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

[toobfreak]

I am telling you as one who is steeped in the pertinent science—as one who is steeped in the actual findings of the leading lights of abiogenetic research—

That's rich.

it is not possible to demonstrate or observe abiogenesis

It could be if you had 500 million years or so to sit around waiting and watching for it in a totally primordial, lifeless place!

there is no way in hell mere chemistry by natural means can produce life.

Well if there is no life then life can't come from life and if life doesn't come from non-life either, not by chemistry or organic reactions, then all that is left is PFM!

 

[Crepitus]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

He's both.

He is a big fan of circular reasoning though.

 

[Ringtone]

You DO understand that I believe in God?

But the only one who should be laughing is at you for foisting that load of far flung rubbish.

Yes. You made that very clear. What does that have to do with your bald claim that there's no proof for God's existence . . . sans an argument?

 

[toobfreak]

What does that have to do with your bald claim that there's no proof for God's existence . . .

I never said that. The fact that you can't read shows your assertions are bull. I said there is no scientific or mathematical proof.

There is no mathematical equation which PROVES GOD. Maybe you just want to read into one thinking so.

There is no scientific proof of God, otherwise, anyone could repeat the experiment and all come to the same conclusion.

The REAL proof of God comes from WITHIN, direct, personal experience. And He intended it that way because not everyone is ready to understand God and He only reveals himself to those who are ready for him! And that is supported by the Vedic literature going back 5,000 years!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But mutations, which are copying errors, cause the loss of, or corrupt, existing genetic information.

They never add or result in new information?

Why not?

 

[Quasar44]

Face it !!
You are just “ dressed up fish “

 

[Ringtone]

Michael Rawling, a.k.a., Ringtone, steeped in the pertinent science: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

That's rich.

Great counterargument . . . not.

Michael Rawling, a.k.a., Ringtone, steeped in the pertinent science (Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism): it is not possible to demonstrate or observe abiogenesis.

It could be if you had 500 million years or so to sit around waiting and watching for it in a totally primordial, lifeless place!

Presumably you mean some observer other than God.

How the hell could one ever observe a microorganism arising from a primordial, lifeless place in raw nature in the first place? How would one be in a primordial, lifeless place in the first place, given that the observer would necessarily be a life form?

Dumbass Alert!

Well if there is no life then life can't come from life and if life doesn't come from non-life either, not by chemistry or organic reactions, then all that is left is PFM!

You argue like a leftist, and you're about as dense as a pile of bricks. The mere chemistry of natural means cannot produce life. That is the informed opinion of Michael Rawlings, a.k.a., Ringtone, one who is steeped in the pertinent science: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism. Only intelligent life can produce life, and the intelligent life that created biological life on Earth is God.

Yours is the blathersmack of a damn fool who believes what he's told to believe sans any real knowledge of his own.

You're just another sheeple. You're dismissed.

 

[Ringtone]

They never add or result in new information?

Why not?

I already spanked your ass on another thread. You're dismissed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They never add or result in new information?

Why not?

I already spanked your ass on another thread. You're dismissed.

Yeah, I remember you never posted your proof.

 

[toobfreak]

Michael Rawling, a.k.a., Ringtone, steeped in the pertinent science:

Well, I'm glad you wrote an article, I've written three textbooks, but again, I'm not an atheist.

How the hell could one ever observe a microorganism arising from a primordial, lifeless place in raw nature in the first place? How would one be in a primordial, lifeless place in the first place, given that the observer would necessarily be a life form?

That was kind of the point. Just because things don't happen on observable human time scales don't mean they don't happen.

You argue like a leftist, and you're about as dense as a pile of bricks.

Oh I'm anything but a leftist and why should I make it easy for you to make YOUR point in an argument I care little about?

The mere chemistry of natural means cannot produce life.

Pulled that one out of yer ass, did ya?

Only intelligent life can produce life, and the intelligent life that created biological life on Earth is God.

You may be right but unprovable. But God is INTELLIGENCE, not intelligent life. And much more. God is the infinite source of all qualities, but that doesn't prove that God didn't create chemistry to create life for him, nor does it satisfy the problem that if life comes from life and intelligent life comes from intelligent life, then where did the first life come from as you've already conceded that life must have a cause and a cause is a beginning! So there had to be a point where life came from NON-life. I'm afraid you've painted yourself into a corner.

Also, science shows that the original hominems evolved from lesser mammals which going back far enough, were NOT intelligent. Therefore, intelligence grew out of an environmental stimulus to cope with the environment as man increasingly didn't have the animal talents of raw bestial survival (lack of hair, lack of teeth, lack of strength, etc.).

Yours is the blathersmack of a damn fool who believes what he's told to believe sans any real knowledge of his own.

If you say so.

 

[Ringtone]

Michael Rawling, a.k.a., Ringtone, steeped in the pertinent science:

Well, I'm glad you wrote an article, I've written three textbooks, but again, I'm not an atheist.

How the hell could one ever observe a microorganism arising from a primordial, lifeless place in raw nature in the first place? How would one be in a primordial, lifeless place in the first place, given that the observer would necessarily be a life form?

That was kind of the point. Just because things don't happen on observable human time scales don't mean they don't happen.

You argue like a leftist, and you're about as dense as a pile of bricks.

Oh I'm anything but a leftist and why should I make it easy for you to make YOUR point in an argument I care little about?

The mere chemistry of natural means cannot produce life.

Pulled that one out of yer ass, did ya?

Only intelligent life can produce life, and the intelligent life that created biological life on Earth is God.

You may be right but unprovable. But God is INTELLIGENCE, not intelligent life. And much more. God is the infinite source of all qualities, but that doesn't prove that God didn't create chemistry to create life for him, nor does it satisfy the problem that if life comes from life and intelligent life comes from intelligent life, then where did the first life come from as you've already conceded that life must have a cause and a cause is a beginning! So there had to be a point where life came from NON-life. I'm afraid you've painted yourself into a corner.

Also, science shows that the original hominems evolved from lesser mammals which going back far enough, were NOT intelligent. Therefore, intelligence grew out of an environmental stimulus to cope with the environment as man increasingly didn't have the animal talents of raw bestial survival (lack of hair, lack of teeth, lack of strength, etc.).

Yours is the blathersmack of a damn fool who believes what he's told to believe sans any real knowledge of his own.

If you say so.

You argue just like a lying, leftist whore. . . .

 

[toobfreak]

You argue just like a lying, leftist whore. . . .

TRANSLATION: I owned the dude like my little bitch so now all he has left are personal insults. I pretty much expected as much.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Also, science shows that the original hominems evolved from lesser mammals which going back far enough, were NOT intelligent.

Similar argument might work regarding homonyms, hominids, and ad hominem.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

Only two things are facts, dying and taxes

 

[Quasar44]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

Only two things are facts, dying and taxes

Taxes don’t seem to exist much for some

 

[Grumblenuts]

if life comes from life and intelligent life comes from intelligent life, then where did the first life come from as you've already conceded that life must have a cause and a cause is a beginning! So there had to be a point where life came from NON-life. I'm afraid you've painted yourself into a corner.

Death has always been more highly evolved since life exists first. What then is "NON-life" and what's its cause? NON-life evidently exists independently, therefore must be the ultimate cause you seek. It is NON-life that must have created mankind who then created life, death, gods, and irrational fears, complete with their magical placations.

 

[Quasar44]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

Only two things are facts, dying and taxes

Denying evolution is utter stupidity

 

[Wyatt earp]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

Only two things are facts, dying and taxes

Denying evolution is utter stupidity

I think you mean micro evolution, who knows we could have been planted here by an alien race

 

[Quasar44]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

Only two things are facts, dying and taxes

Denying evolution is utter stupidity

I think you mean micro evolution, who knows we could have been planted here by an alien race

I don’t think an Alien race is going to travel millions of light years to start life
Very illogical and zero evidence

You are very closely related to all primates

 

[Wyatt earp]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

Only two things are facts, dying and taxes

Denying evolution is utter stupidity

I think you mean micro evolution, who knows we could have been planted here by an alien race

I don’t think an Alien race is going to travel millions of light years to start life
Very illogical and zero evidence

You are very closely related to all primates

You are with dna closely related to a banana. I think we are getting close to finding out the truth about aliens, little by little the government is admitting it.