Post by defaultPost by Andrew<>
Post by defaultPost by AndrewScience says that life come only from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.
As usual, Loonie Andrew lies through his teeth,
Post by defaultPost by AndrewPost by defaultThat statement is wrong.
No, it is a law of science.
It's a deliberate lie.
Post by defaultAnd where did you derive this "law of science?"
Post by AndrewCan you cite a single instance otherwise? No.
Loonie, lying Andrew has been given examples from abiogenesis
research.
Post by defaultIt is likely that all life came from non-living matter.
Which has been demonstrated in the lab.
Post by defaultPost by AndrewPost by defaultIn the Middle ages it was an explanation for
how corpses developed maggots, seemingly with no cause.
Have you ever considered that this is going to happen to you?
He's psychopathic.
Post by defaultI don't dwell on it. What happens to me is only my concern while I am
alive, after I die it is not my problem.
Post by AndrewPost by defaultToday science maintains that it is possible for all life
to have a common beginning from non-living matter.
Although this is not observable, repeatable or testable,
you still call it "science".
Again, loonie, lying Andrew lies through his teeth.
Post by defaultScience does not often provide absolute answers. It is a hypotheses
based on observation. Until or unless better information comes along,
it is the hypotheses for the origin of what we call "life."
Sigh.
Loonie, lying Andrew has been given this many times.
And instead of reading it, he found a creationist lie-site that
purported to debunk it - by cherry-picking one of the experimental
cases which failed and ignoring the successful ones.
The experiment is now routine course work at high school level in
places where they don't have the fundamentalists' ideological
objections to something that won't un-happen.
Post by defaultPost by AndrewThe correct word is --> pseudoscience <--.
As usual, loonie, lying Andrew lies through his teeth,
Post by defaultPseudo science is generally regarded as the ruminations of people with
an agenda of some kind who make claims with no supporting evidence, or
logic, or observation.
Like Andrew and his fellow creationists.
Post by defaultPost by AndrewPost by defaultPost by AndrewThere is no viable "naturalistic only" origin of life scenario,
Lying loonie Andrew keeps repeating this deliberate falsehood.
The proven serial liar has been given it over and over again, from
abiogenesis research.
Post by defaultPost by AndrewPlease cite such where fantasy is not required to make the
case. You cannot because your myth is wholly dependent
upon fantasy.
Lying loonie Andrew can't stop lying.
Post by defaultGod is a myth. Science plods along adding information that increases
knowledge and gives a better understanding of nature.
The religious fanatics reject it because it doesn't lead to their
imaginary magical superbeing.
Post by defaultReligion just attributes that which is (currently) unknown to gods.
Can't explain something - just say god done it. But that isn't
science or rational or logical.
What is truly pathetic is that he has been harassing and haranguing
atheists about something that is nothing whatsoever to do with
atheism.