# Organic Materials Essential for Life on Earth are Found for the First time on the Surface of an Asteroid



## abu afak (Mar 10, 2021)

MARCH 4, 2021
*Organic materials essential for life on Earth are found for the first time on the surface of an asteroid*
by Royal Holloway, University of London
​New research from Royal Holloway, has found water and organic matter on the surface of an asteroid sample returned from the inner Solar System. *This is the first time that organic materials, which could have provided chemical precursors for the origin of life on Earth, have been found on an asteroid.*​​The single grain sample was returned to Earth from asteroid Itokawa by JAXA's first Hayabusa mission in 2010. *The sample shows that water and organic matter that originate from the asteroid itself have EVOLVED chemically through time.*​​The research paper suggests that *Itokawa has been constantly EVOLVING over billions of years by incorporating water and organic materials from foreign extra-terrestrial material, just like the Earth.* In the past, the asteroid will have gone through extreme heating, dehydration and shattering due to catastrophic impact. However, despite this, the asteroid came back together from the shattered fragments and rehydrated itself with water that was delivered via the in fall of dust or carbon-rich meteorites.​​This study shows that S-type asteroids, where most of Earth's meteorites come from, such as Itokawa, contain the raw ingredients of life. The analysis of this asteroid changes traditional views on the origin of life on Earth...​​​








						Organic materials essential for life on Earth are found for the first time on the surface of an asteroid
					

New research from Royal Holloway, has found water and organic matter on the surface of an asteroid sample returned from the inner Solar System. This is the first time that organic materials, which could have provided chemical precursors for the origin of life on Earth, have been found on an...




					phys.org
				



​​`​


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Mar 10, 2021)

Which proves the wonders of God are everywhere.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****


----------



## Oddball (Mar 10, 2021)

Ancient news....Amino acids were found on meteorites decades ago.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Mar 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> MARCH 4, 2021
> *Organic materials essential for life on Earth are found for the first time on the surface of an asteroid*
> by Royal Holloway, University of London
> ​New research from Royal Holloway, has found water and organic matter on the surface of an asteroid sample returned from the inner Solar System. *This is the first time that organic materials, which could have provided chemical precursors for the origin of life on Earth, have been found on an asteroid.*​​The single grain sample was returned to Earth from asteroid Itokawa by JAXA's first Hayabusa mission in 2010. *The sample shows that water and organic matter that originate from the asteroid itself have EVOLVED chemically through time.*​​The research paper suggests that *Itokawa has been constantly EVOLVING over billions of years by incorporating water and organic materials from foreign extra-terrestrial material, just like the Earth.* In the past, the asteroid will have gone through extreme heating, dehydration and shattering due to catastrophic impact. However, despite this, the asteroid came back together from the shattered fragments and rehydrated itself with water that was delivered via the in fall of dust or carbon-rich meteorites.​​This study shows that S-type asteroids, where most of Earth's meteorites come from, such as Itokawa, contain the raw ingredients of life. The analysis of this asteroid changes traditional views on the origin of life on Earth...​​​
> ...


So proof that other planets have the basics needed for life---asteroriods/meteorites are also known to carry basic life bacteria around---ergo life would certainly exist on other planets since only these basic elements, time, and energy are needed to create life and with "seeding" needing less to start life on a planet.

Life then would certainly BE OUT THERE.  Hopefully it isn't as dumb and destructive as humans.


----------



## Concerned American (Mar 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> *The sample shows that water and organic matter that originate from the asteroid itself have EVOLVED chemically through time.*


Don't really see how two elements--hydrogen and oxygen could evolve chemically through time--maybe I can make gold from lead.  SMH.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 11, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *The sample shows that water and organic matter that originate from the asteroid itself have EVOLVED chemically through time.*
> ...


Don't really see your IQ is over 80.
It mentions water and organic material
Water ALONE and H and O.
What do you suppose the asteroid is made of?
Many have plenty of Carbon for just openers.
What else it has picked up after the aforementioned billions of years of traveling through the dusty universe?
Now please stick to something like shouting "MAGA" in on of the political threads. 

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 11, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Ancient news....Amino acids were found on meteorites decades ago.


But not on the surface of an asteroid.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 11, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> -asteroriods/meteorites are also known to carry basic life bacteria around--


Uh...did you just make that up?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 11, 2021)

abu afak said:


> MARCH 4, 2021
> *Organic materials essential for life on Earth are found for the first time on the surface of an asteroid*
> by Royal Holloway, University of London
> ​New research from Royal Holloway, has found water and organic matter on the surface of an asteroid sample returned from the inner Solar System. *This is the first time that organic materials, which could have provided chemical precursors for the origin of life on Earth, have been found on an asteroid.*​​The single grain sample was returned to Earth from asteroid Itokawa by JAXA's first Hayabusa mission in 2010. *The sample shows that water and organic matter that originate from the asteroid itself have EVOLVED chemically through time.*​​The research paper suggests that *Itokawa has been constantly EVOLVING over billions of years by incorporating water and organic materials from foreign extra-terrestrial material, just like the Earth.* In the past, the asteroid will have gone through extreme heating, dehydration and shattering due to catastrophic impact. However, despite this, the asteroid came back together from the shattered fragments and rehydrated itself with water that was delivered via the in fall of dust or carbon-rich meteorites.​​This study shows that S-type asteroids, where most of Earth's meteorites come from, such as Itokawa, contain the raw ingredients of life. The analysis of this asteroid changes traditional views on the origin of life on Earth...​​​
> ...


Also:

*'Fireball' meteorite that crashed in Michigan holds extraterrestrial organic compounds*








						'Fireball' meteorite that crashed in Michigan holds extraterrestrial organic compounds
					

The space rock landed on a frozen lake on Jan. 16, 2018.




					www.livescience.com


----------



## Concerned American (Mar 11, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Listen stupid mother fucker, drop "organic material" out of that sentence and what do you have?  The sentence refers to two items without differentiating.  But like any dumb fucking democrat you figure that you pick and choose what you want things to be.  Are you a man or a woman or some other chemically altered being today.  Morons.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 11, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Listen stupid mother fucker, drop "organic material" out of that sentence and what do you have?  The sentence refers to two items without differentiating.  But like any dumb fucking democrat you figure that you pick and choose what you want things to be.  Are you a man or a woman or some other chemically altered being today.  Morons.


You MORON.
you can't just "Drop" 'organic material' out!!!!!
That's not an immaterial term!!!
You 12 IQ MAGAt.
NO ONE has ever thought even surmised life came from O and H alone!
Water is merely an enabler for the other molecules of life.
DUH.
`


----------



## Concerned American (Mar 11, 2021)

B


abu afak said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > Listen stupid mother fucker, drop "organic material" out of that sentence and what do you have?  The sentence refers to two items without differentiating.  But like any dumb fucking democrat you figure that you pick and choose what you want things to be.  Are you a man or a woman or some other chemically altered being today.  Morons.
> ...


Anyone who can read and comprehend can see that both items are being referred to as being chemically altered--by your own admission, water cannot be chemically altered--it is H and O,  BTW, how do you chemically alter C as it is also an ELEMENT.  Fucking stupid democrat, Go climb back into the basement with your Alzheimers patient.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 11, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *The sample shows that water and organic matter that originate from the asteroid itself have EVOLVED chemically through time.*
> ...


Uh...what does that have to do with anything?


----------



## abu afak (Mar 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uh...what does that have to do with anything?


It doesn't.
His post/s are vacuous... numbing.


----------



## cnm (Mar 13, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *The sample shows that water and organic matter that originate from the asteroid itself have EVOLVED chemically through time.*
> ...


Did 'organic matter' ring no bells?


----------



## cnm (Mar 13, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> BTW, how do you chemically alter C as it is also an ELEMENT.


Ionise it.


----------



## cnm (Mar 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Uh...what does that have to do with anything?
> ...


Be fair, the invincibility of his ignorance has a certain naïve charm...


----------



## LuckyDuck (Mar 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> MARCH 4, 2021
> *Organic materials essential for life on Earth are found for the first time on the surface of an asteroid*
> by Royal Holloway, University of London
> ​New research from Royal Holloway, has found water and organic matter on the surface of an asteroid sample returned from the inner Solar System. *This is the first time that organic materials, which could have provided chemical precursors for the origin of life on Earth, have been found on an asteroid.*​​The single grain sample was returned to Earth from asteroid Itokawa by JAXA's first Hayabusa mission in 2010. *The sample shows that water and organic matter that originate from the asteroid itself have EVOLVED chemically through time.*​​The research paper suggests that *Itokawa has been constantly EVOLVING over billions of years by incorporating water and organic materials from foreign extra-terrestrial material, just like the Earth.* In the past, the asteroid will have gone through extreme heating, dehydration and shattering due to catastrophic impact. However, despite this, the asteroid came back together from the shattered fragments and rehydrated itself with water that was delivered via the in fall of dust or carbon-rich meteorites.​​This study shows that S-type asteroids, where most of Earth's meteorites come from, such as Itokawa, contain the raw ingredients of life. The analysis of this asteroid changes traditional views on the origin of life on Earth...​​​
> ...


As the saying goes, "We are the stuff of stars."


----------



## abu afak (Mar 27, 2021)

What are the odds that life would arise on any of the trillions++++ of bodies, large and small, that had the elements of it?


----------



## ding (Mar 27, 2021)

abu afak said:


> MARCH 4, 2021
> *Organic materials essential for life on Earth are found for the first time on the surface of an asteroid*
> by Royal Holloway, University of London
> ​New research from Royal Holloway, has found water and organic matter on the surface of an asteroid sample returned from the inner Solar System. *This is the first time that organic materials, which could have provided chemical precursors for the origin of life on Earth, have been found on an asteroid.*​​The single grain sample was returned to Earth from asteroid Itokawa by JAXA's first Hayabusa mission in 2010. *The sample shows that water and organic matter that originate from the asteroid itself have EVOLVED chemically through time.*​​The research paper suggests that *Itokawa has been constantly EVOLVING over billions of years by incorporating water and organic materials from foreign extra-terrestrial material, just like the Earth.* In the past, the asteroid will have gone through extreme heating, dehydration and shattering due to catastrophic impact. However, despite this, the asteroid came back together from the shattered fragments and rehydrated itself with water that was delivered via the in fall of dust or carbon-rich meteorites.​​This study shows that S-type asteroids, where most of Earth's meteorites come from, such as Itokawa, contain the raw ingredients of life. The analysis of this asteroid changes traditional views on the origin of life on Earth...​​​
> ...


You mean...  *hydrogen*, *carbon*, *oxygen* and *nitrogen?*

Yeah, that must have been a real shocker.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 27, 2021)

So why did evolution stop on the asteroid? Why didn't the amino acids evolve into intelligent creatures that drilled into the asteroid and send us radio broadcast?


----------



## abu afak (Mar 28, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So why did evolution stop on the asteroid? Why didn't the amino acids evolve into intelligent creatures that drilled into the asteroid and send us radio broadcast?


Why did it start?
Natural tendencies which cut your amount of zeros by 95%.
And perhaps it stopped because conditions were too hostile. No atmosphere, near absolute zero Temps.
Nothing like earth which was covered with such material and friendly climes x billions.
Ooops!


`


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 28, 2021)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So why did evolution stop on the asteroid? Why didn't the amino acids evolve into intelligent creatures that drilled into the asteroid and send us radio broadcast?
> ...


You actually think that the amino acids "evolved" from component parts while on the asteroid???????


----------



## Hollie (Mar 28, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So why did evolution stop on the asteroid? Why didn't the amino acids evolve into intelligent creatures that drilled into the asteroid and send us radio broadcast?


So, why did the gods put amino acids on the asteroid?  Why didn’t the gods wipe the amino acids from the asteroid with a flood and put Ark building space aliens in their place?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 28, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You know otherwise???????


----------



## abu afak (Mar 28, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You actually think that the amino acids "evolved" from component parts while on the asteroid???????


Possible, but more likely picked up in collision or interstellar dust where it may it may perhaps be seen regularly.
Let you know when they get more asteroidal material.
Ooops.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 28, 2021)

ding said:


> You mean... *hydrogen*, *carbon*, *oxygen* and *nitrogen?*


No, that is not what they mean. Please read articles in the science section before commenting.


----------



## ding (Mar 28, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You mean... *hydrogen*, *carbon*, *oxygen* and *nitrogen?*
> ...


So those aren't organic elements?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 28, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So why did evolution stop on the asteroid? Why didn't the amino acids evolve into intelligent creatures that drilled into the asteroid and send us radio broadcast?


How do you know evolution stopped on the asteroid?

How long have the amino acids been on the asteroid?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 5, 2022)

cnm said:


> Ionise it.







__





						buckyballs - Google Search
					





					www.google.com


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

[Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further. These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics.

Now let’s go up a step, to molecules. By far the most important molecule for living organisms is water. I think we can feel sure that if there is no liquid water, there is no life, anywhere in the universe. Water also happens to be the strangest molecule in all chemistry; and its strangest property is that ice floats. If ice did not float, I doubt that life would exist in the universe.

Virtually everything contracts on cooling. That is how we make thermometers: a bit of red-dyed alcohol, mercury if you can afford it, put in a capillary tube contracts on cooling, and you read the temperature. Everything does this. So does water, down to four degrees centigrade. But between four and zero degrees centigrade, where it freezes, it expands, so rapidly that the ice that forms is less dense than liquid water. The complete hydrogen bonding among the water molecules in ice holds them more widely spaced than in liquid water, so ice floats.

Nothing else does that. But what if water behaved like virtually everything else, and continued to contract on cooling? Then the increasingly dense water would constantly be sinking to the bottom, and freezing would begin at the bottom, , not as now at the top, and would end by freezing the water solidly. A really large mass of ice takes forever to melt, even at higher temperatures. On any planet in the universe, if a freeze occured even once in many millions of years, that would probably be enough to block the rise of life, and to kill any life that had arisen.

And now another step up, to stars. The first generation of stars began as hydrogen, and lived by fusing it to helium. A hydrogen atom is composed of a proton as nucleus and one electron moving about it; but at temperatures of about five million degrees they are driven apart, and one is dealing with naked protons, hydrogen nuclei. Now four such protons, each of mass 1, begin to fuse to a helium nucleus of about mass 4, but in this process a very small amount of mass is lost -- four protons have a slightly larger mass than a helium nucleus -- and this tiny loss of mass is converted into radiation according to Einstein’s equation, _E=mc2_. Even so small a loss of mass yields a huge amount of radiation, and that flood of radiation pours out in the interior of what had been a collapsing mass of gas and stops its further collapse, stabilizing it, and is also the source of starlight.

Eventually, though, this process runs every star short of hydrogen. With that, it generates less energy and so begins to collapse again, and as it collapses it heats up some more. When the temperature in its deep interior reaches about one hundred million degrees, the helium nuclei begin to fuse. Two helium nuclei, each of mass 4, fuse to make beryllium, of mass 8, a nucleus so unstable as to disintegrate within 10-16 second (ten million billionths of a second).Yet in these enormous masses of material and at such high temperatures there are always a few beryllium nuclei, and here and there one of them adds another helium: 8 and 4 make 12, the mass of carbon. That is how carbon comes into the universe. Then a carbon nucleus can add another helium: 12 plus 4 make 16, the mass of oxygen, and that is how oxygen enters the universe. Also carbon, even at somewhat lower temperatures, can add hydrogens, and carbon-12 plus two hydrogens make 14, the mass of nitrogen. That is how nitrogen enters the universe.

These new processes, together with its heating by collapse, have by now puffed up our star to enormous size. It has become a Red Giant, a dying star. In its dying, it has made the elements of which life is composed. It is a moving realization that stars must die before organisms can live.

These Red Giants are in a delicate condition, and by distillation and in such stellar catastrophes as flares, novas, and supernovas they spew their substance out to become part of the great masses of gases and dust that fill all interstellar space. Over eons of time, great masses of those gases and dust are drawn together by their mutual gravitation to form new generations of stars. But such latecomers, unlike the first generation of stars made wholly of hydrogen and helium, contain also carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. And we know that our Sun is such a later-generation star because we are here, because the Earth is one of those planets in the universe that supports life.

Finally, we have a cosmic principle: To have such a universe as this requires an extraordinary balance between two great cosmic forces: that of dispersion (expansion), powered by the Big Bang, and that of aggregation, powered by gravitation. If the forces of expansion were dominant, that would yield an isotropically dispersed universe lacking local clusters, galaxies or planetary systems; all the matter would be flying apart, and there would be no large solid bodies, hence no place for life. If, on the contrary, gravitation were dominant, the initial expansion produced by the Big Bang would have slowed up and come to an end, followed by a universal collapse, perhaps in preparation for the next Big Bang. There would be no time for life to arise, or it would be quickly destroyed.

We live in a universe in which it has just lately been realized that those two forces are in exact balance, so that the universe as a whole is expanding wherever one looks, everything very distant is going away from us, but locally there are so-called local groups and clusters, where whole clusters of galaxies are held together by gravitation. Our own relatively small cluster contains, in addition to the Milky Way, the Andromeda galaxy (M31). It is very much like our galaxy, but a little smaller, and there is also a still smaller galaxy, all part of our local group. Most of you have probably heard that we measure the expansion of the universe by the so-called _red shift_. The further one looks out into space, the redder the light is, compared to the same sources on earth. That is interpeted as an expression of the Doppler Effect, and taken to mean that the more distant an astronomical body, the faster it is receding from us. But the first such color shift ever to be discovered, by the astronomer Slipher back in 1912, was not a red shift by a _blue_ shift. He was looking at our sister galaxy, Andromeda, and observed a blue shift because, far from receding, the Andromeda galaxy is coming toward us at about 125 miles per second. It is just this exact balance between the steady expansion of the universe as a whole and its stability locally that affords both enormous reaches of time and countless sites for the development of life.

I have here only sampled briefly an argument that extends much further. The nub of that argument is that our universe possesses a remarkably detailed constellation of properties, and as it happens, it is just that constellation that breeds life. It takes no great intelligence or imagination to conceive of other universes, indeed any number of them, each of which might be perfectly good, stable universes, but lifeless.

How did it happen that, with what seem to be so many other options, our universe came out just as it did? From our own self‑centered point of view, that is the best way to make a universe: But what I want to know is, how did the universe find that out?

It may be objected that the question would not arise if we were not here to ask it. Yet here we are, and strangely insistent on asking that kind of question. Perhaps that indeed is the answer: That this is a life‑breeding universe precisely in order eventually to bring forth creatures that ask and attempt to answer such questions, so that through them the universe can come not only to be, but to be known; indeed can come to know itself. That leads me to my other great problem, that of consciousness.]

George Wald, Nobel Laureate



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> "How did it happen that, with what seem to be so many other options, our universe came out just as it did?"


It had to turn out some way or another. Did magical sky fairies set it up just right so that life would form? Maybe. But now we have to ask who created them and their universe. 

So this is just mental masturbation best left to religious goobers to keep them busy and out of the way.


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It had to turn out some way or another. Did magical sky fairies set it up just right so that life would form? Maybe. But now we have to ask who created them and their universe.
> 
> So this is just mental masturbation best left to religious goobers to keep them busy and out of the way.


Actually it is exploring the origin questions.  An endeavor which requires a great deal of thought.  Our universe - which has life and intelligence hardwired into its laws and the fabric of matter - is decidedly unnatural. In other words, it is unusual for a universe to exist that produces life and intelligence.  

I don't believe you possess the intellectual capacity or the disposition for this discussion.  You act too much like a spoiled brat when people don't agree with you.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 5, 2022)

abu afak said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Abu, are you doing that old trick of dredging up threads from eight months ago that no one was much interested in then, just to have some of your threads on the top list?

If so, I'm happy to bump it for you.  I like people to be happy, no matter how lame what makes them happy is.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Abu, are you doing that old trick of dredging up threads from eight months ago that no one was much interested in then, just to have some of your threads on the top list?
> 
> If so, I'm happy to bump it for you.  I like people to be happy, no matter how lame what makes them happy is.


Actually my STALKER Ding will cover/bump ANY threads I have started with his handle.
You want to find my threads? Just see which threads he's at the end of.
Thus my many disclaimers.
In 20 years on mbs I've never see anything like it.
It's also at work even on my posts even in other threads.

*When I first looked at the board this AM.. before you came on or I posted..,.
Four of my threads were at the top of the section, all put there by Ding's last-wording/STALKING.
Complain to him please.*

Same thing happens in Env section.
Then he STALKED me here too.
Shouldn't be happening.
Otherwise he wasn't a poster here!
He's a hateful little mongrel.
`


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 5, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Actually my STALKER Ding will cover/bump ANY threads I have started with his handle.
> You want to find my threads? Just see which threads he's at the end of.
> Thus my many disclaimers.
> In 20 years on mbs I've never see anything like it.
> ...


Wow, you are a victim alright.

But it was you who bumped this thread after it had been dormant for 8 months.  Were you somehow under your stalker's diabolical influence when you did that?

Have you ever tried ignoring your stalker?  I'm not saying it will work, I don't know.  I'm currently not responding to my stalker to see how long it takes for them to give up.  I'll let you know how that goes.

Or I may throw my stalker a bone, for laughs.  You know, to see how long they will keep it up . . .


----------



## abu afak (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Wow, you are a victim alright.
> 
> But it was you who bumped this thread after it had been dormant for 8 months.  Were you somehow under your stalker's diabolical influence when you did that?
> 
> ...


Yes, I often do that!
Because the Same issues come up.
Should I start a new one very time "quote-Mining" happens.
"God of the Gaps" has new posters weekly.  *T*HEE #1 creationist attempt.
etc, etc.
Yes, been there, done that, on every big issue. I have covered it.
Not going to start a new thread with same links/documentation weekly/monthly.

I did just start a new one on 'Evidence for Common Descent'!
I'm sure I'll be using/bumping that More than a few times too when someone says there is none.
I have tried to hit all the main issues with my OPs.

`


----------



## Brick Gold (Feb 6, 2022)

ding said:


> [Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.
> 
> Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further. These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics.
> 
> ...


That was a great read.


----------



## Brick Gold (Feb 6, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Also:
> 
> *'Fireball' meteorite that crashed in Michigan holds extraterrestrial organic compounds*
> 
> ...


This should have settled the argument.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 6, 2022)

ding said:


> You mean...  *hydrogen*, *carbon*, *oxygen* and *nitrogen?*
> 
> Yeah, that must have been a real shocker.


It’s unbelievigable !  It’s incredibabble!  It’s astoundulating!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 7, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> It’s unbelievigable !  It’s incredibabble!  It’s astoundulating!


Yet scientists are excited and surprised.

So... oh just maybe ... you two dummies don't know what you're talking about?

ding : looks like you found a buddy on your level


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 7, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yet scientists are excited and surprised.
> 
> So... oh just maybe ... you two dummies don't know what you're talking about?
> 
> ding : looks like you found a buddy on your level


Come on Farty. You can do better. Some scientists are excited. Good. Nothing wrong with that.

But you are the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about. Some pretty basic elements of the universe (needed for life as we know it on Earth) being found on asteroids is arguably of assistance in helping to figure out how life took hold on Earth. I’m pleased about that.

But we already know that Earth formed (as a planet) by a bunch of space rocks slamming into other space rocks over a long time. I believe we already knew that many of the Earth’s elements HAD to have arrived in such a fashion.

Hell. Even *you* ought to understand that much. So, I guess you can get all excited. But I’m not seeing it as a major revelation.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 8, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Come on Farty. You can do better. Some scientists are excited. Good. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> But you are the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about. Some pretty basic elements of the universe (needed for life as we know it on Earth) being found on asteroids is arguably of assistance in helping to figure out how life took hold on Earth. I’m pleased about that.
> 
> ...


We are not talking about mere elements, we are talking about what may be their natural tendencies over time without the help of Earth's atmosphere to form necessary precursor molecules of life. (as opposed to a creation event.)

""Examples of organic compounds are *carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acids*. Since they are comprised of carbon-based compounds they are broken down into smaller, simpler compounds through decomposition when they die. Living organisms also excrete or secrete material that is considered an organic material.""





__





						Organic matter
					

Definition noun Any of the carbon-based compounds found in nature Supplement Organic matter pertains to any of the carbon-based compounds that abound in nature. Living things are described as organic since they are composed of




					www.biologyonline.com
				




`


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> We are not talking about mere elements, we are talking about what may be their natural tendencies over time without the help of Earth's atmosphere to form necessary precursor molecules of life. (as opposed to a creation event.)
> 
> ""Examples of organic compounds are *carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acids*. Since they are comprised of carbon-based compounds they are broken down into smaller, simpler compounds through decomposition when they die. Living organisms also excrete or secrete material that is considered an organic material.""
> 
> ...


Does any of this mean (to you) that life on Earth would have been able to form without our atmosphere?

In other words, is it a scientifically sound belief or scientific theory that “precursors” to life can somehow generate a basic form of  life absent a suitable atmosphere?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 8, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Does any of this mean (to you) that life on Earth would have been able to form without our atmosphere?
> 
> In other words, is it a scientifically sound belief or scientific theory that “precursors” to life can somehow generate a basic form of  life absent a suitable atmosphere?


Baffled.
Do you think this is the only planet with an atmosphere?
Some without much of a hospitable one, may even have microbe life below the surface with more moderate conditions. They may be relatively 'common' in what looks like a mostly barren universe.

Life might not have been possible here were we not bombarded with materials (including comets with water).
Clearly there's lots of suitable material out there.

We just launched/placed James Webb Telescope which will give us a better idea how common atmosphere's are.
There are I believe already a trillion or so in the 'Goldilocks'/Temperate zone.
We await getting our arms around how many have atmospheres. Hopefully soon.
`


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Baffled.
> Do you think this is the only planet with an atmosphere?
> Some without much of a hospitable one, may even have microbe life below the surface with more moderate conditions. They may be relatively 'common' in what looks like a mostly barren universe.
> 
> ...


I never said, suggested or implied that I thought only our planet has life.  Not sure where you got that from.

I am a big fan of the Webb telescope and all of these scientific examinations of space. I’d love to find out that there is solid evidence of life elsewhere.


----------



## james bond (Feb 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> MARCH 4, 2021
> *Organic materials essential for life on Earth are found for the first time on the surface of an asteroid*
> by Royal Holloway, University of London
> ​New research from Royal Holloway, has found water and organic matter on the surface of an asteroid sample returned from the inner Solar System. *This is the first time that organic materials, which could have provided chemical precursors for the origin of life on Earth, have been found on an asteroid.*​​The single grain sample was returned to Earth from asteroid Itokawa by JAXA's first Hayabusa mission in 2010. *The sample shows that water and organic matter that originate from the asteroid itself have EVOLVED chemically through time.*​​The research paper suggests that *Itokawa has been constantly EVOLVING over billions of years by incorporating water and organic materials from foreign extra-terrestrial material, just like the Earth.* In the past, the asteroid will have gone through extreme heating, dehydration and shattering due to catastrophic impact. However, despite this, the asteroid came back together from the shattered fragments and rehydrated itself with water that was delivered via the in fall of dust or carbon-rich meteorites.​​This study shows that S-type asteroids, where most of Earth's meteorites come from, such as Itokawa, contain the raw ingredients of life. The analysis of this asteroid changes traditional views on the origin of life on Earth...​​​
> ...


Finally, an article of interest.  That said, there is no known mechanism by which the building blocks could assemble themselves into a meaningful code containing instructions and the machinery to manufacture living things.  At least, we now know why the atheist scientists trust rocks from space more than Earth rocks.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 9, 2022)

james bond said:


> Finally, an article of interest.  That said, there is no known mechanism by which the building blocks could assemble themselves into a meaningful code containing instructions and the machinery to manufacture living things.  At least, we now know why the atheist scientists trust rocks from space more than Earth rocks.


There is no known other method than natural by which the building blocks could be assembled. The only reason we know possible sequences is Science. Therefore the evidence/science-minded (who told us what the building blocks are) say we don't know how life started yet. Though at least they have some solid non-supernatural ideas. No one mentioned religion/atheism until you did. You also have an overwhelmingly Religious sig.


----------



## james bond (Feb 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> There is no known other method than natural by which the building blocks could be assembled. The only reason we know possible sequences is Science. Therefore the evidence/science-minded (who told us what the building blocks are) say we don't know how life started yet. Though at least they have some solid non-supernatural ideas. No one mentioned religion/atheism until you did. You also have an overwhelmingly Religious sig.


>>There is no known other method than natural by which the building blocks could be assembled. <<

Lol, I have to say you are the STUPIDEST mofo here.  Just what have I been talking about here you dipshit?  You are such a disgusting POS with your atheism and beastiality perversions.  Maybe atheism is a perversion of science just like there is no observable and testable evidence for macroevolution, but people still fall for it.  This is why I came to the conclusion that atheists need to die to know evolution wasn't science and they were wrong about creation.  Evolution has made you _hypocrites_ of science.

The scientific proof I have against your claims is the swan neck flask experiment by Louis Pasteur.  He helped save the children and us with pasteurization.  It proves the creationists use science and that it backs up their religion.  The atheist scientists haven't saved anyone which follows their atheism.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 9, 2022)

james bond said:


> >>There is no known other method than natural by which the building blocks could be assembled. <<
> 
> Lol, I have to say you are the STUPIDEST mofo here.  Just what have I been talking about here you dipshit?  *You are such a disgusting POS with your atheism and beastiality perversions.*  Maybe atheism is a perversion of science just like there is no observable and testable evidence for macroevolution, but people still fall for it.  This is why I came to the conclusion that atheists need to die to know evolution wasn't science and they were wrong about creation.  Evolution has made you _hypocrites_ of science.
> 
> The scientific proof I have against your claims is the swan neck flask experiment by Louis Pasteur.  He helped save the children and us with pasteurization.  It proves the creationists use science and that it backs up their religion.  The atheist scientists haven't saved anyone which follows their atheism.


No only is that NOT true - like every sentence you write - it's against the rules you have now broken Multiple times.

*No Accusations of other members relating to bestiality or pedophilia.*
Your whole post, In fact thousands of them, are OFF topic religious rants as well as lies.

You are/remain a Lunatic suggesting Scientific American be moved to the religion section while you Quote Scripture and invoke God in Half you Wacky Cult posts here!

Ergo.. You need to be confined to the religion section here, and more broadly confined, even when not here.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Does any of this mean (to you) that life on Earth would have been able to form without our atmosphere?


Just what do you think the atmosphere was like, when life formed?

Volcanic gasses and no oxygen.

So saying  life would not form on a planet without an atmosphere like earth's is a pretty meaningless statement.


----------



## Death Angel (Feb 9, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> So proof that other planets have the basics needed for life---asteroriods/meteorites are also known to carry basic life bacteria around---ergo life would certainly exist on other planets since only these basic elements, time, and energy are needed to create life and with "seeding" needing less to start life on a planet.
> 
> Life then would certainly BE OUT THERE.  Hopefully it isn't as dumb and destructive as humans.


An infinite amount of time could pass and NOTHING would come from organic material unless the Creator creates life


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2022)

Death Angel said:


> An infinite amount of time could pass and NOTHING would come from organic material unless the Creator creates life


Shaman Death Angel  has spoken!


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 9, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just what do you think the atmosphere was like, when life formed?
> 
> Volcanic gasses and no oxygen.
> 
> So saying  life would not form on a planet without an atmosphere like earth's is a pretty meaningless statement.


You moron. You think life started here before oxygen?  It is impossible to fathom just what an imbecile you are, Farty.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You think life started here before oxygen?


Before our atmosphere contained any appreciable oxygen?

That's right. It did. In fact, it was life that oxygenated the atmosphere. 

Sounds like you aren't educated enough to be commenting and need to go read up before commenting again.

Do yourself a favor or and go do that.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 9, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Before our atmosphere contained any appreciable oxygen?
> 
> That's right. It did. It was life that oxygenated the atmosphere.
> 
> ...


You’re high.

Let me give you a lesson so simple even a complete retard like you has a chance of grasping it. Oxygen is needed for water. Life started *in* water therefore absent oxygen there would be no life on Earth.

Get a pal to help you. You’re not up to it on your own.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You’re high.
> 
> Let me give you a lesson so simple even a complete retard like you has a chance of grasping it. Oxygen is needed for water. Life started *in* water therefore absent oxygen there would be no line on Earth.
> 
> Get a pal to help you. You’re not up to it on your own.


Oops, you forgot we were talking about the atmosphere. I figured you were just ignorant and stupid, not that you have short term memory problems. I stand corrected.

Sorry to hear.

So, I better refresh your memory:

The atmosphere when life formed was nothing like today's atmosphere,so it would be pretty stupid to demand an earth like atmosphere as a condition for the formation of life. Like that one fool implied earlier. Wait, that was you.


----------



## james bond (Feb 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> No only is that NOT true - like every sentence you write - it's against the rules you have now broken Multiple times.
> 
> *No Accusations of other members relating to bestiality or pedophilia.*
> Your whole post, In fact thousands of them, are OFF topic religious rants as well as lies.
> ...


>>Your whole post, In fact thousands of them, are OFF topic religious rants as well as lies.<<

No, they're not.  I'm not the one who started non-science posts like you.  I am forced off topic and off forum by the atheists who use their evolution to prop up their atheist religion while ignoring the evidence that backs creation.  The bottom line and reality is there is no evidence and test for macroevolution.  Furthermore, science experiments such as the swan neck flask by Louis Pasteur destroys the origins for evolution.  If evo can't get off the ground, then it's not an explanation for why the universe, Earth and everything in it is here.  IOW, creation wins but you can't figure this out nor admit you are WRONG.  Moreover, I found that Richard Dawkins admitted that evolution is destroyed if humans lived with dinosaurs.  We have evidence for this, but not the fossil evidence yet.  Footpirnts together, yes.  Prehistoric artwork together, yes.  You need to stop acting like a crybaby and take it like a man when this happens.

As for natural selection, the Bible tells us that God created it and science backs it up.  This is the foundation for creation science.  If science backs up the evidence for the supernatural such as global flood, history of first humans, history or early humans, history of humans after the global flood and so on, then it is real science.  Where is the evolution history after Judy the ape-human?  I've asked for it several times now.  I think I won right there as nothing is forthcoming.  It really is hypocritical to ask for evidence for the supernatural and when I provide, you ignore it.  I just assume that you lost the argument and have no response.

My complaint to you is that all you do is complain like above, call those who oppose you names and start threads that do not have to do with science in the science forum.  You are the biggest atheist hypocrite here.  Furthermore, you get too emo and quickly get on the border of being banned in no time. 

As for the beastiality, it was pointed out by conservapedia and Scientific American blog articles.  I linked those.  You're the one who claimed SA was a valid science magazine or blog while you ignore the creationist articles and blogs.  Now, we know that SA seems to okay beastiality as atheists have a natural interest towards it for some eww-type reason.  I'm the one who takes care to back up my claims with science links or links that goes against a magazine you opine about as valid science.  Where are your links that review SA per your claim? 

I'm the one who has to keep pointing out the creationist websites are not religious websites as science backs up the Bible.  If science didn't back up the Bible like science doesn't back up macroevolution, then I wouldn't be arguing for creation science.  What gets me is you think you and the atheists have real science when nothing backs it up; I'm the one who has to keep pointing out it's creation science vs. atheist science or science that is backed up vs. science that is not (another word for lies).


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 9, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oops, you forgot we were talking about the atmosphere. I figured you were just ignorant and stupid, not that you have short term memory problems. I stand corrected.
> 
> Sorry to hear.
> 
> ...


Oops. You forgot that *you* introduced “atmospheric” oxygen after I discussed  just oxygen. You can lie. But the record of the conversation lives on despite your dishonesty,  Farty.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> any of this mean (to you) that life on Earth would have been able to form without our atmosphere?





BackAgain said:


> Oops. You forgot that *you* introduced “atmospheric” oxygen after I discussed just oxygen


Hmm, sorry liar. The quote above actually still appears on this page.

I quoted it in my response to it.

You just really don't care if everyone can see what a liar you are, do you?


----------



## Likkmee (Feb 9, 2022)

I LOVE asteroids. I wish they'd all come and visit....NOW


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 9, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hmm, sorry liar. The quote above actually still appears on this page.
> 
> I quoted it in my response to it.
> 
> You just really don't care if everyone can see what a liar you are, do you?


Yeah. Without an atmosphere there would be no life on our little planet. And you’re wrong in thinking otherwise. However, there would also be no life without water. That requires oxygen.

In your fantasy world, what life came into being on Earth *before* an atmosphere and/OR water?


----------



## badger2 (Feb 9, 2022)

It was NASA in 2010 that showed interplanetary travel by microorganisms were possible, though Jesus never mentioned asteroids or meteorites to the disciples, even though he and his dad already knew what would eventually happen: this thread.

2010 Interplanetary Travel








						Space microbiology - PubMed
					

The responses of microorganisms (viruses, bacterial cells, bacterial and fungal spores, and lichens) to selected factors of space (microgravity, galactic cosmic radiation, solar UV radiation, and space vacuum) were determined in space and laboratory simulation experiments. In general...




					pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				



'....The data support the likelihood of interplanetary transfer of microorganisms in meteorites.'


----------



## badger2 (Feb 9, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Yeah. Without an atmosphere there would be no life on our little planet. And you’re wrong in thinking otherwise. However, there would also be no life without water. That requires oxygen.
> 
> In your fantasy world, what life came into being on Earth *before* an atmosphere and/OR water?


The Miller-Urey experiment may yield some clues.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 9, 2022)

badger2 said:


> The Miller-Urey experiment may yield some clues.


Ok. Inform me.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 9, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Ok. Inform me.


Never mind. I looked it up. I had heard of those experiments before.  Didn’t know the names. I assume the formation of organic molecules from the prehistoric atmosphere and heat and the famous “primordial soup” combined with maybe some crucial lightning strokes maybe did have something to do with the eventual evolution of life.

I still can’t find anything that says “life” as we know it could exist on Earth without water and an atmosphere. In fact, I’ve never heard of that outside of some rank speculation involving different *kinds* of life which we might not even recognize as constituting “life.”


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 9, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Never mind. I looked it up. I had heard of those experiments before.  Didn’t know the names. I assume the formation of organic molecules from the prehistoric atmosphere and heat and the famous “primordial soup” combined with maybe some crucial lightning strokes maybe did have something to do with the eventual evolution of life.
> 
> I still can’t find anything that says “life” as we know it could exist on Earth without water and an atmosphere. In fact, I’ve never heard of that outside of some rank speculation involving different *kinds* of life which we might not even recognize as constituting “life.”


Three things about those experiments:

1)  it turned out that the "primordial soup" imagined in the experiment was nothing like the primordial soup is now believed to have been.  Of course, what scientists believe the primordial soup was like will likely change again and again, maybe forever, since such a past condition cannot be proven in the present.

Bottom line is that we don't know what the primordial soup looked like.  Therefore, scientists are actually look for a hypothetical primordial soup that "could have" allowed for formation of life from non-life.

2)  As long as scientists are looking the answer to what "primordial soup" looked like, and defining "primordial soup," as "conditions that could have allowed abiogenesis, they will not be looking for the truth, they will be looking for partial validation of their theories.  Looking for the "primordial soup" means looking for a set of conditions that might have allowed the formation of life from non-life.  It is perfectly fine to look for that, as long as you are not looking for that as *proof* that life formed on Earth from non-life.  It is circular reasoning.  You don't prove something is true by imagining a way that it *could be* true.

3)  Anytime you design an experiment about the beginning of life on Earth, you're doing what?  

Designing.  

No designed experiment can prove the absence of design.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 9, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Three things about those experiments:
> 
> 1)  it turned out that the "primordial soup" imagined in the experiment was nothing like the primordial soup is now believed to have been.  Of course, what scientists believe the primordial soup was like will likely change again and again, maybe forever, since such a past condition cannot be proven in the present.
> 
> ...


This stuff interest me. But I make no claim of having a solid scientific foundation.  This much I do know:  the creation of the organic precursors of life is not the same as the creation of life.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 9, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> This stuff interest me. But I make no claim of having a solid scientific foundation.  This much I do know:  the creation of the organic precursors of life is not the same as the creation of life.


Yes, they are different.

One thing is the same, though:  We have no evidence, whatsoever, of how either one may have happened.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 9, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, they are different.
> 
> One thing is the same, though:  We have no evidence, whatsoever, of how either one may have happened.


I believe that there *is* evidence for the formation of some dna from the conditions on the early planet.  But life being formed?  I have seen nothing that bridges the gulf between non life and life.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 9, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Ok. Inform me.


Wikipedia: Miller-Urey experiment.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 9, 2022)

Durng planet formation, there is what is called an "ice line." Water is there from the beginning birth of planets.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Without an atmosphere there would be no life on our little planet.


Oops, you went off the rails again.

Our atmosphere, as it is now? Or 4 billion years ago? Do you mean, for the formation of life? Or its continued existence? Use your big boy words, or people won't know what you are trying to say. 

And you're wrong in any case. A planet does not have to have a atmosphere for liquid water to exist, for example, below the surface.

You're just making stuff up, and it is all wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I believe that there *is* evidence for the formation of some dna from the conditions on the early planet.  But life being formed?  I have seen nothing that bridges the gulf between non life and life.


Oh you haven't?

Okay then, tell us what that would look like. Be specific.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 10, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> No designed experiment can prove the absence of design.


But your problem is you can't "prove" there IS Design, and it's a widely Discredited-by-science blooper.
Always Dishonestly and stupidly trying the burden shift.
You know I own you and your crap.
`


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oops, you went off the rails again.
> 
> Our atmosphere, as it is now? Or 4 billion years ago? Do you mean, for the formation of life? Or its continued existence? Use your big boy words, or people won't know what you are trying to say.
> 
> ...


No. You’ve never been on any rail. Bad place to put your little Thomas the tank engine, you idiot. I didn’t specify what kind of atmosphere. In fact, you did or tried to when you said that life had to exist to put oxygen into the atmosphere. You dolt. We know it’s true that life began in water prior to forming on land. And the microorganisms in water evolved eventually into plants which did suck up CO2 and pump out O2. 

But life means more than O2 breathers, ya jerkoff.

You remain committed to your own retardation.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh you haven't?
> 
> Okay then, tell us what that would look like. Be specific.


Another ^ in the long line of your incredibly stupid and meaningless questions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Does any of this mean (to you) that life on Earth would have been able to form without our atmosphere?





BackAgain said:


> I didn’t specify what kind of atmosphere


Man, you are such a Shameless Little Liar. Why are you embarrassing yourself like this? Are you just looking for attention?

It's not my fault you can't articulate your thoughts. You didn't even know the earth's atmosphere was radically different when life formed on Earth. Kind of embarrassing, for a grown man.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Another ^ in the long line of your incredibly stupid and meaningless questions.


I.E.,you are too incapable and ignorant even to try to answer.

It also demonstrates that your vapid babbling  is exactly that. You don't give a shit about evidence. You're just lazy and ignorant and think it makes you sound smart to say you "haven't seen the evidence".

Of course, when you are asked what that evidence would look like, your giney puckers and you tap out. Naturally.

This question always exposes frauds like you.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Man, you are such a Shameless Little Liar. Why are you embarrassing yourself like this? Are you just looking for attention?
> 
> It's not my fault you can't articulate your thoughts. You didn't even know the earth's atmosphere was radically different when life formed on Earth. Kind of embarrassing, for a grown man.


Everyone (even a dolt like you) knew that Earth’s atmosphere changed. I certainly never said anything suggesting that I didn’t know. Why would I?  Of course I know.

You lie compulsively. I’d recommend that you rush to a psych ward. Check in. Stay for a while. Get help.

And it’s not my fault that you’re too retarded to grasp clear sentences.

You *should* be embarrassed. I don’t care if you are a grown woman or still just a little girl.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Everyone (even a dolt like you) knew that Earths atmosphere changed.


Except for you, apparently, as your comment shows quite clearly. 

But now you do know, because I taught it to you. You're welcome.

Backto reading the posts of people who actually know things about this topic...


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Except for you, apparently, as your comment shows quite clearly.
> 
> But now you do know, because I taught it to you. You're welcome.
> 
> Backto reading the posts of people who actually know things about this topic...


No. My commentary neither said nor implied any such thing. As you know. And you didn’t teach anything. You presumed to lecture on something without realizing that nobody asked for your input or needed it.You remain a totally dishonest and worthless hack.

BTW:  you don’t know anything. You thought life formed in Earth’s early atmosphere.   

Some form of life may have started before the atmosphere was as oxygenated as it is now. But you didn’t know that either.  I can probably forward some primer for your benefit if you ask nicely.  Your level is not yet at 2d grade level, it seems.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> My commentary neither said nor implied any such thing.


A lie, as early shown by your comments.

What is happening now is that you realize, after your errors have been corrected, that you actually agree with me.

But you, being a career sock troll, don't remember how to stop throwing hissy fits anymore .

So now that we both agree that demanding an earth-like atmosphere as a condition for
life is stupid, we can move on to the next point:

So, what would the evidence of abiogenesis on Earth look like to you?

Be specific.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A lie, as early shown by your comments.
> 
> What is happening now is that you realize, after your errors have been corrected, that you actually agree with me.
> 
> ...


You lied as shown by the entirety of your posts.  

And what’s happening here (aside from your self aggrandizing lies and pathetic obvious efforts to rewrite history) is that you are proving you have no clue about this topic.

Go ahead retard. Prove any or your claims. You can’t.  And it’s plain for all to see. And we all know why. It’s because you are completely hostile to the barest notion of ever being honest.

Forget about the first life on earth. Try to get your first touch of integrity on your own life. Be honest for once. 👍


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You lied as shown by the entirety of your posts.
> 
> And what’s happening here (aside from your self aggrandizing lies and pathetic obvious efforts to rewrite history) is that you are proving you have no clue about this topic.
> 
> ...


Cute whining. But that crybabying does not impress, in the science section.

So, if you can't describe examples of what this evidence would look like, how do you or will you know if you have seen it or not?

This question ("What would the evidence look like?") exposes you frauds immediately. Your prattling about the evidence...now proven to be a dog and pony show. It's just too easy.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cute whining. But that crybabying does not impress, in the science section.
> 
> So, if you can't describe examples of what this evidence would look like, how do you or will you know if you have seen it or not?
> 
> This question ("What would the evidence look like?) exposes you frauds immediately. Your prattling about the evidence...now proven to be a dog and pony show. It's just too easy.


Your dishonest babbling doesn’t impress anywhere.

You asked a stupid question. You’re far too retarded to recognize _why_ your faux question IS stupid. All we can do (of course) is to speculate about what evidence MIGHT look like. Do you suppose that there are many non-scientists who could identify things like microfossils?

Your ignorance and arrogance are as boundless as your dishonesty and stupidity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

Seriously though, it's just that easy. The frauds can't run away from this simple question fast enough.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Your dishonest babbling doesn’t impress anywhere.
> 
> You asked a stupid question. You’re far too retarded to recognize _why_ your faux question IS stupid. All we can do (of course) is to speculate about what evidence MIGHT look like. Do you suppose that there are many non-scientists who could identify things like microfossils?
> 
> Your ignorance and arrogance are as boundless as your dishonesty and stupidity.


Funny, any scientist could give several answers. As could most people who know things about this topic.

But you can't, because you are a fraud who is only pretending to care about the evidence.

So, instead, we get treated to an embarrassing hissy fit.

Works every time.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Funny, any scientist could give several answers. As could most people who know things about this topic.
> 
> But you can't, because you are a fraud who is only pretending to care about the evidence.
> 
> ...


Wrong as usual. I never claimed to be a scientist in the first place, you pompous twit. And like many people who (unlike you) *do* know a bit about this topic, I recognize that the evidence could be revealed in more than one form. See? As I correctly noted earlier, your question is quite stupid. As are you.

Plus, I’m not the one having a fit here. That would be you. You really don’t like being exposed for the twit you clearly are. But the good news?  I don’t mind exposing your dimwittedness anyway.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> But your problem is you can't "prove" there IS Design, and it's a widely Discredited-by-science blooper.
> Always Dishonestly and stupidly trying the burden shift.
> You know I own you and your crap.
> `


That is not my problem.  I don't have any need to prove design because I'm not trying to convince anyone that there is design in life on Earth.

Which is good because anyone who claims not to see the design is like the villagers pretending not to see the King's tidy whities.  Even your evolutionist hero, the Captain Kangaroo of Darwinism, acknowledges that a) life had apparent design and b) DNA is so unlikely to have been formed through random unguided processes that he has to theorize about space aliens "seeding" the Earth.

If that happened, that is design, is it not?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Wrong as usual. I never claimed to be a scientist in the first place, you pompous twit. And like many people who (unlike you) *do* know a bit about this topic, I recognize that the evidence could be revealed in more than one form. See? As I correctly noted earlier, your question is quite stupid. As are you.
> 
> Plus, I’m not the one having a fit here. That would be you. You really don’t like being exposed for the twit you clearly are. But the good news?  I don’t mind exposing your dimwittedness anyway.


And I clearly just said one does not have to be a scientist to come up with several answers to the question. One only has to have a working knowledge of the topic. Which you do not. So, basically, you shouldn't even be opening your mouth about it. But you choose just be a Shameless liar and pretend you care about the evidence. But I have now exposed you. It's all over but the crying.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And I clearly just said one does not have to be a scientist to come up with several answers to the question. One only has to have a working knowledge of the topic. Which you do not. So, basically, you shouldn't even be opening your mouth about it. But you choose just be a Shameless liar and pretend you care about the evidence. But I have now exposed you. It's all over but the crying.


Yeah dipshit. We know. In fact, I’m convinced you often run to Google or wiki before posting shit you don’t quite understand.

And by “don’t quite,” I mean that you don’t understand at all.

I reiterate. Yes. I have exposed you. I also don’t care if you’re crying. 😎


----------



## abu afak (Feb 10, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> *That is not my problem.  I don't have any need to prove design because I'm not trying to convince anyone that there is design in life on Earth.*
> 
> Which is good because anyone who claims not to see the design is like the villagers pretending not to see the King's tidy whities.  Even your evolutionist hero, the Captain Kangaroo of Darwinism, acknowledges that a) life had apparent design and b) DNA is so unlikely to have been formed through random unguided processes that he has to theorize about space aliens "seeding" the Earth.
> 
> If that happened, that is design, is it not?


That's a LIE or Stupid
With you it's usually Both.

You've done NOTHING BUT Try and convince people there was design.

*and you always try to shift the burden of proof for YOUR idea to 'someone Else has to DISprove it.'*
A Transparently STUPID and devious POS.

an out and out Bald Faced lie/liar and Fraud.

`

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Yeah dipshit. We know. In fact, I’m convinced you often run to Google or wiki before posting shit you don’t quite understand.
> 
> And by “don’t quite,” I mean that you don’t understand at all.
> 
> I reiterate. Yes. I have exposed you. I also don’t care if you’re crying. 😎


Oh look, more crybabying.

Wipe that tear away, use your vaginal sand remover, and try to tackle a question:

What are some examples of what evidence of abiogenesis would look like, to you?

I know you are having a very hard time with this. But I expect some effort on your part.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

Poor Farty. Can’t take all of his self-inflicted perpetual failure. 😎


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

Ends the same way every time.

A simple, straightforward question.

The frauds are immediately exposed. 

I'll do it again. Watch.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

The truth is, Farty wouldn’t recognize a microfossil suggestive of abiogenesis from an igneous rock if he didn’t have Google pictures (clearly labeled) of both in front of him. And he absolutely wouldn’t grasp why it might imply abiogenesis, even then.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> a microfossil suggestive of abiogenesis


Oh my God

The stupid...it...burns


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> That's a LIE or Stupid
> With you it's usually Both.
> 
> You've done NOTHING BUT Try and convince people there was design.
> ...


Alright Abu.  You win.

Your arguments are so juvenile and fatuous that they aren't even worth replying to anymore, so why bother reading them or even seeing them clog up the threads?

Goodbye and take that other one with you.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ends the same way every time.
> 
> A simple, straightforward question.
> 
> ...


Your question remains stupid — as do you. *Your* fraudulence remains on full display, Farts.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh my God
> 
> The stupid...it...burns


Yes. Your stupidity could melt titanium.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2022)

"What would evidence of abiogeness look like, to you?"

"Something that suggests abiogenesis!"


----------



## abu afak (Feb 10, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Alright Abu.  You win.
> 
> Your arguments are so juvenile and fatuous that they aren't even worth replying to anymore, so why bother reading them or even seeing them clog up the threads?
> 
> *Goodbye and take that other one with you.*


We agree I win and the fact is you are a pathological liar/sociopath who I see right through.

And here we are again with an even less convincing "Goodbye."
(last time it also had  "and good luck," and that you weren't going to answer because you didn't want to be responsible for my state)
So you words are meaningless because you lie hourly.
`


----------



## abu afak (Feb 10, 2022)

Seymour Flops last "Goodbye" AND "Good Luck."
No question he was not responding any more.
But he lied about it an hour later!
I called him on it
He's a RAGING LIAR.


Sunday at 9:28 PM
Add bookmark
#591



> Seymour Flops said:
> *Clearly I should not have started responding to you again, abu.
> I see Now that you are not stable enough to be debating on a forum such as this.*
> A complete mental collapse seems imminent, and* I don't want to be accused of contributing to it.
> ...





> Seymour Flops said:
> *You liar!
> I did not say that I am NOT responding to you anymore.*
> I just don't want to be accused of contributing to your imminent mental collapse.
> Do you plan on accusing me of that? Yes, or no?



So now he says "Goodbye" again?
This time even less definitively.

Nothing he says means anything.
He says whatever gratifies him at the moment. 
A sociopath. 
`


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Seymour Flops last "Goodbye" AND "Good Luck."
> No question he was not responding any more.
> But he lied about it an hour later!
> I called him on it
> ...


*Nothing he says means anything.
He says whatever gratifies him at the moment.
A sociopath.*

The *Irony*!

You are so insecure that you have more than enough insults for anyone who disagrees with you.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 10, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> *Nothing he says means anything.
> He says whatever gratifies him at the moment.
> A sociopath.*
> 
> ...


I have facts.
Should you have anything on topic to discuss I have many highly relevant and interesting threads near the top of this section.
Put up or Shut up

As a matter of fact I'd be glad to discuss ANY science (or other) topic with you.
(aka destroy your idiot Fundie views)

Your turn to Reply ON topic, start a thread IN SCIENCE, or GTFO clown.

`


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I have facts.
> Should you have anything on topic to discuss I have many highly relevant and interesting threads near the top of this section.
> Put up or Shut up
> 
> ...



You have facts, but not cause and effect.
You also have a temper.
Your facts will be matched by most of my non-Self-Hating Jewish community with advanced hard science degrees.
It's amazing how you think you're something special when all you are is an arrogant ass.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I have facts.
> Should you have anything on topic to discuss I have many highly relevant and interesting threads near the top of this section.
> Put up or Shut up
> 
> ...


By the way, I bet 90% of the LibBots here who agree with you have no science background but I don't see you telling them to butt out.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 10, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> *You have facts, but not cause and effect.*
> You also have a temper.
> Your facts will be matched by most of my non-Self-Hating Jewish community with advanced hard science degrees.
> It's amazing how you think you're something special when all you are is an arrogant ass.


OK. you're up.
What do you mean 'cause and effect'?
You mean I don't know how life/the universe started.
That's correct I don't!

What I do not do (because I have a brain), is fabricate a god for what I/we don't know/know Yet.
That FALLACY was/is called 'God of The Gaps' and I have a thread on it. (too) Read it.

IOW, if this was long ago you would have felt perfectly justified in worshipping the Fire, Lightning or fertility gods but you would have been wrong in making that lazy assumption because not knowing YET is no reason for making up a god.
And you realize of course there are people/cultures who made up gods different than yours, right?
Ergo, the only thing we DO know is man created gods.

OK son, your turn, but you've been preempted/pre-refuted. (and you're down 50 IQ points)
.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "What would evidence of abiogeness look like, to you?"
> 
> "Something that suggests abiogenesis!"


Yup. A compulsive liar as the post history firmly proves.

Let me dumb it down even more for you, given your severe and tragic retardation.

None of us know when life got going. Nor do we know precisely how. There are several theories. Because we don’t know, we can only interpret evidence that suggests why the very earliest life we can find may show us.

If you don’t grasp this much, Farty, then there is *no* hope of you ever being sufficiently educated. Given your obviously tragic mental retardation, it looks quite bleak for you, Farty.

Even the microfossils which have been identified as being about 3.6 Billion years old do not conclusively establish abiogenesis. What the “thing” is that would be solid “evidence” of the bridge between non-life and life is not known yet. Accordingly, it isn’t clear what the fuck it would ”look” like.

Your question remains stupid and serves as evidence that you’re a fraud.  No surprise at all.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> OK. you're up.
> What do you mean 'cause and effect'?
> You mean I don't know how life/the universe started.
> That's correct I don't!
> ...


A reality consisting of what you call facts does not necessitate an inevitable result.
Animals and man in so many ways defy accidental development, not to mention development*s;* evolution is physically and mathematically *impossible*.
In fact, a simple Google search will deliver the that fact that even the Big Bang, which *did* occur, would never become the ordered universe we inhabit.

To be honest, for all I know you are simply copying and pasting web sites that agree with you.
You also didn't like the fact that my daughter is a doctor and probably knows more about humans than you.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Yup. A compulsive liar as the post history firmly proves.
> 
> Let me dumb it down even more for you, given your severe and tragic retardation.
> 
> ...


And that's why FFI is on *Ignore*.
The retard is so predictable, it gets boring insulting the retard.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 10, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> And that's why FFI is on *Ignore*.
> The retard is so predictable, it gets boring insulting the retard.


Sad. He has been on the verge of coherence once or twice. I have a few special short-bus types on ignore. I don’t mind debating and discussing and even disagreeing. But it does become pointless to argue with a dishonest lummox with no chance of getting anything logical, reasonable or honest in return.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 10, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> A reality consisting of what you call facts does not necessitate an inevitable result.


You didn't answer my last (would you not have believed in the Sun god too using your 'cause and effect' 'reasoning?), But I will continue answering your every point.

And what "inevitable result" is that?
if I get two boxes of pick-up sticks and throw them down on the ground, what are the odds of them them landing in some arrangement? 100%. It's only unlikely someone will throw that exact arrangement again. Nothing divine about my throw though.
Is that perfect?
No: only unlikely After the fact.
It could have come out infinite ways and there may be odd or more advanced beings somewhere else in the universe (or another) marveling about their 'unique' 'luck.'




Indeependent said:


> Animals and man in so many ways defy accidental development, not to mention development*s;* evolution is physically and mathematically *impossible*.
> In fact, a simple Google search will deliver the that fact that even the Big Bang, which *did* occur, would never become the ordered universe we inhabit.


Nonsense. There are many more failed creatures than extant ones. So many down the Trial and error drain. Extinct or their variant didn't even last more than one mutation/generation. Viewing where life is now as somehow the end game of ongoing perfect creation is idiotic and demonstrably false looking at the fossil record alone. Incredibly myopic. (and as arrogant as thinking your god is Thee god, or any for that matter)
And the universe is not "well ordered" it's a mess:. Stars going Nova/super-Nova and taking life with them for 50 light years.
Galaxies colliding to incredible damage if there is life anywhere else.
100-200 Billion stars (solar systems) passing through and into same in an unfathomable disaster... as will happen to our Milky Way as it is on course to collide with Andromeda in a few Billion years.
99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is uninhabitable.
Not very thoughtful.

Did someone design all the life before us only to have it mostly wiped out many times?
What kind of 'order' is that?
Did the dinosaurs 'sin'?
Who's responsible for such a waste of time and life?
Can't a 'designer' get it right the first time?
Unless you're a YEC who believes the earth is 6-10K yrs old. Oh no!



Indeependent said:


> To be honest, for all I know you are simply copying and pasting web sites that agree with you.
> You also didn't like the fact that my daughter is a doctor and probably knows more about humans than you.


Obviously these are my own words, but thanks for the compliment that pointed out your faulty 'cause and effect'/'God of the Gaps logic' with my Unanswered last.
I told you why.

`


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You didn't answer my last (would you not have believed in the Sun god too using your 'cause and effect' 'reasoning?), But I will continue answering your every point.
> 
> And what "inevitable result" is that?
> if I get two boxes of pick-up sticks and throw them down on the ground, what are the odds of them them landing in some arrangement? 100%. It's only unlikely someone will throw that exact arrangement again. Nothing divine about my throw though.
> ...


I notice you did not address the issue of genetic accidents of unlimited complexity that would make it impossible for a male and female of the animal or human to continuously propagate those accidents.
AKA you are full of crap.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 11, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> I notice you did not address the issue of genetic accidents of unlimited complexity that would make it impossible for a male and female of the animal or human to continuously propagate those accidents.
> AKA you are full of crap.


That's it?
you write One sentence after my Extensive answer?
You're a Fraud .
Men in Black FRAUD.
`


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> That's it?
> you write One sentence after my Extensive answer?
> You're a Fraud .
> Men in Black FRAUD.
> `


That’s it?
You replied to my post with ad hominems?
You’re a Fraud.

Now respond to the Impossibility issue.
I know you can’t.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 11, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> So proof that other planets have the basics needed for life---asteroriods/meteorites are also known to carry basic life bacteria around---ergo life would certainly exist on other planets since only these basic elements, time, and energy are needed to create life and with "seeding" needing less to start life on a planet.
> 
> Life then would certainly BE OUT THERE.  Hopefully it isn't as dumb and destructive as humans.


Basic life bacteria?!


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 11, 2022)

Oddball said:


> Ancient news....Amino acids were found on meteorites decades ago.


Precisely!  There's nothing particularly earth-shattering about this.  We have known for almost 40 years via the examination of meteorites that astroids convey organic material, including certain amines and amino acids.  Certain organic materials are ubiquitous.  These abiotic chemical precursors are light-years from life.

Abiogenesis is a pipedream.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 11, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> A reality consisting of what you call facts does not necessitate an inevitable result.
> Animals and man in so many ways defy accidental development, not to mention development*s;* evolution is physically and mathematically *impossible*.
> In fact, a simple Google search will deliver the that fact that even the Big Bang, which *did* occur, would never become the ordered universe we inhabit.
> 
> ...


""Animals and man in so many ways defy accidental development, not to mention development*s;* evolution is physically and mathematically *impossible*.""

LOL. we have overwhelming evidence Evolution DID happen you Religious extremist Moron.
Declaring it impossible' is not sane nor debate.
You remain an Idiot.






						Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)
					

And now we await Evidence for Creationism, ID, the designER/god. Any evidence at all.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent Contents  1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry  1.1 Genetics 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry  2...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				



​Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia​Contents​
1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry

2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy

3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology

4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography

5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates

6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates

7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage

8 Evidence from behavior
9 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
10 See also
11 References
12 Sources
13 External links

And now we await Evidence for Creationism, ID, the designER/god .. any evidence at all.
`


----------



## Hollie (Feb 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Precisely!  There's nothing particularly earth-shattering about this.  We have known for almost 40 years via the examination of meteorites that astroids convey organic material, including certain amines and amino acids.  Certain organic materials are ubiquitous.  These abiotic chemical precursors are light-years from life.
> 
> Abiogenesis is a pipedream.


Abiogenesis is a pipedream?

We know with absolute certainty it occurred so, no, not a pipedream. 

You fell down and bumped your head again, right?


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 11, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Abiogenesis is a pipedream?
> 
> We know with absolute certainty it occurred so, no, not a pipedream.
> 
> You fell down and bumped your head again, right?


Abiogenesis is the notion that life chemically evolved from nonliving material via strictly natural processes.

Only fools believe that.

Life comes from life.  Life was directly engineered by God from the organic compounds of the Universe.

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism​By Michael Rawlings, a.k.a., Ringtone


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> None of us know when life got going.


But the evidence shows us it likely formed right here on earth, about 4 billion years ago. We can constrain it to a window of a few hundred million years. And there is a complete lack of  reason or evidence to think anything else but this happened.

You are free to look for and to produce evidence otherwise. Since there isn't any. You are free to try to invent a valid argument to the contrary. But none exists so far, and I doubt you will succeed where people far superior to you intellectually have failed.

Until then... what use are ya? Just some uneducated slob naysayer, saying dumb things that educated people have to correct.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 11, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But the evidence shows us it likely formed right here on earth, about 4 billion years ago. We can constrain it to a window of a few hundred million years. And there is a complete lack of  reason or evidence to think anything else but this happened.
> 
> You are free to look for and to produce evidence otherwise. Since there isn't any. You are free to try to invent a valid argument to the contrary. But none exists so far, and I doubt you will succeed where people far superior to you intellectually have failed.
> 
> Until then... what use are ya? Just some uneducated slob naysayer, saying dumb things that educated people have to correct.


Your incoherence is worse than usual. And, boy, that’s saying something.

Scientists have estimated that life began at around the 3.6 billion year mark after Earth got formed. Some have speculated that it could have been maybe even earlier.  And they make these estimates based on evidence, you complete shithead.

But you keep losing the focus (probably because you’re so stupid). I’m here to help ya. The focus is EVIDENCE of abiogenesis. Seeing a fossil really ain’t the same thing, you idiot, *because* a fossil is evidence of something that was *already* alive.

Evidence for *how* something went from matter that wasn’t alive to something that was “life” is difficult to contemplate. You may continue to blather your bullshit to the contrary, but the question you asked is still absolutely stupid.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Your incoherence is worse than usual. And, boy, that’s saying something.
> 
> Scientists have estimated that life began at around the 3.6 billion year mark after Earth got formed. Some have speculated that it could have been maybe even earlier.  And they make these estimates based on evidence, you complete shithead.
> 
> ...


Actually, your numbers are off.  It is thought that the Earth formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago and that the first forms of life appeared about 1 billion years after that!  Hence, life began about 3.6 billion years ago.  Look it up.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Actually, your numbers are off.  It is thought that the Earth formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago and that the first forms of life appeared about 1 billion years after that!  Hence, life began about 3.6 billion years ago.  Look it up.


Yep. My bad 

I was recalling the numbers. Incorrectly. I agree with your numbers as being a valid correction. 

It *wasn’t* 3.6 billion years *after* the Earth *formed*. It was 3.6 billion years *ago*. Life may have come into being even *before* that ~ 1 billion year mark from what I recall (according to estimates by some scientists).

Back to the point though. I still don’t know how we would recognize evidence of abiogenesis. We (meaning scientists, not me) may be able to infer a likely set of necessary conditions. But what the actual evidence of abiogenesis would “look” like?  Who knows?


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Yep. My bad
> 
> I was recalling the numbers. Incorrectly. I agree with your numbers as being a valid correction.
> 
> ...


As to that point, you're absolutely correct.  Fort Fun Indiana doesn't grasp the realities of the matter.  The only thing that may be roughly determined is when life fisrt appeared.  From that we roughly infer when conditions became viable.  As for evidence of an actual instance of abiogenesis, baby talk.  Such a thing could never be observed or verified--not now, not ever.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Abiogenesis is the notion that life chemically evolved from nonliving material via strictly natural processes.
> 
> Only fools believe that.
> 
> ...



Well, yes. Organic life would arise from strictly natural processes. What can you tell us about life arising from unnatural and / or supernatural processes?

Why is it foolish to conclude your versions of gods, which you can’t demonstrate or provide evidence for, are just different pleadings for fear and superstition? Your gods are distillations of the gods who were invented before the invention of your gods. 

“Life comes from life…. _because I say so”_

Not an argument for those of us at the grown up table.



“Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism”​Yes. I recall that grinding, ruthless plagiarizing of William Lane Craig you dumped into threads on this forum. It was just awful and you did a world class skedaddle when I shredded it so thoroughly it left you stuttering and mumbling.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 12, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Well, yes. Organic life would arise from strictly natural processes. What can you tell us about life arising from unnatural and / or supernatural processes?
> 
> Why is it foolish to conclude your versions of gods, which you can’t demonstrate or provide evidence for, are just different pleadings for fear and superstition? Your gods are distillations of the gods who were invented before the invention of your gods.
> 
> ...


God directly created/formed life from the available, nonliving organic material on Earth.  Life did not evolve from nonliving material.  Life _cannot_ evolve from nonliving material.  Abiogenesis--the notion that nature, the processes of mere chemistry, produced life--is a myth, the stuff of magic, superstition, fairytales . . . your grandmother's soiled bloomers.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Scientists have estimated that life began at around the 3.6 billion year mark after Earth got formed.




Yep. And that's just one constraint. As in, they know life had formed by then.




BackAgain said:


> And they make these estimates based on evidence,


Right, exactly as I said. You are literally repeating my point back to me. So once again, you have spent so much of your life trolling, that you don't even recognize when someone says something  with which you agree. Snap out of it, grow up manbaby.

So, once the tears have cleared... do you have any good reasonor evidence not to think life formed here by abiogensis?

No?

Oops, looks like you agree with me again. This is what it looks like when someone is more educated than you are on a topic and is two steps ahead of you at all times.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Yep. My bad
> 
> I was recalling the numbers. Incorrectly. I agree with your numbers as being a valid correction.
> 
> ...


By the way, Backagain, the reason that an instance of abiogenesis could never be observed is readily self-evident.  Abiogenesis is not biochemical engineering.  An instance of abiogenesis would be a spontaneous microsopic event.  To obserse such a thing would require the means of observation looking at the precise place of occurance before it occured!


----------



## Hollie (Feb 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> God directly created/formed life from the available, nonliving organic material on Earth.  Life did not evolve from nonliving material.  Life _cannot_ evolve from nonliving material.  Abiogenesis--the notion that nature, the processes of mere chemistry, produced life--is a myth, the stuff of magic, superstition, fairytales . . . your grandmother's soiled bloomers.


You make claims about your gods which you know are unsupportable. Claims that your gods created anything presumes unsubstantiated opinion. That you are unable to present any reasoned argument in support of your gods and that you cannot connect any supernatural acts performed by your designer gods to any naturally occurring event  is not without implications, implications which naturally lead to your claims about your gods being mere opinion by one religious zealot and one version of supernatural gods.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yep. And that's just one constraint. As in, they know life had formed by then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


nope. The record of our conversation stands; not your historical revisionism and bullshit spin.

You are the imbecile who wanted me to tell you the answer to your incredibly stupid question. And if I didn’t provide you with an “answer” to your incredibly stupid faux question (which I promptly identified as being stupid and faux), your contention was that I was a ‘fraud.’ 🙄 You valueless hack troll 

You are a perpetual liar. You’re still obvious about it however. And you are, naturally, always unpersuasive. That latter fact has a lot to do with your obvious retardation.

I am pleased to have at least, finally, gotten you to see that “evidence” of abiogenesis wouldn’t be something we can necessarily ever identify. Maybe you now, at long last, can admit that your question was indeed a faux question and massively stupid.  Like you.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> By the way, Backagain, the reason that an instance of abiogenesis could never be observed is readily self-evident.  Abiogenesis is not biochemical engineering.  An instance of abiogenesis would be a spontaneous microsopic event.  To obserse such a thing would require the means of observation looking at the precise place of occurance before it occured!


Yet, life on this planet is unmistakably an observed instance of abiogenesis. Life is either the result of abiogenesis or supernatural intervention by any number of gods, your gods being the least likely.

We know with confidence that the planet is not a mere 6,000 years old. We know with certainty that biological evolution is a fact. 

We have nothing to indicate that your gods, among all of the gods, had anything to do with life on the planet.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You are the imbecile who wanted me to tell you the answer to your incredibly stupid question


Only a fraud retreating at a full sprint would think asking "what would the evidence look like?" is a stupid question. It's literally the question at the heart of all science.

And it exposes frauds like you immediately.

And it just did. So we get a 10 page tantrum from you.

Please, keep making my point, for all to see.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> By the way, Backagain, the reason that an instance of abiogenesis could never be observed is readily self-evident.  Abiogenesis is not biochemical engineering.  An instance of abiogenesis would be a spontaneous microsopic event.  To obserse such a thing would require the means of observation looking at the precise place of occurance before it occured!


It is also highly unlikely that we could stumble upon a “fossil” of a single celled organism or that we would be able to recognize it as such even if we did come upon it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> It is also highly unlikely that we could stumble upon a “fossil” of a single celled organism or that we would be able to recognize it as such even if we did come upon it.


It's so unlikely, that we have already done it more than once.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> It is also highly unlikely that we could stumble upon a “fossil” of a single celled organism or that we would be able to recognize it as such even if we did come upon it.


Not so.  

Single-celled life (fossil stromatolites), Fossils, Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky.

I think what you mean to say is that finding the fossil of the very first single-celled organism to have ever existed would be impossible.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Only a fraud retreating at a full sprint would think asking "what would the evidence look like?" is a stupid question. It's literally the question at the heart of all science.
> 
> And it exposes frauds like you immediately.
> 
> ...


Your magnifenctly stupid question is not at the heart of all science. It’s not even at the heart of life science. It’s not even a coherent thought. Assuming (as most of us do) that there ever was an original non living piece of matter that got infused with the quality of “life,” it is unlikely that the first life left any trace of itself behind.

You reveal the depths of your ignorance 💭 ever more fully with each of your posts. So, I urge you to keep posting. 👍 That you are the fraud is now conclusively established.  But piling on additional proof is entertaining.  So, please continue. 😂


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It's so unlikely, that we have already done it more than once.


Nonsense. Your ignorant dishonesty continues unabated.

Please provide a link to any evidence for any ancient one-celled fossil.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Not so.
> 
> Single-celled life (fossil stromatolites), Fossils, Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky.
> 
> I think what you mean to say is that finding the fossil of the very first single-celled organism to have ever existed would be impossible.


No. That’s the fossilized remains of a *secretion*. It is not the fossilized remains of the original one cell life-form itself.

It is important to be precise because, otherwise, pathetic morons like Farty will fail to grasp how wrong they are and where they have gone astray.

When we do see fossilized remains of any creature, we see aspects of that creature itself. For example, we can see in some ancient and now extinct dinosaur fossils things as discrete as impressions of feathers. These fossilized remains are the stuff that *can* be left behind.

As for a search for  evidence of spark of THE actual FIRST life form, I agree with you. That quest seems silly to even consider.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> No. That’s the fossilized remains of a *secretion*. It is not the fossilized remains of the original one cell life-form itself.
> 
> It is important to be precise because, otherwise, pathetic morons like Farty will fail to grasp how wrong they are and where they have gone astray.
> 
> ...


Oh, okay, I follow you now.  You and I have always been on the same page.  I didn't read the entire exchange between you and Fun.  I merely misinterpreted your last post.  Good eye.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 12, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Well, yes. Organic life would arise from strictly natural processes. What can you tell us about life arising from unnatural and / or supernatural processes?
> 
> Why is it foolish to conclude your versions of gods, which you can’t demonstrate or provide evidence for, are just different pleadings for fear and superstition? Your gods are distillations of the gods who were invented before the invention of your gods.
> 
> ...


Abiogenesis and William Lane Craig?!  Plagiarized, eh?  You have no idea how foolish and ignorant that makes you look.  And you sure as hell didn't read my article on abiogenesis.  Craig is a theistic evolutionist and for all I know may even believe that God preprogrammed nature to evolve life, akin to ding's view.  Craig has never written anything on abiogenesis as far as I know.

You're a sociopath, Hollie.  You routinely make things up.  You should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Oh, okay, I follow you now.  You and I have always been on the same page.  I didn't the entire exchange between you and Fun.  I merely misinterpreted your last post.  Good eye.


No worries. None of this matters too much, anyway. The only real benefit I’ve derived in this thread is watching Farty going all apoplectic.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Abiogenesis and William Lane Craig?!  Plagiarized, eh?  You have no idea how foolish and ignorant that makes you look.  And you sure as hell didn't read my article on abiogenesis.  Craig is a theistic evolutionist and for all I know may even believe that God preprogrammed nature to evolve life, akin to ding's view.  Craig has never written anything on abiogenesis as far as I know.
> 
> You're a sociopath, Hollie.  You routinely make things up.  You should be ashamed of yourself.


Amidst all that melodrama, you neglected to provide or support any claims to your gods.

Aren’t you ashamed?


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 12, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Amidst all that melodrama, you neglected to provide or support any claims to your gods.
> 
> Aren’t you ashamed?


That's it.  You're cut off.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> That's it.  You're cut off.



I’ll go with Olympic scoring and give you a 3/10 for whiny melodrama

You poor, dear.

Was it my request that you make an attempt to support your argument?


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

One can no more prove the _*existence*_ of God than one can prove that life had  to have been sparked *absent* something or someone literally supernatural.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> One can no more prove the _*existence*_ of God than one can prove that life had  to have been sparked *absent* something or someone literally supernatural.


That might be a conversation to be had with some of the believers in this forum who attribute absolutes to their gods.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That might be a conversation to be had with some of the believers in this forum who attribute absolutes to their gods.


Or maybe not one that need be had in a science thread?  

Why is it so “important” for some atheists to become abusive to religious believers?  Does it actually cause physical pain to some atheists to not have others agree with them?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Or maybe not one that need be had in a science thread?
> 
> Why is it so “important” for some atheists to become abusive to religious believers?  Does it actually cause physical pain to some atheists to not have others agree with them?


I agree that gods don’t belong in a science thread but I have to note that it’s believers who introduce their gods into these threads.

There is a certain frustration that develops when discussion of science matters is derailed by the introduction of gods. It’s a recognizable pattern during discussion of biology and evolution, for example, to have someone cut and paste walls of text from creation ministries “disproving”, hundreds of years of science discovery.

When confronted with Flat Earther arguments for a literal 6,000 year old planet, a literal biblical flood, humans in buckskin outfits frolicking with dinosaurs, etc., it gets old, fast.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I agree that gods don’t belong in a science thread but I have to note that it’s believers who introduce their gods into these threads.
> 
> There is a certain frustration that develops when discussion of science matters is derailed by the introduction of gods. It’s a recognizable pattern during discussion of biology and evolution, for example, to have someone cut and paste walls of text from creation ministries “disproving”, hundreds of years of science discovery.
> 
> When confronted with Flat Earther arguments for a literal 6,000 year old planet, a literal biblical flood, humans in buckskin outfits frolicking with dinosaurs, etc., it gets old, fast.


One can ignore the assertion of folks who choose to believe that the Earth’s flat or that it is only 6,000 or so years old. One can ignore people who claim that dinosaurs co-existed with cavemen.

Heck, you can even say, “that’s a claim and a belief which is not subject to proof and for good reason; it has no scientific validity.”  But to ask for proof of God is now and has always been fatuous. And there isn’t much reason to try to be offensive to a person who has faith.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> One can ignore the assertion of folks who choose to believe that the Earth’s flat or that it is only 6,000 or so years old. One can ignore people who claim that dinosaurs co-existed with cavemen.
> 
> Heck, you can even say, “that’s a claim and a belief which is not subject to proof and for good reason; it has no scientific validity.”  But to ask for proof of God is now and has always been fatuous. And there isn’t much reason to try to be offensive to a person who has faith.


That’s certainly a valid argument and mostly, usually, I ignore the Flat Earthers.

On the other hand, the heavy handed proselytizing that takes place and the willful spread of misinformation intended to deceive, that’s another matter.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That’s certainly a valid argument and mostly, usually, I ignore the Flat Earthers.
> 
> On the other hand, the heavy handed proselytizing that takes place and the willful spread of misinformation intended to deceive, that’s another matter.


I’m not sure what your reference is, so I cannot either agree or disagree.  I would say that believing in God is not necessarily anti science. (I’m not including pseudo science that says the Earth is 6000 or so years old.)

Some very brilliant scientist have either expressed belief in God or at least concluded that they can’t rule God out.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> One can no more prove the _*existence*_ of God than one can prove that life had  to have been sparked *absent* something or someone literally supernatural.


"proof" is a false bar in science, and one creationists like to use for that reason. ie, Evolution is Not 'proven,' but it has overwhelming Evidence (and is a fact). Gods have no evidence. So even tho both aren't 'proven' they are not equally rational beliefs to hold.
`


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> "proof" is a false bar in science, and one creationists like to use for that reason. ie, Evolution is Not 'proven,' but it has overwhelming Evidence (and is a fact). Gods have no evidence. So even tho both aren't 'proven' they are not equally rational beliefs to hold.
> `


I happen to agree with your recognition that the term “proof” is ambiguous. A similar problem of conflation sometimes occurs in the law when talking about “evidence.”  Material offered at trial is most commonly referred to as evidence. But it is sometimes also referred to as “proof.”

Now, scientific theories are dependent themselves on how evidence is analyzed and interpreted. Although theories are not “proved,” necessarily, beyond all doubt, they can be so well established as to *amount* to “proof” which _can_ be the basis for another step forward. 

All of this inexorably leads us back to the cosmological argument. I know you have very determined views on that topic. I frankly don’t know. But I can say this much: any scientific based theory on the matter eventually involves the unknown and maybe the unknowable. And the best explanations outside of religion for the creation of this entire universe involve rejection of the rules of science as we now understand then. That is, like the math and science quantum physics, they are literally outside of nature.
Apart from nature. Supernatural.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I happen to agree with your recognition that the term “proof” is ambiguous. A similar problem of conflation sometimes occurs in the law when talking about “evidence.”  Material offered at trial is most commonly referred to as evidence. But it is sometimes also referred to as “proof.”
> 
> Now, scientific theories are dependent themselves on how evidence is analyzed and interpreted. Although theories are not “proved,” necessarily, beyond all doubt, they can be so well established as to *amount* to “proof” which _can_ be the basis for another step forward.


When science says proof, they mean 100.00000%. (like Math's 2+2=4)
In court someone can be convicted and hung on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that science would Not call proof, but for which they (ie, evolution) have a better circumstantial case than one that would hang a man!



BackAgain said:


> All of this inexorably leads us back to the cosmological argument. I know you have very determined views on that topic. I frankly don’t know. But I can say this much: any scientific based theory on the matter eventually involves the unknown and maybe the unknowable. And the best explanations outside of religion for the creation of this entire universe involve rejection of the rules of science as we now understand then. That is, like the math and science quantum physics, they are literally outside of nature.
> Apart from nature. Supernatural.


My beliefs are solidly "I/we don't know/know yet," and I have repeated that endlessly.
Inferring gods for what one doesn't understand is "god of the gaps." (fallacious. see my thread of the title).
It's a variant of 'argument from Ignorance' or 'Incredulity.'
Just like inferring a god for ie, Fire, lightning, or fertility WAS.

If a god shows up or is evidenced I will be amazed, even thrilled, and will accept 'him' and his tenets. But I'm not holding my breath and remain an atheist.
Of Couse, that day and many after could mean chaos, disillusionment, and suicide for tens of millions of believers of different persuasions if any specificity of that god is indicated or implied.
`


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> When science says proof, they mean 100.00000%. (like Math's 2+2=4)
> In court someone can be convicted and hung on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that science would Not call proof, but for which they (ie, evolution) have a better circumstantial case than one that would hang a man!
> 
> 
> ...


The inference of a divine creator may be wrong but it is not a fallacy.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> The inference of a divine creator may be wrong but it is not a fallacy.


Bizarre reply.
IAC, let me put it better. Even if there is a divine creator, inferring there is a one because one doesn't have a better or coherently explained answer at the moment remains a fallacy.
Again, just like the Fire, Lightning, and Fertility 'gods.'
`


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> MARCH 4, 2021
> *Organic materials essential for life on Earth are found for the first time on the surface of an asteroid*
> by Royal Holloway, University of London
> ​New research from Royal Holloway, has found water and organic matter on the surface of an asteroid sample returned from the inner Solar System. *This is the first time that organic materials, which could have provided chemical precursors for the origin of life on Earth, have been found on an asteroid.*​​The single grain sample was returned to Earth from asteroid Itokawa by JAXA's first Hayabusa mission in 2010. *The sample shows that water and organic matter that originate from the asteroid itself have EVOLVED chemically through time.*​​The research paper suggests that *Itokawa has been constantly EVOLVING over billions of years by incorporating water and organic materials from foreign extra-terrestrial material, just like the Earth.* In the past, the asteroid will have gone through extreme heating, dehydration and shattering due to catastrophic impact. However, despite this, the asteroid came back together from the shattered fragments and rehydrated itself with water that was delivered via the in fall of dust or carbon-rich meteorites.​​This study shows that S-type asteroids, where most of Earth's meteorites come from, such as Itokawa, contain the raw ingredients of life. The analysis of this asteroid changes traditional views on the origin of life on Earth...​​​
> ...


So life started on Earth probably by simple "seeding" from meteors etc.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Bizarre reply that contradicts itself.
> IAC, let me put it better. Even if there is a divine creator, inferring there is a one because one doesn't have another answer at he moment remains a fallacy.


No. It wasn’t self contradictory. Your claim to that effect is simply a reflection of your lack of comprehension about what “fallacy” actually means.


Full Definition of fallacy​
1a: a false or mistaken idea popular fallacies prone to perpetrate the fallacy of equating threat with capability— C. S. Gray
b: erroneous character : ERRONEOUSNESS The fallacy of their ideas about medicine soon became apparent.
2a: deceptive appearance : DECEPTION
bobsolete : GUILE, TRICKERY
3: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference.

The belief in God isn’t necessarily “false” or “mistaken.” I said the inference “may” be wrong, not that it “is” wrong. 

And even if there is no God, the argument *for* God is not *just* *plausible*, it is predicated on *valid* inference. I know you claim otherwise, but your logic is lacking.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 12, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> So life started on Earth probably by simple "seeding" from meteors etc.


Maybe.
It certainly got water from comets according to most.
but no reason to think it/abiogenesis didn't develop here either.
'Seeding' just kicks the life problem down the galaxy.
`


----------



## abu afak (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> No. It wasn’t self contradictory. Your claim to that effect is simply a reflection of your lack of comprehension about what “fallacy” actually means.


nonsensical and unelaborated empty counter.
I already explained, and linked you to my thread detailing it as well, that GoG IS a fallacy because it infers the divine because it has no real explanation at the time.
*I point out and debunk fallacies here just about daily* (many) and your claim is not only wrong butt ridickulous.
In fact, YOU don't know what a fallacy is.
`


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 12, 2022)

abu afak said:


> nonsensical and unelaborated empty counter.
> I already explained, and linked you to my thread detailing it as well, that GoG IS a fallacy because it infers the divine because it has no real explanation at the time.
> I point out and debunk fallacies here just about daily and your claim, is not only wrong butt ridickulous.
> `


Your “explanation” is incorrect. You are now making the fallacy of an appeal to authority (hilariously citing your own empty argument as the authority).

I’m sorry you don’t grasp what a fallacy actually is. Your lectures and efforts to “debunk” are valueless because of your ignorance. Off hand, you come off as “ridickulous [sic].”  Lol


----------



## abu afak (Feb 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Your “explanation” is incorrect. You are now making the fallacy of an appeal to authority (hilariously citing your own empty argument as the authority).
> 
> I’m sorry you don’t grasp what a fallacy actually is. Your lectures and efforts to “debunk” are valueless because of your ignorance. Off hand, you come off as “ridickulous [sic].”  Lol


LOL. My appeal was to 'Definition.'  (which is well elaborated twice in the GoG OP thead by different sites).
I also explained the fallacy in question in my own words here and many other times. Unmissable.
Only referring to sources when you didn't accept what it was.

"butt" and "ridickulous" were intentional and meant for You.
Ironically, you missed the butt!!!!!
ouch!


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 13, 2022)

abu afak said:


> LOL. My appeal was to 'Definition.'  (which is well elaborated twice in the GoG OP thead by different sites).
> I also explained the fallacy in question in my own words here and many other times. Unmissable.
> Only referring to sources when you didn't accept what it was.
> 
> ...


Sure. You can’t even own up to your own mistakes and your stupidity. (pssst. Nobody is buying your bullshit.)

The good news is that you don’t need to worry about losing any credibility, babu.  You already lost any chance of ever having any. Long ago.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 13, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> No. It wasn’t self contradictory. Your claim to that effect is simply a reflection of your lack of comprehension about what “fallacy” actually means.
> 
> 
> Full Definition of fallacy​
> ...


1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

*God of the gaps*

(or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when *Goddidit* (or a variant) *is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).* This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting _*"we don't know Yet"*_ as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an _ad hoc_ Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...


2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term *God-of-the-gaps fallacy* can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: _"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."_ Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 13, 2022)

abu afak said:


> 1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
> 
> *God of the gaps*
> 
> ...


Repeating your vapid views doesn’t support them. Citing wiki pieces doesn’t support much of anything. Your lack of comprehension about what a fallacy is needs attention.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 13, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Repeating your vapid views doesn’t support them. Citing wiki pieces doesn’t support much of anything. Your lack of comprehension about what a fallacy is needs attention.


1. You are an idiot whose original claim about divinity 'may be wrong but not a fallacy' was, and remains, 100 percent Wrong, and 'god of the gaps *T*HEE most used/abused claim/fallacy in his entire section.

2. Wiki is not a frivolous opinion piece and has a heavily footnoted explanation (27) of definition and usage much more elaborate than a dictionary snippet you posted Clown boy.

No charge for the lesson.
but pathetic how stubborn/Stupid you are.

`


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 13, 2022)

abu afak said:


> 1. You are an idiot whose original claim about divinity 'may be wrong but not a fallacy' was, and remains, 100 percent Wrong, and 'god of the gaps *T*HEE most used/abused claim/fallacy in his entire section.
> 
> 2. Wiki is not a frivolous opinion piece and has a heavily footnoted explanation (27) of definition and usage much more elaborate than a dictionary snippet you posted Clown boy.
> 
> ...


No ma’am. Your grasp of “fallacy” is so ill-informed that your assessment of what constitutes “wrong” about what fallacy _is_ remains valueless.  Your reliance on the silly God of the Gaps nonsense is just further proof that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

wiki piece *is* absolute tripe. Citing to wiki is evidence of how weak your grasp on a topic is.

You couldn’t charge for a lesson since you are too lame to offer one of *any* value.

By the way, the word “the” is not the same as the word “thee.”  Come up with another excuse for why you keep misspelling it.

I know you think you’re fucking smart.  But you’re not. You’re unintentionally funny, though!


----------



## abu afak (Feb 13, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> No ma’am. Your grasp of “fallacy” is so I’ll-informed that your assessment of what constitutes “wrong” about what fallacy is remains valueless.  Your reliance on the silly God of the Gaps nonsense is just further proof that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
> 
> wiki piece *is* absolute tripe. Citing to wiki is evidence of how weak your grasp on a topic is.
> 
> ...


*It's clear you have an IQ well down in the 2 digits and are now embarrassed. 
You don't know what a fallacy is and needed WEBSTERS!
And you are free to look up the term GoG anywhere you like.. but won't.*

You were always a clown, but I was polite to your silly posts until you went off the deep/stupid end. Then I had to PORK you.
I'm done with you now BOY.
Last-word away but I won't humor your stupidity any more.


`


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 13, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *I's clear you have an IQ well down in the 2 digits and are now embarrassed.
> You don't know what a fallacy is and needed WEBSTERS!
> And you are free to look up the term GoG anywhere you like.. but won't.[/.bb]*
> 
> ...


“I’s clear?” Lol.

babu, I got the definition to assist *you*. *You* are an ignorant fraud. You’re just upset that I’m exposing you as the dope you are.  And you *are* one pathetically empty vessel. 

You babble a lot and are fronting. It doesn’t serve to disguise your obvious lack of education or intelligence.  You’re too transparent.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 13, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *It's clear you have an IQ well down in the 2 digits and are now embarrassed.
> You don't know what a fallacy is and needed WEBSTERS!
> And you are free to look up the term GoG anywhere you like.. but won't.*
> 
> ...


What you are doing, stupid, is running away because you’ve been exposed as the fraud you are and because you’re a coward. Poor pussy babu.  GFY.  

You poor silly girl. 🤣😂


----------



## abu afak (Feb 13, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> What you are doing, stupid, is running away because you’ve been exposed as the fraud you are and because you’re a coward. Poor pussy babu.  GFY.
> 
> You poor silly girl. 🤣😂


One can see you're a Stupid RW torching @hole throughout the board.
Your other thread tonight condoning phony slates of electors and saying Pence should have done what Trump wanted and....
overturned the election!!!
with NO proof nor evidence of fraud.
Just as here.
What a disgrace you are.





__





						McCarthy Agrees: Jan 6 Violent Insurrection
					

Not even a little bit.  There is nothing "legal" about dumping slates of electors you don't like  Again, you are being just stubbornly obtuse.  There is absolutely plenty legal about refusing to accept a fraudulently obtained slate of electors.  But I’ll add this. I fully respect Pence for his...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




A completely Irrational traitorous MAGAt and filthy mouth POS is your usual.

(and I always leave em baying at the moon with two+ posts because they know they lost.)
'


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 13, 2022)

abu afak said:


> One can see you're a Stupid RW torching @hole throughout the board.
> Your other thread tonight condoning phony slates of electors and saying Pence should have done what Trump wanted and....
> overturned the election!!!
> with NO proof nor evidence of fraud.
> ...


One can see that you are a fraud everywhere. Your fail who is now all wounded because you have been exposed as a poseur.

Everyone know you’ve lost. I suspect even you realize it. That’s why you’re presently whining like a slapped bitch.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 8, 2022)

For The First Time, Organic Matter Crucial For Life Has Been Found on an Asteroid's Surface​ScienceAlert.com
*Follow the twisted limbs of your family tree all the way back to its primordial origins billions of years in the past and you'll find that we all originated from dust rich in organic chemistry.* Just where this organic dust came from has been a topic of debate for more than half a century. Now, researchers have found the first evidence of organic materials essential to life on Earth on the surface of an S-type asteroid.

An international team of researchers recently conducted an in-depth analysis on one of the particles brought back from the asteroid Itokawa by the Japanese Space Agency's (JAXA) original Hayabusa mission back in 2010. Most of Earth's meteorites come from S-type asteroids like Itokawa, so knowing that it could have contained essential ingredients for life on our planet is a significant step forward in our understanding of how life-forming conditions could arise. *Up until now, most research on organic material has focussed on carbon-rich (c-class) asteroids.*

Looking into the sample, the team found that *organic material that came from the asteroid itself has Evolved over time through extreme conditions - incorporating water and organic matter from other sources. This is similar to the process that happened on Earth, and helps us better understand how the earliest forms of terrestrial biochemistry might simply be an extension of the chemistry taking place inside many asteroids"...*
[....]





__





						For The First Time, Organic Matter Crucial For Life Has Been Found on an Asteroid's Surface
					

Follow the twisted limbs of your family tree all the way back to its primordial origins billions of years in the past and you'll find that we all originated from dust rich in organic chemistry.




					www.sciencealert.com


----------



## ding (Mar 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> For The First Time, Organic Matter Crucial For Life Has Been Found on an Asteroid's Surface​ScienceAlert.com
> *Follow the twisted limbs of your family tree all the way back to its primordial origins billions of years in the past and you'll find that we all originated from dust rich in organic chemistry.* Just where this organic dust came from has been a topic of debate for more than half a century. Now, researchers have found the first evidence of organic materials essential to life on Earth on the surface of an S-type asteroid.
> 
> An international team of researchers recently conducted an in-depth analysis on one of the particles brought back from the asteroid Itokawa by the Japanese Space Agency's (JAXA) original Hayabusa mission back in 2010. Most of Earth's meteorites come from S-type asteroids like Itokawa, so knowing that it could have contained essential ingredients for life on our planet is a significant step forward in our understanding of how life-forming conditions could arise. *Up until now, most research on organic material has focussed on carbon-rich (c-class) asteroids.*
> ...


You mean... *hydrogen*, *carbon*, *oxygen* and *nitrogen?*

Yeah, that must have been a real shocker.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 8, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> That's it.  You're cut off.


Then stay out of the science section with that magical nonsense.

There is an entire section of the board dedicated to it.


----------



## Clyde 154 (Mar 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> MARCH 4, 2021
> *Organic materials essential for life on Earth are found for the first time on the surface of an asteroid*
> by Royal Holloway, University of London
> ​New research from Royal Holloway, has found water and organic matter on the surface of an asteroid sample returned from the inner Solar System. *This is the first time that organic materials, which could have provided chemical precursors for the origin of life on Earth, have been found on an asteroid.*​​The single grain sample was returned to Earth from asteroid Itokawa by JAXA's first Hayabusa mission in 2010. *The sample shows that water and organic matter that originate from the asteroid itself have EVOLVED chemically through time.*​​The research paper suggests that *Itokawa has been constantly EVOLVING over billions of years by incorporating water and organic materials from foreign extra-terrestrial material, just like the Earth.* In the past, the asteroid will have gone through extreme heating, dehydration and shattering due to catastrophic impact. However, despite this, the asteroid came back together from the shattered fragments and rehydrated itself with water that was delivered via the in fall of dust or carbon-rich meteorites.​​This study shows that S-type asteroids, where most of Earth's meteorites come from, such as Itokawa, contain the raw ingredients of life. The analysis of this asteroid changes traditional views on the origin of life on Earth...​​​
> ...


You lost me when your supposed scientific article begins by using those famous scientific terms like "COULD HAVE" and "SUGGESTS"  Ever see how webster defines these terms?  Subjective as hell. 

What?  There are just so many elements in the universe........just as all biological life on earth share DNA, the universe is no different.   The problem being there has never been any evidence that Dead Matter has ever (wink,wink) evolved into a living organism.  In fact the scientific method "falsifies" that idea with every attempt that has ever been made to reproduce that MAGIC BULLET that must exist if one is believe in evolution as taught by the dogma of all Darwinian cultists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 8, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> You lost me when your supposed scientific article begins by using those famous scientific terms like "COULD HAVE" and "SUGGESTS" Ever see how webster defines these terms? Subjective as hell.


That isn't subjectivity. That is objectivity. You are confused

You are also confused, because this is how scientists talk. They don't speak with the tnes of absolute certainty used by religious nutters. They don't pretend to know things they don't or could not know. 

Unlike you.


----------



## Clyde 154 (Mar 9, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That isn't subjectivity. That is objectivity. You are confused
> 
> You are also confused, because this is how scientists talk. They don't speak with the tnes of absolute certainty used by religious nutters. They don't pretend to know things they don't or could not know.
> 
> Unlike you.



 No.........philosophers use such language, not scientists, as there were no FACTS presented, just as stated, there were "suggestions" presented.  Are there actually any "Adults" on this board?   "Professing themselves to be wise, THEY BECAME FOOLS." --Romans 1:22-28

Subjective:  Taking place within the mind.  This entire article was taking place within the mind of the one attempting to paint a subjective picture of presenting facts when in reality they were presenting an "IDEA".

Are you actually stating that someone actually went to said, "Asteroid", took scientific measurements, quantified those results and observed that extrapolated information?   Or did the article actually say, "these are the suggested results?"

The only Objective information provided was the fact that this asteriod is made up of the same elements that are common to every bit of matter in this universe..........and then the "philosophy" pretending to be science started to flow from the mind of this author.

Again...........Satan's only 2 weapons against a presentation of truth.  1. Deceit.  You just attempted to argue that up was down (subjectivity is objective).........2 Deflection.........you just stated that Science does not work with Absolute certainties.

And you did a piss poor job of attempting to use both weapons.

You just contradicted your own argument.   Applied Science.  Real Science. (not theory...i.e.,ideas) always works with Absolutes.....that's why scientific findings via application of the scientific method are called FACTS or LAWS of Science.

Real science is used to confirm laws and facts through the verification of experiments conducted within the scientific method.

Again read Webster's Collegiate Dictionaries definition of Science:  "Knowledge covering general TRUTHS or the operation of General Laws, especially as obtained through the scientific method."   This article presented neither Truths nor Laws, only suggestions.


Don't take my word for it...........listen to the late Carl Sagan, who spent his entire life looking for E.T. only to come up with an empty chamber.  Quote from Carl Sagan on his idea of science, "Science is a WAY of THINKING (i.e., a philosophy), an error correcting process by which we figure out what is truth and what is not".     In other words something is considered truth via thinking until the evidence is presented that makes it UNTRUE.   That's akin to having the mule push the plow.  Nothing is a fact until its demonstrated to be a fact (truth) via the scientific method of applying experimentation that is observable, reproducible, tests alway ending with a constant result with every application.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 9, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> You lost me when your supposed scientific article begins by using those famous scientific terms like "COULD HAVE" and "SUGGESTS"  Ever see how webster defines these terms?  Subjective as hell.
> 
> What?  There are just so many elements in the universe........just as all biological life on earth share DNA, the universe is no different.   The problem being there has never been any evidence that Dead Matter has ever (wink,wink) evolved into a living organism.  In fact the scientific method "falsifies" that idea with every attempt that has ever been made to reproduce that MAGIC BULLET that must exist if one is believe in evolution as taught by the dogma of all Darwinian cultists.


Again, and I bolded originally

""Looking into the sample, the team Found that *organic material that came from the asteroid itself has Evolved over time through extreme conditions - incorporating water and organic matter from other sources**. This IS similar to the process That Happened on Earth, and helps us better understand how the earliest forms of terrestrial biochemistry might simply be an extension of the chemistry taking place inside many asteroids"..."*
[....]""


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 9, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> No.........philosophers use such language, not scientists


100% wrong, and you are embarrassing yourself. You shouldn't even be posting in this section. You know fuck all about science.

Scientists see something that doesn't rule another idea out, and in fact lends support to it. As the evidence is not defnitive, and as scientists are not like you delusional religious dumbasses, they say "it could be that..."

Unlike you lying fools, they don't pretend to know more than they know.

In science, this is called "hypothesis". In your religious fraud circles this is called heresy.


----------



## Clyde 154 (Mar 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Again, and I bolded originally
> 
> ""Looking into the sample, the team Found that *organic material that came from the asteroid itself has Evolved over time through extreme conditions - incorporating water and organic matter from other sources**. This IS similar to the process That Happened on Earth, and helps us better understand how the earliest forms of terrestrial biochemistry might simply be an extension of the chemistry taking place inside many asteroids"..."*
> [....]""


A false premise is a false premise and truth is truth regardless of how much you disagree.  Simply provide the scientific experiment that proves that life evolved on earth from dead matter.  Until then.......you are promoting nothing but dogmatic philosophy that exists only in one place "BETWEEN YOUR EARS". 

Did you not comprehend the paragraph you provided as a fact?  "...............MIGHT SIMPLY BE......."

Might: As defined by Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: Used to denote a possibility.   Anything can be possible until its proven that its not.   This article is based upon one person's opinionated "imagination".   Science does not confirm truth and or facts via the use of "could have", "suggests", Might provide.....etc..,  Science is the quest for general truths and generally accepted facts as verified through the scientific method of Observable, Reproducible, Testable, evidences that always produces consistency regardless of the number of times the experiment is preformed.  Applied Science either verifies or falsifies.

FYI:   Every experiment that attempts to produce life from dead has historically been falsified via the scientific method of experimentation.  If not...............SHOW us this life that has been produced from non living matter in any historical experiment.  On the other hand Applied Science has never falsified the Creation Model presented in the Holy Bible.....in fact Louis Pasteur confirmed that life can only be reproduced from pre-existing life within the same species, just as the bible states, "......each after its own kind......." -- Genesis 1:24

I am sure you will disagree when you have been proven to be a "LIAR".   I once knew a smart ass that once admitted they were wrong......but turns out they were not wrong.........they simply made a mistake.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 9, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> *A false premise is a false premise and truth is truth regardless of much you disagree.  Simply provide the scientific experiment that proves that life evolved on earth from dead matter.  Until then.......you are promoting nothing but dogmatic philosophy.*


???
I didn't claim any such thing.
*No one has solved abiogenesis. *
That's what we/science are looking for now, and finding some indication/evidence that complex long chain (and self-replicating) molecules CAN form naturally and are not necessarily 'divine' creation.
*Reporting how that Research (and related finds) are going is not a "False Premise."*
(unless you can prove goddidit and relieve us of the 'how?' burden)

You strawman-ning Little @sshole.
`


----------



## Clyde 154 (Mar 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> ???
> I didn't claim any such thing.
> *No one has solved abiogenesis. *
> That's what we/science are looking for now, and finding some indication/evidence that complex long chain (and self-replicating) molecules CAN form naturally and are not necessarily 'divine' creation.
> ...


Exactly...........no one has (wink, wink) SOLVED abiogenesis because it does not exist in nature, regardless of the attempts made...;.;.the scientific method "falsifies" the idea.  You cannot apply science where the science does not exist.   As explained science has never falsified the creation model found in the Holy Scriptures.  In fact Pasteur confirmed the science of "biogenesis".......finding through application of the scientific method that life can only be reproduced by pre-existing life within the same species, just as defined in Genesis 1:24.





__





						Law of biogenesis - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
					






					creationwiki.org
				




There has never been an example of life being created Naturally other than through the law of biogenesis.  Just present the experiment that verifies ABIOGENESIS.  It has never existed......it came from an Idea first presented by Darwin when he suggested that life MAY HAVE BEGUN, ".......in a warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia, and phosphoric salts, light, heat...electricity....etc. present, beginning with a chemical compound.....(sound familiar to the article that was presented?)......its almost verbatim..........and laughable DOGMA: Established OPINION.

The link provided demonstrates that the Article has its roots heavily ingrained in Darwinian Cultism.......with an almost verbatim opinionated conclusion that life somehow created itself from nothing more than POND SCUM.  The only fact presented is the fact that the entire universe shares commonality with the known Periodic table of elements.

This is almost as laughable in its gullibility factor as was the idea presented by S. Hawking.......the universe created itself from nothing.  Hawking hated God so much that he could not bring himself to admit that a self creating universe was an impossibility.  He died still buried deep in his hatred.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 9, 2022)

Clyde 154 said:


> Exactly...........no one has (wink, wink) SOLVED abiogenesis because it does not exist in nature, regardless of the attempts made...;.;.the scientific method "falsifies" the idea.  You cannot apply science where the science does not exist.   As explained science has never falsified the creation model found in the Holy Scriptures.  In fact Pasteur confirmed the science of "biogenesis".......finding through application of the scientific method that life can only be reproduced by pre-existing life within the same species, just as defined in Genesis 1:24.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Non-responsive.
Just because science doesn't know something *YET* doesn't mean it will never know.
*YOU are assuming/saying "goddidit" with NO proof or Evidence.*
You are Cultist god Freak who would also have believed in the Fire and Lightning gods before we did know the real/natural cause of those phenomenon.
*Not knowing is NOT evidence.

We all would be glad/Delighted to stop any and all Scientific research on the topic if you would be so kind as to provide any Shred of evidence of a god existing (much less yours) Or that 'he' did it.*
You arrogant and empty @sshole.
You ae profoundly mentally ill/brainwashed and not rational.

(And LOL 'creationwiki' is Kwistian Kweationist religious apologetics, not a scientific website.)
`


----------

