Creationists

[Koios]

And you claimed atheism is not a religous view.

It's not. Consider if the tables were turned, and God Almighty did Oprah, to tell us how He sent C Darwin to Hell for his sinful work, On the Origin of Species.

I personally, would be Atheist no more, drop to my knees and beg His mercy and forgiveness.

See how that works? Not dogma, since new information is not rejected in service of older misunderstandings.

We will see.

Some of us are already seeing. Noodle on that; you might have an epiphany to an extent bordering on biblical.

 

[UltimateReality]

Wow! Just Wow! Above you stated Evolution and Origins weren't related.

Actually I never said that. In fact what I said was "evolution and the origins of life are connected." Do you have trouble reading English, do you unknowingly make up reality as you go, or do you just purposely write drastically incorrect statements because you can't create an honest argument? You literally stated I said the exact opposite of what was actually said. Do you realize how moronic that makes you look?

Here's one for you, Mister Evolution is on Par with Gravity: Please provide me a link to one example of experiment where a random mutation resulted in additional information which resulted in natural selection. Please don't make the mistake of linking to the pathetic 20-year-old Ecoli experiment in which destruction of information resulted in mutations. For your theory to work, we need proof of information ADDED by a random mutation. Remember, us "creationists" are claiming the information has always been there.

Actually, creationists believe in this made up term called macroevolution which poorly attempts to justify small amounts of new information "not counting" as evolution. To claim no new information is possible shows a complete lack of understanding of the concept of mutation AND evolution. Regardless most creationists do believe new information can be created, and this has been extensively documented in countless experiments:
Researchers Trace HIV Mutations that Lead to Drug Resistance
PLOS Biology: The Genetic Basis of Thermal Reaction Norm Evolution in Lab and Natural Phage Populations
Evolutionary rescue of a green alga kept in the dark. [Biol Lett. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli

To name a few examples. To assert that nothing beneficial could possibly come from mutation is incredibly foolish. How do you think bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? We can literally reproduce it from bacteria that are all sensitive to antibiotics in a lab at any time. They acquire beneficial mutations to allow for survival in antibiotics. Most creationists don't even try to contest this. I find it amusing that you do.

So it seems like your criteria are that it must be complex, provide function, and occur naturally in the non-living world. Is that correct? Now when we remove all life from the planet and look at the remaining natural elements, how do you define FUNCTION exactly? HAHAHA. I do enjoy a good circular reasoning argument. Go on, share yours.

This doesn't even make sense.

Ah, perhaps I misread. Please, provide me with your personal criteria on how to "detect" intelligent design.

Nice Story. Still waiting for your examples of where genetic information was added.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie you're a liar why would anyone in their right mind trust you ?

Biography

Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After graduating, Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]

[edit] Intelligent design

Meyer is one of a small group of prominent young intelligent design creationist advocates. Other well known creationist advocates include William Dembski, Paul Nelson, and Jonathan Wells.[9] Meyer's involvement in intelligent design (ID) can be traced to his participation in the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' defending Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial in 1992 or 1993 (in response to Stephen Jay Gould's "devastating"[10] review of it in the July 1992 issue of Scientific American), while with the Philosophy department at Whitworth College.[10] He was later a participant in the first formal meeting devoted to ID, hosted at Southern Methodist University in 1992.[10]
Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My goodness, a flaming fundie.

A degree in history and philosophy of science qualifies Meyer as a biologist how?

Your melodrama is as flaccid as Meyers' fraudulent attempts to pass himself off as qualified to discuss biological mechanisms.

This is as comical as you claiming to have worked in a biology lab.

Comprehension problems hollie "Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981" Is he more qualified to speak on this matter concerning the cell than you and your buddies ?

You certainly are desperate to promote Meyer but, no, he is not.

Like so many of the charlatans representing Christian ministries, his degree or field of study is strangely dissociated from the fields of biology, paleontology, etc. that would allow him to speak authoritatively on evidence for evolutionary science.

What Christian creationist won't fess-up to is that the entirety of the creationist agenda is to discredit evolutionary science. That, of course, does nothing to advance the creationist gawds. It's an abysmal failure on the part of creationist ministries because their failed energies at vilifying science only lends an image of fear and desperation to their lies and misrepresentations.

 

[UltimateReality]

You go first. Remember, google is definitely YOUR friend.

You claim I don't understand the scientific method, but then back away from explaining it yourself. This is your claim, not mine. If you believe, for whatever made up reason, that I don't understand the scientific method, it's your job to to support your claim via correction. Notice how when I claim you're a moron, I can provide specific support to the claim. Well, I suppose YOU provide support to that claim and I just point it out with other evidence, but you get the idea.

If you think I don't understand the scientific method, it's your responsibility to show or correct it. But let's face it, this is just another one of your finger-pointing unsupported ad hominem attacks because you can't actually support your own claims, and now you're backpedaling because you were called out on it.

No need. They continually discredit themselves. You will remember a few posts back my comment about making it up as you go along.

If falsifiability is essential in science then perhaps evolutionary theory belongs in a different box. Repeatedly evolution sustains contradictory evidence without missing a beat and the latest example is the next step in the long story of horizontal transfer of genomic material. Once evolutionary theory held that when the species were compared they would form an evolutionary tree, common descent, pattern. And when the genes of bacteria violated this pattern, it was said they had been horizontally transferred—a complicated mechanism that allows bacteria to trade genetic material with each other rather than merely inheriting it. Suddenly the framework of evolutionary theory was much more fluid as most any genetic pattern could be explained. The horizontal gene transfer explanation was used liberally and it was even recruited and greatly expanded in highly speculative narratives of how early evolution created its designs. But all of that was for bacteria. The higher eukaryote species, evolutionists argued, still very much confirmed the traditional evolutionary tree model. The theory was solid and falsifiable, the evolutionists assured their skeptics. That is, until now. For new research has brought horizontal transfer to the front and center for eukaryotes as well. To wit:

In higher organisms such as vertebrates, it is generally believed that lateral transfer of genetic information does not readily occur, with the exception of retroviral infection. However, horizontal transfer (HT) of protein coding repetitive elements is the simplest way to explain the patchy distribution of BovB, a long interspersed element (LINE) about 3.2 kb long, that has been found in ruminants, marsupials, squamates, monotremes, and African mammals.


The point here is not that any of this is impossible. The details of how such horizontal transfer of genetic material could occur and then propagate in the higher species are not well understood. But that doesn’t mean it cannot happen. In fact BovB has been found in a reptile tick. So BovB vectors do exist.

The point, rather, is that this is another example of how failed predictions are so easily sustained by evolutionary theory. And when you sustain failed predictions you crush the theory’s explanatory power. For when a theory explains everything, then it really is nothing more than a tautology.

Darwin's God: Horizontal Transfer Finally Reaches the Eukaryotes

If there is one concept on Earth that has been the absolute bane of human existence (besides global elitism), it would have to be the concept of the “majority opinion”. The moment men began refusing to develop their own world views without first asking “What does everyone else think?”, they set themselves up for an endless future of failures. Human beings desperately want to belong, but, they also desperately want to understand the environment around them. Often, the desire to belong and the desire to know the truth conflict. In some societies, in order to be accepted, one must give up on his search for truth and avoid eliciting the anger of others. The idea of the majority view or the “mainstream”, gives people the sense that they are a part of a group, and at the same time, gives them the illusion of being informed.

Their rationale is:

If most of the population believes something to be true, then, by “statistical law”, it most likely is true. Those who do not share in the majority opinion are therefore in opposition to statistical law; meaning they are behind the times, social deviants, or just plain crazy..

Guest Post: The "Majority Opinion" Is An Illusion | Zero Hedge

I find it hilarious that you falsely accuse me of copying and pasting, when I've done no such thing, and you follow it up with copied and pasted drivel. If you'd like to make a point on your own, please feel free to make it, and I'll shoot you down accordingly.

Nice dodge to avoid presenting a rebuttal to the information. So let me get this straight, by stating that you don't cut and paste you are somehow inferring that all the information you present is your own??? It must have spontaneously generated in your head just like your evolutionary theory of spontaneous generation. You're a dimwit.

 

[UltimateReality]

So, your criteria for credibility amounts to being "well known"?

You should be aware that Meyer is a demonstrated hack fronting for the Disco'tute.

He also has no credentials that would provide for knowledgeable testimony on cell biology. That would account for the blundering incompetence of his work ato the Disco'tute.

Well educated people who believe in a designer seem to drive you over the edge.

What you hope to sidestep is the fact that Meyer, like so many representing the Christian creationist ministries, is not well educated in the subject matter he rattles on about.

That's one of the reasons why creationist are such laughable buffoons - Casey Luskin is authoring "science" material on behalf of the Disco'tute.

It's enough to make one cringe, but at the same time, reading these charlatans getting flamed on their own blogs is always good for a bit of schadenfreude

Perhaps you missed this little tidbit...

Hawly, you are such a freakin' liar it is pathetic. I have told you before and it is easily discovered on the internet that Meyer earned his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University and his doctoral dissertation was titled: "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies." You have repeated over and over that he lacks credentials on the subject matter to which he speaks but you are just repeated the same lie over and over as usual. And your blind atheist sheeple like Daws and NP are quick to jump on your lies and misinformation bandwagon.

And Huggy is also horribly mis-informed. There are no legitimate scientists that believe that chance can account for the origin of life. Even your high priest Dawkins does not make such an ignorant and stupid assertion. So you couldn't get past the first 4 minutes because of your own incredible ignorance and confirmation bias for false information from atheist agenda websites.

I have come to the conclusion that you, Daws, and Hawly are just incredibly stupid, or incredibly EVIL. I'll give you all the benefit of the doubt and assume you are EVIL.

 

[UltimateReality]

I guess you never watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." Credentials or not, baffonery certainly isn't limited to creationists in the least. By the way, was Darwin a scientist?

Not formally. He received his Bachelor's in Theology from Cambridge, the same university where Meyer would later receive his PhD from. Darwin liked to pretend he was a geologist. Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.

Hawly likes to ignore the fact that the man she bases her whole pathetic, EVIL religion on had no formal training on the subject on which he wrote a book on, while simultaneously discrediting Meyer, which the ignoramus Daws buys hook, line and sinker and applauds her stupidity. Which way did he go George?? What an angry, evofundie hypocrite Hawly is.

The angry fundie is perturbed that Meyer is exposed as a fraud in connection with defining cell biology. But then again, fraudulent credentials are so common among creationist charlatans.

What the angry fundies hope to avoid addressing is that the theory proposed by Darwin has passed through the filter of the scientific method and has science supported evidence to support the theory.

Desperate, angry, hyper-religious fundies seek to promote supermagicalism and mysticism as promoted by Christian ministries as a substitute for research and peer-reviewed data. That's why the charlatans are forced to pose in front of green screens in attempts to deceive the gullible that religion supplants science.

Typical incredibly ignorant post. Gone over a week and nothing changes. How do you not apply the same argument to Darwin's credentials??? Please do tell.

 

[Koios]

CVs notwithstanding, whether embellished or not, the simple truth is: Meyer is blinded by his religious dogma and an embarrassment to the scientific community, if in fact he considers himself a member of it, while also poo-pooing everything science has discovered in regard to the subject matter he speaks to.

Fact, not opinion.

Blinded really ?

Absolutely.

And here's why, Ywc.

Meyer will reject any and all old or new information which would in any way contradict his (and many other's) postulate:

Sublime order within some/all organisms = some intelligence must be behind it = Christian god is ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL.

And that, I'm sorry to say, if the fucking EPITOME of logical fallasy.

Simple truth, pursuant to 9th Commandment, which is a gooder, IMO, since we humans thought it up and nearly all of us can agree it's as Martha would say, "a good thing."

 

[UltimateReality]

What you hope to sidestep is the fact that Meyer, like so many representing the Christian creationist ministries, is not well educated in the subject matter he rattles on about.

That's one of the reasons why creationist are such laughable buffoons - Casey Luskin is authoring "science" material on behalf of the Disco'tute.

It's enough to make one cringe, but at the same time, reading these charlatans getting flamed on their own blogs is always good for a bit of schadenfreude

Hollie you're a liar why would anyone in their right mind trust you ?

Biography

Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After graduating, Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]

[edit] Intelligent design

Meyer is one of a small group of prominent young intelligent design creationist advocates. Other well known creationist advocates include William Dembski, Paul Nelson, and Jonathan Wells.[9] Meyer's involvement in intelligent design (ID) can be traced to his participation in the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' defending Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial in 1992 or 1993 (in response to Stephen Jay Gould's "devastating"[10] review of it in the July 1992 issue of Scientific American), while with the Philosophy department at Whitworth College.[10] He was later a participant in the first formal meeting devoted to ID, hosted at Southern Methodist University in 1992.[10]
Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My goodness, a flaming fundie.

A degree in history and philosophy of science qualifies Meyer as a biologist how?

Your melodrama is as flaccid as Meyers' fraudulent attempts to pass himself off as qualified to discuss biological mechanisms.

This is as comical as you claiming to have worked in a biology lab.

His doctoral dissertation was on the origin of life you dimwit.

 

[Koios]

Not formally. He received his Bachelor's in Theology from Cambridge, the same university where Meyer would later receive his PhD from. Darwin liked to pretend he was a geologist. Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.

Hawly likes to ignore the fact that the man she bases her whole pathetic, EVIL religion on had no formal training on the subject on which he wrote a book on, while simultaneously discrediting Meyer, which the ignoramus Daws buys hook, line and sinker and applauds her stupidity. Which way did he go George?? What an angry, evofundie hypocrite Hawly is.

The angry fundie is perturbed that Meyer is exposed as a fraud in connection with defining cell biology. But then again, fraudulent credentials are so common among creationist charlatans.

What the angry fundies hope to avoid addressing is that the theory proposed by Darwin has passed through the filter of the scientific method and has science supported evidence to support the theory.

Desperate, angry, hyper-religious fundies seek to promote supermagicalism and mysticism as promoted by Christian ministries as a substitute for research and peer-reviewed data. That's why the charlatans are forced to pose in front of green screens in attempts to deceive the gullible that religion supplants science.

Typical incredibly ignorant post. Gone over a week and nothing changes. How do you not apply the same argument to Darwin's credentials??? Please do tell.

Perhaps because it's irrelevant? Since when did a wrong answer by someone with 80 PhDs doing post-doc studies thrump a correct answer by a Kindergardener?

 

[UltimateReality]

My goodness, a flaming fundie.

A degree in history and philosophy of science qualifies Meyer as a biologist how?

Your melodrama is as flaccid as Meyers' fraudulent attempts to pass himself off as qualified to discuss biological mechanisms.

This is as comical as you claiming to have worked in a biology lab.

Comprehension problems hollie "Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981" Is he more qualified to speak on this matter concerning the cell than you and your buddies ?

You certainly are desperate to promote Meyer but, no, he is not.

Like so many of the charlatans representing Christian ministries, his degree or field of study is strangely dissociated from the fields of biology, paleontology, etc. that would allow him to speak authoritatively on evidence for evolutionary science.

What Christian creationist won't fess-up to is that the entirety of the creationist agenda is to discredit evolutionary science. That, of course, does nothing to advance the creationist gawds. It's an abysmal failure on the part of creationist ministries because their failed energies at vilifying science only lends an image of fear and desperation to their lies and misrepresentations.

Says the douchebag who has never revealed his/her/its credentials. And then the sheeple douchebag Koios thanks her for her hypocritical post. We are dealing with a bunch of Mensa members here for sure.

 

[UltimateReality]

Blinded really ?

Absolutely.

And here's why, Ywc.

Meyer will reject any and all old or new information which would in any way contradict his (and many other's) postulate:

Sublime order within some/all organisms = some intelligence must be behind it = Christian god is ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL.

And that, I'm sorry to say, if the fucking EPITOME of logical fallasy.

Simple truth, pursuant to 9th Commandment, which is a gooder, IMO, since we humans thought it up and nearly all of us can agree it's as Martha would say, "a good thing."

This post shows your incredible ignorance. If you want to even have a shred of credibility left in this discussion you really need to read Signature In The Cell so you don't make such incredibly misinformed stupid comments on the topic.

 

[UltimateReality]

The angry fundie is perturbed that Meyer is exposed as a fraud in connection with defining cell biology. But then again, fraudulent credentials are so common among creationist charlatans.

What the angry fundies hope to avoid addressing is that the theory proposed by Darwin has passed through the filter of the scientific method and has science supported evidence to support the theory.

Desperate, angry, hyper-religious fundies seek to promote supermagicalism and mysticism as promoted by Christian ministries as a substitute for research and peer-reviewed data. That's why the charlatans are forced to pose in front of green screens in attempts to deceive the gullible that religion supplants science.

Typical incredibly ignorant post. Gone over a week and nothing changes. How do you not apply the same argument to Darwin's credentials??? Please do tell.

Perhaps because it's irrelevant? Since when did a wrong answer by someone with 80 PhDs doing post-doc studies thrump a correct answer by a Kindergardener?

I don't know. Ask Hawly.

 

[UltimateReality]

I have realized that engaging in the rampant stupidity exhibited by atheist agenda disciples in this thread is hazardous to my intelligence. Peace out until next time.

 

[Koios]

Absolutely.

And here's why, Ywc.

Meyer will reject any and all old or new information which would in any way contradict his (and many other's) postulate:

Sublime order within some/all organisms = some intelligence must be behind it = Christian god is ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL.

And that, I'm sorry to say, if the fucking EPITOME of logical fallasy.

Simple truth, pursuant to 9th Commandment, which is a gooder, IMO, since we humans thought it up and nearly all of us can agree it's as Martha would say, "a good thing."

This post shows your incredible ignorance. If you want to even have a shred of credibility left in this discussion you really need to read Signature In The Cell so you don't make such incredibly misinformed stupid comments on the topic.

Wouldn't work on me; and it's not intended to. It's for ya'll's consumption, and speaks to the myriad other logical fallacies advanced by Creationists, which again, is a misnomer, since they/you are merely Evolution Denialists.

Some examples of other logical fallacies ...

Mutations do exists, after all = Human Genome Project (plural actually) proves rates don't fit time factors (patently false) = some other force it at play (true; evironment, proteins, no doubt others) = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Or ...

Cells have components = some intelligence put it there = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Got any more?

 

[Hollie]

Well educated people who believe in a designer seem to drive you over the edge.

What you hope to sidestep is the fact that Meyer, like so many representing the Christian creationist ministries, is not well educated in the subject matter he rattles on about.

That's one of the reasons why creationist are such laughable buffoons - Casey Luskin is authoring "science" material on behalf of the Disco'tute.

It's enough to make one cringe, but at the same time, reading these charlatans getting flamed on their own blogs is always good for a bit of schadenfreude

Perhaps you missed this little tidbit...

Hawly, you are such a freakin' liar it is pathetic. I have told you before and it is easily discovered on the internet that Meyer earned his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University and his doctoral dissertation was titled: "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies." You have repeated over and over that he lacks credentials on the subject matter to which he speaks but you are just repeated the same lie over and over as usual. And your blind atheist sheeple like Daws and NP are quick to jump on your lies and misinformation bandwagon.

And Huggy is also horribly mis-informed. There are no legitimate scientists that believe that chance can account for the origin of life. Even your high priest Dawkins does not make such an ignorant and stupid assertion. So you couldn't get past the first 4 minutes because of your own incredible ignorance and confirmation bias for false information from atheist agenda websites.

I have come to the conclusion that you, Daws, and Hawly are just incredibly stupid, or incredibly EVIL. I'll give you all the benefit of the doubt and assume you are EVIL.

I didn't miss it. It was just more of the angry, self-hating rhetoric that defines your forgettable comments.

 

[Hollie]

I have realized that engaging in the rampant stupidity exhibited by atheist agenda disciples in this thread is hazardous to my intelligence. Peace out until next time.

How many more times and in how many more ways can your specious, unsupported, irrevelant, angry, self-refuting claims be dismantled?

It's the will of the gawds!

 

[Hollie]

Comprehension problems hollie "Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981" Is he more qualified to speak on this matter concerning the cell than you and your buddies ?

You certainly are desperate to promote Meyer but, no, he is not.

Like so many of the charlatans representing Christian ministries, his degree or field of study is strangely dissociated from the fields of biology, paleontology, etc. that would allow him to speak authoritatively on evidence for evolutionary science.

What Christian creationist won't fess-up to is that the entirety of the creationist agenda is to discredit evolutionary science. That, of course, does nothing to advance the creationist gawds. It's an abysmal failure on the part of creationist ministries because their failed energies at vilifying science only lends an image of fear and desperation to their lies and misrepresentations.

Says the douchebag who has never revealed his/her/its credentials. And then the sheeple douchebag Koios thanks her for her hypocritical post. We are dealing with a bunch of Mensa members here for sure.

Oh my. It seems the angry Meyer groupie, while being unable to defend fraudulent credentials of Christian creationists, has only hurling of childish insults to defend his specious claims.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Was Darwin a sientist?

Who cares? Let's say for the sake of argument he wasn't a scientist even though he correctly used the scientific method. Let's claim he was a quack.

Well, the countless credentialed scientists that came after him that also accurately utilized the scientific method and bias-free approaches to confirm and expand upon his work were scientists. So remind me what's your point again?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

CVs notwithstanding, whether embellished or not, the simple truth is: Meyer is blinded by his religious dogma and an embarrassment to the scientific community, if in fact he considers himself a member of it, while also poo-pooing everything science has discovered in regard to the subject matter he speaks to.

Fact, not opinion.

CVs notwithstanding, the bottom line credential behind anyone claiming to do scientific work is if they use the most bias-free protocols for determining if reproducible evidence supports or rejects a hypothesis, better known as the scientific method.

When it comes to questioning whether creationists are using this bias-reducing method, the answer is a resounding NO across the board.

 

[daws101]

I made it 4 min into the video and seriously. This guy isn't a scientist. He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on. He is a fraud. Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.

It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.

Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.

Hawly, you are such a freakin' liar it is pathetic. I have told you before and it is easily discovered on the internet that Meyer earned his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University and his doctoral dissertation was titled: "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies." You have repeated over and over that he lacks credentials on the subject matter to which he speaks but you are just repeated the same lie over and over as usual. And your blind atheist sheeple like Daws and NP are quick to jump on your lies and misinformation bandwagon.

And Huggy is also horribly mis-informed. There are no legitimate scientists that believe that chance can account for the origin of life. Even your high priest Dawkins does not make such an ignorant and stupid assertion. So you couldn't get past the first 4 minutes because of your own incredible ignorance and confirmation bias for false information from atheist agenda websites.

I have come to the conclusion that you, Daws, and Hawly are just incredibly stupid, or incredibly EVIL. I'll give you all the benefit of the doubt and assume you are EVIL.

hey detective douche bag didn't you leave?