Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

abiogenesis

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 71 of 297 (544075)
01-23-2010 7:49 AM 		Reply to: Message 54 by marc9000
01-22-2010 8:44 PM

Not everything can be studied scientifically. Human behavior, love,
​
That would be psychology: a science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 8:44 PM marc9000 has not replied
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 257 of 297 (633758)
09-16-2011 6:51 AM 		Reply to: Message 256 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 1:16 AM

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Yoink!
​
I'm going to add this to my sig.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 1:16 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 3:28 PM Larni has replied
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display

(1)
Message 268 of 297 (633849)
09-16-2011 7:17 PM 		Reply to: Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 3:28 PM

Am I in a solido matrix hell, here?
​
My point of object/abject concordance appears to be way above any concrete reality ibversesive apparetiff. I can't help but think that this is beyond any chemo-sesmic endosiemithalic entrety?
​
What's going on?
​
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
​
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 3:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 284 of 297 (633918)
09-17-2011 4:43 AM 		Reply to: Message 281 by Dr Adequate
09-17-2011 2:21 AM

I wish I put all of those in my sig.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2011 2:21 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 285 of 297 (633919)
09-17-2011 4:47 AM 		Reply to: Message 282 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-17-2011 3:00 AM

The question is why don't you write better, easier to read sentences? Is it that you don't quite know what to say so you cast your conceptual net as wide as you can in the hope of hooking someone?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 3:00 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 6:33 AM Larni has replied
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 287 of 297 (633935)
09-17-2011 9:54 AM 		Reply to: Message 286 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-17-2011 6:33 AM

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
​
Read this sentence back to yourself. Could you rephrase it so it means something?
​
I'm amazed that in a conversation about clear meanings you could write this sentence.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 6:33 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024