Richard Dawkins is a dumb dick.
Never heard anything remotely original coming from the 'biological' Torquemada.
Never heard anything remotely original coming from the 'biological' Torquemada.
You believe life came from non life? Isnt that violation of biogenesis
And yes as said before its, ending in a fight
Á la guerre comme à la guerre, monsieur.
En garde!
En garde!
There is no evidence of evolution so it is basically a religion which you name it theory.
Hai, tixem-san. Tora! Tora! Tora!
@bingndensum said in #45:
> Á la guerre comme à la guerre, monsieur.
> En garde!
En garde. J'ai une épée bien fixé qui t'attend
> Á la guerre comme à la guerre, monsieur.
> En garde!
En garde. J'ai une épée bien fixé qui t'attend
@tixem75 said in #41:
> And btw Richard Dawkins has been refuted many times
This is your argument? It is about the person Richard Dawkins, not about the book and not about reciprocity (something which every behavioural biologist could tell you loads of stuff about)? Weak.
> You believe life came from non life? Isnt that violation of biogenesis
The correct term is abiogenesis. And it is a respected discipline in biology on which a lot of scientists are working.
Yes, it is difficult to form a conclusive development line from amino acids and other organic material to living and reproducing cells when this happened about 3.6 - 4 billion years ago and nearly all of the remnants having disappeared. But there is no violation of natural laws of that happening as you seem to think.
> And btw Richard Dawkins has been refuted many times
This is your argument? It is about the person Richard Dawkins, not about the book and not about reciprocity (something which every behavioural biologist could tell you loads of stuff about)? Weak.
> You believe life came from non life? Isnt that violation of biogenesis
The correct term is abiogenesis. And it is a respected discipline in biology on which a lot of scientists are working.
Yes, it is difficult to form a conclusive development line from amino acids and other organic material to living and reproducing cells when this happened about 3.6 - 4 billion years ago and nearly all of the remnants having disappeared. But there is no violation of natural laws of that happening as you seem to think.
@tixem75 said in #46:
> There is no evidence of evolution so it is basically a religion which you name it theory.
Wow, just wow.
Well, on that level any further discussion is indeed pointless.
> There is no evidence of evolution so it is basically a religion which you name it theory.
Wow, just wow.
Well, on that level any further discussion is indeed pointless.
@Katzenschinken said in #50:
> Wow, just wow.
>
> Well, on that level any further discussion is indeed pointless.
51st post and everything stops here BYE!
> Wow, just wow.
>
> Well, on that level any further discussion is indeed pointless.
51st post and everything stops here BYE!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.