"Just repeating it and stamping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue doesn't make it so, son."
Thanks "Dad" I'll keep that in mind next time I hear a peasant in the dark ages say "Oh look, rain is going to make worms!"
Get with the program Pops, your old way of assuming your self rightous purity of mind is nothing more than you telling yourself you can take on anything in existance.
You can't even perfom a simple lab experiment to prove your point, and you want the entire world to bend to your ideas. Such a concete you "scientists" have. You tout a claim of unbiased knowledge, and then back it up by simply saying "nope, religion is wrong, and I have no proof, but you have to prove to me why I'm wrong."
You are wrong buddy. Dead wrong. If you would like to get a glass of water, put some amino acids in it, provide all the energy you damn well please, and keep it away from pre-existing life; you will NEVER make life.
You would have to construct it your self. You know it to well to.
My point in stating that you cannot disprove ID by making it happen is not a catch-22 as you so implied. Read the actual statements and come to a real conclusion, not what others ahve been telling you for years.
If you can provide the environment for it and life happens, then I would gladly admit my wrongness and denounce my God. If you have to create it, the fact remains, life must be created.
If I had said "Provide the environment, and if it happens by itself, my God did it" THEN you could call me what you will.
It seems, however, that your leaps in logic include leaps to assumptions and away from the evidence right in front of your less-than-humble nose.
Blah blah blah... Let me know when you get done ranting and start talking about something of substance, and the evidence it's based upon.
You can't even perfom a simple lab experiment to prove your point,
Sure I can, actually. And annually millions of such experiments are performed all around the world. Check out those links I gave you, for example. Try stepping into one of those "library" things you must have heard about at some point, especially any reasonably well-stocked university library (one which offers post-graduate science degrees), or research library.
and you want the entire world to bend to your ideas.
You're obviously hallucinating. You might want to get that paranoid persecution complex tweaked a bit, they're making some good medications for that kind of thing these days (many of them developed by evolutionary processes, by the way, *gasp*!)
Such a concete you "scientists" have.
Is "concete" anything like a "conceit", or were you trying for "concrete"?
You tout a claim of unbiased knowledge, and then back it up by simply saying "nope, religion is wrong, and I have no proof, but you have to prove to me why I'm wrong."
Okay, I'll bite -- where have you EVER seen me say anything as stupid as that? You're hallucinating again. Your fantasies about what those "know-it-all" scientists say actually say more about your own defensiveness than they say about actual science or actual scientists.
You are wrong buddy. Dead wrong.
Where, exactly? Be specific.
If you would like to get a glass of water, put some amino acids in it, provide all the energy you damn well please, and keep it away from pre-existing life; you will NEVER make life.
Well of course not, because that's not even *remotely* similar to the conditions which actually birthed life. Is your knowledge of biochemistry really that cartoonish, or were you dishonestly presenting a straw-man knowingly?
Either way, it hardly inspires confidence in your ability to hold up your end of the discussion.
You would have to construct it your self. You know it to well to.
No, actually, what I *do* know is that life managed to bootstrap itself through a sequence of successive stages, as clearly indicated in the mass of biochemical evidence which has been flooding in over the past decade or so as research in this area has reached the take-off point.
I'm sorry if *you're* behind on your journal reading, but *I'm* not.
And do not presume to tell me what I "know", child.
My point in stating that you cannot disprove ID by making it happen is not a catch-22 as you so implied.
Where in the *hell* did you find anything like *that* in my posts? Hallucinating again?
Read the actual statements and come to a real conclusion, not what others ahve been telling you for years.
Again, you presume to "know" what I know and have learned (and how) on this topic. Your arrogance knows no bounds, and is especially ironic in light of your obviously superficial familiarity with this topic.
If you can provide the environment for it and life happens, then I would gladly admit my wrongness and denounce my God.
Where in the heck do you get the ridiculous notion that a natural origin for life would somehow "disprove your God" or require you to "denounce" anything? It has apparently escaped your attention that the majority of Americans who accept the validity of evolution are *Christians*. If they can reconcile those beliefs, you can too.
If you have to create it, the fact remains, life must be created.
No need, it has already arisen on its own.
If I had said "Provide the environment, and if it happens by itself, my God did it" THEN you could call me what you will.
Um, okay....
It seems, however, that your leaps in logic include leaps to assumptions and away from the evidence right in front of your less-than-humble nose.
Actually, the only one here who is making "leaps in logic which include leaps to assumptions" is yourself, when you keep ascribing all sorts of bizarre statements and motivations to me, for no cause whatsoever.
FWIW, he just refuted 90% of his own arguments.