Discussion:
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
Add Reply
b***@gmail.com
2020-03-23 22:49:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour

When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school biology class
is in shreds on the floor.


<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
John Locke
2020-03-24 15:22:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school biology class
is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
...James Tour debunked:

A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to claim
that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic chemist
thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a bit
strange, don't you think?
Christopher A. Lee
2020-03-24 16:06:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 08:22:33 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school biology class
is in shreds on the floor.
Only in the deluded fantasies of the fig-ignorant morons who never
learned anything about the subject in high school.

Reality isn't up for debate.
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to claim
that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic chemist
thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a bit
strange, don't you think?
If he were able to show evolution was wrong, he'd be publishing it in
peer reviewed journals, and eventually even getting a Nobel Prize.

Instead, he takes it to the ignorant and stupid, and convinces them by
lying about it.

It's a symptom of the times, of a greater problem which led to the
ignorant and unthinking voting for Trump because he's like them, for
other populist leaders (don't listen to the experts of the
intelligent who point out obvious problems, they don't know what
they're talking about; just trust me). voting for Brexit (don't worry,
we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, trust me, it'll be all
right on the night).

And we've got the same stupid, gullible and ignorant in positions of
power from local school boards, trying to teach that basic science is
false, to the Supreme Court and even Presidents - Reagan was a
creationist, ditto Veep Mike Pence and Sarah Palin (almost). George
AWOL Walker Bush advocated teaching creationism as well as evolution.

Is it any wonder that America is a sick country?
Andrew
2020-03-25 09:42:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school biology class
is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to claim
that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic chemist
thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a bit
strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.

You can't,

What is the issue?

Origin of life.

Evidence clearly says that --> there has been an
intelligent causation.

It is irrefutable, except for those who refuse to
acknowledge what real science tells us.
Mitchell Holman
2020-03-25 12:56:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school
biology class is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist
-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.
html Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to
claim that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic
chemist thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a
bit strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
You can't,
What is the issue?
Origin of life.
Evidence clearly says that --> there has been an
intelligent causation.
What evidence is that?
Christopher A. Lee
2020-03-25 13:38:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 07:56:00 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school
biology class is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist
-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.
html Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to
claim that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic
chemist thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a
bit strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
You can't,
What is the issue?
Origin of life.
Evidence clearly says that --> there has been an
intelligent causation.
Why does the deliberate lie keep repeating his same old deliberate
lies?
Post by Mitchell Holman
What evidence is that?
The evidence he lies about.

Just like all these religious loonies, he talks about "the evidence"
but never, ever provides anything remotely resembling it.
Andrew
2020-03-25 20:03:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school
biology class is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist
-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.
html Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to
claim that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic
chemist thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a
bit strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
You can't,
What is the issue?
Origin of life.
Evidence clearly says that --> there has been an
intelligent causation.
What evidence is that?
It is not for those who refuse to see it.
Bob
2020-03-25 20:11:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school
biology class is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist
-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.
html Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to
claim that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic
chemist thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a
bit strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
You can't,
What is the issue?
Origin of life.
Evidence clearly says that --> there has been an
intelligent causation.
What evidence is that?
It is not for those who refuse to see it.
Amen!

+1

And even if you answered him, he would ask the very
same question, almost verbatim, two weeks from now.

That's why I killfiled him.
Andrew
2020-03-25 23:33:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Andrew
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school
biology class is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist
-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.
html Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to
claim that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic
chemist thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a
bit strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
You can't,
What is the issue?
Origin of life.
Evidence clearly says that --> there has been an
intelligent causation.
What evidence is that?
It is not for those who refuse to see it.
Amen!
+1
And even if you answered him, he would ask the very
same question, almost verbatim, two weeks from now.
That's why I killfiled him.
The more science uncovers the mysteries of the natural
realm, the more_obvious_it is to the unbiased student..
---->there absolutely has been an intelligent causation.
Cloud Hobbit
2020-03-25 23:42:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
The more science uncovers the mysteries of the natural
realm, the more_obvious_it is to the unbiased student..
---->there absolutely has been an intelligent causation.

According to whom?

You have no evidence for ID.
Nobody does.
If there was any you wouldn't avoid answering the question.

You have nothing.
Bob
2020-03-25 23:59:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
It is not for those who refuse to see it.
Amen!
+1
And even if you answered him, he would ask the very same question,
almost verbatim, two weeks from now.
That's why I killfiled him.
The more science uncovers the mysteries of the natural realm, the
more_obvious_it is to the unbiased student.. ---->there absolutely
has been an intelligent causation.
That's what they're deathly afraid of admitting.

That's why they will always, *ALWAYS*, find an excuse not
to believe what is true.

My church says that's the way God planned it from the beginning. Some
will believe. Other will not, no matter how much evidence they see that
they are wrong.

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are
perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of
the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the
glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
[2 Corinthians 4:3-4]

"God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts
of others so they refuse to listen."
[Romans 9:18]
LinuxGal
2020-03-26 00:19:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are
perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of
the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the
glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
[2 Corinthians 4:3-4]
What a dick of a god. Glad I'll never meet him.
--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Bob
2020-03-26 01:11:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Bob
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are
perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of
the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the
glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
[2 Corinthians 4:3-4]
What a dick of a god. Glad I'll never meet him.
I'm glad you believe that.
Mitchell Holman
2020-03-26 01:26:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Andrew
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school
biology class is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scien
tist -debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understa
nd. html Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order
to claim that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic
chemist thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems
a bit strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
You can't,
What is the issue?
Origin of life.
Evidence clearly says that --> there has been an
intelligent causation.
What evidence is that?
It is not for those who refuse to see it.
Amen!
+1
And even if you answered him, he would ask the very
same question, almost verbatim, two weeks from now.
That's why I killfiled him.
No, "Bob", you killfiled me because I
kept posting your bizarre contradictions.





"Without any proof, that's just your worthless opinion"
Robert Duncan aka "Bob", Apr 23 2017
http://tinyurl.com/lgsc6nl


vs.........


"But if you don't believe it's true, then the
burden of proof is on you. It's up to you to
prove it's not true."
Robert Duncan aka "Bob", Sept 23 2019
https://tinyurl.com/y5xbs988
Peter Pan
2020-03-26 22:12:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Bob
Post by Andrew
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school
biology class is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scien
tist -debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understa
nd. html Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order
to claim that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic
chemist thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems
a bit strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
You can't,
What is the issue?
Origin of life.
Evidence clearly says that --> there has been an
intelligent causation.
What evidence is that?
It is not for those who refuse to see it.
Amen!
+1
And even if you answered him, he would ask the very
same question, almost verbatim, two weeks from now.
That's why I killfiled him.
No, "Bob", you killfiled me because I
kept posting your bizarre contradictions.
I don't believe Bob actually has a killfile. Claiming to
kf you relieves him of the difficulty of replying. But
Bob is an attention whore, he would never voluntarily
miss whatever response he provoked.
Post by Mitchell Holman
"Without any proof, that's just your worthless opinion"
Robert Duncan aka "Bob", Apr 23 2017
http://tinyurl.com/lgsc6nl
vs.........
"But if you don't believe it's true, then the
burden of proof is on you. It's up to you to
prove it's not true."
Robert Duncan aka "Bob", Sept 23 2019
https://tinyurl.com/y5xbs988
LinuxGal
2020-03-26 22:20:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
I don't believe Bob actually has a killfile. Claiming to
kf you relieves him of the difficulty of replying. But
Bob is an attention whore, he would never voluntarily
miss whatever response he provoked.
There was an IRC chatroom on Undernet where declaring
someone ignored was called "broadcast snobbery" and
got you blocked. I attend to my filters without feeling the
need to announce it.
--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Mitchell Holman
2020-03-26 01:23:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school
biology class is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scienti
st -debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understan
d. html Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order
to claim that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic
chemist thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems
a bit strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
You can't,
What is the issue?
Origin of life.
Evidence clearly says that --> there has been an
intelligent causation.
What evidence is that?
It is not for those who refuse to see it.
Evasion noted.
aaa
2020-03-26 13:51:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school
biology class is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist
-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.
html Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to
claim that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic
chemist thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a
bit strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
You can't,
What is the issue?
Origin of life.
Evidence clearly says that --> there has been an
intelligent causation.
What evidence is that?
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
default
2020-03-26 14:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
Christopher A. Lee
2020-03-26 14:51:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by default
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
Has this idiot ever attempted to justify design?

Has he ever stopped begging questions he knows he can't answer?
Post by default
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
We understand enough, from the impossibilities they insist actually
happened, from their behaviour towards others including us in spite of
their claims it makes them more moral, the mind control it exerts over
its followers, etc.
aaa
2020-03-26 15:24:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
Has this idiot ever attempted to justify design?
Has he ever stopped begging questions he knows he can't answer?
FYI, design is entirely a philosophical concept. It's not open for
scientific speculation. There is only the need to understand design by
the philosophically ignorant scientist. There is no need to justify
design scientifically.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
We understand enough, from the impossibilities they insist actually
happened, from their behaviour towards others including us in spite of
their claims it makes them more moral, the mind control it exerts over
its followers, etc.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
aaa
2020-03-26 15:19:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by default
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
I'm only pointing out the fact that intelligence and design can't be
studied or explained by science.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
default
2020-03-26 16:02:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
I'm only pointing out the fact that intelligence and design can't be
studied or explained by science.
Both can be studied by science.

Science is the study of nature and behavior of natural things and the
knowledge that we obtain about them...

This includes the departments of learning and bodies of fact in
disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology,
botany, chemistry, cybernetics, geography, geology, mathematics,
medicine, physics, physiology, psychology, social science, sociology,
and zoology.

You seem to think that "science" is both limited and static, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
aaa
2020-03-27 13:12:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
I'm only pointing out the fact that intelligence and design can't be
studied or explained by science.
Both can be studied by science.
That's just your empty claim. There is no evidence to support that claim.
Post by default
Science is the study of nature and behavior of natural things and the
knowledge that we obtain about them...
This includes the departments of learning and bodies of fact in
disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology,
botany, chemistry, cybernetics, geography, geology, mathematics,
medicine, physics, physiology, psychology, social science, sociology,
and zoology.
You seem to think that "science" is both limited and static, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
default
2020-03-27 19:19:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
I'm only pointing out the fact that intelligence and design can't be
studied or explained by science.
Both can be studied by science.
That's just your empty claim. There is no evidence to support that claim.
Post by default
Science is the study of nature and behavior of natural things and the
knowledge that we obtain about them...
This includes the departments of learning and bodies of fact in
disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology,
botany, chemistry, cybernetics, geography, geology, mathematics,
medicine, physics, physiology, psychology, social science, sociology,
and zoology.
You seem to think that "science" is both limited and static, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
There is no "spiritual evidence" That's just made-up BS. Trying to
say that something that exists only in the imagination, and is
therefore outside the realm of scientific study is valid, but that's
not the same thing as making it REAL.

Many authors write books of total fantasy, but that doesn't mean the
situations they write about are real. You wouldn't expect science to
study the "Lord of the Rings" for instance like it portrays real
people and situations. If science were to study it at all it would be
with how it affects the people who immerse themselves in the fantasy,
but not the fantasy itself.
aaa
2020-03-28 17:57:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
I'm only pointing out the fact that intelligence and design can't be
studied or explained by science.
Both can be studied by science.
That's just your empty claim. There is no evidence to support that claim.
Post by default
Science is the study of nature and behavior of natural things and the
knowledge that we obtain about them...
This includes the departments of learning and bodies of fact in
disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology,
botany, chemistry, cybernetics, geography, geology, mathematics,
medicine, physics, physiology, psychology, social science, sociology,
and zoology.
You seem to think that "science" is both limited and static, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
There is no "spiritual evidence" That's just made-up BS. Trying to
say that something that exists only in the imagination, and is
therefore outside the realm of scientific study is valid, but that's
not the same thing as making it REAL.
The spiritual evidence shown in my signature is never any imagination.
Post by default
Many authors write books of total fantasy, but that doesn't mean the
situations they write about are real. You wouldn't expect science to
study the "Lord of the Rings" for instance like it portrays real
people and situations. If science were to study it at all it would be
with how it affects the people who immerse themselves in the fantasy,
but not the fantasy itself.
That has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Intelligence and
design have nothing to do with fantasy. They are still beyond the
comprehension and the study of science.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
default
2020-03-28 20:29:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
I'm only pointing out the fact that intelligence and design can't be
studied or explained by science.
Both can be studied by science.
That's just your empty claim. There is no evidence to support that claim.
Post by default
Science is the study of nature and behavior of natural things and the
knowledge that we obtain about them...
This includes the departments of learning and bodies of fact in
disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology,
botany, chemistry, cybernetics, geography, geology, mathematics,
medicine, physics, physiology, psychology, social science, sociology,
and zoology.
You seem to think that "science" is both limited and static, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
There is no "spiritual evidence" That's just made-up BS. Trying to
say that something that exists only in the imagination, and is
therefore outside the realm of scientific study is valid, but that's
not the same thing as making it REAL.
The spiritual evidence shown in my signature is never any imagination.
Of course it is. Define spiritual...
Post by aaa
Post by default
Many authors write books of total fantasy, but that doesn't mean the
situations they write about are real. You wouldn't expect science to
study the "Lord of the Rings" for instance like it portrays real
people and situations. If science were to study it at all it would be
with how it affects the people who immerse themselves in the fantasy,
but not the fantasy itself.
That has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Intelligence and
design have nothing to do with fantasy. They are still beyond the
comprehension and the study of science.
Only if you are an anti-academic, anti-science, Trump-loving, Luddite.
aaa
2020-03-28 20:34:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
I'm only pointing out the fact that intelligence and design can't be
studied or explained by science.
Both can be studied by science.
That's just your empty claim. There is no evidence to support that claim.
Post by default
Science is the study of nature and behavior of natural things and the
knowledge that we obtain about them...
This includes the departments of learning and bodies of fact in
disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology,
botany, chemistry, cybernetics, geography, geology, mathematics,
medicine, physics, physiology, psychology, social science, sociology,
and zoology.
You seem to think that "science" is both limited and static, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
There is no "spiritual evidence" That's just made-up BS. Trying to
say that something that exists only in the imagination, and is
therefore outside the realm of scientific study is valid, but that's
not the same thing as making it REAL.
The spiritual evidence shown in my signature is never any imagination.
Of course it is. Define spiritual...
The spiritual is beyond the definition of human mind.
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Many authors write books of total fantasy, but that doesn't mean the
situations they write about are real. You wouldn't expect science to
study the "Lord of the Rings" for instance like it portrays real
people and situations. If science were to study it at all it would be
with how it affects the people who immerse themselves in the fantasy,
but not the fantasy itself.
That has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Intelligence and
design have nothing to do with fantasy. They are still beyond the
comprehension and the study of science.
Only if you are an anti-academic, anti-science, Trump-loving, Luddite.
Blind denial.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
default
2020-03-28 22:04:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
I'm only pointing out the fact that intelligence and design can't be
studied or explained by science.
Both can be studied by science.
That's just your empty claim. There is no evidence to support that claim.
Post by default
Science is the study of nature and behavior of natural things and the
knowledge that we obtain about them...
This includes the departments of learning and bodies of fact in
disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology,
botany, chemistry, cybernetics, geography, geology, mathematics,
medicine, physics, physiology, psychology, social science, sociology,
and zoology.
You seem to think that "science" is both limited and static, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
There is no "spiritual evidence" That's just made-up BS. Trying to
say that something that exists only in the imagination, and is
therefore outside the realm of scientific study is valid, but that's
not the same thing as making it REAL.
The spiritual evidence shown in my signature is never any imagination.
Of course it is. Define spiritual...
The spiritual is beyond the definition of human mind.
Then it exists only in the imagination.
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Many authors write books of total fantasy, but that doesn't mean the
situations they write about are real. You wouldn't expect science to
study the "Lord of the Rings" for instance like it portrays real
people and situations. If science were to study it at all it would be
with how it affects the people who immerse themselves in the fantasy,
but not the fantasy itself.
That has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Intelligence and
design have nothing to do with fantasy. They are still beyond the
comprehension and the study of science.
Only if you are an anti-academic, anti-science, Trump-loving, Luddite.
Blind denial.
You are no doubt totally unfamiliar with the work of messieurs Lewis
Terman, of Stanford University, and Alfred Binet, as well as many
others?

Design is not an abstract concept. I design things all the time. I
weigh the choices and make decisions on how to achieve machine designs
to do what I want. It could certainly be studied by an outside
observer - and my work is often studied and critiqued.
aaa
2020-03-29 14:39:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
I'm only pointing out the fact that intelligence and design can't be
studied or explained by science.
Both can be studied by science.
That's just your empty claim. There is no evidence to support that claim.
Post by default
Science is the study of nature and behavior of natural things and the
knowledge that we obtain about them...
This includes the departments of learning and bodies of fact in
disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology,
botany, chemistry, cybernetics, geography, geology, mathematics,
medicine, physics, physiology, psychology, social science, sociology,
and zoology.
You seem to think that "science" is both limited and static, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
There is no "spiritual evidence" That's just made-up BS. Trying to
say that something that exists only in the imagination, and is
therefore outside the realm of scientific study is valid, but that's
not the same thing as making it REAL.
The spiritual evidence shown in my signature is never any imagination.
Of course it is. Define spiritual...
The spiritual is beyond the definition of human mind.
Then it exists only in the imagination.
Imagination still exists within the mind. It's not possible to imagine
that which is beyond the mind.
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Many authors write books of total fantasy, but that doesn't mean the
situations they write about are real. You wouldn't expect science to
study the "Lord of the Rings" for instance like it portrays real
people and situations. If science were to study it at all it would be
with how it affects the people who immerse themselves in the fantasy,
but not the fantasy itself.
That has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Intelligence and
design have nothing to do with fantasy. They are still beyond the
comprehension and the study of science.
Only if you are an anti-academic, anti-science, Trump-loving, Luddite.
Blind denial.
You are no doubt totally unfamiliar with the work of messieurs Lewis
Terman, of Stanford University, and Alfred Binet, as well as many
others?
Design is not an abstract concept. I design things all the time. I
weigh the choices and make decisions on how to achieve machine designs
to do what I want. It could certainly be studied by an outside
observer - and my work is often studied and critiqued.
You still have no scientific method or standard to determine what design
actually is.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
default
2020-03-29 17:18:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
I'm only pointing out the fact that intelligence and design can't be
studied or explained by science.
Both can be studied by science.
That's just your empty claim. There is no evidence to support that claim.
Post by default
Science is the study of nature and behavior of natural things and the
knowledge that we obtain about them...
This includes the departments of learning and bodies of fact in
disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology,
botany, chemistry, cybernetics, geography, geology, mathematics,
medicine, physics, physiology, psychology, social science, sociology,
and zoology.
You seem to think that "science" is both limited and static, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
There is no "spiritual evidence" That's just made-up BS. Trying to
say that something that exists only in the imagination, and is
therefore outside the realm of scientific study is valid, but that's
not the same thing as making it REAL.
The spiritual evidence shown in my signature is never any imagination.
Of course it is. Define spiritual...
The spiritual is beyond the definition of human mind.
Then it exists only in the imagination.
Imagination still exists within the mind. It's not possible to imagine
that which is beyond the mind.
Oh I dunno, you do a pretty damn good job of it yourself.
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Many authors write books of total fantasy, but that doesn't mean the
situations they write about are real. You wouldn't expect science to
study the "Lord of the Rings" for instance like it portrays real
people and situations. If science were to study it at all it would be
with how it affects the people who immerse themselves in the fantasy,
but not the fantasy itself.
That has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Intelligence and
design have nothing to do with fantasy. They are still beyond the
comprehension and the study of science.
Only if you are an anti-academic, anti-science, Trump-loving, Luddite.
Blind denial.
You are no doubt totally unfamiliar with the work of messieurs Lewis
Terman, of Stanford University, and Alfred Binet, as well as many
others?
Design is not an abstract concept. I design things all the time. I
weigh the choices and make decisions on how to achieve machine designs
to do what I want. It could certainly be studied by an outside
observer - and my work is often studied and critiqued.
You still have no scientific method or standard to determine what design
actually is.
Design (noun):

a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or
workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or
made.
"he has just unveiled his design for the new museum"
synonyms: plan, blueprint, drawing, scale drawing, sketch,
outline, map, plot, diagram, delineation, draft, depiction,
representation, artist's impression, scheme, model, prototype,
proposal
an arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or
decoration.
"pottery with a lovely blue and white design"
synonyms: pattern, motif, device, style, arrangement, composition,
makeup, layout, constitution, configuration, organization,
construction, shape, form, formation, figure
purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist
behind an action, fact, or material object.
"the appearance of design in the universe"
synonyms: intention, aim, purpose, plan, intent, objective,
object, goal, end, target, point, hope, desire, wish, dream,
aspiration, ambition, idea
aaa
2020-03-30 15:46:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Intelligence and design. Neither can be understood or studied by
science. Both are philosophical subjects that can only be understood
philosophically.
No they aren't. That is just another attempt to say that if you
haven't got religion (or whatever you call your monkey/addiction) you
can't understand religion.
I'm only pointing out the fact that intelligence and design can't be
studied or explained by science.
Both can be studied by science.
That's just your empty claim. There is no evidence to support that claim.
Post by default
Science is the study of nature and behavior of natural things and the
knowledge that we obtain about them...
This includes the departments of learning and bodies of fact in
disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology,
botany, chemistry, cybernetics, geography, geology, mathematics,
medicine, physics, physiology, psychology, social science, sociology,
and zoology.
You seem to think that "science" is both limited and static, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
There is no "spiritual evidence" That's just made-up BS. Trying to
say that something that exists only in the imagination, and is
therefore outside the realm of scientific study is valid, but that's
not the same thing as making it REAL.
The spiritual evidence shown in my signature is never any imagination.
Of course it is. Define spiritual...
The spiritual is beyond the definition of human mind.
Then it exists only in the imagination.
Imagination still exists within the mind. It's not possible to imagine
that which is beyond the mind.
Oh I dunno, you do a pretty damn good job of it yourself.
Not really. I'm talking about my actual experience instead of
imagination. There is a difference.
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Many authors write books of total fantasy, but that doesn't mean the
situations they write about are real. You wouldn't expect science to
study the "Lord of the Rings" for instance like it portrays real
people and situations. If science were to study it at all it would be
with how it affects the people who immerse themselves in the fantasy,
but not the fantasy itself.
That has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Intelligence and
design have nothing to do with fantasy. They are still beyond the
comprehension and the study of science.
Only if you are an anti-academic, anti-science, Trump-loving, Luddite.
Blind denial.
You are no doubt totally unfamiliar with the work of messieurs Lewis
Terman, of Stanford University, and Alfred Binet, as well as many
others?
Design is not an abstract concept. I design things all the time. I
weigh the choices and make decisions on how to achieve machine designs
to do what I want. It could certainly be studied by an outside
observer - and my work is often studied and critiqued.
You still have no scientific method or standard to determine what design
actually is.
a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or
workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or
made.
"he has just unveiled his design for the new museum"
synonyms: plan, blueprint, drawing, scale drawing, sketch,
outline, map, plot, diagram, delineation, draft, depiction,
representation, artist's impression, scheme, model, prototype,
proposal
an arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or
decoration.
"pottery with a lovely blue and white design"
synonyms: pattern, motif, device, style, arrangement, composition,
makeup, layout, constitution, configuration, organization,
construction, shape, form, formation, figure
purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist
behind an action, fact, or material object.
"the appearance of design in the universe"
synonyms: intention, aim, purpose, plan, intent, objective,
object, goal, end, target, point, hope, desire, wish, dream,
aspiration, ambition, idea
It still means nothing to science. You still can't determine design
scientifically. There is no scientific formula or model to identify design.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
Cloud Hobbit
2020-03-28 20:38:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aaa
The spiritual evidence shown in my signature is never any imagination.
The imaginary part is your claim that any of it is "spiritual."
Post by aaa
Post by default
Many authors write books of total fantasy, but that doesn't mean the
situations they write about are real. You wouldn't expect science to
study the "Lord of the Rings" for instance like it portrays real
people and situations. If science were to study it at all it would be
with how it affects the people who immerse themselves in the fantasy,
but not the fantasy itself.
That has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Intelligence and
design have nothing to do with fantasy. They are still beyond the
comprehension and the study of science.

Another unevidenced claim.
The only kind you have.
aaa
2020-03-29 14:46:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
The spiritual evidence shown in my signature is never any imagination.
The imaginary part is your claim that any of it is "spiritual."
That's actually your blind denial. It only shows your blindness to what
they truly are.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by default
Many authors write books of total fantasy, but that doesn't mean the
situations they write about are real. You wouldn't expect science to
study the "Lord of the Rings" for instance like it portrays real
people and situations. If science were to study it at all it would be
with how it affects the people who immerse themselves in the fantasy,
but not the fantasy itself.
That has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Intelligence and
design have nothing to do with fantasy. They are still beyond the
comprehension and the study of science.
Another unevidenced claim.
I don't have to prove a negative. It's your job to support science. Why
can't you do that?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The only kind you have.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
Syd M.
2020-03-25 20:17:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school biology class
is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to claim
that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic chemist
thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a bit
strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
Why? So you can ignore it again?

PDW
John Locke
2020-03-26 15:45:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:17:04 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
Post by Syd M.
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school biology class
is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to claim
that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic chemist
thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a bit
strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
Why? So you can ignore it again?
...trying to teach Andrew science is like trying to teach your
pet roach nuclear engineering. Actually though, I do believe
the roach is starting to catch on.
Andrew
2020-03-26 21:43:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Locke
Post by Syd M.
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school biology class
is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to claim
that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic chemist
thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a bit
strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
Why? So you can ignore it again?
...trying to teach Andrew science is like trying to teach your
pet roach nuclear engineering. Actually though, I do believe
the roach is starting to catch on.
Yet you are the one who always 'runs away' from my
question to you, when I ask you to explain the origin
of the biological information that we find in all life
on our little planet.

You always run away and hide!

Lol!
Oko tillo
2020-03-26 23:00:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Syd M.
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school biology class
is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to claim
that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic chemist
thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a bit
strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
Why? So you can ignore it again?
...trying to teach Andrew science is like trying to teach your
pet roach nuclear engineering. Actually though, I do believe
the roach is starting to catch on.
==
Post by Andrew
Yet you are the one who always 'runs away' from my
question to you, when I ask you to explain the origin
of the biological information that we find in all life
on our little planet.
You always run away and hide!
Speaking of running and hiding, I believe there's a beam in your eye. Let's see if we can do
something about that.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/PRFl2_vkDaE/6AvfaGgsAAAJ
Post by Andrew
Lol!
You said it.

Oko
Christopher A. Lee
2020-03-26 23:18:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:00:55 -0700 (PDT), Oko tillo
Post by Oko tillo
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Syd M.
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school biology class
is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to claim
that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic chemist
thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a bit
strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
What "issue"? Ther4e is none - just ignorant religious loonies in
serious denial about reality.
Post by Oko tillo
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Syd M.
Why? So you can ignore it again?
...trying to teach Andrew science is like trying to teach your
pet roach nuclear engineering. Actually though, I do believe
the roach is starting to catch on.
Was he home-skooled by equally ignorant parents?
Post by Oko tillo
Post by Andrew
Yet you are the one who always 'runs away' from my
question to you, when I ask you to explain the origin
of the biological information that we find in all life
on our little planet.
A blatant, deliberate lie. He's been given results from abiogenesis
and related research, over and over again.
Post by Oko tillo
Post by Andrew
You always run away and hide!
Here, the lying liar projects himself.
Post by Oko tillo
Speaking of running and hiding, I believe there's a beam in your eye. Let's see if we can do
something about that.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/PRFl2_vkDaE/6AvfaGgsAAAJ
Have you ever come across an honest creationist?
Post by Oko tillo
Post by Andrew
Lol!
You said it.
"It"
Oko tillo
2020-03-27 01:22:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:00:55 -0700 (PDT), Oko tillo
Post by Oko tillo
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Syd M.
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school biology class
is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
Normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to claim
that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic chemist
thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a bit
strange, don't you think?
Now try to debunk the issue.
What "issue"? Ther4e is none - just ignorant religious loonies in
serious denial about reality.
Post by Oko tillo
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Syd M.
Why? So you can ignore it again?
...trying to teach Andrew science is like trying to teach your
pet roach nuclear engineering. Actually though, I do believe
the roach is starting to catch on.
Was he home-skooled by equally ignorant parents?
Post by Oko tillo
Post by Andrew
Yet you are the one who always 'runs away' from my
question to you, when I ask you to explain the origin
of the biological information that we find in all life
on our little planet.
A blatant, deliberate lie. He's been given results from abiogenesis
and related research, over and over again.
Post by Oko tillo
Post by Andrew
You always run away and hide!
Here, the lying liar projects himself.
Post by Oko tillo
Speaking of running and hiding, I believe there's a beam in your eye. Let's see if we can do
something about that.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/PRFl2_vkDaE/6AvfaGgsAAAJ
==
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Have you ever come across an honest creationist?
Well, I suspect the average Evangelical who takes it as part and parcel
of his religion, without giving it any serious thought, may well be honest enough.

It's just its determined apologists who can get pretty greasy.

Oko
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Oko tillo
Post by Andrew
Lol!
You said it.
"It"
Mitchell Holman
2020-03-27 01:39:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
You always run away and hide!
Pot.

Kettle.

Black.




"The vast bulk of real scientists in the world
know that the "goo to you" story is a phantasy."
Andrew, unproven claim, Nov 5, 2016
http://tinyurl.com/gtw66jf
LinuxGal
2020-03-27 00:34:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Locke
...trying to teach Andrew science is like trying to teach your
pet roach nuclear engineering. Actually though, I do believe
the roach is starting to catch on.
It's harder'n getting Duke to acknowledge that he said
yesterday exactly the opposite of what he's saying today,
when the evidence is clearly attributed in the very
same reply.
--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Oko tillo
2020-03-27 02:31:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
=
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
...trying to teach Andrew science is like trying to teach your
pet roach nuclear engineering. Actually though, I do believe
the roach is starting to catch on.
It's harder'n getting Duke to acknowledge that he said
yesterday exactly the opposite of what he's saying today,
when the evidence is clearly attributed in the very
same reply.
Way beyond even fsck(8) repair.


Oko
Post by LinuxGal
--
I have spoken.
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
LinuxGal
2020-03-27 02:51:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Oko tillo
=
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
...trying to teach Andrew science is like trying to teach your
pet roach nuclear engineering. Actually though, I do believe
the roach is starting to catch on.
It's harder'n getting Duke to acknowledge that he said
yesterday exactly the opposite of what he's saying today,
when the evidence is clearly attributed in the very
same reply.
Way beyond even fsck(8) repair.
Harder'n getting out of vim, even.
--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Oko tillo
2020-03-27 03:27:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Oko tillo
=
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
...trying to teach Andrew science is like trying to teach your
pet roach nuclear engineering. Actually though, I do believe
the roach is starting to catch on.
==
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Oko tillo
Post by LinuxGal
It's harder'n getting Duke to acknowledge that he said
yesterday exactly the opposite of what he's saying today,
when the evidence is clearly attributed in the very
same reply.
Way beyond even fsck(8) repair.
Harder'n getting out of vim, even.
Heh!

I wrote my own text editor as part of my first software course, and have
been porting and improving [sic] it ever since. And since once people get one
editor under their belt, they rarely go to another, references to other editors
will generally WHOOSH me.

(though I did master ":q" for those times I accidentally wandered into vi)

I still think Duke needs to be fsck()d. It's the only way to be sure

Oko
Post by LinuxGal
--
I have spoken.
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
LinuxGal
2020-03-28 21:36:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Oko tillo
(though I did master ":q" for those times I accidentally wandered into vi)
Q. How do you generate a random string of data?

A. Put a web designer in vi and tell him to exit.
--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Oko tillo
2020-03-27 03:30:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Oko tillo
=
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
...trying to teach Andrew science is like trying to teach your
pet roach nuclear engineering. Actually though, I do believe
the roach is starting to catch on.
It's harder'n getting Duke to acknowledge that he said
yesterday exactly the opposite of what he's saying today,
when the evidence is clearly attributed in the very
same reply.
Way beyond even fsck(8) repair.
==
Post by LinuxGal
Harder'n getting out of vim, even.
While we're being geeks, here's your LOLCODE example for today. Hello World:

HAI 1.2
CAN HAS STDIO?
VISIBLE "HAI WORLD!"
KTHXBYE

Really. It's an actual programming language. Would Wikipedia lie to you?


Oko
Post by LinuxGal
--
I have spoken.
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Cloud Hobbit
2020-03-27 22:35:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Oko tillo
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Oko tillo
=
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
...trying to teach Andrew science is like trying to teach your
pet roach nuclear engineering. Actually though, I do believe
the roach is starting to catch on.
It's harder'n getting Duke to acknowledge that he said
yesterday exactly the opposite of what he's saying today,
when the evidence is clearly attributed in the very
same reply.
Way beyond even fsck(8) repair.
==
Post by LinuxGal
Harder'n getting out of vim, even.
HAI 1.2
CAN HAS STDIO?
VISIBLE "HAI WORLD!"
KTHXBYE
Really. It's an actual programming language. Would Wikipedia lie to you?
Oko
Post by LinuxGal
--
I have spoken.
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
I remember cracking up when I learned about a utility program by the name of debe, which stands for does everything but eat.
default
2020-03-24 17:11:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour
When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school biology class
is in shreds on the floor.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist-debates-skeptic-james-tour/>
In 2001, Tour signed the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent
From Darwinism", a controversial petition which the intelligent design
movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast
doubt on evolution.[37][38] To those who "are disconcerted or even
angered that I signed a statement back in 2001" he responded "I have
been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do
not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some
others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I
find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there,
in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label."[39]
Loading...