OH, nice job making commends pend for approval, now you'll probably just delete my comment and act all high and might pretending that you won. Whatever, this was a waste of time.
you're trying to say that Abiogenesis works in chance, and probability, but that's wrong. It works in chemistry, you would know this if you bothered researching it. Also, how is the god answer "better" when it has no evidence?! We've actually done experiments on Abiogenesis, that counts as evidence. As for the rest of this nonsense, I can only hope you're joking.
@halflifefan84 "you're trying to say that Abiogenesis works in chance" No I'm not! The numbers were based on thermodynamic properties etc. as calculated by Morowitz.
As for use of the word "probability" in the video, that's just to illustrate what's happening with the numbers
I see the argument you are trying to make and I'm telling you it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I don't have enough space to go into a scientific explanation. All I can say is there is no evidence that a god exists and made the universe. Even if you can disprove a competing idea, that is not evidence of god. The idea that a miracle man who is somehow eternal made everything is ludicrous. You are using phony statistics and faulty logic. If you posit that god did it, the burden of proof is yours.
@13monkees Again, I'm showing that God is the better explanation - not God is proved because abiogenesis is stupid. Show me the evidence of the big bang. Why is it a fact? And don't give me expanding universe or redshift because they are easy to answer.
@jesse8857 im not biased one way or the other, but when someone is trying to prove something, it best that he research his claims. actually, in less than 20 yrs, with not many supercomputers, we were able to map the dna and genics of over 30,000 animals as well as man. come on, hun
@guineapiggyman I gave references for my quotes didn't I? First, we have only mapped a small portion of the DNA of those animals, and even if they had mapped everything, this wouldn't prove anything wrong in this video....
Your "analogy" of the computer engineer and evolution is not even close to being a valid argument. We know a person built the computer. We can see it everyday. It is a natural answer. We know cars were also built by organic life. We are working to find a natural answer to the origins of life. You propose a supernatural answer simply because we don't have the natural one yet. It is yet another logical fallacy. Please, go read some science not written by an apologist.
@13monkees no, for the computer, a human would be considered supernatural since we are outside of its universe. In the same way, God is considered supernatural.
@jesse8857 No, that's fractally wrong. God is considered supernatural because theists have defined him to be that way. As soon as God manifests in the natural world, he stops BEING supernatural. You do understand that, right? The fact is, however, that there has never been a demonstrated instance of such a thing happenningI'msorr ,but both your video and your arguments in the comments sectionshave done nothing to show why Godis the better explanation.
@BigLundi “God manifests in the natural world, he stops BEING supernatural.” How so? God can be supernatural manifesting in a natural world because he is all-powerful. “there has never been a demonstrated instance of such a thing happening” Healing has been demonstrated to literally MILLIONS! But I’m not sure whether you’ll accept that as evidence. In this video, God is the better explanation for the origin of life since the chance is only 1 in 2. See comment 2
@jesse8857 ...Wow, so many wrong things. 1. the chance isn't 1 in 2 of God designing life. You pulled that out of your ass. 2. No supernatural healing has ever been demonstrated. Show me evidence of such a thing. If you give me Peter Popoff I'll shit myself laughing. 3. Atheists can know a lot of things, thoughts being synapse firings in the brain doesn't change that. 4. The bible isn't a valid place to get knowledge.
@BigLundi "Atheists can know a lot of things" Tell me how you know this. The rest of you comment is basically full of fallacies - especially ad hominem, so I won't respond
@BigLundi Atheists cannot know anything (since thoughts are random fizzes of chemicals). [calling something true and another false is like calling coke true and Fanta false – it is stupid. ] In fact, atheists cannot even reason (how do you know your reasoning about something is valid? You don’t.).Theists get our basis for knowledge and reasoning from God and the Bible. Our brains are not simply random movements of chemicals, but were *designed* by God. See comment 3
@jesse8857 5. You have no reason at all to assume God gave you the ability to know and reason other than a bare assertion. 6. You have simply asserted that if our brainns are natural, we can't reason, without any evidence to back that up. Our brains have evolved in order to do just that. There is no problem in the atheistic mindset to...thoughts. Thoughts are explained rather in depth by the neuroscientific and psychplogical fields of science. Dan Dennett has an entire lecture on consciousness.
@BigLundi “Our brains have evolved in order to do just that." Basically all atheists admit that thoughts are random chemical movements.(if you don't, tell me) On what basis do you call one false and another true? Whether they are 'highly evolved' is completely irrelevant.
@BigLundi Theists can reason and have logic since it is revealed to us, such that we can be certain, that this is God’s perfect nature of which we are to imitate. God gives the ability to know and reason. We can trust our thoughts. And so, without God, we could not prove, reason, or know anything. This is the proof of God. And if you say we cannot reason or know anything in order to escape this conclusion, aren’t you using reasoning in that process to come to that decision? See comment 4
@BigLundi This proves God even more! Overall, atheists have two choices: CHOICE 1: THERE IS THE ABILITY TO HAVE RESON/LOGIC/KNOWLEDGE. Then there must be a reason/logic/knowledge giver since fizzes of chemicals cannot determine knowledge. Which means that atheists, by definition, cannot choose ‘choice 1.’ CHOICE 2: THERE IS NO ABILITY TO HAVE REASON/LOGIC/KNOWLEDGE. How does the atheist know/reason to this conclusion? See comment 5
So the idea that a magic man in the sky created everything is more believable than a natural answer that is actually testable.
Also, you do not make any case for "God." You simply regurgitate someone else's arguments against a particular hypothesis. That is a false dichotomy which is something Christians love to do. You like to think that if you can disprove evolution (which you can't) it leaves creation as the answer. That is not true. Even if a god did do it, it might not be yours.
@13monkees So the idea that a magic man designed the computer is more believable than it evolving from an electronics factory? Obviously, the last answer is the better answer according to the evolutionist logic (even though the probabilities are enormous) because it is naturalistic.
I do not say that the impossibility of abiogenesis is proof that there is a creator, only that a creator is the better explanation.
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
Just because we don't know how it happened, or even if it is impossible, doesn't mean God did it. It simply means we don't know how it happened yet. If you want to say God did it, you do that by proving it. Not by poking holes in other theories. Not that there's anything wrong with testing theories for their voracity. That's what happens in science. We make a hypothesis and then we test it.
@13monkees "If you want to say God did it, you do that by proving it." If abiogensists want to teach this in the school as a fact like they do, they need to prove it.
There is NO Theory of Abiogenesis. However, there is a hypothesis as to the mechanisms of such an event. Some of these mechanisms have been observed in laboratory conditions. Papers describing this work can be found in this list:
mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html
They support the hypothesis.
An elegant computer model of spontaneous generation exists. The code can be downloaded from here:
OH, nice job making commends pend for approval, now you'll probably just delete my comment and act all high and might pretending that you won. Whatever, this was a waste of time.
halflifefan84 7 months ago
you're trying to say that Abiogenesis works in chance, and probability, but that's wrong. It works in chemistry, you would know this if you bothered researching it. Also, how is the god answer "better" when it has no evidence?! We've actually done experiments on Abiogenesis, that counts as evidence. As for the rest of this nonsense, I can only hope you're joking.
halflifefan84 7 months ago
@halflifefan84 "you're trying to say that Abiogenesis works in chance" No I'm not! The numbers were based on thermodynamic properties etc. as calculated by Morowitz.
As for use of the word "probability" in the video, that's just to illustrate what's happening with the numbers
jesse8857 7 months ago
I see the argument you are trying to make and I'm telling you it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I don't have enough space to go into a scientific explanation. All I can say is there is no evidence that a god exists and made the universe. Even if you can disprove a competing idea, that is not evidence of god. The idea that a miracle man who is somehow eternal made everything is ludicrous. You are using phony statistics and faulty logic. If you posit that god did it, the burden of proof is yours.
13monkees 8 months ago
@13monkees Again, I'm showing that God is the better explanation - not God is proved because abiogenesis is stupid. Show me the evidence of the big bang. Why is it a fact? And don't give me expanding universe or redshift because they are easy to answer.
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 im not biased one way or the other, but when someone is trying to prove something, it best that he research his claims. actually, in less than 20 yrs, with not many supercomputers, we were able to map the dna and genics of over 30,000 animals as well as man. come on, hun
guineapiggyman 8 months ago
@guineapiggyman I gave references for my quotes didn't I? First, we have only mapped a small portion of the DNA of those animals, and even if they had mapped everything, this wouldn't prove anything wrong in this video....
jesse8857 8 months ago
Your "analogy" of the computer engineer and evolution is not even close to being a valid argument. We know a person built the computer. We can see it everyday. It is a natural answer. We know cars were also built by organic life. We are working to find a natural answer to the origins of life. You propose a supernatural answer simply because we don't have the natural one yet. It is yet another logical fallacy. Please, go read some science not written by an apologist.
13monkees 8 months ago
@13monkees no, for the computer, a human would be considered supernatural since we are outside of its universe. In the same way, God is considered supernatural.
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 No, that's fractally wrong. God is considered supernatural because theists have defined him to be that way. As soon as God manifests in the natural world, he stops BEING supernatural. You do understand that, right? The fact is, however, that there has never been a demonstrated instance of such a thing happenningI'msorr ,but both your video and your arguments in the comments sectionshave done nothing to show why Godis the better explanation.
BigLundi 5 months ago
@BigLundi “God manifests in the natural world, he stops BEING supernatural.” How so? God can be supernatural manifesting in a natural world because he is all-powerful. “there has never been a demonstrated instance of such a thing happening” Healing has been demonstrated to literally MILLIONS! But I’m not sure whether you’ll accept that as evidence. In this video, God is the better explanation for the origin of life since the chance is only 1 in 2. See comment 2
jesse8857 4 months ago
@jesse8857 ...Wow, so many wrong things. 1. the chance isn't 1 in 2 of God designing life. You pulled that out of your ass. 2. No supernatural healing has ever been demonstrated. Show me evidence of such a thing. If you give me Peter Popoff I'll shit myself laughing. 3. Atheists can know a lot of things, thoughts being synapse firings in the brain doesn't change that. 4. The bible isn't a valid place to get knowledge.
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi "Atheists can know a lot of things" Tell me how you know this. The rest of you comment is basically full of fallacies - especially ad hominem, so I won't respond
jesse8857 4 months ago
@BigLundi Atheists cannot know anything (since thoughts are random fizzes of chemicals). [calling something true and another false is like calling coke true and Fanta false – it is stupid. ] In fact, atheists cannot even reason (how do you know your reasoning about something is valid? You don’t.).Theists get our basis for knowledge and reasoning from God and the Bible. Our brains are not simply random movements of chemicals, but were *designed* by God. See comment 3
jesse8857 4 months ago
@jesse8857 5. You have no reason at all to assume God gave you the ability to know and reason other than a bare assertion. 6. You have simply asserted that if our brainns are natural, we can't reason, without any evidence to back that up. Our brains have evolved in order to do just that. There is no problem in the atheistic mindset to...thoughts. Thoughts are explained rather in depth by the neuroscientific and psychplogical fields of science. Dan Dennett has an entire lecture on consciousness.
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi “Our brains have evolved in order to do just that." Basically all atheists admit that thoughts are random chemical movements.(if you don't, tell me) On what basis do you call one false and another true? Whether they are 'highly evolved' is completely irrelevant.
jesse8857 4 months ago
@BigLundi Theists can reason and have logic since it is revealed to us, such that we can be certain, that this is God’s perfect nature of which we are to imitate. God gives the ability to know and reason. We can trust our thoughts. And so, without God, we could not prove, reason, or know anything. This is the proof of God. And if you say we cannot reason or know anything in order to escape this conclusion, aren’t you using reasoning in that process to come to that decision? See comment 4
jesse8857 4 months ago
@BigLundi This proves God even more! Overall, atheists have two choices: CHOICE 1: THERE IS THE ABILITY TO HAVE RESON/LOGIC/KNOWLEDGE. Then there must be a reason/logic/knowledge giver since fizzes of chemicals cannot determine knowledge. Which means that atheists, by definition, cannot choose ‘choice 1.’ CHOICE 2: THERE IS NO ABILITY TO HAVE REASON/LOGIC/KNOWLEDGE. How does the atheist know/reason to this conclusion? See comment 5
jesse8857 4 months ago
@BigLundi He must assume the existence of God to be able to conclude this—it is viciously circular to his position!
In both choices, God exists.
jesse8857 4 months ago
@jesse8857 In order to conclude what?
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi The atheist must assume the existence of God in order to conclude that God doesn't exist
jesse8857 4 months ago
So the idea that a magic man in the sky created everything is more believable than a natural answer that is actually testable.
Also, you do not make any case for "God." You simply regurgitate someone else's arguments against a particular hypothesis. That is a false dichotomy which is something Christians love to do. You like to think that if you can disprove evolution (which you can't) it leaves creation as the answer. That is not true. Even if a god did do it, it might not be yours.
13monkees 8 months ago
@13monkees So the idea that a magic man designed the computer is more believable than it evolving from an electronics factory? Obviously, the last answer is the better answer according to the evolutionist logic (even though the probabilities are enormous) because it is naturalistic.
I do not say that the impossibility of abiogenesis is proof that there is a creator, only that a creator is the better explanation.
jesse8857 8 months ago
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
13monkees 8 months ago
@13monkees how do you know the calculation is a on based on chance formation?
jesse8857 8 months ago
Just because we don't know how it happened, or even if it is impossible, doesn't mean God did it. It simply means we don't know how it happened yet. If you want to say God did it, you do that by proving it. Not by poking holes in other theories. Not that there's anything wrong with testing theories for their voracity. That's what happens in science. We make a hypothesis and then we test it.
13monkees 8 months ago
@13monkees "If you want to say God did it, you do that by proving it." If abiogensists want to teach this in the school as a fact like they do, they need to prove it.
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 I simply show that the idea God made the universe is vastly easier to believe than abiogenesis
jesse8857 8 months ago
There is NO Theory of Abiogenesis. However, there is a hypothesis as to the mechanisms of such an event. Some of these mechanisms have been observed in laboratory conditions. Papers describing this work can be found in this list:
mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html
They support the hypothesis.
An elegant computer model of spontaneous generation exists. The code can be downloaded from here:
mediafire. com/?1umdtnwayyp#
or here:
mediafire. com/?yygr5xhmzdm
archolman 9 months ago