Customer Discussions > Science forum

Abiogenesis be Manned- There is no evidence for life having started naturally on Earth.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 4351-4375 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 5:14:15 PM PDT
If you believe John's Gospel to be accurate. Sorry, Barton, given the proof of additional texts being added I don't find this possible. It was the discovery that the trinitarian texts of John's gospel were not in the original that made Isaac Newton an Arian.

Regards

John

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 5:17:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 11, 2012 5:25:48 PM PDT
JM: "He said he did, so that means he did, right?"

No, it means he said he did. Therefore he is. (R. Descartes) How are you going to make out that he isn't or he didn't from simply passing by and reading that caption?

It still begs the question aswell as evidence. He hasn't advanced science, but then again, neither have you.

Posted on May 11, 2012 5:18:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 11, 2012 5:43:28 PM PDT
"If life from non-life is grown in the lab, what will Creationists say?"

Us Creationists let us anwer what them Creationists will say.
We will say this: "We congratulate the profs what did it.

And us Creationists we will say this too:
"Dr EV Koonin phd BMOC, El Primero Guru de Molecular Biology de Uncle Sam, he goofed big time."
"And his Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewers, phds, them guys they goofed too."

Cause Doc Koonin his Peer Reviewed Calcs they say its hopelssly improbable.
Even if you got the whole universe, and 14 billion years,
Your chances of making life he figures are 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000
followed by 1000 more Peer Reviwed Zeros.

But fellas, what makes you think Doc Koonin his figures theyre wrong?
I mean you got Peer Reviewed Figures, or are you just blowin smoke guys?
I bet five bucks its this: Blowin Smoke

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 5:24:20 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 11, 2012 5:27:07 PM PDT
JDC: "Experiments to see if the evolving metabolic systems can be established in artificial alkaline hydrothermal vents even as we speak."

And ID's evidently on the verge of some evidentiary breakthrough, too, John. Let's both put our little idols back in our pockets for now.

Patience or patients in science? Which will it be?

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 6:31:00 PM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Christopher Haynes says:"Dr EV Koonin phd BMOC, El Primero Guru de Molecular Biology de Uncle Sam, he goofed big time."
>No he didn't. You just haven't read his book.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 6:36:39 PM PDT
Papawaron
Thanks for the compliment. I don't really know how to answer to that. lol. But I guess the more he realized he was being caught out the more defensive he became. He is plagiarizing anyway. The sheer tone of his posts is rude and uncalled for. Once again thanks Papwaron. I humbly accept the compliment.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 6:38:36 PM PDT
Richard Kepler says:
Philip--"I'm not surprised [Kepler] is teaching in Japan. They wouldn't recognize his abrupt rudeness."

>>JGC: Well, they would actually. The Japanese are nothing if not polite. I have a feeling he saves up all of his rudeness for Amazon, whereas most of us get at least some of it out of our systems in real life. ;-)

RK: Am I am abruptly rude around topical smallmindedness? And just what are evolutionists rude about? Oh, I see... They're not rude or crude; they're acting like angels here.

PJA. Surely you aren't going to lecture about the art of sobriety are you sporty?

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 6:42:07 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 11, 2012 6:48:09 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 6:54:06 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
That's interesting, RM, but I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as consciousness. We might as well be electro-chemical robots made outta meat, because there's no minds, no souls, no spirits. There's only brain centers and neural networks.

Consciousness might be redefined very very vaguely as electro-chemical activity, but why?

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 6:55:46 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
oops, such a venture is intelligently designed. lol

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 7:16:21 PM PDT
Hmm --- why won't Amazon let me post anything, even with multiple ** in the word, that relates to the act of procreation? Are we all such delicate creatures?

Let's try again.

Richard's post reminds me of the complaint of Dr. Kevorkian. "No [act of procreation beginning with an F] patients left."

Not so funny if spelled out like that. (Also, not original to me, unfortunately.)

I really like playing and muckin'
With words that I hope will keep duckin'
The amazon censors
But d'spite my defenses
They won't let me post the word -----

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 7:34:37 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
I'll continue looking at your worthless posts so that I can "jeer and sneer" at you.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 7:41:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 11, 2012 7:44:37 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
Here's what i figure. You just blwo.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 9:56:11 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 11, 2012 9:57:06 PM PDT
Richard Kepler wrote:
"And ID's evidently on the verge of some evidentiary breakthrough, too, John. Let's both put our little idols back in our pockets for now"
===========================================
Richard,

You seem to believe that the scientific theory of evolution made breakthroughs, and that, Intelligent design will make that [too]. The last [too] bothered me.

Intelligent Design was the very initial cause for the rise of science. We still do not know how energy is transmitted from the remote stars to us in absolute void or what energy is made of.

Only you who believe that Intelligent Design needs to show its balls to be accepted.

If scientists could prove that life can be created from inert matter, that in itself favors Intelligent Design because without intelligence scientists would have not engaged in such elaborate search for the cause or purpose of life.

You should not underestimate the rationale that god created Jesus without a father, since Adam and Eve had no father or mother, and since the first form of life, which had supposedly evolved into Adam and Eve, cannot create itself from inert matter, and further, a purposeful life cannot be so without cause.

Richard, you seem to have been losing grounds in your faith that God Did It, and in someways giving up to the propaganda that chaos breeds order.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 5:15:16 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"If scientists could prove that life can be created from inert matter, that in itself favors Intelligent Design because without intelligence scientists would have not engaged in such elaborate search for the cause or purpose of life. "

I have Hewie on ignore, but occasionally, just for entertainment, I open one of his posts at random, just to see what nonsense I can find. He never fails me. See above.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 5:59:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 12, 2012 6:47:19 AM PDT
w413: "That's interesting, RM, but I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as consciousness. We might as well be electro-chemical robots made outta meat, because there's no minds, no souls, no spirits. There's only brain centers and neural networks...Consciousness might be redefined very very vaguely as electro-chemical activity, but why?"

The following is a PARODY of the above paragraph. It is an analogy for the express purpose of resolving in clear and explicit terms the logic and object relations/heirarchy of this argument. The argument appears to have been built/structured around an extreme reductionist view of phenomena, one that prefers to view complex phenomena in only the most reduced object forms conceivable. The third sentence is not as clear as it could be, so I have changed the wording for the purpose of clarification.

I think this argument best represents traditional nonintegratist (nonfunctional, nonsystemic, elemental) view of phenomena. Do the structure and motions of isolated particles/atoms explain everything? Can a scientific understanding always be arrived at by focusing in on only the most elemental forms of phenomena alone? I think this argument assumes so:

Parody: That's interesting, W413, but I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as anatomy and physiology. We might as well be electro-chemical machines formed outta meat, because there's no organs, no enzymes, no cells. Actually, there's only molecules and atoms that are observable...The structure and operations of an organism might be redefined very very vaguely as the actions of atoms, but why?"

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 6:37:15 AM PDT
You seem to believe that the scientific theory of evolution made breakthroughs, and that, Intelligent design will make that [too]. The last [too] bothered me.

Intelligent Design was the very initial cause for the rise of science. We still do not know how energy is transmitted from the remote stars to us in absolute void or what energy is made of.

Only you who believe that Intelligent Design needs to show its balls to be accepted.

If scientists could prove that life can be created from inert matter, that in itself favors Intelligent Design because without intelligence scientists would have not engaged in such elaborate search for the cause or purpose of life.

You should not underestimate the rationale that god created Jesus without a father, since Adam and Eve had no father or mother, and since the first form of life, which had supposedly evolved into Adam and Eve, cannot create itself from inert matter, and further, a purposeful life cannot be so without cause.

Richard, you seem to have been losing grounds in your faith that God Did It, and in someways giving up to the propaganda that chaos breeds order.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

PJA. What a pile of creationist tripe

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:38:25 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 12, 2012 10:42:06 AM PDT
Among my obsessions is watching patterns of behavior.

Here, Irish Lace got upset after I commented on Brian's obesity and southern laid back mentality. Irish Lace is also southern, and my guess is that she must be obese and abandoned by the whole world.

In three posts, Irish Lace only conveyed information about her own mood of laughing and chuckling, and her own inclination of putting me on ignore. None of those add to the discussion, in particular when Irish Lace keeps lifting the Ignore, followed by slamming the Ignore, as if she was something of stature.
.....................................
(1) Irish Lace wrote:
"I have Hewie on ignore, but occasionally, just for entertainment, I open one of his posts at random, just to see what nonsense I can find. He never fails me. See above. "

(2) Irish Lace wrote:
"Ah, Hewie, when I don't see you for a few days and then you pop up and say something patently silly, I get such a nice chuckle. "
============================
http://www.amazon.com/forum/science/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdMsgNo=2113&cdPage=85&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3J642OV1XXGNI&cdMsgID=Mx20XCTVMWWHKD#Mx20XCTVMWWHKD
........................................
(3) Irish Lace wrote:
"I've had Hewie on ignore for some weeks now, so I thought I'd see what he's up to recently. So I picked this post and opened it and this nugget is the absolute first thing I read.

Once I stop laughing, I'll put him back on ignore. "
==================================
http://www.amazon.com/forum/science/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdMsgNo=3838&cdPage=154&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2EC6GIPBAPA9Z&cdMsgID=Mx657RQNCH5YL3#Mx657RQNCH5YL3
..............................................

In this crowd of chaos-breeding-order, I must admit my constant observation that every time I go to the movie theater, there is at least one or more people in my sight of view that are obnoxiously overweight.

Yesterday, the two rows in front of mine were shared by one group of overweight ladies. They tend to leave one seat empty between every fat woman such that the triceps and flank fat folds could avoid the direct compression by the neighboring person.

Seating in two rows also brings the ears of the person in the front row closer to mouth of the person in the rear row, because the front fat person tilts the seat heavily backwards. That is an interesting observation about the lifestyle of fat women.

Another unsettling observation was the way the popcorn trajectory travels from the bag sitting on the lap to the mouth. Because the four women sitting in front of me have massive bellies, they must move their handheld popcorn in half circle away from the belly and must tilt their face upwards such that the popcorn fall free with gravity towards the throat. Or, may be the tilting of the face was due to the fact that in fat women, the larynx is impeded from motion by the neck fat folds. Thus, tilting the skull backward straightens the esophagus and trachea and prevents chocking.

That was another added benefit form watching a movie inside the movie theater.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

Posted on May 12, 2012 12:05:19 PM PDT
To Mohamed
May I suggest that in the future, instead of venturing out into your known world, you stay home. Go onto any torrent site and download the movie in question. View it from the comfort of your chair/sofa/bed. If being in the vicinity of clinically obese women offends you,then avoid being out in public. I am curious if it is only obese women that offend you or are obese men in the same category. You seemed to note their consumption of popcorn with such detail it was verging upon obsession. I wonder if you would view the male species with the same interest? Another question, why did you not just change seats?

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 12:45:30 PM PDT
Mohamed seems to think that, if someone defends some else, they must have the same qualities as that person in question.

I.e., Irish complains about MFEH calling Brian obese, thus she must be obese herself.

Let's see what that would make me:

Obese
Had many (or even one) abortions
Involved in a gay marriage
A prisoner behind bars in a foreign country
A mistreated dog, cat, or horse.

The fact that these not-me's are getting progressively unlikely is no evidence that I am any of these things.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 12:54:46 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
Every thing is the action of atoms but I didn't go that far. Minds, souls and spirits are used as metaphors, but how can we agree upon what we mean by each of these metaphors? We can't, unless we agree upon some bigger picture reality that I maintain doesn't exist.

I have a favorite big picture of reality, but it doesn't require the conjuring up of those metaphors. I 'like' other metaphors, such as God and an endless hierarchy of multiverses. I 'want' to retain my metaphors, but the metaphors that erupt from large stinky primates like us, minds, souls and spirits, are to my mind distracting and even dangerous in the long run.

I also think that, obviously, my big picture has a better chance of being the real thing. So this is very serious for me.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 1:35:10 PM PDT
CMJ: A fist is certainly what he deserves.

I've certainly got to hand it to you, CJ.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 1:38:16 PM PDT
Richard: the length of copy and coffee breaks

Perhaps you recognize the link between a photocopy and a pot of coffee, Richard.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 1:50:26 PM PDT
Bubba says:
Somebody needs to make a multifunction printer/scanner/copier/coffee maker.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 2:05:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 12, 2012 2:07:08 PM PDT
werranth413 wrote:
"I also think that, obviously, my big picture has a better chance of being the real thing. So this is very serious for me. "
===================================
I recall Bonaparte 's claim, in 1794, that the French Revolution could transform the whole world into speaking one language, enacting one legal system, holding one moral structure.

To Bonaparte's dismay, the British impacted world language more than the French despite the superiority of French in making precise legal and scientific statements. The French legal system did much better than the British legal system in exporting fundamental laws that could bring greater harmony to societies.

However, both the French and British doctrines created greater inequalities and oppression that led to the rise of Hitler and Stalin to power.

Stalin's communism was the fairest strategy to lift the impoverished from their misery. Hitler's Nazism stumbled over racist obsessions. The four powers; Nazism, Communism, French and British ideologies eliminated each other, leading to the rise of the American ideology.

In each of the five ideologies, the same slogan is repeated:

"my big picture has a better chance of being the real thing. "

Mohamed F. El-Hewie
Your reply to Mohamed F. El-Hewie's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 3 7245 8 minutes ago
Could spacetime have already existed? 26 21 minutes ago
Perverted Science 43 1 hour ago
Science in Harmony with God 5075 1 hour ago
According to Science, when does a Human Being's life begin? 12 3 hours ago
Knowledge 4649 4 hours ago
Assuming We Find And Find With Certainty Another Planet That Could Support Life As We Know It, What Do We Do With That Discovery? 23 8 hours ago
It Could Be The Strongest El Nino In Recorded History. And What If It Is? 9 9 hours ago
UC Berkeley Scientists say the Multiverse CAN be tested. 3 21 hours ago
Creationists ask......Is this the silliest thing ever, from an Esteemed Atheist "Scientist"? 30 22 hours ago
The common sense of full employment, subsidies and micro-finance 1 1 day ago
The Origin of Life - Sir, Real'! 57 1 day ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  112
Total posts:  6982
Initial post:  Jan 30, 2012
Latest post:  May 13, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions