The Simplest Protein of Life

They are not mutually exclusive criteria...Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

What always makes me laugh, is when people (like you) have no comprehension of how their posts look.
They appear incapable of understanding just how bat-shit crazy their posts sound.
Instead, they cry "What is wrong with my posts??", completely oblivious to the obvious.I expect that you think it is normal (and not even slightly deranged) to refer to yourself in the third person and as a cat.
I suspect that before you retired, you mainly worked on your own...

As expected.

It is definitely you.

I do not want to join your club.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

No, I said that I don't want join your club.If 100% of the people on this forum told you that your posts are gibberish: you would not believe them, would you.
Why it is that you are unable to face reality, I neither understand nor care about.
But you really are a complete laughing-stock.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Since there is no fossil record of god nor jesus, that is probably not an argument you want to make.Much like oranges not being the only fruit; fossils are not the only evidence.

LOL - I am surrounded by evidence that life began to exist! So, you don't believe life began to exist, despite it existing today.
That puts you in a rather curious position.
One that is rather obviously counter to the obvious evidence living around us. So - now you want to change the subject.
I guess that's because you want me to not notice your stupid claim that life did not exist in the past, even if there is life in the present.But let's actually look at what you were replying to - since you seem to have forgotten: To state the obvious: because of the presence of oxygen.

...and you ignored all the replies.But I guess that was the only way you could claim 'victory'.

You ignored all the replies.But I guess that was the only way you could claim 'victory'.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Due to your Gish-Gallop of bullshit, I'll have to format my reply like so:Time is comparing two or more lengths to a standard cycle. - No, it isn't.So the relation is diameter to circumference. - No, it isn't.That takes human memory. - No, it doesn't.So what is the time universally? - That is nonsense.The same irrational pi standing for the present. - That is nonsense.All the lengths are distances travelled by relative objects so time is perfectly reducible to motion. - No, it isn't.Is motion itself human construct of the mind? - No, it isn't.That's a good and open question. - No, it isn't.Better than the question what is the age of time which is then the question what is the age of motion. - No, it isn't.Motion can have direction, it cannot age. - Wow, you nearly got something right. Unfortunately, the rest of your post was bollocks.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

No, Pandy. - Yes, MadYou are surrounded only by the overwhelming evidence that life is present. - No, I am surrounded by a vast amount of evidence that life began.No evidence that life had begun is surrounding you at all. - No, I am surrounded by a vast amount of evidence that life began.Vast difference. - WrongStick to the facts and leave conjectures alone and you'll be a good Pandy. - If you stick to the facts, I will leave your bullshit conjectures alone.

if the cat needed a peremptory arbiter of what is and was is not - You doyou would be the last in line for the job. - That position is already filled by the crazy voices in your head?but so far you only have shown you are blunt kind of dumb. - That sounds like someone unable to defend their claims.Do you have any friends? Have you ever shown them what you write on this forum?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

So, the answer to my question is: "No, Panda. I have not shown any friends what I write on this forum."
I suggest that you do.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

(emphasis mine)
You are arguing against yourself again.
This happens when you don't know what you are talking about.