Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
You can run from the implication of your failed theory, but if you were debating me, you would correct that bogus definition before we started. Grugore may be young, or just too trusting, but as I said, thanks. I'll watch.No spontaneous generation is an antiquated association with abiogenesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We don't pick and choose science. Real science goes where the truth is. Believing something because you assume there is no alternative is voodoo, not science.
Do you believe there is any alternative to creationism?
Huh? When have I mentioned creationism? Please, we are talking science here. Go to the religion board if you wish to discuss religion.
In 6,000 years of recorded human history, there has NEVER been a single instance of abiogenesis. Not a single one. NEVER. Every single time life has started, it has come from previous life.
In 6,000 years of recorded human history, there has NEVER been a single instance of creationism. Not a single one. NEVER. Every single time life has started, it has come from previous life.
Exactly. Thank you for supporting my point. But really, religion belongs on the religion board. Why are you harping on creationism? Are you confused?
Every single experiment trying to simulate early Earth conditions, or set up conditions for creationism,.....
I know of no experiment trying to simulate ....... conditions for creationism... I can't tell now if you're just confused or lying. Either way, no one has mentioned creationism. Stay on topic.
Creationism is a bankrupt idea. No science backs it up. None.
Then it's just like abiogenesis. Must be why you're stupidly posting it here. When you have any logical arguments in support of abiogenesis, come back to the science board.
Created:
Posted in:
If nobody was proposing it, why was it brought up?Nobody is proposing that proto-chicken and chicken could not interbreed.
Cross breeding dogs in not speciation. A beagle is always a dog.
Created:
Posted in:
So its OK to do a stupid thing because other things are stupid to do?
That's logical to you?
So, i guess smoking weed isn't all that bad after all.. When u smoke it responsibly....
OK. Are you trying to get me to agree? In America, people are allowed to be stupid. If you want to put smoke in your lungs, what do I care?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nd24007
It's not stupid to put smoke from burning plant material into your lungs? OK.It not stupid to smoke weed.
I'll stick to stupid thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Cross breeding dogs in not speciation. A beagle is always a dog.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Grugore is unwise to accept the debate on this rigged definition.
abiogenesis - the concept that organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances on earth.
The error of abiogenesis is not the physical matter it says comprises life, no theory opposes that, but that abiogenesis says that life sprung up spontaneously from inanimate material. Your bogus definition bypassed that.
But I'll watch. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
Divisions are not denominations. There are no denominations mentioned in the bible. Jesus claimed no denomination.
You stopped at verse 12, let's continue so your opposition to Christ is more clear, OK?
1Co 1:13 - Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:18 - For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:24 - but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 - For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
1Co 1:29 - so that no one may boast before him.
1Co 1:30 - It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God — that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
You can do nothing against the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
Wylted discovers what we all know. The surprise will grow mundane.Wow you are dumb.
Created:
Posted in:
It isn't a denomination at all, but you are free to be stupid.Hahahahaha! Of course, Rabbi isn't a Christian denomination, Clem.
Adding the whole word "christian" where it wasn't is OK, but "churches of Christ" is wrong for "Church of Christ"?
Lol. Ok.
Created:
Posted in:
I ask, "What denomination was Jesus?"
Our local genius tells us Jesus' ethnicity. Jesus had no denomination einstein.
Our other local genius answers, "Jesus was a rabbi". When I tell him that "rabbi" is not a denomination, this doofus shouts, "Rabbi is a Jewish scholar or teacher."
Rabbi is still not a denomination Jethro. There are no denominations in Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
No. I've never attained that level of stupidity. My dad be praised.Have you ever smoke weed?
One or two hits won't mess up ur concentration....
OK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Talk about anything but the point.
Your posts are vacuous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Ok, thanks and buh-bye.
If you still have a life, I suggest you dust it off and get back to it.
Created:
Posted in:
And let me guess, you picked "personhood" as your definition of human?
Sure.
OK. As long as you understand that I don't share your delusion that ones personal choice makes reality.
An organism lacking anything meaningfully resembling consciousness or higher neural activity isn't a person...
I'll alert people in comas and the severely mentally retarded, though your personhood is now in doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
What denomination was Jesus, the founder of Christianity?
He was a Rabbi.
Rabbi is not a denomination genius. Dodge much?
When the phrase, "Church of Christ" is used in the NT, what denomination is that?
Please show us all which verse the phrase, "Church of Christ" is used. You'll find no such phrase in the NT.
Rom 16:16 - Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
Now, will you continue to dodge the question, or will you shock everyone and address it?
So, now we have another 2 of your claims about your religion which you were totally wrong. It's crystal clear you have never read the Bible. That is hilarious.
I'm laughing.
Lol. You have the "facts" do ya?
Well, whatever you have, you've been smoking way too much of it. Lol
You see that a bible search tool is not a substitute for actual bible knowledge. You doofuses are so quick to claim wins.
Created:
Posted in:
Make sure they know the design they vote for does not guarantee it will be used. It will be used as a guide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
If you can, please try not to lose all the space huge borders would take from us. We are mostly text based. Unless there is some technical reason, the page doesn't need to be centered so severely.
Just make the page user friendly so that visitors can easily see and go to the parts of the site that interests them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No denominations are added to Christianity by someone making a list. The bible notes no denominations.
You think Christianity is something decided by people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
What denomination was Jesus, the founder of Christianity? When the phrase, "Church of Christ" is used in the NT, what denomination is that?
Lol. You have the "facts" do ya?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Aporia
And let me guess, you picked "personhood" as your definition of human? Good for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
As I know you aren't interested in dialogue, I will only say there is no such thing as denominations in Christianity. The church is the body of Christ, whom He knows, and who know His voice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
All I will tell you is that whatever you believe, it is not what the church teaches.
Yes I know.
I know you know. Please don't be surprised I believe the church and not some online wingnut.
That is because the church has never spoken the whole truth about The Christ.
You wouldn't know the truth of Christ if it bit you on the nose. I don't need you to know the truth of Christ, it is in His word, which you twist and oppose.
You also obviously don't know the Church of Christ.
...the money should be going to what it intended for , the poor?
The "Church of Christ" follows the dictates of it's King, Jesus. What it does is not subject to your review or evaluation in any way.
Read this slowly because of your reading comprehension problem.
I am not Catholic.
Take your time.
I always do, as I don't have to respond to your commentary. It's called freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
Things only the noobs wouldn't already know. Sigh. New site, same childish nonsense.Makes you look bitter, spiteful, maybe a little insecure.. immature?
Created:
Posted in:
I have no need to respond to your commentary, I am secure that you expose yourself as perverse, and I don't believe that my words will lead you to repent.
So it's vain.
All I will tell you is that whatever you believe, it is not what the church teaches.
Created:
Posted in:
It never occurs to you dolts that me not knowing evolution doesn't make you right.
Of course, that is obvious,...
That is why you appear as dolts. If it is obvious that me not knowing evolution doesn't make you right, you should focus on showing yourselves right instead of throwing ad Homs at me.
You agree that its obvious, but yet It never occurs to you dolts that me not knowing evolution doesn't make you right.
Lol. Can the class say, "logic challenged"? I thought it could.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
What I won't let pass is your assertion that I post falsehoods
Well, you do. But that is not what I meant this time. You are just incorrect, not lying. But maybe if your conscience is tingling....
- if you had a better reputation on this board that would be a serious matter!
As I know everything for you, including reality, boils down to human consensus, I can dismiss this as your rediculous claim that truth is what people think.
Abiogenesis is nonsense. It is anti-science. It has no evidence.
As always you are big on assertions, light on supporting argument!
Those "light arguments" have left you stumped and conceding. I can live with that.
The scientific method is to guess something, then do experiments to see if the guess is correct. The guess is then abandoned or refined according the results of the experiments. 'Rinse and repeat'. I don't know what you think science is.
It isn't abiogenesis. How long should it take to abandon a bogus guess? The "guess" of abiogenesis has been wrong since science began. Science points to life from life.
Abiogenesis is the guess (the posh word is hypothesis) that there is a mechanistic, materialistic pathway from non-living matter to life.
Why this guess when there is no evidence for it whatsoever?
The scientific community is currently in the phase of doing experiments to see if that is true.
Pick a theory with no evidence at all, and do experiments to see if it is true? All the experiments fail but stick to the theory? Is that what you think science is?
It's early days and there isn't really very much effort going....
Lol. This is why they call you slick.
...but groups such as Flint in at the University of Southern Denmark have made more in roads into elucidating possible pathways from non-life to life than Ethang and co. would be comfortable with!
In roads
Possible pathways
elucidating
Evo doublespeak. How I love it.
I believe in abiogenesis for the simple reason that non-abiogenesis means some sort of god-like supernatural entity gets dragged in - and the gods do not exist.
Thank you for admitting the blatant stupidity of abiogenesis. You believe a no evidence theory because you do not like a possible alternative. A theist has more logical reason for belief in God than you do for believing abiogenesis.
You have no scientific reason to consider abiogenesis. You just think you're running from God.
No Keith. That isn't science, that's voodoo.
Created:
Posted in:
It is considered to be the most likely of three possibilities.
Untrue. It is not even a possibility.
1. Life has always been present on Earth. (This must necessarily include during the formation of the Solar System from a gaseous cloud).
I have not argued that life has always been present on Earth, only that it must have come from prior life. That is what the science indicates.
2. Life came to Earth from elsewhere.
So? Don't get ahead of yourself. Wherever life came from, science tells us that it came from prior life.
3. Life on Earth came from lifelessness.Your argument is that 3 is implausible....
Untrue. Science says #3 is impossible. You cannot win by substituting your lame argument for mine.
....because lifelessness has never been observed to produce life.
Right. And what's worse, no one has the foggiest idea of a mechanism that would produce life.
But by that reasoning, 1 and 2 are equally implausible.
Ah, that is why you want to replace my argument with your implausibility clunker. Implausibility has nothing to do with it.
Live has never been observed in gaseous clouds in space, nor anywhere else besides Earth.
The universe is a dynamic place. Planets exist today where only gas clouds existed before. There is a clear mechanism for how life could survive an inter-planatery trip.
But that is immaterial now. The point is abiogenesis. It has no evidence at all. None. Possibilities must have some evidence, even if scant. Theories are not considered because someone likes them.
Abiogenesis is nonsense. It is anti-science. It has no evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
No sir. All you did was prance and preen about how much you knew science.I already explained this to you iin detail earlier in this thread.
...it's your basic lack of understanding that one parent with a mutation passes that mutation to half its offspring.Please stop being stupid. We were talking about a single individual with a recessive gene. You keep wanting to talk groups because your illogical theory cannot explain the propagation of a recessive gene in a gene pool by a single individual.
My post was not addressed to you. I've found you to be the type of evolutionist that will attack the man when you cannot attack his message. So rather than address the question at hand, you will gurgle nonsense about how much I don't know evolution.
It never occurs to you dolts that me not knowing evolution doesn't make you right. I was debating you, I found you dishonest and so wedded to evolution that you were immune to logic. Logic is my only tool. So I tossed you. I have not picked you back up.
Now, go find someone else to tell how brilliant you are, and by comparison, how dumb I am. If they are dumb enough, they will think that means evolution is true. Sound good to you?
Created:
Posted in:
Weed is not bad for you at all.
If concentration doesn't matter, no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Created:
Posted in:
Mic drop.I have no need to respond to your commentary,.....
Created:
Posted in:
More abortions? Wow. Do you guys ever get tired of killing kids?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
Reproductive compatibility has nothing to do with it. Mating with another individual without the mutation would kill the propagation of that mutation in the gene pool. So you rather talk about reproductive compatibility. Tigers and Lions are somewhat reproductively compatibile, know why we don't have hundreds of tigions running around?
There's nothing wrong with speaking in generalities as you claim.
Not if you're an evolutionist that needs to breeze over the details to make his lame theory sound viable, no. When asked for details, you should be able to supply them if your argument is so tight. You will skip over thousands of years of evolution as if its fully explained. Wait Darwin, tell us exactly how that one mutation propagated in the gene pool. The actual mechanism, not some sweeping generality pre-assuming evolution is correct, thus assuming its conclusion in its premise.
No one mutation would suddenly create a new species of chicken; rather, the culmination of these mutations over thousands of years would create a new animal.
Yeah. That was my objection remember? Yet here you are, unable to explain how a new species comes about without first assuming that a new species came about. D'oh!
However, the egg came first. The first generation of birds comprised mostly of 'modern' chickens had to come from somewhere...
Not so fast slick. Let's look at the first bird, not the first "generation" of birds comprised mostly of 'modern' chickens. Details, not generalities.
...and that somewhere is an egg.
Of course, what laid that egg makes no difference right? Just gloss over that part covering 100,000 years in one neat sentence.
You would have known that He wouldn't take your glib generalities as logical arguments. But for you, a high-five from another evolutionist substitutes nicely for actual explanatory content.Had I actually read this thread in full instead of just skimming through it, not really paying attention to later developments in it, I wouldn't have wasted my time on ethang XD
...upon reading the exchange between you to, it's a lot more easier to figure out why ethang is wrong on this,....
Is it my grammar?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I am not clear what evidence of abiogenesis it is reasonable to expect.
As I don't expect any, I'm not sure either.
But it is true that the gulf between the most complex non-living natural structures and the simplest living thing is enormous.
You have a gift for understatement.
Creating the first living thing is the 'jumbo jet out of a junkyard' problem.
Some "men of science" here are already selling tickets aboard that jumbo jet.
That problem disappears once evolution and natural selection can occur, but evoultion and natural selection can't occur until there is a minimum level life-like replication going on... it's a classic chicken and egg situation.
None of this is true, but since you have the most lucid and honest take on abiogenesis, I'll let it pass for now.
We might have to wait a long time for the answer to that puzzle - i doubt the budget for such research is 1/10000 of that of the LHC!
In the maintime, pretend that the answer is abiogenesis, and call it science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Post #2 of this thread would show you to be a liar.
It shows you to be an idiot. So you were addressing my post #2 in post #164? Prompt aren't you. My post was in response to someone challenging me to a debate. Your irrational bitterness caused you to be silly in public again.
And as usual, the rest of your post is just more spitting venom.
Because I didn't bring up some stupid thing you did a year ago? Lol, yeah, your posts are civil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Aporia
I wonder when the pro-life position will finally be relegated to a thing of the past.
When death finally reigns.
Guess it's a good thing y'all are in the clear minority....
As long as we keep winning votes, the minority position is OK.
....but there's still a ways to go unfortunately.
Gotta kill all those pesky babies huh? Good luck in your death cult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I can live with those definitions.
But it remains true that abiogenesis has no evidence whatsoever in its favor. So the question stands. Why is it considered?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
No Sir. I did not address you. I responded to an invitation by another to a debate. You, in your rancor and bitterness, addressed me.You're on my thread so its you who is following me around
And even then, you're off topic, babbling about who knows what, lost in bitterness. What happened to your life? Where is it?
Created:
Posted in:
Not as long as Abortion Remains Illegal in Argentina.
Created:
Posted in:
Think of all the precious cute little babies not murdered. 😁😇
Created:
-->
@Castin
She got it. You missed the brilliant comeback she handed to wylted. Think about it a bit.He means black people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
1. No longer post vote remove notices on FF, troll, or conceded debates
Agree.
2. Whenever a vote is borderline, default to considering it sufficient (currently implemented)
Agree. Though "borderline" is vague. How also about if another mod disagrees, default to considering it sufficient?
3. Whenever a vote is removed, explain--briefly--how the voter could improve (currently implemented)
Agree.
4. No longer post detailed analysis in notices on non-removed votes
Agree.
5. Allow only debaters and voters to report votes on debates (this may require non-anonymous reporting)
Agree. This would stop the people with agendas from mass reporting votes to a mod known to be partial to progressive positions.
6. Reinstate anonymous reporting
Disagree. Why does it need to be anonymous?
7. Allow users to summarily post the contents of mod PMs so long as no non-public information about other users (other = not the sender or receiver of the PM) is revealed by the revelation.
Agree.
8. Lock objectionable or COC-violating threads instead of deleting them, unless leaving them up would severely breach a user's privacy or safety rights
Not sure. Leaving them up would only make threads about COC-violating threads more tempting to trolls looking for quick drama.
9. Allow mods to disclose the reasons for a ban, via PM, upon request by a user
Disagree. This creates unnecessary work for the mods. Why a member is banned is no one's business anyway.
10. Cap the number of vote reports that a user can make per day at 10.
Agree, but maybe 10 is too high.
11. No longer prohibit the use of slurs so long as those slurs are not intended to render insult to the subject of the comment
Agreed. Hate directed to whole groups excepted.
12. Make all significant changes in mod policy subject to a mandatory 2-day public comment period
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
If a mod should not be appointed by member votes, he should not be removed by member votes either. bsh1 has told us that he trumps even the owner, so even if the owner was among a %100 vote against bsh1, he would not be removable.
Bsh1's own behavior will be his undoing. More and more people will find out what he's doing in voting moderation, more and more people will post the PM's he thought would never see the light of day. More and more people will balk at the political correctness he's trying to force down their throats.
This thread is bogus.
Created:
Posted in:
Please tell mike you can handle this position on your own, without the assistance of BSH1. The majority of us would be happy with you as a mod. You are transparent, try to make decisions that would make the community happy, are fair and also you are not prone to occasionally becoming emotionally frail, being over zealous and being pig headed.
He's fair. That is all it takes. Where is Whiteflame?
Created:
Posted in:
The real problem here is not strict or lax moderation, but unfair and uneven moderation. Any moderation where the mods have no consequence for engaging in abusive behavior, can announce to the board that they trump the owner, and rise to the top of the debate chart, will have disgruntled members.
This isn't just members who think moderation has been too harsh, but who think moderation has been unfair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
This post highlights my claim.
Evolutionists soar when they speak only in generalities. Tie them down to specifics and they immediately start to doublespeak.
You went to reproductive compatibility. Of course you did. The point was that a single individual with a genetic mutation would not be able to spread that mutation throughout the gene pool if all potential mates did not have that mutation.
You dodged that point and filled your post with evo-fluff.
Created: