Quote: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. 

---