Originally posted by humyMy take: He is just pulling our chains, probably he is a closet atheist.Arrogance is demonstrated by making arrogant claims,
how is saying there is no god or that life evolved an “arrogant” claim as opposed to just being a claim?
-answer, it doesn't.
To be an “arrogant” claim, the claim must imply superiority or pride. HOW does saying life evolved or there is no god imply superiority or pride? Why don't you e ...[text shortened]... crap. [/quote]
at last, a small bit of honesty among the lies. Pity you keep talking crap.
Originally posted by humyThere you go, showing your arrogance again.Arrogance is demonstrated by making arrogant claims,
how is saying there is no god or that life evolved an “arrogant” claim as opposed to just being a claim?
-answer, it doesn't.
To be an “arrogant” claim, the claim must imply superiority or pride. HOW does saying life evolved or there is no god imply superiority or pride? Why don't you e ...[text shortened]... crap. [/quote]
at last, a small bit of honesty among the lies. Pity you keep talking crap.
Originally posted by RJHindsso you have absolutely no clue about any "new" evidence or how it makes evolution fall.
It would take many words to describe the evidence and I don't think I could do anywhere near as good as these 3 videos:
The language of Proteins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfKca0sBR8c&feature=relmfu
The language of Life Demonstrated
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOx8WCb5dQ&feature=relmfu
Intelligence recognized by information in DNA
http ...[text shortened]...
http://www.phschool.com/science/biology_place/biocoach/translation/gencode.html
Good Luck!
that's okay, i wasn't expecting any hint of intelligence from you anyway.
Originally posted by VoidSpirithttp://www.ohio.edu/plantbio/staff/showalte/MCB%20720/Molecular%
i haven't seen you describe any evidence that refutes evolution. if you ever get around to it, i'll post a refutation.
http://www.ucg.org/science/dna-tiny-code-thats-toppling-evolution/
20Machines%20That%20Control%20Genes.pdf
http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/transcription-factors-in-plants.aspx
http://www.slideshare.net/cgales/central-dogma-and-protein-synthesis
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/science/2011/08/07/scientists-decoding-language-of-dna.html
Originally posted by RJHindswell, if you can find anything there that refutes evolution, you're welcome to present your arguments.
http://www.ohio.edu/plantbio/staff/showalte/MCB%20720/Molecular%
http://www.ucg.org/science/dna-tiny-code-thats-toppling-evolution/
20Machines%20That%20Control%20Genes.pdf
http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/transcription-factors-in-plants.aspx
http://www.slideshare.net/cgales/central-dogma-and-protein-synthesis
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/science/2011/08/07/scientists-decoding-language-of-dna.html
Originally posted by humyDepending on the questions being debated like how life got here does not lendOccam's razor doesn't get you out of the questions, ( spelling corrected )
actually Occam's razor is NOT to “get you out of the questions” but to answer them:
Is there a supernatural teacup orbiting Mars? -is the assumptions made here necessary to explain what is observable? Answer, no. So, using Occam's razor, assume there is no superna ...[text shortened]... nlikely and in the same way it tells us that it is very unlikely that there is a god.
itself to Occam's zazor, and without a doubt how everything got here cannot
not even come close to being answered by that either. Bottom line you do
not have a clue what was required so you have nothing.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay
Depending on the questions being debated like how life got here does not lend
itself to Occam's zazor, and without a doubt how everything got here cannot
not even come close to being answered by that either. Bottom line you do
not have a clue what was required so you have nothing.
Kelly
Depending on the questions being debated like how life got here does not lend
itself to Occam's razor, (spelling corrected)
firstly, how life got here wasn't your question ( nor was it any of my questions in this thread ) Your question was:
Intent on a snow flake? You know there wasn't any because?
-and here Occam's razor can be appropriately applied.
secondly, I would not claim that Occam's razor would be particularly needed in the debated of how life got here ( apart from ruling out stupid superstition of course ) since we already have good evidence of how it probably got started which I just happened to demonstrate in a post in the “The Miller-Urey experiment revisited: “ thread with the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm
http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html
-and there are plenty of other links showing relevant evidence.
Bottom line you do
not have a clue what was required so you have nothing.
I have just proven I do have plenty of clues; just read the links and see for yourself.
Originally posted by humyOnce you put the clues together and come up with an answer, let the world know so they can create life from scratch and then we will believe you really do have a clue. Until then all you have is speculative guesses.Depending on the questions being debated like how life got here does not lend
itself to Occam's razor, (spelling corrected)
firstly, how life got here wasn't your question ( nor was it any of my questions in this thread ) Your question was:Intent on a snow flake? You know there wasn't any because?
-and here Occam's ...[text shortened]...
I have just proven I do have plenty of clues; just read the links and see for yourself.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Once you put the clues together and come up with an answer, let the world know so they can create life from scratch and then we will believe you really do have a clue. Until then all you have is speculative guesses.
Once you put the clues together and come up with an answer, let the world know so they can create life from scratch ...
now you are just being stupid: a theory of how life started is not a theory of a practical means of how WE can create life from scratch. I have no doubt that science will eventually find a way of artificially create artificial life but that may ( if not probably ) have absolutely nothing to do with research into natural abiogenesis.
And, to actually reproduce natural abiogenesis from what we know, for all we know, we may need a whole planet with a very low-oxygen atmosphere to play around with -this would be currently impractical because we don't have control of such a planet at the current time.
Research findings of how a natural process happens/happened is not invalidated merely by not being able to exactly physically reproduce such a natural process ourselves. This is the flaw in your 'logic' above. We certainly cannot exactly physically accurately reproduce a category 5 hurricane in a lab; does that mean any understanding of how category 5 hurricanes work must be wrong? Answer, no.
Whether we can reproduce a process/thing in a lab is something different from whether we understand it.
The same goes for planetary/star/blackhole/mountain/volcano formation etc and, of course, natural abiogenesis.
Until then all you have is speculative guesses.
NO; until then we will keep continually discovering new facts -no “speculative guesses” needed or used here.
Originally posted by humyThe fact is they do not know yet, so stop acting like they do. I think one day they will discover God did it after all.Once you put the clues together and come up with an answer, let the world know so they can create life from scratch ...
now you are just being stupid: a theory of how life started is not a theory of a practical means of how WE can create life from scratch. I have no doubt that science will eventually find a way of artificially create artific ...[text shortened]... we will keep continually discovering new facts -no “speculative guesses” needed or used here.
