"RNA World Hypothesis" - a list of 12 problems ..... (that Atheists don't like to discuss)

[TheLizardPeople]

"You're sick, deluded, demented, dishonest, and not worth my time, kid." Pathetic ad hom. True, Dawkins is an Atheist but numerous pro evolution scientists are Theists. Science describes the natural world & says nothing about the supernatural world. Not one science paper/theory claims the existence or non existence of god therefore both Atheism & Theism aren't part of science. Do you have any mature arguments or will you continue with childlike name calling?

du PilgrimPater

[sweetmikser]

@TheLizardPeople maybe a bit strong true, but not in the mood anymore for the dishonest nonsense. As to your "Theistic Evolutionists", well two problems, many Atheists and Darwinists THEMSELVES have admitted that BIBLICALLY (follo what I'm saying carefully) true Darwinian evolution theory (the SUPER MACRO MYTHS OF "APE-MEN" AND "FISH ANCESTRY OF HUMANS" etc) is impossible. Meaning that Ken Miller IS an "atheist"...TOWARD THE BIBLICAL JEHOVAH. Who creates intentionally.

[sweetmikser]

@TheLizardPeople (2nd) and the problem with you is that you don't grasp that THIS IS NOT "SCIENCE". Darwninian evolution theory (and I'm NOT referring to the straw-men and desperate examples of errgghh "E.Coli" or "different mosquito species" or "drug-resistant bacteria"), is NOT empirical observable "science", but is ASSUMPTION, based on neurotic arrogant biases and premises, of NOT WANTING there to be an outside Intelligence, Creator, Judge, or Law-giver. Dawkins admitted it

[rumraket38]

This video contains so many falsehoods I suspect it amounts to nothing more than trolling.

[gregrutz]

So you have been shown the truth and then say ''yea ok'' and keep up the silly argument.

IF scientists found out God made the first cell THEN you would 'believe' in evolution. NO?!?

Then stop with the bull shit.

[sweetmikser]

@gregrutz apparently the numerous problems and unworkable issues with your desperate "truth" (the "RNA world" Atheist myth) went over your head. You didn't address any of them, at all. Did you even see the whole video?

[infinity730]

@sweetmikser What is the difference between "Darwinism" and accepting biological findings such as "descent with modification" or "change in allelic frequencies in a population over time"?

As far as I was aware, Darwinism is a sociological idea, and not a scientific one, much akin to Lemarckism.

So I guess my second question is, are there any modern biologists that describe themselves as "Darwinists", and how does that idea relate to modern biology, or genetics?

Just wondering, thanks.

[sweetmikser]

@infinity730 bro, come on...I'm not gonna go on the merry-go-round with you guys forever on this. First, the term "Darwinism" was NOT invented by "Creationists". But by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1860, in a POSITIVE SENSE...a Darwinist himself (see my my video on that subject)...and also Gould used the term in a neutral or positive sense...and others. Also, Darwinian evolution theory is "descent with modification leading to bigger changes over time". But the straw-men are Darwinist pastimes (cont)

[sweetmikser]

@infinity730 (2nd) If all that Darwinian evolution was "drug-resistant bacteria" or "E.Coli modifications" or "new mosquito species" or "new frog species" or adaptations and variations within major groups, then EVERYONE ON THE PLANET SHOULD BE UNFLINCHING EVOLUTIONISTS. lol.... Those things were never argued against, but actually predicted in a sense. But Darwinism claims MUCH MORE than that.  And local adaptations and variations do not prove "ape-men" myths. Those are LEAPS and SPECULATIONS.

[infinity730]

@sweetmikser (1) "Thomas Henry Huxley in 1860" You are aware that the word "genetics" wasn't even coined until 1905, and that Darwin himself didn't know about genes?

"Darwinian evolution theory" Noone working in the biological field today even uses Darwin's work to understand the diversity of life. Biology has advanced much farther than just what Darwin said. Next you're going to tell me that Haeckel's work is still being published in modern biology books.

[infinity730]

@sweetmikser "local adaptations and variations do not prove "ape-men" myths" So biologists and other scietists should stop using the word Hominidae?

So since you say evolutionary theory is wrong, what is your explanation for the diversity of life, and how can we test that hypothesis?

[sweetmikser]

@infinity730 do you like this new layout that YouTube just did? I'm not sure I do. It's harder to type. Why do they do nonsense like that??? Anyway, it's generally also called "Neo-Darwinism". And they DO largely base it on Darwin's overblown junk of "natural selection" and "descent with modification leading to bigger changes over time and fish to frogs, reptiles, birds, lemur-monkey-men or ape-monkeys and ape-men to humans". With desperate "mutations" in the mix etc.

[infinity730]

@sweetmikser "do you like this new layout" No.

"it's generally also called "Neo-Darwinism"" Neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895 as a designation of Weismann's theory.

(Mayr E. (1984). "What is Darwinism Today?". Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2: 145–156)

I'm not sure why you equate it with modern biological sciences, since genetics is in the forefront, with cladistics.

[lethalsub]

@sweetmikser "spoken like a true Atheist lowlife.  ayayayayaya...." I'm not the one who said Darwin and his theory of evolution are racist.

"Keep up the rude snarly incivility and violent words, kid...and you're blocked." Which violent words were they then? Block me if you want, but that makes you a bloody coward.

"If you want to challenge specifics or get into the science or details of the matter, that's one thing." You have religious motives, how can I discuss the science freely with you?

[sweetmikser]

@lethalsub you assume much, and grasp very little. You said that I have religious motives, meanwhile the video RIGHT HERE (did you even bother to actually see it?) deals STRICTLY 100% with scientific issues. Uh, huh? duhhhh. Also, idiot, you barf up the same silly assumption that only religious people (Darwinism IS a religion) doubt "abiogenesis" or "ape-men". Some agnostics have too, who don't even like the Bible. Finding Darwinism a crock. On SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS. Wake up...drone.

[infinity730]

This is an excellent series of educational videos by Youtube user Aronra.

youtube. com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw

In addition to providing a great deal of interesting information on evolution, these videos explore the various arguments used by creationists and the fallacies they contain.

[nvutube7]

@infinity730 Heres the cold hard facts...

(1)People can declare all kinds of abiogenesis explanations to be plausible, but the fact is, none explain the origin of coded information in DNA, and

(2) there is no observed process of naturally occurring codes, and

(3) because no observation of (2) has been made, a scientific theory for the origin of this information is not currently possible.

[infinity730]

@nvutube7 Id play count the fallacies with those responses, but I don't have the time to address each and every one, so I'll just assume you're one of *those* people, and bid you good day.

[nvutube7]

@infinity730 If you want scientific reasoning, logic and math then examine the material at cosmicfingerprintsDOTcom. This website is for those who care enough to investigate it for themselves. Its not for those who simply want to argue. Im not here to argue or even debate. All these erant objections are thoroughly and exhaustively addressed.

[infinity730]

@nvutube7 If *you* want scientific papers from ACTUAL scientists then examine the material at ncbi. nlm. nih . gov

Its the resource for almost every paper published in biological sciences in the past 100 years.

And next time you suggest a site to me, make sure it's not an apologetics website, thanks.

[nvutube7]

@infinity730 Again, not a single counter argument from you. Can you debate the subject from you own understanding, as you proclaim on your page you do so frequently?

Never mind, I totally understand.

[infinity730]

@nvutube7 Again, I'm not prone to responding to Gish-galloping debate tactics on a website whose character limit is 500 words. If you would like to have a conversation in person, I suggest sending me a PM and we can work out a format, otherwise, I have no interest in wasting my time typing out what is essentially information one can find with a google search.

I'm pretty sure I got you on a good start to finding biology papers and furthering your understanding of the sciences. Good day.

[nvutube7]

@infinity730 Given the complete absence of any empirical support for a naturalistic cause it requires assumptions that are empirically unsubstantiated and thus fails to qualify as a scientific statement.You do have a naturalistic hypothesis.Be careful not to equate naturalistic philosophy with scientific methodology and not to equate “explanation" with actual evidence.But if you find that explanation satisfying,and if you believe that qualifies as a scientific answer,that is your decision.

[infinity730]

nature. com/nature /journal/v459 /n7244/full/nature08013

"Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions" Matthew W. Powner1, Béatrice Gerland1 & John D. Sutherland1 School of Chemistry, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK

[nvutube7]

"All it needed was the right environment,and the process started all by itself."

And by that you mean: an environment designed by intelligent agents in sterile labs using chemicals in pure form that aren't found in nature under a hypothesis of what the "early earth" consisted of that cannot be confirmed.

[infinity730]

@nvutube7 "an environment designed by intelligent agents" Sure, but the environment itself is no different than early Earth conditions.

"sterile labs using chemicals in pure form" Sterility is a must because the chemistry of our environment is much different than it was 4bil years ago. The chemicals themself are no different than what would be found on the Early earth, there is no "pure form" of chemical, all the chemicals are exactly as they would have been then, and are today.

[nvutube7]

@infinity730 sci·ence n. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.Pure chance or lucky accident as a proposed origin of anything defies observation, identification, description and experimental investigation. Explaining things that have never been observed to happen, even by chance - yet saying they must have happened by chance anyway is not scientific. It is thoroughly non-scientific.

Atheists have a creation story.

[infinity730]

@nvutube7 What? How is any of that relevant, and not a total red herring? I refuted every one of your main points.

[nvutube7]

@infinity730 This argument assumes the existence of a number of things which have never been observed, a precursor to DNA.It cannot said to be a valid argument without evidence of these transitional forms.Do not conflate your creation story with the facts,no matter how much faith you may have in it.Whenever highly improbable events which have never been observed are said to be an explanation of any particular process,then that explanation by definition can never be reproduced or tested.

[nvutube7]

@infinity730 "The flaw with this kind of research is not in the chemistry.The flaw is in the logic-that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth," says Robert Shapiro,a chemist at New York University."Gerald Joyce,wrote:"The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA. The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data"

[infinity730]

@nvutube7 How is that not a quotemine?

[infinity730]

@nvutube7 It's also an appeal to authority.

Seriously, I linked the Nature article below, would you like to see it again?

[sweetmikser]

@infinity730 All Darwinist drones are hypocrites. And it's hysterical when you nuts accuse others of "appeal to authority"...when that's ALL that you (and morons like Bill Maher) do non-stop. "errghhh 99% of the scientific community accepts evolution and ape-men" arf arf...committing two logical fallacies at once. Appeal to authority and appeal to majority. And "errrgh peer review". But when nuts like you ask for refs, then quotes are provided, you cry "appeal to authority"...hypocritically.

[infinity730]

@sweetmikser Did you even read the Nature article? Or do you need someone to translate it into plain English for you?

[sweetmikser]

@infinity730 (2nd) "appeal to authority" is a non-stop and habitual PASTIME of Darwinists and Atheists. And it's laughable when you accuse Creationists or Theists of stuff that you're 100000000000000 times more guilty of. For real. "99% of scientists accept evolution and ape-man ancestors". LOL. Yeah, ok. Forgetting that the majority through history has usually been wrong. Especially when there's an echo-chamber of group think and cocoon of self-confirming paradigms. But you accuse Theists????

[infinity730]

@sweetmikser Wut?

[nvutube7]

@infinity730

"Sterility is a must because the chemistry of our environment is much different than it was 4bil years ago."

Yes, we assume it's a "must," but that says nothing if it "was," does it?

"The chemicals themself are no different than what would be found on the Early earth,"

And we confirm this how?

"all the chemicals are exactly as they would have been then, and are today."

We confirmed this when?

Just-so stories, nothing more. Creation story for atheists. Period.

[buffboynick]

Rather sad how brainwashed and deluded some of the evolutionists below are.

I will put this in terms even evokids can understand.

This 3D reality is essentially a program. Physicists have proven that atoms generate a 3D reality, but in actuality, the only thing that is actually "real" is energy.

DNA is designed to hold our energy (life force). DNA holds information digitally (and has been used by scientists to even store music on). The DNA code is essentially computer programming for life.

[sweetmikser]

@buffboynick exactly what I point out and say in my other video "The Cell"... That Atheists, Darwinists, and Materialists have been looking it at it really in the wrong way. As ADMITTED by some Darwinists. That it's really a SOFTWARE thing a lot more than a substance or material thing. And that "chance" or non-deliberate lucky mixtures could NEVER cause the actual software CODING to come about. And if they dishonestly say it's "not chance", then "nature done it". Which is a form of PANTHEISM.

[MrRichardQED]

@sweetmikser RNA itself is actually a very complex molecule (a fact that Atheists and Materialists and Darwinists don't really mention much,or even tend to down-play), and it's a flight of FANTASY to claim that it could have arisen so conveniently in an imagined pri-mordial soup.

Well funny that chemists could prove that RNA CAN assemble itself out of simple chemicals. Its simple selforganisation.The dishonest one here is you, since you make up straw man arguments and leave important facts put !

[sweetmikser]

@MrRichardQED RNA has never "assembled itself out of simple chemicals" all by itself, with no outside help or interference. You're hallucinating that, and are delusional. As are all committed and fanatical Atheists and Neo-Darwinist drone-tards. You never saw RNA (let alone more complex Protein Enzymes or very complex DNA) ever "assemble itself" with no outside intrusion or intelligence. You imagine things, and exaggerate the data. And barf up junk like "Chech". While ignoring all the PROBLEMS.

[MrRichardQED]

@sweetmikser RNA has never "assembled itself out of simple chemicals" all by itself, with no outside help or interference.

Of course it has, it made major news in 2008.A team of chemists made the discovery.All it needed was the right environment,and the process started all by itself.It was an environment as you would find on early earth, but we don´t know yet if that was the exact process that started life on earth.Inform yourself about the subject moron,and don´t make baseless claims about me !

[sweetmikser]

@MrRichardQED do you even realize how silly you sound?? That "team of chemists" set things up...and are OUTSIDE INTELLIGENCE INTERFERING...and preparing it that way so it could happen uh "accidentally". It's pathetic that you hold up controlled experiments with set-up environments, and then dishonestly label them as "discoveries" of something that happened 100% all by itself. FAIL On the exaggerations and hallucinations. Also, again, DID YOU EVEN SEE THIS WHOLE VIDEO or not? It's addressed.

[sweetmikser]

@MrRichardQED (2nd) also, primordial soup with nasty temperatures is not the same as a controlled lab. (Again, fail....)

[MrRichardQED]

@sweetmikser also, primordial soup with nasty temperatures is not the same as a controlled lab. (Again, fail....)

The one failing here is you, since you do not understand the science. Of course you can examine what happens in nature in the laboratory, that´s what science does ! Of you setup the right environment that is hardly outside intelligence interfering, it is simply getting the same condition we had on early earth to see what happens

[AtheistKharm]

google "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,

and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations", should clear up a lot of the confusion in this video.

[A3Kr0n]

OK. What's YOUR theory on how life evolved. And please provide evidence.

[evoTARDSareINSANE]

@pilgrimpater

Actually, the FULL title of Darwin's book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (info on Wikipedia)

Why did he call it that? Because Darwin was a notorious RACIST. His writings on Africans and the Aborigine Indians are horribly racist. He calls them "dark skinned savages"

Further discrediting him is the FACT that he had NO DEGREE in Biology__FACT

Evolutionism = more RELIGION than science

[lethalsub]

@evoTARDSareINSANE "Why did he call it that? Because Darwin was a notorious RACIST." Provide me with a source that says this retard.

[pilgrimpater]

@lethalsub This is the first creation idiot (and there are so many of them on YT) that has caused me to swear.

Don't worry i have dealt with this dishonest fool before and there are a plethera of questions that i have put to him that he is yet to address.

[lethalsub]

@pilgrimpater Recently he (BBN) was arguing with me that anti-matter hadn't been empirically observed. Having pointed out his flaw it took him a while before he streamlined the definition he gave of matter to include only atoms, not subatomic particles, then carried on with the same argument. During this skirmish he made another whoopsy, saying that the neutron has no anti-matter counterpart, because it is neutral. I don't know biology but his grasp of physics is hilarious.

[pilgrimpater]

@lethalsub I also notice EvotTardsareinsane is attempting to highjack an argument that i made against him that he (& every other scientific illiterate) has failed to answer i.e. explain the fossil sequence:- the 1st worm appears before the 1st fish which appears before the 1st tetrapod etc etc etc. We have thousands of transitionals but they are not really needed to win the argument. Creotards have no explanation for the fossil sequence, no falsification and no dating methods. They are a joke.

[lethalsub]

@pilgrimpater Do you get a lot of creationists on youtube or is it just me? You get millions of those 911 conspiracy nuts (BBN is one of them). And I swear you get a lot of people with PhD's, masters, professorships (like our mutual dickhead).

If he was the first YT nut to make you swear, you're doing well. If I got a hold of him I'd give him a sound beating.

[pilgrimpater]

@lethalsub Evotardsareinsane has a PHD in a relevant topic? Bloody hell man that makes me a genius. I personally can't believe that, as all his comments are slogans or insults. No original thought whatsoever. I do get given the usual list of ID scientists with PHDs in biological/cosmological disciplines who actually written peer reviewed papers but there are problems:-

a) These scientists are a ridiculously small minority.

b) None of their papers has proved or attempted to prove Design.

[sweetmikser]

@lethalsub spoken like a true Atheist lowlife. ayayayayaya.... Keep up the rude snarly incivility and violent words, kid...and you're blocked. Please keep it at least semi-cool. For real.... If you want to challenge specifics or get into the science or details of the matter, that's one thing. But don't be a rude punk.

[evoTARDSareINSANE]

@lethalsub

/watch?v=tiy17g-u7AE

The quotes in that video are from Darwin's writings in "Descent of Man"__FACT

Darwin was also a FREEMASON!!! He was a member of the Rosicrucian Order. How's that lying working for you "ape-men believers" now? So sick of you intellectually-DISHONEST evo-religious zealots!!!

[lethalsub]

@evoTARDSareINSANE "So sick of you intellectually-DISHONEST evo-religious zealots!!!" Don't be a hypocrite, I'm not the retard lying about their credentials. BTW, have you read any books by Charles Darwin?

Even better, can I see one of your UNFOUND MYTHICAL research articles?

[evoTARDSareINSANE]

@lethalsub

Yes, I read "Descent of Man" by Charles Darwin (as pointed out in a previous comment). If you werent illiterate then you would have seen it.

Some of Darwin's most RACIST writings are in Descent of Man

I even provided a video link with the most racist quotes from that book. It also doesnt help matters that Darwin belonged to a Masonic Order and many high level Masons are notorious for lies and manipulation. Read your history books (especially where Stalin used evolutionism to kill)

[lethalsub]

@evoTARDSareINSANE "If you werent illiterate then you would have seen it." That's funny coming from a mathematical retard.

"Some of Darwin's most RACIST writings are in Descent of Man" In general people had views that today would be considered racist, I can almost say the same about any noted person from that era. Read your history books, retard.

"It also doesnt help matters that Darwin belonged to a Masonic Order..." That claim is disputed.

[sweetmikser]

@lethalsub no no no, you can't cop out that easily about "people at the time". The problem that you can't admit or grasp is that Darwin (and Haeckel) SPECIFICALLY believed that Caucasians were advanced over Africans and Asians, in "EVOLUTION". That was Darwin's view BIOLOGICALLY...and with his "evolutionary scale". Also with "natural selection" and with their "recapitulation" ideas in the womb. Darwin and Haeckel were white racists, and Darwinian evolution theory is INHERENTLY racist.

[lethalsub]

@sweetmikser "Darwin and Haeckel were white racists, and Darwinian evolution theory is INHERENTLY racist." I don't see how you can say that evolutionary theory is INHERENTLY racist, just because the persons that brought it up were themselves racist. The problem that you can't admit or grasp is that accusing evolutionary theory of racism is just another attempt to undermine its credibility.

[sweetmikser]

@lethalsub you don't read carefully. It's NOT just that the dudes themselves were "racist"....but that THEIR VERY VIEW OF BIOLOGY AND "EVOLUTION" WAS LARGELY ABOUT THAT. You keep missing that point. It's not like their "racism" was totally divorced from their very views and theories ON ANIMALS AND HUMANS... It was PART of it. Darwin said that WHATEVER contributed to a tribe’s ability to survive at the expense of tribe b will define “morality” for tribe a. Whether skin color or intelligence.

[lethalsub]

@sweetmikser You still haven't convinced me that Darwin was noticeably racist. I read that Darwin supported the abolitionist movement, did you conveniently forget this fact?

"You keep missing that point." What, the point that you want to show Darwin as racist so that evolution loses its credibility. What next, try to make out that Darwin was a paedophile?

lol

[evoTARDSareINSANE]

@lethalsub

Your response is a PRIME example of "backpedaling"

Saying "well, most people were racist back in Darwin's time" doesnt help your case.

Darwin was simply a racist with NO DEGREE IN BIOLOGY, and you choose to "believe" his little evo-religion.

Darwin also had no concept of DNA and its complexity back then. His theory wouldnt even exist today if DNA had been discovered back then.

[lethalsub]

@evoTARDSareINSANE "Saying "well, most people were racist back in Darwin's time" doesnt help your case." You need to show that his view was racist specifically to his time. Simply saying that Darwin was racist, so evolutionary theory is therefore racist doesn't help your case retard.

"Darwin was simply a racist with NO DEGREE IN BIOLOGY, and you choose to "believe" his little evo-religion." I don't believe his evo-religion, I simply prefer evolution as a general concept, retard.

[evoTARDSareINSANE]

@lethalsub

Microevolution (poor name, since its not true "evolution") is correct. Variations of size and color have been observed.

Macroevolution = nonsense, not remotely "scientific" in any way

The Evolution deception is mixing a truth with a lie. Variations within species NEVER radically alter an organism and produce an entirely different organism (not even over MILLIONS of years, as shown by "living fossils")

Also, where did the 1st basic forms come from? (1st Ape, 1st Reptile, 1st Bat)

[sweetmikser]

@evoTARDSareINSANE exactly. Variations and adaptations WITHIN major groups were NEVER argued against. It's just an old stupid desperate Darwinist STRAW-MAN...and BAIT-AND-SWITCH. That nuts like Dawkins (and Darwinist YouTubers) keep barfing up, idiotically and pathetically. The problem that they (in their drone-tardery) just don't grasp is that "drug-resistant bacteria" and "E.Coli" and "different frog species" DON'T PROVE "ape-men" myths, or superstitious "fish ancestry of humans." FAIL....

[infinity730]

@sweetmikser en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evo­lution

[lethalsub]

@evoTARDSareINSANE "Macroevolution = nonsense, not remotely "scientific" in any way" The burden rests on your shoulders to prove it retard.

evoTARDSareINSANE's PhD in microbiology = nonsense, not remotely "scientific" in any way

"Also, where did the 1st basic forms come from? (1st Ape, 1st Reptile, 1st Bat)" From other basic forms, retard.

[lethalsub]

@evoTARDSareINSANE "Maybe you can talk about "maths" again you neanderthal brain." And you call Darwin a racist, hypocrite.

[DisprovingEvolution]

@lethalsub

Your "maths" is severely flawed LOL.

You're one gutless little troll arent you? Tsk, tsk.

[pilgrimpater]

@evoTARDSareINSANE You lying bastard. He barely touched on Human evolution in the Origin of Species & that was left for the Descent of man. Have you never heard of different races of the Darwin Finches or different races of tigers? How can you be so stupid/dishonest? How can you sleep at night by spouting such trash & all this coming from a Fundamentalist Christian hence a rabid a racist.

As for him having no degree that is irrelevanr because 150 years of evo scientists DO have degrees. Pratt!

[sweetmikser]

@pilgrimpater Darwin believed that Caucasians were advanced over Asians and Africans, in "evolution". Yes...in this supposed mythical "evolutionary scale". And, along with HAECKEL, believed that Asians and Africans were lower in presumed "recapitulation" ideas in the womb. Darwin and Haeckel were white racists, and it was permeating their views on man's origins. And of course Hitler picked up on a lot of that with his "higher evolutionary order and survival" ideas in Mein Kampf. Get over it.

[evoTARDSareINSANE]

@pilgrimpater

LIAR!!!

Read what Darwin wrote about the Aborigine Indians and Africans. He is quoted directly in the video below you moronic LYING evotard.....

/watch?v=tiy17g-u7AE

The uploader of that video used DIRECT QUOTES from "Descent of Man". You just got PWNED LIAR

[DisprovingEvolution]

Me likey

[evoTARDSareINSANE]

I like this video.

Evolutionism is just another religion. Its pure hokum.

[matthewtaylorbrown]

Science is not needed to dismiss myths like gods and other supernatural beings. Man creates gods to suite our needs. No god is more believable than the other. Gods are a crowd of colorful beings and animals. They are great fiction and the stories of these gods can sometimes teach morals to children. They are nothing more than myth. If someone were to disprove the big bang or evolution, it would not make gods any more real.

[sweetmikser]

mowmowmowful said:

Oh, one more thing, atheist doesn't use RNA world as a talking point. Our talking point is rather there's no proof of the existence of God. So rather in believing in fairy tales (including the bible), we seek a more materialistic/natural explanation of things. One proposed explanation for the origin of life happens to be RNA world, but that's just one PROPOSED explanation, not verified in any concrete ways.

[sweetmikser]

@mowmowmowful well I appreciate you going over the points and addressing them, and challenging the positions, with some intelligence...though I don't totally agree. I will examine your comments a bit more thoroughly later today...as I am busy now. I will say this for now though. They WOULD have to be very accurate...not just 90%, as those things are unstable and incredibly sensitive. Also, they would have to be a certain handed way, but in a 50-50 mix a big problem. (continued)

[sweetmikser]

mmmf said:

@sweetmikser The handedness, please read more carefully what I have to say. The handedness is not necessarily by chance but maybe a thermodynamic drive (not a physical chemistry expert). With regard to the accuracy of replication, it depends on what kind of system you are looking at. The Primordial cell is a very vague picture. You might see a more bacteria like cell, where the accuracy of replication is important in preserving the information necessary for survival and propagation.

[sweetmikser]

mowmowmowful said:

@sweetmikser However, that cell could also be more like a sack of chemicals, and replication is the beginning step toward reproduction. Here, the emphasis is replicating, not survival and reproduction, so accuracy is not important. What replication allows, however, is a way to propagate a general structural information (a lengthy RNA molecule for example), which could lead to, by means nobody knows, replicating of more defined molecules that have more refined function.

[sweetmikser]

@mowmowmowful (2nd...continued) Also, it IS a talking point by Atheists, in many ways, many times. Anyway, bro, if you could do me this favor. Since you mention the Atheist position of "no proof of God's existence" etc, I request that you check out my video called "FINAL REBUTTAL - Atheist's Head Explodes (Full Version)". I'm sure you know those videos dealing with "Atheist Head Explode" and the rebuttals & counters etc. Well I did one very recently rebutting the ATHEIST. Check it out...thanks

[sweetmikser]

mowmowmowful said:

@sweetmikser However, that cell could also be more like a sack of chemicals, and replication is the beginning step toward reproduction. Here, the emphasis is replicating, not survival and reproduction, so accuracy is not important. What replication allows, however, is a way to propagate a general structural information (a lengthy RNA molecule for example), which could lead to, by means nobody knows, replicating of more defined molecules that have more refined function.

[sweetmikser]

mowmowmowful said:

Conclusion. The problem atheists have with theists is not that theists question the hypotheses scientists propose to explain nature, as scientists themselves debate about various explanations. Rather, the problem is that some theists want to force their beliefs and values onto the society and attack sciences that do not agree with their beliefs, the sciences that are driven by the same scientific methods that led to the improvement of length and quality of people's lives.

[sweetmikser]

mowmowmowful said:

Problem 12. Well, we don't know. However, scientists propose hypotheses and study them, instead of throwing their hands in the air and say God did it and pretend everything is solved. Though the decoding machinery existing today still involve RNA (DNA-RNA base pairing, RNA-tRNA base pairing) in important ways, so the possible transition from RNA world to DNA-RNA-Protein world is not that difficult of a leap.

[sweetmikser]

mm:

Prob10, who said that replication has to be 100% accurate or even 90% accurate. The primordial cell is probably more tolerant of errors than today's cell. Look at today's bacteria and see how tolerant they are of mutations, and these bacteria are much more complex than the primordial cells. Problem 11, not all, just enough. Many proteins our body produce are aberrant & are degraded right away. Also, what's required for primordial cells to function as a cell is probably much less demanding.

[sweetmikser]

mm:

Problem8, first, RNA is not always helical. Second, left-handed RNA helices do exist in nature. Three, the handedness could be a result of thermodynamic stability due to efficient base-pairing and base stacking. Problem9, yes, they would, why is that problem? Replication could be driven by the same energy that drove polymerization and hydrogen-bonding interactions. By the way, just to clarify, enzymes do not change the thermodynamic drive for a reaction, but merely make the reactions faster

[sweetmikser]

mowmowmowful said:

Problem7. Reversible reactions don't always happen. For example, burning is formally an oxidation reaction, but you don't see ash reverse into wood do you? Also, reversible reactions don't necessary cause a problem if the forward reactions are more favorable or if the equilibrium of the reaction is shifted heavily toward the product by the removal of product or high concentration of reactant.

[sweetmikser]

mowmowmowful said:

Problem5, nobody claimed that cytosine has to be stable to be useful, and nobody claimed that the original RNA world depended on the stability of Cytosine. Nobody even claimed that mutations cannot be tolerated at all in the primordial cells. Problem6, again the high temperature thing, hence the water environment. Also, the nucleotides are quite stable, at least in environment without active enzyme to degrade them. Since it's an RNA world, there's not many proteins around.

[sweetmikser]

mowmowmowful said:

Ammonia and HCN are parts of that ooze you talk about. So it's a matter of experiment (and maybe time, like..billions of years) to get nucleotides synthesized. Furthermore, nobody claimed that the original RNAs must have the four nucleotides seen today. In fact, RNA tolerate a diverse range of nucleotides. Problem4, see above. In addition, cytosine could be formed from Uracil if the amination reaction is driven by high energy amine carrier.

[sweetmikser]

mmmfl said:

Onto problem1. Yes, RNAs can be complex, but nobody claimed that the original RNA has to be as complex to function. Problem 2. Yes, RNA is less stable, which is probably one reason why life first existed in water, because water provides a great buffer against dramatic change in temperature. Also, RNA is stable enough at normal temperature range without any degrading compound (chemical or biological). Problem3. Well, adenine, which is part of ATP, was synthesized from ammonia and HCN

[sweetmikser]

mowmowmowful said:

So science, at its core, aims to discover the NATURAL processes and principles. Scientists merely use various means to make such processes and principles testable, observable, and manipulable so they can be studied and use to better society (you know, how they used the basic principles to synthesize antibiotics or generate vaccines that kept you alive longer)

[sweetmikser]

mm:

As to the whole experimenters being the outside intelligence. The whole point of science is being objective, not subjective. Thus, no scientist ever claim a discovery because he/she saw it and thus it must be true. Rather, scientists have to demonstrate methodology and data, so others could repeat the experiment & be convinced that experimenters did not interfere with the actual processes investigated. If anything used were synthetic, scientists point them out and can get criticized for it.

[sweetmikser]

mowmowmowful said:

With your first claim that RNAs make poor catalysts. Well, actually, the process of translation is catalyzed by RNA. Splicing is catalyzed by RNA. While it is true that in today's organisms, these RNAs are coated with proteins, nevertheless, it's true that RNAs catalyze some of the most fundamental reactions in living organism, and they are quite efficient (to the point that proteins did not replace them).

[sweetmikser]

mowmowmowful said:

On to your discussion about RNA World. Let me first state that The RNA World hypothesis, is well, a hypothesis, which means that it is not confirmed, has no reliable predicative power, and is not considered factual. However, scientists seek to prove or disprove this hypothesis, and if disproved, will raise new hypotheses and test those. What they won't do is to say a Creator did it and stop, as such claim will not advance the field of science or benefit the society.

[sweetmikser]

mm:

Let's address the very 1st issue (which is not the problem you listed). Evolution theory itself does not aim to explain the origin of life, but to explain the diversity of life observed. Whether it should or should not include abiogenesis is up for debate, but Darwin did not seek to explain abiogenesis. 2nd, Darwin's "pathetic" conjecture is made without any knowledge of biochemistry and molecular biology. It is more pathetic that you use the knowledge discovered by scientists to judge him.

[sweetmikser]

Idlterrsts:

I believed evolution because I learned it in school and "everybody" believed it. I now know it not to be true, after really looking for evidence and finding none the difficult but only conclusion was it never happend.

How uncomfortable the conclusion may be it is a fact there is NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER FOR EVOLUTION. The better you look the more you will see there has to be a designer, I fell for the evo theory for 37 years and 'm glad my eyes are open now. Good video keep it up!!

[sweetmikser]

@Idontliketerrorists thanks....

[sweetmikser]

paradoxfate said:

On the other hand, you don’t get to put definitions on what you don’t believe; that’s clearly a straw man. So by repeating “like a zombie” “abiogenesis is evolutioooon, abiogenesis is evolutioooon” (and you dare mock us with something like that) you won’t make it true and certainly won’t convince any of us who understand the difference.

[sweetmikser]

paradoxfate said:

If there were a hint of honesty in your words, it might even be worth to consider examining your claims. But with two shameless fallacies like that you don’t deserve more than this comment. Enjoy your “all powerful” dominion of this account and be as shameless attacking me as you were creating this video.

[sweetmikser]

@paradoxfate care to elaborate on what the "two shameless fallacies" allegedly are? Do you mean you think there are "fallacies" in the video itself? or in any of my comments? What are you referring to? Or is this another sock account, from where all you did was belch, bitch, whine, and bellow at me before, with no actual specifics? Anyway, what "two shameless fallacies" are supposedly here?

[sweetmikser]

paradoxfate said:

, Because we care about science and the way it can be use as an invaluable tool to prove or disproof old theories. Science does change, you people are blindly staying in a state of negation and merely looking for odd ways to misrepresent what a hardworking scientific has discovered in order to sustain your fairy tales.

[sweetmikser]

paradoxfate said:

HAHAHAHA!! Ok, Enjoy your petty insults (are you looking in a mirror?). Taking your words as examples of your current state of mind, it's obvious you are in no condition to sustain an intelligent discussion. I elaborated enough in the other comments. What would be the point, you are in denial. So throw some more bitchslaps and get over it. Or, better yet, curse me to hell! That might make you happy (not that I care).

[sweetmikser]

paradoxfate said:

Science strives to find the truth and that quest starts with a question. If a man of science accepts whatever a colleague presents without questioning, he would be no better that a religious fool.

[sweetmikser]

thegeniushasreturned said:

@paradoxfate evolution requires the simplest organism to become more complex.

therfore the first "creature" was not alive. It evolved to live.

if you claim it was alive then it does not need evolution to explain itself.

another conundrum the atheist is left with.



[sweetmikser]

paradoxfate said:

@Thegeniushasreturned (mmm, ok…) you are absolutely right!! You know why? Because nobody can claim that evolution has anything to do with that. You know why? (Here’s the kicker) Because ABIOGENESIS IS NOT EVOLUTION. Go on, start the “droning” mockery like sweetmikser. The fact that you keep repeating that fallacy over and over won’t make it real. You guys keep pretending to define something that you are against? That’s simply wrong.

[sweetmikser]

@paradoxfate to chime in here a little bit, let me just say...if you say "abiogenesis is not evolution" I might MIGHT MIGHT buy that. But that's not all that is generally said by committed Darwinist cop-outers. They also say (maybe it's just a semantical sloppy thing or expression, but it's still wrong) "abiogenesis HAS NOTHING TO DO with evolution". And such a statement is laughable on its face. Of course it's at least RELATED. Biologically chemically etc. (If it presumably happened, that is.)

[sweetmikser]

paradoxfate said:

@Thegeniushasreturned You don’t get to “call names” over something you don’t like and then use those “names” to misrepresent that you don’t like. The term “straw man” sounds familiar? No, of course, you’re going to deny that… whatever, you hook me into answer you. Congrats…

[sweetmikser]

paradoxfate:

Yet another video full of fallacies & misrepresentations. The way you defend that “Darwinian witness” of yours, makes me believe that you still hold true that myth of Darwin’s conversion on his death bed. Fact of the matter is: 1st, one “Darwinian” who doesn’t agree with whatever theory is not a statistical data, doesn’t prove anything; 2nd, He only did what any respectable man of science does when confronted with new or questionable ideas, DOUBT!! That’s what science is all about

[sweetmikser]

SuburbiaSurvivor said:

@sweetmikser Brilliant video! Most definitely brilliant. Is it okay if I messaged you with some questions about other fallacies of abiogenesis and evolution? Also, are there any actual beneficial mutations and what have you to say about them?

[sweetmikser]

nickmcV123

Well not to be rude once you told me that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing I determined you didn't know what you were talking about no offense.

[sweetmikser]

@nickmcV123 ah, yes, offense. Once a Darwinist drone-tard (such as yourself) barfs up the same old crap and zombie-like foolishness of "abiogenesis has 'nothing to do' with evolution", I basically "determine you don't know what the hell YOU are talking about", and are just a brain-dead loser. Did you even see the quote by that Darwinist who ADMITS that it does uh "have TO DO with it"? Obviously both myths are at least RELATED. "Chemical evolution" etc. Yeah "has to do" with it. INVOLVED in it.

[sweetmikser]

Atharkas said:

@sweetmikser

Thank you for showing you have no idea what abiogenesis is.

Please, actually learn what you are trying to disprove, until then, stay with your fairy tales about a sky tyrant.

[sweetmikser]

@Atharkas sock puppet for nickmc? Regardless, you're also a rude silly arrogant snotty Darwinist loser-tard idiot, who likes to assume things stupidly. I show supposedly that I "don't understand abiogenesis" because I simply point out the problems and issues with the"RNA World Hypothesis"? Or cuz early in the video I address and expose your zombie-head idiotic illogical lie of "abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution" even though both myths would have to be at least biologically RELATED??

[sweetmikser]

@Atharkas (2nd) moron, the Atheist myth of "abiogenesis" (which is NOT "science" but science fiction, and neurotic Atheist wishful thinking and stupidity and superstition), would presumably be something dead (lifeless chemicals and rocks) supposedly "EVOLVING" into something BETTER...and something LIVING. It's called "chemical EVOLUTION". Also, DNA would have to be (if the myth is true) CARRIED OVER...to subsequent life-forms. ONE WHOLE SUPPOSED "EVOLUTIONARY CHAIN". (continued

[sweetmikser]

@Atharkas (3rd) it's all one PRESUMED "CHAIN". "Common ancestor" remember? First cell remember? The very first "link" would be of course "related" to the rest of the mythical Darwinist chain. Get over that fact...and admit...even though "life from dead chemicals" is AN INCONVENIENT SUBJECT for dead-head Darwinists. But it's just one myth along with your many others...such as the phantom "ape-man ancestor" that never existed, or this superstitious "fish ancestry of humans". All related lies.

[sweetmikser]

@Atharkas (4th) so in reality it's maniacs such as YOU who show that "you have no idea what abiogenesis". And I HAVE "learned what I am disproving". I've studied this junk for LITERALLY DECADES NOW. From all sides. Various sources. Don't ASSume. The point is that you don't just say "abiogenesis is not evolution" but also say "has NOTHING TO DO with evolution", which is illogical on its face. Of course it's RELATED...DNA etc. And something "dead" would have to "evolve" into something BETTER.

[sweetmikser]

nickmcV123

"I don't understand it so I'm going to say God did it and go outside"(sarcasm)

[sweetmikser]

jasason10 said:

Ok OK !!! Ill Give you some invisible deity made the first "Cell" To be generous and to be magical! But evolution took it course immediately after "IT" Left.......Into the plants and animals we see today. Is that what we are talking about here? If it is then you can have that.

[sweetmikser]

michaelthomas1234 said:

Yea, i think the self-replicating amino acid chain is more likely than the RNA hypothesis. Nonetheless, that has nothing to do with my athiesm.

You could disprove abio, evolution, and gravity tomorrow. It would not change the fact I don't see evidence for a god. I don't say to myself, "God doesn't exist because science says we evolved".

I don't believe in a God because I don't have any reason to. I cannot find a single supernatural effect on anything. Why believe?

[sweetmikser]

@michaelthomas1234 while I do understand where you're coming from and what you mean (it's not like today we see unmistakably miraculous things happening in front of us, like water turning into blood or wine, or mountains moving divinely), but the point is that there at the very least STRONG IMPLICATIONS for intelligent direction. When you REALLY stop, ponder, and analyze things scientifically. It's argued that the more we know about intricate cells and solar systems, THE MORE GOD IS CONFIRMED.

[sweetmikser]

michaelthomas1234 said:

Every natural phenomenon was once a mystery. Over time we have discovered how most of these work. There are still a few we don't understand, but that does not confirm a god. Complexity of the natural world does not indicate a supernatural world, angels, demons, gods, ghosts or anything of the like. You are justifying holding onto superstitious beliefs with an argument from ignorance.

Give me an example of "strong implications for intelligent direction"

[sweetmikser]

@michaelthomas1234 by strong implications, I'm referring to the right distances, ratios, proportions...that "goldi locks" cannot reasonably explain. From efficient and orderly solar systems to complex bio and eco-systems. The intricacies (and just so gases, etc) are unbelievable, WHEN REALLY HONESTLY EXAMINED AND COGITATED. I can go through a list of "what if" things that tend to blow people's minds, and have even made Agnostics think twice. Protein and DNA complexity to gas proportions etc etc

[sweetmikser]

michaelthomas1234 said:

Saying that these things look complex so they must be designed is an argument from ignorance. For example, the "goldilocks" zone can easily be explained. Planets form as the star forms, from the same cloud of matter. Some land in the right area. Also, we are finding more and more of these planets. There are hund. of billions of stars in just the milky way. Then there are billions of galaxies besides. Having a planet in a certain band is going to happen from time to time.

[sweetmikser]

michaelthomas1234 said:

@sweetmikser I should add that it would seem counterintuitive to have multiple planets in this solar system, probably billions of planets besides, and a host of other structures in outter space if the christian god or allah designed the universe. But that is pointless speculation of course.

[sweetmikser]

michaelthomas1234 said:

@sweetmikser One more thing: I am an agnostic. I know there is some idiotic debate over this, but I have never said there cannot be a god, there certainly isn't a god, or that god has never existed and will never exist. I just don't buy the claims made in some old books. Doesn't make me gnostic. I am still a good old agnostic. And atheist besides.

[sweetmikser]

ndrthrdr1said:

I've noticed a pattern. Most people who use words like "Darwinist" and "evolutionist" think that they have invisible, magical superfriends with whom they can chat telepathically.

[sweetmikser]

@ndrthrdr1 I've noticed a pattern. Most ignorant nuts (such as yourself) who whine about the use of the word "Darwinist" and "Evolutionist" have their heads in their butts (with their silly cocoon of group think) and idiotically (wrongly) think that somehow it was Creationists who invented the words "Darwinist" or "Evolutionist", ignoring the fact that Huxley coined the term "Darwinist" in 1860, a Darwinist himself, in a POSITIVE sense, and used many Darwinists such as Gould etc. Get over it.

[sweetmikser]

@ndrthrdr1 (2nd) also, nice DODGE to the actual points, facts, problems, and issues in the video. To idiotically nit-pick (wrongly, ignorantly, and drone-ishly) on the word "Darwinist", demonstrating what a fool you are, and your cocoon ignorance. Look up the word "Darwinist" on Wikipedia or something, and get owned and pwned there too. You're a Darwinist (or Neo-Darwinist), so stop crowing about it, or denying it. Darwinism has so many SCIENTIFIC flaws, that it barely qualifies as a CONJECTURE.

[sweetmikser]

Voidsworn said:

see your point, however, there is a problem. What if the "atheist" does not believe in evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang (not all do)? If you ask this "atheist" if they believe these things, they can answer "I do not know" due to inadequate logical argument and/or absurdities and lack of empirical evidence and not believe you. They would then function AS IF the claims are false. Theistic claims have the same problem. Dark cheers :)

[sweetmikser]

@Voidsworn while it's true that not all Atheists or Agnostics buy the Darwinian crock, on SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS...(I actually know a couple)...the fact is that THE VAST VAST MAJORITY of Atheists buy and push the Darwinian speculation (calling it "science"), and "abiogenesis", etc, and the purely "naturalist" world view, of goo-to-you, etc. Overwhelming majority it seems. As far as Theism, it would seem that there are at the very least STRONG IMPLICATIONS for intelligent and outside direction.

[sweetmikser]

Voidsworn said:

@sweetmikser Perhaps there are these strong implications for some kind of I.D., IMHO  the best that can be come up with is a (semi-) Deist type God, most certainly not the Abrahamic nor the Hindu or any other concepts that I have encountered.

[sweetmikser]

OWC2000 said:

Slack is a scientist who thinks you can reason with creationists (when you clearly can not) by embracing their nonsense. To try and reconcile a 10,000 year old world with reality is futile.

To suggest that the facts of evolution are false because we do not understand how life first began is ridiculous. Further to assert that 'god did it a hypothesis (LOL) that has no evidence whatsoever is nonsensical.

sweetmikser

[sweetmikser]

LS:

a flaw in science..WOW,you find a flaw in science and try to figure out what the answer can be,science doesn't claim to know all the answers,point out a flaw in science and scientists will try to find the answer,point out a flaw in religion and theists will say:

"guhh golly,god made it to look like that to trick you"or

"golly gosh,god did it god did it."now that's a cop out.

So does finding a flaw in science prove that a'god'exists? if so, how?because you can't think of another way?

LMAO.

[sweetmikser]

@LogicalStatements1 yeah, well the automatic drone-ish attitude of committed Atheists is "errggh, evolution dunnit, evolution dunnit"....or "errrgh, nature done it, nature done" or "natural selection".....which is a form of PANTHEISM. Cloaking PHYSICAL MATTER with the attributes of DEITY AND INTELLIGENCE. They've pretty much said this. "Nature is intelligent and tends towards life and formation." Anything to dismiss an OUTSIDE Intelligence. Materialists can't have that, no no.

[sweetmikser]

jasason10 said:

Ok OK !!! Ill Give you some invisible deity made the first "Cell" To be generous and to be magical! But evolution took it course immediately after "IT" Left.......Into the plants and animals we see today. Is that what we are talking about here? If it is then you can have that.