What Darwin discovered

You are sounding frustrated now Son, but that's ok, Happy Christmas Eve, do you have a warm pond to leave your gifts around? Must be fun.

Nice try. Im not the one trying to misrepresent what people have said.

Meanwhile science continues to progress beyond your simple "read and learn" arguments.

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/12/asteroid-impacts-may-have-formed-life-s-building-blocks

So you are saying that since asteroids could carry life, then we could put life on a rocket, and deliver it to a new place. Proving intelligent design.

Thanks.

Did you read the article? Or do you like just making stupid comments that have nothing to do with what you are responding to?

Dude, there is nothing found, on an asteroid, that is included in life, that is not part of the Earth. You know, C/H/N/O/P/S, not to forget iron, zinc, copper, manganese, chromium, molybdenum and selenium.

Simple set theory doesn't mean I said something you claimed I did. Obviously you would rather spout nonsense from ignorance than read an article, understand it, and comment on it.

Intelligence, includes, knowing what not to do, not in just knowing what to do.

Challenging a lion to a wrestling match, is a loss. Do you have to try, before you can say that you know this is true? or does logic apply?

The best explanation I know of Darwin's achievements is in Richard Dawkins 'Blind Watchmaker'. The mechanism for the increasing complexity of life is natural selection, and it has acted like a blind watchmaker without purpose or intention.

That is idiotic.......................

It does sound strange but Mr Dawkins goes to great lengths to explain it. What looks very much like design is the result of natural forces.
We should not be too surprised the stars and galaxies themselves are a result of natural forces some of which scientists have discovered.

But Dawkins has nothing to support his ideas, other than speculation. Volcanoes spew lava which is a natural force, lava does not turn into life, this is essentially what Dawkins believes. There is no scientific evidence for this in any way. Just none.

Dwkins can be criticized for several things, but NOT providing evidence is NOT one of them. I imagine that Thumbsy has not read anything by Dawkins the same way that hes NOT read any books or papers by Darwin

Dawkins has provided no evidence, for how a molten lava Earth, that was STERILE, created life one day because it was bored. There is no evidence, for this happening, this idea is a theory, just like relativity, or bigfoot.........

you seem to be swinging your pot around the room hoping thatnwhen you release, itll hit something. Dawkins evidences what any scientist does, in tiny steps. A conclusion is always basd upon wwvience inscience. Otherwise it comes out sounding like you, lots of assertions but nothing behind them.


Still don't understand Hubbles Law eh?

While it is true Mr Dawkins has trouble explaning just how the first replicating organisms came to be from then on the wheels of evolution go on to produce human beings by natural selection. This was Darwins great discovery long before modern genetics and DNA.
Mr Dawkins gives him the credit as is his due and touches on other related topics with his vivid imagination. Its a great read but I found it difficult in parts.

so you are sying tht Dawkins goes around preaching for life out of a volcanic origin? have you read "The Greatest Show on Erth" that he wrote 2007-2009 (published in 2009)? Where does he mention bout "sterile earth" in this book, (which seems to me to be a chock fiull of evidence text)

Your signature is pathetic, sorry to say it plain, but it is...clueless.

There is no higher form of thought not even Maths that can rival good Philosophy. It doesn't matter 90% of the philosophers are not up to the task it just proves how hard it is to get on the subject...Words quantum tunnel what Maths cannot. Science is a downgrade. Science is for Philosophy what a nurse is for a doctor...mostly menial tasking done by young college students who give their blood to an old fart that exhaustively searches for an answer often without reasoning criteria...is just mass data until it stumbles upon something. I wouldn't trust the work of a philosopher to any scientist. And any good scientist we had knowing it or not was before most a philosopher.
Make no mistake here I have the utmost respect for science, I spend half of my free time seeing documentaries on science, but hell the idea that what they do for most of the time requires thinking skills is a myth. Science is just a method, a good one, but anyone above dog level intelligence who is diligent enough and careful enough can do it ! Science without Philosophy is like Maths without Physics...almost worthless it has no subject. of course I don't expect you to understand just how dumb that signature is...after all if you knew it you would never use it as a proud symbol in your badge.
Also I rather not see you lurking in philosophy forums...go borrow some ideas in your lab with your smart pals...judging by your takes they must be brilliant.

when filosophy comes up with some answers let me know.

a fish without a tv set