4. Your post as I read it has nothing to do with my post on a computer simulation that demonstrates order can arise from disorder.

    Your comment, I think, is on abiogensis. Science still has no clue on that one.
     
    #654     Jul 22, 2011
  5. Betapeg

    Betapeg

    Really wish we could find out for sure which will never happen in our lifetime. Bummer.
     
    #655     Jul 22, 2011
  6. Betapeg

    Betapeg



    It's a pathetic attempt to discredit the person, not the argument. You're certainly welcome to return to the discussion at hand, and away from me personally.

    Tell me what special knowledge you have to prove the Christian god is more real than Zeus or Thor. The burden of proof is on you. Where is your god?

    I didn't say anything about Pascal himself or his motives. I was referring to the fact that Pascal's Wager is used by Christian apologists on a routine basis. What is unfortunate for any believer in any deity is that their deity is no more or less real than any other. That is why I said, "The Christian god is no more real than Zeus or Thor." I wish it weren't so but it is.

    Right, how about concentrating on the arguments instead of myself???
     
    #656     Jul 22, 2011
  7. Betapeg

    Betapeg

    You would be surprised. Scientists can now make amino acids from basic organic compounds founds all over the universe. We know what chemicals make up life and especially DNA but the problem is the process in which this occurred is still unknown. Within just a few years, we will know, most definitely.
     
    #657     Jul 22, 2011
  8. They've known that since the Miller–Urey experiment done about 60 years ago; so don't get your hopes up.

    What is your cite for your comment "we will know, most definitely"?

    Seneca
     
    #658     Jul 22, 2011
  9. It's not a "pathetic attempt." You discredited yourself and I pointed it out.

    Wrong. You made the original claim so the burden of proof is on you.

    I didn't say you did. Again, prove your claim.

    Your "arguments" in the options forum prove you don't know what you don't know, so how likely is it that you know the unknown? You can stomp your little feet and pretend that doesn't matter but it does.
     
    #659     Jul 22, 2011
  10. Betapig is stuck in a loop of not knowing what he doesn't know.
     
    #660     Jul 22, 2011