The origin of life.

Mott the Hoople said:
Thats not a scientific fact. That is your own personal belief. If you are invoking supernatural causation, no matter how true that belief may be, you’re completely outside the realm of science.

That is why your argument is intellectually dishonest. You cannot change the definition of science to suit your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Not a scientific fact? Give me one example of something creating itself from nothing. You can't. End of discussion. You lose.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you are mistaken in your belief that I did not prove you a liar......
Click to expand...

You cannot possibly have proved that I lied in that post...because I DID NOT LIE.

You simply stated that you had proved something you had not.

That was a lie.

So...we do have a liar in this discussion. YOU!

C'mon, be adult enough to own up to it.
 
Frank Apisa said:
You cannot possibly have proved that I lied in that post...because I DID NOT LIE.

You simply stated that you had proved something you had not.

That was a lie.

So...we do have a liar in this discussion. YOU!

C'mon, be adult enough to own up to it.
Click to expand...
sigh.....you are a tiresome cunt.......
 
Grugore said:
The more we learn about life, the worse it looks for the theory of abiogenesis. We now know the minimum requirements for life to exist, and scientists haven't got a clue how it could have happened. The only reason people believe in abiogenesis is because they want to. Because the alternative is abhorrent to them. A Creator who they will one day be accountable to. Here is an article that explains it all. And it uses science, not the Bible.

https://creation.com/origin-of-life
Click to expand...

That's not the way science works. The lack of sufficient observational or experimental data to confirm or refute any of the abiogenesis hypotheses does not - by extension - prove the existence of a Christian God.

A complete lack of understanding of the scientific method as a tool of scholarly inquiry is the reason why bible thumpers built the "Creation Science" museum, amongst other manifestations of modern comedy.

There is conceivably some overlap between theology, science, and natural philosophy. More like a Venn diagram, than any real sort of unification. But you seem literally too stupid to bother wasting time on articulating this further.
 
Cypress said:
That's not the way science works. The lack of sufficient observational or experimental data to confirm or refute any of the abiogenesis hypotheses does not - by extension - prove the existence of a Christian God.

A complete lack of understanding of the scientific method as a tool of scholarly inquiry is the reason why bible thumpers built the "Creation Science" museum, amongst other manifestations of modern comedy.

There is conceivably some overlap between theology, science, and natural philosophy. More like a Venn diagram, than any real sort of unification. But you seem literally too stupid to bother wasting time on articulating this further.
Click to expand...

Amen, Cypress!

There is, however, one thing Grugore said with which I agree: "The only reason people believe in abiogenesis is because they want to."

How true.

And that is also true for ANY "belief" about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

The only reason he "beleives" a GOD exists...IS BECAUSE HE WANTS TO.

People who "believe" there is a GOD and people who "believe" there are no gods...are also only doing it because they want to!

When it come to the true nature of the REALITY of existence...ANYTHING said after "I do not know" is a guess...made because the person wants to make it.
 
Funny how the lack of empirical evidence and data doesn't seem to apply to the near religious belief in CAGW.


As has been repeatedly pointed out, IPCC AR5 says pretty much that the warming will have only a mild impact and certainly not the apocalypse predicted by media, environmentalists and politicians. It goes into substantial detail as to what things will affect humanity's wellbeing in a warming world, and concludes that climate change will be a minor factor in the scheme of things. Indeed many of the changes are beneficial, especially the increase in crop yields concomitant with increased concentration of CO2.

That conclusion comes from an in-depth reading of the body of AR5. The politically written Summary for Policy Makers supports an alarmist position of doom. It's the IPCCs attempt to have its cake and eat it too. It can claim, by referencing the chapters, that it is being faithful to the science, whilst pointing to the SPM for the alarmist rhetoric needed to support the COP's far more alarmist agenda.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
T
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top