rigney

Hadn't thought of it quite like that, 'til you brought it up. But don't be too provocative or discerning, loosen up! You don't wanna a fat lip every time you go into the ring, especially if only two or three seconds have ticked off the clock. Even Jesus didn't expect such miracles. Give it a break. Being religous has its nuance(s) and can be a bitch. Being what I am, gives me the edge at this moment. No! I'm not the devil in disguise, just someone saying; get your head out of your backside and enjoy a little bit of life!

C'mon guys!, I didn't open this can of worms to find our who was the best fisherman; only to see who could drink the most beer? Damn!

Ditto! You are probably more intelligent than I could imagine myself being at any point in my life. Adversarial? That's a thing that stops the world from spinning. No, not philosophical platitude(s) but answers, are what this planet needs. I've looked around for several weeks now on this forum to realize that there are a bunch of you ready to carry the ball. But be patient. Idiots like me can stir the brew, but it takes distillers to get the job done.

These things are strictly speculative of course, so why not consider the BB the genesis of an absolutely new beginning? What make you think that quoting a hypothis as fact, without "absolute" knowledge, gives it total credence? There are many scientists and astronomers who scratch their heads each night, wondering; have I sent the right message? If you can look out at that universe and have no doubts, then you're an idiot plain and simple! I want to learn, you want to learn; so let's do it together, not as adversaries.

All I'm saying Lad is that; you can't get a free drink in here 'less you sweep out, mop up, or sumpthin?? Just don't keep running in the front door with a bad assed bear at your heels, screaming for someone to skin it out while you close the back door hunting for another. Ain't fair!

We're not talking about a supreme celestial handout. No, what I'm saying is that for something to spring from nothing there must be a damn good reason? You can rub two sticks together 'til your ass falls off, but it doesn't necessarily mean you'll get a fire. With a stick or two and a bit of tender you might get one started, but to keep it burning, fuel must be added. But, however life began on earth, it was a "single case scenario". Not one or two organisms or a bunch of different ones created accidently, but something that may have enveloped the total continent of Pangeaea for some duration. Perhaps the entire ocean floor for that matter? Fumaroles and vents are good speculative possibilities but I believe the start of life was on a much grander scale. What developed at that initial event was so instantaneously and sufficiently involved that whether it was, RNA, DNA, protozoan, lichen, microbrial, or what ever, there was enough of it to maintain its foothold. We humans, fish, dogs, cats and bats, just happened to evolve from the progressive fallout, and as such, become species.

While I can't argue the pros and cons of Abiogenesis for lack of expertise; I do believe life began on earth as an accident of some proportion. Now don't get teary eyed, but try relating it to a garden that hasn't received a drop of moisture for some weeks. Things start drying up and on the verge of dying. Then, along comes a respite! Holy smokes, plants start shooting up, blooming, producing and looking like a garden again. What the hell happened? A miracle!? No! the crops got rain! I know this is after the fact and only looking at life as it is today. But what if something extraordinary happened a few billion years back, achieving the same results but in a most dramatic setting? And that, a barren, desolate, worthless and lifeless landscape was transformed into a progression of mutations evolving into life form. Who knows how it happened or what those first critters even looked like? But conjecture says, name your poison. However, you're not going back three or four billion years to construct a genome of life as it was then. This was also a garden, but from the seed of its begining, it just took a lot longer time to grow into what we think of as maturity.

"Girl", to me is an old and affectionate way of addressing a young lady. I'm sorry to have given you the impression of something demeaning or condescending in my reply. ydoaPs on the other hand, while seemingly very intelligent, revels in the idea of being quasi-nasty. And no, my remarks wasn't intended to mean that I would abandon the post. I just can't imagine how long people can put up with the drivel of someone with such a wishy-washy stand? And the statement is not to be imbued as melodrama, but fact. My problem is that I'm caught between two suspecting "truths", neither of which know what the hell is going on? It takes a lot of faith to put your trust in either camp. Why the anger? That precept likely applies to me, as much or more than anyone.

Goodness girl, I'm probably old enough to be your great grand daddy. Naa!, No intent on my part to be condescending. Actually I wouldn't know how. Just thought this post had run its course and was appreciative of your inputs. Some very intelligent people on this forum, but you have to know when to say when!

Don't pick on this guy too hard. It's possible that he actually has potential.

What a shame that such potential is wrapped in the form of a perfect --s. You're like an odor kid, you just linger!! How old are you anyway?

Quote: I can and have made DNA outside of a cell. Fantastic! And just why are you fooling around on this forum with so much talent at your disposal? Even if a few of us were given your fortuitous brain trust, perhaps the world would be a better place in which to live. Get to using it!!

Without a doubt you do!

As much as I distrust both parties: Theism and Atheism, I'd rather trust an Atheist's integrity in the approach to truth, than that of the Pope. But on my part, and being Agnostic, I'm just hoping the bus doesn't leave before I can get a ticket to somewhere??

Mooey, as to your post #99 response, perhaps I was a bit premature in trying to toss you under the bus. Maybe my misconception came simply because I thought your reply was too vague, to be credible. Below is part of a lengthy transcript posted by the listed agency on the issue. Just Googled this up. So, can we say: No harm, no foul? No mas! www.catholicnewsagency.com web August 2010 Home » News » USHarvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa - Comments: 34 Senior Harvard AIDS Prevention Researcher Dr. Edward GreenRelated articles: •Surprise: Study Finds Condoms Don't Work. •Can Condoms Kill? •Condoms do not eliminate risk of HIV •Pope Benedict XVI - Biography Cambridge, Mass., Mar 21, 2009 / 10:11 am (CNA).- Pope Benedict’s recent brief remark against condoms has caused an uproar in the press, but several prominent scientists dedicated to preventing AIDS are defending the Pope, saying he was correct in his analysis. In an interview with CNA, Dr. Edward Green explained that although condoms should work, in theory, they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa. Benedict XVI’s Tuesday comments on condoms were made as part of his explanation of the Church’s two prong approach to fighting AIDS. At one point in his response the Pontiff stressed that AIDS cannot be overcome by advertising slogans and distributing condoms and argued that they “worsen the problem.” The media responded with an avalanche of over 4,000 articles on the subject, calling Benedict a “threat to public health,” and saying that the Catholic Church should “enter the 21st century.” Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green, who is the author of five books, including “Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries” discussed his support for Pope Benedict XVI’s comments with CNA. According to Dr. Green, science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, Green says that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa. “Theoretically, condoms ought to work,” he explained to CNA, “and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that’s theoretically.” Condom proponents often cite the lack of condom education as the main culprit for higher AIDS rates in Africa but Green disagrees. After spending 25 years promoting condoms for family planning purposes in Africa, he insists that he’s quite familiar with condom promotion. Yet, he claims that “anyone who worked in family planning knew that if you needed to prevent a pregnancy, say the woman will die, you don’t recommend a condom.” Green recalls that when the AIDS epidemic hit Africa, the “Industry” began using AIDS as a “dual purpose” marketing strategy to get more funding for condom distribution. This, he claims, effectively took “something that was a 2nd or 3rd grade device for avoiding unwanted pregnancies” and turned it into the “best weapon we [had] against AIDS.” The accepted wisdom in the scientific community, explained Green, is that condoms lower the HIV infection rate, but after numerous studies, researchers have found the opposite to be true. “We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV reduction rates” in Africa. Dr. Green found that part of the elusive reason is a phenomenon known as risk compensation or behavioral disinhibition. “[Risk compensation] is the idea that if somebody is using a certain technology to reduce risk, a phenomenon actually occurs where people are willing to take on greater risk.” The idea can be related to someone that puts on sun block and is willing to stay out in the sun longer because they have added protection. In this case, however, the greater risk is sexual. Because people are willing take on more risk, they may “disproportionally erase” the benefits of condom use, Green said. Another factor that contributes to ineffective condom use in Africa, is the phenomenon where condoms may be effective on an “individual level,” but not on a “population level.” Green’s research found that “condoms have been effective” in HIV concentrated areas where high risk activities are already being conducted, such as brothels in countries like Thailand. Claiming to be a liberal himself, Green asserts that promoting Western “liberal ideology” where, “most Africans are conservative when it comes to sexual behavior,” is quite offensive to them. Citing his new book, “Indigenous Theories and Contagious Disease,” Green described Africans as “very religious by global standards” who are offended by “trucks going around where people are dancing to ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll’, tossing out condoms to teenagers and the children of the village.”

I like your whole synopsis on the issue, but I'd like to get back to that "oil before life" thing you mentioned. I'ts interesting, yet vague. Can it be possible that oil is produced in the earth perpetually, and without an input? Well, I dont mean it exactly like that. Even in time this planet will be gone. But if oil is essentially a part of the continuous evolution of earth and doesn't need any biodegradable(s) to sustain it, "WOW". We've been dicked around with for ages. But since abiogenics are as yet, nothing other than theorized, I have my druthers? As I said earlier, what happened on earth billions of years ago needn't be a poser forever. But the more I read, the more I wonder? Careful Moon, you might turn me into a flippin' slip slidin', "Agnostic". Is there such a word?

Even had the goal post thing been directed at me, there was no malice. But to make diacritical remarks about someones reputation can get you in a lot of hot water. 1. Law: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. 2. A false and/or malicious statement report about someone. To publicize that a particular person is: a Schwantz Likker without having proof, and then to say that you really didn't mean for it to sound like that they were queer? C'mon, it don't make sense. Prove the statements and I can live with the truth. We don't want, or need to control how the entire world reacts to certain conditions and have enough problems right here at home. Non-issue? A mosque to be built at ground zero? You're pulling my leg, right? Why not build a huge cathedral in Mecca to show our appreciation of the Muslim Religion?

I'm no bible thumper Mooey and pretty much don't give a rats behind one way or another as to who wins the race. But your paraphrasing above is exactly the anger of which I spoke. While you mask your fairly well, it's anger none the less. Most guys on the forum just get upset with each other, duke it out and go on to the next page. But your statements, without evidence to back them up; might be considered slanderous? I suppose that fellow Jesus had it right when he spoke to those who were about to put the "whore", to death by stoning. He said to them; Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Now, you don't have to be too religious or down right smart; to get his meaning!!

What does "similar to evolution" mean? Also, "no original" information needed? C'mon, there is something more to life forms than "I think" or "I believe". I've gotten hammered everytime I use it. I can respond out of ignorance to your assumptions as I did, but you should do a bit of explaining to passify my stupidity. Life might have began as something we may never understand, but to say that two rocks crawled out from under a third rock and because they were primarially carbon, made whoopee! and we got a fourth rock, that's B.S. I was born at night, but not last night!!

Trying to materialize something from thin air whether it be the psyche or flesh and blood is an undertaking I'm not personally willing to try, or buy into at this time. And while the process of teleportation is in its infancy, scientist have designed processes allowing it to happen; and conducted experiments to its effect. If these experiments go somewhere beyond instantly receiving information from a known transmission source, who knows? I tried using: "Instantaneous Transcendental Teleportation" a few weeks back and dang near got tossed off the forum. I don't know what the phrase means yet, but it's something you seem to be fishing for??

Just short of putting the "Big ?" out there, I see no reason why abiogenesis wouldn't have the same chance for a beginning of life as any theory coming down the pike over the past five thousand years. Many theorize life came from, comets, solar winds, other planets and whatever. The fallacy of such a concept is that life would have had to began elsewhere in the universe, just not here on earth. But how? So, the "where" is not nearly as important as to the "how"? Chemists have for several years tried to concoct different brews in an effort to bring about some simple form of life, but so far, no soap. But then, it's possible that roughly four billion years ago earth may have been shaken by an event unlike any other that has ever happened in the entire universe. A set of rules beyond anything concievable may have fallen into place for a brief moment that laid the ground work for life as we know it today. It may have began as something totally innocuous as only rudiments of the first organisms. The precursor to that initial spawn of life forms may have also become extinct in a matter of minutes, hours or days, leaving no sign of its ever being. Without fossolized remains of extinct prehistoric animals such as dinosaurs, we would have no idea that they existed either. good luck.

If something you believe to be true is plausible, don't hide your thoughts; hang on. But then, search for the truth in its reality and to heck with what someone else thinks? You will eventually find out whether the concept is true or not!

Did you mean to say: An unfalsifiable statement is one which, if true, would be impossible to prove false, or did I miss the point completely? I'm too old to be sure of anything anymore, so set me straight. It's a must that I get a new dictionary. Three years old and fifty bucks shot; you'd think it would come with a built in bullet proof update? Thanks. I'll try using google from now on.

Well, "Death" is not exactly what I would call a euphemism for describing "demise" or gone to "slumber city", but something very personal, with no contradiction. Life before we start living it, remains conjectural. Life as we are cognizant of, is still conjectural. To me, death is just the soothing part of this unending trip.

Could you give me the grammatical intrepretation of unfalsifiable? Even with a wall covered with Doctorates and Phds, a persons hypothetical inclinations may still question many things as something other than absolute fact.