I refer you back to #2...


Which you are still unable to read.


Also, I'm actually a very spiritual person... you have no right to attack my faith just because you are upset with me.


I'm ending this conversation with you, but honestly your insult to my beliefs or what you think is my lack of beliefs is a complete low blow and is a violation of the CoC.


Good day to you, I hope you can learn to deal with people in a more civil way, once you grow up.

---

Lol. Fusion produces other elements like helium etc. It does not and has never produced an H7 atom. If u think it has then thats fine. U have the right to be wrong. If that offends u thats not my problem.

---

1.) Did you just try to name drop me?  I said it once, i will say it again, i took the time to write a response based on common biological knowledge to demonstrate why i fundamentally disagree with the conclusion you reached about the above link, and frankly i was being kind.  For someone who claims to know so much about math physics and biology you should know that a simple organic molecule is several hundred magnitudes below the complexity of a living system capable of cellular mitosis.  

 

2.) I think that there are a lot of people inside and outside of this thread that talk about the science or the evidence and really haven't shown that they know what the actual evidence is or the conclusions that science has already been able to make.  

 

a.) It's not that we know life happens on its own from inanimate matter we just don't know how.  It's in all observation we are so certain that life only comes from other living things that we have developed the law of biogenesis.

 

b.) It's not that we know matter and energy will appear out of thin air but we just don't know how.  It's that all the available data points to the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  

 

These two fundamental scientific truths point to something outside the known realm of scientific law as the origin both life and the universe.  

 

Some people believe that this points to a singularity.  Some people, like you, believe that this paradox will eventually be answered with the discovery of natural laws and processes that we are not aware of.  Both of these are reasonable assumptions and beliefs, but that's what they are.  

 

And then there are people like me who believe that these two truths point to a higher intelligence or being (if anyone sincerely wants to know more about my greater belief system you can pm me.)  

 

You can disagree with me, you can strongly disagree with me and that's fine, but frankly in my lifetime i've done way too much research on my personal time about organic molecules abiogenesis, prions, proposed Darwinian evolution, geotaxis in fruit flies, positive sorting behavior, negative sorting behavior, positive mutation rates, negative mutation rates, fossils and the like from anyone to say that i'm uninformed or grasping at straws.  

 

If you have a meaningful disagreement with the conclusions that i have reached and you can articulate those disagreements based on your scientific understanding then that's great i'm open to dialogue  with anyone.  But if your just going to keep up with the Bill Nye Stephen Hawking said so routine then i have better uses for my time.

You lose all credibility when you discount one of the greatest scientific minds to ever live. 

 

So yes, you have based your conclusion on zero evidence to support the conclusion while discounting all evidence supporting the other due to it currently being incomplete. You could have just said as much since that is exactly what I asked you. Instead you ramble on attempting to deflect the question you were asked because you have no answer. 

---

1.) science isnt about "credibility" its about verifiable duplicatable results using the scientific method.


2.) you dont do yourself any favors when u dont acutually engage a topic with personal insight and instead rely on the reputations of others.


3.) as i have stated before my position is a diffetent CONCLUSION based on the whole of the scientific record.


4.) your charecterization that the evidence is "incomplete" is misleading because you imply incomplete but trending in your favor. As i have previously stated cirrent scientific lae is ANTITHETICAL to the spontaneous generation of energy or abiogenesis. If you deny those two basic FACTS then it is u sir who looses credibility.

---

(SIGH)

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

1.) science isnt about "credibility" its about verifiable duplicatable results using the scientific method.


2.) you dont do yourself any favors when u dont acutually engage a topic with personal insight and instead rely on the reputations of others.


3.) as i have stated before my position is a diffetent CONCLUSION based on the whole of the scientific record.


4.) your charecterization that the evidence is "incomplete" is misleading because you imply incomplete but trending in your favor. As i have previously stated cirrent scientific lae is ANTITHETICAL to the spontaneous generation of energy or abiogenesis. If you deny those two basic FACTS then it is u sir who looses credibility.

You cannot really be this dense.

 

The greatest scientific minds disagree with you on your "analysis" of the science. They are more trustworthy than you. Why? Because they are scientists and you are arrogant to think you are smarter then them. The science is trending in that direction. That you can't see that is your problem. Science does not care. 

 

You have a conclusion with zero evidence supporting it. You never had any and you still don't. Attempting to have a conversation about a scientific matter with a person who has a reached a conclusion based on nothing is pointless. How should I engage in that conversation other than asking again for a single shred of evidence? I mean I have only asked, what four times now? 

---

You cannot really be this dense.

 

Personal insults just let me know how weak your position is.  


 

The greatest scientific minds disagree with you on your "analysis" of the science. They are more trustworthy than you. Why? Because they are scientists and you are arrogant to think you are smarter then them.

 

Science isn't about trust worthy, its not about credible, its not about letters after your name, its about VERIFIABLE, DUPLICATABLE RESULTS!  When you have some of those you can talk to me all you want, until then all you have are glorified opinions and they should be taught as such.  


 

The science is trending in that direction. That you can't see that is your problem. Science does not care. 

 

And the lie detector test determined that was a LIE!  For the better part of human history it was believed that life spontaneously generated.  In the last two hundred years we found that life doesn't spontaneously generate and have codified the LAW of Biogenesis.  It was believed for the longest time that the age of the universe and existence was infinite.  The revelation that our universe appears to have a starting point is paradoxical with the LAW of conservation of energy.  When Darwin first articulated the concept of macro-evolution he a.) didn't have to explain his theory in the context of genetic structure which we now know is 1.)far more complex 2.) resistant to spontaneous introduction of new information 3.) through the miracle of sexual reproduction and conjugation naturally allows for almost infinite variation within a reproductively isolated population, and b.) he predicted enumerable links in the fossil record.  The absence of said contiguous links in the fossil record has forced most modern evolutionists to adopt in whole or in part the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium to explain why the overwhelming trend in the fossil record is STASIS among species.


 

You have a conclusion with zero evidence supporting it. You never had any and you still don't. Attempting to have a conversation about a scientific matter with a person who has a reached a conclusion based on nothing is pointless. How should I engage in that conversation other than asking again for a single shred of evidence? I mean I have only asked, what four times now? 

 

Funny, I cites scientific law about the behavior of matter and living systems as a foundation for my conclusion and you want to sit there and accuse me of not having support for my argument when all you can offer me is the names of OTHER PEOPLE you think might have some original thoughts on this matter?  Lol.  What a joke.  

 

When you take the time to develop a real foundation for your conclusions so that you can actually refute a point yourself you let me know.  I can only imagine how someone who espoused creationism would be excoriated if the only thing that they had to offer in the wake of being challenged with actual fact was to say "well my Pastor went to college."  

 

I don't care what you think of me, or my opinions, but i will say this.  At some point you are going to have to take ownership of the conclusions that you espoused and you darn well better do better than what i have seen here if you are going to lead the charge to have certain subjects banned in the public square because they don't meet our biased sensibilities!

---

Punctuated evolution is still evolution.


Dude, I'm not sure you even know what side you are trying to defend...

---

lol.  I can tell by your pithy response that you have no idea what the ramifications of that admission really mean for the general concept of macro evolution especially as it relates to public perception.  

---

Funny, I cites scientific law about the behavior of matter and living systems as a foundation for my conclusion and you want to sit there and accuse me of not having support for my argument when all you can offer me is the names of OTHER PEOPLE you think might have some original thoughts on this matter?  Lol.  What a joke.  

 

When you take the time to develop a real foundation for your conclusions so that you can actually refute a point yourself you let me know.  I can only imagine how someone who espoused creationism would be excoriated if the only thing that they had to offer in the wake of being challenged with actual fact was to say "well my Pastor went to college."  

 

I don't care what you think of me, or my opinions, but i will say this.  At some point you are going to have to take ownership of the conclusions that you espoused and you darn well better do better than what i have seen here if you are going to lead the charge to have certain subjects banned in the public square because they don't meet our biased sensibilities!

That you think so little of some of the greatest scientists who ever lived is quite sad. It underscores a certain groups disdain for science in general. 

 

Still waiting for that verifiable, duplicatable evidence to support the conclusion you have reach with no evidence what so ever. 

 

You let me know when you decide to stop dodging that question and actually present something. You have been asked numerous times and continue to ignore it because you have nothing. 

 

You have chosen to back a conclusion with zero evidence over one with a plethora of evidence though still incomplete. Present some evidence for yours. 

---

lol. I can tell by your pithy response that you have no idea what the ramifications of that admission really mean for the general concept of macro evolution especially as it relates to public perception.

Does it mean we should be teaching creationism in the classroom????


Again, I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand what you are trying to make yourself feel better about...


As an aside, I have a feeling you were using the term "pithy" as some sort of condescending comment towards my response to you.


Merriam-Webster defines pithy as using few words in a clever and effective way.


What exactly is pithy about saying punctuated evolution is still evolution?


I have a feeling that you used the term pithy in a way you didn't mean too because you don't have as strong a grasp on that word as you think you do.


This example of how you used the term pithy is a great analogy of what I think of your current arguments for creationism. You are able to use a lot of words, but they don't quite all jive with whatever point you think you are trying to make...

---

No... I am not going to explain sarcasm to a grown man. You have to draw the line somewhere.


As an aside... The post button has consequences.

---

To mu friend boud, thank u for ur gracious concession that in reality the scientific evidence is trending away from your origin narrative. I know thats a big step for you and i really respect your courage.


Good luck with ur man crushes. I know its hard to be a young naturalist in love. Have u written them to let them know how u feel?


"I dont care what the natural laws say Stephen.... I choose u!"


Someone call bravo.

---

No... I am not going to explain sarcasm to a grown man. You have to draw the line somewhere.


As an aside... The post button has consequences.

Hahaha! Nice try!


Sarcasm is the use of irony... you cannot claim sarcasm when in your statement you say I don't understand the topic!!


Now I'm wondering if you even understand the term sarcasm!!! You are hilarious!

---

To mu friend boud, thank u for ur gracious concession that in reality the scientific evidence is trending away from your origin narrative. I know thats a big step for you and i really respect your courage.


Good luck with ur man crushes. I know its hard to be a young naturalist in love. Have u written them to let them know how u feel?


"I dont care what the natural laws say Stephen.... I choose u!"


Someone call bravo.

 

Sarcasm, and false statements are the only thing you have? That's sad. Deflection, is the name of the game for science deniers though. 

 

Annnnnd you dodge the direct question for evidence again. I thought for sure you have something to back up these clearly thought out conclusions you keep saying you have put so much personal research into. It couldn't possibly be that, in fact, you have nothing could it? 

---

Anchor... Buddy. Wow.... The gift that keeps on giving.


Bourd ive posted pages and page. Explainong my position all ive done is copy paste a link. When u get ready to sit at the big boy table let me know. Until then i reassert that based on the lack of substance uve shown u dont deserve to tell anyone how a classroom should be directed.

---

In my mind, I see a room of monkeys typing and smoking, all under your screen name. Sorry jj, you lost all credibility.


Your lack of self awareness though is rather amusing.

---

Anchor... Buddy. Wow.... The gift that keeps on giving.


Bourd ive posted pages and page. Explainong my position all ive done is copy paste a link. When u get ready to sit at the big boy table let me know. Until then i reassert that based on the lack of substance uve shown u dont deserve to tell anyone how a classroom should be directed.

You have somehow devolved (in contradiction to your beliefs). You appear to have lost your ability to type or present a coherent though. What you have done is point out the incompleteness of sciences understanding of the beginnings of life. This is not an unknown. Nor is it evidence to support creationism. What you have not done is explain your position.

 

Still, at any point, presenting a single shred of evidence supporting creation could help your argument. However, you do what all the deniers do when pressed for a single shred of evidence. You resort to insults, name calling, sarcasm and run away because you have nothing to stand on but "deeply held beliefs" 

---

anchor...  i keep hoping that you're kidding, but i really think you are serious.  

---

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato