first of all you lie again. 1. I was not a birther... I just said we had no evidence. Obama agreed and provided some. 2. the rest of your statement is amorphous and bordering on lies again. you stated you had proof of non life to life. I provided words out of your own chosen and quoted noble prize winner which shows there is no known pathway from life to non life. only a troll would continue to pretend he has proof of abiogenesis. You lied about the science and you still seem to be. finally... your statement only makes sense if the scientists implied... inferred is in the mind of the reader implied is in the mind of the declarants.
Should he be invoking Jesus or Krishna? We're going in circles. I see your point but we'll have to agree to disagree. I suggest you watch this bbc documentary on chaos theory when you have the time. The video is split into six parts. Here is a synopsis. I'd be very disappointed if you didn't watch it. In this documentary, Professor Jim Al-Khalili sets out to uncover one of the great mysteries of science - how does a universe that starts off as dust end up with intelligent life? How does order emerge from disorder? <iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HACkykFlIus" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Sorry jem, but this is just flat out wrong. There is clearly a path from non-life to life. What exactly that path is, we don't exactly know yet. But we know exactly what chemicals and compounds are involved. We don't know exactly how they came together as they have. This is the subject of extensive study for any biology major (my girlfriend has a degree in microbiology and minor in chemistry and has worked in a lab specializing in evolutionary genetics) and they would have a lot to say to you if they saw this comment of yours. The Miller-Urey experiment is just the tip of the iceberg.
miller urey type experiments have still not yielded life after decades. Here is a widely reported quote of miller... Miller, forty years after his famous experiment conceded in Scientific American: âThe problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.â When the rubber hits the road, evolutionists simply have no idea how life could have emerged from non-life. crick the founder of DNA proposed Pan Spermia - because he knows it did not evolve on earth. another nobel prize winner says there was not enough time on earth for life to evolve from non life... and even the nobel prize winner doing the experiments said this... (by the way read the last sentence. 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.
What is it with you creationist types? You make an outright lie like that and then accuse others of lying! Religious logic. It's truly unbelievable. What exactly IS your point? Why didn't you post this from the same link ....Have you read it or is it just that you want to constantly post the same part your religious philosophy website drew your attention to? Szostak: Well, [what] we are really trying to understand is how molecules can get together and start to act in a Darwinian fashion. So we are talking about the origin of cellular systems that can evolve, which is completely different from the way that chemicals interact with each other. Szostak: There are parts of a pathway that I think are getting to be well understood, but there are many gaps in our understanding. But just because there are parts that we don't understand doesn't mean that we will never understand. It's pathetic and ridiculous they way you keep trying to pick selected quotes out of context to infer some silly conclusion or other that Goddunnit. Regardless of what Dr Szostak explains, the rest of your mined comments about what Miller or other Nobel Prize winners state are pointless. They are opinion not science. Oh and by the way, I'm not taking use of English lessons from someone such as you who declared them self a lawyer and then went on to spell cite as site about half a dozen times again, after I'd corrected you more than once. However yes , you are right..... writers imply, readers infer. I admit my sentence was intended to make a finer distinction which would almost certainly be lost on you. I did say the scientists' science has never said , suggested or [has not reasoned nor established anything by deduction] , and so nothing could be inferred from it. Nevertheless I'll nominate you as contender for the daftest quote of the week .... "I was not a birther... I just said we had no evidence. " Lol
Sorry jem, but the idea of the undiscovered process of abiogenesis here on earth not being attainable is something the vast majority of biologists would strongly disagree with. What is your point in all this? In one sentence. Is it that life was designed and placed here somehow.
I can give examples all day of claims that are equally unfalsifiable but NOT equally implausible. Maybe this one is simple enough for you to wrap your tiny "mind" around: Joe died after a long career as a car thief. He never revealed in any way why he chose his profession. Claim #1 -- Joe became a car thief because his father, also a car thief, showed him the ropes and encouraged him to follow in his footsteps. Claim #2 -- Joe became a car thief because when he was 10 he ate an ear of corn that had 647 kernels. Joe's father was a car thief and did teach and encourage Joe to become one, and Joe did eat that ear of corn. Both claims are equally unfalsifiable because there's no way to falsify either with certainty without re-doing Joe's life minus the claimed influences. Still, claim #1 is clearly plausible while claim #2 is not. Now be honest and admit how STUpid you are. plau·si·ble âadjective 1. having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible
I refuse to believe you are seriously trying to make any logical point. wtf are you attempting to do here? Just horse around? I too can give any number of examples that are equally unfalsifiable but NOT equally implausible. Anyone can. So what? I can make examples of plausible and implausible things a banana can do , but how the hell would it have anything to do with the matter of God and Russell's Teapot?? No, I refuse to believe you can honestly be that dumb. Perhaps you really don't understand the philosophical argument. To such a degree apparently that you'd make that astoundingly irrelevant Joe the car thief comparison. Look, it starts out with equal unfalsifiability. God and the Teapot's existences both are equally unfalsifiable. You cannot make one exist more or less than the other because their non confirmable existences are both the same. They are at that point equally unfalsifiable, equally implausible for anything at all. You don't even get to compare likely things each could achieve because of some separate general or specific understanding attached respectively to a Teapot and to God. If you did at this stage the Teapot wins over God as it is actually known that Teapots exist. So a Teapot is more plausible than God to use the pathetic Joe analogy. But you can nevertheless for the sake of argument (not that you have one) , arbitrarily add on attributes to God as God Botherers like yourself tend to, but that is also the same with the Teapot. Special pleadings for God or the Teapot is not a legitimate approach. So neither is going to out do the other to make itself more plausible, everything about one, can be about the other. Neither is going to manage having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot ....any more than the other. A little introspection would I suggest demonstrate how stupid, as you keep yelling it, is a lot closer to home than youâve imagined.
Indeed. Why do you think there are so many biologists around and so many biology students in our universities? Is it because we've found all there is to know about biology and all people should learn it? NO! Its because there is a huge amount of information we have yet to learn. Just because we don't know it now doesn't mean it isn't out there to find.
This is what Stu really said.... This is what stu pretends he said just a few pages later. "I admit my sentence was intended to make a finer distinction which would almost certainly be lost on you. I did say the scientists' science has never said , suggested or [has not reasoned nor established anything by deduction] , and so nothing could be inferred from it." Did you catch the change he made... it turns his sentence from being a mistake to proper usage. He was willing to lie for whatever reason. The truth is I could give a crap about simple errors on a message board... . But, his lie points out one thing.... falsus in uno falsus in omnibus I will not even bother responding to the rest of his detritus. Its almost all distortions or lies based on distortions.