Re: The stupidity of biologists...
- From: JQ <jacqui@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 May 2007 19:41:31 -0700
On May 16, 6:05 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You biologists actually buy into the semantic slight-of-hand that says
"life cannot come from non-life". The semantic trick is that 'non' is
an absolute semantic negative.
The 'biologists' have been trying to explain that to the general
public for a very long time. That's what all those abiogenesis
theories are about -- how chemical reactions can form a system that
fits the requirements of life. We all know that we put the definition
of 'life' where it is convenient for us. 'non-life' refers to things
that do not meet all of the requirements. There is nothing
supernatural about it. Biologists know this, it's everyone else you
should be lecturing.
Life, though, is merely a kind of
complex chemical reaction, and the difference bewteen a living
organism and a rusting car is not as absolute as the semantic negation
of 'life' and 'non-life'. They've set you up, and because of your
ignorance of language, they make you look like fools.
No 'they' don't. Some people try to confuse the issue, but biologists
and people who understand biology often go to great lengths to set
them straight.
You morons really piss me off sometimes...
Randomly bigoted fools really piss me off sometimes...
.
- References:
- The stupidity of biologists...
- From: UC
- The stupidity of biologists...
- Prev by Date: Re: Venus origin of China and Japans, p5
- Next by Date: Re: Jerry Falwell fights for life at Virgina hospital
- Previous by thread: Re: The stupidity of biologists...
- Next by thread: Re: The stupidity of biologists...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
