Wondering world of fanatics. You have the 'religious' fanatics who think they know everything and just the plain old fanatics who call themselves scientists but are just a different type of fanatic following their belief system and think they know everything and have all the answers. Why can't play just admit they don't know it all?
@MrDammit2hell A somewhat absurd analysis as someone who calls himself a scientist who "knows it all" is like someone calling himself a married bachelor.
I believe God, satan, angels, and demons. the entire story of the Bible completely blows the theory of evolution away. Have you people read the book of revelations? Did you read what heaven actually looks like? isn't it interesting that there is a God and that God loves us all with inifnite love, and wants us to live with him forever. This whole theory of evolution thing is a lie from satan himself. Primordial earth? nobody was there to see it, there's know way to know the earth was like that.
This is better than a Jewish cosmic sky zombie who is his own father that can make you live forever is you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your dead soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a snake to eat a fruit from a magical knowledge tree...... yeah ....makes perfect sense -_-
This video is super stupid. All those people out there that think we came from a big explosion and a bunch of gas are incorrect. If life came from a bunch of chemical reactions, then why cant scientists show us today. O right, they can't. It makes a bunch more sense to say that life came from a creator rather than an explosion.
@jski227 two centuries ago scientists didn't even have a good estimate of the antiquity of the earth. now we know it is around 4,7 billion years old. science makes progress; religion will always be static, because it thinks it already found the truth in an old book written by pseudo-intellectual sheepherders who thought the world was only a few thousand years old, who had conversation with burning bushes, thought the earth was flat. no that sounds great!
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389) - Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton
Ah, another video relating facts that has been swarmed by the idol worshipping Creation Cultists in their Ignorance Crusade. Gotta love primitive minded people using technology based on the very science they seek in simple minded futility to denounce.
Let me start of with saying that I believe in a God AND that I believe in abiogenisis and evolution, in form called Theistic Evolutionism. For a while, I have been seeing the creationists vs anti creationists arguments. Creationism argue in ignorance, and I believe they should understand more about the subject before they criticize said subject. However the anti creationists should not argue in anger, and understand that these Creationists are taught nothing but Creationism is true at young.
way more inspiring than a Abraham having conversation with a burning bush, or an old greyish man with a long beard hocuspocusing around "and there was light"...
@doyoublush "Abraham having conversation with a burning bush" You know if took your cell phone and traveled back 500 years and demo it. Some would call it a miracle, others might burn you at the stake because you were a witch. There was a time when NO other worlds existed beside this one; with recent mathematical models of "string" theory, we know of 6 extra dimensions. You may say "it's not proven yet"; you are right, but if you talk with CERN scientists TODAY, they are working on it.
@yhenry77 Sounds like a confession that you just make stuff up.
On a more serious note - I don't believe in a talking bush because I can't imagine one? I can imagine "Lord of the Rings" does that somehow increase the likelihood of middle earth? How about the fact that I can imagine how life first originated. Is that somehow proof that it actually happened how I imagine it?
@infinit888 "I can't imagine one?" That old testament story comes from the bible (God's written word). It's either TRUE or NOT; so you have 50/50 chance of being wrong. The reason I brought up "string" theory; the bible and pastors have been talking about other worlds (heaven and hell) for thousands of years. You may think religious people are backwards, but we are the ones with imagination.
A smart man once said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." who was he? Albert Einstein
@yhenry77 "It's either TRUE or NOT; so you have 50/50 chance of being wrong."
Rofl - Water is black. Being a statement of fact that is either true or it isn't. So there is a 50/50 chance of it being wrong. We have a 50% likelihood of water being black.
"the bible and pastors have been talking about other worlds (heaven and hell)" - String theory predicts extra dimensions none of which have the property/possibility of being heaven/hell.
@infinit888 So what are you saying? The bible is 30% true or 20% true? You do not understand what probability is: Probability is ordinarily used to describe an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain. The proposition is: Are the biblical stories in the old testament TRUE or NOT. Right? Are you saying it is only partially true?
I see imagination as a chalkboard without rules, of which our minds can explore at will. What did you think Einstein was saying?
You are not certain that bushes don't talk? How many bushes have talked to you? Not only is it false to use a priori probability but in this case it cannot even be obtained by deductive reasoning.
"Are you saying it is only partially true?"
Yes - as a whole it's false however there are statements in the old testament which are true or likely to be true.
No no - engaging in an audible exchange with a bush and the communicator being Yahweh. You know the thing Moses presumably did.
"Deductive reasoning goes out the window when your dealing with God" - So we can't establish his existence empirically or deductively. Looks like you've shot yourself in the epistemological foot.
"Christian friend told be..." - How could it follow that god does anything without logic? It's just a feeling you have.
@infinit888 "So we can't establish his existence empirically or deductively." Yes the bible calls it faith.
"And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him." Hebrews 11:6
@yhenry77 "Yes the bible calls it faith." - I appreciate your honesty because it seems always fewer Christians are willing to admit that.
Alas this is where our conversation ends. If faith is your epistemology you have nothing to offer me and I have nothing to offer you. I hope however you understand why we can't take the claims in the bible on face value. We are bound by a higher standard - not what we hope to be true but what we can show to be true.
@infinit888 "all new knowledge starts with imagination." I like that definition; when you say bushes I assume you're saying "has God talked to me". Yes, everyday with the bible; keep in mind Moses did not have the bible (why not a burning bush). Deductive reasoning goes out the window when your dealing with God. Example: A Christian friend told me about meeting an angel on top the roof of his house one late night; Why? The angel had tied up 2 robbers in backyard while his sister was home alone.
im an atheist but I have a question for any one who can answer it with a rational responser. Since abiogenesis has happened b4 and as a result we share DNA with all living animals. why hasn't abiogenesis happened more than once and spawned totally diffident DNA then the rest of us. producing a species that we are not at all related to. i have a theory or 2 but looking if any one really knows, thanks.
im an atheist but I have a question for any one who can answer it with a rational responser. Since abiogenesis has happened b4 and as a result we share DNA with all living animals. why hasn't abiogenesis happened more than once and spawned totally diffident DNA then the rest of us. producing a species that we are not at all related to. i have a theory but looking if any one really knows
@Legaltimes There are many answers to this question. However I will endeavour to point out that, before life, the primordial soup was, by definition, sterile. The first primordial cells would have been heterotrophs, and would have happily gobbled up the primordial nutrients that would have been the precursors of any other forms of life. This would have severe consequences on the spawning of other life forms, as the primordial soup would no longer be sterile. Later ones had no fighting chance.
@eosimias1 Although there are still scientific debates about what actually happened on the early Earth, Abiogenesis, as defined as life coming from non-life, has been achieved. I quote Eckard Wimmer's group who synththesyzed an RNA virus, the recent work of Craig Ventor who created Mycoplasma laboratorium from non-living components, and , of course, the wonderful pioneering work of Dr. Frankinstein.
@Legaltimes Your question is a good one. Why do we see such amazing design and order in our world? Why aren't some humans equipped with poison stingers and some mammals with venomous fangs? Why haven't some bacteria evolved to consume the entire biosphere? Or some plant evolved to overtake all other plants?Why don't the solar winds occasionally destroy all life? And please don't say that we are just a lucky planet.
@civilization57 wow that is an overwhelmingly ignorant question you just placed. wow just wow.... If you are serious in wanting a response msg me back but I don't look forward to explaining it to you.
@Legaltimes This is conjecture, but I don't think it contradicts evidence or logic. The first replicating organisms would have had an overwhelming advantage in a world without competition. Their domination may have been sufficient to exclude other systems. This would also answer chirality. They did, however, create opportunity for other systems, like virus.
@Legaltimes I know that many will disagree but its called "the law of biogenesis"
If your open to all arguments then you should hear Charles Thaxtons interview in full. He adresses some of the problems. In fact if you listen to the actual lectures by Szostac himself, he gets into even more details, e.g. the Lasker Lectures 2010. And if you dont understand it completely, dont feel bad, no one does, including the guys giving the lectures. The more we learn the more the challenges.
@NUTCASE71733 I believe the Bible wholeheartedly, however, for unbelievers like yourself, I don't mind using science to prove you're wrong. Science and the Bible are not the same. The Bible is an account of history and code of conduct, while science is God's laws that man study and discover.
Radioactive decay is not reliable bc we can’t measure the concentrations of isotopes in the past. So, the date you have is what you aimed at when you started. ie It is fixed.
Hey, I saw this on Fantasia! Let's keep cartoons off science please. There's absolutelly 0 chance of abiogenesis or even spontaneous generation. It may work theoretically because there's intelligence being applied here. But in reality, where we live, there's no chance.
@NUTCASE71733 I'm a Young Earth Creationist, not ID'er. Takes more faith to believe we came out of millions of years of rain on the rock and "poof"! the first organism comes up. What about it's first meal? It's reproduction?
Cellular theory of life says cells come from other cells. So there's some kind of spontaneous generation after all, right?
ID is the same as creationism. Also it is not faith since they show a working model of what possibly happened. Hardly faith. Creationism has no facts, give it up.
@NUTCASE71733 ID advocate Intelligent Designer whereas Creation Science we tell you flat out that God Is Creator. Big difference. What proof do you have for the abiogenesis which is in essence a form of spontaneous generation?
@NUTCASE71733 No thanks; I don't think we had a fair trial. Where was Stephen Meyers and Kent Hovind? What about Dr. Jerry Bergman? That would have made a great trial.
ID'ers don't bring up God, I'm Creationist, I bring up God all the time. But anyways...
So you do believe in life from non-life, right? Isn't that more unbelievable? Believe you me?
@compgrad1 Creationists brought the dover trial on themselves for their dihonesty, get over it. Kent Hovind was convicted of fraud, that's why he wasn't there, and besides that he'd ahve been laughed out of the courtroom if he was. Many creationists don't even agree with his views, so hovind would have been a bad representation. Now on the issue of non-life to life, how can you justify god making man from dirt? That's the same thing you're talking about, so science wins.
@NUTCASE71733 True, Dr.Hovind broke the law, but not in evolution. That's a great question. Well, all the chemicals found in man are found in dirt, that's one. Another is the fact that we all turn to dust after we're dead. How God did it, I have no clue.
I think Hovind is right most times about his Creation arguments. (I've been to his seminar : )
God Is Intelligent, and while I believe in scientific laws, I don't believe they just happened to come to existence w/out a cause.
The reason the chemicals in dirt are also in man is because all life forms are made of many of the same elements shown in chemestry studies. We are carbon-based life forms, which is why we have coal, oil, and diamonds. they're biodegraded animal and plant matter crushed under immense pressure for millions of years. Hovind's theories are easily debunked, so any argument you bring from that fraud can be dismissed by even a third grader with a basic understanding of science.
@NUTCASE71733 I think you just repeated my argument. We have coal, oil and diamonds in our bodies?????? So are you saying that it's impossible to find c14 in diamonds. You know they found c14 in diamonds.
A third grader huh?
We don't have millions of years... This world does not have the ability to survive millions of years.
CARBON I said, CARBON. Not diamonds. Diamonds, coal, and oil are made from carbon as well. Fossils are often found in coal fields, showing fossils become coal. Oil is often found in places where a great deal of life once existed millions of years before showing that they bcome liquified as well. Diamonds are occasionally found amongst coal proving that animal/plant remains become diamonds under the right conditions. Also, your statement regarding the age of the earth is flawed.
Radioactive decay proves the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the fossil record goes back at least a billion years, and nothing your precious bible can say will change that.
@NUTCASE71733 Neveerr! Jk! Give up for what, evolution? Evolution is crumbling theory, whose proponents keep having to change definitions and parameters. Creation Science has facts, it's called observable science. Except that whereas you guys claim absurdity on our behalf, we in turn spend time studying God's creation with amazement. You on the other hand, think that got it squared away with your abiogenesis theory.
Creationism has observable evidence? Show everyone here a peer-reviewed journal. You wont because creationists instead go to appeal to corrupt politicians to instate their works in public schools. Also your statement regarding ossil fuels? Totally moronic. You said and I quote "I BELEIVE oil and coal aren't made of dino bones, ect". That's exactly what creationism is; beleif. Besides why do you think they call oil and coal "FOSSIL FULES"?
@NUTCASE71733 Yes! We look at any organism, and it looks, seems and is logical to think of it as designed. We live in a world of cause and effect as well. Want peer reviews, go to icr, answers in genesis. No, we appeal to logic, not politicians, although some support our views. What's ossil fuels? Fossil fules? What's that? Now, you seem moronic. So far you haven't produced proof dinosaurs or organisms is in my fuel tank, so guess what... it's your belief too.
I've been to Answers in Genisis for a laugh and I got what I expected. It's nothing but an insult to the scientific method and all the great minds since Galileo. The site even blatantly says "Never surrender even when presented with evidence that contradicts your faith". That basically shows how big a sham creationism is. It's not testable, therefore it can't be proven or disproven. Science is ment to be falsified, that's why we got where we are today. Creationism is flawed.
@NUTCASE71733 'course you do. Yeah, everything that challenges evolution is an insult to you guys. And then you tell us, "oh you have to have an open mind". But guess who the close minded are... the evolutionists. Want to talk about sham: The Nebraska man, The pitdown man, java man, archaeopteryx, abiogenesis. <<<< test these guys out and then come back and say that we're flawed.
No one accepted nebraska man, it was put into the newspapers instead of peer-reviewed and as such the scientists refused to acknowledge it. Do your research. Archeopterix has been declared a fraud when first discovered but the dissent ceased when tests proved it's authenticy. Piltdown man was disproved by scientists in much the same fashoon as Nebraska Man, but since science wasn't as good as it is today it took years before it was disproven. Even then scientists were skeptical.
Java man is authentic, the reasons being the same as Archeopterix. And Abiogenesis has more evidence for it than the story of Adam and Eve will ever have.
Wrong. At least seven Archeopterix have been found. Dinosaurs had feathers too, proving there was an evolutionary link. Velociraptor and it's relatives have all been found with feathers. Furthermore the only dinosaurs that had feathers were therepods. Modern bird share a great deal many of the same traits; most have three toes like a predetory dinosaur, feathers, their posture, and skeletal structure. Some birds have even been found with teeth in the fossil record.
As for Java man, the several bones you mentioned were of different examples of Java man. Since then more Java Men were found. At least eight are known.
And finally, your basis in creationism is more like fantasia than you beleive abiogenesis or evolution to be. Creationism implies God made everything in an instant by magic. Science cannot measure the supernatural, that's why we know Earth is not the center of the universe, that's why we know earth isn't flat and sits on four pillars and covered by a dome with christmas tree lights for stars, and it's why we know that deseise is not caused by demons or the wrath of god.
Fantasia? Again, the details that the man in the video is discussing are based on assertions of early earth.
They are statements that are made but are far from correct.
Again, Fantasia.... This is all based on ASSERTIONS. Early life is like this, was like that, it couldnt have oxygen, or this, and had to have had that for this to work....and so on.
Both sides have no idea how abiogenesis happened.
And for the faith bound person it is known as FAITH for a reason. DUH!
@compgrad1 O man finally we got a real Biologist and chemist to clarify this for us. where did you go to school and lead the field with your research? You fucking moron, just because YOU don't understand something, dose not mean every other person doesn't ether and there for "GOD DID IT"
I don’t have the answer but I do know that nature does not make life forms from chemicals and complex amino acid chains that must be in a precise order. Let me know when you make life from your test.
Replication requires information. Are you saying that in nature information can occur? There is nothing in nature that makes complex living structures of design.
@1984tenpoundhole We deem it information because we have to label it somehow. Language is a product in our references. OF of our brains. Information is a perception and nothing more than that
"Amino acids, lipids, phospholipids, lipid esters, amphipathic lipids, ribose, xylulose, nucleosides and even nucleotides have been produced under prebiotic conditions."
By manipulation in an unrealistic environment. Now one has found a way to explain how the simplest form of the building blocks of life were ordered into a living life forum of any kind…
Why would chemicals on earth have a need or direction to form any kind of life which would be a new dimension for that world? What would be the driving force for nature to start life? Why would chemicals find a need for survival? And why would we not see this process happening over and over again? Are you trying to tell me that something as complicated as a cell wall was created by random chance?
I happen to know that the spiritual is real as anyone can from realizing that pain is impossible in a physical system so abiogenesis and evolution is quite void but I find it interesting anyway.
in this particular investigative path, has Szostak given thought to how likely the various explored required conditions are in earth environment? for instance is there a natural non biological production of fatty acids anywhere and in needed concentration? does this occur?
This video is a bit misleading because the scientist doesn't explain how the genetic material is programmed to know what the cell needs to survive. Making the assumption that there just had to be a way for these things to occur is a statement of FAITH in evolution. Scientists have been trying for many years to recreate cells with basic components. If or when they succeed, all they will end up proving is that life can be created by design, not that it just somehow happened.
@perfectfailure23 Knowing what the cell needs isn't how evolution works. You have to remember evolution is random genetic mutations over time that allow something to adapt to its environment. This occurs because of natural selection, where the cells which mutate in a manner that allows them to get the nutrients they need will survive, while those that don't will die out, setting up the sitations necessary for this to occur. This isn't faith. This is testable science.
@perfectfailure23 Also, it does show that it could have "just somehow happened." They are showing that life could have spontaneously come from nothing without a designer.
@DuNyceBeats We do not have to unravel the truth as it permeates through all things that stand. We are all expression of its fundamental veracity. We do not have to accept or acknowledge the preposition of truth. Thinking that the truth is shrouded in an obscure and distant past is absurd and delusional.
There is nothing but your own self in your head,
Nothing and nobody except big brother is watching your every move,
Your conscience will not live on after you are dead... Because mind is matter
@DuNyceBeats Even if we understand the very root of our origin it will NEVER improve human condition and polish social structures. I didn't say it wasn't worth knowing, I said that the need to understand the cosmological issue and the nature of life is void of any value for now as long as the hungry keeps dying and greed and ignorance is running rampant. Even acknowledging the existence of a god would be utterly pointless as we'd still be subject to a terribly deficient social cohesion.
Any entity that becomes aware of being conscious via dextrous manipulation and language has to exist somewhere for it to acknowledge its own existence so it can ask that very question... That somewhere simply happens to be here, in the vacuum of space. It requires no justification, no godly intervention and it certainly isn't even worth understanding.
@odinata You do not know biochemical chemistry,nor, are you a student in this field ..stop assuming the information will get there through some natural process..Test after test shows it does not work..I have seen results personally..You are suggesting proteins,and digital code will self assemble..LOL. genes show nothing. LOL...I am clearly done here
"LOL" away, tony. You are done here. None of your spooky assertions have panned out.
Maybe do a little more study of "self-organization" before you go attributing phenomenon you can't grasp to bigfoot, baby Jeebus, or whatever other nonsense you want so desperately to be real.
@odinata stubbornly,morons like you choose believe abiogenesis, which is impossible..good luck with that..from pasteur, to miller..it never works..all we are doing now is copying information like what venter did..using templates and bases taken from living sources..
Stubbornly, morons like you try to prove that your personal "god" is the only answer to phenomenon you can't explain, and science you can't understand.
@purbrookian What's the purpose of your comment? It's vague, uninformative, confusing and from what I can tell ultimately irrelevant.
Firstly, I was unable to find these supposed errors you allude to (I did find 'athiests' but then I was directly quoting someone "Abio is an invention of you athiests[sic]" so why you would bring that up in the first place is beyond me) and secondly I don't quite believe they, if existent, have the consequences you imply.
@5tonyvvvv "BULLSHIT ASSUMPTIONS..there is ZERO testable chemistry to support some "primitive cell""
You know that this is untrue but due to the visceral reaction you've displayed here when confronted with an ongoing scientific investigation I highly doubt you are even open enough to even discuss the proposition objectively.
Amino acids, lipids, phospholipids, lipid esters, amphipathic lipids, ribose, xylulose, nucleosides and even nucleotides have been produced under prebiotic conditions.
@odinata These tests have been tried for 60 years,this simple process of life emerging from a chemical broth..no matter of time and chance even under amazing conditions in labs is impossible..It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.or in a test tube, its highly unlikely.
@odinata The instability of cytosine and ribose seriously cripples the RNA first proposal. What kills it is that getting the code sequence is impossible..digital code must be perfect in order to have a usable self replicating cycle...I dont know your chemistry background..but I am not sure if you know magnitude of this problem.
..like Fred Hoyle says I feel like some one has monkeyed with physics and chemistry..
@odinata Sir,you are going against well established laws..louis pasteur..proved it wrong in the time of Darwin..stanley miller proved it impossible because of Homochirality.and with Toxic tar and unusable amino acids .and all we are doing today is copying information like what Venter did..
@5tonyvvvv "Sir,you are going against well established laws"
That's like saying because Icarus could not fly to the moon we couldn't possibly do it. Both experiments you present don't have the scope to even prove abiogenesis impossible.
This is an error which could only be made by somebody not knowledgeable with the science discussed.
@infinit888 I have always challenged evolutionists that if they had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, and they still would have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell.
@odinata WRONG..you have jumped to genes now..You never answered anything else I stated.like Homochirality that must be solved first..you cant jump to genes.,and the energy information problem..you have no clue what your arguing...
You have sarted out with the assumption that your PERSONAL religious opinions are the only ones that matter, and then have set about to dig up ideas that might support your religious assumptions.
Problem is, nothing in science verifies your personal religious opinion that God is the only answer.
@5tonyvvvv "In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell."
Activating molecules with good leaving groups enabling polymerization makes them disintegrate? So you are telling me that using thiolesters, phosphate and phosphite esters, anhydrides, halogen esters etc. "destroys" DNA, RNA and amino acids? That's just wrong tony.
@infinit888 You have a energy information problem..lets say you have all necessary proteins DNA RNA.enzymes..the paradox is..In order for digital code to be precise,and information to be processed correctly..you need the molecular machines,the factories inside the cell.assembling information..these systems are the very things..that live inside the cell.they harness the energy..its an uphill? struggle.I dont think you understand..no natural process can achieve this.
@odinata I say Give you all the Proteins and DNA and RNA you want....What would you do with it???????..from there you have ZERO molecular machines, ZERO assembly instructions!!!...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube!!
@srikargottipati "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction. Intelligence created life not time and chance
@srikargottipati If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, they would still have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell. to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle
@5tonyvvvv Again you need not have define early life, as something similar to modern cell. Anything that can grow and replicate itself chemically can be considered as initial life. Cells would have surely occurred a lot later. Again science doesn't claim to give unfalsifiable, eternal truth like all junk religions do like God did it and we are here. It only looks at possibilities of how we can create self-replicating simple structures from simple chemical process. Bull shit religious assumptions
@srikargottipati Even with all the Proteins and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube.
Stubborn arrogance ..what do we see in nature ..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life? ever!!..francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically impossible but still stubbornly were atheist ..you also have ZERO Testable repeatable chemistry to back up abiogenesis..no one has ever been able to assemble amino acids into anything.which should be simple..primitive cells never existed
@5tonyvvvv Fred Hoyle's probabily calculations and foolish creationists arguments have been proved to be absurd and wrong LOL. Study more at talkoriginsdotorg
@srikargottipati Do you know how unstable proteins and RNA are??..they break down under amazing conditions in the perfect solutions under the supervision of scientists protecting it,at just the right temperatures....so you really think a protein could survive on a poisonous toxic primordial earth.LOL..if darwin could only see DNA and molecular machines..he would be laughing at his own theory..he thought a cell could form in a warm mud puddle,,LOL..hahaha..what bullshit
@5tonyvvvv What is needed here is a self replicating molecule enclosed in a membrane. Your making a preposterous assumption that first life needs to have proteins LOL. Darwin's was damn right on how complex life evolved from simple forms. He hypothesised how a cell might form in a warm puddle, but no one assumes that to be the fact. But, its lot better than believing in some rubbish GOD creating man from mud LOL. So stupid are creationists
@srikargottipati All that is needed is a self replicating molecule ..hahahah..ok lets see one?? you have more assumptions that never existed!!!!..oh wait the conditions will never be right..protocells are ridiculous assumptions by atheist scientists.
@srikargottipati Yea. God is nothing an symbolic embodiment of all the stupidity of all loser creationists, who don't take the trouble of understanding the phenomena around us. You guys turn to God, just because you can't understand or comprehend something LOL. God is such creationist bullshit LOL. And the biggest comedy is there are so many of these Gods Jesus, Allah, Krishna etc. So many losers
@srikargottipati Learn Chirality Dummy!!!..abiogenesis never happens ever!!!..so the LAW of Biogenesis is a lie?..lol..thats what we see and observe every day LIFE COMES FROM LIFE!!!..open your EYES !!!!!
@5tonyvvvv I don't have blind faith in abiogenesis. I just appreciate the underlying fact it is trying to state, that in principle it is possible to create self replicating simple structures from chemicals.
@5tonyvvvv So criminal morons ur creationists are. The more genocide, rape and infanticide you people do under the delusion of God, the more happy your God becomes and sends you to heaven and provides you 72 virgins to have sex with, divine prostitution at its best. LOL and you guys speak morality. This is delusion at its best. I'm laughing all the way at your delusion
@srikargottipati Start an atheist world order for perfect atheists because the would would be a perfect society ..and really have no clue what your saying about any religion..LOL..you are so foolish Iam laughing to hard..mixing up Christianity with Islam and murders and suicide bombers..LOL..WACKO..how old are you kid like 15..LOL..poor angry lost atheist. boy .LOL,,stop talking about Islam and Christianity ..You have no CLUE what your talking about.
@5tonyvvvv And also study replication in peptides which are chemicals. Scientists don't make wild assumptions like religious fools make. If there did there wouldn't be such progress in science. Science works, religion doesn't because it makes all junk assumptions saying God did it. Sciencitic assumptions are atleast based on some real observations, not assumptions of making life by blowing air into mud. LOL such stupidity from creationists
@srikargottipati Stop talking like you understand religion it just makes you look even dumber like the ..angry lost empty atheist that you are. ..with no soul and spirit ,,and your positive you will just rot in ground..you have way more faith than you think..scientists are proving really hard that it takes intelligence to borrow and copy information..amino acids never self assemble ever, and protocells never existed..there is no such thing as a simple cell today or in the past.
@5tonyvvvv Yea I guess you should also stop speaking about science and go back to ur stone age morals where u commit infanticide, genocide and rape that the God of ur Bible/Quran says.U creationists are all criminal morons that need to get to thrown into mental hospitals and be given anti-delusion treatments LOL. No modern cells, LOL entire modern medicine is based on it. So, why don't u stop taking medicine when ur diseased and pray to God LOL ? So just shut up and try to become moral LOL
our definition of life is flawed, when you have chaos and feedback you get life, no matter what elements you use, no matter if you even use chemical reactions or something else. I am sure at some point when computers are powerful enough we can create life out of all kinds of arbitrary physics laws.
Chaos and feedback is good enough to create a system, I feel depressed when I think about the limits of our age. We cannot even travel to nearest planet. Damn...
@achzdck "Abio is an invention of you athiests" - Actually no. The concept has been around since ancient Greece. But unlike then we have enough indirect evidence to entertain the notion in an open ongoing scientific equiry. Progress is being made - that although is not to say that there aren't any problems. Life necessarily had to come from non life.
@achzdck There is no "theory" on Abiogenesis yet as the problem has not been solved. We are talking about models and hypotheses. You must be mistaking me for someone else. If you want to continue to not engage me but a figment of your imagination go head. Keep being vague, don't clarifiy what I've asked you to (let me like you GUESS what you believe to be the case) - that would be a real productive exchange don't you think?
@achzdck The designer hypothesis is unfalsifiable - It's scientifically worthless. The only thing about it we can say for certain is that there is no evidence for it and that it offers very poor explanatory power. Evolution excells in both points. Prescisly because we observe the diversity we do (nested hierarchy) we can conclude that all life shares a common ancestor. Early life hypotheses predict Abiogenesis should NOT occur atm. You can't use a prediction made by a hypothesis to criticize it.
@JimmyCarol100 First of all, creationism is not so much faith than denial of basic facts of life, like evolution. As of today, science does not have an answer for how exactly abiogenesis happened. This video is an example of ongoing research into interesting questions. But of course one could just say "God did it". Then you could stop wondering and start praising.
@JimmyCarol100 I personally would find it more interesting if you could point out what exactly requires faith and why. Perhaps that way someone might actually learn something or find different solutions to a problem. It's not embarrassing to be wrong in science. Each time you can falsify a hypothesis that just gets me closer to the truth.
@infinit888 You mean just like scientist that claimed global climate & now its being mocked as globalgate or how in the paper just yesterday one set of scientist from John Hopkins Unver. sayn radiatin body scanners is bad & the govnmt scientist sayn its not bad. Just look at yesterday's headlines. And you want me to trust men who get paid by men who want them to find the answer the way they want to hear . Back when science was just taken off and men truly did it for answer i'd trust'em. Not 2day
@JimmyCarol100 I'm not interested in you oversimplifying science. You've described each one of these cases overly simplistic so it's no wonder you came away with the conclusion you did or the people breaking the story want you to. You say you don't "trust" the scientists but you "trust" the media? That is rather peculiar indeed. I'll just say this - the less you know about a subject the more it seems that you need faith. That however is your problem.
@infinit888 I don't trust the media either, some of the stories have some truth to them. Just like you hear, there's truth in lie's if you learn how to listen ppl will tell on themselves. I don't know you, but the way ur willin to discuss things I trust you b4, govnmt & media. I personally like HAM radio operators best cause their just talkn & the one's I know personally/visit they R just down home folks who truly luv this country. I retire'd a vet(Army DS/DS '91) I'm against violence. Peace 2U
@JimmyCarol100 "I don't trust the media either" - It's good to show a certain skepticism. It allows us to weed out a lot of untruths but you need to know a lot more to compensate. It's hard to follow what scientists are saying without actually looking into their research (and a lot can get distorted by politics) just like I'd have a hard time relating to a real US Army vet like yourself having only been trained by the undoubtedly less professional Swiss army for a short time. Peace
Here's something to think about: even if abiogenesis is laboratory proven, without a doubt, wouldn't it be more proof of biogenesis? After all, the scientists who conducted the experiment were living, weren't they?
Damn right, they have an agenda. They believe life came from non-life, four billion years ago, and, then, have the malicious audacity to deny and mock faith in an asexual reproduction, 2,000 years ago. They don't see any paradox in that. Fools.
"the first cells didn't have any of this machinery around"
more assumption, bare assertion and complete and utter lack of common sense
it is truly amazing to me how an agenda to demonstrate a modern fairlytale for scientists will cause someone to stand in the face of all that we continually observe in current research on the complexity of life
bad assumptions based on worse assumptions based on materialistic/naturalistic assumptions which force someone to the point of being ridiculous
"no one was around to see it" "but somehow in the primordial soup of the early earth simple cell membranes and primative genetic material arose and coalesced into the first cells"
bare assertion and circular reasoning with no falsifiable evidence to support it
this whole video is science fiction based on ridiculous fantasy and WANTING something to be true. this is LIGHTYEARS away from the formation of a eukaryote and anyone who truly understands without an agenda knows it
venter has tried replicating genomes without cell formation.,and its just like Blade runner rats leaving a sinking ship...the genomes die and have no function..the most primitive protein chains require 2,000 functions all in the correct order..and then even to get there u need all left handed amino acids and this is never happening in labs or nature right and left are toxic to life ..GAMEOVER!!!!
they make shit up..if the Darwin process cant work...like early primitive cells do not need molecular machines..and thats bullshit..to even get usable information proteins must be folded just right.also Scientists are still stuck at step one,just like Miller in 1953..in that amino acids come out in nature and in test tubes both right and left handed...and when both are present they are toxic to life..GAMEOVER !!!!
?How can anything begin the process of intelligence without protecting itself from harmless materials? If no help is provided to it, it eventually will die.
@Airlightf I believe you meant to say harmful instead of harmless. I think the better question to ask is, were there chemicals in sufficient quantity which would have been detrimental to the formation of life and if yes if there is some kind of setup which can protect forming life from these harmful cross reactions.
But to see if these chemicals would even be likely to exist under a prebiotic atmosphere I think it's best you could provide an example.
@ nickharvey - A mathematical base for the origin of life?
Sure thousands of potential early earth environments (hydrothermal vents, subterranean fissures and chambers, etc. etc.) X hundreds of thousands of years (proto life seems to have been well established by 4.0 billion years ago) X trillions of chemical events = high probability of self-generating, self-replicating organic chains (protolife).
@ineedfiles The term black hole was not coined by Hawking [it originated as a nickname]--it has long been recognized they are not holes but quantum gravitational singularities---Hawking got his Nobel for providing the mathematical proof for the phenomenon which joined Relativity and Quantum Mechanics--he also proved that the gravitational intensity causes antimatter to shrink black holes~ they finally explode to become Quasars. Study for a change!!
All scientists use the careful term "may", especially if their research is early and no confirmation is found in the literature. Where the fuck do you get off asking for greater confirmation. I don't think you'll be able to think let alone fly "someday"!
"Abiogenesis or, the study/seeking of, the spark of life, is a futile endevour." Oh ye of little faith and cability. Should all scientists drop the endeavor to seek "the spark of life"? In science, all search is important and necessary. The only "wierd form of communication that takes place" is finding coherent thoughts in your bonehead!
@Ramshobraja nope actually religion never frowns yet people who believe in evolution and this as a fact, limit scientist to find answers. Science was formed by Christians if you didn't know to learn more and give more evidence as to why not as to why not god exist. Science=God. evolution= not god and eliminating any research that could prove or disprove ignorantly. This video also doesn't explain how it formed and no one has been able to repeat this. sounds like religion to me ad scientist.
Abiogenesis or, the study/seeking of, the spark of life, is a futile endevour. The LHC and particle physics are trying to solve TToE but, one has to understand that, to solve this anomaly you first have to throw out all concepts of the laws of physics and enter the realms of the 'something from nothing' notion and I don't mean some 'God' factor! From Gareth Lisi to Hawkins or, Einstein to T. Alva Eddison, we need to realize that, there is a wierd form of communication that takes place.
"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
memberHD 3 days ago
Wondering world of fanatics. You have the 'religious' fanatics who think they know everything and just the plain old fanatics who call themselves scientists but are just a different type of fanatic following their belief system and think they know everything and have all the answers. Why can't play just admit they don't know it all?
MrDammit2hell 1 month ago
@MrDammit2hell A somewhat absurd analysis as someone who calls himself a scientist who "knows it all" is like someone calling himself a married bachelor.
infinit888 2 weeks ago 2
I believe God, satan, angels, and demons. the entire story of the Bible completely blows the theory of evolution away. Have you people read the book of revelations? Did you read what heaven actually looks like? isn't it interesting that there is a God and that God loves us all with inifnite love, and wants us to live with him forever. This whole theory of evolution thing is a lie from satan himself. Primordial earth? nobody was there to see it, there's know way to know the earth was like that.
RespectMyHate 1 month ago
@RespectMyHate I don't engage trolls.Get a life.
infinit888 1 month ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
This is better than a Jewish cosmic sky zombie who is his own father that can make you live forever is you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your dead soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a snake to eat a fruit from a magical knowledge tree...... yeah ....makes perfect sense -_-
IvanderHaisley 2 months ago
This video is super stupid. All those people out there that think we came from a big explosion and a bunch of gas are incorrect. If life came from a bunch of chemical reactions, then why cant scientists show us today. O right, they can't. It makes a bunch more sense to say that life came from a creator rather than an explosion.
jski227 2 months ago
@jski227 lol troll...or christian
quidproquo2004 2 months ago
@jski227 two centuries ago scientists didn't even have a good estimate of the antiquity of the earth. now we know it is around 4,7 billion years old. science makes progress; religion will always be static, because it thinks it already found the truth in an old book written by pseudo-intellectual sheepherders who thought the world was only a few thousand years old, who had conversation with burning bushes, thought the earth was flat. no that sounds great!
doyoublush 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389) - Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton
achilles197474 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bacteria should generate continuously more complicated creatures.can scientists see this process?
esraretin 3 months ago
Ah, another video relating facts that has been swarmed by the idol worshipping Creation Cultists in their Ignorance Crusade. Gotta love primitive minded people using technology based on the very science they seek in simple minded futility to denounce.
RevSteLilimborn 3 months ago 2
Let me start of with saying that I believe in a God AND that I believe in abiogenisis and evolution, in form called Theistic Evolutionism. For a while, I have been seeing the creationists vs anti creationists arguments. Creationism argue in ignorance, and I believe they should understand more about the subject before they criticize said subject. However the anti creationists should not argue in anger, and understand that these Creationists are taught nothing but Creationism is true at young.
Wodin987 3 months ago
It takes proteins to make proteins. It takes DNA to make proteins and it takes proteins to make DNA and nothing happens without preexisting orders.
watch?v=qZev7hb40uk
(This video just proved that origins without a Maker fails.)
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon It takes amino acids to make proteins. A 5 min video is NOT going to prove everything.
williambrazzers 4 months ago
This is an exciting area of scientific research, and will yield incredible results.
evzt3 6 months ago
Comment removed
InnerPearl 7 months ago
way more inspiring than a Abraham having conversation with a burning bush, or an old greyish man with a long beard hocuspocusing around "and there was light"...
doyoublush 7 months ago 12
@doyoublush "Abraham having conversation with a burning bush" You know if took your cell phone and traveled back 500 years and demo it. Some would call it a miracle, others might burn you at the stake because you were a witch. There was a time when NO other worlds existed beside this one; with recent mathematical models of "string" theory, we know of 6 extra dimensions. You may say "it's not proven yet"; you are right, but if you talk with CERN scientists TODAY, they are working on it.
yhenry77 2 months ago
@yhenry77 How does colliding Hadrons at the LHC increase the odds of a bush being able to talk?
infinit888 2 months ago
@infinit888 That's the problem with atheists no imagination.
yhenry77 2 months ago
@yhenry77 Sounds like a confession that you just make stuff up.
On a more serious note - I don't believe in a talking bush because I can't imagine one? I can imagine "Lord of the Rings" does that somehow increase the likelihood of middle earth? How about the fact that I can imagine how life first originated. Is that somehow proof that it actually happened how I imagine it?
infinit888 2 months ago
@infinit888 "I can't imagine one?" That old testament story comes from the bible (God's written word). It's either TRUE or NOT; so you have 50/50 chance of being wrong. The reason I brought up "string" theory; the bible and pastors have been talking about other worlds (heaven and hell) for thousands of years. You may think religious people are backwards, but we are the ones with imagination.
A smart man once said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." who was he? Albert Einstein
yhenry77 2 months ago
@yhenry77 "It's either TRUE or NOT; so you have 50/50 chance of being wrong."
Rofl - Water is black. Being a statement of fact that is either true or it isn't. So there is a 50/50 chance of it being wrong. We have a 50% likelihood of water being black.
"the bible and pastors have been talking about other worlds (heaven and hell)" - String theory predicts extra dimensions none of which have the property/possibility of being heaven/hell.
Way to butcher the meaning of Einsteins quote.
infinit888 2 months ago
@infinit888 So what are you saying? The bible is 30% true or 20% true? You do not understand what probability is: Probability is ordinarily used to describe an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain. The proposition is: Are the biblical stories in the old testament TRUE or NOT. Right? Are you saying it is only partially true?
I see imagination as a chalkboard without rules, of which our minds can explore at will. What did you think Einstein was saying?
yhenry77 2 months ago
@yhenry77 "whose truth we are not certain."
You are not certain that bushes don't talk? How many bushes have talked to you? Not only is it false to use a priori probability but in this case it cannot even be obtained by deductive reasoning.
"Are you saying it is only partially true?"
Yes - as a whole it's false however there are statements in the old testament which are true or likely to be true.
That all new knowledge starts with imagination.
infinit888 2 months ago
Comment removed
yhenry77 2 months ago
@yhenry77 "when you say bushes, I assume"
No no - engaging in an audible exchange with a bush and the communicator being Yahweh. You know the thing Moses presumably did.
"Deductive reasoning goes out the window when your dealing with God" - So we can't establish his existence empirically or deductively. Looks like you've shot yourself in the epistemological foot.
"Christian friend told be..." - How could it follow that god does anything without logic? It's just a feeling you have.
infinit888 2 months ago
@infinit888 "So we can't establish his existence empirically or deductively." Yes the bible calls it faith.
"And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him." Hebrews 11:6
yhenry77 2 months ago
@yhenry77 "Yes the bible calls it faith." - I appreciate your honesty because it seems always fewer Christians are willing to admit that.
Alas this is where our conversation ends. If faith is your epistemology you have nothing to offer me and I have nothing to offer you. I hope however you understand why we can't take the claims in the bible on face value. We are bound by a higher standard - not what we hope to be true but what we can show to be true.
infinit888 2 months ago
@infinit888 "all new knowledge starts with imagination." I like that definition; when you say bushes I assume you're saying "has God talked to me". Yes, everyday with the bible; keep in mind Moses did not have the bible (why not a burning bush). Deductive reasoning goes out the window when your dealing with God. Example: A Christian friend told me about meeting an angel on top the roof of his house one late night; Why? The angel had tied up 2 robbers in backyard while his sister was home alone.
yhenry77 2 months ago
@yhenry77 I'm sorry, but I haven't got any idea what you try to say, please explain...
doyoublush 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
im an atheist but I have a question for any one who can answer it with a rational responser. Since abiogenesis has happened b4 and as a result we share DNA with all living animals. why hasn't abiogenesis happened more than once and spawned totally diffident DNA then the rest of us. producing a species that we are not at all related to. i have a theory or 2 but looking if any one really knows, thanks.
Legaltimes 10 months ago
im an atheist but I have a question for any one who can answer it with a rational responser. Since abiogenesis has happened b4 and as a result we share DNA with all living animals. why hasn't abiogenesis happened more than once and spawned totally diffident DNA then the rest of us. producing a species that we are not at all related to. i have a theory but looking if any one really knows
Legaltimes 10 months ago
@Legaltimes There are many answers to this question. However I will endeavour to point out that, before life, the primordial soup was, by definition, sterile. The first primordial cells would have been heterotrophs, and would have happily gobbled up the primordial nutrients that would have been the precursors of any other forms of life. This would have severe consequences on the spawning of other life forms, as the primordial soup would no longer be sterile. Later ones had no fighting chance.
eosimias1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eosimias1 Although there are still scientific debates about what actually happened on the early Earth, Abiogenesis, as defined as life coming from non-life, has been achieved. I quote Eckard Wimmer's group who synththesyzed an RNA virus, the recent work of Craig Ventor who created Mycoplasma laboratorium from non-living components, and , of course, the wonderful pioneering work of Dr. Frankinstein.
gamesbok 7 months ago
@Legaltimes Your question is a good one. Why do we see such amazing design and order in our world? Why aren't some humans equipped with poison stingers and some mammals with venomous fangs? Why haven't some bacteria evolved to consume the entire biosphere? Or some plant evolved to overtake all other plants?Why don't the solar winds occasionally destroy all life? And please don't say that we are just a lucky planet.
civilization57 9 months ago
@civilization57 wow that is an overwhelmingly ignorant question you just placed. wow just wow.... If you are serious in wanting a response msg me back but I don't look forward to explaining it to you.
Legaltimes 9 months ago
@Legaltimes This is conjecture, but I don't think it contradicts evidence or logic. The first replicating organisms would have had an overwhelming advantage in a world without competition. Their domination may have been sufficient to exclude other systems. This would also answer chirality. They did, however, create opportunity for other systems, like virus.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@Legaltimes I know that many will disagree but its called "the law of biogenesis"
If your open to all arguments then you should hear Charles Thaxtons interview in full. He adresses some of the problems. In fact if you listen to the actual lectures by Szostac himself, he gets into even more details, e.g. the Lasker Lectures 2010. And if you dont understand it completely, dont feel bad, no one does, including the guys giving the lectures. The more we learn the more the challenges.
benthemiester 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NUTCASE71733 I believe the Bible wholeheartedly, however, for unbelievers like yourself, I don't mind using science to prove you're wrong. Science and the Bible are not the same. The Bible is an account of history and code of conduct, while science is God's laws that man study and discover.
Radioactive decay is not reliable bc we can’t measure the concentrations of isotopes in the past. So, the date you have is what you aimed at when you started. ie It is fixed.
compgrad1 10 months ago
Hey, I saw this on Fantasia! Let's keep cartoons off science please. There's absolutelly 0 chance of abiogenesis or even spontaneous generation. It may work theoretically because there's intelligence being applied here. But in reality, where we live, there's no chance.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1
There's no evidence for inteliligent design. Keep religion out of science.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 I'm a Young Earth Creationist, not ID'er. Takes more faith to believe we came out of millions of years of rain on the rock and "poof"! the first organism comes up. What about it's first meal? It's reproduction?
Cellular theory of life says cells come from other cells. So there's some kind of spontaneous generation after all, right?
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1
ID is the same as creationism. Also it is not faith since they show a working model of what possibly happened. Hardly faith. Creationism has no facts, give it up.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 ID advocate Intelligent Designer whereas Creation Science we tell you flat out that God Is Creator. Big difference. What proof do you have for the abiogenesis which is in essence a form of spontaneous generation?
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1
WRONG. Intelligent design was just a re-wording of creationism. Look up Dover VS. Kitzmiller.
Abiogenesis wasn't spontaneous generation but rather organic elemens fusing ogether to form the first cells.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 No thanks; I don't think we had a fair trial. Where was Stephen Meyers and Kent Hovind? What about Dr. Jerry Bergman? That would have made a great trial.
ID'ers don't bring up God, I'm Creationist, I bring up God all the time. But anyways...
So you do believe in life from non-life, right? Isn't that more unbelievable? Believe you me?
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1 Creationists brought the dover trial on themselves for their dihonesty, get over it. Kent Hovind was convicted of fraud, that's why he wasn't there, and besides that he'd ahve been laughed out of the courtroom if he was. Many creationists don't even agree with his views, so hovind would have been a bad representation. Now on the issue of non-life to life, how can you justify god making man from dirt? That's the same thing you're talking about, so science wins.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 True, Dr.Hovind broke the law, but not in evolution. That's a great question. Well, all the chemicals found in man are found in dirt, that's one. Another is the fact that we all turn to dust after we're dead. How God did it, I have no clue.
I think Hovind is right most times about his Creation arguments. (I've been to his seminar : )
God Is Intelligent, and while I believe in scientific laws, I don't believe they just happened to come to existence w/out a cause.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1
The reason the chemicals in dirt are also in man is because all life forms are made of many of the same elements shown in chemestry studies. We are carbon-based life forms, which is why we have coal, oil, and diamonds. they're biodegraded animal and plant matter crushed under immense pressure for millions of years. Hovind's theories are easily debunked, so any argument you bring from that fraud can be dismissed by even a third grader with a basic understanding of science.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 I think you just repeated my argument. We have coal, oil and diamonds in our bodies?????? So are you saying that it's impossible to find c14 in diamonds. You know they found c14 in diamonds.
A third grader huh?
We don't have millions of years... This world does not have the ability to survive millions of years.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1
CARBON I said, CARBON. Not diamonds. Diamonds, coal, and oil are made from carbon as well. Fossils are often found in coal fields, showing fossils become coal. Oil is often found in places where a great deal of life once existed millions of years before showing that they bcome liquified as well. Diamonds are occasionally found amongst coal proving that animal/plant remains become diamonds under the right conditions. Also, your statement regarding the age of the earth is flawed.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Radiometric decay is flawed, 'cause you don't know how the concetration of the isotopes the specimen had started with.
I personally believe oil is a derivative of natural gas under pressure, not dinosaurs or any other organism.
Another view I hold personally is the erosion rate of the Earth is too much to last those "billions of years" you're talking about.
Diamonds are a problem as well because they contain some c-14, and we know diamonds aren't able to be contaminated.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1
Radioactive decay proves the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the fossil record goes back at least a billion years, and nothing your precious bible can say will change that.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Neveerr! Jk! Give up for what, evolution? Evolution is crumbling theory, whose proponents keep having to change definitions and parameters. Creation Science has facts, it's called observable science. Except that whereas you guys claim absurdity on our behalf, we in turn spend time studying God's creation with amazement. You on the other hand, think that got it squared away with your abiogenesis theory.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1
Creationism has observable evidence? Show everyone here a peer-reviewed journal. You wont because creationists instead go to appeal to corrupt politicians to instate their works in public schools. Also your statement regarding ossil fuels? Totally moronic. You said and I quote "I BELEIVE oil and coal aren't made of dino bones, ect". That's exactly what creationism is; beleif. Besides why do you think they call oil and coal "FOSSIL FULES"?
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Yes! We look at any organism, and it looks, seems and is logical to think of it as designed. We live in a world of cause and effect as well. Want peer reviews, go to icr, answers in genesis. No, we appeal to logic, not politicians, although some support our views. What's ossil fuels? Fossil fules? What's that? Now, you seem moronic. So far you haven't produced proof dinosaurs or organisms is in my fuel tank, so guess what... it's your belief too.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1
I've been to Answers in Genisis for a laugh and I got what I expected. It's nothing but an insult to the scientific method and all the great minds since Galileo. The site even blatantly says "Never surrender even when presented with evidence that contradicts your faith". That basically shows how big a sham creationism is. It's not testable, therefore it can't be proven or disproven. Science is ment to be falsified, that's why we got where we are today. Creationism is flawed.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 'course you do. Yeah, everything that challenges evolution is an insult to you guys. And then you tell us, "oh you have to have an open mind". But guess who the close minded are... the evolutionists. Want to talk about sham: The Nebraska man, The pitdown man, java man, archaeopteryx, abiogenesis. <<<< test these guys out and then come back and say that we're flawed.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1
No one accepted nebraska man, it was put into the newspapers instead of peer-reviewed and as such the scientists refused to acknowledge it. Do your research. Archeopterix has been declared a fraud when first discovered but the dissent ceased when tests proved it's authenticy. Piltdown man was disproved by scientists in much the same fashoon as Nebraska Man, but since science wasn't as good as it is today it took years before it was disproven. Even then scientists were skeptical.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago 2
@compgrad1
Java man is authentic, the reasons being the same as Archeopterix. And Abiogenesis has more evidence for it than the story of Adam and Eve will ever have.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago 2
@NUTCASE71733 Abiogenesis evidence, you mean as in Fantasia? That's not evidence.
Archaeopteryx is flawed in many ways. It contains unknown materials and a dinosaur head. It was also only found in one are of the world, hmmm.
Java man is not authentic, it's compiled by different bones found in different places.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1
Wrong. At least seven Archeopterix have been found. Dinosaurs had feathers too, proving there was an evolutionary link. Velociraptor and it's relatives have all been found with feathers. Furthermore the only dinosaurs that had feathers were therepods. Modern bird share a great deal many of the same traits; most have three toes like a predetory dinosaur, feathers, their posture, and skeletal structure. Some birds have even been found with teeth in the fossil record.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago 2
@compgrad1
As for Java man, the several bones you mentioned were of different examples of Java man. Since then more Java Men were found. At least eight are known.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@compgrad1
And finally, your basis in creationism is more like fantasia than you beleive abiogenesis or evolution to be. Creationism implies God made everything in an instant by magic. Science cannot measure the supernatural, that's why we know Earth is not the center of the universe, that's why we know earth isn't flat and sits on four pillars and covered by a dome with christmas tree lights for stars, and it's why we know that deseise is not caused by demons or the wrath of god.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago 6
@NUTCASE71733
Fantasia? Again, the details that the man in the video is discussing are based on assertions of early earth.
They are statements that are made but are far from correct.
Again, Fantasia.... This is all based on ASSERTIONS. Early life is like this, was like that, it couldnt have oxygen, or this, and had to have had that for this to work....and so on.
Both sides have no idea how abiogenesis happened.
And for the faith bound person it is known as FAITH for a reason. DUH!
OffTheGlass87 2 months ago
@compgrad1 O man finally we got a real Biologist and chemist to clarify this for us. where did you go to school and lead the field with your research? You fucking moron, just because YOU don't understand something, dose not mean every other person doesn't ether and there for "GOD DID IT"
Legaltimes 6 months ago
I don’t have the answer but I do know that nature does not make life forms from chemicals and complex amino acid chains that must be in a precise order. Let me know when you make life from your test.
1984tenpoundhole 11 months ago
Replication requires information. Are you saying that in nature information can occur? There is nothing in nature that makes complex living structures of design.
1984tenpoundhole 11 months ago
@1984tenpoundhole We deem it information because we have to label it somehow. Language is a product in our references. OF of our brains. Information is a perception and nothing more than that
splicedenergy 11 months ago
"Amino acids, lipids, phospholipids, lipid esters, amphipathic lipids, ribose, xylulose, nucleosides and even nucleotides have been produced under prebiotic conditions."
By manipulation in an unrealistic environment. Now one has found a way to explain how the simplest form of the building blocks of life were ordered into a living life forum of any kind…
1984tenpoundhole 11 months ago
Even just one amino acid is so complicated that it in itself is hard to understand it’s origin…
1984tenpoundhole 11 months ago
No one has ever shown how life began or how to reproduce this process, NO ONE. No Scientist has even come close. You made a pleasant video, I like…
1984tenpoundhole 11 months ago
Why would chemicals on earth have a need or direction to form any kind of life which would be a new dimension for that world? What would be the driving force for nature to start life? Why would chemicals find a need for survival? And why would we not see this process happening over and over again? Are you trying to tell me that something as complicated as a cell wall was created by random chance?
1984tenpoundhole 11 months ago
I happen to know that the spiritual is real as anyone can from realizing that pain is impossible in a physical system so abiogenesis and evolution is quite void but I find it interesting anyway.
in this particular investigative path, has Szostak given thought to how likely the various explored required conditions are in earth environment? for instance is there a natural non biological production of fatty acids anywhere and in needed concentration? does this occur?
DanFrederiksen 11 months ago
This video is a bit misleading because the scientist doesn't explain how the genetic material is programmed to know what the cell needs to survive. Making the assumption that there just had to be a way for these things to occur is a statement of FAITH in evolution. Scientists have been trying for many years to recreate cells with basic components. If or when they succeed, all they will end up proving is that life can be created by design, not that it just somehow happened.
perfectfailure23 11 months ago
@perfectfailure23 Knowing what the cell needs isn't how evolution works. You have to remember evolution is random genetic mutations over time that allow something to adapt to its environment. This occurs because of natural selection, where the cells which mutate in a manner that allows them to get the nutrients they need will survive, while those that don't will die out, setting up the sitations necessary for this to occur. This isn't faith. This is testable science.
tiscooler 11 months ago
@perfectfailure23 Also, it does show that it could have "just somehow happened." They are showing that life could have spontaneously come from nothing without a designer.
tiscooler 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DuNyceBeats "Because I can't prove that it's real."
That's all I'm trying to say, KoolAid Man.
Thank You for admitting that.
Goodbye.
odinata 11 months ago
@DuNyceBeats
What you have is an opinion.
That's fine.
But don't try to pawn it off as factual, because that simply isn't true.
You can "choose" to call it whatever you like.
Its still an "opinion", and nothing more.
No matter what you call it.
odinata 11 months ago
@DuNyceBeats
Drink the KoolAde, man. And don't forget to give the guy in the suit at the front of the room 10% of your paycheck.
Sucker.
odinata 11 months ago
@DuNyceBeats
So you have to join your cult to believe your opinions?
odinata 1 year ago
@DuNyceBeats We do not have to unravel the truth as it permeates through all things that stand. We are all expression of its fundamental veracity. We do not have to accept or acknowledge the preposition of truth. Thinking that the truth is shrouded in an obscure and distant past is absurd and delusional.
There is nothing but your own self in your head,
Nothing and nobody except big brother is watching your every move,
Your conscience will not live on after you are dead... Because mind is matter
Zarenthar 1 year ago
@DuNyceBeats Even if we understand the very root of our origin it will NEVER improve human condition and polish social structures. I didn't say it wasn't worth knowing, I said that the need to understand the cosmological issue and the nature of life is void of any value for now as long as the hungry keeps dying and greed and ignorance is running rampant. Even acknowledging the existence of a god would be utterly pointless as we'd still be subject to a terribly deficient social cohesion.
Zarenthar 1 year ago
"It's a faith and a feeling ..."
Exactly. Look those up in a dictionary if you are getting them confused with FACTS
Don't tell me what I have attained you ignorant POS, because you have no idea.
odinata 1 year ago
@DuNyceBeats
Who cares if I'm a minority. Truth isn't something you can vote on. A fact is a fact, no matter how many people believe it.
God is an opinion. OPtherwise, everyone you would have proven the "one true religion" by now.
You haven't.
All you've done is express you OPINION.
odinata 1 year ago
@DuNyceBeats
U can't put your money where your mouth is, and you can give ONE SINGLE EVIDENCE that proves your personal god feelings.
Its an opinion.
odinata 1 year ago
Any entity that becomes aware of being conscious via dextrous manipulation and language has to exist somewhere for it to acknowledge its own existence so it can ask that very question... That somewhere simply happens to be here, in the vacuum of space. It requires no justification, no godly intervention and it certainly isn't even worth understanding.
Zarenthar 1 year ago
Pastuer NEVER showed anything about self-reproducing molecules being forbidden by any laws.
Miller showed that the constituents of ONE type of such molecule could readily be produced by natural processes.
Sorry if this goes against your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
Its just science. Don't take it so personally.
odinata 1 year ago
Natural processes can produces excesses of the right monomers, and natural processes can initiate self-reproducing molecules.
Why all the outrage?
odinata 1 year ago
@odinata You do not know biochemical chemistry,nor, are you a student in this field ..stop assuming the information will get there through some natural process..Test after test shows it does not work..I have seen results personally..You are suggesting proteins,and digital code will self assemble..LOL. genes show nothing. LOL...I am clearly done here
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
"LOL" away, tony. You are done here. None of your spooky assertions have panned out.
Maybe do a little more study of "self-organization" before you go attributing phenomenon you can't grasp to bigfoot, baby Jeebus, or whatever other nonsense you want so desperately to be real.
odinata 1 year ago
@odinata stubbornly,morons like you choose believe abiogenesis, which is impossible..good luck with that..from pasteur, to miller..it never works..all we are doing now is copying information like what venter did..using templates and bases taken from living sources..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
Stubbornly, morons like you try to prove that your personal "god" is the only answer to phenomenon you can't explain, and science you can't understand.
odinata 1 year ago
infiniti 88, it's 'atheists', and 'flies'...your alarming syntactical lapses betray you.
purbrookian 1 year ago
@purbrookian What's the purpose of your comment? It's vague, uninformative, confusing and from what I can tell ultimately irrelevant.
Firstly, I was unable to find these supposed errors you allude to (I did find 'athiests' but then I was directly quoting someone "Abio is an invention of you athiests[sic]" so why you would bring that up in the first place is beyond me) and secondly I don't quite believe they, if existent, have the consequences you imply.
infinit888 1 year ago
BULLSHIT ASSUMPTIONS..there is ZERO testable chemistry to support some "primitive cell"
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv "BULLSHIT ASSUMPTIONS..there is ZERO testable chemistry to support some "primitive cell""
You know that this is untrue but due to the visceral reaction you've displayed here when confronted with an ongoing scientific investigation I highly doubt you are even open enough to even discuss the proposition objectively.
Amino acids, lipids, phospholipids, lipid esters, amphipathic lipids, ribose, xylulose, nucleosides and even nucleotides have been produced under prebiotic conditions.
infinit888 1 year ago 5
@5tonyvvvv
Five bucks says you've never seen the inside of a chemistry textbook.
odinata 1 year ago
@odinata These tests have been tried for 60 years,this simple process of life emerging from a chemical broth..no matter of time and chance even under amazing conditions in labs is impossible..It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.or in a test tube, its highly unlikely.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@odinata The instability of cytosine and ribose seriously cripples the RNA first proposal. What kills it is that getting the code sequence is impossible..digital code must be perfect in order to have a usable self replicating cycle...I dont know your chemistry background..but I am not sure if you know magnitude of this problem.
..like Fred Hoyle says I feel like some one has monkeyed with physics and chemistry..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@odinata Sir,you are going against well established laws..louis pasteur..proved it wrong in the time of Darwin..stanley miller proved it impossible because of Homochirality.and with Toxic tar and unusable amino acids .and all we are doing today is copying information like what Venter did..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv "Sir,you are going against well established laws"
That's like saying because Icarus could not fly to the moon we couldn't possibly do it. Both experiments you present don't have the scope to even prove abiogenesis impossible.
This is an error which could only be made by somebody not knowledgeable with the science discussed.
infinit888 1 year ago
@infinit888 I have always challenged evolutionists that if they had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, and they still would have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
Problem is, heritable traits are still passed on via DNA, and genotypes are dynamic from generation to generation.
Evolution happens.
odinata 1 year ago
@odinata WRONG..you have jumped to genes now..You never answered anything else I stated.like Homochirality that must be solved first..you cant jump to genes.,and the energy information problem..you have no clue what your arguing...
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
Wrong.
You have claimed that Evolution requires a source of self-reproducing molecules to be named.
This is not correct.
Evolution happens REGARDLESS of the source of the original cell.
odinata 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
You have no clue what you are arguing against.
You have sarted out with the assumption that your PERSONAL religious opinions are the only ones that matter, and then have set about to dig up ideas that might support your religious assumptions.
Problem is, nothing in science verifies your personal religious opinion that God is the only answer.
odinata 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv "In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell."
Activating molecules with good leaving groups enabling polymerization makes them disintegrate? So you are telling me that using thiolesters, phosphate and phosphite esters, anhydrides, halogen esters etc. "destroys" DNA, RNA and amino acids? That's just wrong tony.
infinit888 1 year ago
@infinit888 You have a energy information problem..lets say you have all necessary proteins DNA RNA.enzymes..the paradox is..In order for digital code to be precise,and information to be processed correctly..you need the molecular machines,the factories inside the cell.assembling information..these systems are the very things..that live inside the cell.they harness the energy..its an uphill? struggle.I dont think you understand..no natural process can achieve this.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@odinata I say Give you all the Proteins and DNA and RNA you want....What would you do with it???????..from there you have ZERO molecular machines, ZERO assembly instructions!!!...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
Pastuers work had nothing to do with self-organization in Chemistry.
Am I correct that you have never actually taken a Chemistry course?
odinata 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Same with God
srikargottipati 10 months ago
@srikargottipati "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction. Intelligence created life not time and chance
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@srikargottipati If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, they would still have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell. to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Again you need not have define early life, as something similar to modern cell. Anything that can grow and replicate itself chemically can be considered as initial life. Cells would have surely occurred a lot later. Again science doesn't claim to give unfalsifiable, eternal truth like all junk religions do like God did it and we are here. It only looks at possibilities of how we can create self-replicating simple structures from simple chemical process. Bull shit religious assumptions
srikargottipati 10 months ago
@srikargottipati Even with all the Proteins and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube.
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@srikargottipati
Stubborn arrogance ..what do we see in nature ..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life? ever!!..francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically impossible but still stubbornly were atheist ..you also have ZERO Testable repeatable chemistry to back up abiogenesis..no one has ever been able to assemble amino acids into anything.which should be simple..primitive cells never existed
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Fred Hoyle's probabily calculations and foolish creationists arguments have been proved to be absurd and wrong LOL. Study more at talkoriginsdotorg
srikargottipati 10 months ago
@srikargottipati Do you know how unstable proteins and RNA are??..they break down under amazing conditions in the perfect solutions under the supervision of scientists protecting it,at just the right temperatures....so you really think a protein could survive on a poisonous toxic primordial earth.LOL..if darwin could only see DNA and molecular machines..he would be laughing at his own theory..he thought a cell could form in a warm mud puddle,,LOL..hahaha..what bullshit
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv What is needed here is a self replicating molecule enclosed in a membrane. Your making a preposterous assumption that first life needs to have proteins LOL. Darwin's was damn right on how complex life evolved from simple forms. He hypothesised how a cell might form in a warm puddle, but no one assumes that to be the fact. But, its lot better than believing in some rubbish GOD creating man from mud LOL. So stupid are creationists
srikargottipati 10 months ago
@srikargottipati All that is needed is a self replicating molecule ..hahahah..ok lets see one?? you have more assumptions that never existed!!!!..oh wait the conditions will never be right..protocells are ridiculous assumptions by atheist scientists.
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv So is God bull shit assumptions of creationists LOL
srikargottipati 10 months ago
@srikargottipati Yea. God is nothing an symbolic embodiment of all the stupidity of all loser creationists, who don't take the trouble of understanding the phenomena around us. You guys turn to God, just because you can't understand or comprehend something LOL. God is such creationist bullshit LOL. And the biggest comedy is there are so many of these Gods Jesus, Allah, Krishna etc. So many losers
srikargottipati 10 months ago
@srikargottipati Learn Chirality Dummy!!!..abiogenesis never happens ever!!!..so the LAW of Biogenesis is a lie?..lol..thats what we see and observe every day LIFE COMES FROM LIFE!!!..open your EYES !!!!!
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Yea I don't want to open my eyes to that Genesis bullshit. I would rather believe in abiogenesis LOL
srikargottipati 10 months ago
@srikargottipati Like I said stubborn arrogance..you have some faith in abiogenesis.
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv I don't have blind faith in abiogenesis. I just appreciate the underlying fact it is trying to state, that in principle it is possible to create self replicating simple structures from chemicals.
srikargottipati 10 months ago
@srikargottipati yeah send your own garbage to your self dummy
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv So criminal morons ur creationists are. The more genocide, rape and infanticide you people do under the delusion of God, the more happy your God becomes and sends you to heaven and provides you 72 virgins to have sex with, divine prostitution at its best. LOL and you guys speak morality. This is delusion at its best. I'm laughing all the way at your delusion
srikargottipati 10 months ago
@srikargottipati Start an atheist world order for perfect atheists because the would would be a perfect society ..and really have no clue what your saying about any religion..LOL..you are so foolish Iam laughing to hard..mixing up Christianity with Islam and murders and suicide bombers..LOL..WACKO..how old are you kid like 15..LOL..poor angry lost atheist. boy .LOL,,stop talking about Islam and Christianity ..You have no CLUE what your talking about.
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv And also study replication in peptides which are chemicals. Scientists don't make wild assumptions like religious fools make. If there did there wouldn't be such progress in science. Science works, religion doesn't because it makes all junk assumptions saying God did it. Sciencitic assumptions are atleast based on some real observations, not assumptions of making life by blowing air into mud. LOL such stupidity from creationists
srikargottipati 10 months ago
@srikargottipati Stop talking like you understand religion it just makes you look even dumber like the ..angry lost empty atheist that you are. ..with no soul and spirit ,,and your positive you will just rot in ground..you have way more faith than you think..scientists are proving really hard that it takes intelligence to borrow and copy information..amino acids never self assemble ever, and protocells never existed..there is no such thing as a simple cell today or in the past.
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Yea I guess you should also stop speaking about science and go back to ur stone age morals where u commit infanticide, genocide and rape that the God of ur Bible/Quran says.U creationists are all criminal morons that need to get to thrown into mental hospitals and be given anti-delusion treatments LOL. No modern cells, LOL entire modern medicine is based on it. So, why don't u stop taking medicine when ur diseased and pray to God LOL ? So just shut up and try to become moral LOL
srikargottipati 10 months ago
our definition of life is flawed, when you have chaos and feedback you get life, no matter what elements you use, no matter if you even use chemical reactions or something else. I am sure at some point when computers are powerful enough we can create life out of all kinds of arbitrary physics laws.
Chaos and feedback is good enough to create a system, I feel depressed when I think about the limits of our age. We cannot even travel to nearest planet. Damn...
utkua 1 year ago
@achzdck "Abio is an invention of you athiests" - Actually no. The concept has been around since ancient Greece. But unlike then we have enough indirect evidence to entertain the notion in an open ongoing scientific equiry. Progress is being made - that although is not to say that there aren't any problems. Life necessarily had to come from non life.
infinit888 1 year ago
@achzdck There is no "theory" on Abiogenesis yet as the problem has not been solved. We are talking about models and hypotheses. You must be mistaking me for someone else. If you want to continue to not engage me but a figment of your imagination go head. Keep being vague, don't clarifiy what I've asked you to (let me like you GUESS what you believe to be the case) - that would be a real productive exchange don't you think?
infinit888 1 year ago
@achzdck The designer hypothesis is unfalsifiable - It's scientifically worthless. The only thing about it we can say for certain is that there is no evidence for it and that it offers very poor explanatory power. Evolution excells in both points. Prescisly because we observe the diversity we do (nested hierarchy) we can conclude that all life shares a common ancestor. Early life hypotheses predict Abiogenesis should NOT occur atm. You can't use a prediction made by a hypothesis to criticize it.
infinit888 1 year ago
People that believe this have more faith than creationist.
JimmyCarol100 1 year ago
@JimmyCarol100 First of all, creationism is not so much faith than denial of basic facts of life, like evolution. As of today, science does not have an answer for how exactly abiogenesis happened. This video is an example of ongoing research into interesting questions. But of course one could just say "God did it". Then you could stop wondering and start praising.
udoloh 1 year ago
@JimmyCarol100 I personally would find it more interesting if you could point out what exactly requires faith and why. Perhaps that way someone might actually learn something or find different solutions to a problem. It's not embarrassing to be wrong in science. Each time you can falsify a hypothesis that just gets me closer to the truth.
infinit888 1 year ago
@infinit888 You mean just like scientist that claimed global climate & now its being mocked as globalgate or how in the paper just yesterday one set of scientist from John Hopkins Unver. sayn radiatin body scanners is bad & the govnmt scientist sayn its not bad. Just look at yesterday's headlines. And you want me to trust men who get paid by men who want them to find the answer the way they want to hear . Back when science was just taken off and men truly did it for answer i'd trust'em. Not 2day
JimmyCarol100 1 year ago
@JimmyCarol100 I'm not interested in you oversimplifying science. You've described each one of these cases overly simplistic so it's no wonder you came away with the conclusion you did or the people breaking the story want you to. You say you don't "trust" the scientists but you "trust" the media? That is rather peculiar indeed. I'll just say this - the less you know about a subject the more it seems that you need faith. That however is your problem.
infinit888 1 year ago
@infinit888 I don't trust the media either, some of the stories have some truth to them. Just like you hear, there's truth in lie's if you learn how to listen ppl will tell on themselves. I don't know you, but the way ur willin to discuss things I trust you b4, govnmt & media. I personally like HAM radio operators best cause their just talkn & the one's I know personally/visit they R just down home folks who truly luv this country. I retire'd a vet(Army DS/DS '91) I'm against violence. Peace 2U
JimmyCarol100 1 year ago
@JimmyCarol100 "I don't trust the media either" - It's good to show a certain skepticism. It allows us to weed out a lot of untruths but you need to know a lot more to compensate. It's hard to follow what scientists are saying without actually looking into their research (and a lot can get distorted by politics) just like I'd have a hard time relating to a real US Army vet like yourself having only been trained by the undoubtedly less professional Swiss army for a short time. Peace
infinit888 1 year ago
"you guys haven;t *yet* figured out how to "create" that original strand of DNA and you also don't have a model for the entire replication process."
understatement of the year....
Breckmin 1 year ago
@Breckmin Ha! I like your style.
Here's something to think about: even if abiogenesis is laboratory proven, without a doubt, wouldn't it be more proof of biogenesis? After all, the scientists who conducted the experiment were living, weren't they?
Damn right, they have an agenda. They believe life came from non-life, four billion years ago, and, then, have the malicious audacity to deny and mock faith in an asexual reproduction, 2,000 years ago. They don't see any paradox in that. Fools.
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
"the first cells didn't have any of this machinery around"
more assumption, bare assertion and complete and utter lack of common sense
it is truly amazing to me how an agenda to demonstrate a modern fairlytale for scientists will cause someone to stand in the face of all that we continually observe in current research on the complexity of life
bad assumptions based on worse assumptions based on materialistic/naturalistic assumptions which force someone to the point of being ridiculous
Breckmin 1 year ago
"no one was around to see it" "but somehow in the primordial soup of the early earth simple cell membranes and primative genetic material arose and coalesced into the first cells"
bare assertion and circular reasoning with no falsifiable evidence to support it
this whole video is science fiction based on ridiculous fantasy and WANTING something to be true. this is LIGHTYEARS away from the formation of a eukaryote and anyone who truly understands without an agenda knows it
Breckmin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
venter has tried replicating genomes without cell formation.,and its just like Blade runner rats leaving a sinking ship...the genomes die and have no function..the most primitive protein chains require 2,000 functions all in the correct order..and then even to get there u need all left handed amino acids and this is never happening in labs or nature right and left are toxic to life ..GAMEOVER!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
they make shit up..if the Darwin process cant work...like early primitive cells do not need molecular machines..and thats bullshit..to even get usable information proteins must be folded just right.also Scientists are still stuck at step one,just like Miller in 1953..in that amino acids come out in nature and in test tubes both right and left handed...and when both are present they are toxic to life..GAMEOVER !!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
?How can anything begin the process of intelligence without protecting itself from harmless materials? If no help is provided to it, it eventually will die.
Airlightf 1 year ago
@Airlightf I believe you meant to say harmful instead of harmless. I think the better question to ask is, were there chemicals in sufficient quantity which would have been detrimental to the formation of life and if yes if there is some kind of setup which can protect forming life from these harmful cross reactions.
But to see if these chemicals would even be likely to exist under a prebiotic atmosphere I think it's best you could provide an example.
infinit888 1 year ago
Intheresting video! Do you think there could have be a mathematical base for the evolution of early life?
nickharvey7 1 year ago
@ nickharvey - A mathematical base for the origin of life?
Sure thousands of potential early earth environments (hydrothermal vents, subterranean fissures and chambers, etc. etc.) X hundreds of thousands of years (proto life seems to have been well established by 4.0 billion years ago) X trillions of chemical events = high probability of self-generating, self-replicating organic chains (protolife).
Nature the odds on favourite!
Noisegator 1 year ago
@ineedfiles The term black hole was not coined by Hawking [it originated as a nickname]--it has long been recognized they are not holes but quantum gravitational singularities---Hawking got his Nobel for providing the mathematical proof for the phenomenon which joined Relativity and Quantum Mechanics--he also proved that the gravitational intensity causes antimatter to shrink black holes~ they finally explode to become Quasars. Study for a change!!
pontecanis 2 years ago
Awesome quality and to the point video, thanks!
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
All scientists use the careful term "may", especially if their research is early and no confirmation is found in the literature. Where the fuck do you get off asking for greater confirmation. I don't think you'll be able to think let alone fly "someday"!
junkyardpolester 2 years ago 2
"Abiogenesis or, the study/seeking of, the spark of life, is a futile endevour." Oh ye of little faith and cability. Should all scientists drop the endeavor to seek "the spark of life"? In science, all search is important and necessary. The only "wierd form of communication that takes place" is finding coherent thoughts in your bonehead!
junkyardpolester 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Scientists get paid, and there paychecks rely on coming up with something...
"Szoktek may have found a piece to the puzzle"
"May" is not convincing...
I may be able to fly someday
fallenangel135 2 years ago
Scientists seek to explore. Religion claims all the answers and adheres to rigid dogma which frowns on exploration.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago 17
@Ramshobraja nope actually religion never frowns yet people who believe in evolution and this as a fact, limit scientist to find answers. Science was formed by Christians if you didn't know to learn more and give more evidence as to why not as to why not god exist. Science=God. evolution= not god and eliminating any research that could prove or disprove ignorantly. This video also doesn't explain how it formed and no one has been able to repeat this. sounds like religion to me ad scientist.
lifecon1 1 year ago
Abiogenesis or, the study/seeking of, the spark of life, is a futile endevour. The LHC and particle physics are trying to solve TToE but, one has to understand that, to solve this anomaly you first have to throw out all concepts of the laws of physics and enter the realms of the 'something from nothing' notion and I don't mean some 'God' factor! From Gareth Lisi to Hawkins or, Einstein to T. Alva Eddison, we need to realize that, there is a wierd form of communication that takes place.
Topdoginuk 2 years ago
Stick to music topdog~you know fuck-all about science! The only people who claim that 'something comes from nothing' are creationists.
pontecanis 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Scientists have a arrogant reputation or assuming everything they think is right.
I didn't even mention a 'Creationist', you did. Creationist are obviously a threat to your fundamentalist opinions.
Scientist