Not sure jem's and a few others' denials supported by false and illogical assertion can be classed as debunking.
we have been informed you were lying your ass off when you made such an ignorant statement. And, we proved it numerous times.
Just look at the trolls words to ricter and now look at true science. Stu, claimed there was plenty of science showing life evolving from non life. yet, the chorus of science says this.
So which one of your twin identities is referring to the other as "we" now? There's nothing arrogant in the statement I made particularly when considering how science has already proved the point I was making . Not the same as the statement you said I made, which was not only arrogant but downright dishonest of you.
Itâs been pointed out on numerous occasions there is no science in there, let alone a 'chorus of science' . It is philosophy written by a philosopher. The science in abiogenesis IS science however, and that shows how those ubiquitous (oops⦠new word there.. watch out) elements of all life can and do come from inorganic material. Just for your information. Science is whatâs known, philosophy what isnât. Hope that helps. But by the way you keep repeating yourself even in the face of all contrary evidence, I think youâre probably past help.
exactly, science states that is unknown how or if life evolved from non life. This is scientific fact... yet stu pretends it is philosophy. Stu is the picture of the emotional atheist refusing to bend his it must be random chance world view. You can give him quotes from the top nobel prize winners stating there is no proof nor complete pathway from non life to life... yet he will lie about it the next page. ---- note to einstein... amino acids are not living organisms. from mirriam websters... Definition of ABIOGENESIS : the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter it did not say inorganic to organic or amino acids... the dictionary said living organisms to lifeless matter. -- You can lead an et atheist to science but you can not make him think.
Exactly not. Science states and proves how the essential components of all life can and do start from 'non life'. Well certainly Iâm not going to bend to the false assertions and accusations, and the word and meaning changes you employ to develop your silly red herring arguments Did it? Living to lifeless? Thatâs the theist just simply not thinking as usual is it ? Perhaps thatâs why you canât understand what is actually being said. What does become all forms of life, can and has been proved to originate completely naturally from inorganic matter. The dumb approach of yours is essentially equal to suggesting inorganic material can only let life get a little bit pregnant. How it synthesizes once formed is the question, not a scientific refutation of abiogenesis, no matter how much you may wish it to be. That's it , isn't it? You read completely different words to those written. You're suffering religyslexia
as I stated before... amino acids are not living organisms. from mirriam websters... Definition of ABIOGENESIS : the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter can you read... Stu.. why can't you think... is it too emotional for you? too hard to admit there is no proof of random evolution from non life to life... It says "supposed"... in the dictionary. there is no proof. You are guessing that non life just evolved into life by random chance. It could have come here from outer space... the evolution could have been directed, a minor still think it could have been random chance... but... no credible scientists pretends what you pretend. Once again it is Stu's delusional atheism against science and dictionaries.