On the impossibility of abiogenesis

intelligent design and abiogenesis are two competing explanations for how the universe began.......the only difference is that intelligent design involves intelligence and abiogenesis involves a puddle of shit........
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No. That's an explanation for the beginning of the Universe. That's not the same. It's entirely possible that the "Big Bang" is an endless cycle of death and rebirth of the universe over vast times and distances where matter/energy changes form and the law of conservation is kept.
Click to expand...

sorry......that endless cycle shit isn't science......I believe that is what we are discussing......science says the universe began with the Big Bang........one moment there is no matter or energy or laws governing their relation, the next moment there are........
 
BucKKKle criticizes people for having faith in what they have been told.......yet believes things he knows he made up himself......go figure.......
 
What makes me laugh, is that Ugly asserts that science (meaning scientists) make it perfectly clear that the universe had to have a Creator...which means there IS A CREATOR.

He gives absolutely no thought at all to why a majority of scientists are atheists or agnostics.

Why would someone like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, or Richard Feynman not see what Ugly is able to see...and come to the same conclusion that he comes to?

It amazes me that people like Ugly don't have a reasonable answer for that.

Apparently he thinks he is just smarter than Einstein, Hawking or Feynman.

And approaching it from a philosophical perspective...apparently Ugly thinks he is smarter than someone like Bertrand Russell...who arrives at a point of atheism/agnosticism.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry......that endless cycle shit isn't science......I believe that is what we are discussing......science says the universe began with the Big Bang........one moment there is no matter or energy or laws governing their relation, the next moment there are........
Click to expand...

No. Science says the universe the one we know of probably started with a big bang.
Mott's hypothesis that what we know was only one in an infinite series of big bangs and universes, makes perfect sense.
 
Frank Apisa said:
What makes me laugh, is that Ugly asserts that science (meaning scientists) make it perfectly clear that the universe had to have a Creator...which means there IS A CREATOR.

He gives absolutely no thought at all to why a majority of scientists are atheists or agnostics.

Why would someone like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, or Richard Feynman not see what Ugly is able to see...and come to the same conclusion that he comes to?

It amazes me that people like Ugly don't have a reasonable answer for that.

Apparently he thinks he is just smarter than Einstein, Hawking or Feynman.

And approaching it from a philosophical perspective...apparently Ugly thinks he is smarter than someone like Bertrand Russell...who arrives at a point of atheism/agnosticism.
Click to expand...

Einstein did believe in a creator......and almost everyone is smarter than Russell......
 
Leonthecat said:
Not the way you do PMP
He didn't believe in magic.
Click to expand...

Leon...I have that guy on IGNORE...so I cannot see what he is writing. But from what you have mentioned here, I think this information is important:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press



“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Leon...I have that guy on IGNORE...so I cannot see what he is writing. But from what you have mentioned here, I think this information is important:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press



“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
Click to expand...

Einstein was a smart guy.
PMP? Not so much.
He is a frightened superstitious child who will never be able to face his mortality like a rational being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top