Science Disproves Evolution
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#267 May 2, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar,liar,liar, you are just a damn liar for the primordial sludge cult, that you and your evotards have deluded faith in. If you weren't so uneducated you might have a glimmer of knowledge about life.Those who believe in a creator have more sense and intelligence than all you sludgers put together.
1. liar
2.evotard.
3. uneducated.
4. were smarter than you.
Hey ,your primordial sludge defense mechanisms work rather well, Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha.
You're forgetting Bo, our assertions about your modus operandi are NOT ad-hom. They are demonstrated. That's why you keep whining about people calling you names because you're incapable of rational responses. When really all people are doing are describing you accurately.(shrug)
bohart

White Pine, TN

#268 May 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you are using this statement to argue that God created life on Earth?
No , I'm saying that the scientific evidence based on observation is that life only comes from existing life.
bohart

White Pine, TN

#269 May 2, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee Bo, you really think this dumb argument suddenly becomes not dumb by posting it on a different thread?
First of all, the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. A fact you are already aware of and have been for many many months. Second, EVERYTHING in your entire body is made up of stuff that was once not alive. Therefore life comes from non-life. Abiogenesis, no matter how it occurred, is also life coming from non-life. The reason being that the Earth being finite and all, there is a period in the rocks where there was no life on Earth. This is followed by a period with life, which has been here ever since. Therefore life came from non-life.
At this point you claim God made life, and maybe it did. And that God is alive (although for any of us who get to heaven we have to be dead first). And since God made life then life is coming from life. Except that God, being infinite and eternal and stuff violates your own rules meaning that NOT all life has to come from life. Also God's methods were ARTIFICIAL (not to mention magic). God was not engaged in any natural act of procreation, he was modelling human beings out of clay then using his magic breath to form their muscles, skeletons and internal organs. Humanity was his Frankenstein project. And he suffered the same failure as the good doctor. Of course all this is ignored for the sake of creationist bastardisation of Pasteur's so-called "law", because fundies have no choice but to misrepresent reality to argue for their position.
Speaking of which, Pahu just got caught with his pants down lying his azz off for Jesus (well actually he's been doing that since page 1). Interestingly enough though you appear to have no problem with this due to him being a fellow brother in Christ.
And you talk about rational responses? Ha,Ha. Abiogenesis is your primordial sludge myth , unsupported by any scientific evidence,...NONE! ONLY YOUR BELIEFS.

Duh! once there was no life, duh then there was,duh see, life from no life .

What A SCIENTIFIC GENIUS you are! Thats more evidence for creation than the sludge puddle .

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#270 May 2, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
No , I'm saying that the scientific evidence based on observation is that life only comes from existing life.
Then how do we have life here on Earth? Where did it come from?

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#271 May 2, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
No , I'm saying that the scientific evidence based on observation is that life only comes from existing life.
You keep making this statement, but it's meaningless.

It's not a conclusion.

Life exists on Earth. That's a fact.

This claim does not disprove that.

If you are offering this claim as some sort of suggestion as to where life came from, then you need to provide more information.

Just because observations of something show one thing that does not mean that that is the only thing that exists.

The Sun exists. It has existed as long as we've been observing it.

That does not mean the Sun has existed forever, nor does it mean the Sun will exist forever.

What are you trying to say?

Are you even thinking? Or are you just spouting out crap that other people have told you to say?

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#272 May 2, 2013
bohart wrote:
Duh! once there was no life, duh then there was,duh see, life from no life .
You have an alternate explanation? Let's hear it.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#273 May 2, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
And you talk about rational responses? Ha,Ha. Abiogenesis is your primordial sludge myth , unsupported by any scientific evidence,...NONE! ONLY YOUR BELIEFS.
Duh! once there was no life, duh then there was,duh see, life from no life .
What A SCIENTIFIC GENIUS you are! Thats more evidence for creation than the sludge puddle .
Evolution is a fact and there is no proof of god. These are facts.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#274 May 3, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar,liar,liar, you are just a damn liar for the primordial sludge cult, that you and your evotards have deluded faith in. If you weren't so uneducated you might have a glimmer of knowledge about life.Those who believe in a creator have more sense and intelligence than all you sludgers put together.
1. liar
2.evotard.
3. uneducated.
4. were smarter than you.
Hey ,your primordial sludge defense mechanisms work rather well, Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha.
Just out of curiosity, if you are so much smarter, why do you resort to insults instead of calmly and methodically refuting the dude's assertions? I usually associate responses like the above with the frustration of the defeated.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#275 May 3, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
And you talk about rational responses? Ha,Ha. Abiogenesis is your primordial sludge myth , unsupported by any scientific evidence,...NONE! ONLY YOUR BELIEFS.
Duh! once there was no life, duh then there was,duh see, life from no life .
What A SCIENTIFIC GENIUS you are! Thats more evidence for creation than the sludge puddle .
But Bo, we both know you're incorrect. I've provided you with the evidence in the past. You've never addressed it.

Plus as usual you completely avoid the problems with your own position which I just pointed out to you (again) above, repeating your silly claims as usual as if repeatedly shouting will somehow make your opinions valid.

It does not.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#276 May 3, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>Just out of curiosity, if you are so much smarter, why do you resort to insults instead of calmly and methodically refuting the dude's assertions? I usually associate responses like the above with the frustration of the defeated.
Because that's the way it goes. He makes these silly claims, we point out what's wrong, he makes lame jokes about "puddle-goo" (his pet name for abiogenesis) then he disappears for a while before the whole process begins again and he pretends that he never got debunked every single time without fail.

Oh, and he whines a lot about us describing creationists accurately.
bohart

White Pine, TN

#277 May 3, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep making this statement, but it's meaningless.
It's not a conclusion.
Life exists on Earth. That's a fact.
This claim does not disprove that.
If you are offering this claim as some sort of suggestion as to where life came from, then you need to provide more information.
Just because observations of something show one thing that does not mean that that is the only thing that exists.
The Sun exists. It has existed as long as we've been observing it.
That does not mean the Sun has existed forever, nor does it mean the Sun will exist forever.
What are you trying to say?
Are you even thinking? Or are you just spouting out crap that other people have told you to say?
Of course it's a conclusion! you zealot, and its based on scientific observations and has been tested to the point that science has a name for it,...biogenesis, and it means life only comes from existing life.

Now if you wish to say by some miracle natural means brought about life you can, but you have no scientific evidence to go on . Only a belief for which you need faith, HELL, EVEN STEPHEN HAWKING SAID THAT!

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#278 May 3, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it's a conclusion! you zealot, and its based on scientific observations and has been tested to the point that science has a name for it,...biogenesis, and it means life only comes from existing life.
Now if you wish to say by some miracle natural means brought about life you can, but you have no scientific evidence to go on . Only a belief for which you need faith, HELL, EVEN STEPHEN HAWKING SAID THAT!
Are there no exceptions? Must all living things have come from some earlier living thing?

What living thing created life on Earth?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#279 May 3, 2013
bohart wrote:
Of course it's a conclusion! you zealot, and its based on scientific observations and has been tested to the point that science has a name for it,...biogenesis, and it means life only comes from existing life.
Yet the Earth is finite. Therefore...
bohart wrote:
Now if you wish to say by some miracle natural means brought about life you can, but you have no scientific evidence to go on . Only a belief for which you need faith,
Faith is not required when we do actually have evidence.
bohart wrote:
HELL, EVEN STEPHEN HAWKING SAID THAT!
Why do you care? He's a scientist. You don't care about science.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#280 May 3, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it's a conclusion! you zealot, and its based on scientific observations and has been tested to the point that science has a name for it,...biogenesis, and it means life only comes from existing life.
Now if you wish to say by some miracle natural means brought about life you can, but you have no scientific evidence to go on . Only a belief for which you need faith, HELL, EVEN STEPHEN HAWKING SAID THAT!
Could you supply Hawking's exact quote and its source so that we can assess the degree to which you may be interpreting his words rather than simply reporting them? Thanks in advance.
bohart

White Pine, TN

#281 May 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet the Earth is finite. Therefore...
<quoted text>
Faith is not required when we do actually have evidence.
<quoted text>
Why do you care? He's a scientist. You don't care about science.
Still lying for the sludge eh Dud. There is no evidenece that life formed on its own through entirely natural means ,none! and please don't go through your drooling diatribe of how,...once there was no life,duhhh, then there was, so shazaam,..abiogenesis.It showcases your idiocy completely.
bohart

White Pine, TN

#282 May 3, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Are there no exceptions? Must all living things have come from some earlier living thing?
What living thing created life on Earth?
Name one exception were life has been observed to come from something that wasn't already alive,...just one!

If you can't then your belief system is showing.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#283 May 3, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Name one exception were life has been observed to come from something that wasn't already alive,...just one!
If you can't then your belief system is showing.
If I understand you correctly, your argument appears to be this:

- Life can only come from other life.
- Scientists claim that life arose from something that is not alive, therefore that's an exception to the rule.
- Therefore, the claim of science is less valid than some other claim which does not include an exception to that rule.

Does that sum up your argument?

Can you give me an alternative explanation that does not include the same exception?
bohart

White Pine, TN

#284 May 3, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
If I understand you correctly, your argument appears to be this:
- Life can only come from other life.
- Scientists claim that life arose from something that is not alive, therefore that's an exception to the rule.
- Therefore, the claim of science is less valid than some other claim which does not include an exception to that rule.
Does that sum up your argument?
Can you give me an alternative explanation that does not include the same exception?
You didn't answer.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#285 May 4, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer.
I keep asking you over and over the same question. You've failed to answer it.

I disagree with the statement that life can only arise from life.

Life is chemistry. If the chemical components are present, then life can arise from the non-living components.

You've provided me with no alternative solution that doesn't likewise draw from the same conclusion.

Not all life comes from non-life. There is no scenario that states otherwise.
bohart

White Pine, TN

#286 May 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep asking you over and over the same question. You've failed to answer it.
I disagree with the statement that life can only arise from life.
Life is chemistry. If the chemical components are present, then life can arise from the non-living components.
You've provided me with no alternative solution that doesn't likewise draw from the same conclusion.
Not all life comes from non-life. There is no scenario that states otherwise.
Here your denial has kicked into overdrive. Biogenesis is a scientific fact, now you can disagree with it, but you have zero facts to back your opinion, again ZERO, which makes your opinion based on faith, a belief, not science.

P.S. The statement that life can arise on its own from non living components if all the chemicals are present is delusional.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge"

Historian Danial J. Boorstin

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 11 min Eagle 12 - 1,511
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 3 hr Baffled 1,179
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Eagle 12 - 32,463
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Tue Ben Avraham 100
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Aug 21 Dogen 78,757
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
More from around the web