Let The Creatard Shitting of Bricks Begineth

[robvalue]

And science can continue to study how the human brain is capable of such extreme defence methods, while being able to block out how ludicrous the defences sound.

[John V]

What's the BFD? NASA determined that a meteorite came from Mars and had life on it at some point. That was back in the 90s IIRC. NASA finds signs of life from outer space, oh...pretty much whenever they feel that they're losing relevance.

[Ravenshire]

None of that means you have a ball in your hand or that it's rubber, like many things scientist want so badly to prove regardless if it's true, deception has been part of their science.

GC

Pay close attention ladies and gentlemen. Rarely in life will you see such a perfect example of willful ignorance as that put on display in the short statement above.

[snowtracks]

http://www.ibtimes.com/nasa-dna-found-me...ace-828233

NASA: DNA Found on Meteorites Indicates Life May Have Originated in Space

NASA researchers have found the building blocks for life in meteorites, indicating that the components for life on Earth may have originated in outer space.

---

Researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greebelt, Md., report evidence that ready-made DNA parts could have crashed to the surface on objects like meteorites, and then assembled under Earth's early conditions to create the first DNA.

No wonder the republicunts don't want to fund NASA. Jesus can't handle the competition.

---

[dyresand]

http://www.ibtimes.com/nasa-dna-found-me...ace-828233



No wonder the republicunts don't want to fund NASA. Jesus can't handle the competition.[/hide]

That's a problem, isn't it? Title reads 'dna found', and article means 'dna building blocks'. The presence of early Earth’s building-block materials is not enough to explain the origin of life. These materials must be able to combine in a stepwise manner to form more-complex chemical entities that in turn could evolve into the first life-forms.
Nasa is desperately trying to increase their funding by distorting an article title and promoting a creaky and exhausted 19'th century materialism.

Still a argument for god did it is irrational. If god did it we would obviously know there is a god or gods present we would be able to contact god we would be even able to see god in a since. There would be more evidence for a heaven existing instead of blatant likes like heaven is for real.

[Ryantology]

That's a problem, isn't it? Title reads 'dna found', and article means 'dna building blocks'. The presence of early Earth’s building-block materials is not enough to explain the origin of life. These materials must be able to combine in a stepwise manner to form more-complex chemical entities that in turn could evolve into the first life-forms.
Nasa is desperately trying to increase their funding by distorting an article title and promoting a creaky and exhausted 19'th century materialism.

NASA didn't write that article, or its headline.

Here's the official NASA article: "DNA Building Blocks Can Be Made in Space"

NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a “kit” of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life.

International Business Times sensationalized their headline. It's not NASA's fault. They were more precise in their phrasing. Nowhere in that article does it state that fully-assembled extraterrestrial DNA was found.

You could have figured that out on your own, but it's not like anyone expects honesty or effort from the likes of you. You only saw what you mistakenly assumed was an opportunity to score desperately-needed points for the dying superstition you choose to cling to, and now you've made an idiot of yourself.

[Esquilax]

That's a problem, isn't it? Title reads 'dna found', and article means 'dna building blocks'. The presence of early Earth’s building-block materials is not enough to explain the origin of life. These materials must be able to combine in a stepwise manner to form more-complex chemical entities that in turn could evolve into the first life-forms.
Nasa is desperately trying to increase their funding by distorting an article title and promoting a creaky and exhausted 19'th century materialism.

Snowy, I know you have like the biggest, throbbingest erection for the argument from ignorance, but a lack of complete, comprehensive knowledge of a subject still isn't an argument for god. This is still one hundred percent more evidence than god has ever had for him.

[SteelCurtain]

Turgid. He is turgid with anticipation upon entering the argument from ignorance.

[snowtracks]

That's a problem, isn't it? Title reads 'dna found', and article means 'dna building blocks'. The presence of early Earth’s building-block materials is not enough to explain the origin of life. These materials must be able to combine in a stepwise manner to form more-complex chemical entities that in turn could evolve into the first life-forms.
Nasa is desperately trying to increase their funding by distorting an article title and promoting a creaky and exhausted 19'th century materialism.

Still a argument for god did it is irrational. If god did it we would obviously know there is a god or gods present we would be able to contact god we would be even able to see god in a since. There would be more evidence for a heaven existing instead of blatant likes like heaven is for real.

The statement 'I believe only what I can see' is in itself contradictory since belief is not physical. Actually, many things exist that can't be observed. Some very real scientific entities, such as magnetism, gravity, and electricity cannot be seen. Critical abstracts, such as numbers, sets, propositions, and properties, cannot be seen either...yet they exist. Justice, goodness, and other morals are real, but they are also undetectable by the senses. The concepts of truth and love are invisible realities. And by the way, just because we're limited by a body doesn't mean God is. The point is 'seeing is believing' is the very limiting, but if that's what you want to go with, that's perfectly fine.

[Tonus]

Notice that among all of those things that "aren't physical" you didn't describe a person or creature or any other being. If your point is that god is just an abstract concept that only exists so long as we conceptualize him in some way, that's fine. So is Zeus. So is James Bond. So is the Tooth Fairy. Good job proving the existence of every fantasy character that we ever thought up. The world just became a truly interesting place.