Customer Discussions > Science forum

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


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 5551-5575 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 4:27:06 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 18, 2012 6:00:15 PM PDT
noman: "**You're going to have to be a bit more specific here."

You're going to actually have to fulfil your responsibilities in the standard English practice of reading here, not merely feign air-headed ignorance only for your group's rhetorical porpoises. Now I know you can't be (the/a) man about this, noman, but the latter is still a very easy procedure for anyone serious about reading. And since you jump through whoops all the time here, or so it seems contextually speaking to me, this should just be another swim around the ole' water park for you.

Still it must be hard for you to avoid the temptation of a fa/eint since it's virtually the truth anyway - evolutionists are typically illiterate (not to mention irrational and illogical), at least here. It's no wonder they would appear a little daft sometimes. You yourself are given over to (tipping up) a little too much unannotated, topical (in)cider (bald citations) craft, for example, i.e., in my opinion.

Understand all of this in terms of sarcasm. You can't be literal all the time, even though most evolutionists desparately try to do so in a thought-clinging and underconfident, topically clingy sort of way here, I think. Case in point: Your comment quoted above. THE WHOLE POINT OF SARCASM IS THAT IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, (just remember for purposes of achieving insight into it,) THE JOKE'S ON YOU. IF THE MEANING DOESN'T TURN TO YOU, THEN IT TURNS ON YOU! It's all a level test.

All you need do in (baking) this particular conn(c)ection in odour to savor its true caustic bite here is to determine context and dovetail the context in selectively and recursively during rauding (i.e., rapid phrase reading)! It's a two-step procedure and process. Of course, this assumes you really want to understand, which cannot be taken for granted these days with ANY evolutionists. First, you need to actually read the text in a once-over with an appropriate focus and a reasonable attention span. Do so rapidly. Second, read it again more closely. Here you may need to pause briefly to move your eyes left and right a few times to compare nouns, verbs, and distinctive words with the syntax they are found in. It is all to understand, WHICH EVOLUTIONISTS OFTEN ONLY FEIGN DOING.

I am aware that this can present a formidable challenge to most evolutionists at times. And I can sympathize. It's not only their lack of education involved, but their lack of interest due to their stereotypes and possibly some reading deficits associated with their highly subjective (and thus illogical) approach in this debate, too....EVOLUTIONISTS DON'T APPARENTLY KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT TO SEE BETWEEN THE LINES TO READ TEXT.

SO WAKE UP EVOLUTIONISTS! TAKE YOUR FELDSPAR BLINDERS OFF F(A)RCST AND PUT THE PRESCRIBED SPECTACLES ON. Look at things square in the text and don't forget the context. This means you, side- whipping nosport!

Can't get the context here?! I think evolution proponents should already know that much(o) from the gust(o), however! You should always be considering context while reading. That means what's been said before and what goes after, i.e., the o/ardour (the smell, a slow one).

Now for some fundamentals here: I know evolutionists tend to be vacuous and superficial in thinking. But I thought that any junior teacher (besides your typical music, art and shop classroom teacher) would have taught you that. Still, if you can't do so and can't go back to junior high or a middle school to whip up the o' factory abilities into action, just lift up the precautionary tale and take a whiff from under it. That's the context h/my/dear.

Sorry! I know most evolutionists can't keep up with my satire and original vocabulary creations here. Creationists tell me they have no problem with it, however. It's just one indication of the proficiency deficits being displayed by one side of the debate here. IT'S ALL TO PUT THE OLD ONUS OF ILLITERACY SQUARELY WHERE IT BELONGS - ON EVOLUTION PROPONENTS; TO SET THE OLE' NO 'MAN'HANDLE IN THEIR FA(R)CE. EVOLUTIONISTS TYPICALLY DON'T HAVE THE LITERARY EDUCATION FOR THIS, OR EVEN THE LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC TRAINING IN AN EVOLUTION-RELEVANT FIELD I HAVE RECEIVED. So hunker down and accept your own limitations when you can't seem to understand and can't actually change anything; things are unlikely to improve for you soon.

I am well-aware of evolutionist deficits here when it comes to understanding the results of my very pertinent skills and training in evolution studies and writing. You may just have to settle for what you've been handed in life if you can't keep up. At this stage, it may be the only option you have. It's all the hop you've got (left), right? Especially if evolution is all you see in Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Alternatively, you can wait around for what seems like eons with hop(e) in your hart and a t(h)rust in your eyes. Then you'll never hop alone. Things may just have to increment for you then. But hark! There's always hop(e) in evolutionism circles. But that's about all...

Also, this all must be very hard on you personally. I take it you're not just, i.e. tou-(s)che', enough of a context-(D)based person. (That is, to say.)

If you can't keep up with me literarily and methodologically, THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY. THANKS FOR MENTIONING IT. I and others knew that already, however. And that's why I have pun withon all of you. You clearly can't keep up with professional levels of writing or me.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 5:24:18 PM PDT
Angelus1967 says:
I am simply **gobsmacked** that we are all still even 'talking' with RK! He has nothing even remotely logical or rational to say and, on top of that, he prefers attempting to insult people instead of actually **discussing** anything at all.
He/She/It is a sad little creature that **thinks** it has something important to say. I have yet to see what that might be, but we keep feeding this troll...why do so many of us (me included) do that?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 6:04:47 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 19, 2012 12:34:29 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 6:53:02 PM PDT
Angelus1967 says:
Vengeance? Why would I be seeking vengeance on the likes of you Rickie? You aren't worth that much of my time.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 7:19:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 18, 2012 7:58:02 PM PDT
But, oh, how slime always comes back seeking for smore, especially while smumbling to himsmelf about how sum others shouldn't be doing so.

You just don't have talent, my f(r)iend. Some have it where it counts. But apparently you justlie don(u)t!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 7:22:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 18, 2012 7:23:56 PM PDT
noman says:
RE: " Angelus1967 says:
I am simply **gobsmacked** that we are all still even 'talking' with RK!
...why do so many of us (me included) do that? "

**Possibilities

1) Horrified fascination, like a train wreck or the geek show at a county fair. (geeks shows would feature things like a 'wild man' biting the head off a live chicken)
2) 500 channels and nothing to watch.
3) Excuse to not empty the dishwasher: "Sorry honey, but I've *got* to answer this post!"
4) You're using him as a project for your Intro Psych class.
5) You're waiting for the punch line.
6)...???

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 7:29:30 PM PDT
Angelus1967 says:
I never told anyone to not post to you, I merely asked why we are doing it...the only thing I can come up with is that it's like watching a train wreck in action.
Jeez, you have GOT to be the dumbest person to ever grace these threads. It's gotta be practice, no ONE is naturally as obtuse as you.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 7:32:20 PM PDT
Angelus1967 says:
noman - Those are some great reasons. I especially like the 1st one, it seems to fit my reasons for being here.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 8:01:53 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 18, 2012 8:12:07 PM PDT
But no one here is as ex post whacko and insult-obese as you.

A1967: "noman - Those are some great reasons. I especially like the 1st one, it seems to fit my reasons for being here."

You're beside yourself, aren't you? It looks to be merely childish enamoration and a wacko reason, though. Indeed, as noman stated, you're much "like a 'wild man' biting the head off a live chicken." Ewe just love the chicken headway; isn't that right?!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 3:51:04 AM PDT
Angelus1967's post: "thinks anyone sane would actually buy into his BS"

Well just look at how many people buy into microbe to man... without one shred of evidence. I don't believe that a frog turned into a prince either, but it's a nice fairytale.

From goo to you, your ancestors were slimeballs that crawled out of some imaginary primordial swamp, long ago in the unobservable past, how long ago... no one knows, but there are many guesses, just use your imaginations.

But the chemistry is backwards. Shhhh, don't tell anyone that I let you in on this little secret that they fail to discuss when they tell you about "long ago and far away..."

"The chemistry goes in the wrong direction! Polymerization reactions release water, so by the well-known law of mass action, excess water breaks up polymers. The long ages postulated by evolutionists simply make the problem worse, because there is more time for water's destructive effects to occur." -J.Sarfati

The enzymes that make the amino acid histidine themselves contain histidine. But it gets worse...

Genetic information cannot be translated except with many different enzymes, which are themselves encoded. So the code cannot be translated except via products of translation, a vicious circle that ties evolutionary origin-of-life theories in knots. But if you are a darwinist dimwit you simply make the assertion (contrary to what geneticists say) that the genetic information isn't really information, and genetic code isn't really genetic code, problem solved.

BTW, for the first slimeball to jump into the game of natural selection, a tremendous amount of genetic matierial (codons, genes, chromosomes and such) would need to be in place and functioning so that the first cell could successfully reproduce. Isn't evolution a wonderful exercise for our imaginations???

Posted on Jun 19, 2012 4:29:33 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2012 6:02:54 AM PDT
INTELLIGENT EARTH HYPOTHESIS: Earth is a living, expanding, developing organism. It is more efficient and intelligent than the human body in its operations (which is in turn more sensory intelligent and functionally adaptive that the human brain, though likely much slower in memory retention and response time) as well as reactive to the problems that have in terms of geological time come to attack it. It has always been up to the task of meeting repeated challenges and needs through the reseeding of more sophisticated life and reestablishment of accumulatively superior populations and species, as well as to its more general goal of increasing intelligence and biological complexity in general on the planet. In other words, it learns and intelligently adapts, albeit slowly and stubbornly like a plant. It doesn't appear to miss a beat in that it has never had to go back to the time in which there was no life on the planet and start from scratch all over again. Thus it remembers.

It will continue to thrive along with manifesting targeted, corrective responses/actions in the future. Like it or not, this may include reactions to you and to the whole of humankind in the form of corrective responses to an ecologically harmful organism.

Species become accumulatively superior over time as seen in the large, overall picture of planetary history. All species become extinct over time, just as all organisms die, but the design of species is retained in accumulative planetary memory and reappears in manifests increasingly sophisticated and more intelligent in terms of biological form. Earth, callous about its organisms but not its goal of the generation of successively more complex species, is learning over the course of geological time. It's species forget and are forgotten, but the lessons the planet learns about living forms and producing new ones on it is not.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 6:29:47 AM PDT
Angelus1967 says:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever Rickie. Oy vey, you are a piece of work. See ya later.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 8:34:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2012 8:36:59 AM PDT
"it's like watching a train wreck in action. "

Hence the aptness of my last second-to-last limerick

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 8:35:12 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Richard Kepler says: INTELLIGENT EARTH HYPOTHESIS: Earth is a living, expanding, developing organism.
>A hypothesis is used to test a theory.
Please explain the theory that you are testing, the null hypothesis, and the methodology.

Let's start with actual information. In order to be alive, and organism must have five attributes: it must respire. ingest, eliminate, reproduce like organisms, and be motile. Please explain how the Earth exhibits these attributes.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 9:34:40 AM PDT
An: I am simply **gobsmacked** that we are all still even 'talking' with RK! He has nothing even remotely logical or rational to say and, on top of that, he prefers attempting to insult people instead of actually **discussing** anything at all.
He/She/It is a sad little creature that **thinks** it has something important to say. I have yet to see what that might be, but we keep feeding this troll...why do so many of us (me included) do that?

BPL: I filtered him long ago. He is here simply and solely because people keep responding to him. If they would all filter him, he would go away. He's one of those "bad attention is better than no attention" people.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 9:36:10 AM PDT
CD: Well just look at how many people buy into microbe to man... without one shred of evidence.

BPL: The fossil record? Molecular phylogeny? Have you ever looked at a biology journal? What do you mean "without one shred of evidence?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 10:48:44 AM PDT
Bill M. says:
>>**Possibilities [noman]

I think I've used #1, #3, and #5 myself. You know, "I'll empty the dishwasher in a minute, dear. I'm waiting for the punch line to this train wreck. Geez, this word salad makes less sense the more I read it!"

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 12:02:08 PM PDT
Dawkins: I don't believe that a frog turned into a prince either, but it's a nice fairytale.

Only a fool would claim not to be believe in that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 4:31:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2012 5:14:16 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 4:38:14 PM PDT
PD: "Only a fool would claim not to be believe in that."

No, only a fool would use 'that' to refer to an instance of nonbelief.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 4:50:56 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2012 5:05:35 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 5:17:15 PM PDT
BPL: "The fossil record? Molecular phylogeny? Have you ever looked at a biology journal? What do you mean "without one shred of evidence?"

Can't identify what a shred is when you aren't observing one, huh? Same with most science and definitions that evolutionists present here.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 5:19:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2012 5:21:47 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 5:28:19 PM PDT
noman--"3) Excuse to not empty the dishwasher: "Sorry honey, but I've *got* to answer this post!""

>>JGC: Does that work?! It would probably cost me my computer privileges for a week!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 5:33:44 PM PDT
Bill M. says:
RK babbled:

>>Yal, if you can't understand double nuance in English,

It's not that I "can't understand double-nuance in English"; it's that you do such a terrible job of wording what you believe to be jokes. I know that you like to think you're witty, but you're not.

>>Evolutionists just don't have any solutions or answers
>>to offer to creationist critiques. Only ridicule.

There you go again. We keep presenting evidence for evolution and counter-evidence to the bogus creationist claims, and instead of answering our questions or reading the sources we give, you just wait until we throw down an insulting punchline, then cry "Wahh! The evolutionist is being mean to me!" Why do you keep doing this? I'm guessing it's because you really don't have anything meaningful to say. Just rants and "Tu Quoque" fallacies.
[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
 


 

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