Abiogenesis is impossible

[snowtracks]

darwin did the best he could using morphological features to outline the ascent of man. however, dna has now shown that the neanderthal man is not genetically related to human beings.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164492/
so on those evolutionary ascent of man images, put a big X over the neanderthal.

Wrong yet again, Snowy.

the neanderthal genome DNA shows it a distinct species from human beings. DNA differences are noted in skin and hair, skull shape, rib cage (barrel shaped, neanderthal), metabolic function (nead. cold adapted), cognitive development. may have been some low level breeding as human migrated out-of-africa to europe and asia. distinct species interbreeding has been noted, for instance dolphins and pygmy killer whales resulting in wolphin offspring who are themselves fertile. interbreeding <> evolution.

[Rampant.A.I.]

[snowtracks]

[Rampant.A.I.]

Unwilling to entertain a theistic explanation for consciousness, Nagel instead prefers the rather mystical view of panpsychism––the mind or soul are universal features in all things.

http://wilmiers777.com/2013/05/23/explai...he-cosmos/

[snowtracks]

darwin tried his best, but sold you down the river.
"Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/dar...HHWuM.dpuf
you weren't supposed to take it seriously; didn't you know that? but he did have some redeeming value, he believed in the 'mind' existence.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Darwin was not a priest, or a figurehead. He was a product of his time, and the doubts he experienced based on the religious society he grew up in coupled with his reluctance to propose theories that would seem to indicate God was an unnecessary statement has no bearing on the current scientific understanding of evolution, or current theories of evolution.

Which, as we keep having to remind you, have absolutely nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution.

[Whateverist]

Given the times he lived in no doubt the pressures on Darwin not to go against religion were probably even greater than they've been on you, snowy. Fortunately he was a good deal brighter.

[Esquilax]

darwin tried his best, but sold you down the river.
"Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/dar...HHWuM.dpuf
you weren't supposed to take it seriously; didn't you know that? but he did have some redeeming value, he believed in the 'mind' existence.

Okay, so you've just demonstrated that Darwin was wrong on that point. Do you have any other nothings you'd like to erroneously spew at us?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Given the times he lived in no doubt the pressures on Darwin not to go against religion were probably even greater than they've been on you, snowy. Fortunately he was a good deal brighter.

The apologetic tone found in the origin of species speaks to this in particular.

Darwin himself didn't like the ideas he was proposing, but was driven to by logical application of empirical observation.

Darwin had no stake in denying God. He had everything to lose, and yet he followed the evidence, no matter how uncomfortable the conclusions.

I don't know that you're able to appreciate the repercussions of this. Darwin isn't particularly revered in science because he rejected
God. He's revered because like Galileo, he asked the difficult questions and followed them to their conclusions, regardless of what it would do to his personal life.

Because that's what science is. Empiricism leading to conclusions, no matter how inconvenient to the individual.

And after all this, you still seem to believe your mind is something special, when the opposite seems to be true.

We are, by our very nature, presupposed to think we are smarter than we actually are. Because we are conscious, consciousness seems to assume our intelligence is greater than what we actually possess.

We still have stone-age individuals like yourself who misguidedly think our dim understanding of reality is somehow indicative of some higher consciousness beyond the cogito.

You are not as smart as you think you are, and no amount of religious indoctrination will raise you above what you think you know.

[snowtracks]