-->
@ethang5
I love internet trolls.
I'm sure you studied long and hard to be one, you certainly haven't studied anything else.
Tell us all and the Gentle Readers why you are so adamant at humiliating yourself?
I love internet trolls.
All that evidence you're posting for abiogenesis
following me aroundBitter much?
I think you're done here.
I'm not the one following you around
I was done with you on DDO
Denials and ignorance being evidence for my position. OK.Yet, here you are trolling my thread with denials and ignorance
Yet, here you are trolling my thread with denials and ignorance.
The troll is the one
The troll is the anti-science Creationist who comes to the Science forum with denials and ignorance.
It never mattered what was brought before you on such threads, you just denied it and started name calling, like you always do.
It's why no one takes you seriously, why no one bothers to engage you in such topics, why it is a waste of time trying to teach you anything.
Every single experiment trying to simulate early Earth conditions, or set up conditions for abiogenesis, to see if life can start spontaneously, has failed miserably. All of them
Here is one listing the flaws in the experiment.Here is a technical paper written by a scientist. (BSc, MSc, PhD, CChem, FRSC)
Urey-Miller was a failure.
As we can easily see,
Ethan has no concept of science,
Whose content you fear to read so you attack the man. What a loser.his first reference is an Iowa newspaper and an article from a political science student.
This is his refutation of science.
His second reference is a Christian anti-science site. Nuff said there.
Ethans opening statement is a blatant lie.
Urey-Miller was a failure. And when the experiment was corrected for early Earth atmosphere, it was again a failure
It was a failure in the sense that it didn't produce single-celled organisms.
But both the original and follow up, again, created organic matter such as proteins, from inorganic matter.
I think you have a fatal misunderstanding of the nuance of abiogenesis.
It's not claiming it went from inorganic > single-celled. The claim is inorganic > organic > single-celled.
Furthermore, your insistence and whining that it's not been conclusively proven belies you really lack an understanding of science.
Very few things in science are ever conclusively proven.
Most are probabilistic determinations of accuracy aka "theory".
For example, we don't conclusively know exactly why gravity works as it does.
However, I doubt you would be screaming to high heaven that the understanding we currently have is a flight of fantasy because it hasn't been conclusively proven.
Basically, you are in an uproar over something not being scientific, when you aren't really operating scientifically yourself.
Not just because of the aforementioned, but also because you are setting up a false standard of deductive reasoning being the only valid rationale in determining that probability.
Illogical. Abiogenesis is as reasonable a theory as world belching turtles. They both have the same quantity and quality of evidence. We are not operating in a vacuum. We know that life comes from life, because for 6,000 years, that is what science has consistently shown us.When inductive reasoning as abiogenesis is in part via the KCM premise of transitive series of events having either a starting point, or not having one(infinite series.), is just as acceptable as evidence to such determinations.
There is a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can show why those theories are stupid and why they offend our intelligence.Nevertheless, I cannot stand how scientists try to sell us that these stupid theories are the answer to our questions, that is a serious offense to our intelligence.
. What a loser. Its a refutation of you clemmet doofus