Earth, and everyone on it, is utterly and completely insginficant

I proclaim Watermark the King of Kings and Lord of Lords of the Trinity. Dixie had no choice but to bow before His greatness.
 
Personally, I think evolution is pretty well worked out.

Abiogenesis is a bit problematic, because it can't really explain how strains of DNA large enough to be self sustainable and evolutionary came about. Once you have large enough strands (lycene, I believe), then naturally evolution can occur, but it's those first strains of DNA which aren't really explainable that get me.
 
Baalim said:
I proclaim Watermark the King of Kings and Lord of Lords of the Trinity. Dixie had no choice but to bow before His greatness.
Click to expand...

This is too funny! I make the argument that science and spirituality are both tied to our faith in them, and Waterdork essentially agrees in his own round-about way, and you think he is brilliant and I am stupid. I guess maybe I could understand if we were speaking different languages, but nope... we're both speaking English!
 
Dixie said:
This is too funny! I make the argument that science and spirituality are both tied to our faith in them, and Waterdork essentially agrees in his own round-about way, and you think he is brilliant and I am stupid. I guess maybe I could understand if we were speaking different languages, but nope... we're both speaking English!
Click to expand...

1/3 of us think you are stupid.
 
Note to all - Watermark is a genius.

Grind is a poser, Billy and Brent intelligent fellows, and I am functionally retarded.

Still, beats being non-functional, and I give hope to all of you proles... :cof1:
 
Dixie said:
Nope... another MYTH.

I did state that one can't be divided by three without producing a remainder. You are welcome to add your post to the record-shattering 5000+ posts on the topic, but that was essentially ALL that I ever stated.
Click to expand...

Yes, it most certainly can ditzie...

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 No remainder
 
Threedee said:
Abiogenesis is a bit problematic, because it can't really explain how strains of DNA large enough to be self sustainable and evolutionary came about. Once you have large enough strands (lycene, I believe), then naturally evolution can occur, but it's those first strains of DNA which aren't really explainable that get me.
Click to expand...

DNA probably wasn't the primary information carrier in early life on Earth. Carrying information, synthesizing proteins, etc. was likely carried out exclusively by RNA.

RNA itself wasn't even necessary for early "life," however. Here is an interesting video. These protocells are not "living" in the conventional sense of the word, but they do shed light on how life may have ultimately originated.

 
Dixie said:
Yes, it takes 'awesomeness' to respond that much and still not present any valid proof of cross-species evolution or abiogenesis.

I should also thank Waterdork for proving my point, it is a matter of our faith and what we believe.
Click to expand...

Well, it's really a matter of what justifies our faith and what we believe. We can have faith and believe in anything, true, but there are many things that it would be foolish to have faith in, or to believe. Faith is not an unmoved mover - or, at least, it shouldn't be. It's an ends, not a means.
 
Dixie said:
This is too funny! I make the argument that science and spirituality are both tied to our faith in them, and Waterdork essentially agrees in his own round-about way, and you think he is brilliant and I am stupid. I guess maybe I could understand if we were speaking different languages, but nope... we're both speaking English!
Click to expand...

Your point in arguing that we both use faith was to imply equality between the two. I simply pointed out that there's more to the equation, and once taken into account, faith in either isn't equal. If I was going round, it was merely to dodge your curveball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top