Creationists

[ima]

Is this question directed at me? I am not a young earth Creationist. But I will answer your question if you can answer mine. How did the first cell originate?

Is an explanation from Berkeley ok?

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

If you are willing to fall for it. What a joke!!!!

I was talking about scientific evidence that can be replicated in a laboratory. Not "just so" stories and "might have" or "could have" hypothesis.

Please tell me you are not foolish enough to buy this as REAL SCIENCE?

Says the guy who thinks that the bible is proof that the world was made in 6 days.

At least scientists are trying to replicate this in a lab and are searching for answers. You on the other hand, have come to the scene of a crime, see someone dead on the ground and because you don't know how to look for real evidence, declare him murdered by an invisible being in another dimension. Any dumber and you could stop breathing. Watch out!

 

[LOki]

The only retards are the last three posters with terrible reading comprehension problems. Hollie's statement is a lie, and your materialist religion has blinded you to the foolishness of her lie. You speak of faith, but it is your faith that allows to to believe that the things I mentioned in my post have a natural cause, because you don't have a single shred of scientific evidence to prove otherwise. So it is by faith you believe, absent from any facts. This is where I ask you to put up or shut up for even one of the items, let's say, DNA for instance. Please show me the scientific "evidence" for a natural cause. I'm not talking about the "just so", "might have", "could have" evolution stories, but real, experimentally verifiable evidence for DNA's natural cause.

This is the point the crickets start chirping.

Not to imply that your anti-reason paradigm is in any way valid, but bhere's a whole world out there that runs on a natural process called chemistry. Perhaps you've heard of it?

EPIC FAIL. This in NO WAY shows a natural cause for DNA.

The chemical reactions involved seemed natural enough--others seem to agree--I fail to see anything but denial of ("ultimate") reality as the source of this assertion of yours.

Nice try homeslice. I am talking about REAL scientific evidence that is testable which shows a natural avenue for the creation of the digital instructions in DNA.

This is different from what you asked.

Real scientists don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction.

What you're asking for is the "software" or "program of life" your superstition has posited as part of your dishonest rationalizations for claiming that intelligent design/creationism is science. The existence of he "software" or "program of life" is not posited by scientists consistent with, or conforming to, your superstitious paradigm.

You got what you asked for, Cupcake.

 

[LOki]

Foolish Loki. What are these so called "rights" that you speak of. And just where do these imaginary rights come from? Can we do a scientific experiment to verify they exists? Can we somehow measure your imaginary "rights"? Since your religion teaches matter is the only reality, how do we give birth to a thought? What is an idea? Can you prove it exists?

Yes. The reality of thought is axiomatic; denying that thought exists is an application of the "stolen concept fallacy."

And as far as "rights" are concerned: if there are no rights at all, Spooner's assertion remains valid.

So then Ultimatereality, while we're playing with dopey rhetoric, what feature of "ultimate reality" is "actual reality" is missing that prevents "actual reality" from being the "ultimate reality"?

Your question is foolish because actual reality and ultimate reality should be the same thing.

The question isn't foolish, those who insist that their imaginary reality--featuring their imaginary friends--is more validly real than objective reality, are foolish.

But to further engage in your ignorance, and assuming your incorrect definition of so called "actual" reality, it is not what's missing. It is what is present.

Well, I suspect you're just being disingenuous here, as your entire gripe about the "religion" of naturalism, or materialism, or whatever ... uniformly revolves around the rejection of your superstition.

Human prejudice and perception are the impediment to knowing ultimate reality.

I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY!

And what could be a greater expression of prejudice than your belief paradigm that requires no valid verifiable evidence or logic WHAT-SO-EVER, to hold a conviction of certainty, yet DEMANDS ABSOLUTE UNQUESTIONABLE PROOF to establish your convictions are in error? What could possibly be a greater impediment to knowledge about objective reality than this "knowledge" paradigm that NECESSARILY has but coincidental confirmation in verifiable evidence?

Only the Architect ultimately knows what is really real.

What "Architect"?

Can you hold gravity in your hand? Can you see it with your own eyes? No you can't, but you can see the effect of it. So basically you believe in an invisible force because you can study its effects. Yet we are no closer, even with the super hardon collider, to understanding the first thing about gravity other than rules on how it operates. I see the effects of another Invisible Force and can know It exists.

And you give it an important sounding name, you confer upon it a personality that loves you, you provide it with desires and goals, you give it a voice that only you hear, you assign to it motives for it's alleged deeds, you see it answering your requests, you feel it's anger when others disobey the whims you assigned to it.

And all of this is real in your ULTIMATE "reality."

 

[UltimateReality]

Just because we haven't figured out the why and how of gravity doesn't mean it was invented by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen or been to?

So how can you claim with absolute 100% certainty it is natural? Prove it.

The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.

Prove your supermagical claims to gods.

You really are a buffoon. How can you prove something that is supernatural?

 

[UltimateReality]

I've never known a single, verifiable discovery in science that had a supernatural underpinning.

So we are to assume that because you don't know it, it doesn't exist? You are so foolish.

Please explain to me what caused the universe?

How many gods did it take to cause your gods?

Epic short term memory FAIL. My God didn't have a beginning, has always existed and doesn't require a cause. Go back of few post and try to hang onto a thought for more than a few minutes.

 

[UltimateReality]

Is an explanation from Berkeley ok?

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

If you are willing to fall for it. What a joke!!!!

I was talking about scientific evidence that can be replicated in a laboratory. Not "just so" stories and "might have" or "could have" hypothesis.

Please tell me you are not foolish enough to buy this as REAL SCIENCE?

Says the guy who thinks that the bible is proof that the world was made in 6 days.

At least scientists are trying to replicate this in a lab and are searching for answers. You on the other hand, have come to the scene of a crime, see someone dead on the ground and because you don't know how to look for real evidence, declare him murdered by an invisible being in another dimension. Any dumber and you could stop breathing. Watch out!

You can LOL all you want. I don't believe the world was made in six days but nice false projection.

 

[UltimateReality]

Just because we haven't figured out the why and how of gravity doesn't mean it was invented by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen or been to?

So how can you claim with absolute 100% certainty it is natural? Prove it.

The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.

Prove your supermagical claims to gods.

Hello? McFly? I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth and I only believe in ONE God. I've only told you this, oh, I don't know, like 1500 times. Man you are stupid.

 

[UltimateReality]

Not to imply that your anti-reason paradigm is in any way valid, but bhere's a whole world out there that runs on a natural process called chemistry. Perhaps you've heard of it?

EPIC FAIL. This in NO WAY shows a natural cause for DNA.

The chemical reactions involved seemed natural enough--others seem to agree--I fail to see anything but denial of ("ultimate") reality as the source of this assertion of yours.

Nice try homeslice. I am talking about REAL scientific evidence that is testable which shows a natural avenue for the creation of the digital instructions in DNA.

This is different from what you asked.

Real scientists don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction.

What you're asking for is the "software" or "program of life" your superstition has posited as part of your dishonest rationalizations for claiming that intelligent design/creationism is science. The existence of he "software" or "program of life" is not posited by scientists consistent with, or conforming to, your superstitious paradigm.

You got what you asked for, Cupcake.

Real Science? You wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. Silly Loki, you have been so dumbed down by the pseudoscience of evolution and the bastardization of the scientific method that you have been duped into believing this garbage. Here are just a few excerpts from your "others seem to agree" link. Funny, even the term "seem to" is dripping with Darwin-speak. Why not just say others agree. For your consideration:

Information systems to govern replication could have developed penecontemporaneously in the same milieu.

Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled, it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself. Oh really???

The molecules could have primed the protocell for the production of further organic molecules. Why can't you test or prove this?

Neal and Stanger have suggested that, in prebiotic times, hydrogen in hot springs could have played a part in the synthesis of the first organic molecules.

We have argued that life may have originated at highly reduced alkaline submarine springs...

Nevertheless abiotic organic molecules could have been generated by hydrogenation of the carbon monoxide...

Loki, I really can't believe you are stupid enough to fall for this stuff so I am guessing you obviously didn't read the study before you copied the citation of the atheist website.

A search of the acrobat file revealed 25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves".

This is not science people!!! This is a fill in 43 blanks to get to the end result fairy tale.

Please try again with real science that actually proves the steps required to get from point A to point B are possible. Relying on 43 ASSumptions is proof??? Dude, come on!!!

Also, since you said I didn't ask for it, here you go: please show me the scientific proof on how the digital information code to build proteins originated????

 

[UltimateReality]

Real scientists

don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction.

You are a foolish, foolish man. Again, you have been dumbed down by the speculative pseudoscience of evolution so much so that you can't think straight. The Ts, Gs, C's and A's arranged in a specific, quaternary digital instructions are no more a result of a chemical reaction than the information contained in a newspaper is the result of a chemical reaction of ink and wood pulp.

Apparently, these "REAL" Scientist didn't get the memo...

"DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]"

DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes. The reality of thought is axiomatic; denying that thought exists is an application of the "stolen concept fallacy."

And as far as "rights" are concerned: if there are no rights at all, Spooner's assertion remains valid.

So then Ultimatereality, while we're playing with dopey rhetoric, what feature of "ultimate reality" is "actual reality" is missing that prevents "actual reality" from being the "ultimate reality"?

Your question is foolish because actual reality and ultimate reality should be the same thing.

The question isn't foolish, those who insist that their imaginary reality--featuring their imaginary friends--is more validly real than objective reality, are foolish.

Well, I suspect you're just being disingenuous here, as your entire gripe about the "religion" of naturalism, or materialism, or whatever ... uniformly revolves around the rejection of your superstition.

I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY!

And what could be a greater expression of prejudice than your belief paradigm that requires no valid verifiable evidence or logic WHAT-SO-EVER, to hold a conviction of certainty, yet DEMANDS ABSOLUTE UNQUESTIONABLE PROOF to establish your convictions are in error? What could possibly be a greater impediment to knowledge about objective reality than this "knowledge" paradigm that NECESSARILY has but coincidental confirmation in verifiable evidence?

Only the Architect ultimately knows what is really real.

What "Architect"?

Can you hold gravity in your hand? Can you see it with your own eyes? No you can't, but you can see the effect of it. So basically you believe in an invisible force because you can study its effects. Yet we are no closer, even with the super hardon collider, to understanding the first thing about gravity other than rules on how it operates. I see the effects of another Invisible Force and can know It exists.

And you give it an important sounding name, you confer upon it a personality that loves you, you provide it with desires and goals, you give it a voice that only you hear, you assign to it motives for it's alleged deeds, you see it answering your requests, you feel it's anger when others disobey the whims you assigned to it.

And all of this is real in your ULTIMATE "reality."

Nice dodge but you didn't address the comparison.

 

[LOki]

EPIC FAIL. This in NO WAY shows a natural cause for DNA.

The chemical reactions involved seemed natural enough--others seem to agree--I fail to see anything but denial of ("ultimate") reality as the source of this assertion of yours.

Nice try homeslice. I am talking about REAL scientific evidence that is testable which shows a natural avenue for the creation of the digital instructions in DNA.

This is different from what you asked.

Real scientists don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction.

What you're asking for is the "software" or "program of life" your superstition has posited as part of your dishonest rationalizations for claiming that intelligent design/creationism is science. The existence of he "software" or "program of life" is not posited by scientists consistent with, or conforming to, your superstitious paradigm.

You got what you asked for, Cupcake.

Real Science? You wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. Silly Loki, you have been so dumbed down by the pseudoscience of evolution and the bastardization of the scientific method that you have been duped into believing this garbage. Here are just a few excerpts from your "others seem to agree" link. Funny, even the term "seem to" is dripping with Darwin-speak. Why not just say others agree. For your consideration:

Information systems to govern replication could have developed penecontemporaneously in the same milieu.

Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled, it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself. Oh really???

The molecules could have primed the protocell for the production of further organic molecules. Why can't you test or prove this?

Neal and Stanger have suggested that, in prebiotic times, hydrogen in hot springs could have played a part in the synthesis of the first organic molecules.

We have argued that life may have originated at highly reduced alkaline submarine springs...

Nevertheless abiotic organic molecules could have been generated by hydrogenation of the carbon monoxide...

Loki, I really can't believe you are stupid enough to fall for this stuff so I am guessing you obviously didn't read the study before you copied the citation of the atheist website.

A search of the acrobat file revealed 25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves".

This is not science people!!! This is a fill in 43 blanks to get to the end result fairy tale.

Please try again with real science that actually proves the steps required to get from point A to point B are possible. Relying on 43 ASSumptions is proof??? Dude, come on!!!

Also, since you said I didn't ask for it, here you go: please show me the scientific proof on how the digital information code to build proteins originated????

You know real science hit you in the face, but you lack the honesty of intellectual integrity to admit it. Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

"Could have" is exactly right.

Unlike you--and your band of superstitious retards--who claim they are absolutely certain of what did happen, actual scientists express what "could have" happened because they have the intellectual honesty to admit that they could be wrong.

 

[LOki]

Real scientists

don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction.

You are a foolish, foolish man. Again, you have been dumbed down by the speculative pseudoscience of evolution so much so that you can't think straight. The Ts, Gs, C's and A's arranged in a specific, quaternary digital instructions are no more a result of a chemical reaction than the information contained in a newspaper is the result of a chemical reaction of ink and wood pulp.

Apparently, these "REAL" Scientist didn't get the memo...

"DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]"

DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Real scientists don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction.

Real scientists don't mistake the metaphors they use for the subject they're using the metaphor to describe.

And intellectually honest people do not attempt to conflate the different meanings of common terms used in different subjects to make their point that cellular DNA has the same functional role in biology that it has in DNA computing.

 

[LOki]

Your question is foolish because actual reality and ultimate reality should be the same thing.

The question isn't foolish, those who insist that their imaginary reality--featuring their imaginary friends--is more validly real than objective reality, are foolish.

Well, I suspect you're just being disingenuous here, as your entire gripe about the "religion" of naturalism, or materialism, or whatever ... uniformly revolves around the rejection of your superstition.

I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY!

And what could be a greater expression of prejudice than your belief paradigm that requires no valid verifiable evidence or logic WHAT-SO-EVER, to hold a conviction of certainty, yet DEMANDS ABSOLUTE UNQUESTIONABLE PROOF to establish your convictions are in error? What could possibly be a greater impediment to knowledge about objective reality than this "knowledge" paradigm that NECESSARILY has but coincidental confirmation in verifiable evidence?

What "Architect"?

Can you hold gravity in your hand? Can you see it with your own eyes? No you can't, but you can see the effect of it. So basically you believe in an invisible force because you can study its effects. Yet we are no closer, even with the super hardon collider, to understanding the first thing about gravity other than rules on how it operates. I see the effects of another Invisible Force and can know It exists.

And you give it an important sounding name, you confer upon it a personality that loves you, you provide it with desires and goals, you give it a voice that only you hear, you assign to it motives for it's alleged deeds, you see it answering your requests, you feel it's anger when others disobey the whims you assigned to it.

And all of this is real in your ULTIMATE "reality."

Nice dodge but you didn't address the comparison.

Nice denial of reality to advance the pretense that I didn't address the comparison.

 

[Hollie]

Your question is foolish because actual reality and ultimate reality should be the same thing.

The question isn't foolish, those who insist that their imaginary reality--featuring their imaginary friends--is more validly real than objective reality, are foolish.

Well, I suspect you're just being disingenuous here, as your entire gripe about the "religion" of naturalism, or materialism, or whatever ... uniformly revolves around the rejection of your superstition.

I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY!

And what could be a greater expression of prejudice than your belief paradigm that requires no valid verifiable evidence or logic WHAT-SO-EVER, to hold a conviction of certainty, yet DEMANDS ABSOLUTE UNQUESTIONABLE PROOF to establish your convictions are in error? What could possibly be a greater impediment to knowledge about objective reality than this "knowledge" paradigm that NECESSARILY has but coincidental confirmation in verifiable evidence?

What "Architect"?

Can you hold gravity in your hand? Can you see it with your own eyes? No you can't, but you can see the effect of it. So basically you believe in an invisible force because you can study its effects. Yet we are no closer, even with the super hardon collider, to understanding the first thing about gravity other than rules on how it operates. I see the effects of another Invisible Force and can know It exists.

And you give it an important sounding name, you confer upon it a personality that loves you, you provide it with desires and goals, you give it a voice that only you hear, you assign to it motives for it's alleged deeds, you see it answering your requests, you feel it's anger when others disobey the whims you assigned to it.

And all of this is real in your ULTIMATE "reality."

Nice dodge but you didn't address the comparison.

Your comparison was pointless.

 

[ima]

So how can you claim with absolute 100% certainty it is natural? Prove it.

The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.

Prove your supermagical claims to gods.

Hello? McFly? I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth and I only believe in ONE God. I've only told you this, oh, I don't know, like 1500 times. Man you are stupid.

So you think the bible is fiction? Ok, points for that.

But why only 1 god? Because, let's face it, if there's a god, who made it? Or did this god just materialize from a natural cause?
So where does god come from? The planet Kolob?

 

[Hollie]

So how can you claim with absolute 100% certainty it is natural? Prove it.

The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.

Prove your supermagical claims to gods.

You really are a buffoon. How can you prove something that is supernatural?

Try thinking through you own claim.

So… let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

 

[UltimateReality]

The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.

Prove your supermagical claims to gods.

Hello? McFly? I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth and I only believe in ONE God. I've only told you this, oh, I don't know, like 1500 times. Man you are stupid.

So you think the bible is fiction? Ok, points for that.

But why only 1 god? Because, let's face it, if there's a god, who made it? Or did this god just materialize from a natural cause?
So where does god come from? The planet Kolob?

Is your name Hollie? Asked and answered numerous times.

 

[UltimateReality]

The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.

Prove your supermagical claims to gods.

You really are a buffoon. How can you prove something that is supernatural?

Try thinking through you own claim.

So… let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

We can never prove what the supernatural cause for the universe is so I guess that means we don't really exist?

 

[UltimateReality]

The chemical reactions involved seemed natural enough--others seem to agree--I fail to see anything but denial of ("ultimate") reality as the source of this assertion of yours.

This is different from what you asked.

Real scientists don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction.

What you're asking for is the "software" or "program of life" your superstition has posited as part of your dishonest rationalizations for claiming that intelligent design/creationism is science. The existence of he "software" or "program of life" is not posited by scientists consistent with, or conforming to, your superstitious paradigm.

You got what you asked for, Cupcake.

Real Science? You wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. Silly Loki, you have been so dumbed down by the pseudoscience of evolution and the bastardization of the scientific method that you have been duped into believing this garbage. Here are just a few excerpts from your "others seem to agree" link. Funny, even the term "seem to" is dripping with Darwin-speak. Why not just say others agree. For your consideration:

Information systems to govern replication could have developed penecontemporaneously in the same milieu.

Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled, it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself. Oh really???

The molecules could have primed the protocell for the production of further organic molecules. Why can't you test or prove this?

Neal and Stanger have suggested that, in prebiotic times, hydrogen in hot springs could have played a part in the synthesis of the first organic molecules.

We have argued that life may have originated at highly reduced alkaline submarine springs...

Nevertheless abiotic organic molecules could have been generated by hydrogenation of the carbon monoxide...

Loki, I really can't believe you are stupid enough to fall for this stuff so I am guessing you obviously didn't read the study before you copied the citation of the atheist website.

A search of the acrobat file revealed 25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves".

This is not science people!!! This is a fill in 43 blanks to get to the end result fairy tale.

Please try again with real science that actually proves the steps required to get from point A to point B are possible. Relying on 43 ASSumptions is proof??? Dude, come on!!!

Also, since you said I didn't ask for it, here you go: please show me the scientific proof on how the digital information code to build proteins originated????

You know real science hit you in the face, but you lack the honesty of intellectual integrity to admit it. Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

"Could have" is exactly right.

Unlike you--and your band of superstitious retards--who claim they are absolutely certain of what did happen, actual scientists express what "could have" happened because they have the intellectual honesty to admit that they could be wrong.

The brainwashing runs deep with this one. There is nothing wrong with speculation under the scientific method. That is how we come up with a testable hypothesis. But when your so called theory above has 43 (!!!!) untested gaps, please be intellectually honest enough to yourself to admit this is a fairytale, not real science. Evolutionary theory has bastardized science to the point you don't even know what it is. Even geophysicist know when they are making predictions about the distant past, to look to the present for NATURAL, observable phenomena as a basis for their predictions. They don't make up a bunch of crap about what might have or could have happened when their proposed methods have never been observed in nature. Real scientist test their might haves and could haves, and try to limit their variable to one or two unknowns, NOT 43!!!!

Also, I guess you have the right to remain silent on where the digital protein building instructions originated from.

 

[UltimateReality]

The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.

Prove your supermagical claims to gods.

You really are a buffoon. How can you prove something that is supernatural?

Try thinking through you own claim.

I'd be happy if you just tried thinking period.