I see said the blind man

@sonhouse said
Yep, any scientific evidence about life origins is AUTOMATICALLY dissed by you.

You don't WANT to see actual scientific developments on life origins, I imagine you think it a waste of time and money but what you fail to understand is developments in science often leads to new discoveries BECAUSE of the recent clues about Amino acid production in interstellar space.

You do not have any scientific evidence for life’s origins, and the same is true when looking at it from a creation narrative. Unlike creation, the design aspect fits perfectly with the symbiotic nature of the genetic code, as code requires a coder. You may someday come up with a possible explanation, but it will likely just be another just-so story.

So, me one, just one thing you know is true that dispels the creation narrative that is not an opinion.

@KellyJay said
You do not have any scientific evidence for life’s origins, and the same is true when looking at it from a creation narrative. Unlike creation, the design aspect fits perfectly with the symbiotic nature of the genetic code, as code requires a coder. You may someday come up with a possible explanation, but it will likely just be another just-so story.

So, me one, just one thing you know is true that dispels the creation narrative that is not an opinion.

Whatever. The recent findings are changing the way we look at life origins.

@sonhouse said
Whatever. The recent findings are changing the way we look at life origins.

It is how close we are to what actually happen, not our thoughts about.

@KellyJay said
It is how close we are to what actually happen, not our thoughts about.

Says the dude who is 100% against ANY explanation of life not involving a god.

@sonhouse said
Says the dude who is 100% against ANY explanation of life not involving a god.

Give me one, that you can prove that also couldn’t be used from a creation narrative, I am not going to hold my breathe.

@KellyJay said
Give me one, that you can prove that also couldn’t be used from a creation narrative, I am not going to hold my breathe.

Besides that, you are not in the slightest interested in following the developing science of life origins.

@sonhouse said
Besides that, you are not in the slightest interested in following the developing science of life origins.

I am asking you to show me ONE THING you can say this shows God is not required that also can be explained with the creation narrative.

I have pointed out to you the digital symbiotic nature of the genetic code. In addition to that the biological systems with high energy and low entropy as they go against what we know about thermodynamics. The construction of those would run counter to what we know about both thermodynamics and entropy. That on top of once energy is captured, it is directed to do specified work under constraints with nothing but unguided chemical reaction to make it so.

You got some science, prove it. Show me!

Still waiting for anything from you!

@KellyJay said
I am asking you to show me ONE THING you can say this shows God is not required that also can be explained with the creation narrative.

I have pointed out to you the digital symbiotic nature of the genetic code. In addition to that the biological systems with high energy and low entropy as they go against what we know about thermodynamics. The construction of those would ...[text shortened]... n to make it so.

You got some science, prove it. Show me!

Still waiting for anything from you!

You can't prove it took a god to make us.
Scientists don't work on opinion they work on evidence.
All you have is opinion.

@sonhouse said
You can't prove it took a god to make us.
Scientists don't work on opinion they work on evidence.
All you have is opinion.

Show me something from science that at its foundation is not an opinion, all of our axioms at some point rely on truths we take on faith.

@KellyJay said
Show me something from science that at its foundation is not an opinion, all of our axioms at some point rely on truths we take on faith.

You mean like in math 2 plus 2 does NOT equal 4? Is this an opinion?
Or you DIE if you open your spacesuit when you are on the moon and you die.
Opinion?

@sonhouse said
You mean like in math 2 plus 2 does NOT equal 4? Is this an opinion?
Or you DIE if you open your spacesuit when you are on the moon and you die.
Opinion?

You act as if you something in the realm of science to show me where I am in error. You are all smoke no fire, all bark no bite. If you can not put out what you imply you have no sence talking to you.

@KellyJay said
You act as if you something in the realm of science to show me where I am in error. You are all smoke no fire, all bark no bite. If you can not put out what you imply you have no sence talking to you.

You are trying to say science is an opinion.
I just pointed out at least ONE thing in science, 2 +2=4 NOT and opinion.
If someone pours vinegar on baking soda you get a really frothy reaction and if you did that with pure vinegar and pure baking soda 1 million times and we predict what happens with the same experiment on number 1 million and 1, is it just opinion frothy stuff will result one after 1 million such experiments? The predicted result is opinion?

How many scientific papers have you written? I got two so far with new results so what you got?

@sonhouse said
You are trying to say science is an opinion.
I just pointed out at least ONE thing in science, 2 +2=4 NOT and opinion.
If someone pours vinegar on baking soda you get a really frothy reaction and if you did that with pure vinegar and pure baking soda 1 million times and we predict what happens with the same experiment on number 1 million and 1, is it just opinion frothy s ...[text shortened]...

How many scientific papers have you written? I got two so far with new results so what you got?

Does science produce static results, or are they ALL subject to change as new information emerges? Many of the things you tout as proof are also part of the creation narrative, and the evidence we lean on is more math-based than unguided chemical reactions. I am still waiting for your scientific evidence, which is also not part of the creation narrative. I’ve given you a couple. I’m only asking for one; we can hash out, not some elusive millions you refer to and never produce.

@KellyJay said
Does science produce static results, or are they ALL subject to change as new information emerges? Many of the things you tout as proof are also part of the creation narrative, and the evidence we lean on is more math-based than unguided chemical reactions. I am still waiting for your scientific evidence, which is also not part of the creation narrative. I’ve given you a c ...[text shortened]... I’m only asking for one; we can hash out, not some elusive millions you refer to and never produce.

Ah, it's all my fault we have not pegged life origins. Wow, didn't know I had so much on my shoulder.
I was think more like out of all 8 odd billion people on Earth nobody has nailed that one down.
Just saying come back in a hundred years or so. 200 max🙂

@sonhouse said
Ah, it's all my fault we have not pegged life origins. Wow, didn't know I had so much on my shoulder.
I was think more like out of all 8 odd billion people on Earth nobody has nailed that one down.
Just saying come back in a hundred years or so. 200 max🙂

You are so full of yourself, you have been saying SCEINCE, SCEINCE, and I asked you to show me some science that supports evolutionary processes that are not also part of the creation narrative. You want to turn this personal? Just produce what you claim you have, that's all I'm asking.