Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 22 of 23
 [ 453 posts ] 
Science Law - Life Comes From Life
Author Message
Steelmage99Posts: 171Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
this has happened before,

1 I ask a question

2 you answer something that has nothing to do with my question

3 I repeat my question

4 you refuse to answer because according to you, you already answered.

5 we repeat 3 and 4 like 6 or 7 times

6 you end up admitting that you didn't answer the question.





so why don't we simply safe a few steps and go directly to 6?


Bullshit, leroy. Pure unadulterated bullshit.

Just because your script fails, it doesn't mean that the question wasn't answered.
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:52 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2379Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:the definition comes from your blog you i%&=t, that is your definition you are suppose to accept it,


Well done. You entirely missed the point of the interjection.

Seriously go away and learn to think.
Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:22 pm
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy
this has happened before,

1 I ask a question

2 you answer something that has nothing to do with my question

3 I repeat my question

4 you refuse to answer because according to you, you already answered.

5 we repeat 3 and 4 like 6 or 7 times

6 you end up admitting that you didn't answer the question.





so why don't we simply safe a few steps and go directly to 6?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Why not provide links to these claims, as I do, or just admit that you are lying? That would save us all a lot of time. Oh, and remember, just because my answer does not fall into your script does not mean I did not answer. It just means you are a terrible scrip writer.


sure


1 Leroy: Do you accept this definition of entropy?

2 HWN: I don't accept your source

3 Leroy> ok but that was not my question, I didn't ask if you like the source, I asked if you accept the definition, so do you accept the definition of entropy?

4 HWN> I already answered

5 (we repeated 3 and 4)

6 HWN> OHHH my problem is the source, not the definition of entropy, (admitting that you didn't answered my original question until this point)



so according to you, which of these points is a lie, so that I can provide the links and prove that I am not lying ?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:56 am
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Everyone here knows the reality of LEROY's bullshit loaded questions which he refuses to modify, and demands people jump his hoops. Every single person here... so as usual, the question is: who does LEROY think he's fooling?


A better question is, why is dandan/leroy obfuscating about this instead of sticking to the OP? Almost like he realize he cannot defend magic against reality.


I am assuming that
OP = ORIGINAL POINT

The last time I tried to go back to the original point and ignored secondary and minor details, you accused me for ignoring your comments.


I have no problem in going back to the original point.

I already provided reasons for why I believe that design is a better explanation than nature, what you have to do is provide your reasons for preferring nature over design, and then explain why are your reasons more valid than mine.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:05 pm
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:the definition comes from your blog you i%&=t, that is your definition you are suppose to accept it,


Well done. You entirely missed the point of the interjection.

Seriously go away and learn to think.


Irrelevant, it is still a fact that you rejected "my" definition of entropy, even though I quoted directly from your blog. this proves that you rejected the definition by default without even reading it this is what fanatic close-minded individuals do, they reject by default any comment made by someone with a different world view.


of course your article is basically wrong, pretty much the only thing that you got right is the definition of entropy,


so with that said, and assuming that we both agree with that definition of entropy

entropy is a measure of uncertainty or probability. If a system is in an improbable configuration, it is said to be in a state of low entropy.

The classic analogy employed here is the desktop strewn with bits of paper. You can move one piece of paper without appreciably altering the appearance of the desktop. Statistically speaking, this configuration, or one of the many configurations it could have while still remaining untidy, is more probable than one in which the desktop is tidy. Thus, it is in a state of high entropy.
http://www.hackenslash.co.uk/2016/04/order-order.html




we both agree that that a tidy desktop (low entropy) can not come from an untidy desktop (high entropy) naturally, because a tidy desktop is an improbable configuration, and there is no natural mechanism that would force stuff in the desk to organice in the order and pattern required to create a tidy desktop.

for example there is not a natural mechanism that would put important papers in a folder and unimportant papers in the trashcan.

design would be a better explanation for a tidy desk and this would be true even if you don't have prior knowledge or proof for the existence of a designer that could have ordered your desk.


so why not applying the same logic with life? a configuration of organic molecules that would produce something that you would call life is improbable (like a tidy desk...low entropy) and there is no natural mechanism that would organice molecules in the order and pattern required to produce life (just like there is no natural mechanism that would organice a desk in a tidy way)
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:35 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2956Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Greetings,

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Desktops and paper don't occur in Nature except through design.

Life does.

And, in case you start arguing for a designer, you have to show that there is no actual natural process that results in life - merely claiming that we don't know of any doesn't count.

We already have enough pointers to a natural process to accept a natural explanation for life - chemistry, evolution, etc.

We have no evidence for any deity - at all.

Therefore, a natural explanation is the one for which we are searching.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:14 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2379Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:Irrelevant, it is still a fact that you rejected "my" definition of entropy


No, I didn't. It was a comment on your repeated practice of 'defining for the purpose of this thread', and wasn't a comment about the definition of entropy,m you stupid, ignorant waste of fucking oxygen.

Learn to fucking think, stupid cunt.
Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:21 pm
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Dragan Glas wrote:And, in case you start arguing for a designer, you have to show that there is no actual natural process that results in life - merely claiming that we don't know of any doesn't count.


we already when over that point.

I can not meat your burden because you are raising the bar unrealistically to high. (not to mention that you are asking me to prove a negative)

Dragan Glas wrote:Desktops and paper don't occur in Nature


well by your logic, in order to make that affirmation, you have to show that there is no actual natural process that results in desks.

but anyway, you still missed my pint, regardless if desks and papers can ocurre naturally, it is still true that design is the best explanation for a tidy desk, this would be true even if there where no prior evidence for someone having access to that desk,

Dragan Glas wrote:We already have enough pointers to a natural process to accept a natural explanation for life - chemistry, evolution, etc.


evolution>, irrelevant, abiogenesis predates evolution

chemistry>. care to be more specific?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:13 pm
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:Irrelevant, it is still a fact that you rejected "my" definition of entropy


No, I didn't. It was a comment on your repeated practice of 'defining for the purpose of this thread', and wasn't a comment about the definition of entropy,m you stupid, ignorant waste of fucking oxygen.

Learn to fucking think, stupid cunt.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
yes I have the nasty tendency of defining and explaining what do I mean when I use words that might have more than 1 definition or connotation.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:17 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 836Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

I could write a long comment, or I could just use this summary that I posted a dozen times sofar:
MarsCydonia wrote:Has Leroy-the-slavery-apologist provided any evidence life was designed yet?

Or is he still trying to dig a gap to put god in?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:32 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2956Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Greetings,

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:And, in case you start arguing for a designer, you have to show that there is no actual natural process that results in life - merely claiming that we don't know of any doesn't count.

we already when over that point.

I can not meat your burden because you are raising the bar unrealistically to high. (not to mention that you are asking me to prove a negative)

You can't meet the burden, not because I'm raising the bar too high, but rather because we already have evidence in support of a natural explanation for life whilst having absolutely none for design.

Unless you want to call Nature the designer!?

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Desktops and paper don't occur in Nature

well by your logic, in order to make that affirmation, you have to show that there is no actual natural process that results in desks.

Desks and paper don't occur in Nature - if they did, we'd have found them by now.

leroy wrote:but anyway, you still missed my pint, regardless if desks and papers can ocurre naturally, it is still true that design is the best explanation for a tidy desk, this would be true even if there where no prior evidence for someone having access to that desk,

Agreed - that doesn't mean that design can be applied to life.

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:We already have enough pointers to a natural process to accept a natural explanation for life - chemistry, evolution, etc.

evolution>, irrelevant, abiogenesis predates evolution

chemistry>. care to be more specific?

I've explained this before.

Biochemistry - the chemistry of life - is a subset of chemistry.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:03 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:the definition comes from your blog you i%&=t, that is your definition you are suppose to accept it,


Well done. You entirely missed the point of the interjection.

Seriously go away and learn to think.


As I keep saying, dandan/leroy's only strength his his willful obtuseness.

leroy wrote:
leroy
this has happened before,

1 I ask a question

2 you answer something that has nothing to do with my question

3 I repeat my question

4 you refuse to answer because according to you, you already answered.

5 we repeat 3 and 4 like 6 or 7 times

6 you end up admitting that you didn't answer the question.





so why don't we simply safe a few steps and go directly to 6?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Why not provide links to these claims, as I do, or just admit that you are lying? That would save us all a lot of time. Oh, and remember, just because my answer does not fall into your script does not mean I did not answer. It just means you are a terrible scrip writer.


sure


:lol:

Yet no links were provided. Why emphasis me asking you to provide links if you were not going to do it? Beyond that, I will just point one thing out since the rest of what you state is irrelevant, I already addressed it, and you quoted it above as well.

leroy wrote:...

2 HWN: I don't accept your source

...

6 HWN> OHHH my problem is the source, not the definition of entropy, (admitting that you didn't answered my original question until this point)


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Why not provide links to these claims, as I do, or just admit that you are lying? That would save us all a lot of time. Oh, and remember, just because my answer does not fall into your script does not mean I did not answer. It just means you are a terrible scrip writer.

[emphasis added]


If only you would start reading my post instead of mindlessly responding. Oh, well. It is easy to just quote myself back at you and provide the links that expose you.

leroy wrote:so according to you, which of these points is a lie, so that I can provide the links and prove that I am not lying ?


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Oh, and remember, just because my answer does not fall into your script does not mean I did not answer. It just means you are a terrible scrip writer.


Perhaps the more I repeat it the more likely it will sink in? What is that definition of insanity again? Well, I am just glad that I am not the only one that has noticed this.

leroy wrote:The last time I tried to go back to the original point and ignored secondary and minor details, you accused me for ignoring your comments.


Which you did. Here is a link to my last post about this topic. There is nothing from you addressing it, just this attempt to rewrite the events of this thread. Note how it does not address my last post at all.

leroy wrote:I have no problem in going back to the original point.


You obviously do. Otherwise, you would not waste all this time obfuscating. Again, why do this unless you realized you cannot defend magic?

leroy wrote:I already provided reasons for why I believe that design is a better explanation than nature, what you have to do is provide your reasons for preferring nature over design, and then explain why are your reasons more valid than mine.


I already did that. Again, stop running and address what I have already written. Note that I am the only one that is actually providing evidence, while you are just making baseless assertions.

MarsCydonia wrote:I could write a long comment, or I could just use this summary that I posted a dozen times sofar:
MarsCydonia wrote:Has Leroy-the-slavery-apologist provided any evidence life was designed yet?

Or is he still trying to dig a gap to put god in?


Well, he has stopped trying to dig that gap. Instead he would rather obfuscate about irrelevant topics and not provide evidence for life being designed. I guess he realized that he cannot defend magic against reality.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:19 am
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1529Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

The bar of evidence, reason, and rationality is too high for LEROY. He needs free pass for assertions and counter-factual bullshit. His ignorance must be enshrined as the only arbiter.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:12 am
SparhafocPosts: 1529Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41548203

"Electric honeycomb perfectly demonstrates how everything in this universe is seeking equilibrium. Its hexagonal shape is the most stable structure."


When a 17 year old knows more about the nature of reality than you....

The difference, of course, being that Niazi's mind is open and he's willing to put in the hard work to inquire into reality.... compared to our resident wish-thinker who thinks his navel fluff constitutes the highest level of comprehension available.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:48 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1529Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

hackenslash wrote:No, I didn't. It was a comment on your repeated practice of 'defining for the purpose of this thread', and wasn't a comment about the definition of entropy,m you stupid, ignorant waste of fucking oxygen.

Learn to fucking think, stupid cunt.



Amen.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:53 pm
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Dragan Glas wrote:
And, in case you start arguing for a designer, you have to show that there is no actual natural process that results in life - merely claiming that we don't know of any doesn't count


Dragan Glas wrote:


leroy wrote:
I can not meat your burden because you are raising the bar unrealistically to high. (not to mention that you are asking me to prove a negative)

You can't meet the burden, not because I'm raising the bar too high, but rather because we already have evidence in support of a natural explanation for life whilst having absolutely none for design.

Unless you want to call Nature the designer!?


stop right there, ... so do you admit that asking someone to show that there is no actual natural process that results in life is raising the bar unrealistically to high?.........this is a simple yes or no question.


as for your comment, I would like to know what the evidence for natural abiogenesis is...care to provide some?.

Dragan Glas wrote:Desks and paper don't occur in Nature - if they did, we'd have found them by now.


Life does not come from none life in nature, if it did we'd have found it by now.....

my point is that we all agree that glasses of wine, desks, hexagonal columns made out of iron etc. can not be created naturally, if we find any of these stuff we would agree that an intelligent designer did it, even if this stuff is found in some distant planet where there is no prior evidence for the existence of intelligent designers.

this is because even though desks are made out of materials that are found in nature (iron for example) there is no natural mechanism that would "force" iron to organice itself in the order and pattern required to create a desk.



so why not applying the same criteria with life? there is no natural mechanism that would force organic molecules i to organice themselves in the order and pattern required to create life
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:24 am
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote: :lol:

Yet no links were provided. Why emphasis me asking you to provide links if you were not going to do it? Beyond that, I will just point one thing out since the rest of what you state is irrelevant, I already addressed it, and you quoted it above as well.



:lol: :lol: :lol: ok so I will simply add this to the list of questions that you haven't answered. honestly what is wrong with you? why are you unable to answer questions directly? in this case all you have to do is answer which of the points (1,2,3,4,5 or 6) you think is wrong.

after you tell me which point you think is wrong I will provide the links that show that the point is true.

remember, all you have to do is answer 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 just type the number, I am a very bad reader and any complex and elaborated answer might be misunderstood by me, so please answer clear an unambiguously which point do you think is a lie 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 just type the number , you just need to type a single key,


If you what to go back to the original topic, well the ball is on your side, I keep asking this question and you still fail to answer it, of all the theories/hypothesis/models (or however you what to call them) of natural abiogenesis, pick one and explain why is that better than design.

please stop pretending that you answered before and answer to this simple question.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:50 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2956Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Greetings,

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:
And, in case you start arguing for a designer, you have to show that there is no actual natural process that results in life - merely claiming that we don't know of any doesn't count

Dragan Glas wrote:You can't meet the burden, not because I'm raising the bar too high, but rather because we already have evidence in support of a natural explanation for life whilst having absolutely none for design.

Unless you want to call Nature the designer!?

stop right there, ... so do you admit that asking someone to show that there is no actual natural process that results in life is raising the bar unrealistically to high?.........this is a simple yes or no question.

No.

We already have evidence for natural processes - we have absolutely none at all for supernatural processes.

leroy wrote:as for your comment, I would like to know what the evidence for natural abiogenesis is...care to provide some?

I've already explained multiple times that biochemistry - "the chemistry of life" - is a subset of chemistry.

All that's required is that one atom of hydrogen and one atom of carbon form the hydrocarbon bond for the transition to occur from inorganic to organic chemistry.

The building blocks for life occur in Nature - they've been found in space.

Rumraket has posted links to any number of scientific papers showing evidence for abiogenesis.

The problem is that you're so convinced that a deity exists, you're unable to accept this evidence.

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Desks and paper don't occur in Nature - if they did, we'd have found them by now.

Life does not come from none life in nature, if it did we'd have found it by now.....

We've found life in Nature - therefore, life occurs from non-life in Nature!

leroy wrote:my point is that we all agree that glasses of wine, desks, hexagonal columns made out of iron etc. can not be created naturally, if we find any of these stuff we would agree that an intelligent designer did it, even if this stuff is found in some distant planet where there is no prior evidence for the existence of intelligent designers.

this is because even though desks are made out of materials that are found in nature (iron for example) there is no natural mechanism that would "force" iron to organice itself in the order and pattern required to create a desk.

Agreed - with the caveat "that we yet know"

leroy wrote:so why not applying the same criteria with life? there is no natural mechanism that would force organic molecules i to organice themselves in the order and pattern required to create life

You believe that a deity exists - without any evidence to support that belief.

We know Nature exists - we know that everything that occurs in Nature occurs through natural processes.

All the evidence points to a natural process for life.

It's incontrovertible.

Yet despite this, you choose a answer for which there is no evidence - a deity.

As I said before, you first have to show that any deity is possible, then you have to show that the deity in which you believe is possible to the exclusion of all others.

To date, despite thousands of years of thousands of religions, no-one has managed to do this.

What makes you think you can do this in contradiction to the empiric evidence we have for a natural process being the cause for life?

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:59 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote: :lol:

Yet no links were provided. Why emphasis me asking you to provide links if you were not going to do it? Beyond that, I will just point one thing out since the rest of what you state is irrelevant, I already addressed it, and you quoted it above as well.



:lol: :lol: :lol: ok so I will simply add this to the list of questions that you haven't answered. honestly what is wrong with you? why are you unable to answer questions directly? in this case all you have to do is answer which of the points (1,2,3,4,5 or 6) you think is wrong.

after you tell me which point you think is wrong I will provide the links that show that the point is true.

remember, all you have to do is answer 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 just type the number, I am a very bad reader and any complex and elaborated answer might be misunderstood by me, so please answer clear an unambiguously which point do you think is a lie 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 just type the number , you just need to type a single key,


he_who_is_nobody wrote: :lol:

Yet no links were provided. Why emphasis me asking you to provide links if you were not going to do it? Beyond that, I will just point one thing out since the rest of what you state is irrelevant, I already addressed it, and you quoted it above as well.

leroy wrote:...

2 HWN: I don't accept your source

...

6 HWN> OHHH my problem is the source, not the definition of entropy, (admitting that you didn't answered my original question until this point)


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Why not provide links to these claims, as I do, or just admit that you are lying? That would save us all a lot of time. Oh, and remember, just because my answer does not fall into your script does not mean I did not answer. It just means you are a terrible scrip writer.

[emphasis added]


If only you would start reading my post instead of mindlessly responding. Oh, well. It is easy to just quote myself back at you and provide the links that expose you.


Oh look, another molehill that was already addressed. Note what dandan/leroy left on the editing room floor and how it addresses what he is whining about now.

leroy wrote:If you what to go back to the original topic, well the ball is on your side, I keep asking this question and you still fail to answer it, of all the theories/hypothesis/models (or however you what to call them) of natural abiogenesis, pick one and explain why is that better than design.

please stop pretending that you answered before and answer to this simple question.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:I already did that. Again, stop running and address what I have already written. Note that I am the only one that is actually providing evidence, while you are just making baseless assertions.


Just keep running dandan/leroy. When you get tired of running, all the links are right there for you to address.

AronRa wrote:Do you have problems with reading comprehension? That's the nice thing about talking to you, dandan. I don't have to say anything new; I can just copy-and-paste what I already told you. Because you have the curious habit of asking questions after they've already been answered.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:45 pm
YIM WWW
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:Life does not come from none life in nature, if it did we'd have found it by now.....

Nope.

You seem to totally forget that there is one great reason why we wouldn't expect to find totally new life-from-non-life forms of life. Because we have literally a planet full of life that would see that new life as food and eat it before it had a chance to be found. Not to mention that the conditions that made life-from-non-life possible might not be here anymore and that even if we saw a life-from-non-life we might not recognize it as such because it might look like a very primitive life-from-life.

Now we might manage to make life-from-non-life in a lab in a predatorless environment that was calibrated to correct parameters, but you wouldn't accept that as evidence because it was done in a lab by people, now would you.

And again Leroy has agreed that he also believes in abiogenesis, we only differ in the mechanisms we believe were responsible. I, or we, say natural processes are the most probably explanation and he says magic is.
Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:25 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 22 of 23
 [ 453 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests