You are lucky I am still here..it's Saturday I thought it was Friday...the curse of a lazy life style. OK it's an arguement from authority and yet you have not won in so far as it is your loss missing the wonderful three part presentation by a Professor of Harvard specialising in the subject and actually learn about what you so stupidly dismiss...calling for me to chew it up for you is laziness on your part which certainly needs no enablement from me but I really don't care you see. If you wish to have your views and indeed intellect imprisoned by a god inventedvthousands of years ago I say that is a greater problem than me resorting to referring you to a higher authority to avoid any confusion that I could inject...you believe in God and no doubt that it is only his magical wishing life into existence that can explain life appearing and of course that is a straw man constructed to bring together the vague references you make on the matter, a choice that I would prefer not make but I see no option and perhaps provide you with an opportunity to reject what I say and actually tell everyone what you offer in place of the science you dismiss without examination. We are all different, we all use different social styles and I can see where Paddo could come over as too powerful to engage but he is honest helpful and does not bullshit...don't any of those qualities appeal to you? I can see where you are coming from but the difference between us is greater than you imagine..you see I read the Bible cover to cover ( and sections many times) I studied the history of the evolution humans and indeed the evolution of religion and the numerous inventions of gods, the link to the stars, the Moon and the Sun humans made in their god inventions and strangely even studied philosophy...I play all this down..but my point simply is it appears you know nothing of what you dismiss and your conclusion seems to be the first part of your story rather than as in my case an assessment made after educating myself in as many areas as possible such that I can make a reasonably informed comment. OK. Where did you say that? Your bible??? Anyways I don't care if you have certain problems sorry to say...hope post is good battery near flat must go and post what's here good or bad. Have a nice 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, [/QUOTE] Yes a legitimate argument from authority that shows your stance as mythical nonsense. Sorry old fella, but you lack the authority and the reputability, and the sensibility, to comment on what is or what isn't evidence, or any scientific fact for that matter. You're confused. We have plenty of evidence for Abiogenesis. There is no evidence for any spaghetti monster, or even any need for that matter, not to mention it is a unscientific, in fact childish gullible concept. I don't have any ideological investment in Abiogenesis either, nor do I have any other ideological investment in creationism or any other baggage, except of course the scientific method.
All a straw man. I literally asked you for the evidence, but apparently you have to deflect, because we all know you have none for abiogenesis. Just chemistry, no life. And you listed the researchers, not any evidence. You might want to actually start there.
If it offered actual evidence of abiogenesis, it would be world-wide news. If it just bolsters your hopeful beliefs in waiting for it, you're wasting my time. I get that you find it compelling. And? You're just a run-of-the-mill hypocrite. In the same paragraph you both whine about me not offering an alternative, which you've clearly rejected out of hand, and refuse to detail, in the least little way, your own. Quit projecting your own laziness. If you had a point, you're either a troll or you'd be making it. Aw, now you've just gotten boring. Ta ta.
"uhummmm.....well, according to : https://www.simplypsychology.org/psychodynamic.html "And that's how we see it in my tribe.....ID is our "unconscious"......uhuuuu....."......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We have plenty of evidence pointing to the fact of Abiogenesis. As yet we lack the exact methodology or pathway. That's about a 100% on any belief in unsupported myth of some divine magical spaghetti monster. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your pulpit needs repainting! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How about a video demonstrating the cross-over from purely chemical response to dynamic hunting for survival purposes. 5. Microtubules in E nucleofilum An organism existing from a set of chemicals arranged in certain patterns (microtubials), and expressing a beneficial evolutionary survival technique by motility, ability to move and catch energy sources.
Clearly, plainly and only stated in the meme is : "That moment you find out that Dolph Lumdgren is exponentially more qualified to be called a scientist than Bill Nye is." - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-nye-vs-dolph-lundgren/ Nowhere in the meme is anything stated, implied or insinuated about anyone being qualified to host a television show. Clearly, plainly and only stated : "...exponentially more qualified to be called a scientist ".
And Ta ta from me. I just can't waste my time like I have been doing here, I am better reading manuals on photo processing, mount control start learning how to move up the astrophotograghy ladder, learn more about optics if that if possible and although it has been fun helping you grow I have choosen to do other things when I am resting between projects, jobs etc. Thank you for the chats. Alex
Clearly, plainly from your own link it says...... 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. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Quite a factual description of text that makes little or no sense and that invalidates totally what ever it is you are trying to say dmoe. Better luck next time.
In kindergarten and for a few years in Elementary School I was teased, tormented and ridiculed simply because of my Congenital Birth Defect. Fifty some odd years later a supposed adult repeatedly does exactly the same thing... just to prove what, paddoboy?
You are right Alex...in wasting time on fanatics. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6327/807 New AAAS president emphasizes making the case for science: Susan Hockfield is well known for her role in launching the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the MIT Energy Initiative, while she served as the research university's first female and first biologist president. Calling together experts from a diverse range of extremely specialized fields, as well as orchestrating fundraising efforts that brought in hundreds of millions of dollars, Hockfield clearly demonstrated her mastery as a leader. In an interview that took place this month, just before she was to begin her yearlong term as AAAS president, she explained her approach to leadership more simply and concretely. extract: “We must vociferously and perpetually encourage those who have a passion for understanding the science of our universe and for inventing new solutions to tough challenges. Our world needs them!” said Hockfield, adding that supporting women and underrepresented minorities in science is crucial, because studies have demonstrated the importance of different perspectives in finding solutions to problems. “Leaders at every level, from grade school teachers and principals, to heads of national and international organizations and governments, must convey respect, support, and enthusiasm for all who venture into STEM.”
It is really cute, paddoboy, that you freely admit that you have no idea about "what ever it is" that I am "trying to say", yet you think that something "invalidates totally what ever it is".
I don't tease or bully anyone. I'm picking you up on your story in the past of claiming to be dumb, when you were actually claiming to be mute. Facts are that [1]Being born mute, is most unlikely...[2] Being born deaf is reasonably common.... [3] People born deaf, being unable to hear, can have difficulty to learn to talk... [4] Calling a mute person dumb, is the height of ignorance, cruelty, political incorrectness and detestable. In essence dmoe, I did not believe your past story to gain sympathy. Yes, I have some personal experience with deaf and mute people. My Father's Sister's Daughter [ my cousin]was born deaf, and I can and still do know the sign language used at least in this country. She was about 10 years older then I and married another person who was also deaf and mute. I dearly loved them both...great people!!!
Not many people do have any idea of what you say, other then your general whinging and trolling, which may explain why you are unpopular?
Um, so you show me an existing organism, as evidence for life from the inanimate? You do realize that those are multinucleated eukaryotic cells, right? And that these organisms produce the axopodia (micortubules), right? You're starting with a living organism and then, what, just claiming it's only a "set of chemicals"? Doesn't fly as science.
