| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:27:50 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,614 |
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.
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!
I am curious. How does one verify personal testimony?
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 Mon, 7 Jul 2025 14:21:13 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<104h36p$31pcr$1@dont-email.me> 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?
On 7/7/25 3:27 PM, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 14:21:13 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<104h36p$31pcr$1@dont-email.me> 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.
What is a fact?
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.--
You said something is a fact.
personal testimony isn't evidence!
But how is that evidence verified?
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 Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:50:49 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<104hq1b$3670f$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
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.
You said something is a fact. What were you talking about?
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.
But how is that evidence verified? Is it possible for
humans to lie, misremember or simply be wrong?
Testimony is evidence.
See above.
Accept reality, for a change, and move on.
But what quality of evidence?
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.--
I never said
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.--
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:104eos5$2em5p$2@dont-email.me...
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:
-a{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.-a 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,-a 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.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ~~The "Law of Biogenesis"~~
Life comes only from previously existing life, and that of its own kind.
It is a law of science.
On 7/6/25 11:02 PM, 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.
This is true.
Anything from insects to mice were believed to just spontaneously
appear. But as science took over -- people displaced their knee
jerk & superstitions from hard data and observations -- all the
spontaneously forming life fell away one by one... until only a
single belief remained:-a An unseen, unknown, undescribed "Original"
life form from which all others evolved from.
It's amazing when you think of it. People BELIEVE (faith basedO
that abiogenesis is the very height of rational thinking, when it
fact it's the last remnant of an ignorant past.
I'm not saying that you have to be a mouth breather to mistaken
abiogenesis for "Science," though it does help. What I'm saying
is that you do have to be a mouth breathing, knuckle dragging
ignorance to reject the reality surrounding the abiogenesis
belief even when confronted by it.
It's okay to hold beliefs. It's not okay to hold beliefs while
pretending you don't AND attacking others for holding beliefs,
many of which aren't half as kooky as your own...
Goddammit!-a All this wisdom coming from me... WASTED here on
usenet!
Damn!
On 7/6/25 5:18 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Here is the definition of atheist
Ah! Another fundamentalist, insisting upon the
literal word, pretending to be an atheist...
"But..but..THE GOSPELS OF WEBSTER DOTH STATE! SO
IT IS WRITTEN, SO IT SHALL BE!"
Did you rparents have any children they could be
proud of, or just you?
On 7/6/2025 10:02 PM, Andrew wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:104eos5$2em5p$2@dont-email.me...
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:
-a{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.-a 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.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ~~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!-a 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!!
And, please get back to us on this.
Dawn
Are you claiming that
Of course, you need to write a book, a bestseller for sure!-a No
Then you should complain!-a 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!!
I do know
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.
Again
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 10:02:49 -0700, "Andrew"i'm sorry , i told her to wait in the car
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:104mcqq$c3or$2@dont-email.me...<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*.
"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!!
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:jc167k51f73q6esurm9e1upmenffvnjsm5@4ax.com...
"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*.
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.
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.
It has not shown that much simpler forms of life couldn't evolve
from non-living precursors
Such as in the fantasized scenario that you cited above. Right?
Yes, but here in real world biology, DNA always exists before
RNA. In other words, you will not have RNA apart from the
DNA that it came from.
by chemical and replicational evolution in the early earth.
It happens in your --> fantasy world.
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?
Good point!
"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)
If you feel 'harassed', it is because your fantasies
have been exposed to be such in the light of truth.
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.
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:ts487k9qqfb59amiuov7723jskfnevpm4m@4ax.com...
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
No, like I said (and you snipped), saying "My imaginary friend Jesus
did it" is the *real* fantasy
Invoking miracles to explain the origin of life is not scientific.
You're assuming half-alive creatures can't exist.
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:
"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.
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:fhn87kpg343f69llaaj4ofaqbj8gg8md1a@4ax.com...
"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.
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.
And those who "rule out" any option are not interested in truth.
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 haappens to be a "scientific fact" with no exceptions noted 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 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.
They did and do exist --> in the fantasy world of fools.
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!
A lone RNA molecule would have no
function or purpose apart from the code
that it receives from DNA.
The RNA world hypothesis is in effect a
*fantasy world* for fools who reject real
world *science*.
"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"?
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:cphb7kdf93ooo899n19f29s8cgigu5n3dp@4ax.com...
"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..
Your above statement was a lie. And you are obfuscating
because you are trying to argue against truth. So you throw
dust in the air instead of acknowledging 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
This is what they say:
__________________________________________
"The transition from non-life to life has never been observed
experimentally, but many proposals have been made."
"The turning point of non-life to life has never been put into
one experimental set up.
"There are of course, several hypotheses, and this plethora of
ideas means already that we do -not- have a convincing one."
__________________________________________
I asked you to tell us anything they are doing that was not
based upon fantasy. The site you posted showed that I was
correct in saying that, you can't.. Thank you.
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)."
"Modern biology" does~not exist~in an abiotic environment.
fantasy is not "looks like the products of natural selection."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.
Going by what something looks like is, "to first order" what you
should accept as a starting point in one's intellectual endeavors. >>>>>
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/
More obfuscating by you. Because you argue against truth.
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.
Many things humans have made that you never observed them making.
But they exist.
(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."
What happens in present world biology
-IS- 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.
To replicate it must first have code. Which
comes from DNA. So 'RNA world' without
DNA doesn't work.
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"?
"All of us who study the origin of life find
that the more we look into it, the more we
feel it is too complex to have evolved any
where."
~ Harold Urey
This is what they say: __________________________________________
"The transition from non-life to life has never been observed
-aexperimentally, but many proposals have been made."
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.