Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Quote:Meanwhile, back on Earth at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, have created synthetic molecules that copy genetic material. The enzyme, tC19Z, that has been synthesised could be an artificial version of one of the first enzymes that ever existed on our planet three billion years ago -- and a clue to how life itself got started. Their goal is to create fully self-replicating RNA molecules in the lab.
Atheistic evolutionary fundies? Into ID? Whatever next?
LOL... With regards to "how life itself got started" and "three billion years".....
The scientific method has four "steps" - Observe, hypothesise, test and demonstrate - and since there was no-one there to comply with the first "step". It's all just GUESSING... or should that be wishful thinking... or, perhaps, Pi**ING IN THE WIND.
The latter definitely.
You people will believe any old bollox.
Oh, by the way........ Hi All
FH
Let's all just calm the fuck down, shall we?
1. You've been provided with the actual layout of the scientific method. You're missing a few steps.
2. Are you really making the argument that if no human was there to record it, then we have no observation? I'm beginning to think you don't know what an observation is. Here, let me spoonfeed it to you since you're busy throwing intellectual tripe at everyone else:
Observation is either an activity of a living being (such as a human), consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses, or the recording of data using scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during this activity. An observation can also be the way you look at things or when you look at something.
Do you understand that ANY data collected is an observation in science?
3. I will accept anything that is readily demonstrable and verifiable in reality. If RNA can be replicated in a lab using conditions that were similar to a forming Earth, and those results are measurable, consistent, and pass the rigors of peer review, then that provides us the best explanation of how life formed on Earth. Saying an unverifiable deity did it doesn't expand our knowledge of anything, because you have to first provide evidence of that deity's existence.
Your text speaks volumes about how ignorant you are in regards to scientific discovery. To equate demonstrable evidence to pissing in the wind is something that could only come from someone that is intellectually dishonest at worst and severely misguided at best.
Go learn you a book, lightweight.
Thanks for trying to get the discussion back on topic. However, there was no instrumentation to collect data when life supposedly began, so FH is actually right when he says this sort of thing is more along the lines of story-telling than it is an empirical science.
(April 19, 2011 at 8:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Thanks for trying to get the discussion back on topic. However, there was no instrumentation to collect data when life supposedly began, so FH is actually right when he says this sort of thing is more along the lines of story-telling than it is an empirical science.
No, Wardork, there is more to it than mere story telling, much more. Now, your pathetic Christian mythology? That IS story telling. Congratulations. So if you want to have a rational discussion of the science, we can do that. If all you are interested in is insults, well I can do that as well as the best of them.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
(April 19, 2011 at 7:31 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Empty.
Still no answer to my question then? What a loser.
FH
When you ask something intelligent we'll answer you.
At the moment you come across as a retarded xtian fundementalist who has not the slightest interest in intelligent debate. Just abusing all and sundry.
What happened, did you get punched in the face the last time you went door knocking for Zombie jesus?
P.s the bible is a load of shit and anyone who takes it seriously probably needs help spelling their own name.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
(April 19, 2011 at 7:31 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Empty.
Still no answer to my question then? What a loser.
FH
When physicists look at empty space, what do they find? This will be on the pop quiz so try to get it right this time.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
(April 19, 2011 at 8:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Thanks for trying to get the discussion back on topic. However, there was no instrumentation to collect data when life supposedly began, so FH is actually right when he says this sort of thing is more along the lines of story-telling than it is an empirical science.
No, Wardork, there is more to it than mere story telling, much more. Now, your pathetic Christian mythology? That IS story telling. Congratulations. So if you want to have a rational discussion of the science, we can do that. If all you are interested in is insults, well I can do that as well as the best of them.
So you pretty much just said, "No you're wrong because you just are". Nicely done. Only problem is that a guy putting all the animals of the world on a giant boat to survive a worldwide flood is a vastly more plausible story than any abiogenesis story to date. It's ok, don't cry.
(May 4, 2011 at 6:36 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Only problem is that a guy putting all the animals of the world on a giant boat to survive a worldwide flood is a vastly more plausible story than any abiogenesis story to date. It's ok, don't cry.
Actually the only thing your dumbass fairy-tale is more probable than is Lord Xenu dropping hydrogen bombs.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
