james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,407
- 1,802
- 170
Wrong Moron.
Everyone being "perfect" would be your dept: god/Dog.
`
You're just jealous because I would know what to do and you don't. Tsk.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wrong Moron.
Everyone being "perfect" would be your dept: god/Dog.
`
Nonsense....they form virtually spontaneously from peptides in literally every experiment we do...You are far, far, far away from your primordial soup becoming proteins
I see you have decided to pop in and just start making stuff up....
Actually there is a Negative correlation between Religiosity and IQ.[b]By Michael Rawlings[/b] (2009) [B](Revised July said:Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks...
WTF is a "metaphysical bias"? Not believing something without evidence?Rawlings said:They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution.
Evolution has Tons of evidence.Rawlings said:While the historical presupposition for science is not a methodological naturalism wherein philosophical naturalism serves minimally as a regulative principle, most of today’s practicing scientists insist that origins must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of an intelligent agent of causation and design.
Why don't you post any EVIDENCE from the "range Oustide" that of hard Science?Rawlings said:The range of scientific inquiry is inordinately curtailed accordingly. Though any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend them, potentialities outside the boundaries of this range of inquiry are flatly dismissed. Hence, should one reject the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority that conflates agency and process, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.
Stupid bashing with NO content.Rawlings said:Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is not merely naturalism on the steroids of logical positivism, but Neo-Darwinism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions and superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been given over to so little.
You are a goofy clown who conflates Evolution and abiogenesis in every post.Rawlings said:I’m well-versed in the various hypothetical models of abiogenesis, in the research and findings thereof. Also, I understand evolutionary theory and it’s putative evidentiary support.
'Because you believe in Baseless Godism for which you have shown not a shred of evidence, you resent/demean 'materialism'/REALITY as it ruins your wittle magic show/tooth fairy beliefs.Rawlings said:I know the science, and I’m current. Indeed, I’m light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who unwittingly expose their ignorance about the sciences and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma as they sneer at theists. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays. Science can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence; it’s not equipped to venture beyond the empirical data of the material realm of being. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning or the end of it. And science in the hands of scientific materialists is the stuff of fairytales.
Like, this?Nonsense....they form virtually spontaneously from peptides in literally every experiment we do...You are far, far, far away from your primordial soup becoming proteins
I see you have decided to pop in and just start making stuff up....
Please cite these experiments wherein coherent, extensive peptide chains spontaneous form.
crickets chirping
Like, this?
In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water–air interface
Not that it matters...your are delusional and strident. I could post 100 such studies, and you will just change lanes.
I really don't get this embarrassing tirade. The IDers insist upon a designer... But their designer is not smart enough to design abiogenesis within the constraints of physical laws?
That definitively shows that what they REALLY insist upon is MAGIC. Period. And they are lying, if they say otherwise.
Like, this?Nonsense....they form virtually spontaneously from peptides in literally every experiment we do...You are far, far, far away from your primordial soup becoming proteins
I see you have decided to pop in and just start making stuff up....
Please cite these experiments wherein coherent, extensive peptide chains spontaneous form.
crickets chirping
In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water–air interface
Not that it matters...you are delusional and strident. I could post 100 such studies, and you will just change lanes.
Yes, in our experiments. You left that out, because you are a fraud.You claimed that peptide chains spontaneously form.
You seem to be rattling on with no direction. There’s no question that the planets atmosphere did change over time.Shame, shame, shame that you never attended a 7th grade earth science class. Conditions on the planet changed over millions upon millions of years. Of course, that presents an unresolvable dilemma for you. None of the chemistry referenced in the article means anything with the earth being only 6,000 years old.
You mean thousands of years. Even if it the atmosphere did change over the years, the amino acid experiment shows proteins does not happen outside the cell. Dr. Louis Pasteur for the block -- 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked.
You seem to be rattling on with no direction. There’s no question that the planets atmosphere did change over time.
Otherwise, your reference to Pasteur and amino acids is a classic falsification of Pasteur’s experimentation. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from non-life in nature.
Thanks for helping debunk that frequently used falsification from the crank fundie ministries.
So, we’re left to pose a question to the fundie cranks: “what experiments can you cite that are being undertaken to prove your polytheistic gods”?
I really don't get this embarrassing tirade. The IDers insist upon a designer... But their designer is not smart enough to design abiogenesis within the constraints of physical laws?
That definitively shows that what they REALLY insist upon is MAGIC. Period. And they are lying, if they say otherwise.
And you're a desperate shaman and conman trying hard to squeeze his silly vodoo into any gap in our understanding. And clearly you are willing to abandon ethics and honesty to do so. Go find some children to con, your act isnt going over,here.You're not smart enough to know the difference between abiogenesis and biochemical engineering.
This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.No. Not magic. Something beyond space and time capable of creating the material world.No magic is required. It is simply, "selection". You have confused yourself again. You are the one proposing magic.Please identify and describe the magical properties you attribute to mindless, raw nature that overcame the following obstacles discussed in the article:
Something more like a mind without a body as the matrix for the material world.
So it’s not magic. It’s beyond your comprehension and you use ancient texts to confirm your bias because you are too lazy, ignorant or of limited vision (or all three) to consider anything beyond your preconceived notions.
You seem to be rattling on with no direction. There’s no question that the planets atmosphere did change over time.
I thought I made it clear even if the atmosphere changed on Earth and the rest of the universe that no proteins can form outside the cell. Thus, life was only created here and nowhere else in the universe. I think you cannot figure the logical sequence because you do not know nor understand the Bible and the first two books of Genesis. I've read evolution and its history and have provided the two websites I use as reference for today and in the past. What do you have to help you understand the Bible?
I even provided the Miller Urey experiment website and I doubt you used it or tried. What kind of fool are you?
Otherwise, your reference to Pasteur and amino acids is a classic falsification of Pasteur’s experimentation. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from non-life in nature.
Thanks for helping debunk that frequently used falsification from the crank fundie ministries.
I am a proud Christian fundamentalist, but do not believe in the crank ones. Which ones are your referring to? Can you give an example? I don't think you can provide the details nor answer my questions because you don't know. Maybe there are crank ideas that came out of their beliefs like the Billy Graham rule. I can answer them if you don't know. That said, I know you're just like to make hasty generalizations which is a fallacy. This is why we are discussing abiogenesis or what I now consider is another form of spontaneous generation.
As for Pasteur, his experiment referred to all life. Not just complex or simple life forms from non-life. What one should understand is only life begats life. Otherwise, where are the aliens? Where are the new proteins being formed? God only gave humans access to the molecular level which is quite a gift. Yet, you do not appreciate it. You just want to worship other humans and natural processes which they have control or knowledge about. To me, I am saddened by this.
So, we’re left to pose a question to the fundie cranks: “what experiments can you cite that are being undertaken to prove your polytheistic gods”?
There is no proof of an unprovable God. There is only evidence which I've provided. What it takes is sincere faith from your heart to believe and then God will reveal himself to you. No matter what age you are, it takes faith in God first. You make me discuss and post religion in the S&T forum, but there is no other way besides what I've posted to make you believe. You have to take the first step.
Bwahahaha...he trotted out that horseshit again? Dang, how much embarrassment can one guy tolerate?As for Pasteur, your characterization of his experiments was completely false.
There is huge and overwhelming "Materialistic"/HARD evidence for Evolution and NONE for god.
End of pt 1 of the Destruction of the Rawlings bizarro and fallacious fantasy rant.
An IDIOTIC treatise it took 10 years to "perfect."
`
You are a goofy clown who conflates Evolution and abiogenesis in every post.
Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
While abiogeneis is a mere hypothesis.
There is huge and overwhelming "Materialistic"/HARD evidence for Evolution and NONE for god.
End of pt 1 of the Destruction of the Rawlings bizarro and fallacious fantasy rant.
An IDIOTIC treatise it took 10 years to "perfect."
`
Is this just STUPID, or an attempt at Disingenuity?You hurt my feelings. That was a really, really mean post.
What exactly does this incontrovertible proof that the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism is necessarily true consist of? After all, that is precisely what the hypothetical extrapolation of Darwin's unobservable and indemonstrable notion of a transmutationally branching, evolutionary speciation from a common ancestry is predicated on. We observe the cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation via genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection only. Please cite the peer-reviewed paper that proved naturalism is true and falsified theological realism. Also, when does the scientist get his Nobel Prize? For what field, exactly, is it being awarded? Philosophy? Sounds like you're unwilling to objectively separate yourself from your metaphysical biases long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of your religion.
You are a goofy clown who conflates Evolution and abiogenesis in every post.
Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
While abiogeneis is a mere hypothesis.
You lying JerkRawlings said:Nonsense! The wise know that both abiogenesis and Darwin's evolutionary extrapolation are indemonstrable hypotheses. You need to talk to Hollie and Fun. They're the ones who think that abiogenesis is a fact.
Your posts are all full of False Challenges, Burden Shifting, Completely illogical self-deduction/Labeling, etc. Your a Kweationist Klown
Oh no it’s you. You are the one who insists on alien life because “there must be”.I don't have any stories about Melania Trump. Wrong guy.Oh please....as if you know fuck all about science....And the closing of the academic mind by Marxists will continue to damage science.
Entertain us with some of your alien stories.