Posted: Apr 13, 2010 1:23 pm
by dinkum
rainbow wrote:
dinkum wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Those 78 papers themselves constitute evidence. They don't present the whole picture, but they are evidence nonetheless. To say that you have no evidence is simply bullshit.

But when one hasn't actually read the said papers, one can technically say that one has no evidence. One need simply skim the titles, glean a common thread (the same sciency word in two titles), hit Wikipedia for ten minutes and quibble on vapid bullshit.

I suggest then that you read the papers.
When you've done so, please show us the particular piece of evidence for Abiogenesis that YOU consider to be particularly compelling.
Thanks.


Pathetic.

The point is that you are claiming that there is no evidence for abiogenesis in these papers, when it's stupidly obvious that you have not read them. Here's a helpful, time-saving tip: they're not tattooed on the inside of your colon.

rainbow wrote:
Please present some fossil evidence of Abiogenesis.


rainbow wrote:
Where did I say I want evidence?


Nice own goal, there. Keep up the good work.
Thanks.