.jpeg.d9291fff3b13b6f1c5d28d1ff92bba98.jpeg)
kanny
-
Content Count
14,547 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by kanny
-
Well if you look at the goldilocks enigma why the universe is just right for itself and life to existing then the only 3 conclusions I can come to are 1: the universe has a designer behind it "The creator" or 2: there has been or is multi universes or 3: nature got it right first time ...my order of choice would be 2 '1 '3
-
Yeah its only a bit of banter lads as yet nothing is concrete so every theory has a plausibility about it... francie is entitled to his opinion as I am mine and you are yours.
-
I thought it might be
-
Fair enough opinion mate, let me ask a question.......when you think about animals do you see intelligent design ? I see a design that's been perfected over millions of years the evolution of the eye is a perfect example ...there's a saying give enough monkeys typewriters and enough time and they will write the works of Shakespeare... .remarkable but not intelligent.
-
logical to you perhaps ...anyway aren't you supposed to be in church now?
-
"Haha my opinion is people don't like the fact God created this place," ...there's the problem your claiming that it's fact ..you can have faith in god but as yet you can't call it fact.
-
I think it's how people define what is a creator that's the problem ... I just don't buy the biblical version of the all seeing judgmental god the created in his own image thy shall obey me or else bollocks! ...a scientist doesn't judge individually life in a petri dish I'd like to think that a creator would be scientific..For what other reason would you creat something? I also have a problem with the big bang coming from a singularly...singularity= not a fooking clue
-
Mate that's just showbiz, no science explained, just propaganda, thanks anyway yes your right it is just a showbiz type but there is nothing wrong with trying to connect with the masses and get them thinking about it...propaganda? I don't think so as it only highlights theory's out there it doesn't define them as fact. I though the first quarter was very interesting trying to replicate life in the laboratory. I like the theory that we are a result of the universe getting to know and understand it's self it's this that drives ever increasing intelligence with the ultimate goal being a
-
Here you francie or anyone some intresting stuff in this episode dealing with why and how we are here http://youtu.be/VopqQoJPMtw
-
From what I understand the production of hydrogen from water takes a lot of energy ..I think you have to put more energy in than you get out making it inefficient ...he'd probably be better running it on the horse shit
-
Kanny mate, why did pasteur do the experiment? Because scientist thought that life can arise from non living material dead matter, yes How did life start on earth according to abiogenisis/ evolutionist, Life started from millions of years, raining on the rocks, then a chemical broth emerged in the sea, is non living material, then magically the dead matter came alive an so forth, that is spontaneous generation, ie the origin of life according evolutionists, now if you want to say that's false, show me how mate. Even tho, never, not once, no one has seen this happen, not even in the lab, an
-
:laugh: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/18/islamic-state-terrorist-mocked-for-dressing-like-a-kebab/
-
Organic compounds are not organic life there the chemical building blocks of organic life ...The Swan neck experiment doesn't prove anything either way all it proves is there's little things in the air that are responsible for decay and contamination it's totally inconclusive for proving anything else.
-
did he try every combination of organic compounds with every combination of environmental factors ..NO! It's hardly conclusive for proving that life can't come to be spontaneously is it? Nor was it his intent to prove that ..its a total misquote of the experiment.
-
Francie bud this experiment has nothing to do with the origins of life I don't know why you are quoting it?...we definitely have a lot to thank Louis for but proving life can't come to be spontaneously isn't one of them...remember at the time of this experiment microbial life wasn't understood all this experiment was is a small step to understanding the microbial world and why our foods spoiled and how to prevent it.
-
with the right organic components and the right environmental conditions.. that's not a flask with a "infusion" in it is it
-
I've had a read of that swan neck stuff it's nothing to do with spontaneous life but microbial contamination ..all the experiment shows is that a sterile flask will remain sterile unless contaminated ...all he was trying to prove is that microbial contamination can occur by exposure to a non sterile environment... This is the same guy who invented pasteurisation the clues in his name
-
We definitely need a thread hall of fame section for this.
-
-
double ohms .window frames ...best I ever had was some homemade thing just a chunk of blotting paper of a random new ager...Some of the early disco beens were very trippy... snowballs
-
Illegal
-
-
the laws of physics apply to all the universe...at this point in time anyway lol
-
Membrane or "brane" theory offers some hypothetical answers to the before and beyond questions and even what triggered the big bang ...like I said at the start of this threads revival at this point in time anything is possible and nothing can be ruled out.
.thumb.jpeg.cc7f0feb08deb4ccbfbd2e27a4df3100.jpeg)
