Yes of course the majority are decent. I was watching a neat vid on the Pope's telescopes, most interesting and a nice chap there... They need to revise all of it...religion evolved nicely pre Christianity but personally I think Sun worship is the way to go..it in effect created the Solar system and gives us life...that deserves recognition. Alex
Actually, "needing" hope is a whole lot closer to despair than not needing for hope. Need implies lack. Like I said, never intending to insult, because I do not get upset over anything anonymous strangers say online. Only people I care about in real life can do that, and even then, I'm pretty thick-skinned. I didn't say you upset me, I said you instigated attacking people's beliefs. I'm just repaying in kind to what you started. Don't dish out what you can't take. Funny that you think there's a difference in apologizing for causing offense and apologizing for people taking it that way. Offense is how people take it, not how you may have intended it. I don't blame others. If someone instigates something, that's an objective fact. Maybe you could explain (or give the time code) where inanimate matter becomes life. No? Still waiting? @2:45 "if you want to believe that abiogenesis is impossible that's fine you're welcome to believe that God gave life a kickstart" That's the criteria given by the scientific method itself.
As usually excellent advice...that means I can turn the heat right up. Once I would have said similar, in fact I basically did on many occassions...however my approach now is that if I have upset someone, even if they are silly or sensitive, I will apologize in an effort to show that I respect them and their feelings. I really am a wonderful human don't you think? It's like the flag thing, I guess you would fly that flag and not care who it upsets whereas I would not bother and just accept that it really is hurtful to some people and not fly it...not that I would in the first place... It is no big deal to back down to keep someone happy. You won't find that in there and we both know that.. .but the point is to listen to this man from Harvard who knows what he is talking about and learn about the subject. And after you watch these videos you will realise the way you carry on is so childish and uninformed you should go and hide. Is it all lost on you? We need an analogy...so you are out riding around your ranch as we all do and you find one of your cows dead, her vitals have been torn out, her throat chewed on, and there are varying size dog foot prints in the mud...you reasonably conclude, that a pack of wild dogs have killed your cow and eaten the bits they usually go for and moved on ... You may never get to see those dogs but there is no question that you somehow have it wrong. Do you even understand the progress to date..it's like we know how many dogs and which breeds...actually better. Anyways it is a matter of believing who you wish...I will go with the guy from Harvard and you I guess will go with the guy in the second video ..the fool and liar...I do not know how you can watch all three parts of the Harvard presentation and be so dismissive. Why is that? Why are you so convinced abiogenisis is not good science? Alex
Don't know what you've been waiting for all this time. I don't really respect irrational feelings, as enabling them only exacerbates them. Most intelligent people know that backing down like that is just patronizing them. You know, treating someone as inferior. I already know about the subject. Hence you being unable to answer my questions about it. No, considering there's no tracks of non-life to life, that's you're wishful thinking. See, you making straw men, like me agreeing with any old video you happen to find, is exactly how you've instigated this whole time. Good science has actual evidence for its hypotheses, without which you only have speculation. And you wouldn't ask if you understood what constitutes scientific methodology.
And the tracks concerned have been traced back millions of years, and just because they happen to fade away a bit, you stupidly ignore all that went before and substiute some ancient mythical spaghetti monster!!! What a card!!!
Your approval to go ahead. Something you go to great pains to avoid...you are no doubt more wonderful than me. I know you know about it but I am trying to have you learn something about it...clearly you know nothing. Let me fix your misunderstanding....read what I said slowly..resist the urge to respond without thinking...it will be good for you. Answer me this..what is the significance of the length of that whatchamacallit..you know the thing I mean....and the importance of just that aspect..what was it again...you know..on the tip of my tounge. Anyways why is length important..what was the length? If you don't behave I will turn up the heat so much I promise you will really feel uncomfortable...we don't want that do we? Get back to me when you are sober. You can't string a coherent sentence together. The evidence is you know nothing and specifically have not watched the Harvard presentation where you would find scientific rigor..you know that thing you claim...yeh as if. I guess you want something better than a Harvard professor...mmm I know let's see what an unknown ancient who did not know where the Sun went at night can tell us...mmm what's that spontaneous what? See you when you get back. Alex
I certainly treat people as equally capable, whether they can meet that expectation or not. All evidence to the contrary. You need to learn to make your own arguments for yourself. Not rely on the fallacy of authority. You know, quit saying "Harvard" as if it's some magic incantation that absolves you of supporting your own arguments. And if that's an excuse for you to lower yourself to the level of paddo, you'll be joining him on ignore. You can tell when I'm especially bored, as that's when I deign to respond to those on iggy. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I somehow don't acknowledge all the scientific understanding about the building blocks of biological life. Whatever you gotta tell yourself, I guess. A scientist presenting speculation doesn't make it any less speculative. And if it wasn't speculative, someone would have already claimed that prize you talk about. Right? "Harvard". There's that incantation against thinking again.
Mmmm I don't think I relied on the fallacy as you claim as I am pointing out their work rather than using it for any argument. In any event given your lack of respect of Harvard there is now no doubt in mind that you have not bothered to to aquaint yourself with their latest discoveries. Why do you have a problem with Paddo? Well perhaps I am...you seem to reject the idea as simply out of hand and in so doing never make any qualification such that I could gain an insight that you have any idea past what the word means. I don't see how you can be dismissive. There is no argument that the prize is ready to be given out. So you think Harvard is not worthy of respect...curious. I thought it was recognised as right up there but I guess not...according to you. So tell me why do you think abiogenesis won't work? Alex
If that were true, which it isn't, then scientists wouldn't consider abiogenesis science, yet they do and you don't. My point stands.
Exactly. And Miller-Urey, Erastova, Bada, Oro, Joyce-Horning and Joyce-Lincoln have all provided actual, repeatable experimental evidence for the various abiogenesis hypotheses.
Your psychotic delusions are as severe as river's Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As Alex has suggested, you really need to understand what you are talking about, instead of putting any trust in some ancient book, written in an ancient time, in an obscure manner, like yourself, by equally obscure men. Plus claiming "the appeal to authority"is a fallacy is actually an ignorant fallacy in itself. It is correct and prudent for anyone to support their claims with authoritive links/references from professionals in that subject claim....where it would fail is asking a chef how to perform a brain operation, or referencing some ancient book based on myth, to attempt to invalidate science. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!shock, horror* you have me on ignore!!! It's not that you are bored, its more you simply cannot handle the truth [see what I did there? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!] You have defined what and who you are and it ain't pretty. Which obviously is why you refuse to answer so many questions, including with regards to your handle, and simply write off legitimate arguments against your creationist agenda with accusations of non sequiturs, strawmen, scientism, atheism etc etc, while your own sickening handle as defined, also defines you in every respect. I am under no mistaken impression about, you, and I suggest neither is anyone else. The facts of the theory of evolution and the many miles of tracks that lead to Abiogenesis is obvious. What's even more obvious, despite your faux pas to the contrary, is that it is the only scientific answer...add that to the fact that science has pushed back the need for any creator or IDer to near oblivion, and most school children would be able to reason that squeezing that old magical spaghetti monster in at that last .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds, is as highly unlikely and inane as it is with references to your book of myths.
For the same reasons that he believes carrying guns is admirable...for the same reasons that he denies that science/cosmology has made his spaghetti monster superfluous at best and a total myth at worst....for the same reasons he needs to impress his overlords.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate 22 answers for creationists from someone who understands evolution At the recent Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate, Buzzfeed asked creationists in attendance to write a question or message for ‘the other side’. Here are some answers What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again. A disappointing public debate between popular US science telly presenter Bill Nye, and creationist zealot Ken Ham took place this week about whether creationism was a valid scientific position. Howls of anguish, cheers of victory and stifled yawns from supporters of both sides echoed round the internet. Hope for enlightenment was dashed though, as Ham trotted out the same old zombie canards, and Nye did his futile best to best them. Alas there is nothing new under the sun. And nothing was gained from this exercise in vanity except for giving the cretinism of creationism a big stage. One commentator noted that Bill Nye lost the debate by agreeing to do it. If you wrestle with a pig, the pig likes it, and you get dirty. Or, as Richard Dawkins has said when asked to share a stage with various creationist brainwrongs, it looks better on your CV than mine. Or "never argue with an idiot: the best possible outcome is that you win an argument with an idiot." In the dull afterglow of this less-than edifying evolutionary showdown, there’s been lots of grumbly analysis. But Matt Stopera at Buzzfeed won by asking 22 creationists to grin like monkeys and pose what they presumably thought was a zinger of a challenge to science. They’re amusing, baffling and pitiable in equal measure, and here are my answers. Q+A at link...................
Using a logical fallacy in an arguement can often be very useful as your opponent will respond claiming that you have used a logical fallacy and in doing so thinks the audience awards him victory whereas often your audience wont have a clue what a logical fallacy is at all and think your opponent has not answered you. You have LG claim straw men all the time as if thats the end of it when one could take it much further but often folk claiming logical fallacy stop there and fail to drive home a point because they think using magic words win the day. And I agree to some degree about your observation re appeal to authority, and you can see how LG's rush to use magic words caused him to use them inappropriately...which is also a good ploy ..simply claim they don't understand or have used inappropriately...and if you get pulled up plead ignorance so your opponent appears like a know it all...anyways old mate is the loser I expect as reading the material on abiogenesis is most interesting...the thing to note also is how the scientists are ready to say this or that won't work whereas you just know if creationists were addressing a similar issue they would just take a leap of faith. The scientists are their greatest critics. I think many folk underestimate just the Urey Miller experiment for a start...it is easy to dismiss if you want to dismiss it but when you stop and think just how curious a result we get when all sorts of other things could occur...but that's it folk who are ready to dismiss don't think..no "that's interesting" moment ...followers, sheep ... and ignorant of what brain washing has done to them. Really one could not go through all the material and casually dismiss it or shut off Harvard as meaningless if you were not just a sheep...or maybe a laughing gorilla. Probably one of those types with a few certificates but useless on the job ...you know the type...brilliant but dumb as a post. I bet you have seen a few bosses straight from uni who know everything but can't do anything. I can't think of a story maybe you can. Alex
Of course I get it now...he knows better than us...all to do with the link upstairs...it's a personal experience that has them believing you know.. You know we need to rev up the science sections ...look what is happening... each of us is wasting time on these folk who are clearly here to waste our time..they are winning ..I find now instead of following links on science I find, usually ones that you provide and again I thank you, I am engaging in small chat about others fantasy or pointing out their delusion. Now sure I enjoy the interaction but at what cost..and sure I need to rest a lot...so I am going to get back to just following the science or the astronomy as really these characters obsessed with philosophy are just a waste of time. Mind you the problem is there is little opportunity to discuss science..first of all I am not a scientist and second a scientific paper is rather tight and presents little opportunity to discuss but merely say ..well done , interesting... For me I will try and put up more astronomy stuff ... when I return that is..got some tests..I may not return. Anyways LG is not able to take you on and if you are on ignore that is about as good a compliment as you .ca get...means they have given up trying to get on top...have a great day. Alex
Every time I ask you to support your claim that there's actual evidence for abiogenesis, all you can say is "Harvard". That's literally an argument from authority, as you are obviously incapable of even a rudimentary description of what you're trumpeting. I have plenty of respect for Harvard, when it presents actual evidence instead of mere speculation. Scientists are not immune to motivated reasoning. Yeah, if you intend to act like him, I'm sure you can't see it. Like you rejecting God, I don't need to justify it beyond the lack of supporting evidence and the history of trying to no avail. Of speculation? Sure. Unlike you, I don't have an ideological investment in abiogenesis that provokes motivated reasoning. Then there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis. Speculation is speculation, from any source. The sheen of authority doesn't make it any more factual. I never said abiogenesis can't work. It might. But like ghosts and aliens, I'll believe it when I see it. Really? Where's the demonstration of a living organism from the inanimate? Please, do tell.
"This meme is largely accurate. Nye did study mechanical engineering at Cornell University, from which he graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree. And Lundgren, who may be best known as an action movie star, has an impressive educational background. The credentials listed in this meme, however, are slightly inaccurate. According to a biography on the actor’s old web site, Lundgren did receive a Master’s Degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Sydney and was the recipient of a Fulbright Scholarship at MIT:" Comparing Nye and Lundgren is also problematic. The meme appears to insinuate that Nye is not qualified to host a television show since his educational background does not match or exceed Dolph Lundgren’s. Yet, as far as we know, there is no “Lundgren Standard” for science television show hosts. This argument only makes sense if Lundgren, the more educated of the two, had criticized Nye or publicly disagreed with something Nye had said, yet we found no record of Lundgren’s expressing such a viewpoint. Above from your link.... And of course I bet my balls that Lundgran, is of the same opinion about the mythical nonsense that some fanatical creationists are pushing here, as our educator Bill Nye is. Nice try dmoe...NOT!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You're so easy dmoe! Wanna try the difference between being dumb and being mute?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That is perhaps your fastest moving of the goalposts ever! Ape: There's no evidence! You have to have evidence. Good science requires evidence, not just speculation! Me: List of evidence from 8 researchers Ape: Who cares about evidence? You need actual demonstration!
