Evolutionry/religious nonsense

What happened before Abiogenisis is he relevant. That's like saying ignorance is bliss

By saying what happened before Abiogenisis is Irrelevant. What happened before it was necessary for it to happen at all. In your post earlier it's stated even NASA thought it was important.

It is awesome to observe the vastness of the universe and in the same Thought the intricacies of biological life. That is a lot of information to contemplate and it's amazing that the human mind can do it in a logical way.

Tou must a very blissful individual indeed. The subject is evolution. Evolution cannot take place until life is present. It's just a god-botherer's dodge to bring up the origin of life. It is irrelevant. (What the hell is "he relevant" supposed to mean?)

Bullsh*t. The origin of life has occupied very little of the history of science. As always, you just make this sh*t up as you go along.

Why don't you answer the questions I posed in response to cicerones post on abiogenisis.? Especially the part about NASA

Why don't you start your own thread about abiogenesis, rather than trashing a thread which is about evolution and not abiogenesis? i'm not obliged to meet your demands. Of course, that claptrap about abiogenesis is just a diversion. You won't start a thread because you know nobody will show up. You've got zero evidence for your imaginary friend, you've got zero evidence for any design, and you're too dishonest to admit that the alleged intelligence behind the putative and undemonstrated design is your imaginary friend. Don't tell me to answer questions you pose to others, especially not when all you're doing is dodging the difficult topic of the thread--difficult for dishonest followers of imaginary friends, that is.

You’re not supposed to try to “get the evidence to fit”, you’re supposed to “fit the evidence”. There is a huge difference in those two starting points. You’re not doing science, you’re doing religion and trying to make it sound like science.

thats a monumental admission by practitioners of "Creation SCience"

One of my big problems with ID is the inability to absorb (or denial) of good hard data and evidence of what happened to life wrt to the extinction events that occured through time. We "celebrate" the great 5 extinction events and they are so defined by the percent "dying" of then living species.

There are actually 25 (or 26) extinction events that, many of which , seemed to have major effects on natural selection (by making species less "fit" or having species :radiate" into several niches. The data is quite clear and is reinforced by sedimentary, fossil, vulcanology, isotopics, isotope ratios, paleosol, amber, and fossil pollen, etc etc .


These lesser extinction vents saw many Species that were going along and got wiped out with no further traces,(like trilobites) or species jut plodding along, radiating and then dying off while perhaps leaving some daughter specis (like dinosaurs), or just seeing the changes that occurred without any apparent direction or reason. In each of the lesser extinctions we can see the environmental changes that spurred xpansions or extinctions. We can also see the flourishing of new resources like plant foods expand to create niches for grazing or browsing(and corresponding foot tracks and ichnofossils appear almost in association)

If I were an IDer, Id be working like crazy (If I were an ID Scientist)
to show how all this edaphic change going on was "Intelligence defined"
So far though, nobody has taken up any available discoveries to do that, the IIDers seem to rely mostly on denial and"me too ism".

When a major group of animals exists for over 250 million years, has expanded into thousands of genera and tens of thousand species, then disapperss without any connection to subsequent life, whats an IDer say about how his guy works his magic.

When I read what NASA was trying to do on cicerones link to abiogenesis, it seemed obvious to me that intelligence with abilities greater than ours is necessary to start life. It is at least one logical possibility.

There is no evidence to support that Life started without some intelligence lining up all those parameters at NASA pointed out.

There is no evidence that we can start life with our intelligence.

There is evidence that we can do a lot of things with our intelligence and our abilities that randomly driven actions cannot achieve. That is a pattern of evidence.

To me the evidence suggests that somebody with a little more intelligence and a little greater abilities than ours is needed to start life .

Whatever evidence (other than unsubtantated speculation) can you provide that supports it can start without intelligence?

When you look up evolution on Wikipedia abiogenesis is included in the description. Maybe you should edit Wikipedia so better fits your argument.

Not that I expect a coherent answer from your 'MeToo' brand of Darwinest evolution but I've long wondered why anyone was so impressed with his silly finches. These 'different species' are currently interbreeding , which calls into question the very definition of 'species'.

If a change in beaks is all it takes you could say that many humans are a different species based on differences in noses, color or innumerable other characteristics. Not to mention the much bigger changes shown in dog breeding. If that's all it takes to call something a new species it calls into question what the term means.

You are guilty of the very thing you accuse ID proponents of. You accepted the word of others and don't understand a damn thing about the flawed science behind it.

You're fond of links, here's one for you about the interbreeding of your sacred 'species':

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14761069

What chicken ****. Trying to dodge the question based on your definition of what the thread is about is Lame. You (and all the other evolutionists here) were no more willing to take on abiogenesis in the ID threads than you are here.

You will no doubt be pleased to hear that I'm done with you. You may have the last word if you want it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31425720

Damn right it 'messy'. It's so messy that they have to invent new 'species' to fit the evolution narrative.

I'll leave ye be now.

''May your God go with you.''

I love religious humor, but that was rather cliché.

The audience must have been really desperate for a laugh or maybe that was just a laugh track .

rather cliche?

I doubt very much you have a sense of humour.

Lots of bitterness though, something I suppose.