Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[sealybobo]

If evolution isnt true then a god planted 2 adult humans on earth and these first adults knew how to raise children, hunt, what food to eat, communicate. And god put dinosaurs and trilobites on earth millions of years before us but they bored him and they went extinct why?

How did all the different animals get here? Think about it. Did god make enough adult lions that they would multiply? And did god make a bunch of adult humans first and then they mated ? No. There was no first human or first lion. They both evolved from a previous species ultimately everything alive comes from a shared ancestor. If its alive, you are related to it.

 

[sealybobo]

Who knows what humans will be like in 10,000 years. I hope smarter. We know dogs are getting much smarter living beside us. In 5000 or 1000 years they may talk to us.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven?

Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.

Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed.

Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.

The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened.

Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.

The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.

Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...

If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.

You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.

So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?

Non-sequitur much?

Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."

You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.

I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.

You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.

Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?

Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...

 

[LOki]

Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.

Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.

Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.

If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.

You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.

So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?

Non-sequitur much?

Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."

You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.

I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.

You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.

Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?

Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...

Excellent.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?

Non-sequitur much?

Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."

You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.

I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.

You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.

Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?

Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...

Excellent.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist." You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened. Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...

 

[LOki]

Non-sequitur much?

Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."

You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.

You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.

Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?

Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...

Excellent.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.

Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?

Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...

Excellent.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

 

[LOki]

Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.

Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?

Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...

Excellent.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

 

[sealybobo]

A

Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.

Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.

Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.

If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.

You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.

So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?

Non-sequitur much?

Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."

You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.

I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.

You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.

Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?

Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...

All the evidence points to the fact that all life probably came from the same source. I dont think anyone needs to explain to you all the evidence and reasons why it makes perfect sense. You can easily go look up all the details yourself. Theres many many reasons evolution is a scientific fact. The highest honor a theory can achieve.

Or you can deny evolution and go with the creation story.

And what evidence are you using to come to that conclusion?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...

Excellent.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?

 

[Hollie]

Excellent.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?

It didn't. That's just a conspiracy promoted by the Evilutionists.

 

[sealybobo]

Excellent.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?

I believe the multiverse theory. Our bubble was started 14 billion years ago and the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. Time light space and the bubble are getting bigger. Eventually it could burst when it merges with another universe or bubble. Our bubble had a beginning but there have been other beginnings and other ends in other infinite universes or cosmos.


What do you think? I could be wrong but scientifically and theoretically and logically I could be right. Can we say the same about your theory?

Your theory is a conclusion you can't think of any other explanation. Its based on ignorance. You dont know so must be god..

By the way did you see I named you as a frienemy?

 

[sealybobo]

Excellent.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?

Didn't the plants have to be here first to create oxygen for us to breath? We know the first life didnt breath oxygen and humans couldn't have lived on earth when live started. That wasn't for a billion years. Trilobite's and dinosaurs ruled before us.

And we know men came from monkeys, once crawled on all 4s and breathed water. And we are related to all other living things.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?

I believe the multiverse theory. Our bubble was started 14 billion years ago and the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. Time light space and the bubble are getting bigger. Eventually it could burst when it merges with another universe or bubble. Our bubble had a beginning but there have been other beginnings and other ends in other infinite universes or cosmos.


What do you think? I could be wrong but scientifically and theoretically and logically I could be right. Can we say the same about your theory?

Your theory is a conclusion you can't think of any other explanation. Its based on ignorance. You dont know so must be god..

By the way did you see I named you as a frienamy?

My problem with the theory is that people use a belief that is no more than just a belief to belittle others. I'm not much for theorizing about things beyond the scope of life. I do believe in an infinite universe though.

I don't see enough evidence in any theory about stuff like that to have it hold any real weight.

I don't know if that's a good thing or bad thing. You are a frienemy to me as well.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?

Didn't the plants have to be here first to create oxygen for us to breath? We know the first life didnt breath oxygen and humans couldn't have lived on earth when live started. That wasn't for a billion years. Trilobite's and dinosaurs ruled before us.

And we know men came from monkeys, once crawled on all 4s and breathed water. And we are related to all other living things.

The first things you mention are logical but my opinion is that we really don't know enough about the past to make such assumptions.
I don't believe the second part at all.

 

[LOki]

Excellent.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life.

So what? No one has "proof" of ANYTHING. Right?

There is no perfect certainty except for that possessed by the superstitious; who base their perfect certainty upon nothing, and validate it by denying valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

I'm not counted amongst those retards, Cupcake.

The evidence strongly suggests that life around here is a relatively new occurence.

How do we know time had a beginning?

We don't. Not with absolute certainty. But the evidence suggests that it did.

I'm good with that until something better is presented.

 

[sealybobo]

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

​

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?
Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?

I believe the multiverse theory. Our bubble was started 14 billion years ago and the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. Time light space and the bubble are getting bigger. Eventually it could burst when it merges with another universe or bubble. Our bubble had a beginning but there have been other beginnings and other ends in other infinite universes or cosmos.


What do you think? I could be wrong but scientifically and theoretically and logically I could be right. Can we say the same about your theory?

Your theory is a conclusion you can't think of any other explanation. Its based on ignorance. You dont know so must be god..

By the way did you see I named you as a frienamy?

My problem with the theory is that people use a belief that is no more than just a belief to belittle others. I'm not much for theorizing about things beyond the scope of life. I do believe in an infinite universe though.

I don't see enough evidence in any theory about stuff like that to have it hold any real weight.

I don't know if that's a good thing or bad thing. You are a frienemy to me as well.

I believe you are probably an agnostic athiest who believes religion is good for people and humans need it and that without it things would be worse. I disagree. I think it is unnecessary and holding us back. Look at Muslims. So you want to do away with that lie and replace it with another?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?

Life can't come from non life. Fact.

Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life.

So what? No one has "proof" of ANYTHING. Right?

There is no perfect certainty except for that possessed by the superstitious; who base their perfect certainty upon nothing, and validate it by denying valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

I'm not counted amongst those retards, Cupcake.

The evidence strongly suggests that life around here is a relatively new occurence.

How do we know time had a beginning?

We don't. Not with absolute certainty. But the evidence suggests that it did.

I'm good with that until something better is presented.

You have faith that we have a good knowledge base of the past. I don't have faith in our knowledge of the past.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?

I believe the multiverse theory. Our bubble was started 14 billion years ago and the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. Time light space and the bubble are getting bigger. Eventually it could burst when it merges with another universe or bubble. Our bubble had a beginning but there have been other beginnings and other ends in other infinite universes or cosmos.


What do you think? I could be wrong but scientifically and theoretically and logically I could be right. Can we say the same about your theory?

Your theory is a conclusion you can't think of any other explanation. Its based on ignorance. You dont know so must be god..

By the way did you see I named you as a frienamy?

My problem with the theory is that people use a belief that is no more than just a belief to belittle others. I'm not much for theorizing about things beyond the scope of life. I do believe in an infinite universe though.

I don't see enough evidence in any theory about stuff like that to have it hold any real weight.

I don't know if that's a good thing or bad thing. You are a frienemy to me as well.

I believe you are probably an agnostic athiest who believes religion is good for people and humans need it and that without it things would be worse. I disagree. I think it is unnecessary and holding us back. Look at Muslims. So you want to do away with that lie and replace it with another?

Possible. Muslims are pretty bad but I also believe that there are many Muslims perfectly happy with their lives. Some enjoy the kind of community they have and would rather not have foreign nations change their lives. Whether they have the right to live like that is up to the rest of the world to decide I guess. To me I don't have a problem with it as long as they don't harm others. The fact that they commit acts of terrorism is definitely a problem though. The small group of wackos is the only problem.

 

[LOki]

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

​

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?
Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life.

So what? No one has "proof" of ANYTHING. Right?

There is no perfect certainty except for that possessed by the superstitious; who base their perfect certainty upon nothing, and validate it by denying valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

I'm not counted amongst those retards, Cupcake.

The evidence strongly suggests that life around here is a relatively new occurence.

How do we know time had a beginning?

We don't. Not with absolute certainty. But the evidence suggests that it did.

I'm good with that until something better is presented.

You have faith that we have a good knowledge base of the past. I don't have faith in our knowledge of the past.

I don't do faith, Pumpkin. I'm not capable of it.

"There is no perfect certainty except for that possessed by the superstitious; who base their perfect certainty upon nothing, and validate it by denying valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

I'm not counted amongst those retards, Cupcake."​