Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more
bohart

Newport, TN

#80430 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That was not your claim idiot. You said no repeatable science that supports abiogenesis. Those articles show that you are wrong.
And none of them are total failures. Most of them are successes. Why do you make that idiotic claim that they were failures?
Continuing to lie for the goo,...its oh look! an amino acid has been created in a lab, therefore life began on its own sitting on a warm rock! I have a lab result that says so! The only idiotic claim is that you,science or anyone else knows how the mythical abiogenesis happened.

There is zero empirical evidence seen, or tested that life can come from anything but already existing life.To say otherwise makes you a liar.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80431 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Anthony Flew was a philosopher and not a scientist. His one reason for believing in an Aristotlean god was an argument from ignorance:
" Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ...[In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.' "[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
So you have an old man. Possibly in his dotage staring death in his face and he blinked. Not the best role model to use to try to defeat atheism.
keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believes in the existence of God.[6]

The point was it that he seen the ID of "integrated complexity" as evidence. Which it is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80432 Mar 11, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Continuing to lie for the goo,...its oh look! an amino acid has been created in a lab, therefore life began on its own sitting on a warm rock! I have a lab result that says so! The only idiotic claim is that you,science or anyone else knows how the mythical abiogenesis happened.
There is zero empirical evidence seen, or tested that life can come from anything but already existing life.To say otherwise makes you a liar.
You are incorrect. And I've been through this with you so many times before. Each time you get argued down to the ground until all you can do is make lame goo jokes. Oh, and you just slammed yourself straight into the infinite regression fallacy.

Again.
bohart

Newport, TN

#80433 Mar 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then in that case anyone researching abio should all pack up their bags and go home, because Bo has it all figured out.
I suggest you go and ring 'em all and tell them. I'm sure you will be taken seriously and thanked for saving people from wasting money.
<quoted text>
Why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?
<quoted text>
Bo? Once you were not alive. Now you are. That is because formerly non-living chemicals have been converted to a living biological organism. As much as you would like to escape this fact, you can't.
Please stop projecting your own failures onto others. Science has never been your strong suit.
What a Herculean dumbass! I am alive because a living biological organism reproduced .Perhaps you have evidence of non living chemicals being converted into life by itself? You don't , and this is the failure you are your ilk desperately try to hide and more often lie about with broad exagerations about the tremendous progress being made.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80434 Mar 11, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What a Herculean dumbass! I am alive because a living biological organism reproduced .Perhaps you have evidence of non living chemicals being converted into life by itself? You don't , and this is the failure you are your ilk desperately try to hide and more often lie about with broad exagerations about the tremendous progress being made.
Wow, you at least almost stated it correctly. Non-living matter being converted to "living" matter is your myth still, not what we know of based on scientific inquiry. Matter is neither living nor non-living, it just is. That's like saying a robot is a living machine but a car is a non-living machine, they are both ... machines.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80435 Mar 11, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What a Herculean dumbass!
You can't help it.
bohart wrote:
I am alive because a living biological organism reproduceD. Perhaps you have evidence of non living chemicals being converted into life by itself? You don't ,
I do:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
bohart wrote:
and this is the failure you are your ilk desperately try to hide and more often lie about with broad exagerations about the tremendous progress being made.
I don't need to lie. You already demonstrated in the past few posts that you did. You avoided it as always. Just like you've been avoiding me ever since you got here.

Time for another lame puddle-goo joke again now, eh?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80436 Mar 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Who?(shrug)
yea really...as long as he was an atheist he was highly venerated, but now you metaphorically piss on his grave.Sad.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#80437 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I would appreciate it. I found several articles on how they found the building blocks of DNA, guanine and adenine as this article states. I can't find an article on actual DNA:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0812/Ar... .
Still once you have the building blocks DNA is not all that far away. In fact it is hypothesized that RNA was made first and that DNA cam later. They both use the same basic building blocks.
Oh crap....my bad. I read the piece quickly and got it wrong, it was just a report on the building blocks. excerpt follows:

""People have been discovering components of DNA in meteorites since the 1960's, but researchers were unsure whether they were really created in space or if instead they came from contamination by terrestrial life," said Dr. Michael Callahan of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "For the first time, we have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space." Callahan is lead author of a paper on the discovery appearing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/featur...

My humble apologies.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80440 Mar 11, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
yea really...as long as he was an atheist he was highly venerated, but now you metaphorically piss on his grave.Sad.
I have not pisssed on his grave at all. Just because a man dies does that mean one has to agree with everything they say? And how many times have I pointed out that I couldn't care less about atheism either way anyway?

Sorry, but atheist, theist, or anything else, philosophy is little more than mental mastrubation, IMO. Perhaps once in history it was an important stepping stone along the way to the scientific method. But in today's world it's apparently more useful to apologetics.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80441 Mar 11, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
yea really...as long as he was an atheist he was highly venerated, but now you metaphorically piss on his grave.Sad.
So ... you know nothing of scientific study, why don't you just say it?
bohart

Newport, TN

#80442 Mar 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't help it.
<quoted text>
I do:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
<quoted text>
I don't need to lie. You already demonstrated in the past few posts that you did. You avoided it as always. Just like you've been avoiding me ever since you got here.
Time for another lame puddle-goo joke again now, eh?
Congratulations! when I think you can't be more stupid you raise the bar again. Is a tree a living organism? duh yes!therefore it reproduced! Put the syphillis infected monkey back on your keyboard, at least his idiocy was random.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#80443 Mar 11, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
yea really...as long as he was an atheist he was highly venerated, but now you metaphorically piss on his grave.Sad.
Never heard of this guy...did he find that first ever shred of evidence that might possibly suggest that just maybe some god or goddess ever existed?
fatbacksx

United States

#80444 Mar 11, 2013
No wonder PHD's can't find work. In a few years with the human regression we'll be back living in the trees throwing s--t at each other.
bohart

Newport, TN

#80445 Mar 11, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you at least almost stated it correctly. Non-living matter being converted to "living" matter is your myth still, not what we know of based on scientific inquiry. Matter is neither living nor non-living, it just is. That's like saying a robot is a living machine but a car is a non-living machine, they are both ... machines.
K.K. you too may take immediate possesion of the herculean dumbass tag.Now continue , tell me how we don't even know what life is ,whats alive? right? That way you can cloak your religions failings, mudding up definitions like the Dude who claims that live births are evidence that a lifeless puddle of goo can spring to life.

What? non-living matter being converted to living matter is my myth! Check out your puddle goo bible concordance and look up abiogenesis.

The difference in our religions is I believe life and the universe had a creator, you believe it created itself, which requires a torrential flood of illogical thinking to accomplish.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80446 Mar 11, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh crap....my bad. I read the piece quickly and got it wrong, it was just a report on the building blocks. excerpt follows:
""People have been discovering components of DNA in meteorites since the 1960's, but researchers were unsure whether they were really created in space or if instead they came from contamination by terrestrial life," said Dr. Michael Callahan of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "For the first time, we have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space." Callahan is lead author of a paper on the discovery appearing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/featur...
My humble apologies.
Not a problem. I was rather skeptical since DNA would indicate actual space life, where the building blocks can self assemble. Titles of articles are very often sensationalistic.
bohart

Newport, TN

#80447 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Anthony Flew was a philosopher and not a scientist. His one reason for believing in an Aristotlean god was an argument from ignorance:
" Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ...[In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.' "[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
So you have an old man. Possibly in his dotage staring death in his face and he blinked. Not the best role model to use to try to defeat atheism.
....is the impossibity of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms..

Obviously he was turning into a heretic.
bohart

Newport, TN

#80448 Mar 11, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
yea really...as long as he was an atheist he was highly venerated, but now you metaphorically piss on his grave.Sad.
It happens often, when one questions church doctrine they will be expelled from the evotard puddle go order.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80449 Mar 11, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
K.K. you too may take immediate possesion of the herculean dumbass tag.Now continue , tell me how we don't even know what life is ,whats alive? right? That way you can cloak your religions failings, mudding up definitions like the Dude who claims that live births are evidence that a lifeless puddle of goo can spring to life.
What? non-living matter being converted to living matter is my myth! Check out your puddle goo bible concordance and look up abiogenesis.
The difference in our religions is I believe life and the universe had a creator, you believe it created itself, which requires a torrential flood of illogical thinking to accomplish.
It's your myth because the reality is that matter is just matter, it does not live, nor does is it dead. It's just what everything is based on.

So your response leads to this question, what is the difference between a living atom and a non-living animal?
bohart

Newport, TN

#80450 Mar 11, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's your myth because the reality is that matter is just matter, it does not live, nor does is it dead. It's just what everything is based on.
So your response leads to this question, what is the difference between a living atom and a non-living animal?
If there is no difference why are Dudes scientists working with great futility to create life in a lab?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80451 Mar 11, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations! when I think you can't be more stupid you raise the bar again. Is a tree a living organism? duh yes!therefore it reproduced!
... by making use of non-living chemicals.
bohart wrote:
Put the syphillis infected monkey back on your keyboard, at least his idiocy was random.
Is Earth eternal or finite?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 4 min say it aint so 7,707
Add 2 Letters to Complete a Word 6 min Mr Pip 414
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 7 min _FLATLINE-------- 78,569
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 8 min andet1987 5,679
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 9 min _FLATLINE-------- 9,660
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 10 min Chilli J 4,617
Thinking Out Loud....Feel Free To Say What's On... 11 min Dr Wu 26
motorcycle traveling stories 55 min Sublime1 34
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Observer 159,944
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 2 hr OB Historical Soc... 250
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr NinaRocks 18,025
Word Association (Jun '10) 2 hr say it aint so 27,012
More from around the web