thanks for expanding on the crystals -- that bugged me that he completely misrepresented those hypotheses. sadly, i think you're barking at a deaf sheep.
Nice video, Panspermia appart. I dont see any problem with the aliens did it verses the big hairy guy in the sky theories. Both have absolutly no evidence of any quality to suporrt their Fantasies. TAA, discusses things with all the intelectual rigour of christian inquiry as conducted at the Mcdonalds church of the last supper with a side order of fries to go. He looks like a poor mans Kevin Costner as well. I'm sure it gets some of those christian girls quite hot they're easily pleased.
3)Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.
2)▪It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.
▪There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible.
RE:2a.Who's the materialist here? I'm a philosophical naturalist. The two things are different.
RE:2b. Actually there is. We have evidence for the series: inorganic chemicals>organic chemicals> self-catalyzing chemicals>self replicating chemicals: to put it extremely simply. We have shown an upward trend in complexity and emergence can occur.
I suggest you examine peer reviewed journals on this topic.
2)And it may very well have. But the fact is that you dont trust it because youve seen proof, you trust it because someone you WANT to trust told you that they had. In this regard, you are NO DIFFERENT from a religious follower.
2). 14 years ago, during my first stint in college I had the opportunity to observe how the measurements of both star and galaxy motion are determined (via type 1a supernova, Cephid variables, red shift, etc) and did calculations regarding the expected and observed microwave background relating to the big bang theory.
Thermodynamics states no such thing. It states that the total energy/matter in a system must be a constant. That constant could very well be zero, as it appears to be with the universe. Obviously zero total energy is not something that is eternal energy. This is of course disregarding your non sequitor.
I can respect your right to hold a belief, though I have no reason to respect the belief itself without valid and demonstrable evidence supporting it.
non believers try to validate God thru scientific evidence when it is faith that reveals God. And i understand that without physical proof it is hard concept to even consider.
yet Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes.
You've just described superstition. It's not a hard concept, it's an illogical and irrational one.
Astronomical? Really? Interesting, since we don't have enough information about the chemical systems involved to make an informed statement of odds. Right now such calculations cannot be made and have any validity.
the odds of life coming together is is less than 1 chance in 1040,000 that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000th is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it.
as far as superstition..
During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.
Where do you get those numbers? What are they based on? Do they take into account emergent self reinforcing chemical systems?
RE: human history.
Of course not. Most of human history consisted of lithic technologies. Our written history only comprises only 0.0001 % of Earth's total history. Our genus has only existed for 0.0008 % of Earth's history.
▪During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.
▪As yet, Evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many other complex elements of the cosmos.
RE:1a And? Again, short time period and small sample size. Nothing can be determined from that.
RE:1b. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Only the divergence of living organisms. It's like claiming that gravity doesn't explain magnetism.
LOL, Now that's a funny one. The only propagandists in this issue are the dishonest and lying creationists. Creationists dishonesty is not simply my opinion, it a matter of legal precedence. Every court case dealing with creationism has shown the dishonest tactics of creationists.
Like I said, research. Learn. Educated yourself. And stay away from creationism.
I've never understood why a person would willingly choose a path of ignorance.
I've read the bible, read christian apologists like Ravi Zachariah. Many atheists have. But suggest to a "believer" that they should learn and educate themselves and they reject the advice.
Is your faith in what you believe to tenuous that any exploration into those things that contradict it threatens it's extinction in you?
lol...your heart may never let you know.(john 12:40)..as far as ignorance, maybe i am, but logically you could be too, dont be so sure that you are the correct one
i am open to science, when more evidence comes in i am willing to accept it if it is proven fact, but just as religion is to you it is all FAITH, however until then...
Curious that you claim that you didn't come to argue, yet that is exactly what you did from the first comment.
Evidence is derived from data, the "facts". The process of evolution is a fact. Decent with modification is a fact. Speciation is a fact. All of these facts support the theory of evolution. The data matters, not your opinion.
Your revelation is your delusion. You believe it because you want to. You have no facts or data for it. Yet you demand such from science. Hypocrite.
1) There are certainly things that are unbelievable about Christianitybut realize that there are crazy theories unproven and postulated by science that are accepted by people all the time without even a shred of proof. Have you ever SEEN a big bang? You trust that it exists because your trusted leaders told you it happened.
science and spirituality are merging science is beginning to prove that there is intelligent design to the universe, if there is then there must be a higher being or beings. I think there is a source from which our souls are created and higher dimentions that are uncomprehendable by the human mind. And to think aliens dont exist is obserd the universe is huge why would they not exist becuase if we are the only ones in the universe then that proves even more of a god
I agree with part of your statement, that science and a sense of spirituality are coming together.
As for intelligent design, not only is it far from being proved, but is slipping further and further away. The more we learn about the universe, the more we see how simple properties produce the emergence of order and apparent design.
Also, I don't think that aliens don't exist, neither do I think they do exist, as a matter of rationality I reserve judgment on this topic.
Please don't take this question the wrong way, i am not a creationist and don't go for sky daddy's, but at about 4.40 you said we know the history of the universe back to within a fraction of a second, how do we know this, how can we even be sure how big or how old the universe is without making any assumptions at all ?
Scientists use observation and inference to answer such a question.
First, we observe the universe; it's expanding, and hence we can calculate when it was all "unified in the past".
As this point quantum mechanics (and inference) take over and we can study the origin of the universe using our colliders. With our super colliders we can simulate the universe to about 10^-40 seconds after the the start of what we call our universe.
Thank you for your reply , the problem i see with observations is, how can we be sure there is nothing beyond the range of the Hubble eye, the universe could stretch a lot further than we currently think it does,after all it's not that long ago we thought galaxy was all there is, now i understand that's not the only observation scientist make or rely on, again please don't take the question the wrong way, i am not trying to nit pick , i just can't see how we can be sure how big the universe is
Actually we're certain that the universe is far larger than we can see. Given the inflationary stage in the early universe when it expanded faster than the speed of light, hence, because we can only see to the extent of that "light barrier" there would be more beyond that (perhaps as much as 80 billion light years across or more).
There's also the indication from m-theory that the universe is only part of a meta-verse. At this point holding judgment until more data is available is prudent.
One last comment regarding the term "assumptions". In everything assumptions are made. It about whether or not those assumptions, once tested, stand with or against the evidence. Basically this is the core of science.
You don't "get" how science works if you don't understand the process of peer reviewed periodicals.
It's not accepted because its printed in a journal, it's accepted if it withstands scrutiny through serious and deliberate criticism even from people who essentially agree.
I have supported the clay theory (not your straw man claim, but then again, that is not the issue) with cited references.
You, on the other hand, have not supported any claim.
As per the constraints I've levied, you post will be removed.
Support your original claim, that clay theory has been ridiculed by scientists. You should be able to find at least one, then well deal with the scope of ridicule, then you'll move on to your other claims.
No. The clay theory is the issue. Whether or not it was rightly ridiculed by Brock (but no scientist that you can find).
Let's go with your numbers: 1-2% of the scientific community. That's a greater percentage than the total field of abiogenesis. So if we accept your numbers, in relation to the actual field, that's large # of scientists that are paying attention to this theory that is outside their own fields.
BTW, I've always substantiated my claims in this. You're the coward that has yet to provide verifiable evidence for a single thing you've said. You appear to have tried once or twice but those were failures (one wasn't a scientist, the other was on a totally different subject).
And don't project your failures on to me. Man up and accept responsibility for them.
In other words, once again, provide evidence for your claims.
Screw you. You have acted like a morally bankrupt weasel, offering nothing but thin accusations, baseless insults, projections of your own behavior and NOTHING in the way of evidence. I will give you a modicum of credit though, because I can tell from your reasonably well crafted subterfuge that your not as stupid as your average creationist; and therefore it's obvious you must be well aware of the continuous dishonesty you've brought to this debate. Socal has mopped the floor with you.
Wow. I have been coming back to this several times a day just to check up on this debate and although it's been entertaining I have to ask, do you actually believe that you have been acting honestly? You have been asked over and over again to provide the slightest bit of evidence in your favor and you haven't and answer with only more baseless insults and unsubstantiated claims. I'm amazed that SoCal has the patience to deal with you. I guess you really enjoy destroying your respectability.
Yeah, well this douche is pretty tricky but you've done a great job at calling him out on it every step of the way with common sense and an excellent grasp of the subjects at hand. It amazes me that in the face of such thorough logic he doesn't tuck his tail between his legs and ska-daddle, he just comes back with more lame ass b.s. I guess these are the tactics of those without integrity... Anyhow keep it up! We need all the sharp, rational thinkers we can get in this world!
As for "MORE actually DO". Who are these? Even Crick, who back in the sixties posited directed panspermia had changed his mind on that by the nineties. Indeed, he even became a minor supporter of the clay theory re: polymerization of monomers. (you know, I'm not even sure you understand those terms).
So once again, I call bullshit. Provide supporting evidence and stop dodging by assaulting me with a barrage of inane questions and challenges until you meet your own challenges.
I didn't backpedal in the least. I have no need to.
"Crystals to life" was a straw man. Clay theory claims that silicate crystals had an important part in some of the chemical pathway that led to life, not that the silicate crystals were solely responsible for life. And Brock did mock a verified theory, one he, and you, knew nothing about.
Who are these "most researchers"? Sounds like another bullshit claim from you. Back it up.
Those that are dismissed generally are done so due to human error, or a variable that wasn't taken into account. Clay theory re: polymerization of organic monomers has past because it has been verified many times by many scientists. You can't beat it, it is a fact that silicate clays polymerize organic monomers forming a host of organic polymers from lipids to RNA.
Now where's your evidence for all those unsupported claims you've made? Still waiting on those.
I'm ignorant, yet you're the one that makes claims and has nothing to support them.
Also, I freely admit that conclusions found in peer reviewed journal articles could be wrong (I've even stated this, another dishonest claim from you).
However, the work done has to be impeccable. and the outcomes verifiable. Even if the conclusion is in error. They are not silly, they are not "thrashed" they are not "discredited", they are dismissed (the only time you've been correct).
You are literally in a quagmire of unsupported claim after unsupported claim. Do you really think I take anything you say with even a grain of salt?
You've been shown to be dishonest and utterly ignorant on the subject at hand. And now you show yourself utterly ignorant regarding peer reviewed journals. Do you know how difficult it is for one to be published in such journals? Don't make any more unsupported claims.
Some may have been wrong about the scope of their topics, but silly, never.
A handful that I personally know from articles of theirs I've read.
As for peer reviewed journals, one thing that is necessary to publish in such journals is that the work done has to.
1. be excellent in quality.
2. must be reproducible.
3. must be verifiable.
Hence, that work is valid. Also, you do realize that work published in journals is generally very specific, say like clays catalyzing polymers from monomers.
Down right silly? Sounds like you need to produce more evidence for a new claim.
Don't misrepresent these people, or myself as "believing" in the clay theory as you'd believe in a god. Clay theory makes a few predictions regarding how polymers form from monomers. This prediction has been demonstrated as the peer reviewed journal articles have shown.
BTW, I teach music currently. There isn't any music I cannot face.
However, you still have yet to demonstrate the validity of your earlier claims. Looks like you're not much of a musician. Indeed, you appear rather tone deaf.
Also, we've dealt with the Dennett statement already. You bringing it up again when it has already been shown to be a quote mine (and a really bad one at that), just provides even more evidence for your absolute lack of honesty.
You are pathetic, as demonstrated by your panicked grasping at already cut straws.
As for Dennett. You're are referring to an article in Nature (vol 381). This article was not referring to Cairns-Smith's clay theory, but his comments regarding consciousness. And here, the term "incoherence" is paired with "quantum" as in "Quantum Incoherence". It's a catchy title used in Dennet's review of one of -Smith's books.
Swing and a miss on all. You really should look into what you think you've found. You're failing at every turn. Face it, you're wrong, from start to finish.
I've seen Tim Tyler's web page. Under his personal information he lists many interests, yet at no point does he provide credentials. Hence, you have still not met the challenge, unless you can find his sources.
Also, let's make it clear, valid criticism is not ridicule and opinionated criticism is not valid criticism.
You have the burden of proof, you'd have to prove to me that you are a repeatable source.
Yet given your quote mines, straw men and other dishonest behaviors, you certainly would have to prove a considerable amount. Not to mention, you didn't even know who proposed the clay theory and attributed it to someone else.
Given what I just mentioned, and your past comments, I think that demonstrate rather well that you are no repeatable source for anything.
You keep making claims yet never provide any supporting evidence for them. You are a dishonest liar.
Now, if you disagree that you are a dishonest liar, then provide evidence supporting your claim that scientist ridicule clay theory and that clay theory is fringe science. Because all the evidence points the other way, proving you wrong.
And your reference to fringe is rather well refuted by the main stream peer reviewed journals that carry the work of the scientists that actually work in the field of organic chemistry (Science 13 February 2004 303: 963-965, NATURE | VOL 418 | 11 JULY 2002, Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 10.1007/BF00926908, and on I could go).
You claim, re: "fringe" is easily refuted, just search science journals.
Your claim, re: "ridicule" remains unverified and unfounded.
I don't have to believe that you are dishonest. Your tactics are demonstrable evidence to that fact.
So again, provide your demonstrable supporting evidence for your original claim that scientists ridicule the clay theory. Otherwise, you have nothing more to say.
Your dishonesty (in quote mining, straw manning, pulling shit out of your ass) is pretty much the M.O. of all creationists. Why? Because you have nothing. You have no alternative hypothesis that is testable (it invoke an untestable god), you have no evidence against the sciences such as evolution and abiogenesis.
All you have is empty, baseless rhetoric.
From now on you have only one job in this comment section, to prove your original claim, that clay theory is ridiculed.
That's almost a direct quote mine from Expelled. He was asked that regarding the possibility of alien life being responsible for life on Earth. He didn't comment on abiogenesis.
Now you've straw maned me (again).
Remember, you originally claimed that the clay theory was ridiculed, I've argued that it hasn't been and is indeed a well treated idea in abiogenesis. I never claimed that clay theory was the only theory regarding polymerization.
An uninformed # based on no knowledge of the field. It's out of your ass and completely meaningless.
We are getting closer to life. We've found natural systems that produce organic molecules (that's a step closer), we've natural systems that polymerize those molecules (another step), chemical systems that are metabolic pathways (another step), chemical systems that can encapsulate (yet another step), and so on.
Wow, implied false dichotomy and straw man all in the same comment.
I never claimed that all scientists agree with the clay model, only that it's a valid model with demonstrable evidence supporting it. Also, I called bullshit on your claim that it is a theory that is ridiculed.
Do you creationist love making up your own realities or what?
BTW, those books also cover many other abiogenetic theories, not just clay theory. You really should read them rather than guess.
Actually, these chemical systems very closely resemble life. The only real difference is they're currently looked at separately, while in life (actually a difficult term to define BTW) they are all integrated.
We've also had 60 years knowing how the sun functions and cannot make a star (even a small one), but we can reproduce its heart (fusion). Same with abiogenesis. We cannot show all the steps, but we can show several of the possible steps.
Ridiculed by who? Those like you and Brock that do not have the education to properly examine it? I'm not concerned there.
As for the scientists that do have that education, well, I've not seen any evidence of ridicule. And you have certainly failed to show such. So it looks like there's nothing for me to get used to.
Also, labs are stand ins for natural conditions. A place we can control variables to see how they effect the overall system. What works in the lab also works in nature.
Organic molecules form naturally under many different conditions.
Those organic molecules form many chemical pathways associated with: replication, metabolism, encapsulation.
That organic molecules naturally form more complex emergent systems.
All in all, there's sufficient data providing demonstrable evidence in support of abiogenesis that I can say with a high degree of certainty that we are just in search of the nuances of "how". It happened, as certain as gravity.
Important to supporting one of the core aspects of clay theory. Not abiogenesis as a whole, there are other chemical pathways for polymerization. It's one piece in the puzzle, or one frame in the movie. Polymerization can also occur at boundary layers, as with PAH's (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons).
And yes, such steps, and not necessarily clay theory, are expected. And many have been found.
Abiogenesis is a new field, yet it his already discovered so much.
Not in the least.Indeed it is becoming more and more an important part of the collection of testable hypotheses under the umbrella of abiogenesis. The recent work I mentioned earlier (nature doi 10.1038), is the latest, and most impressive since it actually verifies one of the earlier aspects of the clay theory regarding drying and hydrating cycles being important to the polymerization of organic monomers.
q2 If Dennet was talking about clay theory maybe, but he wasn't.
This is a perfect example (though a simplistic one) of a quote mine. Taking a persons world and presenting them in a way that makes them appear to say something other than they actually said.
I haven't even looked to see who you claim is supposedly ridiculing the hypothesis. It's your job to divulge that information.
As for going to google; occasionally I do as do you (pretty obvious when checking on your quotes).
As for knowing Cairns-Smith (Ruse spoke on the hypothesis but he is not the originator of it), remember those books I mentioned in the video. Both feature segments on Cairns-Smith, as well as many other scientists.
I applaud you on you attempt. You've put more effort in to this than any creationist I've seen in a long time. Yet, you've failed to support your statement that scientists ridicule Cairns-Smith's hypothesis.
So good. Now no more dodging on any burdens you have. You make a claim, you back it up, if you cannot, then retract it, or don't make it in the first place.
Yay, a creationist math geek. He's speaking outside his discipline (Research Area: Games Technology and Computer Graphics) hence his comments are at best opinion, and more obviously uninformed.
BTW, creation affiliated persons carry no weight with me unless they provide demonstrable evidence for their position. Not empty, dodging rhetoric.
3 shots and 3 misses. Good consistency there. The last one was basically behind your back with your eyes closed.
Interesting that you'd choose an atheist, evolutionary biologist and geneticist here. Though he's not a organic or biochemist. But notice one thing here, he isn't ridiculing Cairns-Smith or his hypothesis, and this entire statement is opinion as we indicated by "and I think".
He is also a supporter of abiogenesis, pretty much undermining your position. Good job at self "pwnage".
Ah, a proponent of the metabolism first clade of abiogenesis researchers. Fair enough, something finally here. However, even Shapiro accepts that life originated from non-life via natural, emergent chemical pathways. He simply places metabolism before replication.
However, he does not ridicule the other hypothesis. This was also taken from 9 years ago, much evidence has come since then that indicates that, yes, replicators, even RNA can form.(Richard Van Noorden, Nature doi10.1038)
Burden of proof is also in both philosophy and in science, it's not just judicial.
I've met the burden by citing those that have actually worked on the subject. You have not.
Simply saying "I am correctly telling you..." and so on does not provide any demonstrable evidence of your position. Basically you're dodging. Produce your demonstrable evidence.
tip: if you actually knew about this subject you wouldn't have incorrectly credited Crick with the hypothesis.
So simply because he refuses too look at the evidence and remains ignorant that makes him impervious to any sort of liability?
He has been shown his statements are wrong. He has lied before such as calling ida a cat for some unknown reason. He then simply edits the video taking out the blatant lie and acts as if nothing happened.
I can show you to peer reviewed articles that do show many of the chemical pathways that would be necessary for life to originate naturally (of course there are still questions and I admit that freely). In fact, I have. I can show you peer reviewed articles regarding the evidence in the geologic record for early life. I have the data on my side, what do you have?
As for your question, that is not what I believe or accept.
As for something coming from nothing, that's never been my position so where is my burden there? Or did you just assume that atheists like my self have that kind of belief? Been listening to close to the empty rhetoric of Brock and others like him have you? Did you even consider asking an atheist on their position regarding "coming from nothing"? I doubt it. You're like Brock, not wanting to learn, but wanting to spread manure instead.
Here's another claim that you need to provide supporting evidence for. And it requires a few steps.
1. provide an empirical and consistent definition of this god you posit.
2. Provide supporting, demonstrable evidence for the existence of this god.
3. Then show that the arguments atheist posit relate to a god concept or definition that deviates from the empirical and consistent definition you offer.
With out those steps, your charge here is irrelevant.
You've heard of burden of proof, right? My claim was that work regarding polymerization of organic polymers by crystals in clays have been show to be a valid organic chemistry
pathway. I met the burden of proof on that.
Your burden is in regards to finding scientist that have ridiculed the clay hypothesis. You've failed to meet that challenge and appear to be trying to sidestep the issue. Basically, you're showing that your claim was bullshit.
This comment shows your lack of knowledge regarding "Laws of Science". Often those "Laws" refer to specific, and often hypothetical cases, such as the 2nd law regarding closed systems (to date, no one has ever found a demonstrable closed system). Laws are also very specific regarding the conditions they deal with. The law of biogenesis only deals with modern organism coming into existence fully formed from non-living matter. It is not applicable to abiogenesis and organic chemistry.
Is valid only with modern organisms. It is not valid regarding abiogenesis (kind of like Newtonian laws are not valid regarding black holes) which is the stepwise emergence of more and more complicated organic systems, until we approach what we generally call "life" (a term that is itself not well defined). Indeed, it has to be false to some regard or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
little magic man in the sky done it?? god is not a man, because he created man, so he cant create himself, science has nothing on life but made up "theorys" and each time "scientists" like dawkins is put on the spot, they make somthing else up or add another million years on to their theory.
I call bullshit on you claim here. Provide a list of so-call "PRO-evolutionist" researchers that ridicule clay as a polymer catalyst today. Nothing older than 1990 will be accepted (If you want to know why, then you don't know science).
As for the experiments and experimenters: Noam Lohav (1978)
No, but I've got a diagnosis for your, Brock's and Ben Stein's "special sort of retardation": You all will stop at nothing to completely distort the truth in an effort to make the world conform to your narrow belief system, arrogantly disputing facts and sticking up for those who misrepresent the truth to the point of blatant lies... If you cared more about honesty rather than blindly cheering on those that espouse your beliefs then you could simply not even attempt to defend Brock's video.
RNA is just "imagining how things might"? Yeah, and that space-time is warped by gravity is all imagination too. Pal, we have the experiments, the data, that support many elements of the RNA world (not universe, again showing your ignorance on the subject). The same is true regarding silica and other mineral crystals in clay.
In the end, its not about "science words" it's the data, we have it. The creationists have nothing. Absolutely nothing, except empty rhetoric, like what you bring here.
To simply state that scientists believed life came from crystals (mockingly), does not detail the reasons we the clay crystal hypothesis is looked at as valid. You need to know the chemistry.
The possibility of going to the moon was thought to only be sci-fi. Though scientists knew it was possible, because they knew the details.
Details are everything and Brock either ignores them or is ignorant of them. When the details are known, Brock's (and your) claims fail to have any merit.
More details are need to understand. It's like teaching music. I can't simply point at the staff, tell the student the notes and let them play. They have to learn much more, for years, to understand the nuances about playing and reading music.
The same goes for science. Silica crystals in clays have been shown to catalyze the very polymers that can self replicate and hence are an important part of abiogenesis as a science. They're not the only chem pathway, but they are a very likely one.
Brock's clips? A cut up version of an already cut up interview. Have you watched Expelled? The Dawkins interview? Watch it closely and pay attention to details, like the cuts. In many places you can tell where the cuts are made to make Dawkins appear to say something that he didn't say.
You can also listen to Dawkins talk about it himself.
watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM
So no, I didn't blow it. Your gullibility caused you to blow it. You were so convinced, you weren't even willing to look further into it.
Looking at claims, like the ones that creationists make, in sufficient detail does refute the creationist claims.
Brock's quote mine of Dawkins is an example. Brock tried to make Dawkins out as some ufo alien nut through quote mining. Looking at greater detail into the the Dawkins interview shows Brock to be a dishonest quote miner.
The same is true about the crystals (and your mistake as to who is responsible for the hypothesis).
Details and facts refute Brock, you and all creationists.
Just asserting? Try correcting. And what I stated is demonstrable.
The hypothesis regarding crystals wasn't Crick's it was Cairns-Smith. My description of what a quote mine is was also correct.
You cannot deduce anything valid from Brock's video, the data is corrupted.
What you've shown here is a complete disregard for valid, demonstrable, facts. Pretty much what all creationist are guilty of. You've tried to twist out of the fact that you have nothing supporting your assertions.
Thanks for showing exactly how little you know. And that is the same problem that Brock has, he is ignorant, and dishonest. He doesn't know about these sciences, yet pretends to have some knowledge about them. He's plagiarized, quote mined, censured, etc. And those actions of his are demonstrable.
Just as your lack of knowledge is demonstrable. However, you've not yet been dishonest from what I've seen.
As for quote mining, it is not the same as quoting. Quote mining is to take a piece of what some has said, and present it in such a way that it appears to contradict what they originally stated or the position they hold. It's a dishonest practice.
The clay hypothesis was posited by Alexander Cairns-Smith, not Crick. Crick posited that life may have formed in space or on another body and was transported here, naturally.
You're using quite a few words here pal, but you're not really saying much.
For instance: where do I not make sense? Pointing out the Dawkins interview was a quote mine? Pointing out that clay mineral crystals do play an important part in organic chemistry? Etc.
You issued a complaint but cited no supporting evidence. Perhaps my discussion went over your head. Your looking like a whiny little uneducated creationist to me.
It's almost not worth it to make a video that directly addresses Brock. He doesn't care. He knows he quote mined (he admitted as much in the comments section of the video you're responding to), but he just doesn't care... he gets off by lying for Jesus.
Exactly. I was going to make a similar comment pointing out that Brock isn't ignorant as to the facts, he just ignores them, but you basically beat me to it.
I know, I just couldn't think of his name while recording this video. I had been listening to Glen Beck earlier and that's that only name I could think of.
The day in which knowledge, facts and the truth are regarded as important universally in society will never come with overly religious lunatics like Brock.
Brock is utterly incapable of anything approaching intellectual honesty. I used to view him as a poor, deluded idiot. His last video finally made me realize that he is a willful liar who cares nothing of facts or evidence and only does what he does to make a personal profit by selling CDs and paraphernalia with his logo on it to idiots who don't know any better.
pretty much. i've given up on brock. he's not on youtube to have discussions. he's on here to hear his own voice and see his face on the internet. facts, logic, rational argument will never get through to him because he simply doesnt care.
SoCal, i'd stop wasting your time with such a willfully ignorant guy.
again, he just simply doesn't care about whether or not his claims are right or wrong. he's here to build an audience for himself and to have people buy his music and have his voice heard.
whatever praise he gets from the other christian drones on here, he'll be jerking his ego off with. whatever resistance he meets, he'll chalk it up to christian persecution on youtube by the godless atheists.
whatever you do, you're just giving him what he wants. best to stop giving him any attention.
The bible is like a gigantic wikipedia article with no sources.
TheThrashAnvil 1 year ago
i dont believe in aliens
TrollCatcher2010 1 year ago
thanks for expanding on the crystals -- that bugged me that he completely misrepresented those hypotheses. sadly, i think you're barking at a deaf sheep.
FluffyFeralMarmot 2 years ago
You're welcome. These videos are more for other views than for Brock. He's dishonest and dense as a blackhole.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Brock is gleefully and willfully ignorant
jdbadboy 2 years ago
Nice video, Panspermia appart. I dont see any problem with the aliens did it verses the big hairy guy in the sky theories. Both have absolutly no evidence of any quality to suporrt their Fantasies. TAA, discusses things with all the intelectual rigour of christian inquiry as conducted at the Mcdonalds church of the last supper with a side order of fries to go. He looks like a poor mans Kevin Costner as well. I'm sure it gets some of those christian girls quite hot they're easily pleased.
ooglebydoogleby 2 years ago
lol....let it go
h2omanz 2 years ago
was just stating at first that my "belief" is no differ than yours
-thats all
and that God is proven thru Faith, Science is "in your opinion" proven with fact
the data matters, not my opinion, im a hypocrite, im delusional
thanks for all the subtle insults....
h2omanz 2 years ago
Your belief is very different from mine.
Ex.1. "A" has faith that "G" is god. "B" has faith that "Z" is god. Who's right? Can that even be determined via faith statements?
Ex. 2. The rate of chemical "X" synthesis is "T" minutes. "A" can test this. "B" can test this.
A conclusion can be made regarding the rate of "X"'s synthesis. It can be determined.
Your faith is incapable of divining true of any type.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
3)Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.
h2omanz 2 years ago
RE:3. Ever hear of reverse transcriptase? Its RNA that produces DNA.
Again, look to the actual research, it's out there. Stay away from creationist websites, they are full of misinformation and out right lies.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
2)▪It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.
▪There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible.
h2omanz 2 years ago
RE:2a.Who's the materialist here? I'm a philosophical naturalist. The two things are different.
RE:2b. Actually there is. We have evidence for the series: inorganic chemicals>organic chemicals> self-catalyzing chemicals>self replicating chemicals: to put it extremely simply. We have shown an upward trend in complexity and emergence can occur.
I suggest you examine peer reviewed journals on this topic.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
2)And it may very well have. But the fact is that you dont trust it because youve seen proof, you trust it because someone you WANT to trust told you that they had. In this regard, you are NO DIFFERENT from a religious follower.
h2omanz 2 years ago
Hmm.
1). You're assuming that I haven't seen it.
2). 14 years ago, during my first stint in college I had the opportunity to observe how the measurements of both star and galaxy motion are determined (via type 1a supernova, Cephid variables, red shift, etc) and did calculations regarding the expected and observed microwave background relating to the big bang theory.
So yes, I have seen it.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
3). The data is in the literature. You can yourself make the calculations and compare them.
Hence, there is "proof". Claiming that there isn't is lack of research on your part.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the Universe and from theoretical considerations.
my belief in thermodynamics in which the first rule is an eternal energy source.....God
respect your beliefs this is just mine
h2omanz 2 years ago
Thermodynamics states no such thing. It states that the total energy/matter in a system must be a constant. That constant could very well be zero, as it appears to be with the universe. Obviously zero total energy is not something that is eternal energy. This is of course disregarding your non sequitor.
I can respect your right to hold a belief, though I have no reason to respect the belief itself without valid and demonstrable evidence supporting it.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
non believers try to validate God thru scientific evidence when it is faith that reveals God. And i understand that without physical proof it is hard concept to even consider.
yet Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes.
dont want argue
best to you
h2omanz 2 years ago
You've just described superstition. It's not a hard concept, it's an illogical and irrational one.
Astronomical? Really? Interesting, since we don't have enough information about the chemical systems involved to make an informed statement of odds. Right now such calculations cannot be made and have any validity.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
the odds of life coming together is is less than 1 chance in 1040,000 that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000th is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it.
as far as superstition..
During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.
h2omanz 2 years ago
Where do you get those numbers? What are they based on? Do they take into account emergent self reinforcing chemical systems?
RE: human history.
Of course not. Most of human history consisted of lithic technologies. Our written history only comprises only 0.0001 % of Earth's total history. Our genus has only existed for 0.0008 % of Earth's history.
Not much time to see anything really.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
1)more stats
▪During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.
▪As yet, Evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many other complex elements of the cosmos.
h2omanz 2 years ago
RE:1a And? Again, short time period and small sample size. Nothing can be determined from that.
RE:1b. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Only the divergence of living organisms. It's like claiming that gravity doesn't explain magnetism.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
i will stay away from propaganda websites preaching evolution, lies are that of man and not of God words
h2omanz 2 years ago
LOL, Now that's a funny one. The only propagandists in this issue are the dishonest and lying creationists. Creationists dishonesty is not simply my opinion, it a matter of legal precedence. Every court case dealing with creationism has shown the dishonest tactics of creationists.
Like I said, research. Learn. Educated yourself. And stay away from creationism.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
thanks,but no thanks
best to you
h2omanz 2 years ago
I've never understood why a person would willingly choose a path of ignorance.
I've read the bible, read christian apologists like Ravi Zachariah. Many atheists have. But suggest to a "believer" that they should learn and educate themselves and they reject the advice.
Is your faith in what you believe to tenuous that any exploration into those things that contradict it threatens it's extinction in you?
Is it really that weak?
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
lol...your heart may never let you know.(john 12:40)..as far as ignorance, maybe i am, but logically you could be too, dont be so sure that you are the correct one
i am open to science, when more evidence comes in i am willing to accept it if it is proven fact, but just as religion is to you it is all FAITH, however until then...
h2omanz 2 years ago
Ah, blaming your god's impotence.
I know I am ignorant about a great many things, why do you think I study, learn and educate myself?
Your open to science when evidence comes in? The evidence is there. Here's a list of books to start with.
"Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters" by Prothero.
"Why Evolution is True" by Coyne
"Genesis" by Hazen
"Life's Origin" by Schopf
Of course, nothing beats a formal education.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
again didnt come to argue
plenty of books that argue your suggested books
and most of the evidence is not really fact (in my opinion)and can be argued
this kinda debate will go on for ever and is pointless
i know God is real thru the bible and what has been revealed to me you believe science
thru science books, its a moral decision everyone makes
h2omanz 2 years ago
Curious that you claim that you didn't come to argue, yet that is exactly what you did from the first comment.
Evidence is derived from data, the "facts". The process of evolution is a fact. Decent with modification is a fact. Speciation is a fact. All of these facts support the theory of evolution. The data matters, not your opinion.
Your revelation is your delusion. You believe it because you want to. You have no facts or data for it. Yet you demand such from science. Hypocrite.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
1) There are certainly things that are unbelievable about Christianitybut realize that there are crazy theories unproven and postulated by science that are accepted by people all the time without even a shred of proof. Have you ever SEEN a big bang? You trust that it exists because your trusted leaders told you it happened.
h2omanz 2 years ago
science and spirituality are merging science is beginning to prove that there is intelligent design to the universe, if there is then there must be a higher being or beings. I think there is a source from which our souls are created and higher dimentions that are uncomprehendable by the human mind. And to think aliens dont exist is obserd the universe is huge why would they not exist becuase if we are the only ones in the universe then that proves even more of a god
seemore3434 2 years ago
I agree with part of your statement, that science and a sense of spirituality are coming together.
As for intelligent design, not only is it far from being proved, but is slipping further and further away. The more we learn about the universe, the more we see how simple properties produce the emergence of order and apparent design.
Also, I don't think that aliens don't exist, neither do I think they do exist, as a matter of rationality I reserve judgment on this topic.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
good rebuttal.
HRRyan2 2 years ago
christians are utterly retarded, delusional, useless, and blindly dedicated to the biggest hoax of mankind's history.
druidjoe 2 years ago
I was really happy to see this video! I was irritated by TheAA mocking crystals. I had read what you said about mineral crystals.
And the rest of your refutation is superb.
Why is this video not coupled to his?
I don't think he has enough intellectual baggage to be able to understand what you explain here.
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
I couldn't post this as a response because he blocked me. Common M.O. for those like him.
Thanks for kind words and comment.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Please don't take this question the wrong way, i am not a creationist and don't go for sky daddy's, but at about 4.40 you said we know the history of the universe back to within a fraction of a second, how do we know this, how can we even be sure how big or how old the universe is without making any assumptions at all ?
CHASCHARLTON 2 years ago
Very good question.
Scientists use observation and inference to answer such a question.
First, we observe the universe; it's expanding, and hence we can calculate when it was all "unified in the past".
As this point quantum mechanics (and inference) take over and we can study the origin of the universe using our colliders. With our super colliders we can simulate the universe to about 10^-40 seconds after the the start of what we call our universe.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Thank you for your reply , the problem i see with observations is, how can we be sure there is nothing beyond the range of the Hubble eye, the universe could stretch a lot further than we currently think it does,after all it's not that long ago we thought galaxy was all there is, now i understand that's not the only observation scientist make or rely on, again please don't take the question the wrong way, i am not trying to nit pick , i just can't see how we can be sure how big the universe is
CHASCHARLTON 2 years ago
Actually we're certain that the universe is far larger than we can see. Given the inflationary stage in the early universe when it expanded faster than the speed of light, hence, because we can only see to the extent of that "light barrier" there would be more beyond that (perhaps as much as 80 billion light years across or more).
There's also the indication from m-theory that the universe is only part of a meta-verse. At this point holding judgment until more data is available is prudent.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
One last comment regarding the term "assumptions". In everything assumptions are made. It about whether or not those assumptions, once tested, stand with or against the evidence. Basically this is the core of science.
Thanks again.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
You don't "get" how science works if you don't understand the process of peer reviewed periodicals.
It's not accepted because its printed in a journal, it's accepted if it withstands scrutiny through serious and deliberate criticism even from people who essentially agree.
JrobHartley 2 years ago
Nope, you're free to post under the constraints.
I have supported the clay theory (not your straw man claim, but then again, that is not the issue) with cited references.
You, on the other hand, have not supported any claim.
As per the constraints I've levied, you post will be removed.
Support your original claim, that clay theory has been ridiculed by scientists. You should be able to find at least one, then well deal with the scope of ridicule, then you'll move on to your other claims.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
One last thing ElP. I'm issuing a new rule specifically for you. I will remove any future posts of yours until you deal with your burden of proof on:
"scientists ridicule" clay theory.
Remember, all future posts to me that are off this topic will be removed.
If you support your claim or admit that you were fabricating your claim, then we'll move on to other claims you've made that you have yet to support.
Once all your claims have been dealt with, then you can ask me further questions.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
No. The clay theory is the issue. Whether or not it was rightly ridiculed by Brock (but no scientist that you can find).
Let's go with your numbers: 1-2% of the scientific community. That's a greater percentage than the total field of abiogenesis. So if we accept your numbers, in relation to the actual field, that's large # of scientists that are paying attention to this theory that is outside their own fields.
See why I don't bullshit numbers like you do?
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Provide your supporting evidence.
BTW, I've always substantiated my claims in this. You're the coward that has yet to provide verifiable evidence for a single thing you've said. You appear to have tried once or twice but those were failures (one wasn't a scientist, the other was on a totally different subject).
And don't project your failures on to me. Man up and accept responsibility for them.
In other words, once again, provide evidence for your claims.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Screw you. You have acted like a morally bankrupt weasel, offering nothing but thin accusations, baseless insults, projections of your own behavior and NOTHING in the way of evidence. I will give you a modicum of credit though, because I can tell from your reasonably well crafted subterfuge that your not as stupid as your average creationist; and therefore it's obvious you must be well aware of the continuous dishonesty you've brought to this debate. Socal has mopped the floor with you.
vadimcream 2 years ago
Wow. I have been coming back to this several times a day just to check up on this debate and although it's been entertaining I have to ask, do you actually believe that you have been acting honestly? You have been asked over and over again to provide the slightest bit of evidence in your favor and you haven't and answer with only more baseless insults and unsubstantiated claims. I'm amazed that SoCal has the patience to deal with you. I guess you really enjoy destroying your respectability.
vadimcream 2 years ago
Thanks for your interest and you kind comments.
I teach children, and have done so for 17 years. Patience is my greatest vice (I shouldn't be as patient as I am with those like ElP, I know this).
ElP just stands as further evidence regarding creationist tactics and honesty.
Thanks again.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Yeah, well this douche is pretty tricky but you've done a great job at calling him out on it every step of the way with common sense and an excellent grasp of the subjects at hand. It amazes me that in the face of such thorough logic he doesn't tuck his tail between his legs and ska-daddle, he just comes back with more lame ass b.s. I guess these are the tactics of those without integrity... Anyhow keep it up! We need all the sharp, rational thinkers we can get in this world!
vadimcream 2 years ago 2
As for "MORE actually DO". Who are these? Even Crick, who back in the sixties posited directed panspermia had changed his mind on that by the nineties. Indeed, he even became a minor supporter of the clay theory re: polymerization of monomers. (you know, I'm not even sure you understand those terms).
So once again, I call bullshit. Provide supporting evidence and stop dodging by assaulting me with a barrage of inane questions and challenges until you meet your own challenges.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
I didn't backpedal in the least. I have no need to.
"Crystals to life" was a straw man. Clay theory claims that silicate crystals had an important part in some of the chemical pathway that led to life, not that the silicate crystals were solely responsible for life. And Brock did mock a verified theory, one he, and you, knew nothing about.
Who are these "most researchers"? Sounds like another bullshit claim from you. Back it up.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Those that are dismissed generally are done so due to human error, or a variable that wasn't taken into account. Clay theory re: polymerization of organic monomers has past because it has been verified many times by many scientists. You can't beat it, it is a fact that silicate clays polymerize organic monomers forming a host of organic polymers from lipids to RNA.
Now where's your evidence for all those unsupported claims you've made? Still waiting on those.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
I'm ignorant, yet you're the one that makes claims and has nothing to support them.
Also, I freely admit that conclusions found in peer reviewed journal articles could be wrong (I've even stated this, another dishonest claim from you).
However, the work done has to be impeccable. and the outcomes verifiable. Even if the conclusion is in error. They are not silly, they are not "thrashed" they are not "discredited", they are dismissed (the only time you've been correct).
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
You are literally in a quagmire of unsupported claim after unsupported claim. Do you really think I take anything you say with even a grain of salt?
You've been shown to be dishonest and utterly ignorant on the subject at hand. And now you show yourself utterly ignorant regarding peer reviewed journals. Do you know how difficult it is for one to be published in such journals? Don't make any more unsupported claims.
Some may have been wrong about the scope of their topics, but silly, never.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
A handful that I personally know from articles of theirs I've read.
As for peer reviewed journals, one thing that is necessary to publish in such journals is that the work done has to.
1. be excellent in quality.
2. must be reproducible.
3. must be verifiable.
Hence, that work is valid. Also, you do realize that work published in journals is generally very specific, say like clays catalyzing polymers from monomers.
Down right silly? Sounds like you need to produce more evidence for a new claim.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Don't misrepresent these people, or myself as "believing" in the clay theory as you'd believe in a god. Clay theory makes a few predictions regarding how polymers form from monomers. This prediction has been demonstrated as the peer reviewed journal articles have shown.
BTW, I teach music currently. There isn't any music I cannot face.
However, you still have yet to demonstrate the validity of your earlier claims. Looks like you're not much of a musician. Indeed, you appear rather tone deaf.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
I won't guess at a number. I can provide some scientist that I know of.
Richard Van Noorden (published in Nature)
Gerald Joyce (Scrips institute here in my home town published in Science)
Cairns-Smith (published in Science)
Leslie E. Orgel (published in Science)
Here's a hand full.
Of course your biased representation of them and their work (they've worked on more than clay catalyzed polymerization of organic monomers).
Clay theory is just one part of a larger field of science.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Also, we've dealt with the Dennett statement already. You bringing it up again when it has already been shown to be a quote mine (and a really bad one at that), just provides even more evidence for your absolute lack of honesty.
You are pathetic, as demonstrated by your panicked grasping at already cut straws.
Now find something real or admit your dishonesty.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
As for Dennett. You're are referring to an article in Nature (vol 381). This article was not referring to Cairns-Smith's clay theory, but his comments regarding consciousness. And here, the term "incoherence" is paired with "quantum" as in "Quantum Incoherence". It's a catchy title used in Dennet's review of one of -Smith's books.
Swing and a miss on all. You really should look into what you think you've found. You're failing at every turn. Face it, you're wrong, from start to finish.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
I've seen Tim Tyler's web page. Under his personal information he lists many interests, yet at no point does he provide credentials. Hence, you have still not met the challenge, unless you can find his sources.
Also, let's make it clear, valid criticism is not ridicule and opinionated criticism is not valid criticism.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
You have the burden of proof, you'd have to prove to me that you are a repeatable source.
Yet given your quote mines, straw men and other dishonest behaviors, you certainly would have to prove a considerable amount. Not to mention, you didn't even know who proposed the clay theory and attributed it to someone else.
Given what I just mentioned, and your past comments, I think that demonstrate rather well that you are no repeatable source for anything.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
You keep making claims yet never provide any supporting evidence for them. You are a dishonest liar.
Now, if you disagree that you are a dishonest liar, then provide evidence supporting your claim that scientist ridicule clay theory and that clay theory is fringe science. Because all the evidence points the other way, proving you wrong.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
You are no source.
And your reference to fringe is rather well refuted by the main stream peer reviewed journals that carry the work of the scientists that actually work in the field of organic chemistry (Science 13 February 2004 303: 963-965, NATURE | VOL 418 | 11 JULY 2002, Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 10.1007/BF00926908, and on I could go).
You claim, re: "fringe" is easily refuted, just search science journals.
Your claim, re: "ridicule" remains unverified and unfounded.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
I don't have to believe that you are dishonest. Your tactics are demonstrable evidence to that fact.
So again, provide your demonstrable supporting evidence for your original claim that scientists ridicule the clay theory. Otherwise, you have nothing more to say.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
oh you angry man you....
mlsmithers4 2 years ago
I know, like chewing show leather angry.
Oh well, I good with it.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Good video
Shad0wack 2 years ago
Your dishonesty (in quote mining, straw manning, pulling shit out of your ass) is pretty much the M.O. of all creationists. Why? Because you have nothing. You have no alternative hypothesis that is testable (it invoke an untestable god), you have no evidence against the sciences such as evolution and abiogenesis.
All you have is empty, baseless rhetoric.
From now on you have only one job in this comment section, to prove your original claim, that clay theory is ridiculed.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
That's almost a direct quote mine from Expelled. He was asked that regarding the possibility of alien life being responsible for life on Earth. He didn't comment on abiogenesis.
Now you've straw maned me (again).
Remember, you originally claimed that the clay theory was ridiculed, I've argued that it hasn't been and is indeed a well treated idea in abiogenesis. I never claimed that clay theory was the only theory regarding polymerization.
You're a dishonest one.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Cite those researchers. Otherwise, like the ridicule claim, you have nothing but an empty claim.
Dawkins bailed on abiogenesis? Doubt it. You really like making shit up. Try reality for a change.
BTW the clay theory is only one part of the science of abiogenesis. No false limitations on your part will be allowed.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
An uninformed # based on no knowledge of the field. It's out of your ass and completely meaningless.
We are getting closer to life. We've found natural systems that produce organic molecules (that's a step closer), we've natural systems that polymerize those molecules (another step), chemical systems that are metabolic pathways (another step), chemical systems that can encapsulate (yet another step), and so on.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Wow, implied false dichotomy and straw man all in the same comment.
I never claimed that all scientists agree with the clay model, only that it's a valid model with demonstrable evidence supporting it. Also, I called bullshit on your claim that it is a theory that is ridiculed.
Do you creationist love making up your own realities or what?
BTW, those books also cover many other abiogenetic theories, not just clay theory. You really should read them rather than guess.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Actually, these chemical systems very closely resemble life. The only real difference is they're currently looked at separately, while in life (actually a difficult term to define BTW) they are all integrated.
We've also had 60 years knowing how the sun functions and cannot make a star (even a small one), but we can reproduce its heart (fusion). Same with abiogenesis. We cannot show all the steps, but we can show several of the possible steps.
As for your number, its pulled out of your ass.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Ridiculed by who? Those like you and Brock that do not have the education to properly examine it? I'm not concerned there.
As for the scientists that do have that education, well, I've not seen any evidence of ridicule. And you have certainly failed to show such. So it looks like there's nothing for me to get used to.
Also, labs are stand ins for natural conditions. A place we can control variables to see how they effect the overall system. What works in the lab also works in nature.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
It's no longer a question of "if" or "maybe". It did occur, now we only need to discover how.
Like I've always said, read the books, and then don't stop there. Research the peer reviewed work. Research the chemistry.
Without such research, your complaints regarding abiogenesis are simply the complaints of the uninformed and uneducated.
Learn about it, don't guess or make up things like "the crystal theory is ridiculed".
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Abiogenesis has show:
Organic molecules form naturally under many different conditions.
Those organic molecules form many chemical pathways associated with: replication, metabolism, encapsulation.
That organic molecules naturally form more complex emergent systems.
All in all, there's sufficient data providing demonstrable evidence in support of abiogenesis that I can say with a high degree of certainty that we are just in search of the nuances of "how". It happened, as certain as gravity.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Important to supporting one of the core aspects of clay theory. Not abiogenesis as a whole, there are other chemical pathways for polymerization. It's one piece in the puzzle, or one frame in the movie. Polymerization can also occur at boundary layers, as with PAH's (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons).
And yes, such steps, and not necessarily clay theory, are expected. And many have been found.
Abiogenesis is a new field, yet it his already discovered so much.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Not in the least.Indeed it is becoming more and more an important part of the collection of testable hypotheses under the umbrella of abiogenesis. The recent work I mentioned earlier (nature doi 10.1038), is the latest, and most impressive since it actually verifies one of the earlier aspects of the clay theory regarding drying and hydrating cycles being important to the polymerization of organic monomers.
You really should read those books I mentioned.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Yes, that's on wiki. And?
q1 I don't know, not relevant.
q2 If Dennet was talking about clay theory maybe, but he wasn't.
This is a perfect example (though a simplistic one) of a quote mine. Taking a persons world and presenting them in a way that makes them appear to say something other than they actually said.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
I haven't even looked to see who you claim is supposedly ridiculing the hypothesis. It's your job to divulge that information.
As for going to google; occasionally I do as do you (pretty obvious when checking on your quotes).
As for knowing Cairns-Smith (Ruse spoke on the hypothesis but he is not the originator of it), remember those books I mentioned in the video. Both feature segments on Cairns-Smith, as well as many other scientists.
Might be a good idea for you to read them.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
I applaud you on you attempt. You've put more effort in to this than any creationist I've seen in a long time. Yet, you've failed to support your statement that scientists ridicule Cairns-Smith's hypothesis.
So good. Now no more dodging on any burdens you have. You make a claim, you back it up, if you cannot, then retract it, or don't make it in the first place.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Yay, a creationist math geek. He's speaking outside his discipline (Research Area: Games Technology and Computer Graphics) hence his comments are at best opinion, and more obviously uninformed.
BTW, creation affiliated persons carry no weight with me unless they provide demonstrable evidence for their position. Not empty, dodging rhetoric.
3 shots and 3 misses. Good consistency there. The last one was basically behind your back with your eyes closed.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Interesting that you'd choose an atheist, evolutionary biologist and geneticist here. Though he's not a organic or biochemist. But notice one thing here, he isn't ridiculing Cairns-Smith or his hypothesis, and this entire statement is opinion as we indicated by "and I think".
He is also a supporter of abiogenesis, pretty much undermining your position. Good job at self "pwnage".
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Ah, a proponent of the metabolism first clade of abiogenesis researchers. Fair enough, something finally here. However, even Shapiro accepts that life originated from non-life via natural, emergent chemical pathways. He simply places metabolism before replication.
However, he does not ridicule the other hypothesis. This was also taken from 9 years ago, much evidence has come since then that indicates that, yes, replicators, even RNA can form.(Richard Van Noorden, Nature doi10.1038)
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Burden of proof is also in both philosophy and in science, it's not just judicial.
I've met the burden by citing those that have actually worked on the subject. You have not.
Simply saying "I am correctly telling you..." and so on does not provide any demonstrable evidence of your position. Basically you're dodging. Produce your demonstrable evidence.
tip: if you actually knew about this subject you wouldn't have incorrectly credited Crick with the hypothesis.
Conclusion: you know very little.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Wait what?
So simply because he refuses too look at the evidence and remains ignorant that makes him impervious to any sort of liability?
He has been shown his statements are wrong. He has lied before such as calling ida a cat for some unknown reason. He then simply edits the video taking out the blatant lie and acts as if nothing happened.
He lies for his god and he knows it.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
I can show you to peer reviewed articles that do show many of the chemical pathways that would be necessary for life to originate naturally (of course there are still questions and I admit that freely). In fact, I have. I can show you peer reviewed articles regarding the evidence in the geologic record for early life. I have the data on my side, what do you have?
As for your question, that is not what I believe or accept.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
It is your burden. You carry it.
As for something coming from nothing, that's never been my position so where is my burden there? Or did you just assume that atheists like my self have that kind of belief? Been listening to close to the empty rhetoric of Brock and others like him have you? Did you even consider asking an atheist on their position regarding "coming from nothing"? I doubt it. You're like Brock, not wanting to learn, but wanting to spread manure instead.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Here's another claim that you need to provide supporting evidence for. And it requires a few steps.
1. provide an empirical and consistent definition of this god you posit.
2. Provide supporting, demonstrable evidence for the existence of this god.
3. Then show that the arguments atheist posit relate to a god concept or definition that deviates from the empirical and consistent definition you offer.
With out those steps, your charge here is irrelevant.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
You've heard of burden of proof, right? My claim was that work regarding polymerization of organic polymers by crystals in clays have been show to be a valid organic chemistry
pathway. I met the burden of proof on that.
Your burden is in regards to finding scientist that have ridiculed the clay hypothesis. You've failed to meet that challenge and appear to be trying to sidestep the issue. Basically, you're showing that your claim was bullshit.
So put up or shut up.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Very informative, completely destroys "Brocks" pathetic argument. Keep up the great work! : )
MattyGkid 2 years ago
This comment shows your lack of knowledge regarding "Laws of Science". Often those "Laws" refer to specific, and often hypothetical cases, such as the 2nd law regarding closed systems (to date, no one has ever found a demonstrable closed system). Laws are also very specific regarding the conditions they deal with. The law of biogenesis only deals with modern organism coming into existence fully formed from non-living matter. It is not applicable to abiogenesis and organic chemistry.
Learn more.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Can you met the challenge or not?
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Is valid only with modern organisms. It is not valid regarding abiogenesis (kind of like Newtonian laws are not valid regarding black holes) which is the stepwise emergence of more and more complicated organic systems, until we approach what we generally call "life" (a term that is itself not well defined). Indeed, it has to be false to some regard or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Nice try, but still a fail.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
little magic man in the sky done it?? god is not a man, because he created man, so he cant create himself, science has nothing on life but made up "theorys" and each time "scientists" like dawkins is put on the spot, they make somthing else up or add another million years on to their theory.
HIGHLANDERxMCLAMBIE 2 years ago
LOL, you're a funny one.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Actually, you've shown that you know very little about the field. Also, provide demonstrable evidence of these "evolutionists" you mention.
I was never confuse by Brock's video clips. I knew them to be misleading from the start. Hence, the reason for my video.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
These clips contradict your claims. Complaining about them being "different" is your cognitive dissonance.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
And there are so many more. Do some research yourself.
Furthermore, Don't post bullshit claims, don't make another post unless you can support your claim with demonstrable evidence.
If you lack demonstrable evidence, then your claim is with our merit and a waste of time.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
I call bullshit on you claim here. Provide a list of so-call "PRO-evolutionist" researchers that ridicule clay as a polymer catalyst today. Nothing older than 1990 will be accepted (If you want to know why, then you don't know science).
As for the experiments and experimenters: Noam Lohav (1978)
Michael Siskin and Alan Katrizky (Science 1991)
Leslie E. Orgel (ScienceDirect 1999)
Jack W. Szostak. (Nature 2009)
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
No, but I've got a diagnosis for your, Brock's and Ben Stein's "special sort of retardation": You all will stop at nothing to completely distort the truth in an effort to make the world conform to your narrow belief system, arrogantly disputing facts and sticking up for those who misrepresent the truth to the point of blatant lies... If you cared more about honesty rather than blindly cheering on those that espouse your beliefs then you could simply not even attempt to defend Brock's video.
vadimcream 2 years ago
Wow troll much.
Look you ask a person how to murder a hooker because they are evil. I say bash them in the head put them in carpet in the woods.
You cut it up so all i say is i kill hookers that are evil. That is what ben did and brock.
He asked if not god who as in excluding god what could of happened.
So elproximo if not god who?
chupamiubre 2 years ago
I think discounting a scientific theory out of hand is something to be called out on esp when its someone who lies for his god.
chupamiubre 2 years ago 2
WE need to set up BOOKS FOR BROCK
we buy and send him books in hopes he learns.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
RNA is just "imagining how things might"? Yeah, and that space-time is warped by gravity is all imagination too. Pal, we have the experiments, the data, that support many elements of the RNA world (not universe, again showing your ignorance on the subject). The same is true regarding silica and other mineral crystals in clay.
In the end, its not about "science words" it's the data, we have it. The creationists have nothing. Absolutely nothing, except empty rhetoric, like what you bring here.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
It's dishonest because they edit the interview dishonestly.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
To simply state that scientists believed life came from crystals (mockingly), does not detail the reasons we the clay crystal hypothesis is looked at as valid. You need to know the chemistry.
The possibility of going to the moon was thought to only be sci-fi. Though scientists knew it was possible, because they knew the details.
Details are everything and Brock either ignores them or is ignorant of them. When the details are known, Brock's (and your) claims fail to have any merit.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
More details are need to understand. It's like teaching music. I can't simply point at the staff, tell the student the notes and let them play. They have to learn much more, for years, to understand the nuances about playing and reading music.
The same goes for science. Silica crystals in clays have been shown to catalyze the very polymers that can self replicate and hence are an important part of abiogenesis as a science. They're not the only chem pathway, but they are a very likely one.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Brock's clips? A cut up version of an already cut up interview. Have you watched Expelled? The Dawkins interview? Watch it closely and pay attention to details, like the cuts. In many places you can tell where the cuts are made to make Dawkins appear to say something that he didn't say.
You can also listen to Dawkins talk about it himself.
watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM
So no, I didn't blow it. Your gullibility caused you to blow it. You were so convinced, you weren't even willing to look further into it.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Hey, I just wanted to tell you that while it may be tempting to argue with elproximo, you're wasting your time.
I've been back and forth with him before. He's just a moron. Hell, even less than that - he just seems like a troll.
Talking to him is like screaming at a cow - it may turn and look at you, but it'll never comprehend what you're saying.
Tyrtamus 2 years ago
Yep, that's pretty much been the impression I've been getting. Though, at least the cow is useful, especially if you like steak.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
BAHAHAHA! How in the crap did I not find you to sub to a long time ago?!
Keep up the good stuff!
Tyrtamus 2 years ago
Looking at claims, like the ones that creationists make, in sufficient detail does refute the creationist claims.
Brock's quote mine of Dawkins is an example. Brock tried to make Dawkins out as some ufo alien nut through quote mining. Looking at greater detail into the the Dawkins interview shows Brock to be a dishonest quote miner.
The same is true about the crystals (and your mistake as to who is responsible for the hypothesis).
Details and facts refute Brock, you and all creationists.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Just asserting? Try correcting. And what I stated is demonstrable.
The hypothesis regarding crystals wasn't Crick's it was Cairns-Smith. My description of what a quote mine is was also correct.
You cannot deduce anything valid from Brock's video, the data is corrupted.
What you've shown here is a complete disregard for valid, demonstrable, facts. Pretty much what all creationist are guilty of. You've tried to twist out of the fact that you have nothing supporting your assertions.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
Thanks for showing exactly how little you know. And that is the same problem that Brock has, he is ignorant, and dishonest. He doesn't know about these sciences, yet pretends to have some knowledge about them. He's plagiarized, quote mined, censured, etc. And those actions of his are demonstrable.
Just as your lack of knowledge is demonstrable. However, you've not yet been dishonest from what I've seen.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
I said plenty, perhaps you weren't listening.
As for quote mining, it is not the same as quoting. Quote mining is to take a piece of what some has said, and present it in such a way that it appears to contradict what they originally stated or the position they hold. It's a dishonest practice.
The clay hypothesis was posited by Alexander Cairns-Smith, not Crick. Crick posited that life may have formed in space or on another body and was transported here, naturally.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
You're using quite a few words here pal, but you're not really saying much.
For instance: where do I not make sense? Pointing out the Dawkins interview was a quote mine? Pointing out that clay mineral crystals do play an important part in organic chemistry? Etc.
You issued a complaint but cited no supporting evidence. Perhaps my discussion went over your head. Your looking like a whiny little uneducated creationist to me.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
ey man is there a gene that can increace the affect of alchohol.. haha!! but really no joke?
badass1163 2 years ago
True, he would make a "great" politician... well not really, but he'd fit in very well.
DreamwaIker 2 years ago
I watch you so I don't have to watch Brock. haha
crazycrazycaleb 2 years ago
you seem like you'd do a great teacher.
AshesWasHerName 2 years ago
This brock isn't worth your time
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
It's almost not worth it to make a video that directly addresses Brock. He doesn't care. He knows he quote mined (he admitted as much in the comments section of the video you're responding to), but he just doesn't care... he gets off by lying for Jesus.
antybu86 2 years ago
Exactly. I was going to make a similar comment pointing out that Brock isn't ignorant as to the facts, he just ignores them, but you basically beat me to it.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
You can't debate with a person who just parrots other people's work.
ChrisTheTruckDriver 2 years ago
great as always :) I enjoy watching you tear him down hehe
tattooskin72 2 years ago
The guy is Ben Stein in Expelled. He is a stupid creationist, not a bad economist. Just so you know.
blackchaosblood 2 years ago
I know, I just couldn't think of his name while recording this video. I had been listening to Glen Beck earlier and that's that only name I could think of.
Thanks for telling me though.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
The day in which knowledge, facts and the truth are regarded as important universally in society will never come with overly religious lunatics like Brock.
SnSNNS1 2 years ago
Brock is utterly incapable of anything approaching intellectual honesty. I used to view him as a poor, deluded idiot. His last video finally made me realize that he is a willful liar who cares nothing of facts or evidence and only does what he does to make a personal profit by selling CDs and paraphernalia with his logo on it to idiots who don't know any better.
Rithrandil 2 years ago 3
pretty much. i've given up on brock. he's not on youtube to have discussions. he's on here to hear his own voice and see his face on the internet. facts, logic, rational argument will never get through to him because he simply doesnt care.
SoCal, i'd stop wasting your time with such a willfully ignorant guy.
anonymolol 2 years ago 2
Yeah, but it's more about his claims that I concern with.
SoCalAtheist 2 years ago
again, he just simply doesn't care about whether or not his claims are right or wrong. he's here to build an audience for himself and to have people buy his music and have his voice heard.
whatever praise he gets from the other christian drones on here, he'll be jerking his ego off with. whatever resistance he meets, he'll chalk it up to christian persecution on youtube by the godless atheists.
whatever you do, you're just giving him what he wants. best to stop giving him any attention.
anonymolol 2 years ago
Poor Brock... Just kidding!
I find it quite entertaining to hear you shred his arguments to pieces.
leeheeman420 2 years ago
He is just trying for fame like PCS
isegoria1 2 years ago 2