Hey John85 I hope you're having a great holiday season. Just because the creation story in the book of Genesis is a myth doesn't make evolution true. Evolution is the MYTH of the secular age. Science tries to explain everything in words. Somethings can't be reduced to words. All theories are wrong! All theories will always be wrong because life is not explainable to quote John Lennon "Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void,
@billybill56 so those that mean the theory of atoms is wrong? Does that make the germ theory wrong? And science doesn't try to explain everything in "words", science is a way of knowing the natural world and science uses experiments. diagrams and pictures.
There is no evidence for evolution but there are mountains of evidence that it's false. And I have not proposed another theory because ALL theories are wrong. What is a theory. It's a group of words trying to explain something. How we came into existence is way beyond words.
@billybill56 If by mountains, you mean the mountains of desperate religious folks who will say anything to keep the 'adam created by dirt, and eve created by his rib' theory alive. You need to get EDUCATED: endogenous retroviruses, chromosome fusion, etc. EVOLUTION IS A FACT AND THE THEORY EXPLAINS THE FACT (gravity theory, germ theory are theories).
Evolution is a false theory. Life did not happen because of random mutation and natural selection. There's too many things in nature that disprove it. Evolution is the creation myth of the secular age.
Hey Chadwick iI respectfully disagree. For instance how does evolution account for single celled organisms which use cell division to reproduce turn into creatures that use sexual reproduction.
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy Don't waste time explaining man.. These guys don't understand evolution and they don't want to understand it either.. They are just here to drop a few lines in video posts like this hoping to spread their unsubstantiated views.
@billybill56 sexual reproduction occured 1,2 billioin years ago. The dawn of sex did not have two complex multicellular organisms, going at it with matching genitals and complicated mating rituals. Instead the dawn of sex was simply cells using and mixing DNA and then separating. The core of sex is the fusion between two haploid cells that only have one copy of each chromosome, forming one diploid with two chromosome pairs. This cell undergoes meiosis creating four new haploid cells
@billybill56 These unicellular organisms is the closest relatives to animals. Soon these, so called choanoflagellates, formed colonies effectively becoming multicellular. 850 million years BC, the proterospongia evolves and it is the first multicellular sexually reproducing animal ever.
This is a joke. How did dirt turn into DNA? All life has DNA except some viruses which have RNA. But they have to live in creatures that have RNA. Evolution can't explain it. Evolution is the creation myth of the secular age!
@billybill56 It's not dirt. Dirt consists of crumbled rocks, DNA/RNA consists of a specific sugar molecule (carbon), a phosphate group (phosphorous) and nucleobases (nitrogene). These are the ingredients to of nucleotides - the building blocks of DNA/RNA.
Carl Sagan - "Our collective free time needs to shift as much as possible to education. Whether you're a young student or finished school long ago, get out to the library whenever you can and work hard to learn everything you can about this world. Each individual and society will benefit from being able to solve more problems and make better decisions. Education is an amazing discovery process that repays you endlessly."
Still didn't explain the origin of DNA's encoded information only the origin of particles that make up the building blocks of DNA... How does a self replicating process of amino acids begin?? Whats the driving force behind transcription? Protein is not conscious, how does it know how to perform transcription and replication? without the specific and complex encoded sequence of amino acids in the dna of the simplest single cell, you get nothing, just a worthless pool of particals..
@arhern7 All it takes is the right pH and nucleotides will self-polymerize. If they do this inside a phospholipid vesicle, they become trapped inside. You now have a very crude cell. Nucleic acids, under the right conditions, also spontaneously copy themselves using nucleotides in the environment. You now have basic self-replication. In order to make room for all this nucleic acid, the vesicle will spontaneously steal phospholipids from other, smaller vesicles. You now have basic competition.
Is this true? When was this experiment done? Was there any documented images of the molecules produced in this which he claims happens to have assembled themselves into like little proteins and nucleic acids? That they could actually reproduce themselves?
@TheKenTerry Oh, goodness. So only a true Christian is a creationist?? That's a no true scotsman fallacy.I guess you're not familiar with Francis Collins and Asa Gray? Christians who are evolutionary biologists. Creationism is the belief that God created the earth in its present state about 6,000 years ago. That represents only a small portion of theists. There are people who believe in God who don't believe that and/or believe in evolution. Mind you, belief in a God includes deism.
@TheKenTerry That only holds true if you interpret that story literally, which is not the purpose of the text. There's nothing that says "you have to believe this." Quit oversimplifying it. You just naively said that belief in God=creationism, when that's completely false. Belief in God encompasses many belief systems.
@TheKenTerry Why don't you read for once. The Bible has metaphorical language everywhere. It's not about "pick and choose." It's called actually reading and not giving generalized and ignorant answers to everything. Francis Collins picks apart creationism, yet he's a Christian who testifies about the fact of evolution. The Genesis creation account was not written to be taken literally. Where do you find that? I just gave you two scientists who are believers in God but don't adhere to creationism
@TheKenTerry Wrong, sir. Aquinas talked about a figurative interpretation of Genesis hundreds of years before Darwin. Plus, your example is speculation. It's not a literal account, or every modern Jew would be a staunch creationist, which just ain't the case, is it?? We are talking about reading a book? If you read the Bible, you'd find instances of literary devices, including parables and legends.
@TheKenTerry Oh, goodness. You're simply regurgitating the writings of creationists and then giving me more logical fallacy bs that makes no sense. For one, you obviously don't believe it's the "word of God" nor do you believe in the writings, so don't make that argument! It was not written to be taken literally. You've given no evidence of that, nor have you explained why so many actual believers in the text don't have a literal interpretation.
Apparently it was not written to teach us anything about the nature of reality, or to make any kind of sense whatsoever.
« explained why so many actual believers in the text don't have »
Does that need explaining? It is obvious that people read into the text whatever the hell they want to read into it. Some say it's metaphor (and provide their own interpretation), others say it's literal (and then still provide their own interpretation)
@XGralgrathor Not "make any kind of sense whatsoever."
Quite a subjective assessment. A person's inability to comprehend a text does not invalidate the text. It could actually demonstrate the incompetence of that reader.
"read into text whatever the hell.."
The same can be said about the US Constitution. It's called strict vs. loose constructionism. It's the fundamental difference between the two major parties. Having diverse viewpoints about a text does not invalidate the text.
The question is not whether it's "valid" or not; arguing "validity" only becomes an issue when the text makes a clear, unambiguous statement, that can be interpreted one way, and one way only, about the nature of the physical reality we inhabit. It doesn't. Even if the text was originally meant to mean just one thing, it is interpreted in many different (and conflicting) ways now.
« The same can be said about the US Constitution »
Yes. That too is interpreted by learned men, who try and guess what the original authors would have wanted the text to mean in the context of our modern society. Whether it's "valid" or not depends entirely on your modern point of view. This is why there exists a process of amending legislature: old texts on subjects of morality and law simply do not remain entirely relevant.
@TheKenTerry "Who cares what somebody says." Sounds like you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be putting words in Carl Sagan's mouth. Don't extend this into some straw man. You just said all Christians are young earth creationists which is one of the dumbest statements I've heard.
@TheKenTerry Actually it does say that. You have to read between the lines. Creationists get that number from the genealogies and ages provided in the original text of Genesis. Add them all up and you get that Adam was created a few thousand years ago. The age of the world is a VERY important aspect of creationism.
@TheKenTerry it does say that. the text has genealogies with specific ages. The date of creation can be calculated by simply putting them all together, so the young earth is a critical part of creationism. Your question is quite ignorant. You totally skipped over the intention of the actual authors of Genesis and made it into a theological debate, when I never made any statements regarding my beliefs. You assumed that.
@TheKenTerry It says on the sixth day he created man (Adam). It goes on to give Adam's age and when he died, and then goes on to do this for every successive generation. You have to be incredibly thickheaded to ignore this, or you don't have a literal interpretation of the creation account. I never said those were my beliefs. I said Francis Collins and others have that belief. I don't need to explain myself to people who don't have a good understanding of the topic.
You know so much but refuse to put in what you believe. You are punching and hiding, so i'm not going to play your game. Also, are you stating creationists count the Earth as old a humans? That's ridiculous. You're doing the most stereotypical christian response ever by saying "You don't know as much as me, so i'm not going to justify my points." Don't try to stand up for something you don't know how to defend.
@TheKenTerry Wow. I never said anything about my beliefs, yet I have "the most stereotypical Christian response ever." You're the one trying to generalize and throw me into a camp when I NEVER made any statement about my own beliefs. You're the one asking me about my beliefs and showing a lack of knowledge on the subject. Creationists count the earth based on Genesis which says man made on day 6. That's basic info about creationism, yet you somehow can't accept it
@TheKenTerry That's ridiculous. No what's ridiculous is defining creationism as saying "man was made from dirt and woman from a rib." That makes no mention of the age of the earth or living creatures, the deity, or the actual belief system. You only cover the "how" which says very little at all. Don't try to stand up for something,,,,? Wow, I'm definitely not a creationist. I never even identified myself as a Christian, for that matter. You're the one labeling, and you fail at it
Yea yea, back off and retract your statements. Listen, I told you what I think, and if you can't do the same there is no debate, it's just you trying to find fault and me asking questions to which you ignore and go back to what I said before. You're not even going to admit to being a christian? With that I end this conversation, you can message me if you want. I've never met someone so willing to debate while refusing to say what they stand for.
@TheKenTerry Not my fault that your questions are filled with logical fallacies, assumptions, and nonsense. Yeah, you think creationism simply means being made from a rib, arguing against creationism is the same as atheism, and somehow an evolutionary theist is the same as an agnostic. If that's "what you think" then I have every right to call you ignorant. If you want to paint me as some "stereotypical Christian" then go ahead. I'd rather not message you. Reading these comments was enough.
Again, you hit and hide. I can't believe i'm playing this game with such a ridiculous person. Have you read the fucking bible? How about the first damn chapter when it says God created humans from dust and the rib of Adam? I'm ignorant for saying that's what creationists believe? No, you're ignorant for calling it a metaphor so it's easier to justify it. And yes, if a christian believes in evolution it means he knows the bible is wrong, so he is at least and agnostic.
@TheKenTerry Hit and Hide. That's why I responded and didn't say I'd ignore your comments like you just did. But thanks for coming back. Haha. No. You're ignorant for refusing to address the importance of the age of the earth and its inclusion in Genesis. Try to look up a definition of agnostic. You'll find it has little similarity with theistic evolution! Try telling that to Dr. Collins. Better yet, read his book. Maybe you'll learn something. Probably not.
@wildstyle2192 I didn't go did I? You think i'm going to let someone like you insult me? Again I came back with a great response and you eluded to none of it. An agnostic is someone who doubts if God is real or not, and theist evolution doubts the creation account. As far as the age, where is it in the bible? That's right, it's not in there because the bible doesn't try to say how old the world is. Idiots just added the dates of people in the bible and said HERE IT IS! THE AGE OF THE WORLD!
@TheKenTerry A great response? Where!?!! A theistic evolutionist believes in a God who created mankind by means of evolution and the earth is billions of years old. The age of the earth is in there. I'm sorry if you can't add up numbers. I thought arithmetic was taught at a young age...Try going to answers in geneis and other creationists. Better yet, explain why there are "young earth creationists" and "old earth creationists." Simply coping out and calling them idiots just won't do, pal.
Did your mother drop you? I'm aware a theistic evolutionist believes the Earth is billions of years old, we are talking about creationists you twat. I'll tell you why there are young earth and old earth creationists, are you ready? Because the bible doesn't say how old the Earth is! Thank you for finally acknowledging that. And you call me the cop out? Excuse me, i'm the only one directly answering questions here.
@TheKenTerry Twat? Haha. Good one. No, that's not why. Are you ready?? It's because old earth creationists interpret the 6 days of creation as undefined periods of time and not a literal 24 hours. That's really the only difference between the two, but it makes a big difference when dealing with modern geology. See it's about the literal interpretation again! I'm sorry you're too damn dull to understand this.
@TheKenTerry My point was that there are even CREATIONISTS who don't have a literal interpretation of Genesis, because Genesis clearly says days. These people are creationist Christians yet they don't interpret it literally! This goes against your claims. Yet you ignorantly insist that they all MUST have a literal interpretation, when you've provided no evidence to the contrary besides your "former Mormon" know-it-all ego.
This is why I asked you to tell me what is metaphor and literal in the bible, but you refused. What do you mean evidence? Do you want me to fill this comments page with literal interpretations of the bible? Because I can if you want. What i'm saying is creation can't be a fucking metaphor for evolution, therefor if you don't believe in creation you think part of the bible is wrong. Is that too hard to understand, or do you want me to say it 4 more times?
@TheKenTerry What is metaphor and literal in the Bible? Goodness, let me go through every single verse for you now...Yeah. Right. There are sources online you can help yourself to. You can read, right?
Creation can't be a fucking metaphor for evolution?
.I've given you sources for people who say Genesis was metaphorical hundreds of years before Darwin. Tell that to those people. It's not about saying it's "wrong." They don't believe it's wrong since it wasn't originally meant to be literal!
This is over, you're still refusing to answer my one simple request from when I started. You can't answer one damn question, i've tried to keep this going, but you're not putting anything into this conversation by saying "read other people's stuff". All you have shown me is you are too scared to spout off what you believe, you don't know enough so you tell me to read other people's shit, and you are defending creationism being a metaphor for evolution.
@TheKenTerry "One simple request for when I started."
more like the past day
"Too scared to spout off what you believe."
It's irrelevant. Simply stating my beliefs does nothing to the conversation. You haven't even done so, but you take all liberty in assuming my beliefs.
"You don't know enough"
I guess citing sources is indication of ignorance in your feeble mind. I guess Acquinas is too much for ya. This time, do what you say, and just fucking leave. Thank you, sir.
@TheKenTerry I was never here for a "debate" or "saying what I stand for." What the hell is that about? Did you ever say you were an atheist, or an agnostic, or anything? Nope. Did I ever label you as such? No. Yet you somehow know everything about my beliefs. Interesting to note that these comments concerned Genesis creation account, which is shared by Christians AND Jews and Muslims. Plus, scholars in religious studies can be of any faith, or none at all.
@TheKenTerry "Wow, religious people believe God created the Earth..."
Thanks for completely oversimplifying and manipulating my statement. I've already seen that you have problems with using sources, so it's understandable.
@TheKenTerry Not quite the same God. And for several reasons. But to my point, it's so ignorant to assume a person is a Christian just for making a statement about the Bible. That can be someone who's not even a theist! This whole exchange began when I corrected your statement. You're the one that made it into a theological argument.
@TheKenTerry I can make an argument about Roman mythology and I don't have to believe one iota of Vergil's Aeneid to discuss it. Calling me a "dumb fuck" does nothing to add to a discussion,nor does a personal statement about my beliefs. Ad hominem and shouting is useless. I never said some scientists. Don't put quotes around shit I never said. I specifically mentioned Dr. Francis Collins and Asa Gray. You've only mentioned your wack generalizations and nonsense.
@TheKenTerry I never said those two men were theologians. My comment was in response to you putting quotes around statements I didn't make; i.e. "some scientists." I specifically mentioned Collins and Gray.Try to actually READ what I write. I cited Acquinas as a philosopher. THIRD century philosopher Origen also said "these are FIGURATIVE expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history." I don't have to put down what you say. You make yourself look like an ass.
@TheKenTerry You really want to put words in my mouth. I cite philosophers and scientists to illustrate that Christians, both modern and pre-Darwin, had and have metaphorical interpretations of Genesis. I can give you actual quotes. You haven't cited any sources. You're too busy throwing insults at me and assuming my beliefs. I'm giving you responses and arguments. Stating a belief is irrelevant and will probably encourage more gratuitous ad hominem.
@TheKenTerry Wow. ACQUINAS is pre darwin. Are you fucking illiterate?? Or are you that big of a smartass?! I mentioned him five days ago. You can go back to my old comments.
"What I've said requires no cite.."
I believe you mean "citation." Subject verb agreement is common sense. You haven't cited sources that say a literal interpretation is the only correct one. It's common sense that the earth is not the center of the universe. Copping out without proving it doesn't say much at all.
I'm allowed to use slang jackass. I love how you'll give me a grammar lesson, yet you still won't (although now i'm sure "won't" has turned to "can't", since you won't even acknowledge it now) answer my fucking questions. Would you like CITES of people saying the bible should all be taken literal? Citations don't mean shit, you still haven't proved me wrong. Of course some people take it as a metaphor, that's the only way one can actually be a christian without looking retarded.
Dude, seriously. You are the best troll in internet history. Not only did you not answer the question, you eluded to it and just made fun of it haha. Done. You are inferior.
@TheKenTerry No, I am not a Christian, but I've studied its texts.. Believers are free to choose how they interpret individual verses. If you go back, I first responded to your ridiculous statement that equated arguing against creationism with arguing against theism (well you can't now since you've deleted it, go figure). If your statement were true, then there would be no evolutionary agnostics or evolutionary theists. So that would mean no Francis Collins, Stephen Jay Gould, or even Carl Sagan
@TheKenTerry I think the things Carl Sagan speaks about are a reflection of what we know in a simplified way and don't mention God. I don't think they're direct proof in God's nonexistence. In fact, I would say something like that and its converse is damn near impossible to see.
I'm talking about the christian God. They believe in creation, period. Most of the things Mr. Sagan talked about were directed towards evolution and of course astrophysics.
@TheKenTerry Well how likely is it that a comment on youtube will change their mind? I think science is for the betterment of humanity, not for breeding dissension. These kinds of talk rarely leave people "enlightened."
@nooneeagle In regards to you argument of "code"- you're not putting enough thought into it. It happened very, very slowly over millions of years. This is very hard to understand as humans. Once rna formed and started replicating (automatically-it's a chemical reaction like mixing vinegar and baking soda) they very slowly began to change and eventually became cells- cells became animals. The strains that continue to replicate today came about because they were the most fit, they evolved.
In regards to life 'origniating' on this planet. The very first fossils we find are right after the crust solidified and the early bombardment stage started to occur, this doesn't give life 'much time to originate'! Most likely life came a calling from space and 'seeded' life (from the evidence that we find) and then evolution took off from there! If you have a "theory" that says otherwise, then I would like to hear of this highly fantasized theory of yours? I can falsify Dr. Szostak's model.
The laws of physics apply to the physical world we live in! How can one say that these laws "DON'T" apply to biochemical systems? Unless you have proofs to back up such 'absurd' claims I feel that we can all dismiss the statement where tskasa claims that the laws of physics don't apply to biochemical systems... Do you even understand the concept of physics and the Laws governing the phenomenon around us?
The origin of DNA (the code that brings life about) is just that, 'code' and the only thing man has found that can "create" code is "intelligence" and in no way can code create itself! That is an oxymoron stance. Without the code in the first place, there is no intelligence to sustain order and for inanimate matter to "create" the code nesseccary to produce life in the first place is akin to saying something happened by magic, without reason or science. That stance is as unscientific as a God.
Function of Shannon entropy is. If conditions for life to be created did exist on the Earth at one time, the catylist that results in the combination of certain elements to start life, the combination that codes life, the same condition that is responsible for life to begin will also be the result of it demise! It's like a 50/50 coin flip and 'if' life starts, the the same condition responsible for this start will cause the information to corrupt itself and fail, no matter how much time allowed.
Creating life is like: If non-life is noted in the form of a, b and c and then a + b = c and c + c = c all you still have is non-life but if life is x, y and z, never will you get an x, y or z by adding any cobination of a, b and c's. Codes for life have to already be here or come from somewhere for them to mutate and start evolution but no where has man shown that non-life of a, b or c can ever mutate into the x, y and z's of life. Combinations of a, b and c will only result in a, b, and c's.
I've been told many times that most scientist rely on the neo-Darwinian stance of creation, that it's the most popular, yet this is a falsehood. Most scientist rely on hypothesis's and theory's that hold solid 'evidence' backing up their stances and the neo-Darwinian stance has no evidence backing it up, so to say that "MOST" scientists hold this stance as the most popular is a ruse that you need to believe! I am a scientist and know lots of Colleagues that do NOT hold this stance as a standard.
In the light that some people take in relying on speculation to "point' towards an end means in coming to a conclusion that life started in the neo-Darwinian manner of creation makes me wonder, as a scientist, "Why so many go out on a limb, without the evidence and put their 'faith' in something that is so much unproven with no scientific evidence backing it up"!
Coupled with the function of entropy, one can clearly see this concept has been debunked, "falsified"! Think about that one for awhil
Without "fact" and "figures", modern day micro-biologist and genetic engeneers won't even entertain the idea of the neo-Darwinian creation stance because even after 150 years and especially the advances in the past 30 years in the fields of microbiology and genetic engeneering, the facts just are not there to support this no-fact-supported stance, It's not even considered a hypothesis, much less a theory, but just a stance many take in describing the creation of life without proof...Speculation!
I challenge anyone to "show" scientific evidence to the neo-Darwinian creation stance that Carl Sagan surmizes in this video and show "how" this information can form (by modern scientidfic methods) and if you can do this, it will "falsify" the current function of Entropy and I'm pretty sure you will become famous!
Other than that, there is nothing to back up this stance and many scientific minds realize these very dire facts and don't back the abiogenesis stance of neo-Darwinan creation, sorry
tskasa, You claim there is proof that biochemistry can produce life through chance happenings falling into place to produce random code that results in life.
Please cite any references so that we may look at your claims!
Please. Just one little proof so that I can go on to "falsify" Shannon Entropy. The function of Shannon Entropy has yet to be falsified, either I can falsify it or the neo-Darwinian creation stance. Either one is fine but so far I can only prove entropy falsifies your stance.
In the case that you say that energy in the form of heat from the sun or lightening can cause intelligent creation out of inanimate matter can be falsified by the function of Shannon entropy that states that the same energy that might be resposible for any orginization will also cause the this orginization to falter and be corrupt, so the odds of life arising by chance given any amount of time has been proven to be zero according to the funtion of entropy. Fact, unless you can prove otherwise...
The tendency that every organic structure has to revert to disorganization is spelt out in the thermodynamic law, which defines the function of entropy. There is never a gain in order without the intervention of an outside force. Therefore, inanimate matter containing no energy or movement will always stay inert in the absence of any guiding hand to organize and direct it. Thus the theory of neo-Darwinian creation lies in direct contradiction with the law of entropy.
Either the law of Thermodynamics is wrong, (the function of Enotropy) or the (unproven) hypothesis of the neo-Darwinian creation is wrong and what Carl Sagan talks of is purely conjecture and can never be proven without the falsification of the function of Shannon Entropy in information theory. It can't be both ways or the Law of Thermodynamics wouldn't be the "law" it is but it would be just some offbeat idea. What is, is, and you can't change that to meet your needs to prove an unproven stance
tskasa1, by stating that biochemical creation can happen you are "falsifying" the funtion of Entropy, so you must be on your way to becoming famous? Again, I ask of you to state proof that falsifies these laws that show what you talk of to be possible! It's funny that you "claim" that the neo-Darwinian concept of "creation" of code from non-living substances is the favorite yet even after 150 years and most notablely the past 30 years of microbiology shows no proof behind your or anyones claims?
tskasa1, you can't change physics to meet your needs, if they apply to information whether it be biochemical, light of DNA, information is information and by function of Shannon Entropy, you can use it to determine the outcome of a coin flip which is 50/50. You use it to determing the information in coding of light and you can use it to determine whether the information (any information) will arise then be destroyed by the same forces that cause it to arise in the first place 50/50 chance.
@tskasa1 "By the system you have described you could also never have mutations either..."
Mutations occur because of indirect actions on other media. If a code is in place and a mutation occurs, if there is enough 'fail safe mechnisms' in place, the code could survive and mutations could produce unreasonable results all the way to improved results but mutations and the invention and abiogenesis of completely new code that never existed before are two differrent things!
Yes, but there are thousands of ways of manifesting information. For a physicist, matter is information. Energy is information. Quanta are information. Fields are information. Are you saying that atoms can't form by themselves from constituent particles, as they are all information? You can't simply apply a concept to a generalized idea all the while ignoring EVERYTHING else that factors into the system at hand, because that is not how nature works.
@tskasa1 And what does the physics of light have to do with biochemical codes which store their information in CHEMICAL bonds, and not electrical binary sequencees? Absolutely NOTHING at all. I understand Thermodynamics and the physics of light pretty well, however, you, who are trying to apply them incorrectly to biochemistry, obviously do not.
The same laws of physics that appy to information theory apply to chemical bonds and the information contained therein. Information is information.
tskasa1, Please, instead of writing such things (without anything backing your claims) Please show some proof behind you claims that life can start out and "create" code, being inanimate matter to begin with... Show me the proof to your claims that you so faithfully believe in, please... Not double talk saying that your claims are believed by Everyone, because they aren't! The scientific community often negates claims of the neo-Darwinian type for favor of other abiogenesis type hypothesis.
Nowhere in the history of "science" has anyone shown biological/biochemical proof that inatimate matter can coelesce and produce code through some type of chance intelligence! Hummm, Maybe I'm missing the presumptions and what-ifs but no where can I find any proof to these absurd claims! Just because life exists doesn't mean that it formed on this planet in the manner that you so oddly presume in your neo-Darwinian rants! No proof except for "specualtions" and it-could-have-happened stances???
"Not double talk saying that your claims are believed by Everyone, because they aren't!"
I never said everyone. I said all professional and serious scientists. Which is true.
"The scientific community often negates claims of the neo-Darwinian type for favor of other abiogenesis type hypothesis."
Ehhh, no. Abiognesis in the manner described by Sagan is THE most popular and accepted theory for the beginning of life amongst scientists and for good reason.
"has anyone shown biological/biochemical proof that inatimate matter can coelesce and produce code through some type of chance intelligence"
They've yet to show that it HAS done so in the case of Earth, albeit quite a lot of the evidence points in that direction. They HAVE, however, shown that it is most definitely possible to do so given the laws of biochemistry. And no, it's not some type of chance intelligence, it's completely random chance.
@tskasa1 "They HAVE, however, shown that it is most definitely possible to do so given the laws of biochemistry. And no, it's not some type of chance intelligence, it's completely random chance."
>Please cite any references so that we may look at your ?claims? Please... Just one little proof so that I can go on to "falsify" Shannon Entropy but do you know what? The function of Shannon Entropy has yet to be falsified, so either I can falsify it or the neo-Darwinian 'creation' stance...
The funtion of Entropy and it's 'laws' are all valid whether in the code is coding life or coding numbers, you are saying that code "INVENTS" itself given enough time? Through the laws of Physics, I have shown you this is impossible with the function of Enotropy backing up my stance, you do nothing but blabber on and on without showing me any facts or figures debunking my proven stances using the very laws of Physics. You'll be hard pressed to find any evidence backing your stance on the subject
It's pretty appearant that you "don't understand" the Law of Thermodynamics or the physics of Light and coding proceedures as written using the funtion of "Shannon Entropy" tskasa... Code never appears in communications unless we send it down the line and everyone knows in the telecommunications engeneering industry that code will never magically appear even given trillions of years because of the simple fact of Entropy. Simple and if you don't understand it then maybe you should go study it.
"It's pretty appearant that you "don't understand" the Law of Thermodynamics or the physics of Light "
And what does the physics of light have to do with biochemical codes which store their information in CHEMICAL bonds, and not electrical binary sequencees? Absolutely NOTHING at all. I understand Thermodynamics and the physics of light pretty well, however, you, who are trying to apply them incorrectly to biochemistry, obviously do not.
"Code never appears in communications unless we send it down the line "
Yes, but this isn't communications, now is it? You are talking about a VERY specific hand crafted code and not all codes are as such.
"whether in the code is coding life or coding numbers"
The codes use to code these two things are VASTLY different and subject to many different phenomena, some of which they share and others which they don't.
"you are saying that code "INVENTS" itself given enough time?"
If given the correct materials to make itself out of then yes, biochemical code CAN make itself. Because all you have to do is a VERY simple code that replicates itself, which CAN be done through wholly natural means, albeit it needs some time do so. From there it can, and due to the laws of nature MUST, in order to survive, become more complex and form life.
@tskasa1"If given the correct materials to make itself out of then yes, biochemical code CAN make itself. Because all you have to do is a VERY simple code that replicates itself, which CAN be done through wholly natural means, albeit it needs some time do so. From there it can, and due to the laws of nature MUST, in order to survive, become more complex and form life."
My reply: Show me your proof to this very interesting thought! Because I see nowhere in the history of humanity, this proof!
@nooneeagle 'Shannon Entropy', would that be from Claud Shannon, 1916-2001, the famous atheist, who developed the ideas of Boltzman, the famous Darwinian?
Again through the function of Entropy I can state that given a blank computer, that ten billion years from now the computer will still be 'uncoded" unless an intelligent force acts apon it to code it. Dumb luck from lightening strikes will never create enough information for the computer to code itself no matter 'how much time allowed' because through the function of Entropy, the same lightening that gives rise to code will ultimately destroy any workable code on the same basis of said Law.
Again, talking about "CODE" all of the sudden appearing and coding itself, is against the Laws of Thermodynamics, specifically the Function of Entropy. As soon as the same things that 'might' allow life to get started, this same function will corrupt the same code/life and through the function of Shannon Entropy, non-existent code will never form into a workable intelligent code without an outside intelligence acting apon it as stated in the function of Entropy. If you can prove otherwise do it.
"this same function will corrupt the same code/life...non-existent code will never form into a workable intelligent code without"
If you completely and utterly ignore how the biochemical codes work, why, of course it will. If, however, you allow the biochemical codes to work in the same manner that they do in reality, then it won't. This is because a biochemical code such as what you find in DNA/RNA is VERY different from an electronic digital code.
@tskasa1, Reread the topic of this video, Carl Sagan on the origin of DNA, Everything in it is "specualtion" there has never been proven "where the origin came from" and for you to turn this into a discussion about evolution is childish... There is not one "proven" instance of "where DNA came from" that you can show me the scientific paper in a scientific journal showing this kind of "PROOF", now can you? Stay on topic and quit saying drifting off onto the topic of Evolution or the Big Bang...
"Everything in it is "specualtion" there has never been proven"
Except the vast majority of what has been said has been shown to be either true or extremely probable. Carl Sagan's show aired over 30 years ago. Science has progressed a LOT since then.
"There is not one "proven" instance of "where DNA came from" that you can show me the scientific paper in a scientific journal showing this kind of "PROOF", now can you?"
There have been hundred written talking about the arisal of DNA. Hundreds.
"Stay on topic and quit saying drifting off onto the topic of Evolution or the Big Bang..."
I was providing an analogy, then again, I wouldn't expect you to understand so complex a notion as that.
And no, I didn't literally mean hundreds, it was obviously hyperbole used for dramatic effect. There HAVE been, however, quite a few and nearly ALL of them point in the same direction, albeit they don't necessirily completely agree on everything. So, as I stated before, while we do not know exactly what happened, we DO know beyond a reasonable doubt the general jist of what had to have happened.
@nooneeagle Oro J 1961. Mechanism of synthesis of adenine from hydrogen cyanide under possible primitive Earth conditions. Nature 191:1193–1194 [PubMed]
NO Where has modern science proven any of this that Carl "speculates" on... Speculation, funny word when people "speculate" that something "may" have happened and others take it as proof that it did happen just because of this "speculation"... Hum, interesting science you people use here in the "Evolution" circles.. Hum, very interesting indeed that so many believe this by pure speculation alone... With no scientific proof backing any of it up what so ever...
"NO Where has modern science proven any of this that Carl "speculates" on..."
Have you read ANY scientific literature from the past ~40 years or so? No, I don't mean your basic high school text books. Or even your college text books. I mean peer reviewed journal articles. Apparently, not.
@tskasa1 Ok, so I can't say that you can't "PROVE" anything BUT I sure can "FALSIFY" any origins hypothesis you throw my way... Go figure on that one... There isn't one single origins theory that I can't easily falsify so I can calmly say that you have NO proof to any creation myth by modern day standards... I can clearly show where life, 'most likely came from space' and had a lot more time to originate than did the early earth seeing that we find fossils right after the crust solidified.
"Hum, very interesting indeed that so many believe this by pure speculation alone..."
...Are you seriously saying that evolution has no evidentiary support? Evolution is arguably THE most well supported theory in history, so far as the evidence is concerned, albeit the Big Bang MAY be a bit better. Regardless, evolution has more evidence for it than Einstein's Theories of Relativity...the basis for modern physics...which has been proven many times over...
Show me some "garbage code" in our DNA and take it out of "your" DNA and I'll show you someone that doesn't exist in our world!
Ask a proven microbiologist such as Dr. Craig Ventor... Junk DNA, you all must be kidding, right? Everything has a purpose and if you think that some DNA is just junk, then try "experimenting" in the lab, without it! You soon find out that life just doesn't work without it in place!
"Show me some "garbage code" in our DNA and take it out of "your" DNA"
You don't need to.take it out as it happens all the time. Your DNA mutates several hundred if not thousand times between inception and death (assuming a death due to old age). It even mutates some (albeit VERY rarely) during your adult life. However, because the VAST majority of mutations affect the non-coding part of the DNA, there is no actual effect observed. I suggest you stop sounding so dumb.
Reply: Who is sounding dumb? Can you prove this "flawed" logic you have??? Micro-biologists are showing how this so-called Junk code is useful in all sorts of biological manerisms every day and for you call it "junk-code" is kind of on the immature level of not understanding or even being educated to know the difference... Who's calling who ignorant here? Go back to school before commenting on such matters, please.
Look at the Law of Thermodynamics and in mans finest hour we actually "use" Shannon Entropy to communicate through the internet, yet using the very laws of physics that allow us to communicate through the internet using the function of "Shannon Entropy", shows that without our intelligence to "PROGRAM" this code that it would never originate all by itself, yet you people claim that life started by Darwinian Evolution(as Carl S. states), against this law of physics??? Are you hypoc
Conjecture, a lot of them.
hisham031170 16 hours ago
Thank so much for posting this wonderful Cosmos clip. Bless you.
johnbarleycornmd 1 week ago
The fact that atoms and germs exist is provable. How they came into being not so much!
billybill56 4 weeks ago
Hey John85 I hope you're having a great holiday season. Just because the creation story in the book of Genesis is a myth doesn't make evolution true. Evolution is the MYTH of the secular age. Science tries to explain everything in words. Somethings can't be reduced to words. All theories are wrong! All theories will always be wrong because life is not explainable to quote John Lennon "Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void,
It is shining, it is shining"
billybill56 1 month ago
@billybill56 so those that mean the theory of atoms is wrong? Does that make the germ theory wrong? And science doesn't try to explain everything in "words", science is a way of knowing the natural world and science uses experiments. diagrams and pictures.
jandkas 4 weeks ago
There is no evidence for evolution but there are mountains of evidence that it's false. And I have not proposed another theory because ALL theories are wrong. What is a theory. It's a group of words trying to explain something. How we came into existence is way beyond words.
billybill56 1 month ago
@billybill56 You are just completely wrong, evolution is a fact, and we have seen it in the natural world.
jandkas 1 month ago
@billybill56 If by mountains, you mean the mountains of desperate religious folks who will say anything to keep the 'adam created by dirt, and eve created by his rib' theory alive. You need to get EDUCATED: endogenous retroviruses, chromosome fusion, etc. EVOLUTION IS A FACT AND THE THEORY EXPLAINS THE FACT (gravity theory, germ theory are theories).
Johnf85 1 month ago
Comment removed
Rogersmith026 1 month ago
Life and how we came into being is a great unknowable sacred mystery. No theories or myth can explain it!
billybill56 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billybill56 "Life and how we came into being is a great unknowable sacred mystery. No theories or myth can explain it!" How do you know that?
paulcmnt 1 month ago
@billybill56 maybe sagan doesnt believe those things to be??
VaderNocturnas 1 month ago
Evolution is a false theory. Life did not happen because of random mutation and natural selection. There's too many things in nature that disprove it. Evolution is the creation myth of the secular age.
billybill56 1 month ago
XXXSDESDEXXX@ wats the name of the music 2 this?
RECKOGNING1 1 month ago
Hey Chadwick iI respectfully disagree. For instance how does evolution account for single celled organisms which use cell division to reproduce turn into creatures that use sexual reproduction.
billybill56 1 month ago
@billybill56 we don't know yet, but there are some good hypothesis as to why sex evolved.
as for evolution, it did happen and it is the reason why we are here.
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 1 month ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy Don't waste time explaining man.. These guys don't understand evolution and they don't want to understand it either.. They are just here to drop a few lines in video posts like this hoping to spread their unsubstantiated views.
That's all.. Ignoring them will save your time..
kokopingo 1 month ago
@billybill56 sexual reproduction occured 1,2 billioin years ago. The dawn of sex did not have two complex multicellular organisms, going at it with matching genitals and complicated mating rituals. Instead the dawn of sex was simply cells using and mixing DNA and then separating. The core of sex is the fusion between two haploid cells that only have one copy of each chromosome, forming one diploid with two chromosome pairs. This cell undergoes meiosis creating four new haploid cells
ohedd 1 month ago
@billybill56 These unicellular organisms is the closest relatives to animals. Soon these, so called choanoflagellates, formed colonies effectively becoming multicellular. 850 million years BC, the proterospongia evolves and it is the first multicellular sexually reproducing animal ever.
ohedd 1 month ago
This is a joke. How did dirt turn into DNA? All life has DNA except some viruses which have RNA. But they have to live in creatures that have RNA. Evolution can't explain it. Evolution is the creation myth of the secular age!
billybill56 2 months ago
@billybill56 evolution doesn't explain creation of life. it explains the diversity of llife.
chadwick0091 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billybill56 evolution doesn't explain creation of life. it explains the diversity of life.
chadwick0091 1 month ago
@billybill56 It's not dirt. Dirt consists of crumbled rocks, DNA/RNA consists of a specific sugar molecule (carbon), a phosphate group (phosphorous) and nucleobases (nitrogene). These are the ingredients to of nucleotides - the building blocks of DNA/RNA.
ohedd 1 month ago
the title of the video is really wrong, it doesnt explain the origin of dna and its encoded information.
luima23 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carl Sagan - "Our collective free time needs to shift as much as possible to education. Whether you're a young student or finished school long ago, get out to the library whenever you can and work hard to learn everything you can about this world. Each individual and society will benefit from being able to solve more problems and make better decisions. Education is an amazing discovery process that repays you endlessly."
TheLogicalBrain 3 months ago
Ha 3:07 bong
onelongwordable 4 months ago
Why doesn't he go into detail about how the proteins were able to replicate? That's pretty f'in amazing if they did...
arhern7 4 months ago
@arhern7 here's a great vid that goes into details of how RNA assembles and how were they able to replicate by chemical means /watch?v=XhWds7djuWo
enjoy
72dew 4 months ago
@arhern7 Hi. Why did you not answer finger 1's comment?
ChristianPeart 2 months ago
Still didn't explain the origin of DNA's encoded information only the origin of particles that make up the building blocks of DNA... How does a self replicating process of amino acids begin?? Whats the driving force behind transcription? Protein is not conscious, how does it know how to perform transcription and replication? without the specific and complex encoded sequence of amino acids in the dna of the simplest single cell, you get nothing, just a worthless pool of particals..
arhern7 4 months ago
@arhern7 All it takes is the right pH and nucleotides will self-polymerize. If they do this inside a phospholipid vesicle, they become trapped inside. You now have a very crude cell. Nucleic acids, under the right conditions, also spontaneously copy themselves using nucleotides in the environment. You now have basic self-replication. In order to make room for all this nucleic acid, the vesicle will spontaneously steal phospholipids from other, smaller vesicles. You now have basic competition.
F1NGER 3 months ago
thank you carbon, hydrogen and oxygen for having to randomly combine and create something that in time would create me that's all it i have to say
RECKOGNING1 4 months ago
Is this true? When was this experiment done? Was there any documented images of the molecules produced in this which he claims happens to have assembled themselves into like little proteins and nucleic acids? That they could actually reproduce themselves?
eduardtube1980 4 months ago
This Man was a MAN. We need more like him.
HugoNav9 4 months ago
four builllionn
19max15 4 months ago
deee uhhhlll
19max15 4 months ago
expuurehmunts
19max15 4 months ago
My toilet has floaters and sinkers.
JoeWojoJoeWojo 5 months ago
This is an exercise in fantasy making. Carl Sagan is to science what the Pope is to Catholicism.
vladolenin 5 months ago
Why do non-believers curse believers?
TheControlLogix 5 months ago
How can a chemical reaction feel love for other life forms, just like we can't stand to see a dying bird?
TheControlLogix 5 months ago
Why do Carl Sagan videos always warrant big-worded debates about God?
KulTobin 6 months ago
@KulTobin
He scares the shit out of religious types and inspires the non-religious.
They couldn't help but freak out around him when he was alive, nothing has changed.
BTCforlife 6 months ago
@KulTobin
Because the things Carl Sagan teaches are proof against god.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Not at all. Sagan never made it his task to make "proof against God."
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry There's a difference between arguing against creationism and arguing against the possibility of a creator.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Oh, goodness. So only a true Christian is a creationist?? That's a no true scotsman fallacy.I guess you're not familiar with Francis Collins and Asa Gray? Christians who are evolutionary biologists. Creationism is the belief that God created the earth in its present state about 6,000 years ago. That represents only a small portion of theists. There are people who believe in God who don't believe that and/or believe in evolution. Mind you, belief in a God includes deism.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry That only holds true if you interpret that story literally, which is not the purpose of the text. There's nothing that says "you have to believe this." Quit oversimplifying it. You just naively said that belief in God=creationism, when that's completely false. Belief in God encompasses many belief systems.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Why don't you read for once. The Bible has metaphorical language everywhere. It's not about "pick and choose." It's called actually reading and not giving generalized and ignorant answers to everything. Francis Collins picks apart creationism, yet he's a Christian who testifies about the fact of evolution. The Genesis creation account was not written to be taken literally. Where do you find that? I just gave you two scientists who are believers in God but don't adhere to creationism
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Wrong, sir. Aquinas talked about a figurative interpretation of Genesis hundreds of years before Darwin. Plus, your example is speculation. It's not a literal account, or every modern Jew would be a staunch creationist, which just ain't the case, is it?? We are talking about reading a book? If you read the Bible, you'd find instances of literary devices, including parables and legends.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Oh, goodness. You're simply regurgitating the writings of creationists and then giving me more logical fallacy bs that makes no sense. For one, you obviously don't believe it's the "word of God" nor do you believe in the writings, so don't make that argument! It was not written to be taken literally. You've given no evidence of that, nor have you explained why so many actual believers in the text don't have a literal interpretation.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
« It was not written to be taken literally »
Apparently it was not written to teach us anything about the nature of reality, or to make any kind of sense whatsoever.
« explained why so many actual believers in the text don't have »
Does that need explaining? It is obvious that people read into the text whatever the hell they want to read into it. Some say it's metaphor (and provide their own interpretation), others say it's literal (and then still provide their own interpretation)
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@XGralgrathor Not "make any kind of sense whatsoever."
Quite a subjective assessment. A person's inability to comprehend a text does not invalidate the text. It could actually demonstrate the incompetence of that reader.
"read into text whatever the hell.."
The same can be said about the US Constitution. It's called strict vs. loose constructionism. It's the fundamental difference between the two major parties. Having diverse viewpoints about a text does not invalidate the text.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
« does not invalidate the text »
The question is not whether it's "valid" or not; arguing "validity" only becomes an issue when the text makes a clear, unambiguous statement, that can be interpreted one way, and one way only, about the nature of the physical reality we inhabit. It doesn't. Even if the text was originally meant to mean just one thing, it is interpreted in many different (and conflicting) ways now.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
« The same can be said about the US Constitution »
Yes. That too is interpreted by learned men, who try and guess what the original authors would have wanted the text to mean in the context of our modern society. Whether it's "valid" or not depends entirely on your modern point of view. This is why there exists a process of amending legislature: old texts on subjects of morality and law simply do not remain entirely relevant.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry "Who cares what somebody says." Sounds like you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be putting words in Carl Sagan's mouth. Don't extend this into some straw man. You just said all Christians are young earth creationists which is one of the dumbest statements I've heard.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Actually it does say that. You have to read between the lines. Creationists get that number from the genealogies and ages provided in the original text of Genesis. Add them all up and you get that Adam was created a few thousand years ago. The age of the world is a VERY important aspect of creationism.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry it does say that. the text has genealogies with specific ages. The date of creation can be calculated by simply putting them all together, so the young earth is a critical part of creationism. Your question is quite ignorant. You totally skipped over the intention of the actual authors of Genesis and made it into a theological debate, when I never made any statements regarding my beliefs. You assumed that.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry It says on the sixth day he created man (Adam). It goes on to give Adam's age and when he died, and then goes on to do this for every successive generation. You have to be incredibly thickheaded to ignore this, or you don't have a literal interpretation of the creation account. I never said those were my beliefs. I said Francis Collins and others have that belief. I don't need to explain myself to people who don't have a good understanding of the topic.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@wildstyle2192
You know so much but refuse to put in what you believe. You are punching and hiding, so i'm not going to play your game. Also, are you stating creationists count the Earth as old a humans? That's ridiculous. You're doing the most stereotypical christian response ever by saying "You don't know as much as me, so i'm not going to justify my points." Don't try to stand up for something you don't know how to defend.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Wow. I never said anything about my beliefs, yet I have "the most stereotypical Christian response ever." You're the one trying to generalize and throw me into a camp when I NEVER made any statement about my own beliefs. You're the one asking me about my beliefs and showing a lack of knowledge on the subject. Creationists count the earth based on Genesis which says man made on day 6. That's basic info about creationism, yet you somehow can't accept it
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry That's ridiculous. No what's ridiculous is defining creationism as saying "man was made from dirt and woman from a rib." That makes no mention of the age of the earth or living creatures, the deity, or the actual belief system. You only cover the "how" which says very little at all. Don't try to stand up for something,,,,? Wow, I'm definitely not a creationist. I never even identified myself as a Christian, for that matter. You're the one labeling, and you fail at it
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@wildstyle2192
Yea yea, back off and retract your statements. Listen, I told you what I think, and if you can't do the same there is no debate, it's just you trying to find fault and me asking questions to which you ignore and go back to what I said before. You're not even going to admit to being a christian? With that I end this conversation, you can message me if you want. I've never met someone so willing to debate while refusing to say what they stand for.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Not my fault that your questions are filled with logical fallacies, assumptions, and nonsense. Yeah, you think creationism simply means being made from a rib, arguing against creationism is the same as atheism, and somehow an evolutionary theist is the same as an agnostic. If that's "what you think" then I have every right to call you ignorant. If you want to paint me as some "stereotypical Christian" then go ahead. I'd rather not message you. Reading these comments was enough.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@wildstyle2192
Again, you hit and hide. I can't believe i'm playing this game with such a ridiculous person. Have you read the fucking bible? How about the first damn chapter when it says God created humans from dust and the rib of Adam? I'm ignorant for saying that's what creationists believe? No, you're ignorant for calling it a metaphor so it's easier to justify it. And yes, if a christian believes in evolution it means he knows the bible is wrong, so he is at least and agnostic.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Hit and Hide. That's why I responded and didn't say I'd ignore your comments like you just did. But thanks for coming back. Haha. No. You're ignorant for refusing to address the importance of the age of the earth and its inclusion in Genesis. Try to look up a definition of agnostic. You'll find it has little similarity with theistic evolution! Try telling that to Dr. Collins. Better yet, read his book. Maybe you'll learn something. Probably not.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@wildstyle2192 I didn't go did I? You think i'm going to let someone like you insult me? Again I came back with a great response and you eluded to none of it. An agnostic is someone who doubts if God is real or not, and theist evolution doubts the creation account. As far as the age, where is it in the bible? That's right, it's not in there because the bible doesn't try to say how old the world is. Idiots just added the dates of people in the bible and said HERE IT IS! THE AGE OF THE WORLD!
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry A great response? Where!?!! A theistic evolutionist believes in a God who created mankind by means of evolution and the earth is billions of years old. The age of the earth is in there. I'm sorry if you can't add up numbers. I thought arithmetic was taught at a young age...Try going to answers in geneis and other creationists. Better yet, explain why there are "young earth creationists" and "old earth creationists." Simply coping out and calling them idiots just won't do, pal.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@wildstyle2192
Did your mother drop you? I'm aware a theistic evolutionist believes the Earth is billions of years old, we are talking about creationists you twat. I'll tell you why there are young earth and old earth creationists, are you ready? Because the bible doesn't say how old the Earth is! Thank you for finally acknowledging that. And you call me the cop out? Excuse me, i'm the only one directly answering questions here.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Twat? Haha. Good one. No, that's not why. Are you ready?? It's because old earth creationists interpret the 6 days of creation as undefined periods of time and not a literal 24 hours. That's really the only difference between the two, but it makes a big difference when dealing with modern geology. See it's about the literal interpretation again! I'm sorry you're too damn dull to understand this.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry My point was that there are even CREATIONISTS who don't have a literal interpretation of Genesis, because Genesis clearly says days. These people are creationist Christians yet they don't interpret it literally! This goes against your claims. Yet you ignorantly insist that they all MUST have a literal interpretation, when you've provided no evidence to the contrary besides your "former Mormon" know-it-all ego.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@wildstyle2192
This is why I asked you to tell me what is metaphor and literal in the bible, but you refused. What do you mean evidence? Do you want me to fill this comments page with literal interpretations of the bible? Because I can if you want. What i'm saying is creation can't be a fucking metaphor for evolution, therefor if you don't believe in creation you think part of the bible is wrong. Is that too hard to understand, or do you want me to say it 4 more times?
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry What is metaphor and literal in the Bible? Goodness, let me go through every single verse for you now...Yeah. Right. There are sources online you can help yourself to. You can read, right?
Creation can't be a fucking metaphor for evolution?
.I've given you sources for people who say Genesis was metaphorical hundreds of years before Darwin. Tell that to those people. It's not about saying it's "wrong." They don't believe it's wrong since it wasn't originally meant to be literal!
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@wildstyle2192
This is over, you're still refusing to answer my one simple request from when I started. You can't answer one damn question, i've tried to keep this going, but you're not putting anything into this conversation by saying "read other people's stuff". All you have shown me is you are too scared to spout off what you believe, you don't know enough so you tell me to read other people's shit, and you are defending creationism being a metaphor for evolution.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry "One simple request for when I started."
more like the past day
"Too scared to spout off what you believe."
It's irrelevant. Simply stating my beliefs does nothing to the conversation. You haven't even done so, but you take all liberty in assuming my beliefs.
"You don't know enough"
I guess citing sources is indication of ignorance in your feeble mind. I guess Acquinas is too much for ya. This time, do what you say, and just fucking leave. Thank you, sir.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry I was never here for a "debate" or "saying what I stand for." What the hell is that about? Did you ever say you were an atheist, or an agnostic, or anything? Nope. Did I ever label you as such? No. Yet you somehow know everything about my beliefs. Interesting to note that these comments concerned Genesis creation account, which is shared by Christians AND Jews and Muslims. Plus, scholars in religious studies can be of any faith, or none at all.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@wildstyle2192
Wow, religious people believe God created the Earth...that blows me away.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
Comment removed
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry "Wow, religious people believe God created the Earth..."
Thanks for completely oversimplifying and manipulating my statement. I've already seen that you have problems with using sources, so it's understandable.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@wildstyle2192
How is that oversimplyfying? Of course they all have the same account...they all believe in the same God.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Not quite the same God. And for several reasons. But to my point, it's so ignorant to assume a person is a Christian just for making a statement about the Bible. That can be someone who's not even a theist! This whole exchange began when I corrected your statement. You're the one that made it into a theological argument.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry By the way, I'm not a Christian. There. But you're gone now. So I guess that's taken care of. Hahaha.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@wildstyle2192
Haha yea ok. Good trolling, I have to give that to you. I thought you were serious.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Trolling? No. The comments were all mine.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@wildstyle2192
Trolololol
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
Comment removed
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Hit and hide. And come back again...
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry I can make an argument about Roman mythology and I don't have to believe one iota of Vergil's Aeneid to discuss it. Calling me a "dumb fuck" does nothing to add to a discussion,nor does a personal statement about my beliefs. Ad hominem and shouting is useless. I never said some scientists. Don't put quotes around shit I never said. I specifically mentioned Dr. Francis Collins and Asa Gray. You've only mentioned your wack generalizations and nonsense.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry I never said those two men were theologians. My comment was in response to you putting quotes around statements I didn't make; i.e. "some scientists." I specifically mentioned Collins and Gray.Try to actually READ what I write. I cited Acquinas as a philosopher. THIRD century philosopher Origen also said "these are FIGURATIVE expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history." I don't have to put down what you say. You make yourself look like an ass.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry You really want to put words in my mouth. I cite philosophers and scientists to illustrate that Christians, both modern and pre-Darwin, had and have metaphorical interpretations of Genesis. I can give you actual quotes. You haven't cited any sources. You're too busy throwing insults at me and assuming my beliefs. I'm giving you responses and arguments. Stating a belief is irrelevant and will probably encourage more gratuitous ad hominem.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry Wow. ACQUINAS is pre darwin. Are you fucking illiterate?? Or are you that big of a smartass?! I mentioned him five days ago. You can go back to my old comments.
"What I've said requires no cite.."
I believe you mean "citation." Subject verb agreement is common sense. You haven't cited sources that say a literal interpretation is the only correct one. It's common sense that the earth is not the center of the universe. Copping out without proving it doesn't say much at all.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@wildstyle2192
I'm allowed to use slang jackass. I love how you'll give me a grammar lesson, yet you still won't (although now i'm sure "won't" has turned to "can't", since you won't even acknowledge it now) answer my fucking questions. Would you like CITES of people saying the bible should all be taken literal? Citations don't mean shit, you still haven't proved me wrong. Of course some people take it as a metaphor, that's the only way one can actually be a christian without looking retarded.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
Comment removed
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
Comment removed
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@wildstyle2192
Dude, seriously. You are the best troll in internet history. Not only did you not answer the question, you eluded to it and just made fun of it haha. Done. You are inferior.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
Comment removed
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry No, I am not a Christian, but I've studied its texts.. Believers are free to choose how they interpret individual verses. If you go back, I first responded to your ridiculous statement that equated arguing against creationism with arguing against theism (well you can't now since you've deleted it, go figure). If your statement were true, then there would be no evolutionary agnostics or evolutionary theists. So that would mean no Francis Collins, Stephen Jay Gould, or even Carl Sagan
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKenTerry "Citations don't mean shit."
Please don't tell that to a professor or you'll be the one "looking retarded."
"You still haven't proved me wrong."
Proven?? Well, I guess we'll file that as "slang" to avoid further embarrassment (Ahem, cop out, ahem).
"You still won't answer my fucking questions."
Watch that tone, Ms. Barbara Walters.
wildstyle2192 5 months ago
@TheKenTerry I think the things Carl Sagan speaks about are a reflection of what we know in a simplified way and don't mention God. I don't think they're direct proof in God's nonexistence. In fact, I would say something like that and its converse is damn near impossible to see.
KulTobin 2 months ago
@KulTobin
I'm talking about the christian God. They believe in creation, period. Most of the things Mr. Sagan talked about were directed towards evolution and of course astrophysics.
TheKenTerry 2 months ago
@TheKenTerry Well how likely is it that a comment on youtube will change their mind? I think science is for the betterment of humanity, not for breeding dissension. These kinds of talk rarely leave people "enlightened."
KulTobin 2 months ago
@nooneeagle In regards to you argument of "code"- you're not putting enough thought into it. It happened very, very slowly over millions of years. This is very hard to understand as humans. Once rna formed and started replicating (automatically-it's a chemical reaction like mixing vinegar and baking soda) they very slowly began to change and eventually became cells- cells became animals. The strains that continue to replicate today came about because they were the most fit, they evolved.
DinoDNA12 6 months ago
In regards to life 'origniating' on this planet. The very first fossils we find are right after the crust solidified and the early bombardment stage started to occur, this doesn't give life 'much time to originate'! Most likely life came a calling from space and 'seeded' life (from the evidence that we find) and then evolution took off from there! If you have a "theory" that says otherwise, then I would like to hear of this highly fantasized theory of yours? I can falsify Dr. Szostak's model.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
Carl Sagan is awesome!
Applemangh 7 months ago
The laws of physics apply to the physical world we live in! How can one say that these laws "DON'T" apply to biochemical systems? Unless you have proofs to back up such 'absurd' claims I feel that we can all dismiss the statement where tskasa claims that the laws of physics don't apply to biochemical systems... Do you even understand the concept of physics and the Laws governing the phenomenon around us?
nooneeagle 7 months ago
The origin of DNA (the code that brings life about) is just that, 'code' and the only thing man has found that can "create" code is "intelligence" and in no way can code create itself! That is an oxymoron stance. Without the code in the first place, there is no intelligence to sustain order and for inanimate matter to "create" the code nesseccary to produce life in the first place is akin to saying something happened by magic, without reason or science. That stance is as unscientific as a God.
nooneeagle 7 months ago
Function of Shannon entropy is. If conditions for life to be created did exist on the Earth at one time, the catylist that results in the combination of certain elements to start life, the combination that codes life, the same condition that is responsible for life to begin will also be the result of it demise! It's like a 50/50 coin flip and 'if' life starts, the the same condition responsible for this start will cause the information to corrupt itself and fail, no matter how much time allowed.
nooneeagle 7 months ago
Creating life is like: If non-life is noted in the form of a, b and c and then a + b = c and c + c = c all you still have is non-life but if life is x, y and z, never will you get an x, y or z by adding any cobination of a, b and c's. Codes for life have to already be here or come from somewhere for them to mutate and start evolution but no where has man shown that non-life of a, b or c can ever mutate into the x, y and z's of life. Combinations of a, b and c will only result in a, b, and c's.
nooneeagle 7 months ago
I've been told many times that most scientist rely on the neo-Darwinian stance of creation, that it's the most popular, yet this is a falsehood. Most scientist rely on hypothesis's and theory's that hold solid 'evidence' backing up their stances and the neo-Darwinian stance has no evidence backing it up, so to say that "MOST" scientists hold this stance as the most popular is a ruse that you need to believe! I am a scientist and know lots of Colleagues that do NOT hold this stance as a standard.
nooneeagle 7 months ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 7 months ago
In the light that some people take in relying on speculation to "point' towards an end means in coming to a conclusion that life started in the neo-Darwinian manner of creation makes me wonder, as a scientist, "Why so many go out on a limb, without the evidence and put their 'faith' in something that is so much unproven with no scientific evidence backing it up"!
Coupled with the function of entropy, one can clearly see this concept has been debunked, "falsified"! Think about that one for awhil
nooneeagle 7 months ago
Without "fact" and "figures", modern day micro-biologist and genetic engeneers won't even entertain the idea of the neo-Darwinian creation stance because even after 150 years and especially the advances in the past 30 years in the fields of microbiology and genetic engeneering, the facts just are not there to support this no-fact-supported stance, It's not even considered a hypothesis, much less a theory, but just a stance many take in describing the creation of life without proof...Speculation!
nooneeagle 7 months ago
I challenge anyone to "show" scientific evidence to the neo-Darwinian creation stance that Carl Sagan surmizes in this video and show "how" this information can form (by modern scientidfic methods) and if you can do this, it will "falsify" the current function of Entropy and I'm pretty sure you will become famous!
Other than that, there is nothing to back up this stance and many scientific minds realize these very dire facts and don't back the abiogenesis stance of neo-Darwinan creation, sorry
nooneeagle 7 months ago
tskasa, You claim there is proof that biochemistry can produce life through chance happenings falling into place to produce random code that results in life.
Please cite any references so that we may look at your claims!
Please. Just one little proof so that I can go on to "falsify" Shannon Entropy. The function of Shannon Entropy has yet to be falsified, either I can falsify it or the neo-Darwinian creation stance. Either one is fine but so far I can only prove entropy falsifies your stance.
nooneeagle 7 months ago
In the case that you say that energy in the form of heat from the sun or lightening can cause intelligent creation out of inanimate matter can be falsified by the function of Shannon entropy that states that the same energy that might be resposible for any orginization will also cause the this orginization to falter and be corrupt, so the odds of life arising by chance given any amount of time has been proven to be zero according to the funtion of entropy. Fact, unless you can prove otherwise...
nooneeagle 7 months ago
The tendency that every organic structure has to revert to disorganization is spelt out in the thermodynamic law, which defines the function of entropy. There is never a gain in order without the intervention of an outside force. Therefore, inanimate matter containing no energy or movement will always stay inert in the absence of any guiding hand to organize and direct it. Thus the theory of neo-Darwinian creation lies in direct contradiction with the law of entropy.
nooneeagle 7 months ago
Either the law of Thermodynamics is wrong, (the function of Enotropy) or the (unproven) hypothesis of the neo-Darwinian creation is wrong and what Carl Sagan talks of is purely conjecture and can never be proven without the falsification of the function of Shannon Entropy in information theory. It can't be both ways or the Law of Thermodynamics wouldn't be the "law" it is but it would be just some offbeat idea. What is, is, and you can't change that to meet your needs to prove an unproven stance
nooneeagle 7 months ago
tskasa1, by stating that biochemical creation can happen you are "falsifying" the funtion of Entropy, so you must be on your way to becoming famous? Again, I ask of you to state proof that falsifies these laws that show what you talk of to be possible! It's funny that you "claim" that the neo-Darwinian concept of "creation" of code from non-living substances is the favorite yet even after 150 years and most notablely the past 30 years of microbiology shows no proof behind your or anyones claims?
nooneeagle 7 months ago
tskasa1, you can't change physics to meet your needs, if they apply to information whether it be biochemical, light of DNA, information is information and by function of Shannon Entropy, you can use it to determine the outcome of a coin flip which is 50/50. You use it to determing the information in coding of light and you can use it to determine whether the information (any information) will arise then be destroyed by the same forces that cause it to arise in the first place 50/50 chance.
nooneeagle 7 months ago
@nooneeagle
"you can't change physics to meet your needs"
The laws of physics don't directly apply to biochemical systems as the laws of biochemistry can make pathways allowing around them...
Just like Boyle's Gas law states that stars should be impossible but due to other forces such as gravity, it can be overcome.
"if they apply to information whether it be biochemical, light of DNA,"
By the system you have described you could also never have mutations either...
tskasa1 7 months ago
@tskasa1 "By the system you have described you could also never have mutations either..."
Mutations occur because of indirect actions on other media. If a code is in place and a mutation occurs, if there is enough 'fail safe mechnisms' in place, the code could survive and mutations could produce unreasonable results all the way to improved results but mutations and the invention and abiogenesis of completely new code that never existed before are two differrent things!
nooneeagle 7 months ago
@tskasa1 "The laws of physics don't directly apply to biochemical systems as the laws of biochemistry can make pathways allowing around them..."
Could you please cite your proofs please so that we can see if your statement is true or not??? Thank you
nooneeagle 7 months ago
@nooneeagle
"information is information"
Yes, but there are thousands of ways of manifesting information. For a physicist, matter is information. Energy is information. Quanta are information. Fields are information. Are you saying that atoms can't form by themselves from constituent particles, as they are all information? You can't simply apply a concept to a generalized idea all the while ignoring EVERYTHING else that factors into the system at hand, because that is not how nature works.
tskasa1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tskasa1 And what does the physics of light have to do with biochemical codes which store their information in CHEMICAL bonds, and not electrical binary sequencees? Absolutely NOTHING at all. I understand Thermodynamics and the physics of light pretty well, however, you, who are trying to apply them incorrectly to biochemistry, obviously do not.
The same laws of physics that appy to information theory apply to chemical bonds and the information contained therein. Information is information.
nooneeagle 7 months ago
tskasa1, Please, instead of writing such things (without anything backing your claims) Please show some proof behind you claims that life can start out and "create" code, being inanimate matter to begin with... Show me the proof to your claims that you so faithfully believe in, please... Not double talk saying that your claims are believed by Everyone, because they aren't! The scientific community often negates claims of the neo-Darwinian type for favor of other abiogenesis type hypothesis.
nooneeagle 7 months ago
Nowhere in the history of "science" has anyone shown biological/biochemical proof that inatimate matter can coelesce and produce code through some type of chance intelligence! Hummm, Maybe I'm missing the presumptions and what-ifs but no where can I find any proof to these absurd claims! Just because life exists doesn't mean that it formed on this planet in the manner that you so oddly presume in your neo-Darwinian rants! No proof except for "specualtions" and it-could-have-happened stances???
nooneeagle 7 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Not double talk saying that your claims are believed by Everyone, because they aren't!"
I never said everyone. I said all professional and serious scientists. Which is true.
"The scientific community often negates claims of the neo-Darwinian type for favor of other abiogenesis type hypothesis."
Ehhh, no. Abiognesis in the manner described by Sagan is THE most popular and accepted theory for the beginning of life amongst scientists and for good reason.
tskasa1 7 months ago
@nooneeagle
"has anyone shown biological/biochemical proof that inatimate matter can coelesce and produce code through some type of chance intelligence"
They've yet to show that it HAS done so in the case of Earth, albeit quite a lot of the evidence points in that direction. They HAVE, however, shown that it is most definitely possible to do so given the laws of biochemistry. And no, it's not some type of chance intelligence, it's completely random chance.
tskasa1 7 months ago
@tskasa1 "They HAVE, however, shown that it is most definitely possible to do so given the laws of biochemistry. And no, it's not some type of chance intelligence, it's completely random chance."
>Please cite any references so that we may look at your ?claims? Please... Just one little proof so that I can go on to "falsify" Shannon Entropy but do you know what? The function of Shannon Entropy has yet to be falsified, so either I can falsify it or the neo-Darwinian 'creation' stance...
nooneeagle 7 months ago
The funtion of Entropy and it's 'laws' are all valid whether in the code is coding life or coding numbers, you are saying that code "INVENTS" itself given enough time? Through the laws of Physics, I have shown you this is impossible with the function of Enotropy backing up my stance, you do nothing but blabber on and on without showing me any facts or figures debunking my proven stances using the very laws of Physics. You'll be hard pressed to find any evidence backing your stance on the subject
nooneeagle 8 months ago
It's pretty appearant that you "don't understand" the Law of Thermodynamics or the physics of Light and coding proceedures as written using the funtion of "Shannon Entropy" tskasa... Code never appears in communications unless we send it down the line and everyone knows in the telecommunications engeneering industry that code will never magically appear even given trillions of years because of the simple fact of Entropy. Simple and if you don't understand it then maybe you should go study it.
nooneeagle 8 months ago
@nooneeagle
"It's pretty appearant that you "don't understand" the Law of Thermodynamics or the physics of Light "
And what does the physics of light have to do with biochemical codes which store their information in CHEMICAL bonds, and not electrical binary sequencees? Absolutely NOTHING at all. I understand Thermodynamics and the physics of light pretty well, however, you, who are trying to apply them incorrectly to biochemistry, obviously do not.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Code never appears in communications unless we send it down the line "
Yes, but this isn't communications, now is it? You are talking about a VERY specific hand crafted code and not all codes are as such.
"whether in the code is coding life or coding numbers"
The codes use to code these two things are VASTLY different and subject to many different phenomena, some of which they share and others which they don't.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@nooneeagle
"you are saying that code "INVENTS" itself given enough time?"
If given the correct materials to make itself out of then yes, biochemical code CAN make itself. Because all you have to do is a VERY simple code that replicates itself, which CAN be done through wholly natural means, albeit it needs some time do so. From there it can, and due to the laws of nature MUST, in order to survive, become more complex and form life.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1"If given the correct materials to make itself out of then yes, biochemical code CAN make itself. Because all you have to do is a VERY simple code that replicates itself, which CAN be done through wholly natural means, albeit it needs some time do so. From there it can, and due to the laws of nature MUST, in order to survive, become more complex and form life."
My reply: Show me your proof to this very interesting thought! Because I see nowhere in the history of humanity, this proof!
nooneeagle 7 months ago
@nooneeagle 'Shannon Entropy', would that be from Claud Shannon, 1916-2001, the famous atheist, who developed the ideas of Boltzman, the famous Darwinian?
gamesbok 5 months ago
Again through the function of Entropy I can state that given a blank computer, that ten billion years from now the computer will still be 'uncoded" unless an intelligent force acts apon it to code it. Dumb luck from lightening strikes will never create enough information for the computer to code itself no matter 'how much time allowed' because through the function of Entropy, the same lightening that gives rise to code will ultimately destroy any workable code on the same basis of said Law.
nooneeagle 8 months ago
Again, talking about "CODE" all of the sudden appearing and coding itself, is against the Laws of Thermodynamics, specifically the Function of Entropy. As soon as the same things that 'might' allow life to get started, this same function will corrupt the same code/life and through the function of Shannon Entropy, non-existent code will never form into a workable intelligent code without an outside intelligence acting apon it as stated in the function of Entropy. If you can prove otherwise do it.
nooneeagle 8 months ago
@nooneeagle
"this same function will corrupt the same code/life...non-existent code will never form into a workable intelligent code without"
If you completely and utterly ignore how the biochemical codes work, why, of course it will. If, however, you allow the biochemical codes to work in the same manner that they do in reality, then it won't. This is because a biochemical code such as what you find in DNA/RNA is VERY different from an electronic digital code.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1, Reread the topic of this video, Carl Sagan on the origin of DNA, Everything in it is "specualtion" there has never been proven "where the origin came from" and for you to turn this into a discussion about evolution is childish... There is not one "proven" instance of "where DNA came from" that you can show me the scientific paper in a scientific journal showing this kind of "PROOF", now can you? Stay on topic and quit saying drifting off onto the topic of Evolution or the Big Bang...
nooneeagle 8 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Everything in it is "specualtion" there has never been proven"
Except the vast majority of what has been said has been shown to be either true or extremely probable. Carl Sagan's show aired over 30 years ago. Science has progressed a LOT since then.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@nooneeagle
"and for you to turn this into a discussion about evolution is childish..."
You brought it up first, not me:
"Hum, interesting science you people use here in the "Evolution" circles.."
Compounded, your two statements, this one and the one I quoted, were the basis for my response.
tskasa1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nooneeagle
"There is not one "proven" instance of "where DNA came from" that you can show me the scientific paper in a scientific journal showing this kind of "PROOF", now can you?"
There have been hundred written talking about the arisal of DNA. Hundreds.
"Stay on topic and quit saying drifting off onto the topic of Evolution or the Big Bang..."
I was providing an analogy, then again, I wouldn't expect you to understand so complex a notion as that.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@nooneeagle
And no, I didn't literally mean hundreds, it was obviously hyperbole used for dramatic effect. There HAVE been, however, quite a few and nearly ALL of them point in the same direction, albeit they don't necessirily completely agree on everything. So, as I stated before, while we do not know exactly what happened, we DO know beyond a reasonable doubt the general jist of what had to have happened.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@nooneeagle Oro J 1961. Mechanism of synthesis of adenine from hydrogen cyanide under possible primitive Earth conditions. Nature 191:1193–1194 [PubMed]
No scientist would use the word 'proof'.
gamesbok 5 months ago
NO Where has modern science proven any of this that Carl "speculates" on... Speculation, funny word when people "speculate" that something "may" have happened and others take it as proof that it did happen just because of this "speculation"... Hum, interesting science you people use here in the "Evolution" circles.. Hum, very interesting indeed that so many believe this by pure speculation alone... With no scientific proof backing any of it up what so ever...
nooneeagle 8 months ago
@nooneeagle
"NO Where has modern science proven any of this that Carl "speculates" on..."
Have you read ANY scientific literature from the past ~40 years or so? No, I don't mean your basic high school text books. Or even your college text books. I mean peer reviewed journal articles. Apparently, not.
tskasa1 8 months ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tskasa1 Ok, so I can't say that you can't "PROVE" anything BUT I sure can "FALSIFY" any origins hypothesis you throw my way... Go figure on that one... There isn't one single origins theory that I can't easily falsify so I can calmly say that you have NO proof to any creation myth by modern day standards... I can clearly show where life, 'most likely came from space' and had a lot more time to originate than did the early earth seeing that we find fossils right after the crust solidified.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Hum, very interesting indeed that so many believe this by pure speculation alone..."
...Are you seriously saying that evolution has no evidentiary support? Evolution is arguably THE most well supported theory in history, so far as the evidence is concerned, albeit the Big Bang MAY be a bit better. Regardless, evolution has more evidence for it than Einstein's Theories of Relativity...the basis for modern physics...which has been proven many times over...
tskasa1 8 months ago
the cosmic fugue....
ronkini123 8 months ago
Show me some "garbage code" in our DNA and take it out of "your" DNA and I'll show you someone that doesn't exist in our world!
Ask a proven microbiologist such as Dr. Craig Ventor... Junk DNA, you all must be kidding, right? Everything has a purpose and if you think that some DNA is just junk, then try "experimenting" in the lab, without it! You soon find out that life just doesn't work without it in place!
nooneeagle 8 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Show me some "garbage code" in our DNA and take it out of "your" DNA"
You don't need to.take it out as it happens all the time. Your DNA mutates several hundred if not thousand times between inception and death (assuming a death due to old age). It even mutates some (albeit VERY rarely) during your adult life. However, because the VAST majority of mutations affect the non-coding part of the DNA, there is no actual effect observed. I suggest you stop sounding so dumb.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 " I suggest you stop sounding so dumb."
Reply: Who is sounding dumb? Can you prove this "flawed" logic you have??? Micro-biologists are showing how this so-called Junk code is useful in all sorts of biological manerisms every day and for you call it "junk-code" is kind of on the immature level of not understanding or even being educated to know the difference... Who's calling who ignorant here? Go back to school before commenting on such matters, please.
nooneeagle 8 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Can you prove this "flawed" logic you have???"
What flawed logic?
"Micro-biologists are showing how this so-called Junk code is useful in all sorts of biological manerisms every day"
Except they aren't... Or else EVERY mutation on the genome would have an observable effect, yet they don't.
""junk-code" is kind of on the immature level"
Would you prefer I call it a non-coding region of the human genome? I simply used junk code because it is the more common term.
tskasa1 8 months ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 8 months ago
Look at the Law of Thermodynamics and in mans finest hour we actually "use" Shannon Entropy to communicate through the internet, yet using the very laws of physics that allow us to communicate through the internet using the function of "Shannon Entropy", shows that without our intelligence to "PROGRAM" this code that it would never originate all by itself, yet you people claim that life started by Darwinian Evolution(as Carl S. states), against this law of physics??? Are you hypoc