How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@NealNealNeal,

Quote:

@cicerone imposter,
Science is based on the Scientific method. We're you on earth 200,000 years ago?

If you have a need to ask that question, there's no sense in any further discussion.

@cicerone imposter,

You are correct. Humankind did not evolve from a one celled being in ooze.

0 Replies

Bullshit, as always with you--certainly single cell organisms did not live "in ooze," they needed atmospheric exchange to get the chemicals they needed. The first big extinction event came about because eukaryotes had altered the atmosphere--but whether it was archaea or bacteria or eukaryotes, they needed to get gas exchange to survive.

That was in the period from about 4.1 billion years ago until about 2.7 billion years ago, when eukaryotes arose. I don't know where you came up with that 200,000 years ago horseshit; All humans--in fact, all land-based life forms, which are not bacteria--are descended from the first eukaryotic cells. No one needs to have been around to witness it, and you could not have "witnessed" the evolution of single cell organism, because they're microscopic, get it? The evidence is in the fossil record. I'm sure that constitute a part of the enormous body of knowledge of which you are ignorant.

0 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

NealNealNeal wrote:

My point is that the Scientific method can not be used.

Obviously, you have no business talking about the scientific method.

Quote:

Now, the study of Statistics prove that it is impossible for man to have evolved from a one cell being billions of years ago Perhaps you can respond to that

Perhaps you could trot out your alleged statistics. When you make a claim, you have the burden of proving it.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

There's more bullshit in this thread than there is on a Texas cattle ranch. Your contention about abiogenesis (a term invented by Thomas Huxley, by the way, known as Darwin's bulldog because of his relentless attacks on religious liars) displays a breathtaking ignorance. For you to claim that there need be an intelligence behind the rise of single-call organisms more than 4,000,000,000 years ago as you have entails a burden of proof on your part. Just saying it does nothing to establish such a claim. Upon what basis do you allege that we cannot "decode" the mRNA of archaea? (Hint, the earliest lifeforms for which there is any evidence are arhaea, prokaryotic, single-cell organisms. Archaea still exist, they just cannot exist in an environment with ambient O2.) The "invention" of life certainly is in question. That old dodge whereby the god-squad pretend they don't have any idea of what intelligence (goddidit) was this putative inventor is a glaring example of moral cowardice.

Personally, I don't consider roughly one and a half billion years to be "overnight," even on a geological scale. Archaea and bacteria arose about four billion years ago, which is demonstrated in the fossil record. It was about one and a half billion years before eukaryotic cells arose. Very likely, eukaryotes arose from endosymbiosis of prokaryotic organisms (archaea and bacteria).

Don't peddle that intelligent inventor bullshit unless you have reliable evidence to back it up.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The number of years that it would have taken for a one cell being to have evolved into human is astronomical. Billions of years is Statistically impossible.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Do the math, show your work. You're peddling bullshit, and I suspect it's bullshit you got from some anti-evolution, holy roller web site.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Please refer to the Wistar Institute Symposium Mathematical challenges to the Neo-Darwinian interpretation of Evolution. This will be a good start to our discussion.

2 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

I don’t know why Setanta bothers, name dropping may impress other idiots but all it means is you’ve got nothing.

Show your workings. You can’t because you do not have the wherewithal. It’s exactly the same as when I pointed out a basic mistake you made in English which turned your sentence into word salad.

That shot right over your head. I’ve spoken to a lot of idiots online but this is the first time I’ve come across someone who can’t see a mistake even after it’s been pointed out.

As I said earlier the only point you’re making is that you’ve not had much, if any, education.

I can see why Ll is your favourite poster, you’re both ignorant and opinionated.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Is that another product of a holy roller web site? It would help your case if you yourself read the material you recommend. Apart from pointing out that genetic investigation and genome compilation have radically improved models in evolutionary biology--and those were not available in 1966-67, when the symposium took place . . .

Quote:

Most biologists are satisfied with a theory that can be tested and that proves predictive. It is a different challenge to a theory that it should have an effective working model, for failure may imply either imperfection in the theory or imperfection in the model. It is doubtful whether this symposium has done much to influence the theory of evolution; it may have done much to improve future models.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I apologise for my lack of skill in using the Smartphone I do better with a Desktop Computer.
As for as my education goes, I have a Masters Degree in Statistics and Operations. One thing that I know is that the droppings from a bull has little to do with any of the subjects that have been discussed.
You are far too emotional.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

That’s something else idiots do, accuse others of being emotional.

You still didn’t notice when your mistakes were pointed out.

Your alleged qualifications have no bearing on evolution at all, and your posts don’t show much understanding at all.

We’ve all heard of these religious colleges in America whose qualifications aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

If you’ve got a masters in statistics you should be able to show your workings.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I don't respond to all posts.
"Idiot" is an emotional statement.
My University was religious many years ago.
On a discussion board, I sometimes refer people to articles.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

No workings.

Nuff said.

And you are an idiot.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

For you to claim that there need be an intelligence behind the rise of single-call organisms more than 4,000,000,000 years ago as you have entails a burden of proof on your part.

To be more precise, my claim is that the mechanisms seen in biological Lifeforms have never been shown to self-assemble from the chemistry of prebiotic conditions. The mere availability of amino acids is not an argument that they will inevitably lead to 'life'.

It is you who are making the extraordinary claim that it did.
'Show your work' as you say.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Reality shows that Scientific models are often wrong even about Modern events Look at how horrible some models were concerning Corona Virus. Models were wrong concerning Brexit and the 2016 presidential election.
If scientific models are wrong so often concerning modern events, how can you trust models of so called events that "occurred" billions of years ago?
The truth is that people do not know

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Certainly the truth is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. If you're going to bleat about models about the novel corona virus, then produce one. Keep in mind that this is an evolved virus that only appeared within the last year. What "models" are you referring to with regard to Brexit and the 2016 election? You really don't understand what a scientific model is. To support your claim, you'll have to come up with evidence of scientific modelling for Brexit and the 2016 American election. Modelling of events billions of years ago is going to be a great deal more reliable than anything for contemporary events. You're peddling bullshit as usual. You posted something you though was iron-clad, but you hadn't even read it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

That's an insult to ordinary, unoffending idiots.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

To be more precise, my claim is that the mechanisms seen in biological Lifeforms have never been shown to self-assemble from the chemistry of prebiotic conditions.

Your claim is bullshit. I first read about the "self-assembly" of organic molecules in 1973, in an article in The Scientific American dated in 1970. It referred to clay tubules, specifically in montmorillonite, in which such molecules self-assembled. This has long been studied because the process is important in many industrial processes.

This is the abstract from Self-assembly processes in the prebiotic environment

Quote:

An important question guiding research on the origin of life concerns the environmental conditions where molecular systems with the properties of life first appeared on the early Earth. An appropriate site would require liquid water, a source of organic compounds, a source of energy to drive polymerization reactions and a process by which the compounds were sufficiently concentrated to undergo physical and chemical interactions. One such site is a geothermal setting, in which organic compounds interact with mineral surfaces to promote self-assembly and polymerization reactions. Here, we report an initial study of two geothermal sites where mixtures of representative organic solutes (amino acids, nucleobases, a fatty acid and glycerol) and phosphate were mixed with high-temperature water in clay-lined pools. Most of the added organics and phosphate were removed from solution with half-times measured in minutes to a few hours. Analysis of the clay, primarily smectite and kaolin, showed that the organics were adsorbed to the mineral surfaces at the acidic pH of the pools, but could subsequently be released in basic solutions. These results help to constrain the range of possible environments for the origin of life. A site conducive to self-assembly of organic solutes would be an aqueous environment relatively low in ionic solutes, at an intermediate temperature range and neutral pH ranges, in which cyclic concentration of the solutes can occur by transient dry intervals.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Scientific models concerning Corona Virus have been terribly wrong, except for a few.
You don't remember that all but a few scientific models had Clinton winning the presidentcy the day before the election?
The same thing happened concerning Brexit.

0 Replies

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know