whats with the happy faces, they are really creepy, and i dont think micelles are the first living organisms, i dont care if i spelled it wrong, this vid was boring ionly watched it cuz the teacher made us.
In the laboratory, we are simulating those conditions to some extent and we have to wait for years to see reactions occuring leading to formation of life.
@abes137 There will never be "reactions occurring leading to formation of life" in any laboratory. What the labs are doing is waiting for their grant money.
We should remember that life on Earth did not begin the next day the Earth was formed but after millions of years. It took such a long time because all the basic chenical constituents of life might have been formed at different places and not at one place at a time. As these got formed to the required concentration, everything began and slowly life came into existence.
We should remember that life on Earth did not begin the next day the Earth was formed but after millions of years. It took such a long time because all the basic chenical constituents of life might have been formed at different places and not at one place at a time. As these got formed to the required concentration, everything began and slowly life came into existence.
As of 2010 NO one has created a living organism from any scientific experiments, studies or projects. This has been on going attempt since 17th century; no wonder scientists are now looking outside our solar system (meteorites) for life. Creating life is very, very, very hard.
@yhenry77 Isn't it strange that we just can't copy and synthesize life? Even if it arrived from outside of the solar system, there still remains the problem of how did it start, wherever it did. Such a damn puzzle.
@stevebee92653 Its Stubborn ignorance by scientists ..what do we see in nature ..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life? ever!!..francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically impossible but still stubbornly were atheist ..they have ZERO Testable repeatable chemistry to back up abiogenesis..no one has ever been able to assemble amino acids into anything.which should be simple..primitive cells never existed
@5tonyvvvv What keeps it going: money, grants, results that are mostly imagined, that garner big pats on the back. Groupthink. Imagine doing lab tests that have zero chance in resulting in anything. I think they've done all the testing that can be done, and all they have proven is it's impossible. Like trying to design and build a space ship for travel to Andromeda. Hey, maybe I can get a grant on that one!
First, it's not impossible, you are here. Secondly, going to Andromeda isn't impossible either. Just hard. People that don't want us to keep questioning, trying, you scare me. Evolution is not fact, but theory. Creationism is just plain crap. I'll take the theory over "because I said so" any day. Perhaps there is so much luck and so long needed under the right conditions for life to happen. We just may never have the right conditions.
@stevebee92653 STFU and let me enjoy your goddamed video you fucking creationist piece of shit. "life canot aries of nothin" Blah blah blah neither God my man
primitive cells exist now. And the conditions under which these things form is simply unknown. This is unfalsifiable as a theory until we figure out how to do it. Postulating a deity is just as silly as chemical evolution, but you seem certain anyway. If it took billions of years for nature to get lucky, why should a bunch of angry apes get it right while they are still killing each other because some boogie man in the sky called "God" wants them to? We should keep trying.
@shakagenghis HAHAHAH.. There is no such thing as a primitive cell. They never existed! , why should we assume time and chance produced life?..If your talking about what craig venter, and jack szostak did, thats not creating anything, copying and borrowing information in CONTROLLED experiments under controlled Temperatures..and using activated bases as well..is far from natural undirected processes!!!
Science has never made the claim that they have made a living organism. What the miller experiments did show was that organic molecules could be made from non living matter. Now you could go on to say that only 2 amino acids were made but, if you do your reading, additional experiments have produced many more amino acids and nucleotides.
@NexusCrawler0 Science has never made the claim? Science is not on anyone's side, it just confirms theories thru repeatable experiments. If scientists could line up all elements needed; that is a long way off from assembling them into a living organism. May 20, 2010: J. Craig Venter project spent 15 years assembling a DNA strand for a very simple bacteria, using 17 scientists and a super computer. They soon realized the DNA was not going spark life (abiogenesis), they used a host living cell.
That's is interesting-- are scientists claiming that the reason we haven't been able to create it is because it takes a very long time to randomize itself and produce just-the-right sub-condition of the condition to spark life? I'm pretty sure that's what they are saying-- someone needs to make a cartoon of a scientist watching a pot of boiling water and claiming that each of those bubbles is a universe in a multiverse and if you allow time one of those bubbles will produce intelligent life.
Well, you are probably the most intelligent creationist I've seen on the topic (since you still can't differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis, what does that say for your side?). Nonetheless, you vastly underestimate the amount of chances protocells had to evolve cellular machinery (size of earth, time, other planets). Your assumption that conditions good for life today would be conditions good for abiogenesis is unfounded. And early cells didn't have living organisms to compete with.
@Keeban3 How long does a single cell live? Cells of course had to learn mitosis or fission before they died. Or else that was the end of life. How do you suppose the billions of years fit into your hopefully honest answers? How do you suppose they invented or learned mitosis or fission? Have any ideas? Because I want to know. Really!
Its a complicated question because when do you consider something alive? or as a cell? The traditional definition is metabolism. But metabolism probably occurred long before mitosis or fission. Initially cells (if you want to call them that) divided the way you mentioned, by growth and splitting apart of lipid bubbles.
The billion years fit in to show there were many chances for this. Life could have existed and died out many times before success.
@Keeban3 Metabolism isn't the definition of life. There actually is none. We can say what life does, like metabolism, but we cannot say what it is. And we cannot synthesize it, and probably never will. That abio happened is unarguable. How is way beyond the capability of humans. The notion that RNA nestled inside of lipid cells on the ocean floor, then somehow came to life is preposterous. There is no lipid without life, so where did the lipid come from? And time deteriorates everything.
You can't say life has no definition because otherwise the word has no meaning. Therefore any statement you say with the word "life" in it has no meaning.
Metabolism IS the most common definition. Lipids exist without life. Protocells and hypercycles occur without metabolism so therefore replication exists before life. At this point there is chemical evolution such that metabolism is not an unlikely outcome given the number of opportunities.
@Keeban3 I can say it and you can take it any way you want. Sounds like you have the beginning of life down pat. What was the source of lipids without life? There sure couldn't have been much roaming around the bottom of the oceans. And linking with RNA? Then coming to life? Eye of the believer here. I'm glad you have it figured out. I don't.
Lipids form naturally under the conditions of the primitive earth. Same as amino acids, and some oligonucleotides. This has been experimentally shown repeatedly. If you want a more in depth explanation than that you'll have to learn some organic chemistry. I know a little of it, but not enough so you'll have to ask someone else on the OChem part.
@Keeban3 So if you go to the beach or a lake, there are lipids just kind of floating around at the bottom of the sea? That's not even the case now with so many living organisms manufacturing lipids. The notion that lipids formed, then amino acids, then RNA, then............in a sterile world is absurd. A lot more to it than we have the ability to figure out. You don't need a lot of biochem and organic chem classes to figure that out.
Ah, so you think we live in the conditions of primitive earth, you think oligonucleotides mean RNA, and you think you know more about the subject than scientists in their fields. That explains so much.
@Keeban3 Primitive earth was a horrible environment for life. Don't you think the current environment, being much better, would show chemicals coming together in the process of continually forming life?
I know exactly the same as you and all scientists about the origin of life. We are all tied.
Life adapts to the environment. For example, stomach acid seems like a terrible place for life, but the bacteria that live there can live nowhere else. The environment that we live in is inhospitable to them. More importantly, lipids are not formed in our environment, but were formed in the primitive environment. This has been shown repeatedly.
You only know as much as us if you assume that we know absolutely nothing, unless of course negative numbers can apply to knowledge.
@Keeban3 I don't assume. Fact: you know absolutely ZERO about how non living entities came to life. Make up all the stories you want if you need to fool yourself. Doesn't get you any closer to knowing than me and every other multicellular animal on the planet earth.
@Keeban3 Even with all the molecules needed for life proteins RNA DNA enzymes cell wall...EVERYTHING..put it all in the perfect solution in a test tube under amazing conditions in the most advanced laboratory in the world..
It would all breakdown in seconds and fall apart..
and this was suppose to happen on a harsh Toxic poisonous primordial earth in some sea vent or mud..
So long as you have conceded replication without proteins, and the production of single stranded nucleotide sequences (which is what the video and the conversation I had was actually about), then I will address this. To concede that you need to understand that toxicity means different things to different organisms, and that compounds do not break down under conditions that encourage their formation. So basically ignore your "knowledge" of subjects you don't know and we can start.
@Keeban3 Stubborn ignorance..what do we see in nature dummy..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life? ever!!..francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically impossible but still stubbornly were atheist ..you also have ZERO Testable repeatable chemistry to back up abiogenesis..no one has ever been able to assemble amino acids into anything.which should be simple..primitive cells never existed
@Keeban3 Even with all the Proteins and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube. to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle
Mitosis and fission of course don't happen until we have a genome, which is very, very far down the line. The order, I suspect but this is just conjecture, is that after DNA usage, more expediant DNA replication evolved, then the means to localize mother/daughter DNA, then cleavage by cytokinesis. Before cytokinesis, lipid bubbles splitting were what caused cleavage. Before localization of mother/daughter DNA, duplicate DNA and horizontal transfer would have been common.
@Keeban3 Did you make this up. Or did someone else. Again, since the longest living cells are about a years worth, with few complex exceptions like stem cells, pretty difficult to see how billions of years fits into the equation. Cells would have to come to life and "learn to replicate" pretty quickly before they died out. 'Tis a mess trying to figure this puzzle out out.
Each cell is a roll of the die. The billion years, like the size of the planet, and the number of planets in the universe, enters in as increasing the number of times the die is rolled. You establish in the video that long before cells exist, replicating protocells exist. Since they are functioning without the use of proteins or machinery, they don't need to "learn to replicate" (odd that you would put your own statement in quotes).
If I thought your misunderstanding wasn't deliberate I'd continue (maybe), but you made the mistake of showing that you were intelligent in the video. Its too late to feign ignorance. You can't explain that they replicate without the need for machinery and then suddenly ask how they replicate. By doing so you betray your disinguousness.
@Keeban3 No feign. I AM ignorant as to the origin of cells and life. So are you and every person who ever lived on the planet earth. So there is no feign. No person has the answer. Scientists that think they are running experiments to learn how life formed need to start with the most difficult step: get nonliving tissue to live. It they can't do that all else is a waste.
Que?
"You can't explain that they replicate without the need for machinery and then suddenly ask how they replicate".
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say that you DID explain that protocells replicate without the need for machinery, then you suddenly act ignorant about how early cells replicate without the machinery for mitosis and fission. That is the feigning ignorance that I refer to. Obviously machinery facilitating more stable replication is useful, but as you yourself explain in the video, replication can occur without it.
If I was an origin of life researcher, I would be trying to figure out how dna was originally encoded with biological information, for that matter how dna became the medium of that information. The only people I see approaching the origin of life with these questions fresh in their mind, are the ID proponents. So I go with the ID guys on this one. If evolutionists didn't tend to be such arrogant closed minded (who have no idea just how off putting they can be), well I'd still side with ID.
Chemical evolution is just one long thought experiment that assumes, in reverse order, every necessary step in order to explain the previous. In other words, natural selection fails to even seem plausible at the chemical level, so they have to come up with a series of historical events that match the assumptions. It's funny as hell that people think this is scientific. Thanks for shedding some light on the stupidity of materialistic thought on the origin of life.
@circusOFprecision Thanks for the note. What could be worse than being an "origin of life" researcher? What the hell does one do that would be worthwhile? They need to start with the biggest problem: getting non-living entities to come to life. If they can't do that. all the buckets full of amino acids they can make with "synthetic early earth" environments are worthless.
Very good point. We should be able to see remnants of chemical evolution, considering the enormity of the situation it took place in. They have the technology to completely empty the contents of a cell and put those contents in a new membrane. But they don't transfer the process of life, they just make organized soup. Also, if a cell doesn't receive environmental input, it becomes completely inactive, yet it jumps back into action once the environmental input returns.
@PaulinaPaulino You sure have a lot of enthusiasm. Not enough knowledge to be trying to argue with me though. Lipids are naturally occurring, which means that LIVING nature manufactures them. In an organelle called the endoplasmic reticulum. So life was needed to make the compounds that built the first living cells. How did that happen? Chicken and egg all over again. Calling people"liars" is pretty lame. Particularly when you aren't knowledgeable. What happened to "apparent design"?
Eventually, creationists will ask who designed the self-assembly characteristics of structures like atoms, molecules, crystals & micelles. We've got to get them to understand that Adam & Eve would have created a mutant family lineage that wouldn't survive first.
So the first life came about in an free-oxygenless atmosphere. We know that life needs free oxygen so please tell us how and when the toxic ammonia, free hydrogen etc suddenly gor replaced by oxygen and nitrogen. Free hydrogen in the atmosphere? Wait! I thought hydrogen was the lightest of all the elements and would therefore float to the top of the atmosphere instead of being mixed up with all the much heavier and toxic ammonia. How was this theory reproduced in the lab, thereby proving it?
@stevebee92653 No, I didn't even watch it. Don't you hate it when a spoofs thaken seriously? I assumed it woulod be full of the usual unpleasantness atheists think is being scientific. I'll watch it as soon as i can.
@ExtremeWorship Why does life need free oxygen??? Life could have as easily not utilized oxygen or any other gas if it wasn't there just as many life forms still do.
Earliest life did not need oxygen.
Do you understand what is being said in this video? Why is ammonia toxic to these original life forms?
Even Szostac doesn't ring his bell as loud as the supporters of evolution do. In a recent interview he said we may never know how life happened and he doesn't even see it happening in the lab even in the next 20 years. The problems associated with the negative cross chemical reactions which would have had to occur in the primordial earth never get addressed. Its almost taboo in the OOL circles.
how can you go through all of that, work through the intricacies of the process and also that it takes billions of years for the process to produce cells we would reconise and then right at the end go on to a creationist rant that has the intellectual rigor of "peanut butter, the atheist nightmare", and "I cannot see imagine life appearing without some purpose". Do you accept abiogenisis and evolution or not? if your going by percentage for about 95% of your video I thought you did
Of course there was abiogenisis. Once there was sterility, then there was life. And no one knows how that took place including the fools that make believe they know. Like you.
Try reading my comment below before going off on your creationist bs.
sorry lost my temper a bit. I just wondered why you did that little bit at the end. And all I will claim to know is that there is evidence pointing towards a naturalistic origin of life but the actual event seems hard to imagine so there is some faith involved, as abiogenesis only has hypothesises. I see you are not a creationist now, you accept abiogenesis just not any one hypothesis. Just do you think natural selection really can't create the diversity of life?
NS can't create the diversity of life. For sure. Do you actually think that animals killing, eating, and fornicating other animals and non-occurring good mutations can form visual systems? Four chambered hearts? Ball and socket joints? incredible mini-sculptures that are teeth? For sure not. And if you care to believe these can, I can't help your. Or argue with you. We are not even remotely close to figuring it out. Actually we are just as close as we are to figuring why the Big Bang. Equally.
wow I think you have the most unique view on this as possible, you definitely believe there was some abiogenisis event of some sort, then there was mutations and natural selection, with some other helping hand that formed eyes, four chambered hearts, lungs, etc. have you heard of the skeptic's guide to the universe, I'd love to hear you and Steven Novella thrash it out, people who believe in guided evolution are very rare, you should try to send an email or even ask to be on their show.
Sorry. I don't believe in "guided evolution" The fossil record only shows minute changes in species over millions of years. I "believe" what the fossil record shows, unlike evolutionauts. Ev shows changes in size, minor shapes, color, habit. It does not show the invention of visual systems, hearts, new species from old. It show different species appearing and most becoming extinct over enormous and different time frames. That's what science should note. Not the hallucinations that they do. .
That is guided evolution, life started as protocells, they can evolve a bit, but at certain periods features where added by something that isn't natural selection on random mutations. You believe in evolution with something, maybe supernatural helping sometimes, whats your definition of guided evolution, or is there something I got wrong
actually is there anything in evolutionary theory and abiogenesis that you believe is wrong, do you accept common decent, speciation, so called microevolution, natural selection and chemical evolution leading to self replicating molecules that latter became life as we know it, just that something else as well is needed. heloizy... was wrong you don't seem to break down evolution to me, you just say it's not enouth
@adamkyler "Why Evillusion? It seems a little crass (if thats the right word) to call theories you don't agree with "evil"."
You're right but evos do it all the time. They insult us (moron is a common one), call us evil, call us stupid (my IQ tests as above average) and various other antisocial remarks. I've had all that just because I challenge evos by asking for the kind of evidence that all other fields need before saying a theory is proven. I'll get more of the above for saying it.
@ExtremeWorship Well, I can see why they would think of you as a moron or stupid, but evil is going a little too far. Your idea's go against everything that they know to be fact. A common misconception about theories is that it is near impossible to completely prove them. In relation to other theories, evolution is pretty high up the list in credibility. What sort of additional evidence do you think is needed? lawl, gtg my cat wants luvs
Your way of being a creationist is almost original but the very one problem that always will make you creationists lose *badly* and constantly is that you have no fucking alternative propositions to solve ANY problem (real or imagined by yourselves). Even if our understanding of abiogenesis and evolution (as it appears in peer reviewed litterature) were only 1% true (though it's clearly closer to the inverse) you would still lose badly by virtue of that fact.
You would be if you proposed only one alternative and demonstrated it, but you won't and no other creationist will. Maybe they could if they tried but they never tried or will ever try. Endless speculation is not science. Science begins when one ends speculation and begins validation.
Evo-abiogenesis IS speculation. Nothing more. Actually fable. "Science" has no idea and they aren't. even close. So evos should quit with the absurd guesses and fables and admit that fact.
It is not 100% complete one can grant you that with pleasure, but YOUR (including all creationists in the world) alternatives are inexistant and 0% complete. Even 0.1% would beat 0%. That's my only point.
Give up the "creationist" bullshit. I am not one anymore than you are. And I am sure you mean biblical creationist. Because, we are all creationists, whether you like it or not. The BB was certainly a creation. Hi creationist.
So, 10% of a flawed fable is fine with you as science?
The two scientists you cite certainly have scientific achievements attributable to them.
I don't "Believe" in anything at all - none, zero, nil - I'm just intellectually *able* to give credit to models that are state-of-the-art science and which took humanity centuries to refine, and which, have the humility so to say, to be open to revision, provided there is supporting evidence.
If you start from the premise that you need a time machine to study abiogenesis then of course you need a cosmic zombie to believe in.
This is a complete non sequitur. We study stellar cores without diving into a star, have discovered particles from the shape of a histogram, etc. Being there is not required at all.
People like you claimed thousands of times that such and such phenomenon is god's hand then scientists demonstrated it wasn't. You try to make history repeat itself constantly.
You are indoctrinated, tiring, and a waste of time. You are worshipful of evo. Someone started you at a young age, and the indoctrination worked. See the instruction at the beginning of the vid? Can you follow instructions? See ya cosmic zombie. Go watch potholer or cdk and cuddle with them.
We are all like me around here in europe, only the mussies could talk with you. Go talk to them, they'll be so happy to convert you to their true religion...
You know jack shit about me, I am christian by birth, but I love knowledge and learning, thus I'm not into cosmic zombies.
Talk about waste of time, pfff. You're the one wasting your brains in denial.
Why do your images depict phospholipids(0:33 - 0:55)? Plain ol' lipids would've existed at the time, and would work just fine!
May I point your attention to the work of Jack W. Szostak, for instance his paper titled "Template-directed synthesis of a genetic polymer in a model protocell".
(If you want a link, send me a PM).
For more information on the membrane's of early protocells.
Since 99.9% of lipids are a products of animal metabolism, there wouldn't have been too many lipids hanging around the ocean floor, no matter what type.
I am pretty familiar with Szostak's fantasies. Thanks anyway.
"Who makes these stupid videos? Is this stevebee qualified in anything?"
Look at his blog to see if he's qualified. If the videos are so stupid, debate him. I mean, "stupid videos" is all you got? Great debate skills!
"Don't ask, accept.
Don't question, believe"
Right out of the Evolution Handbook!. Evo's are strange creatures. They come here or other sites questioning evo and demean the questioner but they never debate his/their points. You believe in a weird science!
There's a question on abiogenesis that I want to ask... If there were lipids on the sea floor, and the DNA or nucleotides survived inside the lipid. That is asuming that lipid had came from the environment. So how come the DNA is instructed to make protiens, which MAKES lipids??? good video stevebee92653
Did you ever stop to ask yourself if there's possibly a natural explanation for that? Could it possibly be that earths biome has converted a large portion of naturally occurring lipids? One wonders what other possibilities escape your notice and more importantly WHY.
lets all be scientists-always probably-always maybe-it goes on and on forever---we dont even understand 99.99999999999999999999999% of life yet or the chemicals involved in the life process-so keep gessing-real scientists are idiots-even a child can keep guessing-sounds intelligent
That's one thing all these evolutionuts forget,if everything happened like they say it did,the Earth would have been STERILE.Isn't sterilization used to kill bacteria?Not to even mention the poisonous atmosphere.
My exact point. In one of my abio vids, I end it with " the early earth resembled something we have on earth today.....a sterilizer." And it did. So how did all of those fantastic things happen in a damn huge sterilizer?
as they say, one mans meat is another mans poison. There are ore biological modalities and metabolisms than you recon. Google extremophiles and learn how wonderfully inventive evolution can be.
Have you considered the possibility that any "new cells" that "appear" in a modern environment would not be able to compete with the modern life forms that inhabit the same area. How far would self-replicating molecules get if the materials that they would have to be made of where coveted by more advanced life forms.
Did you ever stop to ask yourself if there's possibly a natural explanation for that? Could it possibly be that earths biome has converted a large portion of naturally occurring lipids? One wonders what other possibilities escape your notice and more importantly WHY.
we have no problem in answering a questions with 'we simply do not know, but we think this may have happened' - we can be humble, and sometimes say we dont know the answer. We dont have a time machine to go back to see how life started, or how the big bang happened. This video is scientifically innacurate (and I can specify parts if you like, for example lipids dont always come from animal, plant metabolism)
Show me a fosslised rabbit from the precabrian and I might change my mind on evoluti
thats exactly my point... there arnt any fossilized chickends because they have evolved to 'recently' I think this a massive hole in any idea that evolution is a myth
Where does it say "all lipids"? But, 99.999% do, sorry to report. And the idea of lipids finding m. clay and nucleotides and AGTC/U bases, all huddled together on the sea floor doesn't qualify as preposterous. And, you think the vid is scientifically inaccurate? What a laugh. And you believe that?
Why cant you guys at keast check tyhe ideas you are trying to counter before coming out with a bunch of rubbish. To me it would suggest that before you even gave the idea a chance you dismiss it purely on religious grounds. Only i nthe USA do these silly arguments stem from. Every intelligent theologan in this country accepts evolution because the evidence is so strikingly strong.
Please read the reply from CBALLEAN about rabbits. HAha.... I dont even need to rebuff u guys, u do all the work
Did you ever stop to ask yourself if there's possibly a natural explanation for that? Could it possibly be that earths biome has converted a large portion of naturally occurring lipids? One wonders what other possibilities escape your notice and more importantly WHY.
. Lets just pretend for a minute that some cells did actually try to get together billions of years ago. If there was oxygen in the atmosphere, it would have simply oxidized and that would of been the end of it. To overcome this problem the evolutionist says that there was no oxygen on the earth billion of years ago. But oxygen remains have been found in some of the deepest rocks. Honestly, this fact alone disproves the whole theory of evolution.
And if those cells didn't invent a very good way to procreate, fission, et al, they would have all died in one single generation. Throw in oxidation, and those would have been pretty sick cells that all of life on earth depended on. What a thought.
There wasnt oxygen in the air all that time ago. Oxygen was released into the atmosphere by photosynthesizing animals who converted (i think glucose and water, but could be carbon dixoide) into O2... The most basic animals yo find are anaerobic (dont use oxygen) and is great evidenc3e in favour of this idea. Im no expert on the history of the world, but im quite sure there is no evidence saying there was O2 in the air at the time... if yuo have some, please point me to it
Evolutionist call creationists all kinds of unfaltering names because we believe in a Creator that can do miracles,yet their own belief is nothing more than a belief in magic but without a magician,now that's faith!
The most annoying thing about religious people is that we are not the ones making the wild claims of virgin births, talking snakes etc... we are simply coming up with suggestions based on evidence mixed in with some assumptions (i can be honest) about how the world works. We dont throw god into the mix because there is quite literally zero evidence. Why is this so hard for you guys to grasp? DOnt you see for a sec how mad your views might look to some people? Virgin births! Its not a comparison
Why are you so angry? I'm sorry that I don't believe that the reason the universe works the way it does came about molicules that just happened to fall in all the right places, but hey, if the universe did come about like that, I'd like to see more snowmen comeing about from snow falling from the sky, and then walking about with no magical hat on.
The bunny rabbit wouldn't be at the bottom because he has the ability to head to higher ground.Rabbits would have been some of the last animals to die in the flood,by that time many layers would have been layed down.
"he bunny rabbit wouldn't be at the bottom because he has the ability to head to higher ground"
drown body dynamics CB, they bloat then float then rot then pop. Then they sink wherever that happens to occur. There is no way (i repeat) NO WAY the geologic sorting of fossils could result from a world wide flood.
Since many sea creature existed even after the flood dead bunnies would have probably been eaten.Just cause an animal dies does not automatically mean that it will become a fossil.Probably 99% of fossils happened because of the flood.How many buffalo fossils have they found out west?We know that millions used to roam there and were slaughtered just for sport,so where are all the fossils?
indeed, why isn't there a single layer that has that years quota of a 10 million buffalo? why aren't all the fossils in the same layer? Or at least one layer that has a thousand times more fossils than any other? (Now THAT would be evidence of a world wide flood!!!)
You better do some study before you come up with such nonsense. Try the Cambrian Explosion for almost all of the fossil types that exist today. I can't believe you would comment using personal ignorance. Just to make it clear, I am not "world wide flood".
You can't "expect" something after the occurrence, say you expected it, and then take credit for it as evidence. OOOPS. Sorry, this is evolution. Scratch that.
I'm sorry, what was your beef again? I've not said the CE was expected. I've not said CE was predicted. I've not said the things you've put in my mouth. Do you know what the word SHOULD means? Are you that dense?
NOW, why do you run from the simple truth that whenever you run an evolutionary program, a CE like event very often occurs? Is it because it goes against your wish that it didn't? Does it pain you that it syncs with evolution in nature? Do you have a problem with that? A rebuttal?
"when it is programed by an evolutionary programmer. "
oh the old you can't take the designer out of the program stake. How droll. Listen buster you go frakking write a evolutionary program that doesn't evolve. You'll have to cheat to do it
I put on a vid about a subject, and, as is typical of evolutionauts, the discussion is some general nonsense about evolution. That is what you are doing right now. You cannot focus on the subject of the video. If you look at evo comments on almost all of my vids, they are like yours here. Nothing about the points in the vid. General evo support fantasy everywhere. Is that because evo's can't answer the questions posed? Circular evo debate is OLD and BORING.
I don't think that many even watch the videos,they just see that you have an opposite view and then they start spitting out all the canned arguments that they've heard and remembered.
"What has been irrational about my posts? Name it."
Really? You're irrational even if you slip in one post here or there that isn't. So far I haven't seen a rational post by you. (i.e., your accusation that I support the attackers ofn 9/11)
Where did the first soil come from since soil is made of billions of dead things,how did the first plants and trees grow without it?Remember, evos think that the earth was a sterile rock in the beginning.
plants evolved a very long time after animals... so shut up. Why dont you chekc your facts before commenting. And im no expert on plants, but im almost certain that not all plants need soil (such as sea weed) ruining your counter argument.
And you mentioned the 'flood' which made me laugh out loud giving me funny looks in the library.
And noone suggested life started on the sea floor infact. They say that it started in volcaninc springs full of nutrients and warmth
one more thing... If you was a bit more of a human being with people we wouldnt need to bicker like a couple of old men, but you are the one who lowered the tone of this discussion and have ruined what I was hoping to be a scientific discussion..
some great christian you turned out to be! Jesus would be proud
Mark: You are a young guy (23?) probably right out of college and freshly indoctrinated by your professors, just like I was. And you come across as knowing all. You don't realize that what you give is a belief. I went through the same, and fell for it, just like you. You continue referring to me like I am a religious nut. I am not religious at all. So, your know-it-all take on things, and constantly referring to me as if I was a religion nut is old, tiring, repetitious, and irritating.
"yeah im obvioulsy a silly little kid who knows nothing"
Great self-assessment.
"the same people who make real drugs saving real lives are also indoctrinated and are all a part of this conspiracy"
Are you talking about the same people who invented the atom bomb, the hydrogen bomb, the neutron bomb, all sorts of bio weapons of mass destruction, all kinds of chemicals and hundreds of other ways to kill people? Scientists have done more to kill people than they have done to save them.
Don't you love these "I used to be scientifically minded and thought I knew EVERYthing, and then I grew up and found the LIGHT of JESUS, and the mountains of Nobel prize winning evidence for GOD!" LOL. First off, someone who is truly scientifically minded knows they can only look for answers and explanations and can only know things with degrees of probability. Evolutionary theory, Gravitational theory: HIGH degree of probability. Evidence-less God: Very LOW degree of probability. That's science
Great video, thanks for making it! I love the faces by the way.
riggermortisify 1 month ago
@riggermortisify Thanks! Shocking to get a complimentary comment.
stevebee92653 1 month ago
i came here cause i thought its a halloween video (thought the happy faces were jack-o-lantern pumpkins) =(
sheleg3s3 4 months ago
@sheleg3s3 They can be whatever you want them to be.
stevebee92653 4 months ago
whats with the happy faces, they are really creepy, and i dont think micelles are the first living organisms, i dont care if i spelled it wrong, this vid was boring ionly watched it cuz the teacher made us.
rodjos18 5 months ago
@rodjos18 I hope you and your teacher realize this vid is pure tongue in cheek. Sorry you were bored.
stevebee92653 5 months ago
steve bee likes potatoes
rodjos18 5 months ago
You know nothing, Steve Bee.
ChiliTomatoNoodle 5 months ago
@ChiliTomatoNoodle Now that is a brilliant comment! All I can say is WOW!
stevebee92653 5 months ago
Assumptions do not prove anything and they are not science.
watch?v=fE8VO6z4tcg
JungleJargon 8 months ago
In the laboratory, we are simulating those conditions to some extent and we have to wait for years to see reactions occuring leading to formation of life.
abes137 10 months ago
@abes137 There will never be "reactions occurring leading to formation of life" in any laboratory. What the labs are doing is waiting for their grant money.
stevebee92653 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We should remember that life on Earth did not begin the next day the Earth was formed but after millions of years. It took such a long time because all the basic chenical constituents of life might have been formed at different places and not at one place at a time. As these got formed to the required concentration, everything began and slowly life came into existence.
abes137 10 months ago
We should remember that life on Earth did not begin the next day the Earth was formed but after millions of years. It took such a long time because all the basic chenical constituents of life might have been formed at different places and not at one place at a time. As these got formed to the required concentration, everything began and slowly life came into existence.
abes137 10 months ago
As of 2010 NO one has created a living organism from any scientific experiments, studies or projects. This has been on going attempt since 17th century; no wonder scientists are now looking outside our solar system (meteorites) for life. Creating life is very, very, very hard.
yhenry77 1 year ago
@yhenry77 Isn't it strange that we just can't copy and synthesize life? Even if it arrived from outside of the solar system, there still remains the problem of how did it start, wherever it did. Such a damn puzzle.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 I agree.
yhenry77 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Its Stubborn ignorance by scientists ..what do we see in nature ..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life? ever!!..francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically impossible but still stubbornly were atheist ..they have ZERO Testable repeatable chemistry to back up abiogenesis..no one has ever been able to assemble amino acids into anything.which should be simple..primitive cells never existed
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv What keeps it going: money, grants, results that are mostly imagined, that garner big pats on the back. Groupthink. Imagine doing lab tests that have zero chance in resulting in anything. I think they've done all the testing that can be done, and all they have proven is it's impossible. Like trying to design and build a space ship for travel to Andromeda. Hey, maybe I can get a grant on that one!
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Exactly!!! Agreed!!..its just Stubborn minded scientists feeding lies to people for more grant money!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
First, it's not impossible, you are here. Secondly, going to Andromeda isn't impossible either. Just hard. People that don't want us to keep questioning, trying, you scare me. Evolution is not fact, but theory. Creationism is just plain crap. I'll take the theory over "because I said so" any day. Perhaps there is so much luck and so long needed under the right conditions for life to happen. We just may never have the right conditions.
shakagenghis 10 months ago
@shakagenghis Theory is fact. Deepshit
RichtoffenRoach 6 months ago
@stevebee92653 STFU and let me enjoy your goddamed video you fucking creationist piece of shit. "life canot aries of nothin" Blah blah blah neither God my man
RichtoffenRoach 6 months ago
@5tonyvvvv
primitive cells exist now. And the conditions under which these things form is simply unknown. This is unfalsifiable as a theory until we figure out how to do it. Postulating a deity is just as silly as chemical evolution, but you seem certain anyway. If it took billions of years for nature to get lucky, why should a bunch of angry apes get it right while they are still killing each other because some boogie man in the sky called "God" wants them to? We should keep trying.
shakagenghis 10 months ago
@shakagenghis HAHAHAH.. There is no such thing as a primitive cell. They never existed! , why should we assume time and chance produced life?..If your talking about what craig venter, and jack szostak did, thats not creating anything, copying and borrowing information in CONTROLLED experiments under controlled Temperatures..and using activated bases as well..is far from natural undirected processes!!!
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@yhenry77
Science has never made the claim that they have made a living organism. What the miller experiments did show was that organic molecules could be made from non living matter. Now you could go on to say that only 2 amino acids were made but, if you do your reading, additional experiments have produced many more amino acids and nucleotides.
NexusCrawler0 11 months ago
@NexusCrawler0 Science has never made the claim? Science is not on anyone's side, it just confirms theories thru repeatable experiments. If scientists could line up all elements needed; that is a long way off from assembling them into a living organism. May 20, 2010: J. Craig Venter project spent 15 years assembling a DNA strand for a very simple bacteria, using 17 scientists and a super computer. They soon realized the DNA was not going spark life (abiogenesis), they used a host living cell.
yhenry77 11 months ago
That's is interesting-- are scientists claiming that the reason we haven't been able to create it is because it takes a very long time to randomize itself and produce just-the-right sub-condition of the condition to spark life? I'm pretty sure that's what they are saying-- someone needs to make a cartoon of a scientist watching a pot of boiling water and claiming that each of those bubbles is a universe in a multiverse and if you allow time one of those bubbles will produce intelligent life.
RayTech70 6 months ago
Well, you are probably the most intelligent creationist I've seen on the topic (since you still can't differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis, what does that say for your side?). Nonetheless, you vastly underestimate the amount of chances protocells had to evolve cellular machinery (size of earth, time, other planets). Your assumption that conditions good for life today would be conditions good for abiogenesis is unfounded. And early cells didn't have living organisms to compete with.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3 How long does a single cell live? Cells of course had to learn mitosis or fission before they died. Or else that was the end of life. How do you suppose the billions of years fit into your hopefully honest answers? How do you suppose they invented or learned mitosis or fission? Have any ideas? Because I want to know. Really!
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Its a complicated question because when do you consider something alive? or as a cell? The traditional definition is metabolism. But metabolism probably occurred long before mitosis or fission. Initially cells (if you want to call them that) divided the way you mentioned, by growth and splitting apart of lipid bubbles.
The billion years fit in to show there were many chances for this. Life could have existed and died out many times before success.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3 Metabolism isn't the definition of life. There actually is none. We can say what life does, like metabolism, but we cannot say what it is. And we cannot synthesize it, and probably never will. That abio happened is unarguable. How is way beyond the capability of humans. The notion that RNA nestled inside of lipid cells on the ocean floor, then somehow came to life is preposterous. There is no lipid without life, so where did the lipid come from? And time deteriorates everything.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
You can't say life has no definition because otherwise the word has no meaning. Therefore any statement you say with the word "life" in it has no meaning.
Metabolism IS the most common definition. Lipids exist without life. Protocells and hypercycles occur without metabolism so therefore replication exists before life. At this point there is chemical evolution such that metabolism is not an unlikely outcome given the number of opportunities.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3 I can say it and you can take it any way you want. Sounds like you have the beginning of life down pat. What was the source of lipids without life? There sure couldn't have been much roaming around the bottom of the oceans. And linking with RNA? Then coming to life? Eye of the believer here. I'm glad you have it figured out. I don't.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Lipids form naturally under the conditions of the primitive earth. Same as amino acids, and some oligonucleotides. This has been experimentally shown repeatedly. If you want a more in depth explanation than that you'll have to learn some organic chemistry. I know a little of it, but not enough so you'll have to ask someone else on the OChem part.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3 So if you go to the beach or a lake, there are lipids just kind of floating around at the bottom of the sea? That's not even the case now with so many living organisms manufacturing lipids. The notion that lipids formed, then amino acids, then RNA, then............in a sterile world is absurd. A lot more to it than we have the ability to figure out. You don't need a lot of biochem and organic chem classes to figure that out.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Ah, so you think we live in the conditions of primitive earth, you think oligonucleotides mean RNA, and you think you know more about the subject than scientists in their fields. That explains so much.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3 Primitive earth was a horrible environment for life. Don't you think the current environment, being much better, would show chemicals coming together in the process of continually forming life?
I know exactly the same as you and all scientists about the origin of life. We are all tied.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Life adapts to the environment. For example, stomach acid seems like a terrible place for life, but the bacteria that live there can live nowhere else. The environment that we live in is inhospitable to them. More importantly, lipids are not formed in our environment, but were formed in the primitive environment. This has been shown repeatedly.
You only know as much as us if you assume that we know absolutely nothing, unless of course negative numbers can apply to knowledge.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3 I don't assume. Fact: you know absolutely ZERO about how non living entities came to life. Make up all the stories you want if you need to fool yourself. Doesn't get you any closer to knowing than me and every other multicellular animal on the planet earth.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@Keeban3 Even with all the molecules needed for life proteins RNA DNA enzymes cell wall...EVERYTHING..put it all in the perfect solution in a test tube under amazing conditions in the most advanced laboratory in the world..
It would all breakdown in seconds and fall apart..
and this was suppose to happen on a harsh Toxic poisonous primordial earth in some sea vent or mud..
What a Fuckin JOKE!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
So long as you have conceded replication without proteins, and the production of single stranded nucleotide sequences (which is what the video and the conversation I had was actually about), then I will address this. To concede that you need to understand that toxicity means different things to different organisms, and that compounds do not break down under conditions that encourage their formation. So basically ignore your "knowledge" of subjects you don't know and we can start.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3 Stubborn ignorance..what do we see in nature dummy..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life? ever!!..francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically impossible but still stubbornly were atheist ..you also have ZERO Testable repeatable chemistry to back up abiogenesis..no one has ever been able to assemble amino acids into anything.which should be simple..primitive cells never existed
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@Keeban3 Even with all the Proteins and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube. to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Mitosis and fission of course don't happen until we have a genome, which is very, very far down the line. The order, I suspect but this is just conjecture, is that after DNA usage, more expediant DNA replication evolved, then the means to localize mother/daughter DNA, then cleavage by cytokinesis. Before cytokinesis, lipid bubbles splitting were what caused cleavage. Before localization of mother/daughter DNA, duplicate DNA and horizontal transfer would have been common.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3 Did you make this up. Or did someone else. Again, since the longest living cells are about a years worth, with few complex exceptions like stem cells, pretty difficult to see how billions of years fits into the equation. Cells would have to come to life and "learn to replicate" pretty quickly before they died out. 'Tis a mess trying to figure this puzzle out out.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Each cell is a roll of the die. The billion years, like the size of the planet, and the number of planets in the universe, enters in as increasing the number of times the die is rolled. You establish in the video that long before cells exist, replicating protocells exist. Since they are functioning without the use of proteins or machinery, they don't need to "learn to replicate" (odd that you would put your own statement in quotes).
Keeban3 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
If I thought your misunderstanding wasn't deliberate I'd continue (maybe), but you made the mistake of showing that you were intelligent in the video. Its too late to feign ignorance. You can't explain that they replicate without the need for machinery and then suddenly ask how they replicate. By doing so you betray your disinguousness.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3 No feign. I AM ignorant as to the origin of cells and life. So are you and every person who ever lived on the planet earth. So there is no feign. No person has the answer. Scientists that think they are running experiments to learn how life formed need to start with the most difficult step: get nonliving tissue to live. It they can't do that all else is a waste.
Que?
"You can't explain that they replicate without the need for machinery and then suddenly ask how they replicate".
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say that you DID explain that protocells replicate without the need for machinery, then you suddenly act ignorant about how early cells replicate without the machinery for mitosis and fission. That is the feigning ignorance that I refer to. Obviously machinery facilitating more stable replication is useful, but as you yourself explain in the video, replication can occur without it.
Keeban3 1 year ago
If I was an origin of life researcher, I would be trying to figure out how dna was originally encoded with biological information, for that matter how dna became the medium of that information. The only people I see approaching the origin of life with these questions fresh in their mind, are the ID proponents. So I go with the ID guys on this one. If evolutionists didn't tend to be such arrogant closed minded (who have no idea just how off putting they can be), well I'd still side with ID.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
Chemical evolution is just one long thought experiment that assumes, in reverse order, every necessary step in order to explain the previous. In other words, natural selection fails to even seem plausible at the chemical level, so they have to come up with a series of historical events that match the assumptions. It's funny as hell that people think this is scientific. Thanks for shedding some light on the stupidity of materialistic thought on the origin of life.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Thanks for the note. What could be worse than being an "origin of life" researcher? What the hell does one do that would be worthwhile? They need to start with the biggest problem: getting non-living entities to come to life. If they can't do that. all the buckets full of amino acids they can make with "synthetic early earth" environments are worthless.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Very good point. We should be able to see remnants of chemical evolution, considering the enormity of the situation it took place in. They have the technology to completely empty the contents of a cell and put those contents in a new membrane. But they don't transfer the process of life, they just make organized soup. Also, if a cell doesn't receive environmental input, it becomes completely inactive, yet it jumps back into action once the environmental input returns.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
Wow. It only took you :30 seconds to lie in this video. "What's really cool here is that lipids are formed by animal or plant metabolism".
This is such an easily check-able fact I do not even know why you tried to lie here.
FACT: "lipids are a large and diverse group of naturally occurring organic compounds". chemistry.msu{dot}edu/faculty/reusch/VirtTxtJml/lipids.htm
Can't you make just ONE VIDEO without lying within the first minute?
PaulinaPaulino 1 year ago
@PaulinaPaulino You sure have a lot of enthusiasm. Not enough knowledge to be trying to argue with me though. Lipids are naturally occurring, which means that LIVING nature manufactures them. In an organelle called the endoplasmic reticulum. So life was needed to make the compounds that built the first living cells. How did that happen? Chicken and egg all over again. Calling people"liars" is pretty lame. Particularly when you aren't knowledgeable. What happened to "apparent design"?
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@sculpt2live You must be Cluseau hisself.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
Eventually, creationists will ask who designed the self-assembly characteristics of structures like atoms, molecules, crystals & micelles. We've got to get them to understand that Adam & Eve would have created a mutant family lineage that wouldn't survive first.
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
@SIMKINETICS Adam and Eve? What are you smokin'?
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Lampoon Tang Ganja! It's a parody. Get it? Ya know, like a play on genetic ignorance & inbreeding.
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
So the first life came about in an free-oxygenless atmosphere. We know that life needs free oxygen so please tell us how and when the toxic ammonia, free hydrogen etc suddenly gor replaced by oxygen and nitrogen. Free hydrogen in the atmosphere? Wait! I thought hydrogen was the lightest of all the elements and would therefore float to the top of the atmosphere instead of being mixed up with all the much heavier and toxic ammonia. How was this theory reproduced in the lab, thereby proving it?
ExtremeWorship 1 year ago
@ExtremeWorship You don't get the vid. It's a spoof.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 No, I didn't even watch it. Don't you hate it when a spoofs thaken seriously? I assumed it woulod be full of the usual unpleasantness atheists think is being scientific. I'll watch it as soon as i can.
ExtremeWorship 1 year ago
@ExtremeWorship Why does life need free oxygen??? Life could have as easily not utilized oxygen or any other gas if it wasn't there just as many life forms still do.
Earliest life did not need oxygen.
Do you understand what is being said in this video? Why is ammonia toxic to these original life forms?
swilson3d 1 year ago
Even Szostac doesn't ring his bell as loud as the supporters of evolution do. In a recent interview he said we may never know how life happened and he doesn't even see it happening in the lab even in the next 20 years. The problems associated with the negative cross chemical reactions which would have had to occur in the primordial earth never get addressed. Its almost taboo in the OOL circles.
benthemiester 2 years ago
how can you go through all of that, work through the intricacies of the process and also that it takes billions of years for the process to produce cells we would reconise and then right at the end go on to a creationist rant that has the intellectual rigor of "peanut butter, the atheist nightmare", and "I cannot see imagine life appearing without some purpose". Do you accept abiogenisis and evolution or not? if your going by percentage for about 95% of your video I thought you did
TinBryn 2 years ago
Of course there was abiogenisis. Once there was sterility, then there was life. And no one knows how that took place including the fools that make believe they know. Like you.
Try reading my comment below before going off on your creationist bs.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
sorry lost my temper a bit. I just wondered why you did that little bit at the end. And all I will claim to know is that there is evidence pointing towards a naturalistic origin of life but the actual event seems hard to imagine so there is some faith involved, as abiogenesis only has hypothesises. I see you are not a creationist now, you accept abiogenesis just not any one hypothesis. Just do you think natural selection really can't create the diversity of life?
TinBryn 2 years ago
NS can't create the diversity of life. For sure. Do you actually think that animals killing, eating, and fornicating other animals and non-occurring good mutations can form visual systems? Four chambered hearts? Ball and socket joints? incredible mini-sculptures that are teeth? For sure not. And if you care to believe these can, I can't help your. Or argue with you. We are not even remotely close to figuring it out. Actually we are just as close as we are to figuring why the Big Bang. Equally.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
wow I think you have the most unique view on this as possible, you definitely believe there was some abiogenisis event of some sort, then there was mutations and natural selection, with some other helping hand that formed eyes, four chambered hearts, lungs, etc. have you heard of the skeptic's guide to the universe, I'd love to hear you and Steven Novella thrash it out, people who believe in guided evolution are very rare, you should try to send an email or even ask to be on their show.
TinBryn 2 years ago
Sorry. I don't believe in "guided evolution" The fossil record only shows minute changes in species over millions of years. I "believe" what the fossil record shows, unlike evolutionauts. Ev shows changes in size, minor shapes, color, habit. It does not show the invention of visual systems, hearts, new species from old. It show different species appearing and most becoming extinct over enormous and different time frames. That's what science should note. Not the hallucinations that they do. .
stevebee92653 2 years ago
That is guided evolution, life started as protocells, they can evolve a bit, but at certain periods features where added by something that isn't natural selection on random mutations. You believe in evolution with something, maybe supernatural helping sometimes, whats your definition of guided evolution, or is there something I got wrong
TinBryn 2 years ago
actually is there anything in evolutionary theory and abiogenesis that you believe is wrong, do you accept common decent, speciation, so called microevolution, natural selection and chemical evolution leading to self replicating molecules that latter became life as we know it, just that something else as well is needed. heloizy... was wrong you don't seem to break down evolution to me, you just say it's not enouth
TinBryn 2 years ago
Try my blog. Page 1 if you really want to know. Evillusiondotnet.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
@stevebee92653
Why Evillusion? It seems a little crass (if thats the right word) to call theories you don't agree with "evil".
adamkyler 1 year ago
@adamkyler Ev-illusion. It's an illusion. Not evil.......On my site I use a dash, but I can't in the URL. I hope that doesn't disappoint you.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@adamkyler "Why Evillusion? It seems a little crass (if thats the right word) to call theories you don't agree with "evil"."
You're right but evos do it all the time. They insult us (moron is a common one), call us evil, call us stupid (my IQ tests as above average) and various other antisocial remarks. I've had all that just because I challenge evos by asking for the kind of evidence that all other fields need before saying a theory is proven. I'll get more of the above for saying it.
ExtremeWorship 1 year ago
@ExtremeWorship Well, I can see why they would think of you as a moron or stupid, but evil is going a little too far. Your idea's go against everything that they know to be fact. A common misconception about theories is that it is near impossible to completely prove them. In relation to other theories, evolution is pretty high up the list in credibility. What sort of additional evidence do you think is needed? lawl, gtg my cat wants luvs
adamkyler 1 year ago
Your way of being a creationist is almost original but the very one problem that always will make you creationists lose *badly* and constantly is that you have no fucking alternative propositions to solve ANY problem (real or imagined by yourselves). Even if our understanding of abiogenesis and evolution (as it appears in peer reviewed litterature) were only 1% true (though it's clearly closer to the inverse) you would still lose badly by virtue of that fact.
heloizyjhenifer 2 years ago
Actually I am scientifically 100% correct. You believe in guesses, fantasies, and fables, which are 100% incorrect. Sorry.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
You would be if you proposed only one alternative and demonstrated it, but you won't and no other creationist will. Maybe they could if they tried but they never tried or will ever try. Endless speculation is not science. Science begins when one ends speculation and begins validation.
heloizyjhenifer 2 years ago
Evo-abiogenesis IS speculation. Nothing more. Actually fable. "Science" has no idea and they aren't. even close. So evos should quit with the absurd guesses and fables and admit that fact.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
It is not 100% complete one can grant you that with pleasure, but YOUR (including all creationists in the world) alternatives are inexistant and 0% complete. Even 0.1% would beat 0%. That's my only point.
heloizyjhenifer 2 years ago
Give up the "creationist" bullshit. I am not one anymore than you are. And I am sure you mean biblical creationist. Because, we are all creationists, whether you like it or not. The BB was certainly a creation. Hi creationist.
So, 10% of a flawed fable is fine with you as science?
Me, I say reload.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
I mean any kind of creationism, intelligent designers all alike, they all contain 0% scientific method and total 0 achievements.
And yes, by all means a verified 10% will always be better than unverifiable 0%, I take it gladly! Science is delectable.
heloizyjhenifer 2 years ago
So you don't believe in the Big Bang?
Did Einstein have any achievements?
Did Newton?
Do I?
You are indoctrinated and brain locked. Your problem is you argue from your lack of knowledge, and you look foolish doing so. You should give it up.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Well I must have endoctrinated myself somehow.
The two scientists you cite certainly have scientific achievements attributable to them.
I don't "Believe" in anything at all - none, zero, nil - I'm just intellectually *able* to give credit to models that are state-of-the-art science and which took humanity centuries to refine, and which, have the humility so to say, to be open to revision, provided there is supporting evidence.
It's really that simple.
heloizyjhenifer 2 years ago
No, when you accept events that no man has ever observed or experienced in any way whatsoever, you are a believer. That is you and all evos.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
If you start from the premise that you need a time machine to study abiogenesis then of course you need a cosmic zombie to believe in.
This is a complete non sequitur. We study stellar cores without diving into a star, have discovered particles from the shape of a histogram, etc. Being there is not required at all.
People like you claimed thousands of times that such and such phenomenon is god's hand then scientists demonstrated it wasn't. You try to make history repeat itself constantly.
heloizyjhenifer 2 years ago
You are indoctrinated, tiring, and a waste of time. You are worshipful of evo. Someone started you at a young age, and the indoctrination worked. See the instruction at the beginning of the vid? Can you follow instructions? See ya cosmic zombie. Go watch potholer or cdk and cuddle with them.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
We are all like me around here in europe, only the mussies could talk with you. Go talk to them, they'll be so happy to convert you to their true religion...
You know jack shit about me, I am christian by birth, but I love knowledge and learning, thus I'm not into cosmic zombies.
Talk about waste of time, pfff. You're the one wasting your brains in denial.
BanMeAgainPlease 2 years ago
So why are you here if I am so bad bad bad? Why the effort to come here and say absolutely nothing?
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Why do your images depict phospholipids(0:33 - 0:55)? Plain ol' lipids would've existed at the time, and would work just fine!
May I point your attention to the work of Jack W. Szostak, for instance his paper titled "Template-directed synthesis of a genetic polymer in a model protocell".
(If you want a link, send me a PM).
For more information on the membrane's of early protocells.
Truth0is0beauty 2 years ago
Since 99.9% of lipids are a products of animal metabolism, there wouldn't have been too many lipids hanging around the ocean floor, no matter what type.
I am pretty familiar with Szostak's fantasies. Thanks anyway.
Also, early protocells are imaginary.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
It took me a week to Google and understand the concept.
Who makes these stupid videos? Is this stevebee qualified in anything?
Don't ask, accept.
Don't question, believe.
Don't research, pray.
Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
"Who makes these stupid videos? Is this stevebee qualified in anything?"
Look at his blog to see if he's qualified. If the videos are so stupid, debate him. I mean, "stupid videos" is all you got? Great debate skills!
"Don't ask, accept.
Don't question, believe"
Right out of the Evolution Handbook!. Evo's are strange creatures. They come here or other sites questioning evo and demean the questioner but they never debate his/their points. You believe in a weird science!
cheaterfive100 2 years ago
"Google extremophiles and learn how wonderfully inventive evolution can be. "
its amazing that an unintelligent force can be wonderfully inventive :)
bigusdikus0 2 years ago
There's a question on abiogenesis that I want to ask... If there were lipids on the sea floor, and the DNA or nucleotides survived inside the lipid. That is asuming that lipid had came from the environment. So how come the DNA is instructed to make protiens, which MAKES lipids??? good video stevebee92653
digga115 2 years ago
"But, 99.999% do"
Did you ever stop to ask yourself if there's possibly a natural explanation for that? Could it possibly be that earths biome has converted a large portion of naturally occurring lipids? One wonders what other possibilities escape your notice and more importantly WHY.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
One wonders why you are not a science fiction writer.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
A real scientist would have taken it as a suggestion of a possibility to look into. You however have little in common with real scientists.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
lets all be scientists-always probably-always maybe-it goes on and on forever---we dont even understand 99.99999999999999999999999% of life yet or the chemicals involved in the life process-so keep gessing-real scientists are idiots-even a child can keep guessing-sounds intelligent
princefy 2 years ago
It never happened, why waste my time?
CBALLEN 2 years ago
That's one thing all these evolutionuts forget,if everything happened like they say it did,the Earth would have been STERILE.Isn't sterilization used to kill bacteria?Not to even mention the poisonous atmosphere.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
My exact point. In one of my abio vids, I end it with " the early earth resembled something we have on earth today.....a sterilizer." And it did. So how did all of those fantastic things happen in a damn huge sterilizer?
stevebee92653 2 years ago
You are 100% right,just like you say in your videos,IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
"Not to even mention the poisonous atmosphere. "
as they say, one mans meat is another mans poison. There are ore biological modalities and metabolisms than you recon. Google extremophiles and learn how wonderfully inventive evolution can be.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
Have you considered the possibility that any "new cells" that "appear" in a modern environment would not be able to compete with the modern life forms that inhabit the same area. How far would self-replicating molecules get if the materials that they would have to be made of where coveted by more advanced life forms.
10secstomeltdown 2 years ago
They can't even do it in a laboratory! It just doesn't happen anywhere and never did.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
"But, 99.999% do"
Did you ever stop to ask yourself if there's possibly a natural explanation for that? Could it possibly be that earths biome has converted a large portion of naturally occurring lipids? One wonders what other possibilities escape your notice and more importantly WHY.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
It's the last comment on the view all comments page. from about 7 hours ago
damianpoirier 3 years ago
we have no problem in answering a questions with 'we simply do not know, but we think this may have happened' - we can be humble, and sometimes say we dont know the answer. We dont have a time machine to go back to see how life started, or how the big bang happened. This video is scientifically innacurate (and I can specify parts if you like, for example lipids dont always come from animal, plant metabolism)
Show me a fosslised rabbit from the precabrian and I might change my mind on evoluti
markgg1 3 years ago
Can you show us any fossilized chickens?
CBALLEN 3 years ago
what?
thats exactly my point... there arnt any fossilized chickends because they have evolved to 'recently' I think this a massive hole in any idea that evolution is a myth
markgg1 3 years ago
Where does it say "all lipids"? But, 99.999% do, sorry to report. And the idea of lipids finding m. clay and nucleotides and AGTC/U bases, all huddled together on the sea floor doesn't qualify as preposterous. And, you think the vid is scientifically inaccurate? What a laugh. And you believe that?
stevebee92653 3 years ago
Why cant you guys at keast check tyhe ideas you are trying to counter before coming out with a bunch of rubbish. To me it would suggest that before you even gave the idea a chance you dismiss it purely on religious grounds. Only i nthe USA do these silly arguments stem from. Every intelligent theologan in this country accepts evolution because the evidence is so strikingly strong.
Please read the reply from CBALLEAN about rabbits. HAha.... I dont even need to rebuff u guys, u do all the work
markgg1 3 years ago
"But, 99.999% do"
Did you ever stop to ask yourself if there's possibly a natural explanation for that? Could it possibly be that earths biome has converted a large portion of naturally occurring lipids? One wonders what other possibilities escape your notice and more importantly WHY.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
. Lets just pretend for a minute that some cells did actually try to get together billions of years ago. If there was oxygen in the atmosphere, it would have simply oxidized and that would of been the end of it. To overcome this problem the evolutionist says that there was no oxygen on the earth billion of years ago. But oxygen remains have been found in some of the deepest rocks. Honestly, this fact alone disproves the whole theory of evolution.
CBALLEN 3 years ago
And if those cells didn't invent a very good way to procreate, fission, et al, they would have all died in one single generation. Throw in oxidation, and those would have been pretty sick cells that all of life on earth depended on. What a thought.
stevebee92653 3 years ago
There wasnt oxygen in the air all that time ago. Oxygen was released into the atmosphere by photosynthesizing animals who converted (i think glucose and water, but could be carbon dixoide) into O2... The most basic animals yo find are anaerobic (dont use oxygen) and is great evidenc3e in favour of this idea. Im no expert on the history of the world, but im quite sure there is no evidence saying there was O2 in the air at the time... if yuo have some, please point me to it
markgg1 3 years ago
Didn't you do video trying to disprove this exact idea?
metalhead91 3 years ago
And to think all this happened by acident, through chaos actually creating, instead of destroying, which is know for. It's a miricle.
WelcomeToTheMask 3 years ago
Evolutionist call creationists all kinds of unfaltering names because we believe in a Creator that can do miracles,yet their own belief is nothing more than a belief in magic but without a magician,now that's faith!
CBALLEN 3 years ago
Well, for something with no intelligence, evolution sure was brilliant, wasn't it?
WelcomeToTheMask 3 years ago
Absolutely,mutations and natural selection are THE BOMB! HA HA.
CBALLEN 3 years ago
The most annoying thing about religious people is that we are not the ones making the wild claims of virgin births, talking snakes etc... we are simply coming up with suggestions based on evidence mixed in with some assumptions (i can be honest) about how the world works. We dont throw god into the mix because there is quite literally zero evidence. Why is this so hard for you guys to grasp? DOnt you see for a sec how mad your views might look to some people? Virgin births! Its not a comparison
markgg1 3 years ago
Why are you so angry? I'm sorry that I don't believe that the reason the universe works the way it does came about molicules that just happened to fall in all the right places, but hey, if the universe did come about like that, I'd like to see more snowmen comeing about from snow falling from the sky, and then walking about with no magical hat on.
WelcomeToTheMask 3 years ago
erm.. who said im angry
And the analogy of the snowman is about as stupid as the 'talking snake' hypothesis you guys came up with
markgg1 3 years ago
The bunny rabbit wouldn't be at the bottom because he has the ability to head to higher ground.Rabbits would have been some of the last animals to die in the flood,by that time many layers would have been layed down.
CBALLEN 3 years ago
"he bunny rabbit wouldn't be at the bottom because he has the ability to head to higher ground"
drown body dynamics CB, they bloat then float then rot then pop. Then they sink wherever that happens to occur. There is no way (i repeat) NO WAY the geologic sorting of fossils could result from a world wide flood.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Since many sea creature existed even after the flood dead bunnies would have probably been eaten.Just cause an animal dies does not automatically mean that it will become a fossil.Probably 99% of fossils happened because of the flood.How many buffalo fossils have they found out west?We know that millions used to roam there and were slaughtered just for sport,so where are all the fossils?
CBALLEN 3 years ago
indeed, why isn't there a single layer that has that years quota of a 10 million buffalo? why aren't all the fossils in the same layer? Or at least one layer that has a thousand times more fossils than any other? (Now THAT would be evidence of a world wide flood!!!)
damianpoirier 3 years ago 2
You better do some study before you come up with such nonsense. Try the Cambrian Explosion for almost all of the fossil types that exist today. I can't believe you would comment using personal ignorance. Just to make it clear, I am not "world wide flood".
stevebee92653 3 years ago
the CE s exactly what we should expect. Have you ever run an evolutionary program? That's what happens nearly every time. Don't you know this?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
You can't "expect" something after the occurrence, say you expected it, and then take credit for it as evidence. OOOPS. Sorry, this is evolution. Scratch that.
stevebee92653 3 years ago
hmm you have a difficulty with language. I didn't say we expected the CE did I?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
You are kidding, right? A cover up for your saying "the CE s exactly what we should expect" 500 MY after the fact? That is really great evidence.
stevebee92653 3 years ago
I'm sorry, what was your beef again? I've not said the CE was expected. I've not said CE was predicted. I've not said the things you've put in my mouth. Do you know what the word SHOULD means? Are you that dense?
NOW, why do you run from the simple truth that whenever you run an evolutionary program, a CE like event very often occurs? Is it because it goes against your wish that it didn't? Does it pain you that it syncs with evolution in nature? Do you have a problem with that? A rebuttal?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"the CE s exactly what we should expect"
You put this in your mouth.
"whenever you run an evolutionary program, a CE like event very often occurs"......when it is programed by an evolutionary programmer.
I love the "very often".
stevebee92653 3 years ago
""the CE s exactly what we should expect"
You put this in your mouth. "
and you made it out to be other than it was. Will you cease being so irritable?
"I love the "very often". "
sarcasm? I can run an evolutionary algorithm 20 times a day. Yes very often. What part of "I'm talking about a computer program" did you miss?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"when it is programed by an evolutionary programmer. "
oh the old you can't take the designer out of the program stake. How droll. Listen buster you go frakking write a evolutionary program that doesn't evolve. You'll have to cheat to do it
ready?
set?
FAIL.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Ready, set, BYE. You are too indoctrinated to have any kind of rational discussion with. Try someone else.
stevebee92653 3 years ago
hmm blocked?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
No.
stevebee92653 3 years ago
What has been irrational about my posts? Name it.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
I put on a vid about a subject, and, as is typical of evolutionauts, the discussion is some general nonsense about evolution. That is what you are doing right now. You cannot focus on the subject of the video. If you look at evo comments on almost all of my vids, they are like yours here. Nothing about the points in the vid. General evo support fantasy everywhere. Is that because evo's can't answer the questions posed? Circular evo debate is OLD and BORING.
stevebee92653 3 years ago
read back. I mentioned something pertaining to this video earlier. You never replied to it.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
I don't think that many even watch the videos,they just see that you have an opposite view and then they start spitting out all the canned arguments that they've heard and remembered.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
You are right on. They look for anti-ev vids, then go straight to comments. None of them have any idea what I am saying.............
stevebee92653 2 years ago
I don't think that many even watch the videos,
CBALLEN, If you watched the videos you spam, you would have learned something by now.
gregrutz 2 years ago
DingbatPorter arrogantly said,"What has been irrational about my posts?"
How about you asshole? You're irrational in every comment you make.
MaximusArurealius 3 years ago
"What has been irrational about my posts? Name it."
Really? You're irrational even if you slip in one post here or there that isn't. So far I haven't seen a rational post by you. (i.e., your accusation that I support the attackers ofn 9/11)
Hacksaw38 2 years ago
Where did the first soil come from since soil is made of billions of dead things,how did the first plants and trees grow without it?Remember, evos think that the earth was a sterile rock in the beginning.
CBALLEN 3 years ago
plants evolved a very long time after animals... so shut up. Why dont you chekc your facts before commenting. And im no expert on plants, but im almost certain that not all plants need soil (such as sea weed) ruining your counter argument.
And you mentioned the 'flood' which made me laugh out loud giving me funny looks in the library.
And noone suggested life started on the sea floor infact. They say that it started in volcaninc springs full of nutrients and warmth
markgg1 3 years ago 2
Well, I'm not really sure how you got the idea that I said "talking snakes", cinsidering that you were the one who said that.
WelcomeToTheMask 3 years ago
Why dont you take a little time to actually read your holy bronze age cult book aka 'the bible'
markgg1 3 years ago 2
one more thing... If you was a bit more of a human being with people we wouldnt need to bicker like a couple of old men, but you are the one who lowered the tone of this discussion and have ruined what I was hoping to be a scientific discussion..
some great christian you turned out to be! Jesus would be proud
markgg1 3 years ago 2
Mark: You are a young guy (23?) probably right out of college and freshly indoctrinated by your professors, just like I was. And you come across as knowing all. You don't realize that what you give is a belief. I went through the same, and fell for it, just like you. You continue referring to me like I am a religious nut. I am not religious at all. So, your know-it-all take on things, and constantly referring to me as if I was a religion nut is old, tiring, repetitious, and irritating.
anderslyndon 3 years ago
yeah im obvioulsy a silly little kid who knows nothing... I have been indoctrinated by the conspiracy created by biologists everywhere.
the same people who make real drugs saving real lives are also indoctrinated and are all a part of this conspiracy
get a fucking hobby!
markgg1 3 years ago
"yeah im obvioulsy a silly little kid who knows nothing"
Great self-assessment.
"the same people who make real drugs saving real lives are also indoctrinated and are all a part of this conspiracy"
Are you talking about the same people who invented the atom bomb, the hydrogen bomb, the neutron bomb, all sorts of bio weapons of mass destruction, all kinds of chemicals and hundreds of other ways to kill people? Scientists have done more to kill people than they have done to save them.
Hacksaw38 3 years ago
ridiculous logic... what a bad point.
Are you suggesting that we shouldnt have 'science' at all?
markgg1 3 years ago
"ridiculous logic... what a bad point."
Sorry, was I too factual for you?
"Are you suggesting that we shouldnt have 'science' at all?"
No, but some days I wonder.
Hacksaw38 3 years ago
"Scientists have done more to kill people than they have done to save them.
"
says the fuck for brains that applauds the terrorists of 9/11.
Ignore the troll.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Don't you love these "I used to be scientifically minded and thought I knew EVERYthing, and then I grew up and found the LIGHT of JESUS, and the mountains of Nobel prize winning evidence for GOD!" LOL. First off, someone who is truly scientifically minded knows they can only look for answers and explanations and can only know things with degrees of probability. Evolutionary theory, Gravitational theory: HIGH degree of probability. Evidence-less God: Very LOW degree of probability. That's science
EmeraldView 3 years ago