I only used it to ask another what he meant by it, if I used it in another way (and I might have) then please quote the sentence and I’ll be happy to explain.
"Gooal’!! Oh, no the score has been disallowed, team god have removed the goalposts and set them up in the next field over…
5 Likes
Quality, see this you fuckers, make me larf and you get the lurve…kudos…a single sentence that has all the hallmarks of the basis of a Monty Python sketch.
2 Likes
This is the kind of answer I expect if I ever get the details from the argument that we can’t make the basic components of life. In the end is it going to boil down to we can’t make atoms/molecules out of nothing? If that is the case I wish they would just save us a lot of time by starting with that; instead of having to pry it out of them, one layer at a time, just to reach a jackpot of dogshit.
5 Likes
I’ve decided to not send anymore responses until you provide this proof you repeatedly told us exists (or amend your claim). I don’t think you are serious.
1 Like
- All scientific theories are expressed with reference to laws and material quantities.
We can’t make life.
I can’t make a cake, but if anyone is going to suggest this infers it requires supernatural magic, then I’m going to clutch my belly, kick my legs in the air, and laugh my cock off.
Another tedious and asinine god of the gaps polemic.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, and we have irrefutable objective evidence that humans evolved like all living things.
2 Likes
The deity simply died (no evidence of “no beginning/no end”) and the evolved material universe that resulted in “we” are just “body parts”. BANG 
2 Likes
We can’t? My parents did.
5 Likes
Can you post the whole thing?
1 Like
Is it not obvious he has no idea what a ‘Law’ is?
2 Likes
Er, scientifically trained, ahem!
At least he hasn’t said we can’t have laws without a law giver, I can feel my piss boiling at the mere prospect of such facile idiocy.
2 Likes
That sounds more like a plea to the very hard working and talented teams all over the world who are working on and (if the academic papers are true) getting very close to doing it.
Of course that means fundamentalists like our guest that I quoted will have to find another theist rock to die on or crawl under.
BTW the “creation” of life is expected within the next 10 years.
I so want to see that happen.
4 Likes
Yet. We can’t make life yet.
3 Likes
I think he means, ‘We have not yet discovered the process by which life came about.’ It’s kind of like that ‘Law’ stuff he was not understanding earlier. To make, requires a maker. Why would we make something that simply occurs naturally? Guess what? The list of shit we didn’t make is frigging long. When you get right down to it, no one has made anything. The best we have done is restructure things that were already here. A lot of stuff was already here. What exactly does he mean “Make Life?” When was life ever made? So the argument is… We can’t do something that occurs naturally, therefore God? We can’t do something that has never been done before, therefore God? I’m not understanding the argument. I have never set foot on the moon, therefore god? I have never caused a tornado, therefore god. I can’t make it rain, therefore god? Is this really the best he can do?
7 Likes
Theists and creationists often complain that science has so far not been able to create life from the basic ingredients, i.e. naturally occuring components such as diverse elements and some simple molecules. Despite science been at it for decades. Thus, they triumphantly conclude, it cannot be done. Therefore god. At the same time, they ignore that it probably took Nature millions – perhaps billions – of years of vast scales(*) of physics, chemistry, energy throughput to figure out(**) how to make self-replicating and pretty much self-contained chemistry packages recognizable as what we call life. The sheer ignorance of the difference in scales (in time, in the amount of chemistry) involved is mindboggling. I think this would qualify as an argument from ignorance fallacy. It is thus quite disingenious to use the missing output from a few puny decades of some scientists’ work life to conclude that it is impossible to create life in a lab. What’s even more disingenious is that such inferences come from a person that uses his/her own (non-disclosed) academic acheivements as an argument in his/her discussions.
(*) dwarfing any lab-scale scientific effort
(**) not “figure out” as in a conscious process of “let’s make some life”, but in letting chemistry and the laws of nature go along in its course and do their thing, and then “suddenly” there is some fortunate combination of available chemicals, heat, energy throughput, and stability that allows some complicated physics and chemistry to start self-organizing and go in cycles with self-replication.
4 Likes
They facilitated it Cyber, that’s all.
Why are you replying to your own posts?
Well it’s true, life comes only from life - the law of biogenesis, perhaps one of the most verified hypotheses in science.