So, uhh I guess you could call this self-congratulation, but I win. As a result you win something even more valuable, the truth. Now, if only we non-creationists didn't have to write four novels 8 times over with exclamation marks before you creationists figure the reality of the argument you've been having with an invisible non-existant invalid area of science which you have given the same name as a real valid fact of science and reality which you seem to know nothing about.
You haven't explained what naturalistic processes produced ATP synthase simultaneously with the 1st moment of physical life's existence, while at the same time being coded for on the DNA and being required for the transcription of DNA.
Nor explained how coded information arises spontaneously independent of mind. (You don't even seem to understand what coded information is or how it arises despite writing endless comments on these videos.)
@rynso Before I can answer your question I have to ask you a question (to which I know the answer but I need to know if you know what your talking about). What discipline of science covers the study of the origin of life?
@rynso You're one to talk about "Broad definitions". What is God? ...An...Infinite being? Well what do you mean by that? Mathematically infinite? In terms of his age? If he's infinite then why is he just a "He"? If he's infinite how can he be restricted by gender? If he's infinite how can he be restricted by any rules at all? If he's infinite what the hell would he care about us finite human beings? Why is it that an infinite being sits on sidelines while people suffer? Infinitely sadistic?
@rynso Are these questions unfair to ask? Am I commiting some kind of sin by being honest with myself and asking these questions which at least to me seem logical and important? I don't see how it could be sinful to use the ability to think logically which (pending his existence) was given to us by him. Especially when we're using our logical abilities to address one of the most profound questions man has ever had to ask.
@rynso You know what forget it. Good discussion though. Hope you consider what I've had to say. I hope that despite all my rudeness, and overwhelming you with all my condescendening scientific nerdlyness you felt the true passion and purpose in my words. But by any level of certainty this life seems infinitely more mysterious than I think either of us could ever claim to know. So good luck to you Sir, and God bless you.
@Itseasyifyoutry If you had indicated the slightest ability to understand the point of view of someone else, & had not been so utterly certain that the only truth there is are the ideas you hold in your head behind your totally blinkered eyes, & if you had it in you to dispassionately acknowledge powerful arguments when you hear them, then perhaps we could have continued talking. But seeing you have not indicated you possess any of these abilities, there is simply no point talking any more.
@rynso I'll agree with you on that one. I do not have the ability to understand your point of view. I will admit one more thing too, you are correct to say that evolution will never be able to explain how ATP synthase developed. This is because evolution only helps us to theorize how living things might have diversified once the first living things (cells) came into being. The origin of life (cells) is covered by the study of abiogenesis, which is part of molecular chemistry, not biology.
@Itseasyifyoutry Don't think you can evade the problem posed by ATP synthase and the coded information on which life runs, by simply putting a different label on the origin of life - as though there was no continuity between the 'origin of life' and 'life'! You can't.
'Abiogenesis' is just a fancy diversionary name for 'spontaneous generation' which was soundly refuted by brilliant creationist scientist, Louis Pasteur. Life comes from life, and is the product of thought.
@rynso Well you're right to say there is continuity between the origin of life, life, and the diversification of life in the sense of "effect and cause" but the mechanisms that led to the origin of life are very different from those that led to it's diversification thereafter. Eg. Genetic drift is by definition not possible before the standard "gene" developed. Evolution is a fact that helps us understand how life might have diversified thereafter it's appearance. God created or not.
@rynso Now to address your statement: spontaneous generation = abiogenesis. S.G. was a widely believed explanation for the origin of living things, Eg. it was believed that fruit flies instantly materialized out of nothing (new matter appearing instantly). Abiogenesis studies the slow configuration of matter into proteins and organic molecules and helps us understand how living cells might have developed from pre-existing non-living matter. God created or not. Your response to both my comments?
@rynso Thirdly, regarding ATP synthase: The argument is built on the claimed "fact" that the first living cell required ATP synthase, science requires of this claimed "fact" physical proof of the anatomy and components of the first living cell, which we do not have. Further, the argument claims that "All living things require ATP synthase", this is simply not true, ironically (and indeed profoundly) there are many examples of specifically single celled organisms that do not contain ATP synthase.
@Itseasyifyoutry It seems I made a mistake re ATP synthase. Apparently ATP is produced by one of 4 complicated mechanisms, ATP synthase being apparently the main one.
However, this only slightly modifies my argument & does not in anyway reduce its force.
As far as is known, all living things use/are powered by ATP produced in one or more of these 4 ways. Thus both ATP and one or more of these 4 complicated means of production are an essential requirement for life from its 1st moment.
@rynso In a study of structural evolution of the protein kinase–like superfamily. Comparison of structures revealed a “universal core” domain consisting only of regions required for ATP binding and the phosphotransfer reaction. Remarkably, even within the universal core some kinase structures display notable changes, while still retaining essential activity. Hence, the protein kinase–like superfamily has undergone substantial structural and sequence revision over long evolutionary timescales.
@rynso This is very relevant to this discussion because it is physical evidence that modern living cells are likely very different from the first living cells. Therefore we cannot draw scientific conclusions or even theories about the first living cells if we apply to them the exact same anatomy and components as modern observable living cells. Likely ATP synthase; and the various other components of modern cells may not have been original components of the first living cells at all.
@rynso We refer to genetic material as containing "coded information" as we humans are to a certain degree able to determine the genotypes of some organisms by a kind of "translation" of some of the genetic material, it serves the function of giving us some info about the organisms genotype and phenotypes. But the primary and most profound function of genetic material--absent of the need for conscious translation--serves it's function via a natural, involuntary, physical chemical process.
@Itseasyifyoutry The 'coded information' information of genomes is in a genuine code form of the most complicated kind, only recently be 'decoded' in part. Because the code functions in some sort of automatic mode not requiring conscious direct control does not in any way negate the point that both the code & the information carried on it, derive from a mind. Computer programs can run automatically without human oversight once constructed and set running, but are still the product of thought.
@rynso SO 1.ATP synthase is not proven required for the first living cell and certainly not for all life 2. A human known semi-standard relationship between some of the genetic material and genotypes/phenotypes<-(Human knowledge-not-required) is called Genetic Code. Continuity between life's origin and diversification is one of "effect and cause" not of mechanisms. And abiogenesis is based on gradual configuration of pre-existing matter while S.G. is based on new matter formation = Adam and Eve?
1. ATP and a means of its production are required from the first moment of life's existence.
2. The genetic code is genuinely a code which carries genuine 'information' (actually the most complicated known), and thus is the product of mind not matter.
3. Abiogenesis postulates the reconfiguration of preexisting matter through naturalistic means. So does spontaneous generation. The differences are cosmetic/semantic only.
@rynso My point about genetic material is that all matter carries very specific very strict physical laws written in the universal language of mathematics; laws of physics which are undoubtedly more complex than what we call genetic code which we only refer to as such because humans have alphanumerically labelled the various components which sometimes follow rules so we can predict genotypes etc. We can't scientifically argue that the complexity of genetic material is the reason we call it code.
@rynso "No one is saying the reason it is called a code is because of its complexity. It is called a code because it has all the characteristics of a code." - rynso
"The genetic code is genuinely a code which carries genuine 'information' (actually the most complicated known), and thus is the product of mind not matter." - rynso
@rynso However, I was incorrect to say that S.G. involves new-matter generation. Now obsolete, Spontaneous generation refers to both the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents and to the theories which explained the apparent phenomenon. The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter. This should not be confused for the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and diversified.
@Itseasyifyoutry In both abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, life 'emerges' from matter. How many times it emerged is irrelevant. The differences at this fundamental level are semantic only.
Yes abiogenesis is a hypothesis, but one totally unsupported by any evidence, in fact counter to all evidence.
@rynso "Yes abiogenesis is a hypothesis, but one totally unsupported by any evidence, in fact counter to all evidence."
You have not provided any kind of support for this assertion. Did you know there are some people who don't blindly take everything at face value. I know it's scary, they must be crazy!
@rynso The modern scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis is distinctly different from S.G. abiogenesis, the only similarities are cosmetic ( the words have uncanny similarity =D ). Like all of modern scientific study, the hypothesis of abiogenesis could only be formed after the observation of physical evidence. This physical evidence is the observed natural formation of organic molecules and proteins (building blocks of life) from inorganic matter. Besides being EVIL, what's wrong with this study?
@rynso So... This is what I expect you to admit if you can not logically refute my points:
1. We can't make scientific conclusions about the first cells by arbitrarily attributing to them modern cell components and anatomy. (response to ATP stuff)
2. Evolution is a fact.
3. Genetic code<Physics
4. Abiogenesis is a valid scientific hypothesis, based physical evidence.
5. From now on I promise to allow the search for truth to be held above my personal religious laws. Hear Ye!
@rynso Looks like my unbelieveable bigotry and arrogance was marked as spam...Now why would someone be so afraid of easily refutable arguments that they would rather mark them as spam than simply state proposed easily and obviously formulated counter argument? Have you no interest in educating anyone but yourself? have you no cause for spreading the truth beyond yourself?
@Itseasyifyoutry "Yes abiogenesis is a hypothesis, but one totally unsupported by any evidence, in fact counter to all evidence."
You have not provided any kind of support for this assertion. Did you know there are some people who don't blindly take everything at face value. I know it's scary, they must be crazy!
@rynso This is not a fallacy of equivocation: You're saying things contain code IF their physical components (in this case variously configured genetic material) follow certain (semi)predictable processes resulting in (semi)predictable functions and outcomes (in this case genotypes and phenotypes). Then it follows that physical components of matter (fundamental particles) which follow certain predictable processes resulting in predictable functions and outcomes would also be "Coded"
@rynso A fallacy of equivocation would be to say "Coded information in a book is not determined by the paper and ink" implying that simply because two things (genetic material and a written book) both contain translatable information; therefore (despite the fact they are completely different types of "information"--one requiring conscious translation the other exhibiting it's function via natural chemical-physical reaction. ) they must have arose from the same mechanism (thought).
@rynso "No one is saying the reason it is called a code is because of its complexity. It is called a code because it has all the characteristics of a code." - rynso
"The genetic code is genuinely a code which carries genuine 'information' (actually the most complicated known), and thus is the product of mind not matter." - rynso
@rynso We call GM code because it can be translated to predict genotypes with some level of accuracy. However, Genetic material exhibits it's function via natural phys-chem reactions. Likewise, fundamental particles exhibit their function via natural phys-chem reactions on a very predictable level. Words on a page exhibit their function via conscious translation. Likewise, some genetic material can be consciously translated for the function of genotype prediction this is why it's called code.
@rynso It seems that your your marking my last few comments as spam is clear evidence of your incapability to form logical counter arguments. If you truly consider me to be arrogant and bigotted then quote specific examples that exemplify and support said accusiations.
@rynso Did you know water contains coded information? The physical properties of H2O have a very consistent and standard relationship with temperature...It's like a code. In fact all matter, space and time in the universe is bound to the same standard physical laws which have a very consistent standard relationship with the physical universe. It's as if everything contains coded information which can be translated to understand it's physical properties and functions!
@Itseasyifyoutry This is nonsense, and another case of the fallacy of equivocation. There is a fundamental difference between what what can be called 'structural information' which is inherent in the chemical structure of matter, and is determined by the nature of the atoms and molecules etc which make it up, and coded information which is not inherent and not determined by the chemistry of the material on which it carried. Coded information in a book is not determined by the paper and ink!!
@rynso This is not a fallacy of equivocation: If we say that things contain code IF their physical components (in this case variously configured genetic material) follow certain (semi)predictable processes resulting in (semi)predictable functions and outcomes (in this case genotypes and phenotypes). Then it follows that physical components of matter (fundamental particles) which follow certain predictable processes resulting in predictable functions and outcomes would also be "Coded"
@rynso A fallacy of equivocation would be to say "Coded information in a book is not determined by the paper and ink" implying that simply because two things (genetic material and a written book) both contain translatable information; therefore (despite the fact they are completely different types of "information"--one requiring conscious translation the other exhibiting it's function via natural chemical-physical reaction. ) they must have arose from the same mechanism (thought).
@rynso Let's turn that logic around now. If we were an alien trying to scientifically understand the origin of a written book--uhh on say.. "How to juggle". By observing it's processes functions and physical properties they would not be able to determine a direct physical-chemical reaction between the letters on the page and the function (someone knowing how to juggle after reading said book) based simply on such physical-chemical process occurring genetic information.
"Einstein considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws" - Carl Sagan
@rynso He added "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
@rynso "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
@rynso TIP: If you search search "rynso richard dawkins" on the top searchbar in youtube, the third video link down is entitled "Abiogenesis Debunked" That should be a good place for you start your newly rejuvinated campaign against science! Good luck!
@Itseasyifyoutry I've just given up talking to someone arrogantly filled with their own self importance, impressed with their own astoundingly vast & superior knowledge, who falsely accuses & abuses those they differ with.
I simply commit you to the God you deny, trusting that perhaps in his kindness & grace, he may look past your abuse of him, just as he showed grace to those who spat in his face, banged a crown of thorns on his head, and nailed him to the cross...as he died to save them.
@rynso I don't know what stopped Jesus Christ from turning every hungry stone into bread, and I don't remember hearin' how moses reacted when the innocent first-born sons lay dead. Well I guess God was alot more demonstrative back when he flamboyantly parted the sea. Now everybody's prayin', don't pray on me. SAID EVERYBODY'S PRAAAAAYIN', DON'T PRAY ON MEEEEEEEE!
process: [pros-es; especially Brit. proh-ses] noun, plural proc·ess·es 1. a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner: eg. the process of decay.
change: [cheynj] verb, changed, chang·ing, noun 1. A transformation or transition from one state, condition, or phase to another: eg. the change of seasons; To become altered or modified eg. Colors change if they are exposed to the sun.
@Itseasyifyoutry You've quoted general definitions for 'process' and 'change' but have not given definitions explaining the meaning the terms have in the context within which you used them.
'Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations...'
@rynso Wrong, my definitions fit the context: Because there are many different species and many different changes and the definition of evolution refers to all of those definite observed changes as well as the many different and definite processes that both result from and cause those changes> we must use a general definition for both words. The FACT that your children don't look exactly like you is an example of the process of change in a form of life over generations. This is called Evolution.
@rynso Even we just look at humans, observable factual changes occur in many different ways, and also through many different types of processes. Biological Evolution is a word that describes all of those changes, it categorizes all observable biological changes that occur from one generation to the next. It means quite literally the-processes-of-change-of-life-over-generations. That's all it means! Just honest people who made a word for something we can all clearly see and agree is happening.
@rynso Ok, even though I've said it four times now listen carefully. Evolution is NOT a synonym for the word change. The Definition Biological Evolution involves the words 'Change' and 'Process' and 'Life' and 'Generations' convolved together to form a united meaning. Within the meaning of Evolution, we refer to changes of ANY KIND with regards to LIVING things, over Generations. It does not JUST mean change, it means the observed process-of-change-of-living things-over generations! Get it?
@rynso There are many exampes and types of changes and processes that have been observed...I couldn't dare to list them all here, but I've given you one example already: The fact that your offspring are not exactly the same as you results from genetic drift, due your childs genes comming from both you and his/her mother (presumably your wife) this is an example of one type of observed process of change of living things over multiple generations (your generation, and your child's) i.e. Evolution
@Itseasyifyoutry That's not evolution. That's genetic variation. No one disputes that so once again you have made the definition so broad as to be meaningless.
Please give a meaningful definition of the type of unique change that is required.
@rynso You're right it is genetic drift(variation?). Which is one of the many mechanisms of Biological Evolution. The meaning Biological Evolution encompasses: ALL OBSERVABLE PROCESSES OF CHANGE, ---WITH REGARDS TO ---- LIVING THINGS --- OVER GENERATIONS. One of those observable processes of change with regards to living things over generations is called genetic drift. This is one of the many examples of Biological Evolution.
@Itseasyifyoutry With all due respect, this is a totally inadequate definition. All creationist accept genetic variation but they do not accept evolution.
You are committing the fallacy of equivocation. Using a term so broad in an argument that it can mean essentially anything you like at any given point.
@rynso Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" is a THEORY based on the FACT that there exists observable processes of change - with regards to ---living things --over generations (EVOLUTION). It is a scientific THEORY, which is based on the FACT of Evolution and other physical evidence and predictions. His theory is dependant on that FACT of Evolution, and on that evidence, and on the scientific validity of those predictions. The FACT of Evolution is not dependant on his theory, it is a FACT.
@Itseasyifyoutry If you spent less time in arrogant self-congratulation, and name-calling creationists as idiots, illiterates, etc ad nauseum, you may be better off...
Who are showing their scientific and linguistic illiteracy is debatable...
@rynso I'm not self congratulating I'm trying to help another human being who has been lied to. That human being is you. Despite having no God to answer to, I still feel compelled to help you out. Because that's human nature.
@rynso YES my definition is inadequate to the CREATIONIST definition of Evolution. Not the scientific definition of Evolution. And I'm sorry if this comes off as sounding harsh, but I'm simply describing reality to you. People are being tricked into thinking that there is something incredibly invalid and evil about a completely valid area of incredibly important scientific research simply because it contradicts their preconceived system of beliefs. THE TIMES THEY ARE A CHANGIN'.
@Itseasyifyoutry Times certainly are a changin'...The great evolutionary myth is on the way down...
Be that as it may, your definition as I said is so broad as to be meaningless. If you can't see this, no skin off my nose.
In the mean time, why don't you try really hard to find a tight definition of the type of unique change - not just wand waving, self-serving, everything included 'change', but the type of change that's uniquely claimed for evolution. Or do you want me to start helping you?
@rynso You're clearly not hearing me. I understand what you're saying entirely, you're saying that the theory described by Charles Darwin is what scientists call Evolution. This is an incredibly common and fundamental missunderstanding of Science made by creationists. Evolution is not "The Theory of the Origin of Species" They are two separate things. Evolution is a fact, and "The Theory of the Origin of Species" is a scientific theory that incorporates the FACT of evolution.
@rynso "Be that as it may, your definition as I said is so broad as to be meaningless. If you can't see this, no skin off my nose." - The definition of Evolution is VERY SPECIFIC, there are FIVE specifiers within the definition of Evolution. Biological Evolution can only refer to (specifically) 1.PROCESSESS --involving-- (specifically) 2.CHANGES--of--(specifically) 3.HERITABLE TRAITS--of--(specifically) 4.LIVING THINGS--over-- (specifically) 5.Generations. IT'S VERY SPECIFIC. NOT BROAD.
@rynso See science is just an honest search for truth. We don't jump to any conclusions, even if they may seem intuitively obvious. All modern science is based on physically observable facts and evidence. Biology is the study of living things. One fact about all living things is that their inherited traits change over generations. Scientists used the word evolution which ultimately derives from the Latin verb “evolvere,” meaning “to roll out” to describe these processes.
@rynso In colloquial English, evolution refers to “progressive change.” For example: “the evolution of the media," etc. Creationists, who tend to be scientifically illiterate, often take the colloquial connotation of “progression” to extremes. it's very common for them to think evolution covers everything from the origin of the universe to mankind; That evolution is a progressive process in which nothing changed into man. Of course, this is completely wrong; science recognizes no such process.
@rynso Oxford English Dictionary--> Evolution (noun): the change of heritable traits of plants, animals, etc. over generations as they adapt to changes in their environment.
@rynso there are 2 sides to this debate. The creationists, and the biologists. The biologists are people who with great humility and honesty want to study physical facts to uncover the truths of Nature. And the creationists are people who are born and raised to believe in something that is invisible and supernatural. Now the biologists have facts, laws, and theories based on and supported by facts laws and evidence. 1 of those theories contradicts the Creationists beliefs. The result is debate.
@rynso ...That theory which contradicts Creationism, is called "The Origin Of Species" by Charles Darwin. He predicted based on the fact of Evolution and it's causing species to tend to adapt to their environment via natural selection and other mechanisms of Evolution. This would result in eventual diversification of new species as what were once similar heritable traits of different groups of a single species drift apart in similarity when exposed to varrying environments.
@rynso Challenge yourself, pick up a book on Evolution. Don't borrow it from from one of your anti-evolution friends. Do something for yourself, go get a proper scientific book on evolution from the biology section of your local university bookstore or go to a reputable independant non-Christian bookstore, and seek some modern unbiased information. You'll quickly find that there is absolutely NO difference between how I have defined Evolution and how the scientific community defines it.
@rynso That's why I just wanna shake some sense into you creationists when you say things like. "EVOLUTION DIDNT HAPPEN!" ...You don't even know what your supposed to be opposing. You as a creationist oppose a number of different "theories of evolution" which are scientific theories based on the FACT that evolution occurs and other physical evidence, they predict it's causes, the predict it's origin. etc. etc. Statements like "EVOLUTION DIDNT HAPPEN!" just underline your own ignorance.
"May God keep us from single vision and Newton's Sleep" - William Blake (1802)
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge; it is those who know little and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin, Introduction, The Descent of Man (1871)
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Sherlock Holmes, (in Arthur Conan Doyle's A scandal in Bohemia 1891)
"True memories seemed like phantoms, while false memories were so convincing that they replaced reality" Gabriel Garcia Marquez (Strange Pilgrims, 1992)
"A credulous mind...finds most delight in believing in strange things, and the stanger they are the easier they pass with him; but never reards those that are plain and feasible, for every man can believe such." Samuel Butler, (Characters 1667-1669)
"As children tremble and fear everything in the blind darkness, so we in the light sometimes fear what is no more to be feared than the things children in the dark hold in terror" Lucretius, (On the Nature of Things, ca. 60 B.C.)
So you starting to feel the conversion?....Time and tide no one can anticipate inevitable waves of change. "A new consciousness is developing that sees the Earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed." - Carl Sagan
Yes, ATP synthase is an amazing efficient and functional little machine, and so are human beings and there's a direct connection between the two. But efficiency and functionality are relative and subjective terms dependant on a variable given purpose. In this case the purpose is life. It's not out of the question in fact highly probable that things which are both efficient and functional for life would thereby survive. Which is what evolution is all about.
Even if pre-cellular evolution were proven to be impossible. This influences ONE of the many theories of evolution>the theory of pre-cellular evolution. This does not "kill all evolution theories stone dead" for the observable evidence still supports the theory down to the cellular level, so speciation would seem to have occurred from the cellular level. What happened before that? Well now that (hypothetically) pre-cellular evolution has been debunked (it hasn't) we'll have to look elsewhere.
@Itseasyifyoutry I'm not sure I have ever talked to someone so blinkered and blinded to all but their own view - and I have talked to a lot of blinkered people!
'No matter what objections to evolution there are, evolution has still happened! So there!'
If evolution could not start occurring, it cannot have occurred. End of story.
At this point I see no point in any further discussion as it's a waste of time to talk to someone refuses to consider any questioning of their cherished beliefs.
@rynso "If evolution could not start occurring, it cannot have occurred. End of story." So if god created the cell it could not have then evolved from there? Evolution by natural selection could not have happened?
@rynso "So we keep asking, over and over, Until a handful of earth stops our mouths -- But is that an answer? Heinrich Heine, "Lazarus" (1854)
I understand your view, but your view is based on many false assumptions and unscientific conclusions.
"We must not believe the many, who say that only free people ought to be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers who say that only the educated are free." Epictetus, (Roman philosopher and former slave, Discourses)
@rynso Sorry about all the quotations, it's all irrelevant rambling anyways. Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant. Who needs to read all those books anyways, what a waste of time, there's obviously only one book that is important for people to read. The holy bible *sshhmeeegal, my precious*
@rynso 'No matter what objections to evolution there are, evolution has still happened! So there!'
Evolution is happening right now, it's a scientific FACT. Do you object to this? I thought it was theories of Evolution that you were trying to contest. Like the theory that evolution caused all speciation from a single organism, and the theory that the first organism itself came to be through this same process of pre-cellular abiotic molecular self-replication and natural selection.
@rynso Biological Evolution: is the change in the inherited traits in a population of organisms through successive generations. Over time variants with particular heritable traits become more, or less, common. A trait is a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural—that is the result of gene–environment interaction. In laymans terms: Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs.
if all creationists in the world stopped attacking evolution theories. Science as it's body would NOT stop calling it evolutionary THEORY. That's the humbleness of science. We claim nothing to be absolute truth unless it can be proven to be true. Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories which explain its causes. These theories are at the mercy of the same proper scientific scrutiny and evalution to which all other theories are subjected.
"The simplest unit of life (which actually is highly/mind bogglingly complex) is the cell." True, but you know whats more highly mind bogglingly complex. Existence, any kind of existence, atoms, subatomic particles, quasars, black holes, neutron stars, dark energy, antimatter, time, space, the concept of 0...etc. They are all seemingly infinitely complex things when you actually think about them. Existence is well beyond full human understanding at present times. Science is honesty and truth.
These are just some of many examples. Of course we don't have a videotape of precellular evolution because it's very likely not happening anymore given the now very biologically competitive environment of Earth. If we did have such a video, we would being calling it "The Laws of Evolution". Still, more evidence is piling that supports The Theories of Evolution and there has been no counter evidence, no evidence of divine intervention, or some other cause alternate and contrary to evolution.
There are many examples of evidence for pre-cellular evolution. The fact that the universe evolved in an essentially naturally selective way; Martian inorganic soil cycles; Liposomes are 5 to 50 micron vesicles with an internal aqueous environment, whose amphiphilic lipidic components self-assemble into systems with at least one double-layered membrane. Liposomes have been suggested as possible models of precellular systems formed in the early Archean Earth from lipids of non-enzymatic origin.
So I guess the ultimate problem your argument is it ignores pre-cellular evolution. Even the video link you gave me admits this. "Many of these motors were needed before the first living cell could exist" It does not say "living thing" it also claims "ATP is vital for life" this actually not true, most modern life on Earth requires ATP, but not all...In any case, simply because a thing is required for life of a given organism does not mean the thing didn't evolve from something else.
@rynso Entropy determines that thermal energy always flows spontaneously from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature, in the form of heat. Hurricanes for example an example of entropy in global weather systems. If it were not for this process, the Earth's atmosphere would be subdivided by temperature regions that would never interact with each other. In real life Complex patterns develop when global tempuratures are imbalanced. I.E. the equator (hot); the poles (cold)
@rynso "There's no evidence for pre-cellular evolution." What about cosmic evolution? Another example, recent soil samples from Mars have shown processes of inorganic cycles that are evidence for what may have pre-existed organic soil cycles on earth.
You ask "why shouldn't prostitution classes be run at high schools?" Um, maybe because your country's law states, "No person may cause, assist, facilitate, or encourage a person under 18 years of age to provide commercial sexual services to any person."
You speak for your political party, yet don't understand a law you choose to criticize? And your anti-Science position extends from anti-Evolution to anti-climate change, to presumably to anywhere your backwards leaders direct you.
@rynso yes, sir, I watched the full 10 minute video, offensive as it was. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that NZ law prevents "prostitution classes" from being taught in high schools as you suggest? You LIE when you imply that the law allows high schoolers to be herded into brothels. You LIE about climate change. Why?
@ivyshoots Atheists are so quick to shout 'LIE' regarding anything anyone who opposes them says!
If you had actually listened to the argument in the video, rather than getting on your high horse, you would have noticed that given conditions that prevail (which I outlined) , why shouldn't prostitution be taught in schools, why shouldn't kids be taken by careers advisers to brothels to check out employment?
The law was changed to make prostitution a legit service industry. It can change again.
@rynso You, sir, are just another mediocre-minded male who thinks way too much of his own intellect and importance in the world. Rather than debate, you dodge and deflect, and yes, lie. I point out actual LIES in your comments, and you respond with "atheists do it too!" although atheists are utterly irrelevant to the discussion. I'm sorry you had some bad experiences with lying atheists, but you are talking to ME now, not someone who lied to you. Do you blame all blacks if one assaults you?
How's this for meaningful: We are fundamentally connected to the universe...to everything, the matter we are made of is as old as the universe. The early universe consisted of hydrogen plasma, there were no heavier elements, just hydrogen. The hydrogen plasma condensed into supermassive stars which because of their size quickly burned up their fuel, exploded in supernova and expelled the fused heavier elements that we are now made of. We are starstuff. Talk about Sun Gods. Our Sun is a 2nd Gen.
@Itseasyifyoutry Look. You and your gurus have constructed this elaborate story to try and explain life the universe and everything without reference to a creator. It makes you feel good - and superior.
However the whole massive structure sits on a foundation of sand. If you guys can't get the original life up and running naturalistically - and you can't - then the whole of the superstructure crashes to the ground. If biological evolution couldn't start, it can't have occurred - end of story!
@rynso Look at clouds before a storm...notice how they are patterned, unlike the random fluffy clouds of a calm summer day. What causes these patterns? The answer is energy, in many different cases throughout the cosmos, chaos leads to order, adding energy to a system causes patterns, patterns that are repeated natural occurences that show a distinct order or predictable formulation or formation. Natural abiotic patterning (replication) happens all the time. Even on the molecular level.
@Itseasyifyoutry You just don't get it! Your comment is totally irrelevant. Of course patterns may be produced when energy is input. No one disputes that! But 'complexity' is different to 'order' & 'patterns' simply produced by energy.
Coded information is not predicable on the basis of the material it rides on, or energy applied to that material. Words on a page are not determined by the chemical makeup of the paper & ink on which they're carried, but the mind from which they derive. Wake up!
@rynso Complexity is a completely subjective term that's what you don't get. In itself it is not a scientific term that means anything all. So you need to specify what you mean by complexity. What are you referring to? What defines complexity besides relative comparison? --as for your other comment, which is just silly misapprehension of rational debate--I thought words on a page were predetermined by God and he created human minds for no reason at all.
@rynso Wrong again, modern science did not originally set out with the ambition to explain life, Darwin accidentally had the insight when he recognized that lifeforms in various environments were very specifically specialized to those environments... Based on this clearly observable evidence he theorized that the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest--given environment) specialized all life to their respective environments> polar bears are white because black ones couldn't hide.
@Itseasyifyoutry Again you change the subject! No one suggested modern science originally set out to explain life! (Actually, modern science originally set out to discover the glory of God in the created order.)
However, explain the origin of life evolutionists must do as they claim a comprehensive history from nothing to everything. Trouble is the stuff they have at their disposal simple can't do the job. If evolution couldn't start, it hasn't occurred. (No one disputes natural selection.)
@rynso We wan't to have a discussion about the probability of a small group atoms, randomly becomming capable of self-replication. Do you understand how small molecules, and atoms really are? There are 5 million atoms in this relatively 2 dimensional period. Now, Imagine how many there might be in your 3 dimensional body. Imagine if you can how many there might then be in your room, house, street, city, your country, my country (Canada), the world...So quick to you are to say "IMPOSSIBLE!"
@rynso I assumed by gurus, you meant the highly reputable modern scientists I was quoting, like Einstein, Ben Franklin, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, etc. etc. You can't honestly believe this claim that modern science is founded on the presumtion of God's orderly universe. If this ridiculous notion were the case, I have to ask the question if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job.
@rynso 'Einstein, Ben Franklin, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan,' I did not claim that these men were founders of modern science, I mentioned them in clear reference to your attribution to them being my 'gurus'...Although now that you mention it...No nevermind...What did modern physics, modern electromagnetic theory, modern biology, and modern cosmology ever do for us anyways!? Obviously, these men did not significantly contribute to modernizing any of these useless areas of modern science.
@Itseasyifyoutry AGASSIZ LOUIS BABBAGE CHARLES BOYLE ROBERT BREWSTER DAVID CUVIER GEORGES DA VINCI LEONARDO DAVY HUMPHREY FABRE HENRI FARADAY MICHAEL FLEMING JOHN AMBROSE HERSCHEL WILLIAM JOULE JAMES KELVIN LORD KEPLER JOHANN LINNAEUS CAROLUS LISTER JOSEPH MAURY MATTHEW MAXWELL JAMES CLERK MENDEL GREGOR NEWTON ISAAC PASCAL BLAISE PASTEUR LOUIS RAMSAY WILLIAM RAY JOHN RAYLEIGH LORD RIEMANN BERNHARD SIMPSON JAMES STENO NICHOLAs STOKES GEORGE VIRCHOW RUDOLPH WOODWARD JOHN
@rynso Louis Agassiz: His lectures on polygenism were popular among the slaveholders in the South; for many this opinion legitimized the belief in a lower standard of the Negro. Charles Boyle: "On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation" Is a work of Natural Theology which is not an accepted scientific field and never has been--Though he was a Scientist of other specializations. Many Scientists today are religious, this does not mean Science is founded on a creator.
@rynso Galileo stated: "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe; in the language of mathematics" advancing a tradition employed by natural philosophers. He tried to remain loyal to the Catholic Church, but honest interpretation of experimental results led to a rejection of blind allegiance to authority both philosophical and religious in matters of science; aiding the separation of science from both philosophy and religion; a major development in human thought.
@rynso Furthermore, it would be foolhardy to assume that even the most profoundly important scientists throughout history were at least sometimes wrong about some of their ideas. Notably, Isaac newton's most profoundly important contribution to science is his "Law of Universal Gravitation" Which turned out not to be a universal physical law despite it's ability to correctly predict results of physical experimentation--Except of course when variable objects encroach upon the speed of light.
@rynso Darwin did not seek to publish his findings and research for fear of backlash from the culturally dominant Church. He recognized that this theory clearly threatened religious doctrines, as many theories involving critical thinking, fact based analysis and induction tend to do. So for ten years he kept it to himself, he only published when he found out that another scientist had also discovered this same evidence. Since then scientific research has strengthened this theory greatly.
@rynso Now, an elaborate story that set out with the intention of trying to explain life the universe and everything...Hmm...OF COURSE IT MUST BE DESIGNED! IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN DESIGNED, IT'S JUST TOO AMAZING TO BE RANDOM OH GLORY LORD THANK YOU! This is a dream, it's not fact based analysis, it's trying to answer the most mysterious questions as quickly and easily as possible. It does an ok job too. Until you actually start thinking logically, but you seem too afraid to do that.
@rynso Humans personify things all the time, because we are a species whos primary advantage is complex thought, which is not possible without language which is not possible without communication. So we're so good at it, we go overboard. We yell at our cars, we talk to our cats, and we give thanks to...the infinite. Ancient greeks believed that all things living and non living had their own will. If a rock fell off a hill and hit you as you walked by...well it willed to do so.
@rynso Humans personify things all the time, because we are a species whos primary advantage is complex thought, which is not possible without language which is not possible without communication. So we're so good at it, we go overboard. We yell at our cars, we talk to our cats, and we give thanks to...the infinite. Ancient greeks believed that all things living and non living had their own will. If a rock fell off a hill and hit you as you walked by...well it willed to do so.
I will say this, spiritual gatherings in communities are necessary for a properly functioning society. But a society that is built on science should not support spiritual gatherings that seek to discourage proper understanding of what science really is. So as science has, is, and will hopefully always evolve through time, I hope spirituality will try to catch up to it, and allow itself to evolve, perhaps, some editing of those 2000 year old books?
"You're flogging cultural capital from a worldview you reject. It doesn't work." I think we're all guilty of this one. Kinda like the way we embrace masonry despite it's slave based society origins. Yeah, being kind to others, what do you know, not a bad idea...Religion may have popularized this concept (for capital lol), but if as evidence seems to suggest religion did not invent altruism, altruism may have caused religion, some good intentions perhaps, coulda left out the talking snake though.
Predatory reptiles surley dominated this planet, but they weren't very good at working together, educating the young...A niche that was quickly filled by Mammals. Squirrels adopt baby squirrels that are related to them despite the logical burden it places on the survival of the individual. Simple morality, that logically increases survivability of the accidentally altruistic genepool. What's good for us, also happens to be *good* That's all evolution really is.
@rynso You're wrong about both parts of that broken sentence. It's not a story, it's an accepted scientific theory based on real observable evidence; the basal ganglia is quite nearly identical to the reptilian brain, and serves the same basic functions. It's not based on attempted weakening of creationism theory, it does that by accident. It specificly does provide a basis for morality, a human evolutionary basis. I'm sorry, it's not universal or ULTIMATE; doesn't apply to dirt or rocks.
@Itseasyifyoutry Similarity does not weaken creationist theory in the slightest. Designers use common ideas in different projects all the time. (Again...have you ever designed and made any thing? You haven't told me yet.) Similarity thus does not prove ancestral connection.
An evolutionary basis for morality says the fittest should survive, might is right, and is relativistic and situational. Right and wrong can mean anything and thus mean nothing.
@rynso Evidence that strengthens, evolution theory also inadvertantly undermines young earth creationism, and it's belief that humans did not evolve from an ancient primate species. Evolution theory deduces that if correct, we may find similarities between different species that speciated (branched off) from a common ancestor. This prediction made by evolution theory is verified, evolution theory is one of the strongest scientific fields, most well supported by evidence and verified predictions.
@rynso "An evolutionary basis for morality says the fittest should survive, might is right, and is relativistic and situational." Somewhat true, but what does fittest really mean? What do you mean by might? Are we talking about big muscles, sharp teeth, camoflage, metabolic superiority...Or psychological, intellectual, conscious, communicative and moral superiority? For some reason, humans aren't purely evil. The reason? sharks already took that niche. Our advantage is working together.
@rynso On that note, let me ask you a question: Suppose hypothetically speaking, science found a way to actually disprove the existence of God. Now If there was no way for you to cover your eyes and blindly deny the truth (as you do now about many other related issues) I must ask, what you think you would do with this newfound enlightenment? Really think deeply, this question is for you to answer for yourself: Would you have it in you to kill a child simply by knowing God does not exist?
We'd better start taking a closer look at the amoral nature of gravity & electromagnetism.
MaitreyaRocket 9 months ago
Comment removed
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
So, uhh I guess you could call this self-congratulation, but I win. As a result you win something even more valuable, the truth. Now, if only we non-creationists didn't have to write four novels 8 times over with exclamation marks before you creationists figure the reality of the argument you've been having with an invisible non-existant invalid area of science which you have given the same name as a real valid fact of science and reality which you seem to know nothing about.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry Well no...uhh... you don't win.
You haven't explained what naturalistic processes produced ATP synthase simultaneously with the 1st moment of physical life's existence, while at the same time being coded for on the DNA and being required for the transcription of DNA.
Nor explained how coded information arises spontaneously independent of mind. (You don't even seem to understand what coded information is or how it arises despite writing endless comments on these videos.)
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Before I can answer your question I have to ask you a question (to which I know the answer but I need to know if you know what your talking about). What discipline of science covers the study of the origin of life?
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso You're one to talk about "Broad definitions". What is God? ...An...Infinite being? Well what do you mean by that? Mathematically infinite? In terms of his age? If he's infinite then why is he just a "He"? If he's infinite how can he be restricted by gender? If he's infinite how can he be restricted by any rules at all? If he's infinite what the hell would he care about us finite human beings? Why is it that an infinite being sits on sidelines while people suffer? Infinitely sadistic?
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Are these questions unfair to ask? Am I commiting some kind of sin by being honest with myself and asking these questions which at least to me seem logical and important? I don't see how it could be sinful to use the ability to think logically which (pending his existence) was given to us by him. Especially when we're using our logical abilities to address one of the most profound questions man has ever had to ask.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso You know what forget it. Good discussion though. Hope you consider what I've had to say. I hope that despite all my rudeness, and overwhelming you with all my condescendening scientific nerdlyness you felt the true passion and purpose in my words. But by any level of certainty this life seems infinitely more mysterious than I think either of us could ever claim to know. So good luck to you Sir, and God bless you.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry If you had indicated the slightest ability to understand the point of view of someone else, & had not been so utterly certain that the only truth there is are the ideas you hold in your head behind your totally blinkered eyes, & if you had it in you to dispassionately acknowledge powerful arguments when you hear them, then perhaps we could have continued talking. But seeing you have not indicated you possess any of these abilities, there is simply no point talking any more.
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso I'll agree with you on that one. I do not have the ability to understand your point of view. I will admit one more thing too, you are correct to say that evolution will never be able to explain how ATP synthase developed. This is because evolution only helps us to theorize how living things might have diversified once the first living things (cells) came into being. The origin of life (cells) is covered by the study of abiogenesis, which is part of molecular chemistry, not biology.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry Don't think you can evade the problem posed by ATP synthase and the coded information on which life runs, by simply putting a different label on the origin of life - as though there was no continuity between the 'origin of life' and 'life'! You can't.
'Abiogenesis' is just a fancy diversionary name for 'spontaneous generation' which was soundly refuted by brilliant creationist scientist, Louis Pasteur. Life comes from life, and is the product of thought.
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Well you're right to say there is continuity between the origin of life, life, and the diversification of life in the sense of "effect and cause" but the mechanisms that led to the origin of life are very different from those that led to it's diversification thereafter. Eg. Genetic drift is by definition not possible before the standard "gene" developed. Evolution is a fact that helps us understand how life might have diversified thereafter it's appearance. God created or not.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Now to address your statement: spontaneous generation = abiogenesis. S.G. was a widely believed explanation for the origin of living things, Eg. it was believed that fruit flies instantly materialized out of nothing (new matter appearing instantly). Abiogenesis studies the slow configuration of matter into proteins and organic molecules and helps us understand how living cells might have developed from pre-existing non-living matter. God created or not. Your response to both my comments?
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Thirdly, regarding ATP synthase: The argument is built on the claimed "fact" that the first living cell required ATP synthase, science requires of this claimed "fact" physical proof of the anatomy and components of the first living cell, which we do not have. Further, the argument claims that "All living things require ATP synthase", this is simply not true, ironically (and indeed profoundly) there are many examples of specifically single celled organisms that do not contain ATP synthase.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry It seems I made a mistake re ATP synthase. Apparently ATP is produced by one of 4 complicated mechanisms, ATP synthase being apparently the main one.
However, this only slightly modifies my argument & does not in anyway reduce its force.
As far as is known, all living things use/are powered by ATP produced in one or more of these 4 ways. Thus both ATP and one or more of these 4 complicated means of production are an essential requirement for life from its 1st moment.
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso In a study of structural evolution of the protein kinase–like superfamily. Comparison of structures revealed a “universal core” domain consisting only of regions required for ATP binding and the phosphotransfer reaction. Remarkably, even within the universal core some kinase structures display notable changes, while still retaining essential activity. Hence, the protein kinase–like superfamily has undergone substantial structural and sequence revision over long evolutionary timescales.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso This is very relevant to this discussion because it is physical evidence that modern living cells are likely very different from the first living cells. Therefore we cannot draw scientific conclusions or even theories about the first living cells if we apply to them the exact same anatomy and components as modern observable living cells. Likely ATP synthase; and the various other components of modern cells may not have been original components of the first living cells at all.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso We refer to genetic material as containing "coded information" as we humans are to a certain degree able to determine the genotypes of some organisms by a kind of "translation" of some of the genetic material, it serves the function of giving us some info about the organisms genotype and phenotypes. But the primary and most profound function of genetic material--absent of the need for conscious translation--serves it's function via a natural, involuntary, physical chemical process.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry The 'coded information' information of genomes is in a genuine code form of the most complicated kind, only recently be 'decoded' in part. Because the code functions in some sort of automatic mode not requiring conscious direct control does not in any way negate the point that both the code & the information carried on it, derive from a mind. Computer programs can run automatically without human oversight once constructed and set running, but are still the product of thought.
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso SO 1.ATP synthase is not proven required for the first living cell and certainly not for all life 2. A human known semi-standard relationship between some of the genetic material and genotypes/phenotypes<-(Human knowledge-not-required) is called Genetic Code. Continuity between life's origin and diversification is one of "effect and cause" not of mechanisms. And abiogenesis is based on gradual configuration of pre-existing matter while S.G. is based on new matter formation = Adam and Eve?
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry SO...
1. ATP and a means of its production are required from the first moment of life's existence.
2. The genetic code is genuinely a code which carries genuine 'information' (actually the most complicated known), and thus is the product of mind not matter.
3. Abiogenesis postulates the reconfiguration of preexisting matter through naturalistic means. So does spontaneous generation. The differences are cosmetic/semantic only.
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso My point about genetic material is that all matter carries very specific very strict physical laws written in the universal language of mathematics; laws of physics which are undoubtedly more complex than what we call genetic code which we only refer to as such because humans have alphanumerically labelled the various components which sometimes follow rules so we can predict genotypes etc. We can't scientifically argue that the complexity of genetic material is the reason we call it code.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry 'We can't scientifically argue that the complexity of genetic material is the reason we call it code.'
Yet another instance of changing the subject and totally missing the point.
No one is saying the reason it is called a code is because of its complexity. It is called a code because it has all the characteristics of a code.
rynso 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rynso "No one is saying the reason it is called a code is because of its complexity. It is called a code because it has all the characteristics of a code." - rynso
"The genetic code is genuinely a code which carries genuine 'information' (actually the most complicated known), and thus is the product of mind not matter." - rynso
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso However, I was incorrect to say that S.G. involves new-matter generation. Now obsolete, Spontaneous generation refers to both the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents and to the theories which explained the apparent phenomenon. The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter. This should not be confused for the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and diversified.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry In both abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, life 'emerges' from matter. How many times it emerged is irrelevant. The differences at this fundamental level are semantic only.
Yes abiogenesis is a hypothesis, but one totally unsupported by any evidence, in fact counter to all evidence.
rynso 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rynso "Yes abiogenesis is a hypothesis, but one totally unsupported by any evidence, in fact counter to all evidence."
You have not provided any kind of support for this assertion. Did you know there are some people who don't blindly take everything at face value. I know it's scary, they must be crazy!
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso The modern scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis is distinctly different from S.G. abiogenesis, the only similarities are cosmetic ( the words have uncanny similarity =D ). Like all of modern scientific study, the hypothesis of abiogenesis could only be formed after the observation of physical evidence. This physical evidence is the observed natural formation of organic molecules and proteins (building blocks of life) from inorganic matter. Besides being EVIL, what's wrong with this study?
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso So... This is what I expect you to admit if you can not logically refute my points:
1. We can't make scientific conclusions about the first cells by arbitrarily attributing to them modern cell components and anatomy. (response to ATP stuff)
2. Evolution is a fact.
3. Genetic code<Physics
4. Abiogenesis is a valid scientific hypothesis, based physical evidence.
5. From now on I promise to allow the search for truth to be held above my personal religious laws. Hear Ye!
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry Your unbelievable bigotry and arrogance are on display for all to see...
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Looks like my unbelieveable bigotry and arrogance was marked as spam...Now why would someone be so afraid of easily refutable arguments that they would rather mark them as spam than simply state proposed easily and obviously formulated counter argument? Have you no interest in educating anyone but yourself? have you no cause for spreading the truth beyond yourself?
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry I have not marked any comment as spam on any video ever...not yours or any by anyone else...
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Oh ok so I'll just repost them then alright? See what happens... =\
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry "Yes abiogenesis is a hypothesis, but one totally unsupported by any evidence, in fact counter to all evidence."
You have not provided any kind of support for this assertion. Did you know there are some people who don't blindly take everything at face value. I know it's scary, they must be crazy!
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso This is not a fallacy of equivocation: You're saying things contain code IF their physical components (in this case variously configured genetic material) follow certain (semi)predictable processes resulting in (semi)predictable functions and outcomes (in this case genotypes and phenotypes). Then it follows that physical components of matter (fundamental particles) which follow certain predictable processes resulting in predictable functions and outcomes would also be "Coded"
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso A fallacy of equivocation would be to say "Coded information in a book is not determined by the paper and ink" implying that simply because two things (genetic material and a written book) both contain translatable information; therefore (despite the fact they are completely different types of "information"--one requiring conscious translation the other exhibiting it's function via natural chemical-physical reaction. ) they must have arose from the same mechanism (thought).
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso "No one is saying the reason it is called a code is because of its complexity. It is called a code because it has all the characteristics of a code." - rynso
"The genetic code is genuinely a code which carries genuine 'information' (actually the most complicated known), and thus is the product of mind not matter." - rynso
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso We call GM code because it can be translated to predict genotypes with some level of accuracy. However, Genetic material exhibits it's function via natural phys-chem reactions. Likewise, fundamental particles exhibit their function via natural phys-chem reactions on a very predictable level. Words on a page exhibit their function via conscious translation. Likewise, some genetic material can be consciously translated for the function of genotype prediction this is why it's called code.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso It seems that your your marking my last few comments as spam is clear evidence of your incapability to form logical counter arguments. If you truly consider me to be arrogant and bigotted then quote specific examples that exemplify and support said accusiations.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso So i guess my question is are you lying to your targeted political municipalities or are you just lying yourself?
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry I have not marked any comment as spam on any video ever...not yours or any by anyone else...
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso
The Resistance
We are descendants of the free
We are the soldiers of the cause
We shouted out the same decree
To hold the truth above the law
- Sam Roberts ( Chemical City, 2006)
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Did you know water contains coded information? The physical properties of H2O have a very consistent and standard relationship with temperature...It's like a code. In fact all matter, space and time in the universe is bound to the same standard physical laws which have a very consistent standard relationship with the physical universe. It's as if everything contains coded information which can be translated to understand it's physical properties and functions!
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry This is nonsense, and another case of the fallacy of equivocation. There is a fundamental difference between what what can be called 'structural information' which is inherent in the chemical structure of matter, and is determined by the nature of the atoms and molecules etc which make it up, and coded information which is not inherent and not determined by the chemistry of the material on which it carried. Coded information in a book is not determined by the paper and ink!!
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso This is not a fallacy of equivocation: If we say that things contain code IF their physical components (in this case variously configured genetic material) follow certain (semi)predictable processes resulting in (semi)predictable functions and outcomes (in this case genotypes and phenotypes). Then it follows that physical components of matter (fundamental particles) which follow certain predictable processes resulting in predictable functions and outcomes would also be "Coded"
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
Comment removed
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rynso A fallacy of equivocation would be to say "Coded information in a book is not determined by the paper and ink" implying that simply because two things (genetic material and a written book) both contain translatable information; therefore (despite the fact they are completely different types of "information"--one requiring conscious translation the other exhibiting it's function via natural chemical-physical reaction. ) they must have arose from the same mechanism (thought).
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Let's turn that logic around now. If we were an alien trying to scientifically understand the origin of a written book--uhh on say.. "How to juggle". By observing it's processes functions and physical properties they would not be able to determine a direct physical-chemical reaction between the letters on the page and the function (someone knowing how to juggle after reading said book) based simply on such physical-chemical process occurring genetic information.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
"Einstein considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws" - Carl Sagan
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso He added "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Have I missed anything? is there any argument you've made that I've misinterpreted or misrepresented? Quote any and all errors in my logic .
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso TIP: If you search search "rynso richard dawkins" on the top searchbar in youtube, the third video link down is entitled "Abiogenesis Debunked" That should be a good place for you start your newly rejuvinated campaign against science! Good luck!
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry I've just given up talking to someone arrogantly filled with their own self importance, impressed with their own astoundingly vast & superior knowledge, who falsely accuses & abuses those they differ with.
I simply commit you to the God you deny, trusting that perhaps in his kindness & grace, he may look past your abuse of him, just as he showed grace to those who spat in his face, banged a crown of thorns on his head, and nailed him to the cross...as he died to save them.
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso I don't know what stopped Jesus Christ from turning every hungry stone into bread, and I don't remember hearin' how moses reacted when the innocent first-born sons lay dead. Well I guess God was alot more demonstrative back when he flamboyantly parted the sea. Now everybody's prayin', don't pray on me. SAID EVERYBODY'S PRAAAAAYIN', DON'T PRAY ON MEEEEEEEE!
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
w w w . youtube . com / watch?v=VtotpiSL700
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
Comment removed
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
process: [pros-es; especially Brit. proh-ses] noun, plural proc·ess·es 1. a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner: eg. the process of decay.
change: [cheynj] verb, changed, chang·ing, noun 1. A transformation or transition from one state, condition, or phase to another: eg. the change of seasons; To become altered or modified eg. Colors change if they are exposed to the sun.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry You've quoted general definitions for 'process' and 'change' but have not given definitions explaining the meaning the terms have in the context within which you used them.
'Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations...'
Try again...
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Wrong, my definitions fit the context: Because there are many different species and many different changes and the definition of evolution refers to all of those definite observed changes as well as the many different and definite processes that both result from and cause those changes> we must use a general definition for both words. The FACT that your children don't look exactly like you is an example of the process of change in a form of life over generations. This is called Evolution.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Even we just look at humans, observable factual changes occur in many different ways, and also through many different types of processes. Biological Evolution is a word that describes all of those changes, it categorizes all observable biological changes that occur from one generation to the next. It means quite literally the-processes-of-change-of-life-over-generations. That's all it means! Just honest people who made a word for something we can all clearly see and agree is happening.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry So you're saying 'evolution means change' and that's all?
That is so broad a definition as to be meaningless. Death is change, but death is not evolution.
Everyone accepts things change, but not everyone accepts evolution.
Please be specific about the type of 'change' and the process that brings this specific type of change about.
One comment answer please...
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Ok, even though I've said it four times now listen carefully. Evolution is NOT a synonym for the word change. The Definition Biological Evolution involves the words 'Change' and 'Process' and 'Life' and 'Generations' convolved together to form a united meaning. Within the meaning of Evolution, we refer to changes of ANY KIND with regards to LIVING things, over Generations. It does not JUST mean change, it means the observed process-of-change-of-living things-over generations! Get it?
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry 'It does not JUST mean change, it means the observed process-of-change-of-living things-over generations!'
What 'observed process-of-change-of-living things-over generations'?
rynso 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry 'It does not JUST mean change, it means the observed process - of - change - of - living things - over generations!'
What 'observed process - of - change - of - living things - over generations'?
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso There are many exampes and types of changes and processes that have been observed...I couldn't dare to list them all here, but I've given you one example already: The fact that your offspring are not exactly the same as you results from genetic drift, due your childs genes comming from both you and his/her mother (presumably your wife) this is an example of one type of observed process of change of living things over multiple generations (your generation, and your child's) i.e. Evolution
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry That's not evolution. That's genetic variation. No one disputes that so once again you have made the definition so broad as to be meaningless.
Please give a meaningful definition of the type of unique change that is required.
Try again...
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso You're right it is genetic drift(variation?). Which is one of the many mechanisms of Biological Evolution. The meaning Biological Evolution encompasses: ALL OBSERVABLE PROCESSES OF CHANGE, ---WITH REGARDS TO ---- LIVING THINGS --- OVER GENERATIONS. One of those observable processes of change with regards to living things over generations is called genetic drift. This is one of the many examples of Biological Evolution.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry With all due respect, this is a totally inadequate definition. All creationist accept genetic variation but they do not accept evolution.
You are committing the fallacy of equivocation. Using a term so broad in an argument that it can mean essentially anything you like at any given point.
Sharpen it up so it means something unique.
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" is a THEORY based on the FACT that there exists observable processes of change - with regards to ---living things --over generations (EVOLUTION). It is a scientific THEORY, which is based on the FACT of Evolution and other physical evidence and predictions. His theory is dependant on that FACT of Evolution, and on that evidence, and on the scientific validity of those predictions. The FACT of Evolution is not dependant on his theory, it is a FACT.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso With all due respect, all creationists accept genetic variation but they do not accept evolution because they are SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry If you spent less time in arrogant self-congratulation, and name-calling creationists as idiots, illiterates, etc ad nauseum, you may be better off...
Who are showing their scientific and linguistic illiteracy is debatable...
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso I'm not self congratulating I'm trying to help another human being who has been lied to. That human being is you. Despite having no God to answer to, I still feel compelled to help you out. Because that's human nature.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso YES my definition is inadequate to the CREATIONIST definition of Evolution. Not the scientific definition of Evolution. And I'm sorry if this comes off as sounding harsh, but I'm simply describing reality to you. People are being tricked into thinking that there is something incredibly invalid and evil about a completely valid area of incredibly important scientific research simply because it contradicts their preconceived system of beliefs. THE TIMES THEY ARE A CHANGIN'.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry Times certainly are a changin'...The great evolutionary myth is on the way down...
Be that as it may, your definition as I said is so broad as to be meaningless. If you can't see this, no skin off my nose.
In the mean time, why don't you try really hard to find a tight definition of the type of unique change - not just wand waving, self-serving, everything included 'change', but the type of change that's uniquely claimed for evolution. Or do you want me to start helping you?
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso You're clearly not hearing me. I understand what you're saying entirely, you're saying that the theory described by Charles Darwin is what scientists call Evolution. This is an incredibly common and fundamental missunderstanding of Science made by creationists. Evolution is not "The Theory of the Origin of Species" They are two separate things. Evolution is a fact, and "The Theory of the Origin of Species" is a scientific theory that incorporates the FACT of evolution.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso "Be that as it may, your definition as I said is so broad as to be meaningless. If you can't see this, no skin off my nose." - The definition of Evolution is VERY SPECIFIC, there are FIVE specifiers within the definition of Evolution. Biological Evolution can only refer to (specifically) 1.PROCESSESS --involving-- (specifically) 2.CHANGES--of--(specifically) 3.HERITABLE TRAITS--of--(specifically) 4.LIVING THINGS--over-- (specifically) 5.Generations. IT'S VERY SPECIFIC. NOT BROAD.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso See science is just an honest search for truth. We don't jump to any conclusions, even if they may seem intuitively obvious. All modern science is based on physically observable facts and evidence. Biology is the study of living things. One fact about all living things is that their inherited traits change over generations. Scientists used the word evolution which ultimately derives from the Latin verb “evolvere,” meaning “to roll out” to describe these processes.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso In colloquial English, evolution refers to “progressive change.” For example: “the evolution of the media," etc. Creationists, who tend to be scientifically illiterate, often take the colloquial connotation of “progression” to extremes. it's very common for them to think evolution covers everything from the origin of the universe to mankind; That evolution is a progressive process in which nothing changed into man. Of course, this is completely wrong; science recognizes no such process.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Oxford English Dictionary--> Evolution (noun): the change of heritable traits of plants, animals, etc. over generations as they adapt to changes in their environment.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso there are 2 sides to this debate. The creationists, and the biologists. The biologists are people who with great humility and honesty want to study physical facts to uncover the truths of Nature. And the creationists are people who are born and raised to believe in something that is invisible and supernatural. Now the biologists have facts, laws, and theories based on and supported by facts laws and evidence. 1 of those theories contradicts the Creationists beliefs. The result is debate.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso ...That theory which contradicts Creationism, is called "The Origin Of Species" by Charles Darwin. He predicted based on the fact of Evolution and it's causing species to tend to adapt to their environment via natural selection and other mechanisms of Evolution. This would result in eventual diversification of new species as what were once similar heritable traits of different groups of a single species drift apart in similarity when exposed to varrying environments.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Challenge yourself, pick up a book on Evolution. Don't borrow it from from one of your anti-evolution friends. Do something for yourself, go get a proper scientific book on evolution from the biology section of your local university bookstore or go to a reputable independant non-Christian bookstore, and seek some modern unbiased information. You'll quickly find that there is absolutely NO difference between how I have defined Evolution and how the scientific community defines it.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso That's why I just wanna shake some sense into you creationists when you say things like. "EVOLUTION DIDNT HAPPEN!" ...You don't even know what your supposed to be opposing. You as a creationist oppose a number of different "theories of evolution" which are scientific theories based on the FACT that evolution occurs and other physical evidence, they predict it's causes, the predict it's origin. etc. etc. Statements like "EVOLUTION DIDNT HAPPEN!" just underline your own ignorance.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
"May God keep us from single vision and Newton's Sleep" - William Blake (1802)
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge; it is those who know little and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin, Introduction, The Descent of Man (1871)
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
"Magic it must be remembered, is an art which demands collaboration between the artist and his public" E. M. Butler, (The Myth of the Magus, 1948)
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Sherlock Holmes, (in Arthur Conan Doyle's A scandal in Bohemia 1891)
"True memories seemed like phantoms, while false memories were so convincing that they replaced reality" Gabriel Garcia Marquez (Strange Pilgrims, 1992)
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
"A credulous mind...finds most delight in believing in strange things, and the stanger they are the easier they pass with him; but never reards those that are plain and feasible, for every man can believe such." Samuel Butler, (Characters 1667-1669)
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
"There are demon-haunted worlds, regions of utter darkness." The Isa Upanishad (India, ca. 600 B.C.)
"Fear of things invisible is the natural seed of that which every one in himself calleth religion" Thomas Hobbes
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
"As children tremble and fear everything in the blind darkness, so we in the light sometimes fear what is no more to be feared than the things children in the dark hold in terror" Lucretius, (On the Nature of Things, ca. 60 B.C.)
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
So you starting to feel the conversion?....Time and tide no one can anticipate inevitable waves of change. "A new consciousness is developing that sees the Earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed." - Carl Sagan
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
Yes, ATP synthase is an amazing efficient and functional little machine, and so are human beings and there's a direct connection between the two. But efficiency and functionality are relative and subjective terms dependant on a variable given purpose. In this case the purpose is life. It's not out of the question in fact highly probable that things which are both efficient and functional for life would thereby survive. Which is what evolution is all about.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
Show me a little shame please. I thought you were open to learning new things. I thought you cared about the truth.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
Even if pre-cellular evolution were proven to be impossible. This influences ONE of the many theories of evolution>the theory of pre-cellular evolution. This does not "kill all evolution theories stone dead" for the observable evidence still supports the theory down to the cellular level, so speciation would seem to have occurred from the cellular level. What happened before that? Well now that (hypothetically) pre-cellular evolution has been debunked (it hasn't) we'll have to look elsewhere.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry I'm not sure I have ever talked to someone so blinkered and blinded to all but their own view - and I have talked to a lot of blinkered people!
'No matter what objections to evolution there are, evolution has still happened! So there!'
If evolution could not start occurring, it cannot have occurred. End of story.
At this point I see no point in any further discussion as it's a waste of time to talk to someone refuses to consider any questioning of their cherished beliefs.
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso "If evolution could not start occurring, it cannot have occurred. End of story." So if god created the cell it could not have then evolved from there? Evolution by natural selection could not have happened?
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso "So we keep asking, over and over, Until a handful of earth stops our mouths -- But is that an answer? Heinrich Heine, "Lazarus" (1854)
I understand your view, but your view is based on many false assumptions and unscientific conclusions.
"We must not believe the many, who say that only free people ought to be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers who say that only the educated are free." Epictetus, (Roman philosopher and former slave, Discourses)
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Your welcome.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Sorry about all the quotations, it's all irrelevant rambling anyways. Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant. Who needs to read all those books anyways, what a waste of time, there's obviously only one book that is important for people to read. The holy bible *sshhmeeegal, my precious*
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso 'No matter what objections to evolution there are, evolution has still happened! So there!'
Evolution is happening right now, it's a scientific FACT. Do you object to this? I thought it was theories of Evolution that you were trying to contest. Like the theory that evolution caused all speciation from a single organism, and the theory that the first organism itself came to be through this same process of pre-cellular abiotic molecular self-replication and natural selection.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry Define 'evolution'...
One 'comment' reply please...
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Biological Evolution: is the change in the inherited traits in a population of organisms through successive generations. Over time variants with particular heritable traits become more, or less, common. A trait is a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural—that is the result of gene–environment interaction. In laymans terms: Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry 'Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations...'
Define 'the process of change'.
What 'process'?
What 'change'?
One 'comment' reply please...
rynso 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But why on earth would they ever teach that to children in Christian Church?
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
...But why on earth would they ever teach that to children in Christian Church?
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
if all creationists in the world stopped attacking evolution theories. Science as it's body would NOT stop calling it evolutionary THEORY. That's the humbleness of science. We claim nothing to be absolute truth unless it can be proven to be true. Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories which explain its causes. These theories are at the mercy of the same proper scientific scrutiny and evalution to which all other theories are subjected.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
"We wait for light, but behold darkness" - Isaiah 59:9
"It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness" - Adage
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
Your attitude towards Science is not uncommon, It has been around perhaps as long as civilization itself. This quote pretty much sums it up:
"May God protect us from single vision and Newton's Sleep" - William Blake (poet)
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
"The simplest unit of life (which actually is highly/mind bogglingly complex) is the cell." True, but you know whats more highly mind bogglingly complex. Existence, any kind of existence, atoms, subatomic particles, quasars, black holes, neutron stars, dark energy, antimatter, time, space, the concept of 0...etc. They are all seemingly infinitely complex things when you actually think about them. Existence is well beyond full human understanding at present times. Science is honesty and truth.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
These are just some of many examples. Of course we don't have a videotape of precellular evolution because it's very likely not happening anymore given the now very biologically competitive environment of Earth. If we did have such a video, we would being calling it "The Laws of Evolution". Still, more evidence is piling that supports The Theories of Evolution and there has been no counter evidence, no evidence of divine intervention, or some other cause alternate and contrary to evolution.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
There are many examples of evidence for pre-cellular evolution. The fact that the universe evolved in an essentially naturally selective way; Martian inorganic soil cycles; Liposomes are 5 to 50 micron vesicles with an internal aqueous environment, whose amphiphilic lipidic components self-assemble into systems with at least one double-layered membrane. Liposomes have been suggested as possible models of precellular systems formed in the early Archean Earth from lipids of non-enzymatic origin.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
So I guess the ultimate problem your argument is it ignores pre-cellular evolution. Even the video link you gave me admits this. "Many of these motors were needed before the first living cell could exist" It does not say "living thing" it also claims "ATP is vital for life" this actually not true, most modern life on Earth requires ATP, but not all...In any case, simply because a thing is required for life of a given organism does not mean the thing didn't evolve from something else.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry 'So I guess the ultimate problem your argument is it ignores pre-cellular evolution.'
There's no evidence for 'pre-cellular evolution'. It's a postulate accepted by faith, despite being contradicted by the laws of nature.
2nd Law Thermodynamics. Entropy, not complexity, increases over all over time. Water runs downhill.
The inability to get 100% pure LH amino acids naturalistically kills evolution stone dead.
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Entropy determines that thermal energy always flows spontaneously from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature, in the form of heat. Hurricanes for example an example of entropy in global weather systems. If it were not for this process, the Earth's atmosphere would be subdivided by temperature regions that would never interact with each other. In real life Complex patterns develop when global tempuratures are imbalanced. I.E. the equator (hot); the poles (cold)
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso "There's no evidence for pre-cellular evolution." What about cosmic evolution? Another example, recent soil samples from Mars have shown processes of inorganic cycles that are evidence for what may have pre-existed organic soil cycles on earth.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
You ask "why shouldn't prostitution classes be run at high schools?" Um, maybe because your country's law states, "No person may cause, assist, facilitate, or encourage a person under 18 years of age to provide commercial sexual services to any person."
You speak for your political party, yet don't understand a law you choose to criticize? And your anti-Science position extends from anti-Evolution to anti-climate change, to presumably to anywhere your backwards leaders direct you.
ivyshoots 1 year ago
@ivyshoots Did you watch the video...and follow the argument? Doesn't sound like it.
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso yes, sir, I watched the full 10 minute video, offensive as it was. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that NZ law prevents "prostitution classes" from being taught in high schools as you suggest? You LIE when you imply that the law allows high schoolers to be herded into brothels. You LIE about climate change. Why?
ivyshoots 1 year ago
@ivyshoots Atheists are so quick to shout 'LIE' regarding anything anyone who opposes them says!
If you had actually listened to the argument in the video, rather than getting on your high horse, you would have noticed that given conditions that prevail (which I outlined) , why shouldn't prostitution be taught in schools, why shouldn't kids be taken by careers advisers to brothels to check out employment?
The law was changed to make prostitution a legit service industry. It can change again.
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso You, sir, are just another mediocre-minded male who thinks way too much of his own intellect and importance in the world. Rather than debate, you dodge and deflect, and yes, lie. I point out actual LIES in your comments, and you respond with "atheists do it too!" although atheists are utterly irrelevant to the discussion. I'm sorry you had some bad experiences with lying atheists, but you are talking to ME now, not someone who lied to you. Do you blame all blacks if one assaults you?
ivyshoots 1 year ago
"Ah, but they never told the price that you pay for things that you might have done... Only the good die young" - Billy Joel
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
How's this for meaningful: We are fundamentally connected to the universe...to everything, the matter we are made of is as old as the universe. The early universe consisted of hydrogen plasma, there were no heavier elements, just hydrogen. The hydrogen plasma condensed into supermassive stars which because of their size quickly burned up their fuel, exploded in supernova and expelled the fused heavier elements that we are now made of. We are starstuff. Talk about Sun Gods. Our Sun is a 2nd Gen.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry Just so story...but evolutionists could very well be latter day sun worshipers.
rynso 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry Look. You and your gurus have constructed this elaborate story to try and explain life the universe and everything without reference to a creator. It makes you feel good - and superior.
However the whole massive structure sits on a foundation of sand. If you guys can't get the original life up and running naturalistically - and you can't - then the whole of the superstructure crashes to the ground. If biological evolution couldn't start, it can't have occurred - end of story!
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Look at clouds before a storm...notice how they are patterned, unlike the random fluffy clouds of a calm summer day. What causes these patterns? The answer is energy, in many different cases throughout the cosmos, chaos leads to order, adding energy to a system causes patterns, patterns that are repeated natural occurences that show a distinct order or predictable formulation or formation. Natural abiotic patterning (replication) happens all the time. Even on the molecular level.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry You just don't get it! Your comment is totally irrelevant. Of course patterns may be produced when energy is input. No one disputes that! But 'complexity' is different to 'order' & 'patterns' simply produced by energy.
Coded information is not predicable on the basis of the material it rides on, or energy applied to that material. Words on a page are not determined by the chemical makeup of the paper & ink on which they're carried, but the mind from which they derive. Wake up!
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Complexity is a completely subjective term that's what you don't get. In itself it is not a scientific term that means anything all. So you need to specify what you mean by complexity. What are you referring to? What defines complexity besides relative comparison? --as for your other comment, which is just silly misapprehension of rational debate--I thought words on a page were predetermined by God and he created human minds for no reason at all.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Wrong again, modern science did not originally set out with the ambition to explain life, Darwin accidentally had the insight when he recognized that lifeforms in various environments were very specifically specialized to those environments... Based on this clearly observable evidence he theorized that the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest--given environment) specialized all life to their respective environments> polar bears are white because black ones couldn't hide.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry Again you change the subject! No one suggested modern science originally set out to explain life! (Actually, modern science originally set out to discover the glory of God in the created order.)
However, explain the origin of life evolutionists must do as they claim a comprehensive history from nothing to everything. Trouble is the stuff they have at their disposal simple can't do the job. If evolution couldn't start, it hasn't occurred. (No one disputes natural selection.)
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso We wan't to have a discussion about the probability of a small group atoms, randomly becomming capable of self-replication. Do you understand how small molecules, and atoms really are? There are 5 million atoms in this relatively 2 dimensional period. Now, Imagine how many there might be in your 3 dimensional body. Imagine if you can how many there might then be in your room, house, street, city, your country, my country (Canada), the world...So quick to you are to say "IMPOSSIBLE!"
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry What's your point? Are you drunk?
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso I assumed by gurus, you meant the highly reputable modern scientists I was quoting, like Einstein, Ben Franklin, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, etc. etc. You can't honestly believe this claim that modern science is founded on the presumtion of God's orderly universe. If this ridiculous notion were the case, I have to ask the question if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry 'Einstein, Ben Franklin, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan,' were not founders of modern science.
Those in the following comment were:
You should do your homework...
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso 'Einstein, Ben Franklin, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan,' I did not claim that these men were founders of modern science, I mentioned them in clear reference to your attribution to them being my 'gurus'...Although now that you mention it...No nevermind...What did modern physics, modern electromagnetic theory, modern biology, and modern cosmology ever do for us anyways!? Obviously, these men did not significantly contribute to modernizing any of these useless areas of modern science.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Louis Agassiz: His lectures on polygenism were popular among the slaveholders in the South; for many this opinion legitimized the belief in a lower standard of the Negro. Charles Boyle: "On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation" Is a work of Natural Theology which is not an accepted scientific field and never has been--Though he was a Scientist of other specializations. Many Scientists today are religious, this does not mean Science is founded on a creator.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Galileo stated: "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe; in the language of mathematics" advancing a tradition employed by natural philosophers. He tried to remain loyal to the Catholic Church, but honest interpretation of experimental results led to a rejection of blind allegiance to authority both philosophical and religious in matters of science; aiding the separation of science from both philosophy and religion; a major development in human thought.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Furthermore, it would be foolhardy to assume that even the most profoundly important scientists throughout history were at least sometimes wrong about some of their ideas. Notably, Isaac newton's most profoundly important contribution to science is his "Law of Universal Gravitation" Which turned out not to be a universal physical law despite it's ability to correctly predict results of physical experimentation--Except of course when variable objects encroach upon the speed of light.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Darwin did not seek to publish his findings and research for fear of backlash from the culturally dominant Church. He recognized that this theory clearly threatened religious doctrines, as many theories involving critical thinking, fact based analysis and induction tend to do. So for ten years he kept it to himself, he only published when he found out that another scientist had also discovered this same evidence. Since then scientific research has strengthened this theory greatly.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso Now, an elaborate story that set out with the intention of trying to explain life the universe and everything...Hmm...OF COURSE IT MUST BE DESIGNED! IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN DESIGNED, IT'S JUST TOO AMAZING TO BE RANDOM OH GLORY LORD THANK YOU! This is a dream, it's not fact based analysis, it's trying to answer the most mysterious questions as quickly and easily as possible. It does an ok job too. Until you actually start thinking logically, but you seem too afraid to do that.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry What's your point? You're rambling...
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Humans personify things all the time, because we are a species whos primary advantage is complex thought, which is not possible without language which is not possible without communication. So we're so good at it, we go overboard. We yell at our cars, we talk to our cats, and we give thanks to...the infinite. Ancient greeks believed that all things living and non living had their own will. If a rock fell off a hill and hit you as you walked by...well it willed to do so.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry What's your point? You're rambling...
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Humans personify things all the time, because we are a species whos primary advantage is complex thought, which is not possible without language which is not possible without communication. So we're so good at it, we go overboard. We yell at our cars, we talk to our cats, and we give thanks to...the infinite. Ancient greeks believed that all things living and non living had their own will. If a rock fell off a hill and hit you as you walked by...well it willed to do so.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
I will say this, spiritual gatherings in communities are necessary for a properly functioning society. But a society that is built on science should not support spiritual gatherings that seek to discourage proper understanding of what science really is. So as science has, is, and will hopefully always evolve through time, I hope spirituality will try to catch up to it, and allow itself to evolve, perhaps, some editing of those 2000 year old books?
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry Just so story.
rynso 1 year ago
"You're flogging cultural capital from a worldview you reject. It doesn't work." I think we're all guilty of this one. Kinda like the way we embrace masonry despite it's slave based society origins. Yeah, being kind to others, what do you know, not a bad idea...Religion may have popularized this concept (for capital lol), but if as evidence seems to suggest religion did not invent altruism, altruism may have caused religion, some good intentions perhaps, coulda left out the talking snake though.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
I look forward to your reply.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
Oh yes, and by 'quickly filled' I mean to say, 'a billion years'
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
Predatory reptiles surley dominated this planet, but they weren't very good at working together, educating the young...A niche that was quickly filled by Mammals. Squirrels adopt baby squirrels that are related to them despite the logical burden it places on the survival of the individual. Simple morality, that logically increases survivability of the accidentally altruistic genepool. What's good for us, also happens to be *good* That's all evolution really is.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry Just so story...that incidentally provides no basis for morality...
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso You're wrong about both parts of that broken sentence. It's not a story, it's an accepted scientific theory based on real observable evidence; the basal ganglia is quite nearly identical to the reptilian brain, and serves the same basic functions. It's not based on attempted weakening of creationism theory, it does that by accident. It specificly does provide a basis for morality, a human evolutionary basis. I'm sorry, it's not universal or ULTIMATE; doesn't apply to dirt or rocks.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry Similarity does not weaken creationist theory in the slightest. Designers use common ideas in different projects all the time. (Again...have you ever designed and made any thing? You haven't told me yet.) Similarity thus does not prove ancestral connection.
An evolutionary basis for morality says the fittest should survive, might is right, and is relativistic and situational. Right and wrong can mean anything and thus mean nothing.
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso Evidence that strengthens, evolution theory also inadvertantly undermines young earth creationism, and it's belief that humans did not evolve from an ancient primate species. Evolution theory deduces that if correct, we may find similarities between different species that speciated (branched off) from a common ancestor. This prediction made by evolution theory is verified, evolution theory is one of the strongest scientific fields, most well supported by evidence and verified predictions.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@rynso "An evolutionary basis for morality says the fittest should survive, might is right, and is relativistic and situational." Somewhat true, but what does fittest really mean? What do you mean by might? Are we talking about big muscles, sharp teeth, camoflage, metabolic superiority...Or psychological, intellectual, conscious, communicative and moral superiority? For some reason, humans aren't purely evil. The reason? sharks already took that niche. Our advantage is working together.
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry What's your point? You're rambling...
rynso 1 year ago
@rynso On that note, let me ask you a question: Suppose hypothetically speaking, science found a way to actually disprove the existence of God. Now If there was no way for you to cover your eyes and blindly deny the truth (as you do now about many other related issues) I must ask, what you think you would do with this newfound enlightenment? Really think deeply, this question is for you to answer for yourself: Would you have it in you to kill a child simply by knowing God does not exist?
Itseasyifyoutry 1 year ago
@Itseasyifyoutry Hypothetical...thus irrelevant...
rynso 1 year ago