Sam, stop playing dumb. Your questions are not meant for discussion, and you know it.
Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?
- Thread starter francois
- Start date
Sam, stop playing dumb. Your questions are not meant for discussion, and you know it.
Again, your question is not meant for discussion as anyone can plainly see, you are merely baiting with ridiculous comments like that.
Dearest, I agree with everything you've said except the one part. I've modified your chain of events to reflect it. You can definitely take this to the bank.
Your questions are not meant for discussion sam. That much is clear. You're not interested in answers. If you were, you wouldn't be repeating the same ridiculous, nonsensical questions over and over again.
So you are getting the next No-bells prize then *raptures*
I did not realise that you had solved the mystery of creation.
So do tell me how the laws of matter and energy predict the evolution of genetics?
There appears to be a persistent fly in the room.
Dahling! Dahling, are you all right? *waves smelling salts under nose* You've had a frightful scare. You should have a lie down in an expensive dressing gown and an alcoholic drink.
Indeed! I amaze even myself sometimes; but rarely, really.
Hmm. Yeah, I think so. Not really my area though. But if you can generate amino acids on a two-year NSF grant from unconstituted chemical crap, I'd say so.
I shall call the gardener, dear. It won't be a minute.
How about Tshirt and shorts and a cuppa tay?
btw, lying down in an alcoholic drink? Is it a bubbly?
Yeah, won't it be awesome when someone finally does it? I wonder what it is that we're missing, probably a Duh! factor once we know it.
Could you please edit that quote? Some people are so sensitive.
You guys ought to be ashamed to call yourselves men...this girl is taking you to the cleaners.
'Scuse me? Hush.
How about Tshirt and shorts and a cuppa tay?
btw, lying down in an alcoholic drink? Is it a bubbly?
Whoops. With an alcoholic drink. And a dark-eyed, hauntingly suggestive diva stare.
I think they've done it already.
Could you please edit that quote? Some people are so sensitive.
What was wrong with that?
'
Naughty naughty.
Only to a limited extent, which begs the question, why would you need those specific conditions when it happens so easily now?
Don't ask.
Those were the conditions then.
Don't ask.
No seriously: what was wrong with that? I didn't mean to insult you or anything. That was a 40s-style pampered society movie style quote.
Yes, but surely conditions today far surpass those at the time? After all we reproduce with ease, do we not?
I mean the quote to which you responded with this:
We do. But the conditions of that period were not those of today.
In those movies, don't they call gardeners to deal with flies? My assumption.
Why would you need specific conditions of a primeval nature to create amino acids? What was so special about the conditions then and there?
Hotter, more static energy I think. Check it out on the net. It was a lot different than today. Even the days were shorter.