Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104677 Nov 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How technical do you want to get? Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation if you want to get specific.
You asked for the scientific term, that means you want to get technical and the only term for "spontaneous generation" is "spontaneous generation".
Please note when I expanded abiogenesis to include at least replaytime's idea of how life started I made it clear by defining it conditionally, not technically.
Damn! that wasn't funny, it was comically stupid, what happened to all your peer reviewed links?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104678 Nov 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Spontaneous generation" is an obsolete concept. It has been shown to be false.
You are probably referring to Abiogenesis.
"Abiogenesis means "origin by abiotic processes ". The concept refers to the "generation of living beings that start as inert systems, by means of inorganic autocatalytic processes".
end quote
http://www.biocab.org/Abiogenesis.html
Note that this definition does NOT exclude the possibility that God was the orchestrator of these abiotic processes. If you want to assign God as the director of abiogenesis, have at it.
Damn, how you been drinking the Sucking bone water?
" you said, generation of living beings that start as inert systems by means of inorganic autocatalytic processes"

Also known as:

the process through which biological life arises from inorganic matter, spontaneous origination . Abiogenesis is a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life through random natural processes.

I agree with you on one thing,...the whole damned idea is an obsolete concept. Only the cultists hang on to it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104679 Nov 4, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn! that wasn't funny, it was comically stupid, what happened to all your peer reviewed links?
We are not directly discussing science you idiot.

Still, you have been outed as a hypocrite, again.

Of course we all know that creatards are hypocrites. Why they believe their nonsense nobody knows.

bohart, can you tell me why you pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you choose to believe?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104680 Nov 4, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, how you been drinking the Sucking bone water?
" you said, generation of living beings that start as inert systems by means of inorganic autocatalytic processes"
Also known as:
the process through which biological life arises from inorganic matter, spontaneous origination . Abiogenesis is a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life through random natural processes.
I agree with you on one thing,...the whole damned idea is an obsolete concept. Only the cultists hang on to it.
And yet you are still quoting a definition that is terribly flawed.

Moron, if you read that my post where I linked that article you would have seen that I did not link it for its definition. Even a flawed article can have some use. But a moron like you could not understand that.

Let's see if you can find a valid definition of abiogenesis. The problem with many dictionary writers is that they do not understand science so they will write poor or incorrect definitions.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#104681 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
The claim "'Goldilocks' earth is not special", certainly sounds like an unscientific fairytale based on faith, not fact.
There is plenty of 'evidence' for a creator. A philosophy, the Copernican principle, is used to negate observation.
Not at all.

There are an estimated 10^24 planets in the observable universe. We can only detect the closest ones of course but so far it looks like planets orbiting stars is the rule, not the exception. Why should the region we can observe be special? No reason to assume so.

You can make all kinds of rare earth assumptions...lets go. For example...

right temperature range 1/100
long lived star in a stable region 1/100
planet with enough water 1/10
magnetic field 1/10
tectonic plates 1/100
anything else you like 1/100

that's combined 1/(100 x 100 x 10 x 100 x 100)= 10^-9 or one in a billion.

Apply it to the known universe and lets just divide it by another 1000 for kicks so now its 1/10^12

That still leaves 1,000,000,000,000 or one trillion planets that are probably well suited to life.

There is no evidence at all that the Earth is in a special place in the universe, that our solar system is rare, that the Milky Way is unusual, or that other distant regions of space follow different laws of physics.

So the claim that the earth is unique is one based on ignorance, not any sober reflection of the facts we can observe.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#104682 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Even all the researchers that have ever published anything on prebiotic cells have no clue why their hypothesis can NEVER be replicated in the lab. BOO HOO!
'Goldilocks did it' is falsified with every lab failure whilst 'God did it' is further validated.
I love it when you guys talk about NEVER and IMPOSSIBLE when your only honest claim can be "has not yet been achieved, and may never be".

Unless you can prove that every potential pathway from non-life to life violates some physical law then you are lying.

In the meantime, actual biological researchers will continue to investigate i.e. do science, while you flap about with your irrelevant metaphysical claims.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#104683 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me for interupting your rant, but..... ranting does not change what the word 'observation' refers to.
What is observed is galaxies moving away from the milkyway as if it is central to the universe. What BB offers is a mess that satisfies a philosophy, the Copernican principle, and uses mysteries to explain 97% of itself.
What is observed is all galaxies (except those within local clusters) moving away from each other, with the speed of recession proportional to the distance from any given point.

Its obvious to anyone that understands this, that there is absolutely no justification based on the observable evidence that we are in a privileged position regarding the universal expansion.

The BB idea was founded on this observation, but far from being a "mess", it turns out that the BB made several specific predictions that were borne out in observation too. Such as the CMBR, the current ratios of lithium/helium/hydrogen, and many other more arcane but specific predictions that you can always look up i you are interested in learning instead of beating your anti-science drum.

And what "philosophy" is the BB supposed to satisfy? In fact the concept was not popular with scientists originally (but won through preponderance of evidence), and certainly not essential to the theory of evolution, which preceded it by decades.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104684 Nov 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not directly discussing science you idiot.
Still, you have been outed as a hypocrite, again.
Of course we all know that creatards are hypocrites. Why they believe their nonsense nobody knows.
bohart, can you tell me why you pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you choose to believe?
Go lay down you irrelevant psychotic idiot , your stupidity has been exposed over and over .

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104685 Nov 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when you guys talk about NEVER and IMPOSSIBLE when your only honest claim can be "has not yet been achieved, and may never be".
Unless you can prove that every potential pathway from non-life to life violates some physical law then you are lying.
In the meantime, actual biological researchers will continue to investigate i.e. do science, while you flap about with your irrelevant metaphysical claims.
Perhaps you could provide some evidence that the pathway from non life to life is possible, and it does violate the known law of biogenesis. That life comes only from existing life. The scientific method must be observable, never has been , repeatable, never, and testable, never again.Hmm? seems as though all the science is against your belief.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#104686 Nov 4, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps youcould provide some evidence that the pathway from non life to life is possible, and it does violate the known law of biogenesis. That life comes only from existing life. The scientific method must be observable, neverhas been , repeatable, never, and testable, never again.Hmm? seems as though all the science is against your belief.
I have no "belief" regarding aboigenesis. Like any other live scientific investigation, it is premature to claim its impossible until all avenues have been tried OR its demonstrated that some definitive physical law would have to be broken in order to achieve it. At the same time it would be premature to claim definitively that natural aboigenesis happened until and unless a plaudible natural pathway can be demonstrated.

But you are the one making the belief based claim here. You are saying its "impossible" until such time its demonstrated which you presume will be never. That is not how science nor logic works.

I am making no such definitive claim. I don't pretend to KNOW it happened, I merely say its possible. And as yet, you have not proven otherwise.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#104687 Nov 4, 2013
Plaudible is plausible typo

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#104688 Nov 4, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, how you been drinking the Sucking bone water?
" you said, generation of living beings that start as inert systems by means of inorganic autocatalytic processes"
Also known as:
the process through which biological life arises from inorganic matter, spontaneous origination . Abiogenesis is a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life through random natural processes.
I agree with you on one thing,...the whole damned idea is an obsolete concept. Only the cultists hang on to it.
Life arise from organic matter, no modern hypothesis says something different. Organic matter is long chains of covalently bonded carbon atoms. The Earth pumps these type molecules out from the deep sea vents. These also fall out the sky. So your analogy is wrong from the start, perhaps you mean abiogenesis is a process that life arises from inanimate matter. But your unwillingness to think this is possible , does not negate the possibility it did.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104689 Nov 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
But you must admit that it and the moon can stand still without any earthly repercussions. How could Joshua know what time it was? Did he have a Rolex wrist hourglass?
Technology goes with each age, true or false? God can do anything.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104690 Nov 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, blaming another godbot for your stupidity
<quoted text>
Yes, what about it? Real objects are not the same as imaginary lines.
No body is above learning. None. Now if you are going by that concepts, i will simply tell you that, you are wrong, because science use them in real, so that makes them real, or are you saying science is lying?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104691 Nov 5, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Technology goes with each age, true or false? God can do anything.
except, apparently, provide even a shred of evidence for his existence...

Not one single proven case of any god doing anything supernatural, is there, Chip?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104692 Nov 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, blaming another godbot for your stupidity
<quoted text>
Yes, what about it? Real objects are not the same as imaginary lines.
You are not above learning either. Are you now saying, science is lying? Something imagined can also be reality.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104693 Nov 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, blaming another godbot for your stupidity
<quoted text>
Yes, what about it? Real objects are not the same as imaginary lines.
So, from your fatigued premises, science is imaginary. Good.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104694 Nov 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, blaming another godbot for your stupidity
<quoted text>
Yes, what about it? Real objects are not the same as imaginary lines.
You are the stupid. So, science is imaginary?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104695 Nov 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, blaming another godbot for your stupidity
<quoted text>
Yes, what about it? Real objects are not the same as imaginary lines.
So, science is imaginary?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104696 Nov 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>except, apparently, provide even a shred of evidence for his existence...
Not one single proven case of any god doing anything supernatural, is there, Chip?
Why is science unable to stop death, Chip?

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
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 3 min Hoosier Hillbilly 30,033
Topix Talk 6 min COOTERDOG 31
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 8 min whatimeisit 6,848
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 9 min Hoosier Hillbilly 7,332
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 10 min Wildbluerose 29,711
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 13 min whatimeisit 40,576
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 15 min Hoosier Hillbilly 26,413
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 30 min pusherman_ 150,936
Bill Cosby 57 min Michael 137
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 2 hr Independent1 7,848
Two chocolate makers warn of huge annual deficit 3 hr TALLYHO 8541 140
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 4 hr Independent1 23,887

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE