Ancient ALIEN Creationism - science or new age RELIGION?

Micawber said:
Uppity because science and religion are not on equal footing. Trying to create the impression that they are is dishonest. Religious people playing this game are inherently dishonest. I am better than people who are dishonest about this subject.
Click to expand...

No need to have a hissy fit because you shot yourself in the foot.
 
Darth Omar said:
It's a paradox.

Even if you could coax a string of nucleotides together [no small feat in of itself] it would code for biological gibberish.

There's two fundamental problems with it: the first is getting the molecule to form; the second problem is the code itself. Neither problem is an easy one but the second is nearly prohibitive.

Crick realized this back in the 50's, when he conjured the notion of Directed Panspermia, where aliens seeded the planet with DNA then natural selection took over. He was mocked for it. It seems a little far-fetched [but all theories for the origin of DNA are far-fetched and are easily mocked lol] but it got around the problem of the origin of DNA.

On our planet, anyway.
Click to expand...

Where did the nucleotides come from??
 
Micawber said:
Not interested in getting into a semantic do loop with you on this or your proxy Omar. Asked and answered. My thoughts are already set forth. If you are interested in my thoughts, reread all my posts in this thread. Further I sayeth not. Saying aliens does not solve your problem, because that just kicks the issue down the road. If alien jizz was spewed on mother earth, that doesn't say how the alien life started.
Click to expand...

OK, then how did all this come to be?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OK, then how did all this come to be?
Click to expand...

Big bang- empiricist / scientific evidence thus far

Cloud guy feels lonely and clicks his ruby slippers and makes a turtle to carry a universe on his back or whatever nonsense unsupported by anything you care to make up.

Your choice. I fully support your constitutional right to be a total ignoramus
 
PostmodernProphet said:
he can't tell you......he has to keep his beliefs in his church........
Click to expand...

No, only the ones that have no basis in a shared observational reality from human senses. There are limitless avenues for things outside rationalism in humanities and arts. We can discuss religion in history class, a survey of religion, or group mass hysteria and psychotic thought disorder 101.

Seriously, shouldn't science class be held to some standard? Shouldn't a hypothesis be testable? We cannot test for afterlife other than to hermetically seal a corpse measure for spiritual effluvium. Nothing happens but the corpse rots.

There is no evidence for religion. You believe in things with no evidence. What else need be said? Don't listen to educated conmen who can throw out some scientific jargon in support of magical ideas. It's a pathetic enterprise, and really very unethical.
 
Micawber said:
Big bang- empiricist / scientific evidence thus far

Cloud guy feels lonely and clicks his ruby slippers and makes a turtle to carry a universe on his back or whatever nonsense unsupported by anything you care to make up.

Your choice. I fully support your constitutional right to be a total ignoramus
Click to expand...

And where did the ingredients for the big bang come from?
 
Micawber said:
No, only the ones that have no basis in a shared observational reality from human senses. There are limitless avenues for things outside rationalism in humanities and arts. We can discuss religion in history class, a survey of religion, or group mass hysteria and psychotic thought disorder 101.

Seriously, shouldn't science class be held to some standard? Shouldn't a hypothesis be testable? We cannot test for afterlife other than to hermetically seal a corpse measure for spiritual effluvium. Nothing happens but the corpse rots.

There is no evidence for religion. You believe in things with no evidence. What else need be said? Don't listen to educated conmen who can throw out some scientific jargon in support of magical ideas. It's a pathetic enterprise, and really very unethical.
Click to expand...

Only a delusional babbling fool could say that there is no evidence for religion. What you mean, but didn't say because you are confused and frustrated in this losing argument, is that you believe that there is no evidence for God.

Again since believers, believe that God brought life to the Earth, life once transported to Mars makes us God, just as the bible says that we were made in his image.

Next babble from you
 
Micawber said:
We have been able to create nucleic acid in experiments replicating primordial soup, without aliens, freaks. PS I met Sir Francis Crick.
Click to expand...

That's cool lol.

Nucleic acids can be created by intelligent agents in tightly controlled conditions in a lab. Whether they ever formed randomly in nature is an interesting question. Even if they could or did, it's a very modest step to the formation of DNA or even some simpler series of molecules capable of replicating itself. And that's not even touching the information problem.

You don't need to be a religionist to be skeptical of that. As Crick apparently was, and Antony Flew after him.
 
TheDonald said:
Only a delusional babbling fool could say that there is no evidence for religion. What you mean, but didn't say because you are confused and frustrated in this losing argument, is that you believe that there is no evidence for God.

Again since believers, believe that God brought life to the Earth, life once transported to Mars makes us God, just as the bible says that we were made in his image.

Next babble from you
Click to expand...

lol.....I caught a virus in Florida and took it home to Michigan.......I brought life to Michigan.....worship me!......
 
Darth Omar said:
That's cool lol.

Nucleic acids can be created by intelligent agents in tightly controlled conditions in a lab. Whether they ever formed randomly in nature is an interesting question. Even if they could or did, it's a very modest step to the formation of DNA or even some simpler series of molecules capable of replicating itself. And that's not even touching the information problem.

You don't need to be a religionist to be skeptical of that. As Crick apparently was, and Antony Flew after him.
Click to expand...

Yes, by "intelligent agents," i.e. HUMANS, in a lab. A fact you did not offer, but I did. Another step forward and amazing scientific achievement, and owing nothing to religion. Hey, let's play a game. I call it religious patents pending! Guess how many? Ans Zero. I win.

I will say I was unaware Crick was that far out there. I guess you have to be to make a seismic or seminal change. But for every dbl helix there are a million hairbrained schemes and flops, like the instant one in the OP.
 
Last edited:
TheDonald said:
Only a delusional babbling fool could say that there is no evidence for religion. What you mean, but didn't say because you are confused and frustrated in this losing argument, is that you believe that there is no evidence for God.

Again since believers, believe that God brought life to the Earth, life once transported to Mars makes us God, just as the bible says that we were made in his image.

Next babble from you
Click to expand...

Your repeated stupidity has earned a visit to my penalty box. I see no prospect for anything worth my time coming from you. Even Post Modern Prophet's seething angry snark otherwise void of information is better than this crap.
 
Micawber's religious pondering of the day

If you want science to justify your religion, you need to work on your faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top