On the impossibility of abiogenesis

Frank Apisa said:
I...and many others...have refuted EVERYTHING. Everything that has to be refuted, that is.



We have...whether you can acknowledge it or not.


If you want to talk about the REALITY...I am willing to do so.

I know as much about REALITY as you...which is to say...I DO NOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE...

...and neither do you. The only real difference between us on that issue is that I acknowledge that I do not know...and you do not acknowledge it.




We will talk about REALITY when you are actually ready to do so.




I am one of the luckiest people on Earth; things always seem to break my way. It is a delight being me.

I hope things are that good with you.
Click to expand...

Once again, you have refuted nothing. You are delusional. Refuting something requires proof that what you are refuting is wrong. It requires evidence. You have provided none.
 
The Ugly Truth said:
Once again, you have refuted nothing. You are delusional. Refuting something requires proof that what you are refuting is wrong. It requires evidence. You have provided none.
Click to expand...

You have to provide proof you are correct. The bizarre ramblings of an ID idiot doesn't cut it.

"Computers are required for the existence of life." Just fucking priceless!
 
The Ugly Truth said:
Once again, you have refuted nothing. You are delusional. Refuting something requires proof that what you are refuting is wrong. It requires evidence. You have provided none.
Click to expand...

Several people here have refuted this absurd stuff.

Apparently you are unable to be adult enough to acknowledge it.

You still are evading the things I've mentioned.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Apparently...he doesn't.

And apparently he thinks he can make unestablished assertions...and it is up to others to disprove them.

Ahhh...if only debate were that easy. ;)
Click to expand...

Seriously? Look at the first point I made. It is possible for something to come from nothing? You haven't refuted this. Nothing comes form nothing. It's a fact that you cannot refute.
 
Last edited:
The Ugly Truth said:
Seriously? Look at the first point I made. Is it possible for something to come from nothing? You haven't refuted this. Nothing comes form nothing. It's a fact that you cannot refute.
Click to expand...

That can be refuted...and I have.

I will go further into that refutation if you want.

But first...you have not answered the question I asked twice now...which is important. See the question in my #25.

Secondly...as I have mentioned: The most compelling argument against your thesis is a question:

Why, if it is as obvious and simple as you suggest...do people like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, Bertrand Russell...disagree with you so specifically?

If it is so obvious and simple...and a product, as you suggest, of "science"...why are so many scientists atheists and agnostics?

Are you smarter than they?


You claim many scientists agree with you.

I've named three of mine. Please name three of yours...and we will see how their credentials stack up against the three I mentioned.
 
Frank Apisa said:
That can be refuted...and I have.

I will go further into that refutation if you want.

But first...you have not answered the question I asked twice now...which is important. See the question in my #25.

Secondly...as I have mentioned: The most compelling argument against your thesis is a question:

Why, if it is as obvious and simple as you suggest...do people like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, Bertrand Russell...disagree with you so specifically?

If it is so obvious and simple...and a product, as you suggest, of "science"...why are so many scientists atheists and agnostics?

Are you smarter than they?


You claim many scientists agree with you.

I've named three of mine. Please name three of yours...and we will see how their credentials stack up against the three I mentioned.
Click to expand...

I already answered that. It doesn't take a genius to see the truth. And here are the scientists who agree with me. Over 500 of them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
 
Leonthecat said:
Ignorance is bliss.
Ignorance is religion.
Click to expand...

Ugly wants to think he is more intelligent and scientifically perceptive than people like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman...and a better philosopher than the like of Bertrand Russell.

Unless he is purposefully kidding (which seems doubtful)...he and his ruminations, are stand-up comedy.

His "nothing comes from nothing" IS nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion...and even if it is a guess that turns out to be true, is meaningless...because it is as POSSIBLE that everything we consider to be "what IS"...MAY ALWAYS HAVE EXISTED. MAYBE there never was a nothing!

His middle-man feature of a creator god...is an end he strives for no matter how much shoehorning he must do...not something logically arrived at from facts encountered prior to the conclusion.

I'm sticking around because it is fun watching people like Ugly attempt to make the absence of logic...seem like logic at work.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Ugly wants to think he is more intelligent and scientifically perceptive than people like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman...and a better philosopher than the like of Bertrand Russell.

Unless he is purposefully kidding (which seems doubtful)...he and his ruminations, are stand-up comedy.

His "nothing comes from nothing" IS nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion...and even if it is a guess that turns out to be true, is meaningless...because it is as POSSIBLE that everything we consider to be "what IS"...MAY ALWAYS HAVE EXISTED. MAYBE there never was a nothing!

His middle-man feature of a creator god...is an end he strives for no matter how much shoehorning he must do...not something logically arrived at from facts encountered prior to the conclusion.

I'm sticking around because it is fun watching people like Ugly attempt to make the absence of logic...seem like logic at work.
Click to expand...

He is panic worried that if he loses the debate he won't get to go to heaven and live forever.
We know that he won't anyway so he has already lost.
 
The Ugly Truth said:
It's not just my opinion. There are many scientists who agree with me.
Click to expand...
Are they Biologists? I mean an astrophysicist arguing in support of ID Creationism doesn’t carry a lot of weight.

I remember when the Discovery Institute tried to gain acceptance for ID by posting a list of scientists who opposed evolutionary theory. Most of whom were from disciplines outside of Biology. So the NSEA created an open letter for Scientists to sign who supported evolutionary theory with two catches. They had to have a PhD in a field of Biology and their first name had to be Steve. Needless to say project Steve produced a list far, far larger than the list the Discovery Institute produced. Now does this have anything to do with the scientific validity of evolutionary theory?

Of course it didn’t but it did demonstrate the absurdity of the Discovery Institute claim that evolutionary theory was a theory in crises.

So the Discovery Institute has been around close to twenty years now. They still have yet to produce a single piece of peer reviewed research. In that time we’ll over 20,000 peer reviewed scientific papers on evolutionary theory have been published. That pretty much tells the whole story on the Discovery Instute.

Now, failing on evolutionary theory, the DI has lowered the bar trying to to discredit a hypothesis but they can’t even do that honestly. They present abiogenesis as a theory when it is only a hypothesis. Which they claim is impossible...but then can’t explain the Keith Richards paradox.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Are they Biologists? I mean an astrophysicist arguing in support of ID Creationism doesn’t carry a lot of weight.

I remember when the Discovery Institute tried to gain acceptance for ID by posting a list of scientists who opposed evolutionary theory. Most of whom were from disciplines outside of Biology. So the NSEA created an open letter for Scientists to sign who supported evolutionary theory with two catches. They had to have a PhD in a field of Biology and their first name had to be Steve. Needless to say project Steve produced a list far, far larger than the list the Discovery Institute produced. Now does this have anything to do with the scientific validity of evolutionary theory?

Of course it didn’t but it did demonstrate the absurdity of the Discovery Institute claim that evolutionary theory was a theory in crises.

So the Discovery Institute has been around close to twenty years now. They still have yet to produce a single piece of peer reviewed research. In that time we’ll over 20,000 peer reviewed scientific papers on evolutionary theory have been published. That pretty much tells the whole story on the Discovery Instute.

Now, failing on evolutionary theory, the DI has lowered the bar trying to to discredit a hypothesis but they can’t even do that honestly. They present abiogenesis as a theory when it is only a hypothesis. Which they claim is impossible...but then can’t explain the Keith Richards paradox.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that abiogenesis is possible. In fact, much of what we DO know indicates that it is impossible. In order for a self-replicating cell to exist, all of it's many components must evolve independently and be in place in order for life to exist. In other words, it's impossible. The obvious conclusion is that it was created that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top