The Failure Of Evolution Theory . . . in a nutshell, information

[toobfreak]

Thanks.

You seem to feed on abuse.

 

[Ringtone]

Bed-wetting, unloved, pseudo-intellectual masturbating mommy-boy turned small animal abuser.

But enough about you, Chuckles.

 

[Ringtone]

Thanks.

You seem to feed on abuse.

Hot damn, you're a classic narcissist! I see right through you.

 

[toobfreak]

But enough about you, Chuckles.

What a pathetic pseudo-intellectual fraud you are. If the Democrats could have a personality, it would be you.

 

[toobfreak]

Hot damn, you're a classic narcissist! I see right through you.

Tonedeaf, you couldn't see your way through one side of your glass to see clearly accross the fucking room.

 

[Ringtone]

What a pathetic pseudo-intellectual fraud you are. If the Democrats could have a personality, it would be you.

You're a total imbecile of a slack-jawed, lice-ridden, toe-jam-funk smellin' baboon.

 

[Ringtone]

Tonedeaf, you couldn't see your way through one side of your glass to see clearly accross the fucking room.

You obtuse, repeatedly bitch-slapped and turned-out skank of a nancy boy, put your worthless tee-tee back in your panties, wipe the drool off your chin, and go to your room. You couldn't put down a proper line of smack talk even if that stick wasn't up your ass.

 

[toobfreak]

Tonedeaf, you couldn't see your way through one side of your glass to see clearly accross the fucking room.

You obtuse, repeatedly bitch-slapped and turned-out skank of a nancy boy, put your worthless tee-tee back in your panties, wipe the drool off your chin, and go to your room. You couldn't put down a proper line of smack talk even if that stick wasn't up your ass.

Wow, you are one sick individual. You have some deep unmet need to tell everyone in the world you're smarter and better than them with seriously damaged ideas that no one else agrees with, and when they question or just don't agree with you, the small, sick inner child inside who didn't get his way at home when he was a boy lashes out again at the world for being rejected.

 

[Ringtone]

Wow, you are one sick individual. You have some deep unmet need to tell everyone in the world you're smarter and better than them with seriously damaged ideas that no one else agrees with, and when they question or just don't agree with you, the small, sick inner child inside who didn't get his way at home when he was a boy lashes out again at the world for being rejected.

Sounds like somebody's all het up. It's almost as if somebody's feelings are hurt. Indeed, it's almost as if somebody's ego is bruised. Incessant, hysterically over-the-top ad hominem, with moving images no less, in the face of real substance? The authority of know-nothing group think, touchy-feely talk, psychobabble and the like?

I'm getting a weepy, snot-stained hanky feelin' here.

 

[Ringtone]

. . . inner child inside who didn't get his way at home when he was a boy . . .

Chuckles, the classic narcissist, in all seriousness mind you, actually said inner child.

You just can't make this stuff up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

. . . inner child inside who didn't get his way at home when he was a boy . . .

Chuckles, the classic narcissist, in all seriousness mind you, actually said inner child.

You just can't make this stuff up.

You're so busy throwing an embarrassing hissy fit, that you forgot to declare victory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The failure of this thread, in a nutshell:

Started by a low information, self aggrandizing moron who knows less about evolution that a 7th grader.

 

[Ringtone]

What a pathetic pseudo-intellectual fraud you are. If the Democrats could have a personality, it would be you.

By the way, Chuckles, talking about pseudo-intellectuals. . . .

Observe abiogenesis, Chuckles says. Time scales, Chuckles says. That's sort of the point, Chuckles says. Talking trash to one who is STEEPED in the pertinent science, Chuckles does.

(Somebody ought to bitch slap the stupid out of this punk Chuckles, I say.)

Hey, Chuckles, be sure to let us all know when you observe that instance of abiogenesis occurring by purely natural means somewhere in raw nature. Be sure to keep your microscope with you at all times. . . . .

Oh, wait!

Rather, be sure to know precisely where on the incalculably millions of square miles of lifeless, albeit, potentially habitable, planetary terrain this microscopic event occurs before it occurs somewhere in the Universe. After all, you'll have to be standing by at exactly the right spot and at exactly the right moment it occurs.

crickets chirping

Be sure to somehow extract it and put it under your microscope.

Also, be sure to have your scuba gear handy and in good working order at all times should that mysterious little birdy of yours direct you to the exact place and time this event occurs in the vast reaches of some watery depth in the Universe.

Be sure to take pictures of the event, and get the T-shirt.



You arrogant ass! What in the hell have you been thinking abiogenesis is all these many years in your unexamined life, Chuckles?

 

[Ringtone]

Or maybe you're making baby talk.

You disappoint me yet again.

If you were to read my article on abiogenesis you would know that (1) a living organism smaller than an amino acid, much less one smaller than an amine, is impossible, that (2) organic molecules cannot and do not link up in any substantially or sustainably significant chains in raw nature for variously complex reasons, and that (3) even if they could, that would still be light years away from living organisms.

Sorry to disappoint you again.

 

[alang1216]

Or maybe you're making baby talk.

You disappoint me yet again.

If you were to read my article on abiogenesis you would know that (1) a living organism smaller than an amino acid, much less one smaller than an amine, is impossible, that (2) organic molecules cannot and do not link up in any substantially or sustainably significant chains in raw nature for variously complex reasons, and that (3) even if they could, that would still be light years away from living organisms.

Sorry to disappoint you again.

Don't feel too bad, most of what passes for discourse on USMB disappoints me. I do admit I don't recall your article on abiogenesis. Link? I'm most curious to see you prove something is impossible. Long chains of hydrocarbons are very common and naturally occuring, in fact we burn them in our cars. Not light years, billions of years.

 

[Ringtone]

Or maybe you're making baby talk.

You disappoint me yet again.

If you were to read my article on abiogenesis you would know that (1) a living organism smaller than an amino acid, much less one smaller than an amine, is impossible, that (2) organic molecules cannot and do not link up in any substantially or sustainably significant chains in raw nature for variously complex reasons, and that (3) even if they could, that would still be light years away from living organisms.

Sorry to disappoint you again.

Don't feel too bad, most of what passes for discourse on USMB disappoints me. I do admit I don't recall your article on abiogenesis. Link? I'm most curious to see you prove something is impossible. Long chains of hydrocarbons are very common and naturally occuring, in fact we burn them in our cars. Not light years, billions of years.

My bad. I specified in my mind, but not in the post. I'm was thinking about those most pertinent to life. As for the article: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Or maybe you're making baby talk.

You disappoint me yet again.

If you were to read my article on abiogenesis you would know that (1) a living organism smaller than an amino acid, much less one smaller than an amine, is impossible, that (2) organic molecules cannot and do not link up in any substantially or sustainably significant chains in raw nature for variously complex reasons, and that (3) even if they could, that would still be light years away from living organisms.

Sorry to disappoint you again.

Don't feel too bad, most of what passes for discourse on USMB disappoints me. I do admit I don't recall your article on abiogenesis. Link? I'm most curious to see you prove something is impossible. Long chains of hydrocarbons are very common and naturally occuring, in fact we burn them in our cars. Not light years, billions of years.

My bad. I specified in my mind, but not in the post. I'm was thinking about those most pertinent to life. As for the article: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

Oh look, another article you never read and don't understand.

 

[alang1216]

Or maybe you're making baby talk.

You disappoint me yet again.

If you were to read my article on abiogenesis you would know that (1) a living organism smaller than an amino acid, much less one smaller than an amine, is impossible, that (2) organic molecules cannot and do not link up in any substantially or sustainably significant chains in raw nature for variously complex reasons, and that (3) even if they could, that would still be light years away from living organisms.

Sorry to disappoint you again.

Don't feel too bad, most of what passes for discourse on USMB disappoints me. I do admit I don't recall your article on abiogenesis. Link? I'm most curious to see you prove something is impossible. Long chains of hydrocarbons are very common and naturally occuring, in fact we burn them in our cars. Not light years, billions of years.

My bad. I specified in my mind, but not in the post. I'm was thinking about those most pertinent to life. As for the article: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

Too long. Feel free to summarize.

This is also way too long (with the comments) so don't expect even a summary.

 

[Hollie]

Or maybe you're making baby talk.

You disappoint me yet again.

If you were to read my article on abiogenesis you would know that (1) a living organism smaller than an amino acid, much less one smaller than an amine, is impossible, that (2) organic molecules cannot and do not link up in any substantially or sustainably significant chains in raw nature for variously complex reasons, and that (3) even if they could, that would still be light years away from living organisms.

Sorry to disappoint you again.

Don't feel too bad, most of what passes for discourse on USMB disappoints me. I do admit I don't recall your article on abiogenesis. Link? I'm most curious to see you prove something is impossible. Long chains of hydrocarbons are very common and naturally occuring, in fact we burn them in our cars. Not light years, billions of years.

My bad. I specified in my mind, but not in the post. I'm was thinking about those most pertinent to life. As for the article: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

Why should anyone bother with that load of AIG cribbed nonsense?

 

[Ringtone]

Or maybe you're making baby talk.

You disappoint me yet again.

If you were to read my article on abiogenesis you would know that (1) a living organism smaller than an amino acid, much less one smaller than an amine, is impossible, that (2) organic molecules cannot and do not link up in any substantially or sustainably significant chains in raw nature for variously complex reasons, and that (3) even if they could, that would still be light years away from living organisms.

Sorry to disappoint you again.

Don't feel too bad, most of what passes for discourse on USMB disappoints me. I do admit I don't recall your article on abiogenesis. Link? I'm most curious to see you prove something is impossible. Long chains of hydrocarbons are very common and naturally occuring, in fact we burn them in our cars. Not light years, billions of years.

My bad. I specified in my mind, but not in the post. I'm was thinking about those most pertinent to life. As for the article: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

Too long. Feel free to summarize.

This is also way too long (with the comments) so don't expect even a summary.

You need to read the article or not, alang. It's a summarization of the most important experimental findings in abiogenetic research from Miller-Urey on.

I was not aware of the other, but do vaguely recall my discourse with an Objectivist some years ago.

I was actually trolling in that exchange, not at first, but later, after he failed to grasp the fact that I wholeheartedly agreed with him and Peikoff that “the actual is always finite”, or, more accurately, the actual value of the potentially infinite is always finite at any given moment in real being. But he kept insisting that the superlatively qualitative infinity of classical theism contradicted the quantitative infinities of mathematics, which is nonsense. But the real kicker was when another Objectivist chimed in at about that point insisting that 1/Infinity = 0, literally, which is also nonsense. The author of the piece you cited knew better, but wouldn’t correct his fellow Objectivist . . . so I basically went all Jupiter on them just for kicks.

I blessed them with a short story of sorts entailing a fictitious news report. It's a real hoot!

Hey, would you like to read it? It's not long at all and it's hilarious.