Atheism

Kind of like the implausibility of the story that we 'know' how biological life began.
We know no such thing according to actual science, and yet it is preached as gospel.

What a godless thing to say.

You mean about the 'religious boring the hell out of me'? Godless how?
I felt like I was in good company, JC was bored with them too according to the story. He was pretty tight with God wasn’t he?

Bullshit . . . name the preacher. I know of several good bases so speculate; I have never claimed to know, nor do I know of anyone here who has. I know of no one here who has ever "preached as gospel" that the origin of life is known. You're peddling bullshit, as usual. Don't try to claim that no one here, or elsewhere has never described an implausible afterlife. The mere concept of an "afterlife" is implausible, "according to actual science." If religioinists like you didn't make **** up, you'd have nothing to say.

We have many clues how life started, but no real scientists I have read claim to have it all wrapped up. More deist hysteria to claim otherwise.

Meet the good reverend farmerman.
He has claimed we know all the steps involved. And IIRC, you (And a bunch of others calling themselves scientists) have made similar claims about how nucleotide linking happened in clay so it is 'plausible' that life started there.

show me where I said that and Ill kiss your big fat ass .

I know what I said Im just saddened that perhaps youre too ignorant to understand but still too proud to learn anything that conflicts with "ID"

Weve found 3 of the 5 nucleotides in star spectra throughout the several galaxies. (not even the visible universe needs be queried. Seeing evidence and making conclusions is not some bold ass statement that we know something or certain.

Religious hacks always want to include real science as a worship service. You can try hard as you wish, it just dont stick Dobbie.

As usual, you just trot out more bullshit. FM has answered your origins bullshit. I don't claim to be a scientist--do you? You and your new buddy Jasper should get a room. Then you can discuss without dissent a supernatural creation, for which you have no evidence. You can discuss the obvious influence of so-called design, although you never present a shred of evidence. Best of all, you can indulge your penchant for moral cowardice by claiming there's evidence (again, unspecified) for design, but declining to name the designer.

Best of all, you can vacate this thread, where the stench of your horseshit is not welcome.

I notice how this entire covid-19 xpperience is playing out to assess HGT and adaptive mutation and even Baldwin effect , and viruii arent even living organisms. Yet some, of the more religious among us, will often deny the non anagenic pathways of evolution.

They bring up that design bullshit and the origins of life because they don't have a hope in hell of finding any scientific basis for a supernatural creation or for design. A theory of evolution is indifferent to the origins of life.

Now he got me riled. I went back nd spent some wee bit a time recalling anything I said. What I id say was that there are about 4 really good HYPOTHESES regarding the origin of life on the planet and that there were several failed attempts at life in the 4.2 to 3.8 By timeframe. I gave their locations and the evidence (C12 v C13) ratios.

leadfoot has read all these answers before. This is his passive-aggressive way of gaining attention just to be a pain in the ass.

What do you mean by 'failed attempts at life?' What emerged that you would classify as life and how did it fail?

Are you just going by C12/C13 ratios without any further hypothesis about what caused the ratios, or do you have something that suggests one or more possible causal explanations?

Anyone who is really interested in who said what in the design debate can go read it in the appropriate thread.

But as I originally said, no actual scientist claims to know the origin of life.
So as far as science says, I agree.

no. In the Issua formation and in the Flinders Hills are actually " masses of spheroid blobs" of what appear to be Archea type cells. (These exact forms appeared later around -3.2-2.8 Billion years ago as the single cell prokryotes (No nucleii)) life forms)
The entire areas of the micro fossils contain internal chemical "fossils " also, the residual organic compounds are made of high ratio C12 to C13 . These chemicals are often predecessors of nucleic acids called "T" NA

So, "life" as we define it by its seven aspects had been apparently attempted on earth not much after the earth (and the solar system, were formed). The 4 (maybe more) attempts at establishing life are separated from each other by distance and sedimentary time. The evidence is pretty good. I dont say its conclusive because we can only interpret evidence. but the evidence , as I said, is very convincing to science. (except the Fundamentalist "Creation Scientists" who are not bothered with facts and evidence)

Well, if you call flinging ****, insults, etc. 'answers' then yes, I’ve heard them before.

If we could get rid of the religious nitwits, this thread could be worthwhile again.

Amen, brother.

So to speak . . .

Someone voted my post down . . . uh-oh, the phony Frenchman is back . . .