That's just the symptom of a narcissistic personality
disorder... assuming you're not a full blown sociopath or
psychopath.
On 6/29/2025 11:47 PM, JTEM wrote:
#3. The theists had evidence. Plenty of it. Maybe some
did not find it compelling but even evidence that isn't
compelling is still evidence. Let's start with medical
miracles! And then there's the fact that science itself
regularly invokes God for an explanation. Of course
they have to change the name to avoid triggering the
stupid people so instead of "God" they say "Observer"
in the Copenhagen interpretation. They say the
"Programmer" in the simulated Universe or even the
"Brain universe."
Please cite the evidence against the existence of the FSM, IPUs,
etc.; name a single miracle; name a single scientific paper in
the last 40 years that appeals to "God" as being an explanation
for anything. (The Copenhagen Interpretation is not the only
interpretation of QM.)
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:32:00 -0500, Dawn Flood
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/29/2025 11:47 PM, JTEM wrote:
#3.� The theists had evidence. Plenty of it. Maybe some
did not find it compelling but even evidence that isn't
compelling is still evidence. Let's start with medical
miracles! And then there's the fact that science itself
regularly invokes God for an explanation. Of course
they have to change the name to avoid triggering the
stupid people so instead of "God" they say "Observer"
in the Copenhagen interpretation. They say the
"Programmer" in the simulated Universe or even the
"Brain universe."
Please cite the evidence against the existence of the FSM, IPUs, etc.;
name a single miracle; name a single scientific paper in the last 40
years that appeals to "God" as being an explanation for anything. (The >>Copenhagen Interpretation is not the only interpretation of QM.)
"The observer" in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
is not God. Otherwise, God would go around collapsing wave functions
as he observed them, before humans got a chance to add their
observations in.
Preventing decoherence (roughly the same thing as wave function
collapse) by humans is one of the most important goals in the search
for technologically viable quantum computers. It has nothing to do
with God.
Okay so back when usenet was still a thing, back before
it was abandoned by all excepting for a nym shifting
troll working out it's self inflicted trauma, there used
to be real debated on "God" and "Proof."
They sucked, none of them ever rose above the recital of
something they once read followed by childish taunts, but
there were debates. Between people. And one of the dumbest
was when so called "Atheists" demanded evidence for the
existence of God.
This was dumb for two reasons, btw, and by that I mean
three reasons.
#1. When they said "Evidence" they meant "Proof." Seems
few if any people in all the history of usenet were even
aware that there is a difference.
They always just assumed that one was an alternative
spelling for the other...
#2. The fakers, the so called "Atheists" couldn't meet
their own standards that they tried to impose on theists.
The fake "Atheists," for example, disallowed self reports,
personal testimony. This wasn't actual "Evidence" they
claimed. But, without it they had ZERO evidence for even
the existence of atheists!
There's no "Atheist" label inside of bones, no marker in
human DNA. The only "Evidence" for the existence of
atheists is the fact that some people say that they're an
atheist, and the online whack jobs had already disallowed
such self reports.
So, know what they did? The fake atheists, when this
contradiction was pointed out; do you know what they did?
Nothing. Well, the doubled down on their stupidity and
insisted that it was "Different" when they did it...
#3. The theists had evidence. Plenty of it. Maybe some
did not find it compelling but even evidence that isn't
compelling is still evidence. Let's start with medical
miracles! And then there's the fact that science itself
regularly invokes God for an explanation. Of course
they have to change the name to avoid triggering the
stupid people so instead of "God" they say "Observer"
in the Copenhagen interpretation. They say the
"Programmer" in the simulated Universe or even the
"Brain universe."
Again: Evidence is not an alternative spelling of "Proof."
Now the point here isn't that you can't ask for "Evidence."
No. The point to all this is that the focus needs to be on
ourselves, not some other person.
Fake atheists can't see themselves and won't even try. This
is how their hypocrisy is invisible to them. THEY can
dismiss self reports of evidence even as they insist upon
them for themselves, because... well... it's because they
can't see themselves. They are blind to their own faith,
their own prejudices.
This applies to the topic of religion and God, yes, but
also aliens and even ghosts and other paranormal
phenomena...
Look. A narcissist attempts to obstruct conversation. They
want to interfere with it, stop it. They demand "Evidence"
knowing full well that they're never going to believe
anything. So...
If you care, if you actually want someone to change your
mind, even if you know that they can't, don't ask for
"Cites" or "Evidence."
That's just the symptom of a narcissistic personality
disorder... assuming you're not a full blown sociopath or
psychopath.
Instead, try to be aware of yourself: What would convince
you?
And I'm speaking at a minimum, not an extreme.
Honestly, and this is true here, if the only thing capable
of convincing you that there's life on other worlds is if
one lands their saucer in front of you, takes you for a
ride, let's you beam your high school bully into a wall
before probing your anus & tagging you with one of their
implants, you're the problem. You're wasting everyone's
time.
Science doesn't work that way. Nothing could get done
if all our researchers were time-wasting narcissists like
you are.
Deconstruct the problem. make the proverbial "Sound
Scientific Inference," and present it to others, preferably
people who are not demented, to see if they can find
errors in your inferences. This gives you the basis for
predictions and it's those predictions, if tested properly.
which will provide you with the evidence for or against.
Change you.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 17:44:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 15:52:45 -0700, the following appearedYou mean Dawn? She's usually well-behaved. Or were you referring to
in sci.skeptic, posted by Vincent Maycock
<[email protected]>:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:32:00 -0500, Dawn Flood >>><[email protected]> wrote:You realize that you are holding this "discussion" with
On 6/29/2025 11:47 PM, JTEM wrote:
#3.� The theists had evidence. Plenty of it. Maybe some
did not find it compelling but even evidence that isn't
compelling is still evidence. Let's start with medical
miracles! And then there's the fact that science itself
regularly invokes God for an explanation. Of course
they have to change the name to avoid triggering the
stupid people so instead of "God" they say "Observer"
in the Copenhagen interpretation. They say the
"Programmer" in the simulated Universe or even the
"Brain universe."
Please cite the evidence against the existence of the FSM, IPUs, etc.; >>>>name a single miracle; name a single scientific paper in the last 40 >>>>years that appeals to "God" as being an explanation for anything. (The >>>>Copenhagen Interpretation is not the only interpretation of QM.)
"The observer" in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
is not God. Otherwise, God would go around collapsing wave functions
as he observed them, before humans got a chance to add their
observations in.
Preventing decoherence (roughly the same thing as wave function
collapse) by humans is one of the most important goals in the search
for technologically viable quantum computers. It has nothing to do
with God.
someone who considers that "cite the evidence against [X]",
where X has not been observed (and, at least in the case of
the FSM, is basically a parody), is a valid request, right?
the unfortunate post she was replying to?
name a single miracle; name a single scientific paper in the last 40
years that appeals to "God" as being an explanation for anything.
On 7/1/25 10:14 AM, Attila wrote:
Self-serving delusional crap.
Yes! That's exactly what I'm talking about! Fake
atheists, fake "Skeptics" blindly shouting for "Cites"
or "Evidence" when they have absolutely no clue even
what evidence is, or what they want a cite to establish.
They're delusional, and their childish demands serve
only to validate their bed wetting.
If self reports, personal testimony is not "Evidence"
then there is ZERO evidence for the existence of atheists.
And the fakers know this and just get mad at you for
pointing it out...
Andrew wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
name a single miracle; name a single scientific paper in the last 40
years that appeals to "God" as being an explanation for anything.
DNA
DNA is a molecule that contains the specific instructions for the
synthesis of ~~~ every living thing~~~ The prime origin of these
instructions that are in digital code format could of necessity -only-
be from a source of Intelligence.
Our most awesome Creator.....
GOD
Okay, you didn't answer my question, and that is fine.
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10439nu$3h2p3$[email protected]...
Andrew wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
name a single miracle; name a single scientific paper in the last 40
years that appeals to "God" as being an explanation for anything.
DNA
DNA is a molecule that contains the specific instructions for the
synthesis of ~~~ every living thing~~~ The prime origin of these
instructions that are in digital code format could of necessity -only-
be from a source of Intelligence.
Our most awesome Creator.....
GOD
Okay, you didn't answer my question, and that is fine.
There has been abundant scientific evidence in the
last 40 years, as well an since the very beginning of
time telling us that there has been a super Intelligence
involved in our existence.
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that
a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as
with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind
forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one
calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as
to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
~ Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 07:49:54 -0500, Dawn Flood
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/1/2025 10:44 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 22:25:34 -0400, JTEM <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/30/25 6:52 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
"The observer" in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics >>>>> is not God. Otherwise, God would go around collapsing wave functions >>>>> as he observed them, before humans got a chance to add their
observations in.
That's the point, MyCock. Without God, there is no "Observer" to
collapse ANYTHING until humans or similarly conscious beings are
around to make the observations.
This is obvious, so you win no points for ignoring it.
Actually, Personne Ne t'aime, a camera can collapse a wave function.
No consciousness is required. Even a magnetic field interacting with
the spins of particles could do it.
And I thought that God limited himself/herself/itself to the "fall of
every sparrow" and similar such things,
"His eye is on the sparrow, so I know he watches me," as the song
goes.
but to think how busy God must
be deciding the spin of every elementary particle in the Universe!
He's got skillz!
On 7/1/25 10:14 AM, Attila wrote:
Self-serving delusional crap.
Yes! That's exactly what I'm talking about! Fake
atheists, fake "Skeptics" blindly shouting for "Cites"
or "Evidence" when they have absolutely no clue even
what evidence is, or what they want a cite to establish.
They're delusional, and their childish demands serve
only to validate their bed wetting.
If self reports, personal testimony is not "Evidence"
then there is ZERO evidence for the existence of atheists.
And the fakers know this and just get mad at you for
pointing it out...
"Dawn Flood" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
name a single miracle; name a single scientific paper in the last 40 >>>>> years that appeals to "God" as being an explanation for anything.
DNA
DNA is a molecule that contains the specific instructions for the
synthesis of ~~~ every living thing~~~ The prime origin of these
instructions that are in digital code format could of necessity -only- >>>> be from a source of Intelligence.
Our most awesome Creator.....
GOD
Okay, you didn't answer my question, and that is fine.
There has been abundant scientific evidence in the
last 40 years, as well an since the very beginning of
time telling us that there has been a super Intelligence
involved in our existence.
Such as what? Direct evidence, not indirect evidence.
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that
a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as
with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind
forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one
calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as
to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
~ Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist
Opinion without supporting fact.
"Attila" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
name a single miracle; name a single scientific paper in the last 40 >>>>>> years that appeals to "God" as being an explanation for anything.
DNA
DNA is a molecule that contains the specific instructions for the
synthesis of ~~~ every living thing~~~ The prime origin of these
instructions that are in digital code format could of necessity -only- >>>>> be from a source of Intelligence.
Our most awesome Creator.....
GOD
Okay, you didn't answer my question, and that is fine.
There has been abundant scientific evidence in the
last 40 years, as well an since the very beginning of
time telling us that there has been a super Intelligence
involved in our existence.
Such as what? Direct evidence, not indirect evidence.
I just posted direct evidence above..
If you can't see it, that tells us you don't want to see it.
But then that would tell us that you were a fool.
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that
a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as
with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind
forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one
calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as
to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
~ Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist
Opinion without supporting fact.
Rather the conclusion of a scientist after examining the evidence.
"From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly
brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind
of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. I am
quite uncomfortable in this situation, the state of mind I now find
myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. I now find myself
driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we
can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to
invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . We were hoping as
scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there
isn't."
~ Sir Frederick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe,
There are
On 7/2/25 3:23 AM, Attila wrote:
If self reports, personal testimony is not "Evidence"
then there is ZERO evidence for the existence of atheists.
And the fakers know this and just get mad at you for
pointing it out...
Just as there is zero evidence for the existence of any god.
No. You're a dumb troll, with the emphasis on dumb.
...probably crippled by many mental disorders as well.
Theist have evidence.
Besides their personal experiences,
their personal testimony, the only "Evidence" that so called
atheists have for their existence, they have miracles and
medical miracles in particular. Plus science invokes God all
the time: The "Observer" in the Copenhagen Interpretation,
or "The programmer" in the Simulated Universe hypothesis...
Yes, the people of science do have to call God by another
name, to avoid triggering the animals, but it is always God
just be another name...
On 7/3/25 5:26 AM, Attila wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 17:20:31 -0400, JTEM <[email protected]>
Theist have evidence.
There "evidence" requires them to be a believer before they
accept it as evidence.
No. You suffer from a stunning array of mental disorders, most
of which prevent you from ever grasping WHAT the word "Evidence"
even means.
This is how and why you simultaneously accept and deny personal
testimony as "Evidence." For your kind it's all about feelings,
your warm & fuzzies... your faith.
Testimony is evidence. It can convict you in a court of law,
"Beyond a reasonable doubt," and what you blithering idiots,
you malformed rejects keep insisting is that you only accept
"Evidence" above and beyond what can convict & execute person,
at least when it's people you don't want to be right. If it's
anyone you agree with, then suddenly personal testimony is
rock solid proof and not just evidence...
He's going to stay in my killfile until he figures
out where he went wrong and changes it.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
He's going to stay in my killfile until he figures
out where he went wrong and changes it.
Your non sequitur exposes you to be a liar.
Because if you KF'd him, you would never
know.
LOL! I can see him when someone quotes him.
JTEM wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
Check & mate!
First off I need to congratulate you on your courage in
rubber stamping a fellow node of the collective. Not just
anyone is brave enough to agree with those you've already
agreed with since before they spoke.
Secondly, as you are oh so "Check & mate," can you just
go ahead and cite some examples of this abiogenesis you
think you seeing being studied?
Yeah, just go ahead and cite this abiogenesis here:
{Crickets chirping}
Oops! We found an error.
Well. ANOTHER error...
And how is it you know how long it takes for abiogenesis to
occur?
No? You're just making shit up?
Exactly.
A whole astonishing Wikipedia article is devoted to this subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
One undeniable fact is that there are credible, distinguished scientists
who are studying this subject. And, here is a book from the National Academies Press, the publishing arm of the United States National
Academy of Sciences on this subject:
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/10753/genesis-the-scientific-quest-for-lifes-origin
And, so, serious science is being done.
On 7/6/25 1:49 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
LOL! I can see
Not with your head wedged up there you can't!
Fake "atheists" like you pretend it's a big deal that theists
can't "Prove" there is a God to your satisfaction, when by
your own standards you don't even have "Evidence" (much less
"Proof") for the existence of ATHEISTS!
Np self reports, no personal testimony, you jackass claim...
You're so certain of your own vulgar stupidity that you need
to rig the debate, AND YOU STILL LOST!
On 7/7/25 3:00 AM, Attila wrote:
I am curious. How does one verify personal testimony?
Oh guess no courts accept testimony. Ever.
My bad.
On 7/7/25 3:27 PM, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 14:21:13 -0400, JTEM <[email protected]>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<104h36p$31pcr$[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/7/25 3:00 AM, Attila wrote:
I am curious. How does one verify personal testimony?
Oh guess no courts accept testimony. Ever.
My bad.
Not an answer. How does one verify personal testimony?
It's a fact.
Even if you can't possibly understand how
people deal with human testimony as evidence, it's dealt
with. Your understanding is not critical here. It's not.
The world turn whether you "Understand" or "Agree" or not.
Testimony is evidence.
Accept it and move on because you
couldn't possibly want to make yourself look this bad.
On 7/7/25 6:16 PM, Attila wrote:
What is a fact?
Lol! Typical narcissist! You need to obstruct, stop any
conversation you can't control.
Relax. If you're a sociopath or psychopath (probably)
you're still a narcissist...
Testimony is evidence. Yes, even if your personality
disorder won't allow you to understand how.
Testimony is evidence.
Accept reality, for a change, and move on.
personal testimony isn't evidence!
On 7/8/25 5:43 AM, Attila wrote:
But how is that evidence verified?
Your understanding is irrelevant. There is no answer that
alters the fact that testimony is evidence.
YOU don't have to know why or how. YOU just have to accept
it as fact, because it is.
You look like an idiot trying to pretend otherwise. And,
yes, sometimes things are exactly as they appear.
On 7/8/25 8:23 AM, Attila wrote:
But what quality of evidence?
"Evidence" is not an alternative spelling for "Proof."
If you need to pretend that evidence is not evidence, the
quality issue is with you.
Fix you. You're what's broken.
On 7/9/25 5:23 AM, Attila wrote:
I never said
You have a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. You don't
really know what you're saying. Your kind can literally
make up anything and convince yourself that it makes you
"Right" or a victim.
You need to STOP pretending to "Argue" here. Testimony
is evidence and just because you're confused doesn't
make it anybody else's problem but your own.
Accept reality. Move on.
On 7/9/25 9:21 AM, Attila wrote:
I do know
No. Know you don't. You can't even accept the fact that testimony
is evidence, or the fact that you tried to dispute this.
You simply re-order reality on the fly, and always to protect
your ego.
Andrew wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
Check & mate!
First off I need to congratulate you on your courage in
rubber stamping a fellow node of the collective. Not just
anyone is brave enough to agree with those you've already
agreed with since before they spoke.
Secondly, as you are oh so "Check & mate," can you just
go ahead and cite some examples of this abiogenesis you
think you seeing being studied?
Yeah, just go ahead and cite this abiogenesis here:
{Crickets chirping}
Oops! We found an error.
Well. ANOTHER error...
And how is it you know how long it takes for abiogenesis to
occur?
No? You're just making shit up?
Exactly.
A whole astonishing Wikipedia article is devoted to this subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
One undeniable fact is that there are credible, distinguished
scientists who are studying this subject. And, here is a book from
the National Academies Press, the publishing arm of the United States
National Academy of Sciences on this subject:
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/10753/genesis-the-
scientific-quest-for-lifes-origin
And, so, serious science is being done.
Serious science has already seriously studied this issue.
So if YOU are at all -serious-, then you will seriously
take heed to what SCIENCE has seriously concluded on this very issue.
Hard science is settled by repeated testing, experiment
and observation.Spontaneous generation used to be a mainstream
scientific teaching for a long time until it
was proven wrong by the hard science experiments of
Louis Pasteur and Francesco Redi.
We now know for SURE that biologic life comes only
from previously existing biologic life. There is no more debate, Except
today there are fools who like to argue a
gainst what science has already determined.
Folks, if you want the truth, go with the science and
avoid the fools..
This is now a law of science.
~~The "Law of Biogenesis"~~
Life comes only from previously existing life, and that of its own kind.
It is a law of science.
Then you should complain! Write to your congressperson, the NIH, the
NAS, the NSF, and even, the Trump administration, and tell them to STOP
using YOUR tax dollars to FUND this research!!
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:<snip>
Andrew wrote:
Hard science is settled by repeated testing, experiment
and observation.Spontaneous generation used to be a mainstream
scientific teaching for a long time until it
was proven wrong by the hard science experiments of
Louis Pasteur and Francesco Redi.
We now know for SURE that biologic life comes only
from previously existing biologic life. There is no more debate, Except >>>> today there are fools who like to argue a
gainst what science has already determined.
Folks, if you want the truth, go with the science and
avoid the fools..
This is now a law of science.
~~The "Law of Biogenesis"~~
Life comes only from previously existing life, and that of its own kind. >>>> It is a law of science.
Then you should complain! Write to your congressperson, the NIH, the
NAS, the NSF, and even, the Trump administration, and tell them to STOP
using YOUR tax dollars to FUND this research!!
What this research has basically consisted of has been
a number of scenarios on how life could have started.
All of which were built upon a foundation of fantasy.
Nothing to do with real world *science*.
So why don't you contact any of the organizations she mentioned?
*They* obviously think it's real world *science*.
*ALREADY* << established to be true!!
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:<snip>
Andrew wrote:
Hard science is settled by repeated testing, experiment
and observation.Spontaneous generation used to be a mainstream
scientific teaching for a long time until it
was proven wrong by the hard science experiments of
Louis Pasteur and Francesco Redi.
We now know for SURE that biologic life comes only
from previously existing biologic life. There is no more debate, Except >>>>>> today there are fools who like to argue a
gainst what science has already determined.
Folks, if you want the truth, go with the science and
avoid the fools..
This is now a law of science.
~~The "Law of Biogenesis"~~
Life comes only from previously existing life, and that of its own kind. >>>>>> It is a law of science.
Then you should complain! Write to your congressperson, the NIH, the >>>>> NAS, the NSF, and even, the Trump administration, and tell them to STOP >>>>> using YOUR tax dollars to FUND this research!!
What this research has basically consisted of has been
a number of scenarios on how life could have started.
All of which were built upon a foundation of fantasy.
Nothing to do with real world *science*.
So why don't you contact any of the organizations she mentioned?
*They* obviously think it's real world *science*.
If that were true,
It is. For example, from
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8867283/
"RNA, proteins and the genetic code that binds them each look like
products of natural selection. This raises the question of what
step(s) preceded these particular components? Answers here will
clarify whether any discrete point in time or biochemical evolution
will objectively merit the label of life's origin, or whether life
unfolds seamlessly from the non-living universe."
it would identify them to be fools
for ignoring what empirical, real world science has
*ALREADY* << established to be true!!
Science has shown that mice don't spontaneously emerge
from bales of hay.
It has not shown that much simpler forms of life couldn't evolve
from non-living precursors
by chemical and replicational evolution in the early earth.
Therefore any attempt to reason with them would
be futile. As the wise man told us many ages ago.
So what is it that you're doing here on Usenet?
"Do not try to reason with a foolish person.
He will only ignore the wisdom you try to
bring to him."
~ Proverbs 23:9
Apparently atheists on the Internet (those you prefer to harass)
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:<snip>
Andrew wrote:
Hard science is settled by repeated testing, experiment
and observation.Spontaneous generation used to be a mainstream >>>>>>>> scientific teaching for a long time until it
was proven wrong by the hard science experiments of
Louis Pasteur and Francesco Redi.
We now know for SURE that biologic life comes only
from previously existing biologic life. There is no more debate, Except
today there are fools who like to argue a
gainst what science has already determined.
Folks, if you want the truth, go with the science and
avoid the fools..
This is now a law of science.
~~The "Law of Biogenesis"~~
Life comes only from previously existing life, and that of its own kind.
It is a law of science.
Then you should complain! Write to your congressperson, the NIH, the >>>>>>> NAS, the NSF, and even, the Trump administration, and tell them to STOP >>>>>>> using YOUR tax dollars to FUND this research!!
What this research has basically consisted of has been
a number of scenarios on how life could have started.
All of which were built upon a foundation of fantasy.
Nothing to do with real world *science*.
So why don't you contact any of the organizations she mentioned?
*They* obviously think it's real world *science*.
If that were true,
It is. For example, from
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8867283/
"RNA, proteins and the genetic code that binds them each look like
products of natural selection. This raises the question of what
step(s) preceded these particular components? Answers here will
clarify whether any discrete point in time or biochemical evolution
will objectively merit the label of life's origin, or whether life
unfolds seamlessly from the non-living universe."
You cite a "fantasized scenario" on how life could have started.
But there is a difference between a fantasized scenario and real
world *science*.
No,
fantasy is not "looks like the products of natural selection."
Going by what something looks like is, "to first order" what you
should accept as a starting point in one's intellectual endeavors.
And if you knew more about the science of the subject involved,
you would not have so easily been deceived. But I suspect you
are strongly influenced by 'philosophical prejudice' that skews
your perception.
Why would such a "philosophical prejudice" develop, in your view?
it would identify them to be fools
for ignoring what empirical, real world science has
*ALREADY* << established to be true!!
Science has shown that mice don't spontaneously emerge
from bales of hay.
We now know that biologic life comes -->only<-- from previously
existing biologic life. There is no more debate; except today there
are some fools who like to argue against what science has already >>determined.
I take it that to make your rule of thumb work you have to assume
that your god is alive.
So if he is, tell us whether or not this matches
up to what you claim to know about him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life, also known as biota, refers to matter that has biological
processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes. It is
defined descriptively by the capacity for homeostasis, organisation, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:<snip>
Andrew wrote:
Hard science is settled by repeated testing, experiment
and observation.Spontaneous generation used to be a mainstream >>>>>>>>>> scientific teaching for a long time until it
was proven wrong by the hard science experiments of
Louis Pasteur and Francesco Redi.
We now know for SURE that biologic life comes only
from previously existing biologic life. There is no more debate, Except
today there are fools who like to argue a
gainst what science has already determined.
Folks, if you want the truth, go with the science and
avoid the fools..
This is now a law of science.
~~The "Law of Biogenesis"~~
Life comes only from previously existing life, and that of its own kind.
It is a law of science.
Then you should complain! Write to your congressperson, the NIH, the >>>>>>>>> NAS, the NSF, and even, the Trump administration, and tell them to STOP
using YOUR tax dollars to FUND this research!!
What this research has basically consisted of has been
a number of scenarios on how life could have started.
All of which were built upon a foundation of fantasy.
Nothing to do with real world *science*.
So why don't you contact any of the organizations she mentioned? >>>>>>> *They* obviously think it's real world *science*.
If that were true,
It is. For example, from
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8867283/
"RNA, proteins and the genetic code that binds them each look like
products of natural selection. This raises the question of what
step(s) preceded these particular components? Answers here will
clarify whether any discrete point in time or biochemical evolution
will objectively merit the label of life's origin, or whether life
unfolds seamlessly from the non-living universe."
You cite a "fantasized scenario" on how life could have started.
But there is a difference between a fantasized scenario and real
world *science*.
No,
The link you posted was a "fantasized scenario". Anyone may see that.
No, like I said (and you snipped), saying "My imaginary friend Jesus
did it"
is the *real* fantasy, not what the hard-working
progress-making scientists doing ongoing abiogenesis research are
telling us.
fantasy is not "looks like the products of natural selection."
Going by what something looks like is, "to first order" what you
should accept as a starting point in one's intellectual endeavors.
If one wants the truth, they would not resort to fantasy. Especially
when *science* has -already- spoken. If they do, then they are not >>interested in the truth.
Invoking miracles to explain the origin of life is not scientific.
And if you knew more about the science of the subject involved,
you would not have so easily been deceived. But I suspect you
are strongly influenced by 'philosophical prejudice' that skews
your perception.
Why would such a "philosophical prejudice" develop, in your view?
Because some place a greater value on their biases than on the truth.
Where would that bias come from in the first place?
it would identify them to be fools
for ignoring what empirical, real world science has
*ALREADY* << established to be true!!
Science has shown that mice don't spontaneously emerge
from bales of hay.
We now know that biologic life comes -->only<-- from previously >>>>existing biologic life. There is no more debate; except today there
are some fools who like to argue against what science has already >>>>determined.
I take it that to make your rule of thumb work you have to assume
that your god is alive.
That was not the issue in this thread, but it hints as to the origin of >>your biases.
It's simple logic, Andrew. If life *only* comes from life,
(and life according to you) came from God, then God must be life. See it now?
So if he is, tell us whether or not this matches
up to what you claim to know about him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life, also known as biota, refers to matter that has biological
processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes. It is
defined descriptively by the capacity for homeostasis, organisation,
metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.
ALL the above must be present for life to be. So where did
it originate?
You're assuming half-alive creatures can't exist. But those kind of replicators almost certainly existed.
When considering that question, this is the key
point to remember.
"The key point to remember in abiogenesis research is:
There is no way in hell that proteins could have formed
by non-biological chemical processes...in terms of their
process of origin, they are churned out only by machines
in living cells that use the genetic code as part of their
production apparatus."
~Vincent Maycock
Sure, I'm an RNA-first kind of guy.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:<snip>
Andrew wrote:
Hard science is settled by repeated testing, experiment >>>>>>>>>>>> and observation.Spontaneous generation used to be a mainstream >>>>>>>>>>>> scientific teaching for a long time until it
was proven wrong by the hard science experiments of
Louis Pasteur and Francesco Redi.
We now know for SURE that biologic life comes only
from previously existing biologic life. There is no more debate, Except
today there are fools who like to argue a
gainst what science has already determined.
Folks, if you want the truth, go with the science and
avoid the fools..
This is now a law of science.
~~The "Law of Biogenesis"~~
Life comes only from previously existing life, and that of its own kind.
It is a law of science.
Then you should complain! Write to your congressperson, the NIH, the
NAS, the NSF, and even, the Trump administration, and tell them to STOP
using YOUR tax dollars to FUND this research!!
What this research has basically consisted of has been
a number of scenarios on how life could have started.
All of which were built upon a foundation of fantasy.
Nothing to do with real world *science*.
So why don't you contact any of the organizations she mentioned? >>>>>>>>> *They* obviously think it's real world *science*.
If that were true,
It is. For example, from
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8867283/
"RNA, proteins and the genetic code that binds them each look like >>>>>>> products of natural selection. This raises the question of what
step(s) preceded these particular components? Answers here will
clarify whether any discrete point in time or biochemical evolution >>>>>>> will objectively merit the label of life's origin, or whether life >>>>>>> unfolds seamlessly from the non-living universe."
You cite a "fantasized scenario" on how life could have started. >>>>>>But there is a difference between a fantasized scenario and real >>>>>>world *science*.
No,
The link you posted was a "fantasized scenario". Anyone may see that.
No, like I said (and you snipped), saying "My imaginary friend Jesus
did it"
The fact that you think you must lie to support your position,
is evidence that your position is false; and that you are trying
to fight against the truth..
is the *real* fantasy, not what the hard-working
progress-making scientists doing ongoing abiogenesis research are
telling us.
Tell us anything they are doing that is not based upon fantasy.
You can't.
Au contraire.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
we have
"In line with the RNA world hypothesis, much of modern biology's
templated protein biosynthesis is done by RNA molecules-namely tRNAs
and the ribosome (consisting of both protein and rRNA components)."
fantasy is not "looks like the products of natural selection."
Going by what something looks like is, "to first order" what you
should accept as a starting point in one's intellectual endeavors.
If one wants the truth, they would not resort to fantasy. Especially >>>>when *science* has -already- spoken. If they do, then they are not >>>>interested in the truth.
Invoking miracles to explain the origin of life is not scientific.
The fact remains that, life comes "only from" preexisting life.
No, it's you, not science, that says that.
And those who "rule out" any option are not interested in truth.
What do you think about this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exchristian/comments/7ymqmr/trying_to_use_a_miracle_as_part_of_mathematical/
And if you knew more about the science of the subject involved,
you would not have so easily been deceived. But I suspect you
are strongly influenced by 'philosophical prejudice' that skews >>>>>>your perception.
Why would such a "philosophical prejudice" develop, in your view?
Because some place a greater value on their biases than on the truth.
Where would that bias come from in the first place?
it would identify them to be fools
for ignoring what empirical, real world science has
*ALREADY* << established to be true!!
Science has shown that mice don't spontaneously emerge
from bales of hay.
We now know that biologic life comes -->only<-- from previously >>>>>>existing biologic life. There is no more debate; except today there >>>>>>are some fools who like to argue against what science has already >>>>>>determined.
I take it that to make your rule of thumb work you have to assume
that your god is alive.
That was not the issue in this thread, but it hints as to the origin of >>>>your biases.
It's simple logic, Andrew. If life *only* comes from life,
That happens to be a "scientific fact" with no exceptions noted ever.
God has not been observed creating life-- no exceptions ever.
(and life according to you) came from God, then God must be life. See it now?
Oh, so that's your problem! That exposes the underling
reason of_why_you are foolishly trying to fight against
the truth.
So God is not alive, then?
So if he is, tell us whether or not this matchesALL the above must be present for life to be. So where did
up to what you claim to know about him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life, also known as biota, refers to matter that has biological
processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes. It is
defined descriptively by the capacity for homeostasis, organisation, >>>>> metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. >>>>
it originate?
You're assuming half-alive creatures can't exist. But those kind of
replicators almost certainly existed.
They did and do exist --> in the fantasy world of fools.
Are viruses part of a fantasy world?
When considering that question, this is the key
point to remember.
"The key point to remember in abiogenesis research is:
There is no way in hell that proteins could have formed
by non-biological chemical processes...in terms of their
process of origin, they are churned out only by machines
in living cells that use the genetic code as part of their
production apparatus."
~Vincent Maycock
Sure, I'm an RNA-first kind of guy.
In the real world, RNA comes only from
DNA, which itself comes only from pre-
existing DNA. You should have known
that!
You mean in the *present world,* not
in the "real world."
A lone RNA molecule would have no
function or purpose apart from the code
that it receives from DNA.
No, its "purpose" would be to replicate.
The RNA world hypothesis is in effect a
*fantasy world* for fools who reject real
world *science*.
Why don't you share with us the "science"
found in saying "God did it"?
Andrew wrote:
This is what they say: __________________________________________
"The transition from non-life to life has never been observed
experimentally, but many proposals have been made."
It's never been observed in nature.
It's never been observed under any conditions,
and all attempts to produce it under laboratory conditions
have failed.
Abiogenesis meets the criteria of religion: If a object of
faith, a faith that is maintained despite all evidence to the
contrary.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:49:36 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,994 |