What Darwin discovered

Man just...educate yourself. You can do way better. You're half gas of your potential. Stop being lazy ! Seriously...

Youre just too taken with yourself. I recognize my own ignorance in many things.

Don't bother me or Ill have them pull the plug on your random phrase generator

You are the randomness advocate between the both of us not me... I don't even know what randomness is suppose to mean...fuzzy wording. Also stop with low ball pot shots on my English skills, you are a grown up man. Take it it and suck it up.

Heres a random bullshit generator. You may have more use for it than I. Just press the box at the top that says "REINONIZE ELECTRONS"

RANDOM BULLSHIT PHRASE GENERATOR[

Clap, clap, clap !

I am saying that the Earth was once molten and sterile, and that there is no way for life to emerge from sterility. To say that it did, is just a theory, with no merit. Watch Dawkins get nullified here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

Actually science is the master subject. The problem however, is that science always becomes philosophy, when the science answers end, and they always will, at some point, and for every subject.

Dwkins isn't even a proponent of any kind of abiogenesis. (You caught yourself again). Hes a proponent of panspermia.(Like Fred Hoyle), hes been a panspermiac since the early 2000's)> He even amits that to Ben Stein in your clip.
In his 2009 book "The Greatest Show on Earth" He mentions NOT ONE JOT about any kind of life genesis on this planet. However, this book is replete with eaxmples of recent evidence re: evolution >(After life had already been established on earth)

Interestingly, in these fora, Ive been consistently a vocal non-fan of DAwkins because he IS an asshole who gets his jollies by purposely bothering believers(Science is NOT about stepping on others shoes unless others step first). AND THEN he puts off the entire issue of genesis of life on earth by claiming that life first landed on earth from somewhere else. All that does is put off the entire issue of how and where life began.

The only way he could conceivably be considered is if we , as we wander away rom our Solar System, find the prebiotics associated with nucleotides and at least find RNA in the depths of space on other "goldilox" planets.

Yea, but Stein mocked him silly, and it was funny as can be. The funniest video is of Dawkie dissecting a giraffe and saying that a neck nerve is stupid, and can not be the result of design. What he fails to see, is that this one design, as he admits, has gone from a fish, to a bird, and to a giraffe in some order. This makes this the single best design in all of known creation, as just one plan is good for everything.

you make believe that it went from a specific fish to specific bird to a specific mammal. That's dumb thinking. Prhaps someone has already told you that.
After all, if you deny Hubbells Law, youll deny anything

Dawkins believes this you dufus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

Sheesh

Evolution of a giraffe is not genesis, its E_V_O_L_U_T_I_O_N. I think even you can "get it"
Evolution only occurs after life is already ON THE PLANET


DAWKINS is a PANSPERMIAST. period
I keep forgetting that Im in the presence of genius

who disbelieves Hubbels Law and Leavitts equation

And Now he denies PARALLAX in star distance measurements

I have been saying that all along, and the life was put here by God. And when we leave the Earth, with life, we are God................

It's just that simple.

well, then you oughta have evidence DR DAWKINS

Yes, the evidence, is the complexity of DNA, which is the code of life. this is a chemical code, different but similar to many types of codes produced by the human race. All codes are created, they do not form in nature, in fact the probability of the DNA of a one celled animal forming by chance, is more astronomical, than the size of the universe itself. Evidence for warm ponds spawning life...............well it's been tried and disproved.

I have not read that latest book I'm sure it will be a good read. Mr Dawkins goes to great length to invoke chance to get the first replicators going this part is difficult to follow. I'm interested in what the experts tell us and thankful for their endeavours to unravel difficult problems.

And you know this how? What if DNA were not the first molecule of life.
Dna cannot do a damn thing without another cell structure that actually is the "bakery" where proteinas are formulated. DNA would just be a dried up crystal without a water filled cellular nucleus. and there would be no cellular nucleus without a polymer cell wall. AND DNA would be without a transmission without mRNA and tRNA

where and when? The Miller Urey experiment has been tried and each time (depending on the source gases and the water chemistry, many prebiotic chemicals hve been formulated.
Imagine that xperiment through several millions of years.
You try to speak with authority but have no arrows in your quiver. Youre technically unarmed . Try reading about biology and organic
biochem instead of copying crap from ID websites where the authors are as clueless as you.

There is no such thing as a prebiotic chemical, these are just theory as to what would have been needed to have a pond begin to write code..... Life is however being created now, using the tools that the creator left to us.

So keep on dreaming.