Summations Only

Hi Buz,Despite not being the topic of this thread, the term "primordial soup" has now appeared in 29 messages, not counting this one. Instead of the topic, attention has now turned to explaining that "primordial soup" is only one hypothesis, and not a very current one, about conditions on Earth when life began. This is what happens when you participate in threads, and it is why you are not permitted to participate in the science forums.The list said "slime by a cosmic accident", not "primordial soup". Evolution does not hold that we "all evolved from slime by a cosmic accident." The Bible does state that we were created from the dust of the ground. Your list is wrong, at best providing a caricature, while our list is correct. Can we move on?--Percy

.......And this is what happens when I participate in threads. I get blamed(ABE: censored) and admonished by member Percy for what you and a half dozen of your side propagate, especially when I begin kicking ideological butt on behalf of creationism. Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted

Wait, you look back on an exchange where dozens of people show you you're wrong as a victory? How does that work?What "ideological butts" did you kick? I don't dispute that you've received some weak-ass responses, but if I said that Allah was the only true God, and all you Christians on the board posted and told me I was wrong, would that constitute a victory on my part?Producing a hubbub isn't any evidence that you're right; in fact, it's exactly the trolling you claim to oppose.

It works fine for you and yours, especially when you and your majority make judgement on who's wrong; especially when the site's owner admonishes on you and your behalf.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But how does it work for you? That's what I'm asking.

Buz, I'm amazed you're claiming to be kicking ideological butts here. Could you please explain to me where you did this, and explain why? It can even be in a PM to me, but seriously, I just cannot see it, please enlighten me.

Huntard, if you had deemed me wrong, where were you when we were debating? If you can't see where I was right and three were wrong, then no amount of further explanation to you is going to accomplish anything.I have a business, etc to attend to. My time on line is necessarily limited. When topics which I am allowed in get hot I expend more time than I should but do what I can while I can on behalf of bonafide Biblical creationism.

Now please explain, in detail, how the Theory of Evolution will change if it turns out that the current thoughts about the primordial soup are wrong, and life was seeded by an alien civilization billions of years ago, or arrived in a panspermic process on the backs of asteroids.

Given that you have so little time, can I suggest that it would be better to post less but more thoughtfully?I can't count how many times you've told someone that what they've said is a fair point and that you'll get back to them when you have more time. You never do get back to them, but you do continue to nit-pick and bugger about with daft or insignificant issues regardless.To be honest, you're not doing your reputation or your cause any favours by shooting from the keyboard like this.

Being delusional means sensing or seeing things apparent to no one else.If you're not delusional then you'll recognize that Point 9 did not mention "primordial soup", which you're confused about anyway, and having recognized this you'll allow the discussion to move forward by addressing Point 8, which is covered in Message 208.--Percy

Thanks again, Subbie for making my point that it's not Buz who propagates the off topic stuff in hot topics. With opponents like you, how can I loose?

But Buz, it's very much on topic. You translated cosmic ooze into primordial soup, then declared it a prerequisite to evolution. I've already told you what prerequisite means, but you didn't get it. Others have told you what prerequisite means, you still didn't get it.We've shown you how "primordial soup" isn't a prerequisite for evolution. You could say that the primordial soup is a prerequisite for evolution in the hypothesis that life arose from primordial soup. However, if you say that life arrived riding on a comet or asteroid, then the primordial soup is definitely not a prerequisite for evolution in the panspermia hypothesis.. If you say that God created lifeforms which then evolved (which many people do hold), then the primordial soup is not a prerequisite for the "God did it" hypothesis. Do you get it now?Once more, with feeling, evolution acts on life regardless of how the first life arose. Life is life is life. I don't know how many different ways we can say the same thing. There's a serious misunderstanding here somewhere. Is it because you think that all scientists hold that life arose from the primordial soup? You've already been corrected on this by others.If you accept that there are a number of theories as to how life arose, then you have no choice but to admit that you were in error when you stated that the primordial soup is a prerequisite for evolution to occur. Stop grandstanding and declaring victory and read what we're trying to say to you.ABE I'd also like to point out that the "cosmic slime" would be more akin to the panspermia hypothesis than the primordial soup hypothesis. If you feel that point 2 in the original list is correct, that scientists believe life arose from cosmic slime, then you have to admit that all of your primordial soup stuff is contradictory to point 2.Edited by Trixie, : No reason given.

Still waiting...

I never said I deemed you wrong. I asked you to explain something to me, something you seem unwilling to do, for some reason. Really? Is this the response you give to anyone asking you for an explanation. That unless they already understand it, you are simply not going to bother explaining the thing to them? How is that ever going to work out for anyone at all. "Hey teacher I don't understand avalanches". "Well kiddo, If you can't see how avalanches originate, then no amount of further explanation to you is going to accomplish anything". "Gee, thanks, teach..." I never asked for an explanation right now. Respond when you have time. But really, is it that hard for you to go:I said:
(quote A)Then someone else said:
(Quote B)This is wrong because:
(Explanation)And that's why i said:
(Something about butts)

The most foolish things posted by "athiest {sic} types" are everybody's repeated attempts to carry on any kind of discussion with either Buz or Chuck despite both those individuals' long and proven record of being incapable of engaging in any kind of discussion.And BTW, only some of those "athiest {sic} types" are actually atheists. Yet another creationist mischaracterization of those who do not agree with them.Edited by dwise1, : second paragraph