Evolution Cruncher

Originally posted by dj2becker
So basically you are saying that there is no way to test whether what you are saying is true.

Science is based on observations. So your little theory is not sceintific.

It's not my fault that you don't have any knowlege about science.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So basically you are saying that there is no way to test whether what you are saying is true.

Science is based on observations. So your little theory is not sceintific.

Abiogenesis theory is perfectly testable. However no one has put forth the funding for it.

Originally posted by frogstomp
It's not my fault that you don't have any knowlege about science.

😴 It's not my fault that you don't know the limitations of science.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Abiogenesis theory is perfectly testable. However no one has put forth the funding for it.

Nobody can afford to buy a couple billion years?

I'll tell you why nobody has funded it.... it's a waste of time... and money...

Originally posted by dj2becker
😴 It's not my fault that you don't know the limitations of science.

Word games don't cut it in science ,,, If you want to play word turn around ,, look behind you and talk to yourself.
However if you want to talk about science,, LEARN some of it.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Nobody can afford to buy a couple billion years?

I'll tell you why nobody has funded it.... it's a waste of time... and money...

There is a ton of testing that can be done in shorter periods of time. Scientific experiments almost never try to mimic exactly the systems they are testing.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Word games don't cut it in science ,,, If you want to play word turn around ,, look behind you and talk to yourself.
However if you want to talk about science,, LEARN some of it.

I am afraid you were the one who started the word games.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
There is a ton of testing that can be done in shorter periods of time. Scientific experiments almost never try to mimic exactly the systems they are testing.

If so, then why has nobody funded it? They have tried to produce life in the lab for the last century. If BM was a possibility they would surely have funded it.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am afraid you were the one who started the word games.

Not so... all you have is word games.

even your misuse of the word "observation" shows your lack of understanding about the scientific method.. which is one of the reasons you haven't made any sense to people that do.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Not so... all you have is word games.

even your misuse of the word "observation" shows your lack of understanding about the scientific method.. which is one of the reasons you haven't made any sense to people that do.

I am still waiting for you to explain how BM was tested to produce life...

If you cannot do this then you are clearly the one who is playing the word games...

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am still waiting for you to explain how BM was tested to produce life...

If you cannot do this then you are clearly the one who is playing the word games...

you are getting close to prevarication. I told you how Brownian Motion is enough of a mechanism. You dont need anything more than the basic laws of chemistry. The probability of life forming from H O C and N plus energy is a certainty.

You want to believe otherwise, so what! all you have produced is junk-science. You're not going to repeal the laws of science except in you own mind.

Originally posted by frogstomp
you are getting close to prevarication. I told you how Brownian Motion is enough of a mechanism. You dont need anything more than the basic laws of chemistry. The probability of life forming from H O C and N plus energy is a certainty.

You want to believe otherwise, so what! all you have produced is junk-science. You're not going to repeal the laws of science except in you own mind.

OK. Lets assume what you are saying is true.

The question is: Where did the H O C and N plus energy come from?

Originally posted by dj2becker
OK. Lets assume what you are saying is true.

The question is: Where did the H O C and N plus energy come from?

Now you're asking for the basic nature of space itself.
look up Ekpyrotics and M-theory . when you can follow the math ,,ask that question again.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Now you're asking for the basic nature of space itself.
look up Ekpyrotics and M-theory . when you can follow the math ,,ask that question again.

So you are saying that Maths explains where the H O C and N plus energy come from?

Don't make me laugh...

Originally posted by dj2becker
If so, then why has nobody funded it? They have tried to produce life in the lab for the last century. If BM was a possibility they would surely have funded it.

OMFG, did you just try to say that Brownian Motion can be funded?

Will you please do us all (including you) a very big favor and read something about what Brownian Motion is? Just a little something. Come on you have the world wide web at your finger tips. How much easier can it be?

I see now why Hovind is your heroe. Like you, he starts from a position of complete ignorance. Then he spends the entire discussion skirting questions and pretending he actually has clue what his opponent is saying. Don't you feel just a little dishonest talking out your sphincter about a process of which you have not the slightest clue. Forget the specifics, you can't even use the term 'Brownian Motion' correctly in a sentence. How can you possibly think that you have anything relevant to contribute to the discussion?