(June 7, 2018 at 2:08 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(June 7, 2018 at 1:57 am)Wololo Wrote: Mr Inquisition's parents kust be proud.  Before he came I couldn't imagine you'f be able to stack shit so high.

Glad I impressed you.

Not yo, your parents. I couldn't possibly imagine anything as useless as you until you turned up here.

(June 7, 2018 at 5:19 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 6, 2018 at 6:43 pm)CDF47 Wrote: The system makes a 747 jumbo jet look like child's play. Have you ever seen a 747 construct itself?

No, but I've never seen a 747 reproduce, either.  Have you?  Since the entire theory of how we got DNA in the first place is based on replication, analogizing it to something that doesn't replicate itself is just an invalid analogy.  If we saw 747s giving birth to other 747s, the question of the origin of the 747 would not be a simple matter.  What other argument do you have that isn't flawed?

Do you have any idea how complex replication actually is?  It is a highly complex process using sophisticated nano molecular machines.

Well, without getting bogged down in the weeds of how relatively complex it is compared to other things...it might be useful to point out that theres no clear reason why this should matter...nor any indication that any person is arguing with you about replication being complex in one way or another in your quoted text or anywhere else in these 400 pages....

.....so?

"Stuff is complex! Stuff is complex! Stuff is complex!"

Yes, we know...so what?

Carnivals......?  You;re trying to have a discussion about evolutionary biology, and carnivals are what comes to mind when you find that you have utterly failed at your own chosen task?

Now, though, we find you imagining that you have overcome the imaginary satanic conspiracy with your imaginary mental abilities and saved imaginary people for your imaginary god....from some imaginary shills?

(June 7, 2018 at 2:29 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Hawkings' calculations show infinite space curvature at the Big Bang.  Thus, no space.  How much matter and energy can fit in no space?  Zero.

How many times do I have to tell you that Hawking could be wrong before it sinks in? That is one hypothesis for the origin of our cosmos that has no more evidence to support it than any of the others. We are decades away from being able to conduct experiments that would allow us to test or eliminate any of them. You can't math something into existence. You don't get to just pick the calculation that you think works best for the position that you already hold. That would be stupid. The proper stance to take prior to a hypothesis that has not been disconfirmed or supported by evidence or predictions is 'neither disconfirmed nor supported', aka 'we don't know yet'.

Part of the silliness of this thread is that I don't even care if Hawking was correct or not, if he's right, good for him, posthumously. Whatever turns out to be the actual case is fine with me because I'm on team reality. But we cannot yet know if he was right.

It;s another "so what" objection regardless of whether it pans out or not.  What would it have to do with his demonstrably false variant of christerism?

Nada.

*prances through*

(June 7, 2018 at 2:24 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(June 7, 2018 at 5:19 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: No, but I've never seen a 747 reproduce, either.  Have you?  Since the entire theory of how we got DNA in the first place is based on replication, analogizing it to something that doesn't replicate itself is just an invalid analogy.  If we saw 747s giving birth to other 747s, the question of the origin of the 747 would not be a simple matter.  What other argument do you have that isn't flawed?

Do you have any idea how complex replication actually is?  It is a highly complex process using sophisticated nano molecular machines.

I fail to see how your response in any way answers the objection. My point throughout this discussion is that you appear to lack the proof that you claim that you have. When I point out that your latest alleged proof is invalid, you acknowledge that with a rather irrelevant "but." Are you attempting to argue that complex things can't arise through a process of replication with variation? If so, then that's an argument you have to make, and haven't done so. In doing so, you're making a claim about what is and isn't possible, so you need to show not simply that you're incredulous, but that you having reasons for believing it to be impossible. Until you do, I'm fully justified in pointing out your apparent lack of proof for the thing you claim to have proven. And until you address that lack, your claims otherwise will simply be hollowly asserted bullshit.

(June 7, 2018 at 1:45 am)CDF47 Wrote: I suspect there are some shills on this site.

Name actual names and produce evidence that would hold up in a court of law.  If you cannot do that, retract the accusation.

And if you will not retract the accusation, it is my personal wish that your life turn into an unstoppable shit-storm replete with personal losses sufficient to permanently crush your faith beyond any hope of restoration.