The Weakness Of Science -- Trying To Explain The Life Spirit

[Hale]

Man says "Someday I too will create life from dirt", to which God replies "You have to bring your own dirt".

Case closed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED OR SCIENTIFICALY OBSERVED

Neither has an electron. We have never seen an electron.

We have never watched a star ignite.

As it turns out, seeing things to small or large or too long or short for us is an obstacle to our knowledge .

That doesn't mean we are making poor assumptions or explanations . Why aren't you similarly attacking the knowledge of star formation? Because: magical nonsense.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Man says "Someday I too will create life from dirt", to which God replies "You have to bring your own dirt".

Case closed.

No, that doesn't argue god, because it iscircular. It assumes an omnipotent good created everything from the start . That's a horrible attempt and a piece of horrible logic.

 

[Frannie]

It is settled in his closed mind, this clown is already dead, he lives in a past that was long ago disproved

It is indeed rather surprising, his arguments are actually embarrassing to any real scientist, atheist or not!

Even more embarrassing is epigenetics that can impose instant changes on a species in under 1 generation as demonstrated by the mouse and the cherry blossoms experiment, where a mouse was shocked every time it smelled cherry blossoms, and it learned to be conditioned to this. The mouse was removed from this environment bred and the offspring were afraid of the same smell.

This pretty much kills Darwinism, everyone knows and no one will touch the subject because it employs an entire new level of DNA that is unseen

Tell the investigator I said so.

 

[Frannie]

HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED OR SCIENTIFICALY OBSERVED

Neither has an electron. We have never seen an electron.

We have never watched a star ignite.

As it turns out, seeing things to small or large or too long or short for us is an obstacle to our knowledge .

That doesn't mean we are making poor assumptions or explanations . Why aren't you similarly attacking the knowledge of star formation? Because: magical nonsense.

But you believe in electrons without seeing one, yet you must see God to believe. This behavior is scientifically inconsistent

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am curious as to how someone would accept evolution as fact, but then reject abiogenesis. That one has already admitted all of the necessary conditions and mechanisms that could go into abiogenesis by accepting evolution.

 

[Hale]

No, that doesn't argue god, because it iscircular. It assumes an omnipotent good created everything from the start . That's a horrible attempt and a piece of horrible logic.

It's only circular to someone who jumps through every illogical hoop he can to avoid admitting the possibility of a Creator. Most don't think this way, they are open to logic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But you believe in electrons without seeing one,

Correct, because of the weight of the evidence. I don't believe in unicorns, though, and for the same reason. Yet it is true of both things that I have never seen them.

As it turns out, watching an event in real time with our eyes is not the only evidence there is. And this is precisely because time only flows in one direction. As you have suddenly stopped pointing out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

t's only circular to someone who jumps through every illogical hoop he can to avoid admitting the possibility of a Creator.

Wrong, obviously. It first assumes god created everything, then proceeds from that assumption to remind someone that god created everything. You haven't argued your claim that god created everything. You have merely restated it. And we heard you the first 1000 times, thanks.

 

[Hale]

I am curious as to how someone would accept evolution as fact, but then reject abiogenesis. That one has already admitted all of the necessary conditions and mechanisms that could go into abiogenesis by accepting evolution.

You're conflating two totally dissimilar processes. This is what you have actually said, and it's ridiculous:

"I am curious as to how someone would accept mutative changes in life forms, yet reject spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter."

 

[Frannie]

But you believe in electrons without seeing one,

Correct, because of the weight of the evidence. I don't believe in unicorns, though, and for the same reason. Yet it is true of both things that I have never seen them.

As it turns out, watching an event in real time with our eyes is not the only evidence there is. And this is precisely because time only flows in one direction. As you have suddenly stopped pointing out.

Actually what time is defies explanation, the people trying lost 85 percent of the Universe.

 

[Frannie]

I am curious as to how someone would accept evolution as fact, but then reject abiogenesis. That one has already admitted all of the necessary conditions and mechanisms that could go into abiogenesis by accepting evolution.

You're conflating two totally dissimilar processes. This is what you have actually said, and it's ridiculous:

"I am curious as to how someone would accept mutative changes in life forms, yet reject spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter."

Because ponds do not breed

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am curious as to how someone would accept evolution as fact, but then reject abiogenesis. That one has already admitted all of the necessary conditions and mechanisms that could go into abiogenesis by accepting evolution.

You're conflating two totally dissimilar processes. This is what you have actually said, and it's ridiculous:

"I am curious as to how someone would accept mutative changes in life forms, yet reject spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter."

100% wrong, as mutations are only one of many mechanism of evolution , those subject to selection or otherwise. You cannot sum up evolution so simply. And the bedrock of evolution is small, incremental changes.

And you are doubly wrong, in that there ia nothing "spontaneous" or "random" about selection. Just as you as you accept that random genetic mutations are acted upon by selective and statistical forces, you can (indeed, must) also accept that random mixes of proteins were acted upon by selective and statistical forces. After enough time, the most persistent molecules persisted . Obviously, the ones not most suited to self replicate and persist did not do so. The ones that did, did. Just as the bears with brown fur did not fare as well as those with white fur, above the Arctic circle. It's not "magical design" that brought us white haired bears. It was the very nonrandom forces of selection.

An interesting question for you, and i i think it will take our discussion in a better direction:

Are viruses alive?

 

[Frannie]

HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED OR SCIENTIFICALY OBSERVED

Neither has an electron. We have never seen an electron.

We have never watched a star ignite.

As it turns out, seeing things to small or large or too long or short for us is an obstacle to our knowledge .

That doesn't mean we are making poor assumptions or explanations . Why aren't you similarly attacking the knowledge of star formation? Because: magical nonsense.

Where would we be if 85 percent of the Earth was really missing?

Nothing is missing, the genius who knows everything just doesn't know what they are looking at.

Where would 85 percent of the Universe be hiding?

Ae there big closets out there or what

 

[Frannie]

I am curious as to how someone would accept evolution as fact, but then reject abiogenesis. That one has already admitted all of the necessary conditions and mechanisms that could go into abiogenesis by accepting evolution.

You're conflating two totally dissimilar processes. This is what you have actually said, and it's ridiculous:

"I am curious as to how someone would accept mutative changes in life forms, yet reject spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter."

100% wrong, as mutations are only one of many mechanism of evolution , those subject to selection or otherwise. You cannot sum up evolution so simply. And the bedrock of evolution is small, incremental changes.

And you are doubly wrong, in that there ia nothing "spontaneous" or "random" about selection. Just as you as you accept that random genetic mutations are acted upon by selective and statistical forces, you can (indeed, must) also accept that random mixes of proteins were acted upon by selective and statistical forces. After enough time, the most persistent molecules persisted . Obviously, the ones not most suited to self replicate and persist did not do so. The ones that did, did. Just as the bears with brown fur did not fare as well as those with white fur, above the Arctic circle. It's not "magical design" that brought us white haired bears. It was the very nonrandom forces of selection.

There is no scientific evidence to support this, Darwin's tree is long disproved and his letter to Hooker was an LSD trip. Yet it spawned your religion

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where would we be if 85 percent of the Earth was really missing?

We would be ignorant fools who thought god's caused everything, the earth was flat, amd the sun was more around us, just as the people who only knew 15% of the earth thought in their time.

But we now know 100% of the earth. Boy, were they wrong, eh? Good thing we didn't just accept their goofy magical explanations, eh?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am curious as to how someone would accept evolution as fact, but then reject abiogenesis. That one has already admitted all of the necessary conditions and mechanisms that could go into abiogenesis by accepting evolution.

You're conflating two totally dissimilar processes. This is what you have actually said, and it's ridiculous:

"I am curious as to how someone would accept mutative changes in life forms, yet reject spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter."

100% wrong, as mutations are only one of many mechanism of evolution , those subject to selection or otherwise. You cannot sum up evolution so simply. And the bedrock of evolution is small, incremental changes.

And you are doubly wrong, in that there ia nothing "spontaneous" or "random" about selection. Just as you as you accept that random genetic mutations are acted upon by selective and statistical forces, you can (indeed, must) also accept that random mixes of proteins were acted upon by selective and statistical forces. After enough time, the most persistent molecules persisted . Obviously, the ones not most suited to self replicate and persist did not do so. The ones that did, did. Just as the bears with brown fur did not fare as well as those with white fur, above the Arctic circle. It's not "magical design" that brought us white haired bears. It was the very nonrandom forces of selection.

There is no scientific evidence to support this, Darwin's tree is long disproved and his letter to Hooker was an LSD trip. Yet it spawned your religion

Now you are denying evolution. Evolution is a fact. I am not going to argue with some ignorant or insane fool about the truth of evolution. Sorry.

 

[Frannie]

Where would we be if 85 percent of the Earth was really missing?

We would be ignorant fools who thought god's caused everything, the earth was flat, amd the sun was more around us, just as the people who only knew 15% of the earth thought in their time.

But we now know 100% of the earth. Boy, we're they wrong, eh? Good thing we didn't just accept their goofy magical explanations, eh?

You are a moron, I thought that you might have knowledge at least in passing of the cosmological constant.

I was wrong

 

[Frannie]

I am curious as to how someone would accept evolution as fact, but then reject abiogenesis. That one has already admitted all of the necessary conditions and mechanisms that could go into abiogenesis by accepting evolution.

You're conflating two totally dissimilar processes. This is what you have actually said, and it's ridiculous:

"I am curious as to how someone would accept mutative changes in life forms, yet reject spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter."

100% wrong, as mutations are only one of many mechanism of evolution , those subject to selection or otherwise. You cannot sum up evolution so simply. And the bedrock of evolution is small, incremental changes.

And you are doubly wrong, in that there ia nothing "spontaneous" or "random" about selection. Just as you as you accept that random genetic mutations are acted upon by selective and statistical forces, you can (indeed, must) also accept that random mixes of proteins were acted upon by selective and statistical forces. After enough time, the most persistent molecules persisted . Obviously, the ones not most suited to self replicate and persist did not do so. The ones that did, did. Just as the bears with brown fur did not fare as well as those with white fur, above the Arctic circle. It's not "magical design" that brought us white haired bears. It was the very nonrandom forces of selection.

There is no scientific evidence to support this, Darwin's tree is long disproved and his letter to Hooker was an LSD trip. Yet it spawned your religion

Now you are denying evolution. Evolution is a fact. I am not going to argue with some ignorant or insane fool about the truth of evolution. Sorry.

Evolution is a fact, I actually am part of it as a dog breeder, I understand evolution. My dogs DNA is 96 percent Wolf, 0 percent pond scum

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where would we be if 85 percent of the Earth was really missing?

We would be ignorant fools who thought god's caused everything, the earth was flat, amd the sun was more around us, just as the people who only knew 15% of the earth thought in their time.

But we now know 100% of the earth. Boy, we're they wrong, eh? Good thing we didn't just accept their goofy magical explanations, eh?

You are a moron, I thought that you might have knowledge at least in passing of the cosmological constant.

I was wrong

And now you are trying to change the subject. I'm quite sure you know aboit as much about the cosmological constant as you know about evolution. I am also quite sure that neither lends any evidence whatsoever to your propositions of gods.