I already proved you lied a couple of pages ago. I notice you have not produced any proof of evolution from non life to life . Why not?
I am not sure if you are trolling or not. Why are you pulling that b.s. tactic of saying I am arguing for creationism on this thread. That is stu type tactic. Stick to what I am arguing. organizing into amino acids is still a long way from saying these amino acids form together to create life. 2. I am not sure if you are being obtuse or not using the word pathway the way the nobel prize winner, sozstak used it. He stated in 2009, science had not found a pathway from non life to life. do you have proof of abiogensis. answer no. do you have a pathway from non life to life. answer no. If you did you would be a nobel prize winner.
as I wrote this earlier in the thread... you all may wish to read this paper from mit. It summarizes the current state of science and random chance.
He is trolling with lies, while I produce quotes from prize winners, top scientists and papers like the one from MIT above. All you have to understand is that there is no proof of life evolving from non life. Somehow bozo keeps pretending there is an argument on this subject. There is none. There is no proof of abiogenesis. There are no known pathways from life to non life. (as of 2009 anyway).
We have here to highly unlikely scenarios: 1. life evolving from non life 2. man in the sky created life And we have people supporting both sides saying "if it isn't one then it MUST be two!" This is like saying "If you're wrong then I must be right!"
If I was trolling, I'd just call you an idiot. So they must have magically appeared out of nowhere? Philosophical musings mean nothing when compared to hard empirical experimental evidence, such as that I posted for you. I could care less if the guy had 10 Nobel Prizes. What experiments do you have to prove anything about what you're saying? So far, all you've posted in regards to quotes, are philosophical speculations devoid of any experimental validity. There is a pathway, several steps have been recreated in the laboratory, and scientists are diligently working hard to figure it ALL out. Yes, and yes. You're certainly free to arbitrarily dismiss the enormous amount of evidence regarding terrestrial abiogenesis. This is especially interesting... In the 1950s and 1960s, Sidney W. Fox studied the spontaneous formation of peptide structures under conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history. He demonstrated that amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides. These amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called proteinoid microspheres, which show many of the basic characteristics of 'life'. http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/cou...fe/origins.html The word "spontaneous" is striking. What does such "spontaneous" phenomenon tell you about the wider picture of the universe? Still fine-tuned? So what do you have to propose? Fairies planting amino acids on the earth and using magic fairy dust to create all the animals, as is? You claim not to be a creationist but all your posts say the exact opposite. Help me out here. What are you claiming?
To you Loocrumb it's Lord stewie, who famously and appropriately saidâ¦.. "Fooking is one of those words you can fooking put anywhere in a fooking sentence , so as you've fooking obviously nothing to fooking contribute, would you please fooking do us all a fooking enormous favor and get busy by fucking off "
No you did not and you're being extremely untruthful in saying you did. Why do you keep repeating that strawman line all the time? Show me where exactly I ever said there is "proof of life from non life" or "proof of evolution from non life to life". There is a mass of highly advanced scientific evidence as opposed to magic-ing it all from nowhere by an invisible creator wizard. So which is it most likely going to be? What is it that you cannot grasp about what was said that you have to distort it into something that wasn't said. Like you do with your "Nobel Prize quotes" all the time? Bothered that abiogenesis threatens your beliefs? Truth is Jem, when it comes down to matters where you involve your personal religious belief where it doesn't belong , you're being no more than a deceitful fraud . Nothing you say on this subject is truthful and as the record shows, is often ignorant too.
It's not like saying that though, is it. One is plausible the others not. The plausible one will have a lot of fact and empirical evidence in support. Only one of those options has that. As it's not 2. and it's not 'both sides', then the only likely scenario is going to be 1. life evolving from non life.