There’s a rumour getting around that you’re sane … but I can’t imagine how it started.
Which scientific facts did I deny?
z zz z zzzz zzzzz zzzzz zz
z z zzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzz z
Yeah, I really wish I knew who started that one myself. Cog? Sane?.. Good god, who comes up with shit like that? Anyway, I swear, we keep trying to squash it, but it just keeps popping back up. Kinda like herpes. Oh, well. You know how rumors are sometimes… (shrugging shoulders)…
1 Like
As George Costanza once said, " You disappoint me, my friend."
You appear to be under the misapprehension that I am under the misapprehension that an accepted scientific theory does not involve an explanation.
Welcome to Darwinism’s Theatre of the Absurd.
Is eating a banana 40-60% cannabalism?
Who ever thought “science” could be so entertaining?
Prove that humans and bananas share a common ancestor … I’d like to see that!
1 Like
I think he means the…
Christians
Catholics
Jews
Muslims
Hindus
Buddhists
Siks
Sinto
Taoists
Jains
Zoroastrians
Pagans
Satanists
Wiccans
Hari Krishna
Confucianists
Druze
Rastafarians
All Traditional African Religious
Voodoo
All Traditional Chinese Religions
Ancestor Worship
Indigenous American Religions (N and S)
Indigenous Australian religions
And of course all the rest…
1 Like
Easy. Once I recognized the asshole in the crowd, everyone knew it wasn’t me. It’s a bit like playing poker. If you don’t know who the idiot at the tabel is… It’s you.
2 Likes
I don’t bother answering questions that are off-topic, questions based on stupid strawman arguments, or questions that are too inane to dignify with a reply.
I don’t know.
No.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, scientists are clueless about abiogenesis … and always will be. Puny human minds will never figure out how God brought the first organism into existence.
Lol 
way back…. WAY WAY back in the posts YOU could have just said this.
Let me see if I understand your position:
Catholic (moderate? Regular type, the ones I live around)
Accepts Theory of Evolution
BUT was mixing it with Abiogenesis (a different science) in the arguments???
Am I close?
2 Likes
Here you are asserting that God (which god?) have brought an organism into existence. Unless you can show us evidence for it, it remains an empty assertion pulled out of your arse. So: what is your evidence?
2 Likes
The one that Catholics worship. The Trinity. (My assumption is based on official Catholic doctrine - may not necessarily be “the form of god” @Buzzard worships)
Oh the three headed god promulgated by that old heretic Tertullian?
LOL, amazing, even the most dedicated sheeple get very uncomfortable discussing that 3rd century plastering over of the contradictions inherent in your texts. Why was Tertullian not declared a saint? You believe what he wrote…
You are right about the Jesuits, they are selected for their intelligence and an ability to hold two opposing view points of reality simultaneously. One of my lifetime best friends was a Jesuit priest. A high ranking priest. We had many spirited arguments and he quite logically accepted that much of Catholic teaching and dogma was to comfort, gag, and blind the sheeple to keep the clergy remote.
He taught me much about the dishonesty of the Church. History can bite you if you don’t want to learn.
It is now, look at Australia, in 3 years lost 30% of their congregation and falling because of historical and current abusing priests. Not just because of the unforgivable abuse but because of the lies and cover ups that stretch right to the pope…
Similar stories and reasons from all over the world. The only places where its membership is relatively stable is where poverty and lack of education is rife. The organisation itself is indefensible from its origins based on pogroms and its stated wish and many attempts to not be judged by secular laws.
1 Like
This should be an easy 10 million giveaway if you listen to the brain surgeons posting on here .
Go for it lads , you have all the answers .
1 Like
Abiogenesis – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
The Origin of Life (by Albrecht Moritz)
NOVA | How Did Life Begin?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html
The Origin of Life (by James Trefil, Harold Morowitz and Eric Smith)
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-origin-of-life
Do yourself a favor. Find a way to get to your heaven as fast as possible.
Lol of course you back down from a challenge to explain Poof. Double standard weak argument. Quit deflecting.
1 Like
Here is the problem laid bare . All the brain surgeons posting their biology /chemistry force majeure are peddling a currency that is obsolete as a tool for explaining origins of life.
Biology transcends the limits of computation
Affiliations expand
- PMID: 33961842
- DOI: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2021.04.006
Free article
Full text linksCite
Abstract
Cognition-sensing and responding to the environment-is the unifying principle behind the genetic code, origin of life, evolution, consciousness, artificial intelligence, and cancer. However, the conventional model of biology seems to mistake cause and effect. According to the reductionist view, the causal chain in biology is chemicals → code → cognition. Despite this prevailing view, there are no examples in the literature to show that the laws of physics and chemistry can produce codes, or that codes produce cognition. Chemicals are just the physical layer of any information system. In contrast, although examples of cognition generating codes and codes controlling chemicals are ubiquitous in biology and technology, cognition remains a mystery. Thus, the central question in biology is: What is the nature and origin of cognition? In order to elucidate this pivotal question, we must cultivate a deeper understanding of information flows. Through this lens, we see that biological cognition is volitional (i.e., deliberate, intentional, or knowing), and while technology is constrained by deductive logic, living things make choices and generate novel information using inductive logic. Information has been called "the hard problem of life’ and cannot be fully explained by known physical principles (Walker et al., 2017). The present paper uses information theory (the mathematical foundation of our digital age) and Turing machines (computers) to highlight inaccuracies in prevailing reductionist models of biology, and proposes that the correct causation sequence is cognition → code → chemicals.
Keywords: Cognition; Computation; Evolution; Induction; Information; Negentropy.