XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christianity
XPost: alt.ufo.reports
From: andrew.321.remov@usa.net
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:jc167k51f73q6esurm9e1upm
nffvnjsm5@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Hard science is settled by repeated testing, experiment
>>>>>> and observation.Spontaneous generation used to be a mainstream
>>>>>> scientific teaching for a long time until it
>>>>>> was proven wrong by the hard science experiments of
>>>>>> Louis Pasteur and Francesco Redi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We now know for SURE that biologic life comes only
>>>>>> from previously existing biologic life. There is no more debate, Except
>>>>>> today there are fools who like to argue a
>>>>>> gainst what science has already determined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks, if you want the truth, go with the science and
>>>>>> avoid the fools..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is now a law of science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~~The "Law of Biogenesis"~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Life comes only from previously existing life, and that of its own kind.
>>>>>> It is a law of science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you should complain! Write to your congressperson, the NIH, the
>>>>> NAS, the NSF, and even, the Trump administration, and tell them to STOP
>>>>> using YOUR tax dollars to FUND this research!!
>>>>
>>>>What this research has basically consisted of has been
>>>>a number of scenarios on how life could have started.
>>>>All of which were built upon a foundation of fantasy.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing to do with real world *science*.
>>>
>>> So why don't you contact any of the organizations she mentioned?
>>> *They* obviously think it's real world *science*.
>>
>>If that were true,
>
> It is. For example, from
>
> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8867283/
>
> "RNA, proteins and the genetic code that binds them each look like
> products of natural selection. This raises the question of what
> step(s) preceded these particular components? Answers here will
> clarify whether any discrete point in time or biochemical evolution
> will objectively merit the label of life's origin, or whether life
> unfolds seamlessly from the non-living universe."
You cite a "fantasized scenario" on how life could have started.
But there is a difference between a fantasized scenario and real
world *science*.
And if you knew more about the science of the subject involved,
you would not have so easily been deceived. But I suspect you
are strongly influenced by 'philosophical prejudice' that skews
your perception.
>> it would identify them to be fools
>>for ignoring what empirical, real world science has
>>>> *ALREADY* << established to be true!!
>
> Science has shown that mice don't spontaneously emerge
> from bales of hay.
We now know that biologic life comes -->only<-- from previously
existing biologic life. There is no more debate; except today there
are some fools who like to argue against what science has already
determined.
> It has not shown that much simpler forms of life couldn't evolve
> from non-living precursors
Such as in the fantasized scenario that you cited above. Right?
Yes, but here in real world biology, DNA always exists before
RNA. In other words, you will not have RNA apart from the
DNA that it came from.
> by chemical and replicational evolution in the early earth.
It happens in your --> fantasy world.
>>Therefore any attempt to reason with them would
>>be futile. As the wise man told us many ages ago.
>
> So what is it that you're doing here on Usenet?
Good point!
>>"Do not try to reason with a foolish person.
>> He will only ignore the wisdom you try to
>> bring to him."
>> ~ Proverbs 23:9
>
> Apparently atheists on the Internet (those you prefer to harass)
If you feel 'harassed', it is because your fantasies
have been exposed to be such in the light of truth.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
