This guy obviously just learned a little jargon, and tries to trip up the host with it, and honestly I find that kind of dishonesty so frustrating,
For reference, Racemic simply means both L & R chiral are mixed, by DEFINITION it means that it contains the correct amino acids, just mixed in with some of the wrong type, this just thinks that a magic invisible being is more likely than a bunch L chiral molecules bumping into each other
Organic means made of Carbon atoms as a base. As far as I know, amino acids ARE made of carbon. Wikipedia quote: "The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen". The guy either doesn't know what he's talking about, or is simply lying.
Oh god this guy has no expertise in what he's talking about... He doesn't even know how to pronounce chirality or racemates. Also, they got both isomers in the experiment. We still don't know why one enantiomer was picked over another for all life. That's just what worked.
organic molecules are pretty much any molecules that contain carbon, thats it, carbon is abundant on the planet both in organic forms and inorganic forms. People never stop to check what organic molecules means and so become very confused. Carbon has enough stability to hold structure , every other element is too regid or too soft to hold and change structure. Thats why every lifeform is carbon based, silicon life forms are plausable but have problems and complications.
Lets make this very simple and clear ... in the world of Chemistry, "organic" means "with carbon". Last time I checked, amino acids have carbon in them.
spontaneous life just didn't happen, just admit it. Put a bunch of inorganic material in any kind of soup you want and watch it for as long as you want and it's not going to come to life. It takes life to make life. get real.
Ehhh... What "life" made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life
Has any experiment ever created life itself? Why not? Why don't scientists replicate life (meaning, to form life) in labs? That would settle the argument for it. But, to me, it seems it is impossible! It seems now, as ever, that life can never be spontaneously generated! If I'm wrong, than just show it on an experiment! After all, we are supposed to be scientific about this...
@majorserg what a retarded statement, as if scientists can get together and just create life at this point. the miller urey experiment was the first step towards your bullshit request.
how about this: i'll create life when you can tell me who created yahweh.
@theeyeisblind You just reiforced my point! They can't create life because the theory is flawed! The amino acids that can form in the lab will not combine to form DNA. The Miller-Urey Experiment showed that some amino-acids can be formed. But from that to becoming life is not viable. Please, keep the language civilized. We shouldn't offend each other. As for Yahweh, there can be no proof of the immaterial in the material sciences. If He defines Himself as spirit, there can be material proof.
@EPR89 If I say no, that would put us both in the level of faith...Of course no experiment has ever, or will ever, demonstrate a spiritual creation of life because science can only prove natural things. There is no science of the supernatural. Now, it is more plausible to suppose complex life emerged from intelligent God than to assume simple aminoacids organized themselves into DNA (a huge molecule) for no scientific reason. So believing in abiotic formation of life IS STILL a matter of faith.
@majorserg But assuming that there was a intelligent creator assembling them is making more assumptions than the "natural" assumption. At least to me it makes no sense to use an assumption that makes more claims than another one, especially when this one asks more questions than it answers and cannot be tested. I could just as well say that a winged salad bowl with 31 eyes did it.
@EPR89 " I could just as well say that a winged salad bowl with 31 eyes did it." BLASPHEMER! That is the FSM's greatest nemesis, the font of all evil and romain, the hidden one who clears the arteries and lowers the blood pressure, while providing all the fiber needed in a daily diet. Return to the warm bosom of marinara and meatballs (with just a touch of parmesan) and be forgiven!
This guy is talking about how all life contains L amino acids and virtually no D amino acids, where the Miller-Urey Experiment produced a 50-50 mixture as would be expected via chemistry. There is nothing crazy about the idea that the L type amino acids went on to create life because they worked and the D amino acids aren't in life because they didn't work.
I thought the guy wasnt prepared to defend his beleifes he was simply trying to show off his knowledge.... everything about the (not being the same atmosphere) who cares they made a "living" thing out of chemicals! this proves that it was in fact possible, and considering there where billions of years to create such a mix it didnt need some "intelligence" just enough time for thngs to allign correctly... there has been reserch showing that dna in a pond in cali had a different backbone.
It is still a red herring, no matter if man can prove life came from non life or not, it still doesn't make it more logical that an invisible being with super powers did it.
so if for the sake of argument we agree that the miller Urey experiment is totally invalid and useless, How would that change anything. Evolution is still pretty much proven and abiogenesis is still more plausible then god.
@GuacamoleKun If I made a piece of art that no one else could create and then ask my friends to write a book about it and credit the work to me then effectively/practically I still exist even though you can't touch me. I have my art to prove my existence.
@ThisMemory I said "examine", not "touch". If you leave behind some evidence that could only have come from you, then that means I can examine you. In which case that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about something that CAN'T be examined, because there is NO exclusive evidence.
@GuacamoleKun Touch and examine are equivalent in my example. If I DON'T LET YOU touch/examine me that doesn't mean I don't exist. I could have fallen off the face of the Earth. You still have my evidence (Art) I left behind, and it's sufficient proof of my existence. Replace me with God and it's the same. BTW the evidence for God is Life, Language, the Universe, the Bible. Just because you can't examine "the cause" of something it doesn't deem it nonexistent, there is evidence.
@GuacamoleKun Do you not fucking understand with evidence you can't say effectively/practically something doesn't exist? You can effectively/practically prove it's existence with it's evidence. You're saying the fucking opposite of what is true.
@ThisMemory Of course I am ignorant. If the best scientists today don't know where everything came from, of course I don't! I haven't studied it. I don't even know HOW to study it. I can't do the math problems. I don't know the periodic table. I never even had a high school physics class. I'm working on learning, but right now I don't have the basic knowledge I would need to effectively examine the universe. Unlike some people, I don't pretend that I know things when I don't.
@GuacamoleKun Except you just pretended there is NO evidence for God when you clearly have not done enough research to make that claim. At least you're honest but I've done my research, I've put my mind in an evolutionist mind. Even though I'm biased, I did look at all the evidence and responces on both sides. I've come to my conclusion but before you do you should do research on both sides.
@ThisMemory Okay, you're right, I'm still doing research. But while I can't do the dirty work, I have looked at many people who argue that there is scientific evidence for God, and many people who argue there is not. And for me, right now, the "not" people are making a lot more sense. And as for the evidence itself, it seems like people jump to conclusions. (like "stuff exists, therefor it had to be created") And you don't have to be an expert to see that there's a gap there.
@GuacamoleKun Alright well I suggest you find websites that give reasons "why evolution is wrong" and then "why evolution is right" Google those sentences and then just compare. Also, if you have any doubt as to the Bible's credibility just view this website: 100777.com/node/534
@GuacamoleKun Ohh then may I suggest one more website..
evanwiggs*replace with a dot)com/articles/reasons(Replace with a dot)html
Since you know about evolution this might be more helpful in determining if evolution is right or wrong. Or just giving a different perspective, it's a long read though.
@ThisMemory Okay, I'm looking at that site. And I see a lot of misconceptions about the nature of evolution in the little that I've read so far. The author doesn't really seem to understand the subject very well at all. In fact, the author doesn't even seem to understand how to use an apostrophe.
@ThisMemory I'd like not to sit here and throw websites at each other. If you'd like, we could have a conversation about evolution, but let's use our own words as much as possible, please.
@GuacamoleKun Alright. I'm no expert on evolution by no means but I believe evolution to mean the progression from dead matter to the life we see today through natural selection and mutations. I know abiogenesis is the correct term for the initial origin of life. But are we on agreement that that's what evolution is?
@ThisMemory No, abiogenesis is a separate thing. Evolutionary theory only deals with the progression of living matter after it becomes living. It does not describe how life originated. But yes, natural selection and mutation are the core of evolution.
@GuacamoleKun Well to believe evolution you have to believe abiogenesis. They go hand and hand. If you believe in evolution and biogenesis then you might as well be called a creationist. But okay, I know they are seperate things and we'll label them as such. So if you disprove that species can't evolve from one species to a new species then evolution falls apart, correct?
@blackacidlizzard It's called, "Speciation" and it describes the splitting of lineages, not the evolution of a brand new species from another. Splitting of lineages is adaptive evolution, meaning the species apapt to their new environment, meaning microevolution. There are limits and the species will never evolve into a new species, say a fish to a frog. There is no new information being added to the species it never had before.
A "split in lineage," as you call it, IS the formation of a new species. Knowing what a "species" is kind of necessary before you make claims like this. JesusFuck, fish and frogs are of different ORDERS!
New information? Not only are you a noob, you are a credulous moron who does no independent research.
stephenjaygould . o r g/ctrl/news/file007. h t m l
skeptics.com. a u/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/
@blackacidlizzard What the hell are you talking about. A split in a lineage is ADAPTIVE evolution. An example would be the three-spined stickleback. Its a fish that can change its fin, jaw size and color over generations due to when the organism ends up in new, often distant areas. It doesnt evolve into a new species. Its still a three-spined stickleback. Speciation ISNT proof of evolution, its proof of microevolution. There are strict limits to variation that are never crossed in microevolution
@blackacidlizzard Small changes over a long period of time NEVER create big changes. An example: Fruit flies. Over 600 generations of mutations they still remained fruit flies. I could go into more detail if you wish. Also, FOSSILS are great examples. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress. We have a fossil of a "Coelacanth." It's a fish that's 65 million years old. In 1938 we found one alive & unchanged. Where's the evolution?
@blackacidlizzard You are just full of insults where your facts fall short. Every fossil we have is complete. There are no transitional phases. If you look into the sky you could see a cloud that looks like, say a dog. If you wait long enough it could look like, say a horse. The time it took to change is the transitional phase. If you look into the fossil record you see NOT ONE of these phases. Ex: A bird that developed gills. Evolution is about simple to complex but fossils don't show that.
@blackacidlizzard Charles Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Even the man himself believes that eyes have irreducible complexity.
And he goes on to say "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
Put your quote into google and look through the top five hits, you lazy, dishonest, retarded cunt.
@blackacidlizzard Yeah HE found no such case. Given the primitive level of science in the 19th century, Darwin may have thought that living things possess a reducible structure. But 20th century discoveries have shown that many systems and organs in living things cannot be reduced to simplicity. This fact, known as "irreducible complexity," definitively destroys Darwinism, just as Darwin himself feared.
First, I want to point out that you opened with a lie. Not even a believable lie, a lie that only requires reading the very next words of the quoted passage to understand is a lie. Now that you have been caugt in a lie, you try to change the subject. You are a liar.
@blackacidlizzard Prove that the eye can have a simpler state. If you can't then evolution is wrong. And the facts are that you can't prove it because the eye needs everything it has to work properly. Evolution is about simple to complex and nothing we have proves this. Fossil compound eyes that are about 515 million years old are as complex as todays. There is no evolution! Give up your dogmatic view and look at the FACTS. I can give you a link but chances are you don't want 'em.
@blackacidlizzard Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.
@blackacidlizzard I can go on and on with proof that shows evolutions is a dead theory. You have presented ZERO proof that evolution is true. It's unproved and unprovable. The most you can do it show me a chart of distinctive animals and line them up as if one came from the other. That's like me showing you a chart of phones. Saying, "look that phone evolved into that phone and that phone into that phone etc." When in fact each phone was created individually.
If it's not on that video I gave above, there are many videos where Dawkins talks about optical organs existing in every combination of component parts of more "complex" eyes.
@blackacidlizzard Okay do me this one favor and EXPLAIN why the theory of evolution is true. Give me your top one reason. Don't give me a link, I could give you hundreds of links showing you it's wrong but your not going to believe it 'till you debate it will someone
Unlike you, I do not base my beliefs upon argumentation. I have to have some grasp of what the relevant data is before forming an opinion. The evidence I am aware of is the reason I believe the model to be accurate.
I will add that while this does not bolster my belief, I find it indicative of the state of you position that I can not find many creationists who even understand the most basic claims made within the biological field.
@blackacidlizzard Your presumption of me is incorrect. I was simply explaining that without debate/discussion your links mean nothing to me since it's not you explaining your thoughts. I've already done my reseach on both sides of the matter and have come to my conclusion. I'm trying to get your take on the matter. What makes the theory of evolution so believable for you?
Uh. You don't know what a SPECIES is. That's REALLY fucking basic, dude. You made the most infamous quote-mine among us anti-creationists, that is stupidity, dishonesty, or Poedom. My assessment is accurate.
Again, for such a wide-reaching model as evolutionary theory, the level of confidence I have requires a great deal of evidence. For me, evidence is like wide-spanning root systym, not a single taproot.
@blackacidlizzard Evolution is very fucking simple. Life progressed over time through natural selection and mutations. All I'm asking for it why do you believe that? You can give multiple reasons. Just simplify it since you only have 500 characters. And species can be defined MANY ways. Just because I apparently define it differently than you it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.
Here's a simple explanation why it's wrong: Every species have strick limits of variation.
@blackacidlizzard So anyways, I showed you a fossil of a fish that's 65 million years old that is alive and unchanged like many other "living fossils." That's simple hard evidence that disproves evolution. This fish is as complex as it was 65 million years ago. I'll ask again, where's the evolution? You believe new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles. This obviously is one big hoax!
Evolutionary theory does not claim that no breeding population can remain sufficiently similar to remain as the same species classification for a long amount of time. Indeed, natural selection would suggest that if a species is sufficiently "optimized" for its environment, it is LIKELY to retain dominant propagation of very similar offspring.
@blackacidlizzard Of course that's true. If all species are fully functional, which they are then they are all "optimized" more or less for their environment. If it's less, they go through microevolution (variation) to adapt to the new environment over generations or become extinct. These adaptive mechanisms are in their gene pool and can't cross their variation limits. To suggest that an "optimized" species (Like a fish) evolved into another "optimized" species (Like a frog) is daft and inane.
In this context, I mean "fully optimized" as compared against potential (or potential probably reached by evolutionary process) That is to say, if there is no "better model" possible within the scope of slow change, then the current model will continue to remain dominant.
@blackacidlizzard HAHA you gave me a good laugh. The assumptions in the beginning were true and the bird/gills remark but that's where it ends. The human appendix is not usless. (I could give you a link) And as we become more technologically advanced we are proving that once thought vestigical organs do infact have a purpose. I'm clearly aware that taxonomy is made by man. And there are over 10 different definitions of species. I was using it more as a loose way to say "distinct animal"
@blackacidlizzard We are both human. We are the same distinct animal. How the hell can't you comprehend the implied meaning of species? When I say species don't evolve into another species. All that means is that Monkeys can't evolve into another animal other than the strict variations of that monkey.
You already reject this by rejecting OBSERVED speciation. You are clearly not talking of species, your early comment wanted a change from one ORDER to another, but generally you are all over the map.
@blackacidlizzard Perhaps the cause is the mad notion of evolution. All I'm saying is that in the beginning when animals started appearing they did not evolve from one common ancestor. The only thing evolution is based on is microevolution (variation). That fact is mixed with the idea that these variations through natural selection and mutations can accumulate to create a completely different animal. That is FALSE. There's no evidence that could suggest otherwise.
@ThisMemoryLets take a look at mitochondria.They used to be independent cells and are now used by almost all animal cells same with chloraplasts. does this notprove that major variation with time an applicable idea? considering not only is a completely different cell working with another but it is inside that cell performing critical operations for energy. and the thing your not understanding is that an organism is defined as a group of organs made from cells and tissues workingtogather
@REVETSEBEHT Mitochondria are THOUGHT to be aerobic bacterial cells (Independent). And chloraplasts (Found in plants) are THOUGHT to be Cyanobacteria. Bacteria are THOUGHT to evolve into an animal. Life is THOUGHT to exist from non-living matter. So to base one thought off another thought off another thought off another thought is getting into the realm of the imagination. Scientist should first create life from nonliving matter before extrapolating multiple beliefs to the existence of you and I
@Uberlaser You don't need millions of years to prove evolution. All you need to do is prove non-living matter created life which apparently happened spontaneously.. so just find the right conditions and *poof* you proved evolution.
@ThisMemory The issue here is that if we humans have failed (so far) to create living matter through experimentation in a laboratory, it does not mean that you can fill in the gap with 'therefore God did it'. The onus would then be on you to prove that God created everything and how it was possible, so you could state this as fact.
I cannot get myself to believe that an invisible intelligent creator that did not have a cause created everything using some form of Magic.
@Uberlaser Science can't create life out of non-living matter. Not because they have failed but because it's impossible. God is inserted into the impossibilites because He made it possible. The Bible tells us what He's responsible for. But how did He do it? The Bible tells us He spoke everything into existence. So how do you prove God? Well, you could prove that the Bible is divine which it is and I could explain or you could prove it by logic. Heres a link (the video is long) Read next comment.
@Uberlaser You're ignorant and lack understanding. You heard someone say, "God isn't real." and you just followed and took that as the truth with no proof. You then go around denying God as if you know anything. The Bible is 66 individual books, written on 3 continents, in 3 different languages, over a period of around 1500 years, by more than 40 authors, yet it remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction and contains 2000 fulfilled prophecies out of 2500 with none false
@ThisMemory Without contradiction? Unified? Have you actually read the Bible?
It even contradicts itself in the same book:
Genesis 22:2 "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, ... and offer him there for a burnt offering."
Genesis 25:1-2 "Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah."
@Dragonsnack73 There are none. If you find a contradiction I guarantee it's a mistranslation or misinterpretation. Look online and you will find the correct interpretation/translation. Because you either 1, found a site that listed contradictions and did no further research or 2, found a contradiction on your own and did no further research on the matter.
But doesn't the fact that this book is so prone to incorrect translations or interpretations make you wonder if this isn't "Gods Word" to begin with, or even if it is, that you can't necessarily trust the Bible because of this "human error"?
@Dragonsnack73 You're welcome and I don't think so. When you read the Bible you understand the main stories and messages of the Bible. When you get caught up in certain details there's no reason to doubt the entire Bible, rather the knowledge of the transcriber. The Bible is translated into over 2,500 languages. If something doesn't make sense just search online. List of claimed contradictions with answers.
philvaz (add a dot here) com/apologetics/bible#INDEX
@ThisMemory Exactly, when i read the Bible (i have only one paper copy here at home, but try to check out other translations online) i get the main story and message. But i also get a whole lot of cruelty and other silly things (like contradictions). I'd just expect a perfect word of god to be easily accessible for anybody, so you don't NEED people to explain the meaning of the Bible to you, with the obvious good chances for human error.
@Dragonsnack73 I know what you mean but you have to understand if you read the Bible in one of it's original languages such as Hebrew, you would not have this problem and would not doubt his wisdom. Since you do have a different language human errors are inevitable. You should just read different Bible Commentaries on verses you don't quite understand. Try using this: biblestudytools(dot)com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/
@Dragonsnack73 No problem. Merry Christmas then ;) Btw, you're an atheist so you don't believe in God because there isn't enough evidence for him.. but you do know the Bible is widely considered to be a trust worthy ancient document.. and it's history is more accurate than other well known ancient documents. Anyways, Happy Holidays
@ThisMemory Well considering that the book has been worked on and revised for 1500 years, it better be accurate. Although i don't see much proof of that i must admit.
How can you create light, then create the sun afterwards? Just does not make sense :)
An all-knowing god would know that, but why doesn't he correct the human errors in that creation myth? I'd think something as basic as "no sun = no light" is easy enough to tell even to iron-age sheepherders. Just baffles me :)
@Dragonsnack73 It's not an error. Light comes from photons. The Big Bang or creation of the universe gave off photons (Due to heat and the rapid expansion). Also, God is light as well. (Rev 21:23) So though the sun and stars are sources of light, it's not the only form of light. There's no contradiction in the creation order.
@theeyeisblind Light as in rightousness. Through this light you can see the truth. I know this doesn't apply to what I said. I was mistaken, sorry. Though the first part is very true. Thanks for correcting me.
@ThisMemory Science has a hard time creating life because it is hard to replicate the conditions of the Earth billions of years ago, let alone know what it was like specifically and be able to combine all factors together in such large amounts.
@LaCerca We know we have life and that non-life isn't creating life anymore so we think through 13 billion years life evolved from non-life on one perfect day of conditions (In a relatively small window of time) and that all the non-life responsible for creating life were all in the right place and that what set it off was in the right place and that no universal catastrophes stopped life from evolving and this life knew how to self perpetuate itself. That sounds like a miracle to me...
@ThisMemory Except for that "perfect window" was likely something like a billion years long. A BILLION YEARS, neither you nor I can ever fully comprehend that. It starts to sound less and less like a miracle when in addition to the Urey-Miller experiment, scientists have successfully created RNA/DNA base pairs, ribose sugars (backbone of RNA/DNA), peptides, phospholipids, and tons of other molecules found in life today. They made them from inorganic molecules in simple conditions.
@ThisMemory you mean substances that are the basis of life such as adenine and guanine. or the basic elements that make up cells.... its not a matter of what? its a matter of how they are organized.
@REVETSEBEHT You're thinking of the man made intelligent design process. Like a TV. You know if you have all the materials, then you yourself can create that TV. The problem with applying that with life is that life itself is LIVING. Non-living matter does not create life. If you believe otherwise then you have something called, "faith." Just like that of any religion...
@REVETSEBEHT (second comment) The fact that all these organells have to work together for everything to function is a clear indication that you could not evolve from simple to complex. Imagine you have a clock and it's already working. We'll ignore how impossible it would be for all these independent parts to create the clock in the first place. But suppose you now have a fully functional clock, it you add a part (A mutation) to it, it's extremely unlikely that the clock will improve. Like Life
@ThisMemory well i believe youve misconstrewed the entire ideaology of evolution consisidering the entire basis of evolutions is time and failure its like a feedback mechanism, If you truly believe it to be "impossible" then as a person of scientific backgroud that would be quite a fault.i still do not understand what is so impossible about groups of cells coming togather and making an organism just look at the basic chemistry of the body its not impossible but yes, it is amazing.
@REVETSEBEHT I'm only pointing out that non-living matter creating living things is impossible. Even by the hand of intelligent scientists it hasn't been possible and they essentially have blueprints. No amount of time could create life this way. The Law of Biogenesis says that living things come only from other living things. It's plain and simple.
@blackacidlizzard Or any other animal. Monkey was just an example. Anyways I've presented many reasons why evolution can't happen, why it's not happening and why it never happened (Because fossils say no evolution). All you have done is try to dance around the evidence and complain about correct definition/word usage. You haven't even refuted my evidence as false because it's indeed true.
@blackacidlizzard Also, all animals are "fully optimized" for at least one environment because they are all "fully functional." It just depends where these animals are located if microevolution has to take place or not. Nevertheless, even if the animal has to have microevolution take place it will not generate over any amount of time into another species. The fossil record proves this. All you see are fully functional, complete animals. None with works in progress so to speak
@blackacidlizzard To clarify, beneficial mutations don't continually perpetuate change from one creature into anew. This is where all the imaginative things happen for evolutionists. There is not one shred of evidence that supports this idea. There are just fossils that show different species. It doesn't show species in the process of evolving. If evolution was true, you would see the whole evolution process in the fossils. Similar to a 200 page flip book of a smiley face frowning.
Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@619Joe182 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
you dont teach all of maths , sciences or anything else to grade schiil or even high school kids. They need a basic introduction to the subject. That the miller experiment and other similar experiments always have produced amino acids which are elements of life. Whether that in itself is sufficient is a much higher level of chemistry.
@trufuknplaya Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
This is a clear example of a theist moving the goal posts. If Science actually produces life from non-life, the theist will say so what, it isn't a human! Produce a human being. You can't produce a soul.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
The caller made it quite clear that he thinks it is "impossible" for life to come from non-life because he said you need faith to believe that life isn't intelligently created meaning that's what he thinks/believes, he then begins to shovel shit and say that he doesn't think it is impossible for life to come from non-life AFTER he said he believes life can only come from an intelligent designer , David , you manipulative bugger you.
@LogicalStatements1 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
One cannot compare the probabilistic models utilized by insurance companies [Classical] with the probabilistic models utilized for quantum mechanics!!
The idea that we have organic and inorganic chemistry is somewhat of a misnomer. Organic chemistry does NOT refer to that which is or has been ‘alive’; it instead refers to any –molecular- structure with a (hydro)carbon conformation!
Just to clarify; a racemate refers to the optical activity of the molecule rather than its stereoisomerism . Therefore, a racemate refers to a mixture of left or right-handed chiral molecules both of which will look the same but have different properties. In this sense, the experiment generated both possible amino acid stereoisomer’s. ‘Mirror image’ means non-identical (non-superimposable molecule AKA 'chiral') and is not an identical molecule.
Mankind is due for moving to a higher consciousness plane. The same way the suffering of gazelles killed by lions make the species stronger, the suffering of mankind will help us move to the next consciousness level. A greater good comes for the species. The next level is the rejection of greed, materialism and selfishness. Our current capitalist system need to collapse in order to achieve this. If you're not ready spiritually, and doesn't move up, you'll suffer. This is happening now, seek God.
This guy obviously just learned a little jargon, and tries to trip up the host with it, and honestly I find that kind of dishonesty so frustrating,
For reference, Racemic simply means both L & R chiral are mixed, by DEFINITION it means that it contains the correct amino acids, just mixed in with some of the wrong type, this just thinks that a magic invisible being is more likely than a bunch L chiral molecules bumping into each other
Xalgucennia 1 week ago
Organic means made of Carbon atoms as a base. As far as I know, amino acids ARE made of carbon. Wikipedia quote: "The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen". The guy either doesn't know what he's talking about, or is simply lying.
sinisamarovic 1 week ago
Oh god this guy has no expertise in what he's talking about... He doesn't even know how to pronounce chirality or racemates. Also, they got both isomers in the experiment. We still don't know why one enantiomer was picked over another for all life. That's just what worked.
Cerenth 2 weeks ago
organic molecules are pretty much any molecules that contain carbon, thats it, carbon is abundant on the planet both in organic forms and inorganic forms. People never stop to check what organic molecules means and so become very confused. Carbon has enough stability to hold structure , every other element is too regid or too soft to hold and change structure. Thats why every lifeform is carbon based, silicon life forms are plausable but have problems and complications.
irtehpwn09 2 weeks ago
easily one of the most intelligent creationists ive ever heard of, Ill give him that much...
OsyenVyeter 2 weeks ago
the caller sounds like a giant dickhead.
nina1608 3 weeks ago
Just me or did the caller sound like that douche bag Carl from PPSimmons?
xdassinx 1 month ago
@xdassinx
I hate that fucker.
yuothineyesasian 3 weeks ago
Lets make this very simple and clear ... in the world of Chemistry, "organic" means "with carbon". Last time I checked, amino acids have carbon in them.
auroraman56 1 month ago
Lol, inorganic amino acid. They were in the shape of squares with 5 sides.
salamut2202 1 month ago 6
inorganic amino acids is an oxymoron. By definition amino acids are organic molecules.
SephieRothe 1 month ago 10
@SephieRothe They meant inorganically generated.
DomeSwag 1 month ago
@DomeSwag so instead of being guilty of paradoxical claims they are merely guilty of equivocation.
SephieRothe 1 month ago
@SephieRothe Yes.
DomeSwag 1 month ago
spontaneous life just didn't happen, just admit it. Put a bunch of inorganic material in any kind of soup you want and watch it for as long as you want and it's not going to come to life. It takes life to make life. get real.
Ronhuggard 2 months ago
@Ronhuggard
So is God considered alive?
JesterAzazel 1 month ago 2
@Ronhuggard
Ha ha ha
Ron huggy boy ....
"It takes life to make life" !!
= round and round the mulberry bush we go ...
Ehhh... What "life" made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life that made the life
tellnet 1 month ago
@Ronhuggard You seem to be ignorant of simple chemistry xD
Alphacaliber 1 month ago
Has any experiment ever created life itself? Why not? Why don't scientists replicate life (meaning, to form life) in labs? That would settle the argument for it. But, to me, it seems it is impossible! It seems now, as ever, that life can never be spontaneously generated! If I'm wrong, than just show it on an experiment! After all, we are supposed to be scientific about this...
majorserg 2 months ago
@majorserg what a retarded statement, as if scientists can get together and just create life at this point. the miller urey experiment was the first step towards your bullshit request.
how about this: i'll create life when you can tell me who created yahweh.
theeyeisblind 2 months ago
@theeyeisblind You just reiforced my point! They can't create life because the theory is flawed! The amino acids that can form in the lab will not combine to form DNA. The Miller-Urey Experiment showed that some amino-acids can be formed. But from that to becoming life is not viable. Please, keep the language civilized. We shouldn't offend each other. As for Yahweh, there can be no proof of the immaterial in the material sciences. If He defines Himself as spirit, there can be material proof.
majorserg 2 months ago
@majorserg Has any experiment ever demonstrated an unknowable force that is able to generate life?
EPR89 1 month ago
@EPR89 If I say no, that would put us both in the level of faith...Of course no experiment has ever, or will ever, demonstrate a spiritual creation of life because science can only prove natural things. There is no science of the supernatural. Now, it is more plausible to suppose complex life emerged from intelligent God than to assume simple aminoacids organized themselves into DNA (a huge molecule) for no scientific reason. So believing in abiotic formation of life IS STILL a matter of faith.
majorserg 1 month ago
@majorserg But assuming that there was a intelligent creator assembling them is making more assumptions than the "natural" assumption. At least to me it makes no sense to use an assumption that makes more claims than another one, especially when this one asks more questions than it answers and cannot be tested. I could just as well say that a winged salad bowl with 31 eyes did it.
EPR89 1 month ago 2
@EPR89 " I could just as well say that a winged salad bowl with 31 eyes did it." BLASPHEMER! That is the FSM's greatest nemesis, the font of all evil and romain, the hidden one who clears the arteries and lowers the blood pressure, while providing all the fiber needed in a daily diet. Return to the warm bosom of marinara and meatballs (with just a touch of parmesan) and be forgiven!
NorthForkFisherman 1 month ago
the host fails
he knows the caller is right.
Matt is not deep at all. but i can see he understands it
rbl777 2 months ago
I can just tell that this guy is getting a hard-on from being a contrarian.
BeBoBli 2 months ago
This guy is talking about how all life contains L amino acids and virtually no D amino acids, where the Miller-Urey Experiment produced a 50-50 mixture as would be expected via chemistry. There is nothing crazy about the idea that the L type amino acids went on to create life because they worked and the D amino acids aren't in life because they didn't work.
LaCerca 2 months ago
I thought the guy wasnt prepared to defend his beleifes he was simply trying to show off his knowledge.... everything about the (not being the same atmosphere) who cares they made a "living" thing out of chemicals! this proves that it was in fact possible, and considering there where billions of years to create such a mix it didnt need some "intelligence" just enough time for thngs to allign correctly... there has been reserch showing that dna in a pond in cali had a different backbone.
REVETSEBEHT 2 months ago
If God isn't transcendent then why call him God?
Ansonidak 3 months ago
I wish they would have pointed out that there is no such thing as an inorganic amino acid.
MrFungus420 3 months ago
I have never quantified something in terms of Gnomes.
joeyplusamanda 3 months ago
It is still a red herring, no matter if man can prove life came from non life or not, it still doesn't make it more logical that an invisible being with super powers did it.
nhbiker1961 3 months ago
so if for the sake of argument we agree that the miller Urey experiment is totally invalid and useless, How would that change anything. Evolution is still pretty much proven and abiogenesis is still more plausible then god.
daveforfun22 3 months ago
"Inorganic amino acids"...
I lol'd
ygfi 3 months ago
"ha hoo We are so much alike we are very exacting"............. Did anyone else find that really odd? I am scared knowing david is out there...
TacticalHub 3 months ago
DAVID. Gawd.
If God exists, then he IS part of science. If he exists he can be examined. If he can't be examined, then effectively/practically he doesn't exist.
GuacamoleKun 3 months ago
@GuacamoleKun If I exist, then I AM part of humanity. If I exist I can be touched. If I can't be touched then effectively/practically I don't exist.
So if I don't let anyone touch me I don't exist, that makes A LOT of sense...
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory That's what the "effectively/practically" is about. You know, as opposed to "actually/literally".
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@GuacamoleKun If I made a piece of art that no one else could create and then ask my friends to write a book about it and credit the work to me then effectively/practically I still exist even though you can't touch me. I have my art to prove my existence.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory I said "examine", not "touch". If you leave behind some evidence that could only have come from you, then that means I can examine you. In which case that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about something that CAN'T be examined, because there is NO exclusive evidence.
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@GuacamoleKun Touch and examine are equivalent in my example. If I DON'T LET YOU touch/examine me that doesn't mean I don't exist. I could have fallen off the face of the Earth. You still have my evidence (Art) I left behind, and it's sufficient proof of my existence. Replace me with God and it's the same. BTW the evidence for God is Life, Language, the Universe, the Bible. Just because you can't examine "the cause" of something it doesn't deem it nonexistent, there is evidence.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory Do you not fucking understand the words "practical" and "effective"?
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@GuacamoleKun Do you not fucking understand with evidence you can't say effectively/practically something doesn't exist? You can effectively/practically prove it's existence with it's evidence. You're saying the fucking opposite of what is true.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory There IS no evidence for any gods.
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@GuacamoleKun And that's where ignorance starts... from a dogmatic evolutionist.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
Comment removed
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThisMemory Of course I am ignorant. If the best scientists today don't know where everything came from, of course I don't! I haven't studied it. I don't even know HOW to study it. I can't do the math problems. I don't know the periodic table. I never even had a high school physics class. I'm working on learning, but right now I don't have the basic knowledge I would need to effectively examine the universe. Unlike some people, I don't pretend that I know things when I don't.
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@GuacamoleKun Except you just pretended there is NO evidence for God when you clearly have not done enough research to make that claim. At least you're honest but I've done my research, I've put my mind in an evolutionist mind. Even though I'm biased, I did look at all the evidence and responces on both sides. I've come to my conclusion but before you do you should do research on both sides.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory Okay, you're right, I'm still doing research. But while I can't do the dirty work, I have looked at many people who argue that there is scientific evidence for God, and many people who argue there is not. And for me, right now, the "not" people are making a lot more sense. And as for the evidence itself, it seems like people jump to conclusions. (like "stuff exists, therefor it had to be created") And you don't have to be an expert to see that there's a gap there.
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@GuacamoleKun Alright well I suggest you find websites that give reasons "why evolution is wrong" and then "why evolution is right" Google those sentences and then just compare. Also, if you have any doubt as to the Bible's credibility just view this website: 100777.com/node/534
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory Oh, I was just talking about god/s, not the Christian religion or any of its many claims.
Evolution is one of the few things I have studied thoroughly (theoretically and firsthand) and understand very well.
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@GuacamoleKun Ohh then may I suggest one more website..
evanwiggs*replace with a dot)com/articles/reasons(Replace with a dot)html
Since you know about evolution this might be more helpful in determining if evolution is right or wrong. Or just giving a different perspective, it's a long read though.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory Okay, I'm looking at that site. And I see a lot of misconceptions about the nature of evolution in the little that I've read so far. The author doesn't really seem to understand the subject very well at all. In fact, the author doesn't even seem to understand how to use an apostrophe.
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@ThisMemory I'd like not to sit here and throw websites at each other. If you'd like, we could have a conversation about evolution, but let's use our own words as much as possible, please.
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@GuacamoleKun Alright. I'm no expert on evolution by no means but I believe evolution to mean the progression from dead matter to the life we see today through natural selection and mutations. I know abiogenesis is the correct term for the initial origin of life. But are we on agreement that that's what evolution is?
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory No, abiogenesis is a separate thing. Evolutionary theory only deals with the progression of living matter after it becomes living. It does not describe how life originated. But yes, natural selection and mutation are the core of evolution.
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@GuacamoleKun Well to believe evolution you have to believe abiogenesis. They go hand and hand. If you believe in evolution and biogenesis then you might as well be called a creationist. But okay, I know they are seperate things and we'll label them as such. So if you disprove that species can't evolve from one species to a new species then evolution falls apart, correct?
ThisMemory 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThisMemory "Well to believe evolution you have to believe abiogenesis."
I don't agree. There are many people who believe a god started life at its most basic form and let it evolve on its own from there.
"So if you disprove that species can't evolve from one species to a new species then evolution falls apart, correct?"
Yes.
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
Awesome, specieation has already been observed. So, you'll have to find a new criteria.
Noob.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard It's called, "Speciation" and it describes the splitting of lineages, not the evolution of a brand new species from another. Splitting of lineages is adaptive evolution, meaning the species apapt to their new environment, meaning microevolution. There are limits and the species will never evolve into a new species, say a fish to a frog. There is no new information being added to the species it never had before.
Who's the noob now?
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
A "split in lineage," as you call it, IS the formation of a new species. Knowing what a "species" is kind of necessary before you make claims like this. JesusFuck, fish and frogs are of different ORDERS!
New information? Not only are you a noob, you are a credulous moron who does no independent research.
stephenjaygould . o r g/ctrl/news/file007. h t m l
skeptics.com. a u/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/
Don't breed, (d)evolution believes in you
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard What the hell are you talking about. A split in a lineage is ADAPTIVE evolution. An example would be the three-spined stickleback. Its a fish that can change its fin, jaw size and color over generations due to when the organism ends up in new, often distant areas. It doesnt evolve into a new species. Its still a three-spined stickleback. Speciation ISNT proof of evolution, its proof of microevolution. There are strict limits to variation that are never crossed in microevolution
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
So you don't understand that continual "small" changes create "big" changes over a long period of time?
'There are strict limits to variation that are never crossed in microevolution"
Sorry, DNA evidence demonstrates quite handily that lineage crosses even kingdoms.
What do you think is meant by the word "microevolution." I await lulz, as you apparently do not even know the basic taxonomic layout of life.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
Or what a species is FFS.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Small changes over a long period of time NEVER create big changes. An example: Fruit flies. Over 600 generations of mutations they still remained fruit flies. I could go into more detail if you wish. Also, FOSSILS are great examples. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress. We have a fossil of a "Coelacanth." It's a fish that's 65 million years old. In 1938 we found one alive & unchanged. Where's the evolution?
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
"All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress"
Holy fuck. How can you be this stupid and not drown when you take a shower.
What the fuck is an "incomplete" life form? Like a mammal with no digestive tract? Fuck I hate you, your parents should have been sterilized.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard You are just full of insults where your facts fall short. Every fossil we have is complete. There are no transitional phases. If you look into the sky you could see a cloud that looks like, say a dog. If you wait long enough it could look like, say a horse. The time it took to change is the transitional phase. If you look into the fossil record you see NOT ONE of these phases. Ex: A bird that developed gills. Evolution is about simple to complex but fossils don't show that.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Charles Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Even the man himself believes that eyes have irreducible complexity.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
And he goes on to say "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
Put your quote into google and look through the top five hits, you lazy, dishonest, retarded cunt.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Yeah HE found no such case. Given the primitive level of science in the 19th century, Darwin may have thought that living things possess a reducible structure. But 20th century discoveries have shown that many systems and organs in living things cannot be reduced to simplicity. This fact, known as "irreducible complexity," definitively destroys Darwinism, just as Darwin himself feared.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
First, I want to point out that you opened with a lie. Not even a believable lie, a lie that only requires reading the very next words of the quoted passage to understand is a lie. Now that you have been caugt in a lie, you try to change the subject. You are a liar.
As far as your new lie: watch?v=WG0RCVB629Y
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Prove that the eye can have a simpler state. If you can't then evolution is wrong. And the facts are that you can't prove it because the eye needs everything it has to work properly. Evolution is about simple to complex and nothing we have proves this. Fossil compound eyes that are about 515 million years old are as complex as todays. There is no evolution! Give up your dogmatic view and look at the FACTS. I can give you a link but chances are you don't want 'em.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.
--- David Coppedge
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard I can go on and on with proof that shows evolutions is a dead theory. You have presented ZERO proof that evolution is true. It's unproved and unprovable. The most you can do it show me a chart of distinctive animals and line them up as if one came from the other. That's like me showing you a chart of phones. Saying, "look that phone evolved into that phone and that phone into that phone etc." When in fact each phone was created individually.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
If it's not on that video I gave above, there are many videos where Dawkins talks about optical organs existing in every combination of component parts of more "complex" eyes.
watch?v=Wfe4IUB9NTk
Here's some DNA evidence
watch?v=aGLWlCRlEhk
Sterilize yourself.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Okay do me this one favor and EXPLAIN why the theory of evolution is true. Give me your top one reason. Don't give me a link, I could give you hundreds of links showing you it's wrong but your not going to believe it 'till you debate it will someone
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory debate it with someone*
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
Unlike you, I do not base my beliefs upon argumentation. I have to have some grasp of what the relevant data is before forming an opinion. The evidence I am aware of is the reason I believe the model to be accurate.
I will add that while this does not bolster my belief, I find it indicative of the state of you position that I can not find many creationists who even understand the most basic claims made within the biological field.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Your presumption of me is incorrect. I was simply explaining that without debate/discussion your links mean nothing to me since it's not you explaining your thoughts. I've already done my reseach on both sides of the matter and have come to my conclusion. I'm trying to get your take on the matter. What makes the theory of evolution so believable for you?
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
Uh. You don't know what a SPECIES is. That's REALLY fucking basic, dude. You made the most infamous quote-mine among us anti-creationists, that is stupidity, dishonesty, or Poedom. My assessment is accurate.
Again, for such a wide-reaching model as evolutionary theory, the level of confidence I have requires a great deal of evidence. For me, evidence is like wide-spanning root systym, not a single taproot.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Evolution is very fucking simple. Life progressed over time through natural selection and mutations. All I'm asking for it why do you believe that? You can give multiple reasons. Just simplify it since you only have 500 characters. And species can be defined MANY ways. Just because I apparently define it differently than you it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.
Here's a simple explanation why it's wrong: Every species have strick limits of variation.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory All species* sry
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard So anyways, I showed you a fossil of a fish that's 65 million years old that is alive and unchanged like many other "living fossils." That's simple hard evidence that disproves evolution. This fish is as complex as it was 65 million years ago. I'll ask again, where's the evolution? You believe new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles. This obviously is one big hoax!
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
What???
Evolutionary theory does not claim that no breeding population can remain sufficiently similar to remain as the same species classification for a long amount of time. Indeed, natural selection would suggest that if a species is sufficiently "optimized" for its environment, it is LIKELY to retain dominant propagation of very similar offspring.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Of course that's true. If all species are fully functional, which they are then they are all "optimized" more or less for their environment. If it's less, they go through microevolution (variation) to adapt to the new environment over generations or become extinct. These adaptive mechanisms are in their gene pool and can't cross their variation limits. To suggest that an "optimized" species (Like a fish) evolved into another "optimized" species (Like a frog) is daft and inane.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
In this context, I mean "fully optimized" as compared against potential (or potential probably reached by evolutionary process) That is to say, if there is no "better model" possible within the scope of slow change, then the current model will continue to remain dominant.
I made a vid to you watch?v=xipa5m9R3jc
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Alright, listening, and thanks.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard HAHA you gave me a good laugh. The assumptions in the beginning were true and the bird/gills remark but that's where it ends. The human appendix is not usless. (I could give you a link) And as we become more technologically advanced we are proving that once thought vestigical organs do infact have a purpose. I'm clearly aware that taxonomy is made by man. And there are over 10 different definitions of species. I was using it more as a loose way to say "distinct animal"
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
Lulz, "distinct animal" is MUCH more loose than "species. You and I are distinct animals, FFS.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard We are both human. We are the same distinct animal. How the hell can't you comprehend the implied meaning of species? When I say species don't evolve into another species. All that means is that Monkeys can't evolve into another animal other than the strict variations of that monkey.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
Comment removed
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
"the implied meaning of species"?
You already reject this by rejecting OBSERVED speciation. You are clearly not talking of species, your early comment wanted a change from one ORDER to another, but generally you are all over the map.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Perhaps the cause is the mad notion of evolution. All I'm saying is that in the beginning when animals started appearing they did not evolve from one common ancestor. The only thing evolution is based on is microevolution (variation). That fact is mixed with the idea that these variations through natural selection and mutations can accumulate to create a completely different animal. That is FALSE. There's no evidence that could suggest otherwise.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemoryLets take a look at mitochondria.They used to be independent cells and are now used by almost all animal cells same with chloraplasts. does this notprove that major variation with time an applicable idea? considering not only is a completely different cell working with another but it is inside that cell performing critical operations for energy. and the thing your not understanding is that an organism is defined as a group of organs made from cells and tissues workingtogather
REVETSEBEHT 2 months ago
@REVETSEBEHT Mitochondria are THOUGHT to be aerobic bacterial cells (Independent). And chloraplasts (Found in plants) are THOUGHT to be Cyanobacteria. Bacteria are THOUGHT to evolve into an animal. Life is THOUGHT to exist from non-living matter. So to base one thought off another thought off another thought off another thought is getting into the realm of the imagination. Scientist should first create life from nonliving matter before extrapolating multiple beliefs to the existence of you and I
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory If only we had several million years to play with . . .
Uberlaser 2 months ago
@Uberlaser You don't need millions of years to prove evolution. All you need to do is prove non-living matter created life which apparently happened spontaneously.. so just find the right conditions and *poof* you proved evolution.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory The issue here is that if we humans have failed (so far) to create living matter through experimentation in a laboratory, it does not mean that you can fill in the gap with 'therefore God did it'. The onus would then be on you to prove that God created everything and how it was possible, so you could state this as fact.
I cannot get myself to believe that an invisible intelligent creator that did not have a cause created everything using some form of Magic.
Uberlaser 2 months ago
@Uberlaser Science can't create life out of non-living matter. Not because they have failed but because it's impossible. God is inserted into the impossibilites because He made it possible. The Bible tells us what He's responsible for. But how did He do it? The Bible tells us He spoke everything into existence. So how do you prove God? Well, you could prove that the Bible is divine which it is and I could explain or you could prove it by logic. Heres a link (the video is long) Read next comment.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
'God spoke everything into existence' - So essentially he used Magic, or had some sort of mouth able to perform Nuclear Fusion?
'The Bible is Divine' - No it isn't. It's a book written by Iron-age goatherders with time on their hands.
Uberlaser 2 months ago
@Uberlaser You're ignorant and lack understanding. You heard someone say, "God isn't real." and you just followed and took that as the truth with no proof. You then go around denying God as if you know anything. The Bible is 66 individual books, written on 3 continents, in 3 different languages, over a period of around 1500 years, by more than 40 authors, yet it remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction and contains 2000 fulfilled prophecies out of 2500 with none false
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory Without contradiction? Unified? Have you actually read the Bible?
It even contradicts itself in the same book:
Genesis 22:2 "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, ... and offer him there for a burnt offering."
Genesis 25:1-2 "Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah."
Want me to list a couple 100 more?
Dragonsnack73 2 months ago
@Dragonsnack73 There are none. If you find a contradiction I guarantee it's a mistranslation or misinterpretation. Look online and you will find the correct interpretation/translation. Because you either 1, found a site that listed contradictions and did no further research or 2, found a contradiction on your own and did no further research on the matter.
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071211132625AACGfxt
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory Interesting link, thank you!
But doesn't the fact that this book is so prone to incorrect translations or interpretations make you wonder if this isn't "Gods Word" to begin with, or even if it is, that you can't necessarily trust the Bible because of this "human error"?
Dragonsnack73 2 months ago
@Dragonsnack73 You're welcome and I don't think so. When you read the Bible you understand the main stories and messages of the Bible. When you get caught up in certain details there's no reason to doubt the entire Bible, rather the knowledge of the transcriber. The Bible is translated into over 2,500 languages. If something doesn't make sense just search online. List of claimed contradictions with answers.
philvaz (add a dot here) com/apologetics/bible#INDEX
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory Exactly, when i read the Bible (i have only one paper copy here at home, but try to check out other translations online) i get the main story and message. But i also get a whole lot of cruelty and other silly things (like contradictions). I'd just expect a perfect word of god to be easily accessible for anybody, so you don't NEED people to explain the meaning of the Bible to you, with the obvious good chances for human error.
Just makes me doubt his wisdom, you know?
Thank you :)
Dragonsnack73 2 months ago
@Dragonsnack73 I know what you mean but you have to understand if you read the Bible in one of it's original languages such as Hebrew, you would not have this problem and would not doubt his wisdom. Since you do have a different language human errors are inevitable. You should just read different Bible Commentaries on verses you don't quite understand. Try using this: biblestudytools(dot)com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/
That's the last link I'll give ya, promise lol :)
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory Much appreciated, even though i am an atheist ;). Just trying to understand all of this better and your links and feedback help.
Wish you a Merry Christmas anyway, even though i have no special personal relation to that holiday :)
Dragonsnack73 2 months ago
@Dragonsnack73 No problem. Merry Christmas then ;) Btw, you're an atheist so you don't believe in God because there isn't enough evidence for him.. but you do know the Bible is widely considered to be a trust worthy ancient document.. and it's history is more accurate than other well known ancient documents. Anyways, Happy Holidays
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory Well considering that the book has been worked on and revised for 1500 years, it better be accurate. Although i don't see much proof of that i must admit.
How can you create light, then create the sun afterwards? Just does not make sense :)
An all-knowing god would know that, but why doesn't he correct the human errors in that creation myth? I'd think something as basic as "no sun = no light" is easy enough to tell even to iron-age sheepherders. Just baffles me :)
Dragonsnack73 2 months ago
@Dragonsnack73 It's not an error. Light comes from photons. The Big Bang or creation of the universe gave off photons (Due to heat and the rapid expansion). Also, God is light as well. (Rev 21:23) So though the sun and stars are sources of light, it's not the only form of light. There's no contradiction in the creation order.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory god is light?! wow!!!!!
light = energy. e = mc2. yahweh = mc2.
hold on, its getting dark in my room, i need a lil more god so that i can pwn your bullshit a bit easier.
theeyeisblind 2 months ago
@theeyeisblind Light as in rightousness. Through this light you can see the truth. I know this doesn't apply to what I said. I was mistaken, sorry. Though the first part is very true. Thanks for correcting me.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory Science has a hard time creating life because it is hard to replicate the conditions of the Earth billions of years ago, let alone know what it was like specifically and be able to combine all factors together in such large amounts.
LaCerca 2 months ago
@LaCerca We know we have life and that non-life isn't creating life anymore so we think through 13 billion years life evolved from non-life on one perfect day of conditions (In a relatively small window of time) and that all the non-life responsible for creating life were all in the right place and that what set it off was in the right place and that no universal catastrophes stopped life from evolving and this life knew how to self perpetuate itself. That sounds like a miracle to me...
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory Except for that "perfect window" was likely something like a billion years long. A BILLION YEARS, neither you nor I can ever fully comprehend that. It starts to sound less and less like a miracle when in addition to the Urey-Miller experiment, scientists have successfully created RNA/DNA base pairs, ribose sugars (backbone of RNA/DNA), peptides, phospholipids, and tons of other molecules found in life today. They made them from inorganic molecules in simple conditions.
LaCerca 2 months ago
@Uberlaser shockawenow.webs(Dot here)com/apps/videos/videos/show/14453303-7-reasons-god-exists
ThisMemory 2 months ago
Comment removed
REVETSEBEHT 2 months ago
@ThisMemory you mean substances that are the basis of life such as adenine and guanine. or the basic elements that make up cells.... its not a matter of what? its a matter of how they are organized.
REVETSEBEHT 2 months ago
@REVETSEBEHT You're thinking of the man made intelligent design process. Like a TV. You know if you have all the materials, then you yourself can create that TV. The problem with applying that with life is that life itself is LIVING. Non-living matter does not create life. If you believe otherwise then you have something called, "faith." Just like that of any religion...
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@REVETSEBEHT (second comment) The fact that all these organells have to work together for everything to function is a clear indication that you could not evolve from simple to complex. Imagine you have a clock and it's already working. We'll ignore how impossible it would be for all these independent parts to create the clock in the first place. But suppose you now have a fully functional clock, it you add a part (A mutation) to it, it's extremely unlikely that the clock will improve. Like Life
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory well i believe youve misconstrewed the entire ideaology of evolution consisidering the entire basis of evolutions is time and failure its like a feedback mechanism, If you truly believe it to be "impossible" then as a person of scientific backgroud that would be quite a fault.i still do not understand what is so impossible about groups of cells coming togather and making an organism just look at the basic chemistry of the body its not impossible but yes, it is amazing.
REVETSEBEHT 2 months ago
@REVETSEBEHT I'm only pointing out that non-living matter creating living things is impossible. Even by the hand of intelligent scientists it hasn't been possible and they essentially have blueprints. No amount of time could create life this way. The Law of Biogenesis says that living things come only from other living things. It's plain and simple.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blackacidlizzard Or any other animal. Monkey was just an example. Anyways I've presented many reasons why evolution can't happen, why it's not happening and why it never happened (Because fossils say no evolution). All you have done is try to dance around the evidence and complain about correct definition/word usage. You haven't even refuted my evidence as false because it's indeed true.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Also, all animals are "fully optimized" for at least one environment because they are all "fully functional." It just depends where these animals are located if microevolution has to take place or not. Nevertheless, even if the animal has to have microevolution take place it will not generate over any amount of time into another species. The fossil record proves this. All you see are fully functional, complete animals. None with works in progress so to speak
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
Listen. I am NOT using "fully optimized" as a synonym for the tautology which is "survival of the fittest."
In my sense of the phrase, a life form may be the "fittest" but not be "fully optimized."
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@ThisMemory visible microevolution*
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard To clarify, beneficial mutations don't continually perpetuate change from one creature into anew. This is where all the imaginative things happen for evolutionists. There is not one shred of evidence that supports this idea. There are just fossils that show different species. It doesn't show species in the process of evolving. If evolution was true, you would see the whole evolution process in the fossils. Similar to a 200 page flip book of a smiley face frowning.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
what an annoying weirdo douchebag the caller is
619Joe182 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@619Joe182 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
The caller doesn't know what an organic molecule is.
vmelkon 4 months ago
you dont teach all of maths , sciences or anything else to grade schiil or even high school kids. They need a basic introduction to the subject. That the miller experiment and other similar experiments always have produced amino acids which are elements of life. Whether that in itself is sufficient is a much higher level of chemistry.
SqueakerAlpha 4 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha darn keyboard . schiil = school
SqueakerAlpha 4 months ago
you gotta hand it to the caller, despite him missing a few things he was actually coherent, good for u buddy, way to stand out
Nogoals92 4 months ago
Comment removed
ThieleM 4 months ago
inorganic? D-amino acids are technically organic still.
trufuknplaya 4 months ago
@trufuknplaya
Yes they are. I hate these guys who think they can get a University level understanding from youtube and a couple websites.
ThieleM 4 months ago
By these guys I mean the caller
ThieleM 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trufuknplaya Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
This is a clear example of a theist moving the goal posts. If Science actually produces life from non-life, the theist will say so what, it isn't a human! Produce a human being. You can't produce a soul.
jim6584 4 months ago
...wait, did he think Matt was Russel?
IoEstasCedonta 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
The caller made it quite clear that he thinks it is "impossible" for life to come from non-life because he said you need faith to believe that life isn't intelligently created meaning that's what he thinks/believes, he then begins to shovel shit and say that he doesn't think it is impossible for life to come from non-life AFTER he said he believes life can only come from an intelligent designer , David , you manipulative bugger you.
LogicalStatements1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LogicalStatements1 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
Lol to the caller , they also don't teach little kids advanced mathematics because their little minds cannot process it yet.
LogicalStatements1 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
One cannot compare the probabilistic models utilized by insurance companies [Classical] with the probabilistic models utilized for quantum mechanics!!
The idea that we have organic and inorganic chemistry is somewhat of a misnomer. Organic chemistry does NOT refer to that which is or has been ‘alive’; it instead refers to any –molecular- structure with a (hydro)carbon conformation!
dralexoppenheimer 5 months ago
Comment removed
dralexoppenheimer 5 months ago
Just to clarify; a racemate refers to the optical activity of the molecule rather than its stereoisomerism . Therefore, a racemate refers to a mixture of left or right-handed chiral molecules both of which will look the same but have different properties. In this sense, the experiment generated both possible amino acid stereoisomer’s. ‘Mirror image’ means non-identical (non-superimposable molecule AKA 'chiral') and is not an identical molecule.
dralexoppenheimer 5 months ago
When you go to greater "being" you are so vague your argument is entirely plausible. Racemates are still organic though.
Sahrinzs 5 months ago 2
When you go to greater "being" you are so vague your argument is entirely plausible.
Sahrinzs 5 months ago 2
Wow, this is first caller that Matt hasn't completely owned.
tuck5649 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mankind is due for moving to a higher consciousness plane. The same way the suffering of gazelles killed by lions make the species stronger, the suffering of mankind will help us move to the next consciousness level. A greater good comes for the species. The next level is the rejection of greed, materialism and selfishness. Our current capitalist system need to collapse in order to achieve this. If you're not ready spiritually, and doesn't move up, you'll suffer. This is happening now, seek God.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
I liked this caller :) different from all the other nutjobs out there. gj david.
nejtilsvampe 5 months ago
The Miller-Urey experiment = chemicals up my ass that gave birth to life. LOL! Atheists are fucking retarded.
ajhrockerboy6 6 months ago
@ajhrockerboy6 It´s obvious who´s retarded here. Read a fucking book sometime.
yatter1 5 months ago
@yatter1 i've read plenty of books. In fact right now I'm reading The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.
ajhrockerboy6 5 months ago
@ajhrockerboy6 well good for you, enjoy the pictures
yatter1 5 months ago
@yatter1 that book hardly has any illustrations and i would appreciate it if you would quit mocking me. Okay Mr. Doubting Thomas?
ajhrockerboy6 5 months ago
@ajhrockerboy6 ha ha ha ha, brilliant.
yatter1 5 months ago
Inorganic amino acids? That's just an oxymoron. By definition, amino acids are organic since they contain carbon.
nichtmuttersprachler 6 months ago