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.
At least I know how punctuation works, Superior Boi.But Dave you arte at times short on facts moreover you often agree with folk who are very short on facts,just saying.stevenSo you're just going to pretend Post #22 doesn't exist.
Leftists and their magical thinking.
FAIR COMMENTsteve
Your inability to understand faith has no impact on my faith. Just so's you know.Oh I know, why aren't we teaching alchemy in chemistry class too?
Shit while we are at it why don't we teach intelligent falling instead of gravity in physics class?
I forget -- what part of evolution shows the origin of life?Oh right, forgot, why aren't we teaching holocaust denial in history class too?
You sure you want to do that? Is that really how you see God, just an explanation for something you don't understand?
Again -- what are you afraid of? That kids might decide to believe the "wrong" things?Lack of evidence is no reason to teach it. End of story.
There are only two possible explanations for the origin of life: Creation and abiogenesis. Either life was created, or it arose spontaneously from non-living matter.So you know, abiogenesis is only brought up briefly alongside many other scientific hypothesis.
Your inability to understand faith has no impact on my faith. Just so's you know.I forget -- what part of evolution shows the origin of life?
You sure you want to do that? Is that really how you see God, just an explanation for something you don't understand?
Again -- what are you afraid of? That kids might decide to believe the "wrong" things?Lack of evidence is no reason to teach it. End of story.
You have such little faith in your own beliefs if you don't think they can survive contact with differing viewpoints.
There are only two possible explanations for the origin of life: Creation and abiogenesis. Either life was created, or it arose spontaneously from non-living matter.So you know, abiogenesis is only brought up briefly alongside many other scientific hypothesis.
There are no other alternatives.
It's called "logic". Check into it.I didn't realize you were a biologist! Please, show me your research that brought you to such a conclusion!
But as you've repeatedly demonstrated, your perceptions are horribly skewed.On a side note, You seem to see your God as something that fills in Gaps...
I see you've thrown in your lot with this guy:...and I just want you to know as Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it, that your God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, getting smaller.
And smaller.
And smaller.
It's called "logic". Check into it.I didn't realize you were a biologist! Please, show me your research that brought you to such a conclusion!
If you have a theory for the origin of life that does NOT involve either creation or spontaneous generation from non-living matter, I'd love to hear it.
But as you've repeatedly demonstrated, your perceptions are horribly skewed.On a side note, You seem to see your God as something that fills in Gaps...
I see you've thrown in your lot with this guy:...and I just want you to know as Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it, that your God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, getting smaller.
And smaller.
And smaller.
"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
-- George Wald, Scientific American, August, 1954
The universe is not impressed with your petulant foot stamping, kid.
No, kid, you have some homework. You claimed there are alternatives to creation and abiogenesis as explanations for the origin of life.It's called "logic". Check into it.I didn't realize you were a biologist! Please, show me your research that brought you to such a conclusion!
If you have a theory for the origin of life that does NOT involve either creation or spontaneous generation from non-living matter, I'd love to hear it.
But as you've repeatedly demonstrated, your perceptions are horribly skewed.
I see you've thrown in your lot with this guy:...and I just want you to know as Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it, that your God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, getting smaller.
And smaller.
And smaller.
"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
-- George Wald, Scientific American, August, 1954
The universe is not impressed with your petulant foot stamping, kid.
In one ear and out the other, you've been brainwashed very well.
You still haven't answered me. I know it hurts but you will have to come to terms with it in time.
No, kid, you have some homework. You claimed there are alternatives to creation and abiogenesis as explanations for the origin of life.It's called "logic". Check into it.
If you have a theory for the origin of life that does NOT involve either creation or spontaneous generation from non-living matter, I'd love to hear it.
But as you've repeatedly demonstrated, your perceptions are horribly skewed.
I see you've thrown in your lot with this guy:
"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
-- George Wald, Scientific American, August, 1954
The universe is not impressed with your petulant foot stamping, kid.
In one ear and out the other, you've been brainwashed very well.
You still haven't answered me. I know it hurts but you will have to come to terms with it in time.
Put up or shut up. But drop the superior act, because you seriously lack the horsepower to pull it off.
How did a person as seriously stupid as you are get the idea you're intelligent?No, kid, you have some homework. You claimed there are alternatives to creation and abiogenesis as explanations for the origin of life.In one ear and out the other, you've been brainwashed very well.
You still haven't answered me. I know it hurts but you will have to come to terms with it in time.
Put up or shut up. But drop the superior act, because you seriously lack the horsepower to pull it off.
Lack of evidence is not evidence. If you cannot provide, then go away.
Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.
Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists | Education | The Observer
Sign of the times,but it is only a temporary victory. God said when he returns all the captains and the kings of the earth and will be gather at the final battle where he will destroy all governments. I think that includes man's school system.
Oh, what a lovely benevolent God you believe in
And I see fact has gone straight over yours.Religion has a historical tendency to squash progress. The government of the UK has finally acknowledged that.
I see my point went straight over your head.
Not really.And I see fact has gone straight over yours.I see my point went straight over your head.
I have no problem with children being exposed to all viewpoints.
You do.
What are you afraid of?
Not really.And I see fact has gone straight over yours.
I have no problem with children being exposed to all viewpoints.
You do.
What are you afraid of?
Why teach non-science in science class?
Daveman is always short on facts. Likes one liners and quoting other people. Typical neocon sheeple...
And yet, oddly, you seem to have no refutation.
"What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens.
No wonder because Dawkins and the incompareable Attenborough have a brain.tlLeading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.
Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists | Education | The Observer
But Dave you arte at times short on facts moreover you often agree with folk who are very short on facts,just saying.stevenThere is nothing to refute.
So you're just going to pretend Post #22 doesn't exist."What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens.
Leftists and their magical thinking.
Your inability to understand faith has no impact on my faith. Just so's you know.You sure you want to do that? Is that really how you see God, just an explanation for something you don't understand?
Again -- what are you afraid of? That kids might decide to believe the "wrong" things?
You have such little faith in your own beliefs if you don't think they can survive contact with differing viewpoints.
There are only two possible explanations for the origin of life: Creation and abiogenesis. Either life was created, or it arose spontaneously from non-living matter.So you know, abiogenesis is only brought up briefly alongside many other scientific hypothesis.
There are no other alternatives.
I didn't realize you were a biologist! Please, show me your research that brought you to such a conclusion!
On a side note, You seem to see your God as something that fills in Gaps, and I just want you to know as Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it, that your God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, getting smaller.
And smaller.
And smaller.
Alternatives for your pleasure.
Metabolism-First model.
The Origin of Life » American Scientist
Endosymbiotic theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This one is a fairly big one too.
Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.
Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists | Education | The Observer
