It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 41
14
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   


The RNA hypothesis has many critics even amongst the materialists, there is no one singular unified idea.

www.arn.org...
www.panspermia.org...
www.sciencedaily.com...


I am well aware of the critics...



Done deal? Not by a long shot. I won’t bother pulling out relevant quotes


Nope not a done deal.. RNA hypothesis hasn't been ruled out at all:

www.scripps.edu...
www.sciencedaily.com...



The study from Munich is just another speculation in a long list.


They are empirically supported hypothesis exploring possible avenues for Abiogenesis.. None of them state they have answered the question.. You on the other hand are riding on a game of ignorance and a GOD of the Gaps argument. One that includes ignoring any actual point I've made while trying to move the goal post.



*So they can create amino acids, this is not anything groundbreaking. Amino acids can be found on meteorites as well. Why don't you post the link so I can read all of it? Oh I see it's 14 years old, How'd they get on then?

*It’s been said that without enzymes the longest biological chemical reaction may take a trillion years.


You didn't read the article did ya? Let me quote if for you:



A class of proteins called enzymes act to speed up, or catalyse, most of the chemical reactions that occur in cells, including those that make amino acids and assemble them into enzymes. Without enzymes, the biochemical reactions that enable the cell to function would occur as much as a billion times slower.

One of the central paradoxes in the debate over the origin of life is how amino acids were originally created and assembled into enzymes when there were no enzymes around to catalyse the reaction. Many present-day enzymes are based around metal atoms, and the finding that metal atoms alone can create amino acids is a significant step forward in the debate over how life began.

Other processes can create amino acids, said Wächtershäuser, but "this is important because it is a very selective process that generates 'alpha' amino acids." Alpha amino acids are the only ones that occur in life on Earth.


Hence, enzymes as a catalyst may not be required if metal ions can do the job.


Wait they didn’t actually form any proteins did they?.


All they are doing is figuring out how it could happen. Nobody here claimed they solved how life began even though we know what exactly it would require to begin in the first place. Its still going to be according to what I told you regarding electromagnetism, information science, and information theory.. Your entire position is you thinks it was done by some magic sky daddy. You let me know how you form a protein without electromagnetism, or the atoms, or energy doing all the work. The purpose of my posts is to show you that your argument is unfounded.



Where is the encoding and decoding in a snow flake? Its structure is the function for its structure?


How snow flakes are made = encoding. Melting can = decoding. Function doesn't need to be anything other than that.


You’re not passing information to entropy, entropy destroys information.


Entropy can only convert information, it doesn't literally destroy it. Look up the 4 stages of matter. Or look up conservation of energy to which has never been violated. Destroying information in that context is destroying it's current state to where it converts to another energy state, or smaller parts.


You’re not passing information to thermodynamics, this is not code.


incorrect.


Self organization through chaos theory is not code.


Incorrect.. A code is a rule for converting a piece of information



intangible/non-physical may be defined as things that cannot be touched, such as abstract concepts (e.g., mathematical concepts, alphabets, and literary works). Examples of entities that are both tangible and intangible at the same time are a printed book, a thumb drive, and a person. They are physical, but also contain intangible knowledge and information that is independent of and transcends the physical media upon which the information is placed.


You really shouldn't use Wiki as your main source.. Sorry, all those can be touched.. The concepts are information patterns within the brain and are ion based.. There isn't anything "non-physical" about them. Put a bullet through the brain and it ends there. There is no violation of energy =/= information here. Immateriality is a logical fallacy, things of nothing do not exist. Learn the definition of nothing before trying to use it. You can't, nor can information be made of "nothing"..Nothing can't be anything, much less a substance value of something. by definition itself can't exist. If nothing existed, you wouldn't be here.
edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Since we are talking about life, you should now that you ATP synthase is used to transfer energy around the cell.

ATP synthase had to be one of the first enzymes because it is absolutely necessary for many of the organisms that are thought to have existed on the primitive earth. It is an incredible enzyme, ATP synthase lets proteins flow back to the other side of the cell membrane, and this powers a small rotary motor imbedded inside the membrane and causes it to spin.

The enzyme is composed of 8 distinct peptide chains. If any one of the chains is missing, the enzyme does not function. You know what that means. Well, probably not.

1. ATP synthase is necessary for contemporary organisms as it is used to charge ADP to ATP
2. It's just one out of many energy generating pathways
3. It didn't have to be one of the first proteins
4. It has nothing to do with the flow of proteins but protons.
5. The contemporary ATP synthase is rather complex, however, it has much simpler origins.



So we have yet another chicken and egg scenario besides the protein, DNA problem.

What problem? You need protein to make DNA and DNA to make protein? That's how things are in contemporary cells. However, in RNA world neither DNA nor proteins were required. RNAs can: form peptide bonds, cleave and ligate RNA, polymerize RNA, phosphorylate DNA and RNA, aminoacylate RNA, alkylate RNA, form amide bonds, form glycosidic bonds, catalyze oxidation/reduction reactions, reform carbon-carbon bonds, form phosphoamide bonds, and catalyze disulfide exchange, among other things.

Also, not all proteins of the cells are made by ribosomes. E.g. some antibiotics don't require a mRNA template. This was also very likely the case with the first proteins, and they most certainly weren't enzymes but likely positively charged scaffolds that were attracted by the negatively charged RNAs, thus increasing local concentrations of reactants. From very early on likely also naturally occurring hydrophobic amino acids were around as they spontaneously form rudimentary cellular membranes, thus contributing to compartmentalization..
edit on 29-7-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by squiz
Since we are talking about life, you should now that you ATP synthase is used to transfer energy around the cell.

ATP synthase had to be one of the first enzymes because it is absolutely necessary for many of the organisms that are thought to have existed on the primitive earth. It is an incredible enzyme, ATP synthase lets proteins flow back to the other side of the cell membrane, and this powers a small rotary motor imbedded inside the membrane and causes it to spin.

The enzyme is composed of 8 distinct peptide chains. If any one of the chains is missing, the enzyme does not function. You know what that means. Well, probably not.

1. ATP synthase is necessary for contemporary organisms as it is used to charge ADP to ATP
2. It's just one out of many energy generating pathways
3. It didn't have to be one of the first proteins
4. It has nothing to do with the flow of proteins but protons.
5. The contemporary ATP synthase is rather complex, however, it has much simpler origins.



So we have yet another chicken and egg scenario besides the protein, DNA problem.

What problem? You need protein to make DNA and DNA to make protein? That's how things are in contemporary cells. However, in RNA world neither DNA nor proteins were required. RNAs can: form peptide bonds, cleave and ligate RNA, polymerize RNA, phosphorylate DNA and RNA, aminoacylate RNA, alkylate RNA, form amide bonds, form glycosidic bonds, catalyze oxidation/reduction reactions, reform carbon-carbon bonds, form phosphoamide bonds, and catalyze disulfide exchange, among other things.


And RNA has been made to be immortally self-replicating.. .. The only point the kid has that is valid is that science hasn't solved the entire puzzle yet. Something we already knew when going into this thread to which he's trying to use as a GOD of the Gaps argument. The rest of his stuff it utter incoherent nonsense. :/



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Has anyone noticed that his sources are Creationist websites that are quote mining science out of context to which is heavily mixed in with pseudoscience as debating arguments? Well, the only valid link he had was the sciencedaily link..But he goes on and claims it's a "done deal". The others are like Blog sites pretending to be like published journal sites... :/ Seriously? .. I didn't have to read much further than them claiming life can't be made from non-life when life is entirely made from non-life. And then you get the false probability arguments and supposed made up mathematical arguments.. #, it reminds me of this:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
Has anyone noticed that his sources are Creationist websites that are quote mining science out of context to which is heavily mixed in with pseudoscience as debating arguments? Well, the only valid link he had was the sciencedaily link..But he goes on and claims it's a "done deal". The others are like Blog sites pretending to be like published journal sites... :/ Seriously? .. I didn't have to read much further than them claiming life can't be made from non-life when life is entirely made from non-life. And then you get the false probability arguments and supposed made up mathematical arguments.. #, it reminds me of this:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)


And you are a pernicious liar.

He has offered many more supporting pieces of documentation other than wikipedia and blog sites. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is hardly an illegitimate source.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Time for one more quick comment; rhino deserves one for some good info without being rude.

I agree for the most part, however ATP is highly conserved in evolution and exist in the earliest life forms. So I really only question no 5 In your post.

Yes it is protons not proteins that drive the motor. Thanks for the correction.

www.sciencedaily.com...


"You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes," explained Dr Kee. "The question is: where did energy come from before either of these two things existed?


The question is valid; they offer a solution though it is speculative of course.


We think that the answer may lie in simple molecules such as pyrophosphite which is chemically very similar to ATP, but has the potential to transfer energy without enzymes."


So I imagine this might be the simpler form you a referring to? A single molecule?

I’m just asking because I am sincerely interested in what the precursors may have been.
Actually never mind I found this.


The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution during which two functionally independent subunits became associated and gained new functionality.[5][6] This association appears to have occurred early in evolutionary history, because essentially the same structure and activity of ATP synthase enzymes are present in all kingdoms of life.[


Ok, I'm not even going to bother adressing that. It does state what I originally said it does seem to have appeared very early.

As for RNA world yes it seemed that it could overcome the chicken and egg problem, it’s no secret that the RNA world faces serious problems perhaps even insurmountable problems. Any other claim is just dishonest. See my links already posted, Evolution of the ribosome says something different.

As a side note as a matter of interest. Luca much more complex than first thought.

www.livescience.com...

We all agree science does not have all the answers.

As for the inference, people can disagree with the conclusion, the inference is valid. It can be falsified it by showing that code can arise from natural forces. It's about design not the designer.

I am a sucker for punishment I guess.
Thanks for the discussion.




edit on 29-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Time for one more quick comment; rhino deserves one for some good info without being rude.

I agree for the most part, however ATP is highly conserved in evolution and exist in the earliest life forms. So I really only question no 5 In your post.

The earliest life forms lived and died a long time ago. All contemporary species are the result of the following ~4 billion years of evolution, thus you can't say that e.g. ATP synthase 'exists in the earliest life forms'.



www.sciencedaily.com...


"You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes," explained Dr Kee. "The question is: where did energy come from before either of these two things existed?


The question is valid; they offer a solution though it is speculative of course.


We think that the answer may lie in simple molecules such as pyrophosphite which is chemically very similar to ATP, but has the potential to transfer energy without enzymes."


So I imagine this might be the simpler form you a referring to? A single molecule?

I’m just asking because I am sincerely interested in what the precursors may have been.

ATP is not the only energy carrier molecule in the cells. For example, there are NAD and NADP. However, even more simple form of energy storage is any high energy bound.



As for RNA world yes it seemed that it could overcome the chicken and egg problem, it’s no secret that the RNA world faces serious problems perhaps even insurmountable problems. Any other claim is just dishonest. See my links already posted, Evolution of the ribosome says something different.

The structure(s) of the ribosome highly support the RNA world hypothesis, as even today all the key reactions are carried thru by RNA - RNA interactions.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
Has anyone noticed that his sources are Creationist websites that are quote mining science out of context to which is heavily mixed in with pseudoscience as debating arguments? Well, the only valid link he had was the sciencedaily link..But he goes on and claims it's a "done deal". The others are like Blog sites pretending to be like published journal sites... :/ Seriously? .. I didn't have to read much further than them claiming life can't be made from non-life when life is entirely made from non-life. And then you get the false probability arguments and supposed made up mathematical arguments.. #, it reminds me of this:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)


And you are a pernicious liar.

He has offered many more supporting pieces of documentation other than wikipedia and blog sites. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is hardly an illegitimate source.


Which link are you referring to, because most of his arguments seem to try and quote mine science and then construct a fallacy argument surrounding them. It's only in his last few posts here does he seem to start to post real material valid to the arguments made. And I didn't reject his valid posted sources., I rejected his creationist pseudoscience sources. I've posted more material on this subject on an academic level that he's bothered to even comprehend much less read. Several times I've had to correct him.. He's been dishonest throughout this entire discussion.. He was proven wrong and he then tried to weasel his way out using classic tactics of moving the goal post, suddenly not understanding what was being discussed, quote mining me and science out of context, and avoiding having to deal with being wrong. He then tries to paint my arguments as something they were not, and even made claims to my position to which I never raised, said, or addressed.. And you call me liar.. That's real precious..

And if you need further evidence, just read his bad sources and then watch those videos. Several fallacy arguments all over them.. Sorry, I can't take someone seriously when the try to post creationist pseudoscience and then quote mind and post actual science as an authority argument to some how validate his pseudoscience links and videos.
edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


I disagree, about ATP not being ancient. I added a comment above to my post. The scientist in the link I posted seem to think it was a problem that needed addressing.


This association appears to have occurred early in evolutionary history, because essentially the same structure and activity of ATP synthase enzymes are present in all kingdoms of life.


Your other point regarding the ribosome I aslo have doubts about.
www.sciencedaily.com...


"I'm convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct," Caetano-Anollés said. "That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins."


There is no agreement on any of this stuff.
Ok, got a plane to catch.



edit on 29-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


Here is a brief bibliography of the posts by squiz. You can look at the sources he has provided.

post by squiz
 

post by squiz
 

post by squiz
 

post by squiz
 

post by squiz
 

post by squiz
 


Plus many, many more...hardly any of his posts are as you describe them...I saw two posts listing a source promoting ID...even that does not disqualify the material, as the experiment was performed within empirical guidelines.
edit on 29-7-2012 by totallackey because: clarity



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   



Your other point regarding the ribosome I aslo have doubts about.
www.sciencedaily.com...


This shows only that it is possible that co-evolution has occurred.. It doesn't mean it states that it invalidates RNA world... And RNA world may very well be wrong as there is the possibility of other avenues. What is being done here is showing how science is figuring out how natural processes can generate life. Now you can disagree all ya want, but once you start playing the god of the Gaps, you have essentially made yourself irrelevant to the discussion.




"I'm convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct," Caetano-Anollés said. "That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins."


And yet new research keeps popping up showing it to still be possible.. :/ And what it really shows us that it's more than possible to have non-DNA or Protien based molecules capable of self-replication. And we can learn a lot about how Life could have started even if RNA world isn't the answer to how life began. And it likely began with a non-living self-replicating molecule.. But science will plug away at it while theists play the ever moving goal post and retreat into smaller and fewer gaps to try and hide their invisible imaginary friend in :/



There is no agreement on any of this stuff.
Ok, got a plane to catch.


Never was an argument about it not being solved.. You must have convinced yourself that is what people were claiming here.. The problem is that you are dismissing being wrong in several subjects we did discuss regarding claims you had made to which you couldn't back up.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


Here is a brief bibliography of the posts by squiz. You can look at the sources he has provided.

post by squiz
 

post by squiz
 

post by squiz
 

post by squiz
 

post by squiz
 

post by squiz
 


Plus many, many more...hardly any of his posts are as you describe them...I saw two posts listing a source promoting ID...even that does not disqualify the material, as the experiment was performed within empirical guidelines.
edit on 29-7-2012 by totallackey because: clarity


How about you read our discussion from start to finish before trying to direct me to various posts. I addressed him on specific issues.. Issues to which he needed to be corrected on. Can you guess what those were? .. So if you want to discuss clarity, I suggest actually figuring out where the problems were and not just randomly post links.. And no, not all of his sources are credible.. And more than once he had posted source material that had nothing to do with the points I was making..His worst source was that video of some creationists trying to discuss Chaos theory ect..That was just utterly terrible..


edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


I have posted just a small sample of his material in this thread in order to refute this nugget you wrote:


Originally posted by TheJackelantern
Has anyone noticed that his sources are Creationist websites that are quote mining science out of context to which is heavily mixed in with pseudoscience as debating arguments? Well, the only valid link he had was the sciencedaily link..


Like I said, you are a pernicious liar and his list of sources provided prove that beyond a shadow of doubt. The rest of your post is a smokescreen and deserves no response. I will allow readers to decide for themselves who is zooming who in this discussion...



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


I have posted just a small sample of his material in this thread in order to refute this nugget you wrote:


Originally posted by TheJackelantern
Has anyone noticed that his sources are Creationist websites that are quote mining science out of context to which is heavily mixed in with pseudoscience as debating arguments? Well, the only valid link he had was the sciencedaily link..


Like I said, you are a pernicious liar and his list of sources provided prove that beyond a shadow of doubt. The rest of your post is a smokescreen and deserves no response. I will allow readers to decide for themselves who is zooming who in this discussion...




He's NOT a liar because squiz posts sources like Mr Abel...a VETERINARIAN who pretends he is part of a massive research institute of "protocybernetics" and other nonsense. When you actually do some research about it you realize his "research institute" is a post box of a bellow-average home out in the middle of nowhere in Florida!!!

Mr Abel is a fraud...yet for some reason it's on of the main sources posted.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


By subscribing to the lie, you have also become a pernicious liar...

First, identify how many sources squiz has posted making reference to Dr. Abel.

Second, the criteria is for the research and results to be peer-reviewed. Dr. Abel has over 30 peer reviewed articles that I can see.

You cry for scientific methods but only those that lend credence to your world view.

If it does not, then it becomes a matter for slander...after all, you guys are the best when it comes to the adage, "If you tell a lie often enough, it will soon become fact."

Well, I am not going to let you get away with bull # any longer. You guys are the ultimate in waste of thought and energy. I will post the counts of actual references and let the readership decide.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


It's all nonsense!!

People have lost jobs because they fell for his nonsense


The other sources all associate themselves with Abel...which makes them frauds given what a fraud he is.

That's exactly the reason we need scientific method and peer reviews, and in this case they clearly show him for the fraud he is.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Calm down dude. You don't have to get so emotional. The problem with Squiz's sources is that they don't actually back up or prove what he's trying to claim. If you read any of the actual experiments and conclusions, you'd see they have nothing to do with ID. We have already conclusively debunked most of what he's claiming and he ignores my counterpoints that prove him wrong every time. You cannot prove ID, it's that simple. There is no science to back it. There is filling in unknown gaps with a designer and that's pretty much it. Science doesn't fully understand X: Therefor DESIGNER. Science is science, faith is faith. Keep them separate. Find god or this designer for yourself. Don't come in here spouting nonsense about methodology that's trying to learn the answer, Mr. Lackey. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

These are some of the claims he's making.

- Information science and information theory are more valid than biology, chemistry and genetics and actually apply to physical DNA.
- Since we've never seen a code that's naturally arisen, it couldn't have happened.
- There is nanotechnology and miniature machines inside the cell.
- It is too complex to arise naturally.
- DNA is digital.
- Not knowing the answer of DNA origin somehow negates it arising naturally.

Which one of those statements is valid and can be proven? Most of it is personal opinion and the rest is flat wrong. I'll say it now. I think Squiz is Stephen Meyer or somebody he pays to promote his ideas. He uses a similar style of citing various scientific facts and then drawing ridiculous conclusions from them that in reality have nothing to do with the facts themselves. I don't care if I get blasted for that, it's probably the truth.

edit on 29-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
All of this presupposes an earth-centric universe. When life is found outside of Earth, what then? Funny how the scriptures never mention anything about the real universe. Of course, when life is found elsewhere in the universe, God will be blamed for this as well - even though it is never mentioned in any religious scripture.
In fact, the Creator of myth is quite ignorant of the rest of the Cosmos he supposedly designed.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
A filter of squiz posts finds he has contributed 5 pages worth of posts to this thread, a total of 98 posts...20 each for the first four and 18 on the last...
Page One Sources presented:

  1. John Cleese podcast
  2. Article concerning study paper from U of I and Lund
  3. Drew Berry Video
  4. 2 articles from evoltionnews.org
  5. Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria
  6. (Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, "Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007)

Page Two Sources presented:

  1. nature.com
  2. nature.com
  3. Report from University of Bath, UK
  4. video, "Inside a Cell."
  5. Scott Minnich video
  6. repeat of nature.com
  7. Szostak, JW. Functional information: molecular messages. Nature. 2003 June 12
  8. (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
  9. Intelligent design video

Page Three Sources presented:

  1. List of quotes
  2. Video concerning abiogenesis interview with Jack Zsostak
  3. 1996. In: Rauch, I. and G.F.Carr (eds.), Semiotics around the world. Synthesis in diversity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp: 227-230.
  4. nature.com
  5. wikipedia

Page Four Sources presented:

  1. sciencedaily.com
  2. Godel model
  3. mitpress
  4. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
  5. newscientist.com
  6. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
  7. nature.com
  8. davidlabel.blogspot.com.au...

Page Five Sources presented:

  1. Book review
  2. cacm.acm.org...
  3. newscientist.com
  4. www.programmingoflife.info...
  5. amazon.com
  6. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
  7. closing with 2 citations from wikipedia

Well, now that we have the list of citations present, let us total them up...

Citations = thirty-seven

Number of references mentioning Dr. David Abel = five.

After years of crying "turn to science, turn to science," the science commences turning up things not convenient to your world view, then you attack the messenger.

Sorry, life does not work that way.

You have a problem because Abel is doctor. Abel may not be the best doctor. What are you? You are not a doctor. You are a charlatan, fraud, liar, and jackass. Take hope though...you are probably the best charlatan, fraud, liar, and jackass.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


You seem to be missing the rather unsubtle point that non-pertinent citations that do not actually offer any support to your argument are not in any shape or form valid. The one's that do "support" his arguments are from creationist resources. Does this compute?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join