this Christian he is talking about is not even worth his time. Throwing math around, trying to prove his God scientifically. what a joke. Ultimate irony.
i agree i seen a video just like that and it made no sense at all. no one knows anything about what happens after and if anything even does happen. so people who tend to make rediculous remarks such as that video are stupid and ignorant.!
first this guy needs to spend less time trying to point out the flaws in the presentation of the film and just answer the damn question. second a when he says that the if life is necessary to create life then mentions how god didnt need life to be created. this makes no sense because according to the bible god wasnt created. basically if he is going to try to argue against something he should at least have some knowledge of what hes fighting against.
Non-living matter creates life all the time. Every time you consume something, the broken down components of it are integrated into your body. So a cake becomes a man. Now, the question is: Is man a cakes way of making more cakes?
if we were to follow that christians thinking then something living had to create god. yet he would say god was always there... sort of defeats his argument right here. he says something can;t just be there forever but must be created from living matter. then how does he explain the mere existence of the god he believes in?
You accused him of trying to simplify life and then you went on to do the same thing by breaking down life to "all we really are" is a collection of non-living parts.
Um, it's not that simple... if it were - than we could get the recipe for life by finding all of its ingredients or parts and then make it in a test tube.
The simple fact is, we don't know what life is. And, to say that non-life plus non-life equals life is illogical to the highest order. Fail.
"You accused him of trying to simplify life and then you went on to do the same thing by breaking down life to "all we really are" is a collection of non-living parts."
How is that simplification? It's just correct according to science. Organisms consist of atoms. Are atoms living or non-living? If they are non-living JasperAvi is right. If you claim atoms are living then rocks are living. I think most geologists and biologists would disagree with you.
"Um, it's not that simple... if it were - than we could get the recipe for life by finding all of its ingredients or parts and then make it in a test tube."
Who claimed it was simple to create life? No one has made that claim. JasperAvi said living organisms consist of non-living parts (atoms). It's not a simplification it's a scientific fact.
Yes, but without cause. The naturalist viewpoint believes it is all "in the head". So where do thoughts that have no experience to inspire it, come from?
How can anyone think something new, when we are limited to think about only what we already know?
All of this is invisible, no matter, unproven, and an accepted presupposition by naturalists, making them hypocrites when they place "God" under a different judgment than thought. Really remarkable.
I need to thank. I hadn't gotten a pointless comment like this in a while. I was starting t regain faith in humanity. You've taken be back down to earth. Thanks much, sir.
Oh, and I'm straight, but is that supposed to be some kind of insult?
I'm not against science, and i dont think Christians are. we are against some of statements supporting evolution. and the Big bang theory " for example, Chimical evolution". you can't fuse past Iron, so how do we get all our elements? claiming facts that cannot be observed will only bring aurguments.
all you basically said in the video was non living matter ( enough of it ). will eventually create living matter. ( really?) then you went as far as to say "whats so important about life"? i think your just arguing for the sake of arguing. this video came off very shallow attacking the other presenter rather than the argument at hand. humility would have been the best approach ( we all don't know. whether you adimit it or not).
When you look at us under a microscope, we are a giant conglomerate of non-living matter.
And no, I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing. When I said "What's so important about life?" I was referencing that this argument he gave makes non-living matter JUST as important because it needs a creator too. Try to keep up.
Of course, I will not admit anything or feign humility on a topic of which I'm educated.
look. my logical argument is i hold that non living matter cannot create living matter, which we don't observe, your saying it does. okay.... at what point?
you see where i'm going. you'd be arrogant enough to present an argument that not even science anwsers. in humility i will say we don't have the answers but i believe a Unnautural cause brought about the effect.
You're missing the point. If we are just a conglomerate of non-living matter, then it seems PHENOMENALLY likely that we came about as a result of interaction BETWEEN non-living matter.
Furthermore, your assertion about an "unnatural cause", what the hell would that even entail? What the hell does that even mean? It's meaningless.
" then that makes us even, we both believe in miracles."
No atheists don't believe in miracles. Unscientific creationists believe in unscientific miracles whilst the top atheists believe because of the scientific evidence.
For now atheism is the best explanation for why we are here. Creationists lose.
it seems you dropped agnosticism and became a full blow athiest. i disagree with your statement the top athiest believe the scientific evidence. in fact the one of the top athiest converted to Christianity. "Anthony Flew". MANY scientist, including Einstine blieve in a God or an intelegence.
Deism is a philosophical belief in the existence of a God on the basis of reason, and observation of the natural world alone. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth and religious dogma. Christianity or not, they believe in a God.
"MANY scientist, including Einstine blieve in a God or an intelegence."
Einstein didn't believe in a theistic God.
I know what deism is you are wrong to assume I don't.
"kalam the islomic philosophy? why? "
William Lane Craig's version is generally considered to be the "best" argument for the Christian side. As you're using unscientifc Christian creationist arguments I'm correct in assuming you're a Christian creationist.
if you define a miracle, its just something that happens; that normally wouldn't happen. to say our existence is normal and not a miracle is the hight of arrogance. we all argue because we don't want to be wrong. well i will admit i was wrong. miller did create an amino acid. BUT i will ask...what is the complexity of taking amino acids to create 1 living cell?
really so you say that the best explanation for the creation of life is a theory that has absolultly no evidence supporting it? at least the idea of creationism makes sense once you get past the god part.
"look. my logical argument is i hold that non living matter cannot create living matter, which we don't observe, your saying it does. okay.... at what point?" Christian
Yet you just argued with me that:
"it can under the wrong conditions...." Christian.
So can organic material be formed by in-organic material or not? Make your mind up.
"what ever your position, wheter you agree or not, it's faith based. for as long as we have been observation. which is why i resorted to humilty... "
No the atheist side is NOT faith based. It's based off of scientific evidence. Your Christian/theist side is based off of faith.
Thanks for admitting this: You show you have more or equal respect for religious faith than scientific evidence. You're not being scientific whilst atheists are: Atheists beliefs are far more likely to be true.
wrong atheism is faith based. there is no scientificul evidence that there is no god. atheists beliefs are just as likely to be wrong. because the undeniable truth is we have no idea how the universe came to be what it is today. even if you look at the most commonly accepted theories and even daily life there are so many things that cannot be explained by scientific evidence.
@superwillis12345, so since we cannot explain the origin of life...yet, you are willing to BLINDLY, accept god as the creator of all things, without evidence?
no i dont BLINDLY accept god as the creator of all things. i look into my own life and personal experiences and i strongly believe there is a higher power. as for evidence i believe the laws of physics help explain this higher power because they are so perfectly balanced and beautiful..... i want you to look into your soul and ask yourself if everything you think and do is because of a collection of nerve cells or something that cant even be comprehended? (possibly a higher power?)
Key point in your comment here was "i strongly believe"...that to me, doesnt seem to hold any weight in terms of evidence, but rather, the feelings you get about god. You've just proven that religion is faith based, and yes i can look into my soul as say that everything i do, is based on me, myself and I. Nothing of higher power here...just me and my thoughts. Just because you dont understand something, doesnt mean you should point skyward, and say it was god...
im not saying that im 100% sure there is a god. yes i believe there is a god because of my personal evidence that i explained previously. But i also accept the 50% chance that there is not a god. And you obviously BELIEVE there is no god. but if you cant accept the 50% chance that there is then you are ignorant and just BLINDLY accepting whatever scientists tell you.
I dont accept whatever scientists tell me. Hell half the shit they say seems out there! Im just sceptical of everything....hell you can believe in w/e you want, as can I, im just sayin, religion just seems way to contradictory, and manipulative. Anywho...have a good one, it was nice chattin with ya.
Is he suggesting that an entity which created all matter can be alive? But living things are made of matter, so this entity would have to be made of matter, so it would have had to create itself. Impossible.
"Life" is a biological phenomenon. We do know what it means because it has been defined in science. I wasn't suggesting the entity could not be intelligent, just that it couldn't be alive, since that has a clear underpinning in matter.
That argument was not only overtly complicated and the conclusion drawn from it spectacularly stupid, it was also total FAIL. He just arbitrarily attached whatever the fuck he wanted to the variables. The equation has absolutely nothing to with what he said. It's just some bullshit he put together. Not only that, but he refers to college education like it equals intelligence, and is almost sarcastic about it's worth. "DER, DEM FANCY CITY FOLKS WITH THEIR DEGREES!!"
No argument exists that would change your mind. As you said, you don't see it.
Cosmology and general relativity both suggest that there was a beginning to the universe: a beginning that they cannot explain. Matter, energy, space and time all came into existence simultaneously. To suggest there was no cause simply because you don't understand it is denying the science you love so much.
"No argument exists that would change your mind. As you said, you don't see it."
How do you know this?
Also a tip: Start with your side's strongest argument: William Lane Craig's Kalam.
"Cosmology and general relativity both suggest that there was a beginning to the universe"
To OUR universe. That doesn't rule out the possibility of prior bubble universes. The big bang model doesn't predict that matter, energy etc originated out of nothing: see wikipedia.
Bubble universes? You believe that, but not in a cause. Wikipedia? Yea, that's an authoratative source.
Look. You just believe or not believe in whatever you want, and I'll believe what I want. Someday we'll both die. One of us will be right and one will be wrong. Good luck.
1) You haven't replied to my atheistic arguments with evdience so we can't continue until u do.
I didn't say I didn't believe in a cause, I said what makes YOU think that everything that begins to exist has a cause? Things don't need causes necessarily.
2) I'm quite sure we could find the same explanation somewhere else.
3) I believe because it's probably the truth. I don't believe because I want to. That makes me think you don't even respect science.
The Bible was written in an era where the readers could not understand the science we know today. However, today's science does not contradict the Bible, it merely offers an opportunity to ignore God if you choose. Your statement #2. That's part of the genius in its design.
The universe itself is a testament to God's design. But, science will never be able to answer a philosophical question.
History, on the other hand, is full of fulfilled prophecy that is undeniable. We are living it now.
You're right. When the one world government takes over, national sovreignty will no longer exist. God prophesied that, too.
Israel WAS reborn in a single day. On May 13, 1948 it was NOT a country. By UN mandate it became a country on May 14.
Yes, people are killed for what they say...
Prior to 1800 the fastest ride was the horse. If man has been here for 25,000 years then we have gone from horse to space shuttle in less than 1% of the time we have been here.
that bit at the end makes no sense.the guy says that life has to create life and we all know where he is going with his life (god) ceated our life but he seid that the life that created our life hase allways been there but well..................i cant accept that everything hase a beginning and eventauly an end so life had to of began somewhere and if its the begining of life how would it make sense that it was created by life if its the begining there was no life to create it.
He also makes the assumption that there's a clear demarcation between living and non-living matter. There is a whole gray zone which nobody can agree on where to draw the line between life and inanimate stuff.
i would also have to say jazzy that what you are saying is that life creates life. only life can come from life. HOWEVER you posit A GOD to break the chain of faulty logic because you know it leads to an infinite regress. and which god do you use? seems like an argument from incredulity.
we have seen the building blocks of life created in a lab. that coupled with natural selection = life
"Miller and Urey did not create life in the lab, nor does anyone claim that they did. They did, however, demonstrate that molecules essential to living beings can form ***naturally*** under likely conditions of early earth. "
So there does seem to be evidence even if it hasn't been directly observed.
Also it should be noted that God Himself has not been observed, yet you still believe in god, interesting.
1. the life created by chemical reactions in non-living matter would be undetectable using modern techniques. a video recording on the magnification level of an electron microscope would be required.
2. stick your dog in an aeroplane and voila. your point?
3. yeah, 50 years ago. that means it's well established. you do know that your favorite book way written 1,700 years ago, right? and the hypothesis was proven to be a possibility.
"A lie is to not tell the truth. They did not tell the truth. Therefore I can conclude, with 100% that they lied."
No you can't tell 100%, you haven't even proven it's a lie yet and as it almost certainly isn't a so lie you're going to have a difficult time. And I've already said, the Urey Miller experiments showed that in-organic material can form organic material.
This is why I'm agnostic at least and then the seemingly clearly superior atheist arguments are why I'm agnostic-atheist.
"it can under the wrong conditions.... ( excluding oxygen.) " -- goldgoku3264
But organic material CAN be formed from in-organic material you admit. So the creationists are wrong. The atheists correct. You seem to be ignoring the original argument plus you don't even quote me or give a good explanation or conclusion.
But organic material CAN be formed from in-organic material you admit. So the creationists are wrong. The atheists correct.
No. i didn't say it did... in fact. if you go back an look at the miller experiment, what he created was a Bacteria. but he took out the elements of the early earth, which is why people use that experiment to say " it Does take intelegence to create life".
Saying "a scientist did it so god exists" is NOT scientific, observed, empirical evidence for creationists. My agnostic/atheist argument still stands: Organic material can be formed from in-organic material, the Miller experiemnt showed this. The conditions in the experiment were NOT intelligent. Again the creationist side is wrong.
"if you go back an look at the miller experiment, what he created was a Bacteria"
You are made up of atoms. Those atoms make up molecules. Those molecules react together to make cells. You are made up of cells, which react to each other in various ways to create metabolic pathways. Those pathways influence how your body works - such as your digestive system, your nervous system, et cetera.
You are made up of non-living matter, and it is observed literally every single day. But I guess you haven't gotten that far in high school biology.
I don't think college helps to solve how the world works. New knowledge is always being discovered and a few years after some people have graduated, there will always be more for them to learn.
It sounds like JazzyHap's arguments stem from a somewhat biased view that living matter is more capable than non-living matter at creating life.
Of course we want to look at living matter as the deciding factor, as we ourselves are living. We obviously, as living things capable of reproduction, have the capabilities to make this happen. But this creates a sense of bias. We want to believe we alone are capable of this and have the answer for the origin of life.
I wonder what this guy means when he uses the terms "Life" and "Nonliving Matter". Would he say that viruses are alive? Proteins? Nucleic acids? The distinction between the two isn't always clear-cut.
I also like how he says that "evidence shows that at one time Life came into existence", but then evokes an origin-less "Life" in the very next sentence.
I actually got into a debate with this guy. Do you know what his definition of "living matter" versus "nonliving matter" is? "Living matter is matter that is alive". I'm not kidding. That's his definition. Check out my exchange with him in his video "EVOLUTION FALLACY REFUTED!".
Even if this argument had some substance of truth, we'd still have the problem of proving what or who created life; and I don't know about you, but I'm not convinced by a 2000 year old book that thought the world was flat, has talking snakes, people walking on water, and zombies visiting their relatives. I'm sure this is what he's alluding to - forget science, and believe the retarded low budget magic tricks in the bible.
first the old testament is much more than 2000 years old.
second this "bad science" goes almost exactly with our most modern about the creation of earth and life.
third, the fact that people thousands of years ago who were no where near as advanced as we are were able to come up with this when we need computers and micro wave detecters and high powered obiting telescopes to come up with the same thing. Coincidence? i dont think so
yea , did he gave you a headache,I glad you responded to this troll.keep up the good work
laapache1 2 weeks ago
ALSO...another proof of this whack Christians theories (if you can even call them theories)...check this out.
We've never made life from non-living matter? Not even in a test tube? WRONG.
wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/
JBeezie428 10 months ago
this Christian he is talking about is not even worth his time. Throwing math around, trying to prove his God scientifically. what a joke. Ultimate irony.
JBeezie428 10 months ago
God Rules. Wooo
joeswfc2007 11 months ago
One problem is that living things would scarf down any bits of stuff that are complex and energy-rich enough to become self-replicating automata.
hal970fx 1 year ago
Sad attempt at refuting the argument. If you know the answer to the question say it, if not read the Bible. There is so much to be gained.
netballa 1 year ago
I think the most simple refutation for this argument would be that god is not actually a "living" thing.
miamikin9 1 year ago
you really really really suck
m3sltfa7 1 year ago
i agree i seen a video just like that and it made no sense at all. no one knows anything about what happens after and if anything even does happen. so people who tend to make rediculous remarks such as that video are stupid and ignorant.!
angellxxxLA 1 year ago
Imagine x=y, and z never equals x. Imagine you take something from z and want to get x squared.
Therefore there is a man in the sky who doesn't like homosexuals.
salamirterra 1 year ago
very well explained good video. Theist never understand abiogenesis.
Vegasgodless 2 years ago
I don't think the video you are responding to was meant to be taken seriously, at least I hope not.
gt6303c 2 years ago
It was a serious attempt at asking questions. Sadly.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
first this guy needs to spend less time trying to point out the flaws in the presentation of the film and just answer the damn question. second a when he says that the if life is necessary to create life then mentions how god didnt need life to be created. this makes no sense because according to the bible god wasnt created. basically if he is going to try to argue against something he should at least have some knowledge of what hes fighting against.
SuperWillis12345 2 years ago
the other video asks and answers it's own questions. the guy in this video is simply pointing out the flaws.
craigdavid00 2 years ago
I have more than a good understanding of what I am arguing against, thanks.
This video is an appropriate critique of the points set forth by the video I'm responding too.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Does anyone else here like cake?
kennegun 2 years ago
Non-living matter creates life all the time. Every time you consume something, the broken down components of it are integrated into your body. So a cake becomes a man. Now, the question is: Is man a cakes way of making more cakes?
: p
kennegun 2 years ago
excellent points i like your video 5 stars
LambOfGodsWrath 2 years ago
if we were to follow that christians thinking then something living had to create god. yet he would say god was always there... sort of defeats his argument right here. he says something can;t just be there forever but must be created from living matter. then how does he explain the mere existence of the god he believes in?
you are replying to a real wacko. good work!
incredingo 2 years ago
as soon as i got to about 4:40 in this video i realized that this guy asking the question didn't know anything about what he was talking about
divineson05 2 years ago
Yeah, this background is a lot better. Not by much, but still.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
You accused him of trying to simplify life and then you went on to do the same thing by breaking down life to "all we really are" is a collection of non-living parts.
Um, it's not that simple... if it were - than we could get the recipe for life by finding all of its ingredients or parts and then make it in a test tube.
The simple fact is, we don't know what life is. And, to say that non-life plus non-life equals life is illogical to the highest order. Fail.
theDracoIX 2 years ago
"You accused him of trying to simplify life and then you went on to do the same thing by breaking down life to "all we really are" is a collection of non-living parts."
How is that simplification? It's just correct according to science. Organisms consist of atoms. Are atoms living or non-living? If they are non-living JasperAvi is right. If you claim atoms are living then rocks are living. I think most geologists and biologists would disagree with you.
phaexus 2 years ago 4
"Um, it's not that simple... if it were - than we could get the recipe for life by finding all of its ingredients or parts and then make it in a test tube."
Who claimed it was simple to create life? No one has made that claim. JasperAvi said living organisms consist of non-living parts (atoms). It's not a simplification it's a scientific fact.
phaexus 2 years ago
"The simple fact is, we don't know what life is. And, to say that non-life plus non-life equals life is illogical to the highest order. Fail"
Another straw man. He said living organisms consist of atoms, which are non-living. You were the one who failed.
phaexus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Abstract is not the same as invisible."
Yes, but without cause. The naturalist viewpoint believes it is all "in the head". So where do thoughts that have no experience to inspire it, come from?
How can anyone think something new, when we are limited to think about only what we already know?
All of this is invisible, no matter, unproven, and an accepted presupposition by naturalists, making them hypocrites when they place "God" under a different judgment than thought. Really remarkable.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you sound like a homo
bluesbrother1979 2 years ago
I need to thank. I hadn't gotten a pointless comment like this in a while. I was starting t regain faith in humanity. You've taken be back down to earth. Thanks much, sir.
Oh, and I'm straight, but is that supposed to be some kind of insult?
JasperAvi 2 years ago
I know for a fact he isn't. Ugh. Loser....
Jillersaurus 2 years ago
haha i love how he says "it is by far the most logical conclusion" xD
sureup 2 years ago
JasperAvi, enjoyed this video. Nice response to his points.
GR0ND 2 years ago
Comment removed
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
I'm not against science, and i dont think Christians are. we are against some of statements supporting evolution. and the Big bang theory " for example, Chimical evolution". you can't fuse past Iron, so how do we get all our elements? claiming facts that cannot be observed will only bring aurguments.
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
hey what can i say, the argument that never ends. right?
mine as well go out the other way.
take care.
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
When you look at us under a microscope, we are a giant conglomerate of non-living matter.
okay. i dont argue that we live in a shell. but DNA is the source of life.
I was referencing that this argument he gave makes non-living matter JUST as important because it needs a creator too.
sure. and i can see by the same measurment, you make it JUST as important that it doesn't.
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
all you basically said in the video was non living matter ( enough of it ). will eventually create living matter. ( really?) then you went as far as to say "whats so important about life"? i think your just arguing for the sake of arguing. this video came off very shallow attacking the other presenter rather than the argument at hand. humility would have been the best approach ( we all don't know. whether you adimit it or not).
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
Right, so you didn't watch the video?
I said WE ARE COMPOSED OF NON LIVING MATTER.
When you look at us under a microscope, we are a giant conglomerate of non-living matter.
And no, I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing. When I said "What's so important about life?" I was referencing that this argument he gave makes non-living matter JUST as important because it needs a creator too. Try to keep up.
Of course, I will not admit anything or feign humility on a topic of which I'm educated.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
what ever your position, wheter you agree or not, it's faith based. for as long as we have been observation. which is why i resorted to humilty...
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
You can't back up that assertion, so I'm just going to accept that it's a last ditch effort to pretend you won.
Try again, this time make a logical argument.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
kinda like the video?
look. my logical argument is i hold that non living matter cannot create living matter, which we don't observe, your saying it does. okay.... at what point?
you see where i'm going. you'd be arrogant enough to present an argument that not even science anwsers. in humility i will say we don't have the answers but i believe a Unnautural cause brought about the effect.
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
You're missing the point. If we are just a conglomerate of non-living matter, then it seems PHENOMENALLY likely that we came about as a result of interaction BETWEEN non-living matter.
Furthermore, your assertion about an "unnatural cause", what the hell would that even entail? What the hell does that even mean? It's meaningless.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
PHENOMENALLY, oh okay.. then that makes us even, we both believe in miracles.
i think your too smart to waist your time with me. but i will say you did a good job on the video.
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
I've never seen that dodge, where you compliment the opponent... I like this one.. LOL
Well, thanks man, and there is no reason we can't continue this.
Thanks again.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
" then that makes us even, we both believe in miracles."
No atheists don't believe in miracles. Unscientific creationists believe in unscientific miracles whilst the top atheists believe because of the scientific evidence.
For now atheism is the best explanation for why we are here. Creationists lose.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
it seems you dropped agnosticism and became a full blow athiest. i disagree with your statement the top athiest believe the scientific evidence. in fact the one of the top athiest converted to Christianity. "Anthony Flew". MANY scientist, including Einstine blieve in a God or an intelegence.
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i heard he took organic compounds from inorganic precursors, but i don't know if your trying to make that out to be he made a living cell are you?
as you know, amino acids are the building blocks for life. but there is more to it than that.
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
"MANY scientist, including Einstine blieve in a God or an intelegence. "
No Einstein didn't believe in a theistic god and Flew is a deist not a Christian.
Present your argument FOR Chistianity:
Your side's best argument tends to be the **Kalam** argument. Read up on it please.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
i never said they did:
Deism is a philosophical belief in the existence of a God on the basis of reason, and observation of the natural world alone. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth and religious dogma. Christianity or not, they believe in a God.
kalam the islomic philosophy? why?
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
"MANY scientist, including Einstine blieve in a God or an intelegence."
Einstein didn't believe in a theistic God.
I know what deism is you are wrong to assume I don't.
"kalam the islomic philosophy? why? "
William Lane Craig's version is generally considered to be the "best" argument for the Christian side. As you're using unscientifc Christian creationist arguments I'm correct in assuming you're a Christian creationist.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
if you define a miracle, its just something that happens; that normally wouldn't happen. to say our existence is normal and not a miracle is the hight of arrogance. we all argue because we don't want to be wrong. well i will admit i was wrong. miller did create an amino acid. BUT i will ask...what is the complexity of taking amino acids to create 1 living cell?
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
Comment removed
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
really so you say that the best explanation for the creation of life is a theory that has absolultly no evidence supporting it? at least the idea of creationism makes sense once you get past the god part.
SuperWillis12345 2 years ago
"look. my logical argument is i hold that non living matter cannot create living matter, which we don't observe, your saying it does. okay.... at what point?" Christian
Yet you just argued with me that:
"it can under the wrong conditions...." Christian.
So can organic material be formed by in-organic material or not? Make your mind up.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
"what ever your position, wheter you agree or not, it's faith based. for as long as we have been observation. which is why i resorted to humilty... "
No the atheist side is NOT faith based. It's based off of scientific evidence. Your Christian/theist side is based off of faith.
Thanks for admitting this: You show you have more or equal respect for religious faith than scientific evidence. You're not being scientific whilst atheists are: Atheists beliefs are far more likely to be true.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
wrong atheism is faith based. there is no scientificul evidence that there is no god. atheists beliefs are just as likely to be wrong. because the undeniable truth is we have no idea how the universe came to be what it is today. even if you look at the most commonly accepted theories and even daily life there are so many things that cannot be explained by scientific evidence.
SuperWillis12345 2 years ago
Atheism is not the positive assertion that a god can not exist, it is the lack of acceptance of the assertion that it is.
For example:
A: "I believe God exists."
B: "I'm not convinced by the arguments, so I can't truthfully say I believe."
C: "Well, I know for sure God can not exist."
B and C are *both* atheists. You seem to think only person C would be. Even then, C may or may not be basing his assertion on faith.
gremlinn7 2 years ago
accualy B would be considered agnostic.
Agnostic= doubt that there is a god. or disbeleif
aethist= there is no god
that is how ive always seen it. in the case that you are undecided that is not faith based i agree.
SuperWillis12345 2 years ago
Yes, B is an agnostic atheist. You can be both or neither.
Agnosticism = lack of certainty in knowledge
Atheism = lack of belief
You can have a belief and be certain you're right, or you can believe but be uncertain - two types of theism.
You can lack a belief and be certain you're right, or you can lack belief but also not be certain - two types of atheism.
The "not certain" varieties are the agnostics in each category. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, but I don't know about theists.
gremlinn7 2 years ago
@superwillis12345, so since we cannot explain the origin of life...yet, you are willing to BLINDLY, accept god as the creator of all things, without evidence?
Haseeebo 2 years ago
no i dont BLINDLY accept god as the creator of all things. i look into my own life and personal experiences and i strongly believe there is a higher power. as for evidence i believe the laws of physics help explain this higher power because they are so perfectly balanced and beautiful..... i want you to look into your soul and ask yourself if everything you think and do is because of a collection of nerve cells or something that cant even be comprehended? (possibly a higher power?)
SuperWillis12345 2 years ago
Key point in your comment here was "i strongly believe"...that to me, doesnt seem to hold any weight in terms of evidence, but rather, the feelings you get about god. You've just proven that religion is faith based, and yes i can look into my soul as say that everything i do, is based on me, myself and I. Nothing of higher power here...just me and my thoughts. Just because you dont understand something, doesnt mean you should point skyward, and say it was god...
Haseeebo 2 years ago
im not saying that im 100% sure there is a god. yes i believe there is a god because of my personal evidence that i explained previously. But i also accept the 50% chance that there is not a god. And you obviously BELIEVE there is no god. but if you cant accept the 50% chance that there is then you are ignorant and just BLINDLY accepting whatever scientists tell you.
SuperWillis12345 2 years ago
I dont accept whatever scientists tell me. Hell half the shit they say seems out there! Im just sceptical of everything....hell you can believe in w/e you want, as can I, im just sayin, religion just seems way to contradictory, and manipulative. Anywho...have a good one, it was nice chattin with ya.
Haseeebo 2 years ago
Is he suggesting that an entity which created all matter can be alive? But living things are made of matter, so this entity would have to be made of matter, so it would have had to create itself. Impossible.
gremlinn7 2 years ago
living BEINGS are made of matter but since we still dont even know what "life" is you cant say that entity would have to be composed of matter.
SuperWillis12345 2 years ago
"Life" is a biological phenomenon. We do know what it means because it has been defined in science. I wasn't suggesting the entity could not be intelligent, just that it couldn't be alive, since that has a clear underpinning in matter.
gremlinn7 2 years ago
so are you saying there is an entity?
SuperWillis12345 2 years ago
That argument was not only overtly complicated and the conclusion drawn from it spectacularly stupid, it was also total FAIL. He just arbitrarily attached whatever the fuck he wanted to the variables. The equation has absolutely nothing to with what he said. It's just some bullshit he put together. Not only that, but he refers to college education like it equals intelligence, and is almost sarcastic about it's worth. "DER, DEM FANCY CITY FOLKS WITH THEIR DEGREES!!"
ghunderstank 2 years ago
So, we're in agreement on this shit.... Phenomenal.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
All you managed to do in this video is prove that going to college does not make you smart.
When do you graduate?
ReverendTFunk 2 years ago
Me?
JasperAvi 2 years ago
"All you managed to do in this video is prove that going to college does not make you smart.
When do you graduate? "
So what's your argument for why we should believe in God? Because I don't see it.
Want to start with why perhaps William Lane Craig's Kalam argument is unsound and unscientific? Why atheists win this debate?
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
No argument exists that would change your mind. As you said, you don't see it.
Cosmology and general relativity both suggest that there was a beginning to the universe: a beginning that they cannot explain. Matter, energy, space and time all came into existence simultaneously. To suggest there was no cause simply because you don't understand it is denying the science you love so much.
1 Cor 2:14
Heb 11:3
Rom 1:20
And, soon, Rev 13:11-18.
ReverendTFunk 2 years ago
Lol
Do me a favor, tell me again what I love so much?
That said, beginning to the reformation of this universe, yes.
Do you understand what you're talking about?
JasperAvi 2 years ago
"No argument exists that would change your mind. As you said, you don't see it."
How do you know this?
Also a tip: Start with your side's strongest argument: William Lane Craig's Kalam.
"Cosmology and general relativity both suggest that there was a beginning to the universe"
To OUR universe. That doesn't rule out the possibility of prior bubble universes. The big bang model doesn't predict that matter, energy etc originated out of nothing: see wikipedia.
You're wrong imo.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
Bubble universes? You believe that, but not in a cause. Wikipedia? Yea, that's an authoratative source.
Look. You just believe or not believe in whatever you want, and I'll believe what I want. Someday we'll both die. One of us will be right and one will be wrong. Good luck.
ReverendTFunk 2 years ago
1) You haven't replied to my atheistic arguments with evdience so we can't continue until u do.
I didn't say I didn't believe in a cause, I said what makes YOU think that everything that begins to exist has a cause? Things don't need causes necessarily.
2) I'm quite sure we could find the same explanation somewhere else.
3) I believe because it's probably the truth. I don't believe because I want to. That makes me think you don't even respect science.
Are you using Pascal's Wager?
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
The Bible was written in an era where the readers could not understand the science we know today. However, today's science does not contradict the Bible, it merely offers an opportunity to ignore God if you choose. Your statement #2. That's part of the genius in its design.
The universe itself is a testament to God's design. But, science will never be able to answer a philosophical question.
History, on the other hand, is full of fulfilled prophecy that is undeniable. We are living it now.
ReverendTFunk 2 years ago
I tried to stay the fuck out of this but, seriously, biblical prophecy?
Lost fucking cause.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
God said,
Israel would be destroyed and its people scattered around the world. 70 AD
Israel would be reborn in a single day. May 14, 1948. Jews would return from all over the earth.
Israel would have a powerful military. All true.
Solomon's Temple will be rebuilt on the Temple Mount. Google Temple Institute.
Christians would be killed for their testimony. In 2008, that number was 150,000.
There will be an explosion of knowledge and transportation in the last days.
Got 100 more...
ReverendTFunk 2 years ago
Every country will be destroyed at some point, not a hard bet.
Israel was NOT reborn in a single day. That's fucking asinine.
Solomon's Temple is not rebuilt.
Christians have always been killed for their testimony, as have been every other sect that says ANYTHING.
Explosions of knowledge and transportation have been happening in steady increases over the last 3 thousand years.
You are gullible and thus easy to manipulate.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
You're right. When the one world government takes over, national sovreignty will no longer exist. God prophesied that, too.
Israel WAS reborn in a single day. On May 13, 1948 it was NOT a country. By UN mandate it became a country on May 14.
Yes, people are killed for what they say...
Prior to 1800 the fastest ride was the horse. If man has been here for 25,000 years then we have gone from horse to space shuttle in less than 1% of the time we have been here.
That's explosive.
ReverendTFunk 2 years ago
thats beautiful
SuperWillis12345 2 years ago
that bit at the end makes no sense.the guy says that life has to create life and we all know where he is going with his life (god) ceated our life but he seid that the life that created our life hase allways been there but well..................i cant accept that everything hase a beginning and eventauly an end so life had to of began somewhere and if its the begining of life how would it make sense that it was created by life if its the begining there was no life to create it.
SquirrilyWrath 2 years ago
He also makes the assumption that there's a clear demarcation between living and non-living matter. There is a whole gray zone which nobody can agree on where to draw the line between life and inanimate stuff.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I want to start by saying thank you for making a response to my video.
None of these things have ever been observed? Like life. Interesting.
You believe nonliving matter can create life, though it has never been observed to happen. Interesting.
We are nonliving matter. Interesting.
My video does not make sense, yet you seem to understand what I am saying, sounds more like an ad hominem.
I made up life is life? Funny, it happens every day.
Illusion #1
jazzyhap 2 years ago
"I made up life is [meaning "comes from", typo] life? Funny, it happens every day."
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Your response is inane.
What the hell are you talking about?
JasperAvi 2 years ago
"What the hell are you talking about?"
Your video and what you said in it.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Not THIS video, because I didn't say half of that.
Are you sure you understood it?
Watch it again, please.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Y=elemental reactions to physics
X=Life
Z=God
Y=X z=never been seen.
i would also have to say jazzy that what you are saying is that life creates life. only life can come from life. HOWEVER you posit A GOD to break the chain of faulty logic because you know it leads to an infinite regress. and which god do you use? seems like an argument from incredulity.
we have seen the building blocks of life created in a lab. that coupled with natural selection = life
skitzoLSD 2 years ago
"Miller and Urey did not create life in the lab, nor does anyone claim that they did. They did, however, demonstrate that molecules essential to living beings can form ***naturally*** under likely conditions of early earth. "
So there does seem to be evidence even if it hasn't been directly observed.
Also it should be noted that God Himself has not been observed, yet you still believe in god, interesting.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago 3
1 many people lie claiming nonliving matter creates life, just watch the "star" response video.
2 any logic that proves life can come from nonliving matter can also prove my dog can fly.
3 what was directly observed? a hypothesis? come on. And you do realize that happened what, 50 years ago?
You say God, I say the most logical choice is a self existing life form. But while we are at it, a thought has never been observed either.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
1. the life created by chemical reactions in non-living matter would be undetectable using modern techniques. a video recording on the magnification level of an electron microscope would be required.
2. stick your dog in an aeroplane and voila. your point?
3. yeah, 50 years ago. that means it's well established. you do know that your favorite book way written 1,700 years ago, right? and the hypothesis was proven to be a possibility.
wtf is a self existing life form?
bignastydragon 2 years ago
Stop making your replies unnecessarily long please:
"1 many people lie claiming nonliving matter creates life, just watch the "star" response video."
Prove 100% that they are liars or you've lost already. You seem to be making a claim of certainty.
I've shown you evidence of organic matter coming from in-organic matter, show me yours.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
"Prove 100% that they are liars or you've lost already. You seem to be making a claim of certainty."
A lie is to not tell the truth. They did not tell the truth. Therefore I can conclude, with 100% that they lied.
And thank you for joining the club.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
"A lie is to not tell the truth. They did not tell the truth. Therefore I can conclude, with 100% that they lied."
No you can't tell 100%, you haven't even proven it's a lie yet and as it almost certainly isn't a so lie you're going to have a difficult time. And I've already said, the Urey Miller experiments showed that in-organic material can form organic material.
This is why I'm agnostic at least and then the seemingly clearly superior atheist arguments are why I'm agnostic-atheist.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
it can under the wrong conditions.... ( excluding oxygen.)
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
"it can under the wrong conditions.... ( excluding oxygen.) " -- goldgoku3264
But organic material CAN be formed from in-organic material you admit. So the creationists are wrong. The atheists correct. You seem to be ignoring the original argument plus you don't even quote me or give a good explanation or conclusion.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
But organic material CAN be formed from in-organic material you admit. So the creationists are wrong. The atheists correct.
No. i didn't say it did... in fact. if you go back an look at the miller experiment, what he created was a Bacteria. but he took out the elements of the early earth, which is why people use that experiment to say " it Does take intelegence to create life".
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
" it Does take intelegence to create life". "
Saying "a scientist did it so god exists" is NOT scientific, observed, empirical evidence for creationists. My agnostic/atheist argument still stands: Organic material can be formed from in-organic material, the Miller experiemnt showed this. The conditions in the experiment were NOT intelligent. Again the creationist side is wrong.
"if you go back an look at the miller experiment, what he created was a Bacteria"
No he created amino acids.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
You are made up of atoms. Those atoms make up molecules. Those molecules react together to make cells. You are made up of cells, which react to each other in various ways to create metabolic pathways. Those pathways influence how your body works - such as your digestive system, your nervous system, et cetera.
You are made up of non-living matter, and it is observed literally every single day. But I guess you haven't gotten that far in high school biology.
dylantuzyk 2 years ago 4
I don't think college helps to solve how the world works. New knowledge is always being discovered and a few years after some people have graduated, there will always be more for them to learn.
HaleyMary 2 years ago 7
Comment removed
plokij12341234 1 year ago
you are really smart
TheRightDecision 2 years ago
Assuming that isn't sarcasm (it's really hard to tell in text), thanks very much.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
It sounds like JazzyHap's arguments stem from a somewhat biased view that living matter is more capable than non-living matter at creating life.
Of course we want to look at living matter as the deciding factor, as we ourselves are living. We obviously, as living things capable of reproduction, have the capabilities to make this happen. But this creates a sense of bias. We want to believe we alone are capable of this and have the answer for the origin of life.
We don't.
RainMan34 2 years ago
This person is copying a series of videos titled "Questions for Christians".
Mjhavok 2 years ago
I wonder what this guy means when he uses the terms "Life" and "Nonliving Matter". Would he say that viruses are alive? Proteins? Nucleic acids? The distinction between the two isn't always clear-cut.
I also like how he says that "evidence shows that at one time Life came into existence", but then evokes an origin-less "Life" in the very next sentence.
LaughingManRa 2 years ago 2
I actually got into a debate with this guy. Do you know what his definition of "living matter" versus "nonliving matter" is? "Living matter is matter that is alive". I'm not kidding. That's his definition. Check out my exchange with him in his video "EVOLUTION FALLACY REFUTED!".
h8uall66 2 years ago 2
LOL. Well, give him points for self-consistency, I guess. :-)
LaughingManRa 2 years ago
i like it,far more focused then my ramble.
NemoUtopian 2 years ago
I spent over an hour on it, I would hope it's at least semi-well constructed. :)
Yours was very good, don't bash it.
Thanks
JasperAvi 2 years ago
God-of-the-Gaps.
Even if this argument had some substance of truth, we'd still have the problem of proving what or who created life; and I don't know about you, but I'm not convinced by a 2000 year old book that thought the world was flat, has talking snakes, people walking on water, and zombies visiting their relatives. I'm sure this is what he's alluding to - forget science, and believe the retarded low budget magic tricks in the bible.
FallenAngel0fDoom 2 years ago 2
I'm just as unswayed by the 2000 year old piece of literature. Fun story, bad science/philosophy.
That said, we need to process that we can even infer a creator before I start to argue about which one.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
first the old testament is much more than 2000 years old.
second this "bad science" goes almost exactly with our most modern about the creation of earth and life.
third, the fact that people thousands of years ago who were no where near as advanced as we are were able to come up with this when we need computers and micro wave detecters and high powered obiting telescopes to come up with the same thing. Coincidence? i dont think so
SuperWillis12345 2 years ago