ANYONE who does not believe in evolution with all of the available evidence is a retard. Funnily enough most people in developed countries believe evolution with the exception of the USA where a staggering 60% of the population dont believe it. It is as sound a theory as the theory of relativity. We should throw a few of them off of tall buildings and see if they believe in scientific theories then.
Thus Says YHWH: Madness has come over the world and My wrath also, for I have removed My hand... Yea, the earth is forsaken for this short time, where I have turned to it My back, until the Day comes where I shall move swiftly against it! Behold, My countenance is changed, and I shall surely turn back to it with My face set against it... Not for good, but for great calamity! Even this year shall many feel the strength of The Lord building quickly in His anger...
lol I don't get what he's so afraid of? I mean rather than actually being serious about the accusation, he simply responds with ad hominem statement. And people believe this guy? lmfao
@iamspid3rman You don't understand what science is or how it works. That's your fault, you're either lazy or stupid. Ray Comfort is clearly a buffoon. People don't "believe" Dawkins, they "believe" empiricism and logical reasoning. A good scientist has no agenda but the truth. You know what science, or scientia rather, means in latin Mr ad hominem? Knowledge. Try enlighten yourself. Or continue propagating ignorance, up to you.
@macgyver12345678 Once again, nothing but ad hominem attacks on Ray Comfort as opposed to the argument he alleges. I tend to look at both sides of the story rather than dismissing someone because he's not a 'scientist', because clearly people write books with such claims without doing any scientific research LOL 'A good scientist has no agenda but the truth' LOL And the tooth fairy loves you too. How gullible and ignorant can one person be.
@iamspid3rman Ok, you're a lost cause. If you've actually looked at Ray's "side of the story" and found something convincing.. well, I'll put you in the 'stupid' category rather than lazy. I pray you will one day understand more fully your connection with nature. Maybe some sort of brain trauma will help you out.
@macgyver12345678 No argument, just simplistic person attacks. I guess your condescending tone is used as a guard to thwart off those 'crazies', who believe otherwise. But yeah, if you believe that a monkey is a common ancestor of yours, then go ahead, I just think it's a tad ironic for you to put anyone in the 'stupid' category, but I guess your rational stems from laziness as opposed to my alleged 'stupid.' lol
@iamspid3rman It's simply a fact that we and all other life evolved. Completely uncontentious. Inject your god where you like. But you have to come to terms with this at least. It really is a beautiful thing. You need to understand the development of philosophy and science and then you'll appreciate why it works- and why it's the only thing we can really rely on. There's more than one book..
@macgyver12345678 'It's simply a fact that we and all other life evolved'- No it's not and I dare you to find a scientist to say, "evolution is a fact." I love how people believe that because someone believes in God, that they must clearly be ignorant of science and philosophy, whereas they have to know MORE about the sciences in order to have such a belief and to defend it properly. You ignorance and bias is permeating every word you type and it's destroying any validity you wish to present.
@iamspid3rman Yes, you sound like you know more about philosophy and science than me. I'm trying to lend a helping hand here. Pull you out from the boggy mire of dogma. Dawkins himself says evolution is a fact, in a colloquial sense it is. It's germ theory, but germs patently exist. It's a theory we revolve around the sun, but also quite clearly true. That's the nature of science. It doesn't base itself on absolute certainty but is open to new data, always.
@macgyver12345678 I'm sorry, but Dawkins holds absolutely zero validity in my eyes due to his flippant remarks and his arrogance in regards to God. Science will never disprove the existence of God, because simply put, to science, there must ALWAYS be another explanation. I mean the fact that Earth revolves around the sun perfectly without collision, the natural laws of this Earth, supernatural events, etc. I'm sorry, but to believe this is an accident is beyond comprehension or rationality.
@iamspid3rman Ok, I never said anything about the existence of God, but rather the theist idea (look up that word - a christian is a theist) of an intervening god who performs miracles and the like. This is as opposed to the position of a deist who holds that god is simply the Prime Mover or uncaused first cause.
@iamspid3rman A deist is within his rights to believe a god or some supreme architect created it all and not tread on the toes of modern science (knowledge, remember). A theist is on much shakier ground e.g. miracles (the suspension of natural law) is a scientific claim.
@macgyver12345678 LOL Dude no matter how much science one learns, there will always questions that science will never be able to explain. It's the questions they can explain, it's the questions they cannot that entice people.
@iamspid3rman Did you read my distinction between deist/theist? Do you understand that miracles are a scientific claim? so far you've answered nothing. My series of science questions were regarding your statement: "because someone believes in God, that they must clearly be ignorant of science and philosophy, whereas they have to know MORE about the sciences in order to have such a belief and to defend it properly." I guess doublethink is what gets you through everything. You're an expert.
@macgyver12345678 By mere definition, miracles are not a scientific claim. So now that you've lost your validity, why should I continue to listen to anything else you have to say?
@iamspid3rman Also, if there's anything that has a chance of explaining everything, it's science. Pretty good track record. 'God did it' isn't really explaining anything is it? it's actually assuming complexity far greater than what we're trying to account for. I have faith you'll find the light.
@macgyver12345678 The track record for science is not good at all. After all these years,the best science has come up with for our existence is the Big Bang Theory which all mathematicians say is basically impossible, and the Evolution, which takes more faith to believe than believing there's a higher power. I think it's mixture of arrogance and denial that jades the scientific community and fans of it.Science can't confirm the supernatural because there is no scientific method for it.
Can you give me some sources that quote "all mathematicians" on that? And how can believing in evolution require more faith than belief in a higher power, when empirical evidence exists for the former and not the latter?
@iamspid3rman This is what I'm talking about - you don't know enough. Can you tell me why time seems to be unidirectional? How stars and solar systems form? Where the elements come from? Why nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? What the three essential properties a molecule (or any entity) requires for Natural Selection to occur are? How we know the universe is expanding? If you answer no to anyone of those you need to learn more, that's basic science.
@iamspid3rman Also, I'm not just assuming you believe in god, I'm assuming you are a theist and a creationist of some description. These positions are overtly contradictory to science, so I'd say you really know nothing about science.. I'd love to see you try to use it to defend your beliefs properly though.
@macgyver12345678 Interesting, but I'm actually a Christian. The fact that you think science cannot be used to defend the existence of God or at least hint at one is beyond me, considering the amount of literature that is in abundance that attempts to due so.Whether you disagree with them or not is personal, but to assume that it's not possible to do so 'properly' is ignorant and seems to be beyond your reality. Many people are so rooted in their beliefs that they simply dismiss others entirely.
@JSAL323 Who said everything came from nothing? The only one here claiming "everything came from nothing" are those that think the planets, animals and universe were poofed into existence by a magical being.
I love it when you people use ad hominem attacks by saying someone else did when they didn't. You don't even know what an AH attack is, so you do it yourself all the time when the people you accuse of doing it actually don't.
there is no refutation of darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a serious scientist not an idiot.
God is a METAPHOR for the mystery that transcends all human categories of thought, even the categories of being and non-being. It's the mystery of the ground of your own being. -Joseph Campbell
Almost every scientist in the world accepts evolution, even the Catholic church does. You don't ? Oh well.... Delusional disorder, maybe your brain chemistry is out of whack.
I'm sure you can prove your Judeo-christian god is real...right?
@geezusispan A) No. Almost every scientist in the world does NOT accept evolution. It's just prominent in the scientific world right now. Thus making it hard to get a Ph. D if you don't believe in it.
B) The Catholic church only represents a particular christian denomination.
C) Let me guess, and you're the sane one, right? You're more upper class? A higher breed? Better educated? Right. Cool story, bro.
D) I have
Now give evidence to back up your claims. Otherwise, this conversation is over
@SuburbiaSurvivor No biologists deny evolution. That's because evolution is the truth. There's no other alternative. And just because you're a PhD, doesn't mean you're a scientist. That's just one more thing you don't know, because you're fucking retarded.
@ninjajesus81 A) That's ridiculous. Thousands of biologists deny macroevolution. I even named a few.
B) " And just because you're a PhD, doesn't mean you're a scientist" Are you kidding me? Did you actually mean say that? That's like saying an astronauts aren't really astronauts if they don't believe in aliens.
You're so biased towards your world view you consider all who don't believe it to be inferior to you. Your arrogance betrays you, however. It reveals your insecurity.
@SuburbiaSurvivor says - Now give evidence to back up your claims. Otherwise, this conversation is over'
l
Again? I don't care if you ever troll me, or not.... My claim is your god is a figment of your imagination. Evolution is self evident..... I don't care if you know that or not. You are delusional, so anything you say is a joke.
@geezusispan How do you expect me to take your comments seriously if you refuse to provide evidence to back up your claims?
I'd love to debate with you. But I'm not interested in a flame war where you mindlessly tell me I'm inferior to you, while providing literally no evidence nor coherent logical arguments to back up your claims.
@ninjajesus81 What creationist website! That goes to show how much you know. Who said I believed we came from a single cell organism? I said there is hard evidence of mild forms of evolution but no evidence of us coming from a single celled organism or monkey besides theory. How is my thought random? It's a ligetmet direct question that you cant answer. You use facts mixed with your Ideas and theroy and say I have to believe it. You said it you dont know origins anything esle is a guess
@mikedg4104 There is no evidence of us coming from monkeys. Who said there was?
I can't answer your question because I'm not an evolutionary biologist. If I asked you what the derivative of x^2x^2 is, and you can't answer me, does that mean no one can answer it?
I don't say what you have to believe, I'm just saying what's true. You can believe the moon is made of cheese, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
@ninjajesus81 I Totally appreciate your first part of the answer. I don't believe that believing in God is like believing the moon is made of cheese. There are very intelligent people on both sides and as long as we can keep the conversation going without killing each other it will challenge all of us to look for truth. I will keep searching for answers and honestly appreciate these types of conversations and your time. If there is a God I do pray that he blesses you I say this sincerely.
@ninjajesus How can Dawkins point and say that origin of life could have come from an evolved alien yet I say its God and I am crazy? Still your argument of a turtle makes no sense from a nurturing to a non nurturing animal. Point to me of evidence of an animal evoloved froma nurturing to non nurturing animal? Because that mother turtle still needs to nest, lay and cover the eggs to incubate in order for them to hatch. The turtle is still nurturing without that mother there would be no life.
@mikedg4104 The origin of life could have come from an extraterrestrial source. There's even evidence that may have happened through chemicals found in meteorites.
Aliens are life that's not from Earth. That's not far-fetched. There's evidence of life, there's evidence of trillions of planets on which life could form.
There is not one shred of evidence that a god exists or even that he COULD exist. Don't compare a belief in aliens to a belief in god. There's no comparison.
@mikedg4104 So you have a problem with the possibility of a species evolving from a non-nurturing species to a nurturing species? That's such a specific and trivial problem to have with evolution. You don't mind the fact that we evolved from single celled organisms? It's the non-nurturing to nurturing part that's the sticking point for you? That's so random. It sounds like you just picked a random "problem" off a creationist website to go with.
What your stating does not prove there's no GOD. Also what your stating does not answer my question. How can you go from self nurturing to a nurturing animal. How did that first infant survive? a self sustainable human would mean we are digressing as humans? I know every human needs a mother and father and mother’s womb to have life. Every infant needs a care giver. DNA is passed from parents to infant. You can break down DNA but we know where the genetic information comes from.
Continued Where would it have come from that first cell or protein it had to come from somewhere right? Anything that would be self nurturing would have to be superior to who we are now right?
@mikedg4104 So turtles are superior to us because they don't need parental care and we do?
Where did the first cell or protein come from? The first cell evolved.
How do you explain it? Magic? You're critiquing every scientific discipline while inserting your own imaginary friend without the slightest bit of that same critique.
@mikedg4104 Saying "god did it" isn't a valid answer just because no one knows the real answer.
If there's a leaf on the ground with no trees around for it to fall from, and we can't come up with an explanation, does that open the door for any ridiculous thing you want to say?
Can you say the leaf was brought there by fairies simply because we have no other explanation? No. If you don't know, then just say "I don't know", don't start going off on fairy tales as if they're valid.
Well how do baby turtles survive? Their mother does nothing for them. They hatch and walk to the sea to make it on their own.
Not every animal needs parental care. So if you go from being one of those animals to one that does need parental care, it'll be a gradual process. So there's no one infant dying because it didn't have any parental care. This just shows you have no idea what evolution even is.
Magic?? look at your answer there is no answer there. somewhere in that so called evolution of man how can you go from self nurturing to a nurturing animal. How do you cross over and have the first infant survive? Talk about magic... DNA would have come from nothing to something am I correct? point to me how this crossover could have happened how does that make sense
@mikedg4104 Your understanding of evolution is terrible.
There are animals that have evolved from land to go into the water, or vice versa, and you think going from non-nurturing to nurturing is a large change?
You're not interested in learning anything about evolution, you just want to believe what your redneck preacher tells you to believe, and anything else is automatically false.
@ Wow my redneck preacher! Nice argument. I am aware that there are forms of evolution that are proven which do not prove there is no God. But you point at other Ideas in order not to answer my question directly.
@SuburbiaSurvivor On the one hand you say the scientists don't know a lot. On the other hand you say biogenesis is impossible and you have the SCIENCE to back up your claim! Do you see the problem you have created for yourself? Not to mention, there is NO evidence for your intelligent designer....none.
@geezusispan Yes, everything about what we see screams of intelligent design. The intricate design of a cell, the complex, still not completely understood code of the DNA, the thousands of survival techniques of various creatures.
And the law of biotics. Life comes from life. There has never been a single observed example of life coming from non-living matter.
That's right, buddy. I'm crying a river. Your insults cut me so deep... :(
@SuburbiaSurvivor says - everything about what we see screams of intelligent design. The intricate design of a cell, the complex, still not completely understood code of the DNA, the thousands of survival techniques of various creatures.
l
Not one of those things demonstrate a designer, not even in the least. You lose again....
I will admit we don't know where life comes from but, there is NO hint of a designer, except in brainwashed religious fantics' pea brains...
@geezusispan What you're saying is like looking at a car and thinking "That came about randomly".
In what way do these things not demonstrate a designer? Do you mean that you did not see the designer design them? Perhaps that means that everything we did not see designed was not designed.
Interesting: Explain how logic, reason, universalism, and morality can exist without a creator giving source to them.
Only the insecure resort to insults. Who hurt you?
There are MANY things way beyond human knowledge possibly beyond comprehension. There is NO hint of an ultimate designer. All you are saying is the same old same old, I don't understand it so it must be gawd. You spend your time arguing against evolution which has had scientific proofs for over a century. Then you believe in a hypothesis, more like a leap of faith, with NO evidence.
@geezusispan Wrong* I'm saying I do understand it which is why it must be Gawd. :) Explain the helium leakage rate. If you don't understand it, learn it. Then explain to me why helium leakage dates rock A to 5,000 years when U to Pb dating throws out an estimate of a billion years with a margin of error of several million years. Then laugh with me about people who think you can tell the age of a rock with carbon dating.
@geezusispan No hint of an ultimate designer? Elaborate.
No, I'm saying I do understand much of the world, and by understanding what I do know of the world, I understand that the world and complexity, and therefore understand that the world must have been created.
Proof of evolution? Ha. Let's hear it.
Sure I believe in a hypothesis, so do you: Abiogenesis. See? We both believe in our own flying spaghetti monsters.
@geezusispan Ha, staying on the defensive, are we? It's not as strong a position as you may think. Everything we see today is extremely more elaborate and complex then the world's most famous painting. Therefore, since order and complexity comes from intelligent design, I can only logically assume that there is an intelligent designer. Very simple.
*Abiogenesis. Biogenesis would be biology being created, not creating itself, or just happening.
@geezusispan You're assuming the universe is billions of years (in relation to earth's timestream), and that life came about naturally and randomly. So no, not a straw man.
Too simple? Einstein said if you can't explain something to a 3 year old you don't understand it yourself.
Understandable, yet in your skepticism you have no room to be arrogant, since you admit that you do not know. Because I could very well be right.
@geezusispan Now that I have given you my "proof", you must now either offer a refutation or rebuttal to my claim that order and complexity arise from intelligent design, or attack the logical set up of my argument.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Can life come from something that isn't alive? Sure, why not? Is that any stranger than your deity, I mean designer? Has life been created in a laboratory? They seem to be getting closer. Has the creator shown up at all? Nope... Did life originate on Earth? Why reinvent the wheel, maybe every planet that is 'right' can grow the seeds of life that are all over the universe. I don't think we know enough to make a really good guess.
@geezusispan God is alive, therefore if he created everything, then life can never come from non-living matter. Especially randomly.
Closer? I beg to differ. The more they discover they discover how improbable it is.
Has the creator shown up at all? I could argue that he's done it multiple times, but that would rely upon you believing personal experiences, testimonies, and ancient texts.
So aliens? Haha! Better stock up on your lazer pistols ;)
@SuburbiaSurvivor The following can indicate a delusion: The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force. That idea appears to exert an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent. Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
@geezusispan Hahaha! In that case atheists/agnostics are deluded as well! In fact, we're ALL deluded if we believe in ANYTHING! Where'd you get that idea? From that pornstar who debated Ray Comfort?
How do you know the bible is mythology?
I have no credibility? Or you're just looking for a way to cop out of a conversation with someone who isn't intimidated by your insults in the slightest? ;)
There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Is the world so complex that it blows human thinking out of the water? Oh yeah! Does that mean that because we don't understand it there is a designer? No, of course not, especially since there is not even a trace of a designer. I don't have to explain any of your questions, although I can answer some of them. YOU however, have to show some actual evidence of your gawd, oh i mean "designer".
@geezusispan We're not the only ones who need to provide evidence. Darwin said that if evolution is true, the fossil record will get simpler the deeper you go. Darwin is dead, and the fossil record has greatly expanded.The older the fossil, the more complicated the organism... Microevolution is true. Things change over time, and the change are nearly always deletions. Macroevolution is false. We have no legitimate examples of additions to DNA, just duplications or deletions.
@sj15tx Darwin was 19th century, has science dis[proved his work? Yeah, some of it.
Does that mean there must be a gawd? Hell no..... Does the age of rocks prove or disprove a gawd? I don't see how... Science changes as new 'truths' are uncovered, that's a good thing Mythologies tell us that ALL gods live within the hearts of humans.
@geezusispan Do you remember the video you commented on? This one.. Where Dawkins says there is no refutation of Darwin in existence? Re-run the 12 seconds. I guess he's accurate. The fossil record doesn't refute Darwin because Darwin said he would deny macroevolution if the fossil record turned out the way it has. But Dawkins is being manipulative in telling people that makes evolution fool proof. Darwin wasn't refuted by the fossil record, but his theory was.
@geezusispan I do commend you for one thing. You admit that science changes whereas truth does not. Truth is not relative. We disagree, but at least we both have a genuine desire to know what information is actually true.
@sj15tx says - We disagree, but at least we both have a genuine desire to know what information is actually true.
l
That is very close to true right there. Ultimate "truth" my be unknowable to humans, we are a long way off right now. It's a work in progress, to say this happened for sure at the beginning of time/space HAS to be conjecture. The beginning of life is the same, logical guessing is all we have.
@geezusispan No, I am not making an argument from ignorance. Quite the contrary, I am making an argument from knowledge. It's like studying a painting. At first, it looks simple, perhaps paint fell on this canvas, but upon examination, you understand that it would be impossible for the painting to look the way it does without extreme care to have been taken.
Evidence? Any kind of evidence? Alright, everything that exists today.
Give one example of nothing creating something. I'm waiting...
@SuburbiaSurvivor Comparing a car to a human is a fallacy. A car did not come about through generations of evolution.
Also, I would like you to check your own logic: logic is what happens when 1+1 = 2. Logic is a human process, it does not need a divine being to be created at all.
Furthermore, there is absolutely NO evidence of intelligent design in any form, I would like to know why you think this is so true.
@NoPlantzPlz That statement assumes we came about by means of evolution. It makes an un-proved implication.
Interesting, I would like to ask you how logic could even exist without a supreme being giving source to it. Logic is completely, 100%, not arbitrary. Therefore it is uniform. How could uniformity arise without a being giving source to that uniformity?
Interesting, I disagree. There's plenty of suggestive evidence for intelligent design.
@SuburbiaSurvivor I would like to ask you, what evidence? Give me clear, categorical and empirical evidence that a creator MUST have designed life. I assure you there is none. Logic of course, can exist without a creator, I believe, however this argument is impossible to argue from both sides.
For instance you cannot prove indefinitely that without some intangible divine being there would be no logic, just as I can't argue that with the pretense of a god, logic exists from them
@SuburbiaSurvivor Please stop insulting people, you are making a more and more ad hominem argument.
By the way, there WAS an example of life forming from amino bases and nucleotides, this has been observed.
I team of researchers at whatever university, I forget, was able to synthesise a form of bacterium which has successfully responded to chemical stimuli. We have been creating retroviruses for many years also.
Nucleotide bases, amino acids were formed experimentalliy in 1952.
@NoPlantzPlz Actually, I've remained quite calm for a few weeks. If you're willing to abstain from ad hominem, I will as well.
Can you site a source for the creation of this bacterium and give more details on the background of this research? I do not see this as an example of spontaneous example, but I can't make much of a case against it until you provide more details.
@NoPlantzPlz Are you referring to the Miller/Urey experiment? For one, the amino acids were racemic. Making them useless for life. Also, the only nucleotides that were made in 1952 were adenine and guanine. Cytosine was made but through a process that was extremely unlikely to have taken place (I will make a case against cytosine production, if you wish to hear it). Also Ribose and deoxyribose would not have existed either to create the double helix polynucleotide RNA.
@SuburbiaSurvivor So which is it, is abiogenesis altogether impossible, or is the hypotheses put forth by scientists impossible? Just because you can find problems with a hypothesis of abiogenesis, doesn't do anything to disprove abiogenesis.
Einstein found problems with Newton's theory of gravity, so did that disprove gravity itself?
And I'm not even admitting your problems are legitimate. You're reading the book the scientists wrote and saying they're wrong.
@SuburbiaSurvivor So which is it, is abiogenesis altogether impossible, or is the hypotheses put forth by scientists impossible? Just because you can find problems with a hypothesis of abiogenesis, doesn't do anything to disprove abiogenesis.
Einstein found problems with Newton's theory of gravity, so did that disprove gravity itself?
And I'm not even admitting your problems are legitimate. You're reading the book the scientists wrote and saying they're wrong.
@ninjajesus81 Both. Au contraire, my friend. If you proposed that you could fly, and I pointed out the problem " have no wings", that would disprove your claim, wouldn't it?
Gravity is observable. Abiogenesis? Not so much.
No, I'm reading their book and saying the problems they find with their own hypothesis are legitimate problems. Go research Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey critique of abiogenesis hypothesis's. I happen to like his reasonable approach to his own theory.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Both? So you're saying abiogenesis altogether is impossible? And you're saying their hypotheses are impossible?
You've done nothing to prove either impossible. But even if I granted you that you proved their hypotheses impossible, that does NOTHING to prove that abiogenesis itself is impossible.
And good job completely misunderstanding the point of the gravity analogy. You misunderstood it so bad that it seems like you purposely ignored the point of it.
Actually, I have proven current hypothesis to be impossible. And if you'd like more proof, I'd be happy to give it to you.
I'm sorry, were you trying to say that abiogenesis is possible because gravity is a theory? Pardon me for misinterpreting. Bad, SuburbiaSurvivor, Bad SuburbiaSurvivor!
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, let me repeat myself again, like I keep having to do, just because you prove a hypothesis for abiogenesis wrong (not even saying you did, because I'm sure you haven't even come close to doing that), that doesn't prove abiogenesis wrong. If you prove my hypothesis of how gravity works wrong, does that prove gravity wrong? No. And no, I'm not equating gravity with abiogenesis, for fuck's sake.
Go read that analogy again until you understand it. Unbelievable
@ninjajesus81 Here's my point: The building blocks for life can't form under prebiotic conditions, they can't come together on their own into any DNA, RNA, or DNA derivative polynucleotide, they can't fully self-replicate, they can't repair themselves when they do semi-self-replicate, and there's no way a mechanism for reading and comprehending the DNA code could come about. It's a lot more then just enzymes. There's organization.
@ninjajesus81 I've already stated the evidence at least 3 times. Must I post it again? With all the cute little references to science books and journals? Maybe if I post it a fourth time you'll acknowledge that I'm not making all this up, and then you can start giving serious responses that deal with real issues instead of side-stepping them claiming life came about "some other way".
@SuburbiaSurvivor I saw the "evidence" you posted. You just posted something and assumed you could just start listing things that it proves.
So you're saying uracil needed life to already exist for it to be created?
Well apparently not.
Here's a Wikipedia quote.
"In a scholarly article published in October 2009, NASA scientists reported having reproduced uracil from pyrimidine by exposing it to ultraviolet light under space-like conditions."
@ninjajesus81 Mmhmm. I know about that. Do you even know what pyrimidine is? It's the base pair cytosine and uracil Basically what happened is, they found a way to get uracil from cytosine.
Problem: No cytosine.
You're back where you started.
Oh, and Miller created cytosine from a cytosine intermediate that was not only too unstable to accumulate in the desired amounts, but wouldn't have existed in the first place.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Where the hell are you getting your information about pyrimidine? It's not cytosine at all. Pyrimidine is C4H4N2. Cytosine is C4H5N3O. Big difference.
@ninjajesus81 Cytosine is a pyrimidine. To be technically accurate it is a pyrimidine derivative. Pyrimidine is the base that forms cytosine and uracil. I'm not sure exactly how it works. But pyrimidines are cytosine and uracil, and purines are adenine and guanine.
Essentially the NASA turned the pyrimidine cytosine into uracil using UV light. Which is great. If you have cytosine.
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, they're not the same thing. Stop being dishonest. Cytosine is a pyrimidine derivative. That means cytosine is made from pyrimidine.
@ninjajesus81 Oh, I just looked it up and you're right. When I first heard about scientists making uracil, they had exposed cytosine to UV light. Anyway, uracil can't bond into a base pair without cytosine or ribose. The main problem has always been a lack of cytosine anyway, since once they have that, they can make uracil from it by exposing it to UV light. But now they can make it from pyrimidine, which is cool, but not really that helpfull.
@SuburbiaSurvivor So what are you arguing? That abiogenesis is impossible because the current form of DNA couldn't have been made? You would need to prove that abiogenesis could only start with the current form of DNA, which you can't do, so you blow it off, saying there's no evidence of any other form of DNA, therefore it didn't exist.
Cool, then we go straight to the heart of the issue. No proof of god, then god doesn't exist.
.@ninjajesus81 Dawkins admits he does not know the origins of life came so why do all atheist talk as if they do by arguing other points. Can an atheist explain to me how an infant whether a monkey infant or human infant survive without a nurturing parent. An infant cannot survive by itself somewhere In that stream of evolution you would have had the first infant? Think about it, this allows me to believe that man was created in adult hood for life to exist. This is a sincere question.
@mikedg4104 We don't know the origins of life, but we know DNA had to evolve. It didn't just magically appear.
And about your monkey question; some animals don't need nurturing. Monkeys and humans evolved into a species that has infants that require nurturing.
But this is what drives me crazy. You have a serious question that you don't know the answer to, so instead of finding out the true answer, you just assume it was magic. How does that make sense at all?
@ninjajesus81 I'm arguing that abiogenesis is impossible for multiple reasons, I'm just starting off with DNA because it's an easy target. Of course, if you want to get into DNA derivates we could talk about RNP etc. Let's say we did have a fully formed, double helix DNA strand. That's still not life. There are dozens of other mechanisms required to read the DNA and fix any mutations that have taken place during replication etc.
@SuburbiaSurvivor You started off with DNA because you thought you had an argument, which you don't.
First, your reason for why abiogenesis is impossible is because cytosine needs life to already exist for it to exist, which assumes that the first life, or first self-replicating molecule needed cytosine; something you still haven't even bothered to try to prove. And I found out that you don't need life to make cytosine, and now you're ready to move onto something else.
@ninjajesus81 No, not just cytosine. I had two other points, and those were just my favorites. I could write a 5 page essay on the problems with abiogenesis, in fact, I am.
Oh you did, did you? From the cytosine derivative, right? Let's hear it.
Oh yeah, and apparently there are two more DNA bases: 5-formylcytosine and 5 carboxylcytosine.
@ninjajesus81 Wait, is that your comment? I thought you were going to mention how cyanoacetylene and cyanoacetaldehyde are produced in some spark charge expiriments and when concentrated purely and reacted with other chemicals it creates small yields of cytosine!
Hahaha, you insult me as if you think I care! Come now, let's stay on topic.
@SuburbiaSurvivor You're obviously getting your information from creationists websites that have lists of "problems" with various scientific topics. You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just copying and pasting. Neither of us are chemists, which is why you have such an inclination to discuss chemistry; you think you can bullshit me.
I already proved you wrong on one point, and now you want to move to another. You have a bunch of points? Yeah, and they're all BS.
@ninjajesus81 Who cares where I get my source? Why not try debating against the points, not the source? Creationists present facts with a different take on things then evolutionists. The facts are still true. I may not be a chemist, but you don't need to be one to understand this stuff. It's basic.
Well, you proved they can create uracil. So kudos for that. However, my main point was an absence of cytosine, which makes the other two nucleobases: 5-formylcytosine and 5 carboxylcytosine.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Creationists present facts? You haven't proven that they're facts. Posting words and calling them facts doesn't make them really facts.
Your argument is that abiogenesis is impossible. We don't need to go point by point of every molecule in DNA that could or couldn't have existed from the beginning, because you would need to prove that the current form of DNA is the only molecule that can self-replicate. You haven't done that.
@ninjajesus81 I haven't presented facts? I gave scientific, non-creationist sources for my facts. Honestly, dude, you sound like you're in denial.
Irrelevant. Unless you can prove that there is a molecule other then DNA/RNA that can self-replicate and can evolve into DNA/RNA, abiogenesis hypothesis is as much a fairy tale as the flying spaghetti monster. This is your theory, not mine, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders.
@SuburbiaSurvivor What scientific facts have you given me? You're naming scientific words, but you're not proving any of your points with them.
You're claiming that abiogenesis was impossible because today's DNA couldn't have been made. You need to prove that today's DNA was required. You're blowing it off because you can't do that.
@ninjajesus81 Read our comment section, it was like two days ago. Here's how the facts show abiogenesis is impossible: It shows that the ingredients for life couldn't have existed in pre-biotic earth. Therefore life couldn't have spontaneously arose.
I know of no organisms that use a form of DNA different then the classic DNA and RNA that we use. Also, I have heard of no processes in which RNP etc. could evolve into DNA and RNA.
@SuburbiaSurvivor For you to say the ingredients for life couldn't have existed in pre-biotic Earth means you know what ingredients are REQUIRED for life. You don't. You just know what ingredients are required for the life we've discovered and observed.
And your statement also says that life couldn't have arose here, but we're life, and we're here. So obviously there's a huge problem with your conclusion.
@ninjajesus81 Here's the problem: I can't prove life didn't come from some other form of DNA because there are no known organisms that utilize any sort of DNA derivative other then the DNA that we see today. It's like proving flying spaghetti monsters don't exist. No one has ever seen a flying spaghetti, nor is there evidence of one. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but essentially we end up discussing fairy tales.
@SuburbiaSurvivor You keep trying to make it sound like I'm asking you to prove a negative. I'm not. I said it several times now. I'm asking you to prove that the modern form of DNA is the only way life could have arose. Because that's exactly what you're arguing. You're arguing that the first life needed modern DNA (Prove it), and modern DNA couldn't have existed back then.
@ninjajesus81 I can't prove that the first life (assuming the first life was a simple cell in the first place) didn't have modern DNA because not only do we not have any fossil record of any such first life, we also have no examples of any sort of organism that utilizes any sort of DNA other then modern DNA.
So that's my point. I can't disprove it, because there's literally no evidence for it in the first place.
Yes, obviously. But that doesn't mean intelligent design wasn't involved.
@SuburbiaSurvivor How many times do I have to say this? I'm not telling you to disprove something.
I told you that for you to prove abiogenesis is impossible, you must prove that modern DNA couldn't have been made, and you need to prove that modern DNA was required. You keep twisting that into me telling you to prove a negative. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself before you understand.
@ninjajesus81 You seem to be completely missing the point. I can not disprove it because there's no evidence for it. You're telling me to prove abiogenesis couldn't have produced some sort of primitive DNA derivative that then somehow evolved into modern DNA.
If you want to take absence of evidence as proof that it can't happen, then sure, it didn't.
It's like me asking you to prove God doesn't exist.
@ninjajesus81 "I told you that for you to prove abiogenesis is impossible, you must prove that modern DNA couldn't have been made, and you need to prove that modern DNA was required."
I did prove modern DNA couldn't have been made. And I already told you I can not prove modern DNA was required for any sort of first life. I have told you this a multiple times now.
Yes, you are asking me to disprove abiogenesis by disproving these claims that you have made.
@SuburbiaSurvivor There's no evidence that there was any first organism because that evidence would be almost impossible to find. How do you scour the Earth for evidence of the first microscopic piece of life that lived billions of years ago? You can't. And you don't get to say that until we find that evidence, that it's impossible for it to exist.
I conclude that they did use a DNA derivative? Quote it. If you're going to keep making up bullshit, I'm telling you to quote.
@ninjajesus81 If you'd read my comments, you would realize that I'm not making a claim that it's impossible for the first life to have arisen from a DNA derivative (a form of DNA different then the classic DNA all organisms utlize). I'm just saying attempting to prove it to be impossible would be like proving kryptonite exists. There's just no evidence.
Now if you claim RNP was the first DNA, I can work with that. But I can't disprove an unspecified claim with no evidence for it whatsoever.
@SuburbiaSurvivor You made the claim that modern DNA was needed. Prove it.
You didn't prove that the first life had modern DNA, because that's self-evident. A DNA molecule is extremely complex; a molecule like that doesn't just assemble in one step.
I'm not making a claim. There's no evidence how it happened, but there is evidence THAT it happened; life exists. So it must have happened. And it would have happened with the natural laws of chemistry and natural selection.
@ninjajesus81 There are no examples of any organism that doesn't use modern DNA. All life requires DNA. There is no evidence that disproves this claim.
So you're saying it's obvious the first life had modern DNA? Then on what grounds do you make an argument? You're essentially agreeing with me!
Yes, but the fact that there is life does not prove abiogenesis took place. That's like saying humans and monkeys look similar therefore they are distant cousins.
@SuburbiaSurvivor There are no examples of an organism that doesn't use modern DNA? So? You said that organisms require modern DNA,or they can't exist. Prove it.
I didn't say the first life had modern DNA. You suck at reading comprehension, among other things.
The fact that life exists proves you wrong. You say the first life needed modern DNA, but modern DNA couldn't exist when the first life existed. So reality proves you wrong.
@ninjajesus81 "You didn't prove that the first life had modern DNA, because that's self-evident" You're right, it is self-evident.
So? It proves all life as we know it needs modern DNA. Maybe there are some magical organisms that use another type of DNA, but maybe cheetahs exist on the moon.
What? No, it proves that life was created, somehow, with modern DNA. It doesn't prove abiogenesis. Your logical structure is biased agains the existence of a God. Rendering it a fallacy.
@ninjajesus81 "The fact that life exists proves you wrong. You say the first life needed modern DNA, but modern DNA couldn't exist when the first life existed. So reality proves you wrong."
I'm going to assume you're trolling. And let you take that comment back. The logic in that assessment is so flawed a 6 year old could point it out.
@SuburbiaSurvivor I quoted you, and then you come back saying what I said was illogical, when what I was saying was what you said. So you're saying that what you said was illogical? You're crazy.
@ninjajesus81 You're argument is that life exists, therefore abiogenesis is possible, because abiogenesis is the only possible means for life to come about.
My argument is that life exists, therefore intelligent design is the cause, because all life comes from life, and all things have a cause.
At least mine is based upon a scientific law (biogenesis). Yours is backed up by a hypothesis with not a shred of proof to give it sustenance.
@SuburbiaSurvivor My argument is that life exists, therefore it arose through established scientific means. Chemistry and natural selection are established facts in science, so those are two ways that life probably arose.
Your argument is that life comes from life, therefore god created life? So god is living? God is made of flesh and blood? Does he have DNA too? Your argument eats itself.
@ninjajesus81 What scientific means? Abiogenesis is in no way an established scientific means. It's not even considered part of evolution/natural selection etc.
God is life, obviously. He is the source of life. He certainly isn't dead. Life doesn't require flesh, blood, or DNA.
@SuburbiaSurvivor It is not what is Christian in it, but the universal heathen character of its usages, which has favored the spread of this world-religion; its ideas, rooted in both the Jewish and the Hellenic worlds, have from the first known how to raise themselves above national and racial niceties and exclusiveness as though these were merely prejudices.
@SuburbiaSurvivor said - If you'd read my comments, you would realize that I'm not making a claim that it's impossible for the first life to have arisen from a DNA derivative (a form of DNA different then the classic DNA all organisms utlize). I'm just saying attempting to prove it to be impossible, it would be like proving Jesus or Yahweh exists. There's just no evidence.
@geezusispan There are various ancient texts that discuss Jesus. It is accepted even in the atheist world that a person named Jesus did in fact exist. Most just say he was a wise teacher.
@ninjajesus81 "...and you need to prove that modern DNA was required."
If you don't conclude that the first life used a DNA derivative (a form of DNA different then the sort we use today), then logicly, you must conclude that the first organisms used classic DNA. Which I have proven to be impossible.
"...and you need to prove that modern DNA was required."
Let's make this simple for both of us. What is your claim as far as abiogenesis, and what evidence do you have to support that claim
ANYONE who does not believe in evolution with all of the available evidence is a retard. Funnily enough most people in developed countries believe evolution with the exception of the USA where a staggering 60% of the population dont believe it. It is as sound a theory as the theory of relativity. We should throw a few of them off of tall buildings and see if they believe in scientific theories then.
mickeyvegas1 3 days ago
well said! ray comfort is ignorant and uneducated and is only seconded by Kent Hovind!
scottishguy100 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thus Says YHWH: Madness has come over the world and My wrath also, for I have removed My hand... Yea, the earth is forsaken for this short time, where I have turned to it My back, until the Day comes where I shall move swiftly against it! Behold, My countenance is changed, and I shall surely turn back to it with My face set against it... Not for good, but for great calamity! Even this year shall many feel the strength of The Lord building quickly in His anger...
TrumpetCallofGODonline . com
Born4gain 6 days ago
lol I don't get what he's so afraid of? I mean rather than actually being serious about the accusation, he simply responds with ad hominem statement. And people believe this guy? lmfao
iamspid3rman 1 week ago
@iamspid3rman You don't understand what science is or how it works. That's your fault, you're either lazy or stupid. Ray Comfort is clearly a buffoon. People don't "believe" Dawkins, they "believe" empiricism and logical reasoning. A good scientist has no agenda but the truth. You know what science, or scientia rather, means in latin Mr ad hominem? Knowledge. Try enlighten yourself. Or continue propagating ignorance, up to you.
macgyver12345678 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
@macgyver12345678 Once again, nothing but ad hominem attacks on Ray Comfort as opposed to the argument he alleges. I tend to look at both sides of the story rather than dismissing someone because he's not a 'scientist', because clearly people write books with such claims without doing any scientific research LOL 'A good scientist has no agenda but the truth' LOL And the tooth fairy loves you too. How gullible and ignorant can one person be.
iamspid3rman 1 week ago
@iamspid3rman Ok, you're a lost cause. If you've actually looked at Ray's "side of the story" and found something convincing.. well, I'll put you in the 'stupid' category rather than lazy. I pray you will one day understand more fully your connection with nature. Maybe some sort of brain trauma will help you out.
macgyver12345678 1 week ago
@macgyver12345678 No argument, just simplistic person attacks. I guess your condescending tone is used as a guard to thwart off those 'crazies', who believe otherwise. But yeah, if you believe that a monkey is a common ancestor of yours, then go ahead, I just think it's a tad ironic for you to put anyone in the 'stupid' category, but I guess your rational stems from laziness as opposed to my alleged 'stupid.' lol
iamspid3rman 1 week ago
@iamspid3rman It's simply a fact that we and all other life evolved. Completely uncontentious. Inject your god where you like. But you have to come to terms with this at least. It really is a beautiful thing. You need to understand the development of philosophy and science and then you'll appreciate why it works- and why it's the only thing we can really rely on. There's more than one book..
macgyver12345678 1 week ago
@macgyver12345678 'It's simply a fact that we and all other life evolved'- No it's not and I dare you to find a scientist to say, "evolution is a fact." I love how people believe that because someone believes in God, that they must clearly be ignorant of science and philosophy, whereas they have to know MORE about the sciences in order to have such a belief and to defend it properly. You ignorance and bias is permeating every word you type and it's destroying any validity you wish to present.
iamspid3rman 1 week ago
@iamspid3rman Yes, you sound like you know more about philosophy and science than me. I'm trying to lend a helping hand here. Pull you out from the boggy mire of dogma. Dawkins himself says evolution is a fact, in a colloquial sense it is. It's germ theory, but germs patently exist. It's a theory we revolve around the sun, but also quite clearly true. That's the nature of science. It doesn't base itself on absolute certainty but is open to new data, always.
macgyver12345678 1 week ago
@macgyver12345678 I'm sorry, but Dawkins holds absolutely zero validity in my eyes due to his flippant remarks and his arrogance in regards to God. Science will never disprove the existence of God, because simply put, to science, there must ALWAYS be another explanation. I mean the fact that Earth revolves around the sun perfectly without collision, the natural laws of this Earth, supernatural events, etc. I'm sorry, but to believe this is an accident is beyond comprehension or rationality.
iamspid3rman 1 week ago
@iamspid3rman Ok, I never said anything about the existence of God, but rather the theist idea (look up that word - a christian is a theist) of an intervening god who performs miracles and the like. This is as opposed to the position of a deist who holds that god is simply the Prime Mover or uncaused first cause.
macgyver12345678 1 week ago
@iamspid3rman A deist is within his rights to believe a god or some supreme architect created it all and not tread on the toes of modern science (knowledge, remember). A theist is on much shakier ground e.g. miracles (the suspension of natural law) is a scientific claim.
macgyver12345678 1 week ago
Comment removed
macgyver12345678 1 week ago
@macgyver12345678 Your questions prove nothing.
iamspid3rman 1 week ago
@iamspid3rman Uh, they prove you don't know enough science, don't they? I wasn't really trying to prove anything else.. Read below too
macgyver12345678 1 week ago
@macgyver12345678 LOL Dude no matter how much science one learns, there will always questions that science will never be able to explain. It's the questions they can explain, it's the questions they cannot that entice people.
iamspid3rman 1 week ago
@iamspid3rman Did you read my distinction between deist/theist? Do you understand that miracles are a scientific claim? so far you've answered nothing. My series of science questions were regarding your statement: "because someone believes in God, that they must clearly be ignorant of science and philosophy, whereas they have to know MORE about the sciences in order to have such a belief and to defend it properly." I guess doublethink is what gets you through everything. You're an expert.
macgyver12345678 1 week ago
@macgyver12345678 By mere definition, miracles are not a scientific claim. So now that you've lost your validity, why should I continue to listen to anything else you have to say?
iamspid3rman 1 week ago
@iamspid3rman Also, if there's anything that has a chance of explaining everything, it's science. Pretty good track record. 'God did it' isn't really explaining anything is it? it's actually assuming complexity far greater than what we're trying to account for. I have faith you'll find the light.
macgyver12345678 1 week ago
@macgyver12345678 The track record for science is not good at all. After all these years,the best science has come up with for our existence is the Big Bang Theory which all mathematicians say is basically impossible, and the Evolution, which takes more faith to believe than believing there's a higher power. I think it's mixture of arrogance and denial that jades the scientific community and fans of it.Science can't confirm the supernatural because there is no scientific method for it.
iamspid3rman 1 week ago
@iamspid3rman
Can you give me some sources that quote "all mathematicians" on that? And how can believing in evolution require more faith than belief in a higher power, when empirical evidence exists for the former and not the latter?
whywecnthvnicethings 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iamspid3rman This is what I'm talking about - you don't know enough. Can you tell me why time seems to be unidirectional? How stars and solar systems form? Where the elements come from? Why nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? What the three essential properties a molecule (or any entity) requires for Natural Selection to occur are? How we know the universe is expanding? If you answer no to anyone of those you need to learn more, that's basic science.
macgyver12345678 1 week ago
@iamspid3rman Also, I'm not just assuming you believe in god, I'm assuming you are a theist and a creationist of some description. These positions are overtly contradictory to science, so I'd say you really know nothing about science.. I'd love to see you try to use it to defend your beliefs properly though.
macgyver12345678 1 week ago
@macgyver12345678 Interesting, but I'm actually a Christian. The fact that you think science cannot be used to defend the existence of God or at least hint at one is beyond me, considering the amount of literature that is in abundance that attempts to due so.Whether you disagree with them or not is personal, but to assume that it's not possible to do so 'properly' is ignorant and seems to be beyond your reality. Many people are so rooted in their beliefs that they simply dismiss others entirely.
iamspid3rman 1 week ago
@iamspid3rman Afraid of? He responds to it dismissively, just like you would respond to someone saying the earth is flat dismissively.
deRoyLight 1 week ago 6
@deRoyLight Or how you would respond to someone who believes everything came from nothing. Oh wait....????
JSAL323 1 day ago
@JSAL323 Who said everything came from nothing? The only one here claiming "everything came from nothing" are those that think the planets, animals and universe were poofed into existence by a magical being.
Sounds like you're projecting here.
deRoyLight 1 day ago
@iamspid3rman
I love it when you people use ad hominem attacks by saying someone else did when they didn't. You don't even know what an AH attack is, so you do it yourself all the time when the people you accuse of doing it actually don't.
Orthrus 1 week ago
Short and to the point.
ec123456789able 3 weeks ago 9
there is no refutation of darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a serious scientist not an idiot.
IRANisPERSIA1 4 weeks ago
h t t p podcast(dot)ucsd(dot)edu/
Winter 2012
ANTH 102 - Humans Are Cultural Animals Monica Wakefield Audio for ANTH 102 - Humans Are Cultural Animals
ANTH 2 - Human Origins Monica Wakefield Audio for ANTH 2 - Human Origins
BICD 100 - Genetics Deborah Yelon Video for BICD 100 - Genetics Audio for BICD 100 - Genetics
BICD 110 - Cell Biology James Wilhelm Audio for BICD 110 - Cell Biology
BICD 130 - Embryos, Genes, & Development James Posakony Audio for BICD 130 - Embryos, Genes, &
etc.
geezusispan 1 month ago
burnnn
Stickmaleboy 1 month ago
Almighty god??
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
geezusispan 1 month ago
LIKE A BOSS!!!!!
MIAfishing1 1 month ago 6
@MIAfishing1 Shit on Comfort's desk!
1moreastronaut 1 month ago
Find a Crocoduck....and fuck his brains out!
1moreastronaut 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is a METAPHOR for the mystery that transcends all human categories of thought, even the categories of being and non-being. It's the mystery of the ground of your own being. -Joseph Campbell
geezusispan 1 month ago
God bless you guys!
Flingurt 1 month ago
Almost every scientist in the world accepts evolution, even the Catholic church does. You don't ? Oh well.... Delusional disorder, maybe your brain chemistry is out of whack.
I'm sure you can prove your Judeo-christian god is real...right?
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan A) No. Almost every scientist in the world does NOT accept evolution. It's just prominent in the scientific world right now. Thus making it hard to get a Ph. D if you don't believe in it.
B) The Catholic church only represents a particular christian denomination.
C) Let me guess, and you're the sane one, right? You're more upper class? A higher breed? Better educated? Right. Cool story, bro.
D) I have
Now give evidence to back up your claims. Otherwise, this conversation is over
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No biologists deny evolution. That's because evolution is the truth. There's no other alternative. And just because you're a PhD, doesn't mean you're a scientist. That's just one more thing you don't know, because you're fucking retarded.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ninjajesus81 A) That's ridiculous. Thousands of biologists deny macroevolution. I even named a few.
B) " And just because you're a PhD, doesn't mean you're a scientist" Are you kidding me? Did you actually mean say that? That's like saying an astronauts aren't really astronauts if they don't believe in aliens.
You're so biased towards your world view you consider all who don't believe it to be inferior to you. Your arrogance betrays you, however. It reveals your insecurity.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor says - Now give evidence to back up your claims. Otherwise, this conversation is over'
l
Again? I don't care if you ever troll me, or not.... My claim is your god is a figment of your imagination. Evolution is self evident..... I don't care if you know that or not. You are delusional, so anything you say is a joke.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan How do you expect me to take your comments seriously if you refuse to provide evidence to back up your claims?
I'd love to debate with you. But I'm not interested in a flame war where you mindlessly tell me I'm inferior to you, while providing literally no evidence nor coherent logical arguments to back up your claims.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor
We have nothing to debate. You are a delusional uber-christian lost with your head up your own ass.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan Well, sir. I'm sorry you feel that way. Have a nice day.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
Thought he was just going to say "You can f*** off". :-)
DarkAngel182 1 month ago
Lost man.
merkal90000 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 What creationist website! That goes to show how much you know. Who said I believed we came from a single cell organism? I said there is hard evidence of mild forms of evolution but no evidence of us coming from a single celled organism or monkey besides theory. How is my thought random? It's a ligetmet direct question that you cant answer. You use facts mixed with your Ideas and theroy and say I have to believe it. You said it you dont know origins anything esle is a guess
mikedg4104 1 month ago
@mikedg4104 There is no evidence of us coming from monkeys. Who said there was?
I can't answer your question because I'm not an evolutionary biologist. If I asked you what the derivative of x^2x^2 is, and you can't answer me, does that mean no one can answer it?
I don't say what you have to believe, I'm just saying what's true. You can believe the moon is made of cheese, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 I Totally appreciate your first part of the answer. I don't believe that believing in God is like believing the moon is made of cheese. There are very intelligent people on both sides and as long as we can keep the conversation going without killing each other it will challenge all of us to look for truth. I will keep searching for answers and honestly appreciate these types of conversations and your time. If there is a God I do pray that he blesses you I say this sincerely.
mikedg4104 1 month ago
@ninjajesus How can Dawkins point and say that origin of life could have come from an evolved alien yet I say its God and I am crazy? Still your argument of a turtle makes no sense from a nurturing to a non nurturing animal. Point to me of evidence of an animal evoloved froma nurturing to non nurturing animal? Because that mother turtle still needs to nest, lay and cover the eggs to incubate in order for them to hatch. The turtle is still nurturing without that mother there would be no life.
mikedg4104 1 month ago
What I mean by nest is cover her eggs in the sand
mikedg4104 1 month ago
@mikedg4104 The origin of life could have come from an extraterrestrial source. There's even evidence that may have happened through chemicals found in meteorites.
Aliens are life that's not from Earth. That's not far-fetched. There's evidence of life, there's evidence of trillions of planets on which life could form.
There is not one shred of evidence that a god exists or even that he COULD exist. Don't compare a belief in aliens to a belief in god. There's no comparison.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@mikedg4104 So you have a problem with the possibility of a species evolving from a non-nurturing species to a nurturing species? That's such a specific and trivial problem to have with evolution. You don't mind the fact that we evolved from single celled organisms? It's the non-nurturing to nurturing part that's the sticking point for you? That's so random. It sounds like you just picked a random "problem" off a creationist website to go with.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
What your stating does not prove there's no GOD. Also what your stating does not answer my question. How can you go from self nurturing to a nurturing animal. How did that first infant survive? a self sustainable human would mean we are digressing as humans? I know every human needs a mother and father and mother’s womb to have life. Every infant needs a care giver. DNA is passed from parents to infant. You can break down DNA but we know where the genetic information comes from.
mikedg4104 1 month ago
Continued Where would it have come from that first cell or protein it had to come from somewhere right? Anything that would be self nurturing would have to be superior to who we are now right?
mikedg4104 1 month ago
@mikedg4104 So turtles are superior to us because they don't need parental care and we do?
Where did the first cell or protein come from? The first cell evolved.
How do you explain it? Magic? You're critiquing every scientific discipline while inserting your own imaginary friend without the slightest bit of that same critique.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@mikedg4104 Saying "god did it" isn't a valid answer just because no one knows the real answer.
If there's a leaf on the ground with no trees around for it to fall from, and we can't come up with an explanation, does that open the door for any ridiculous thing you want to say?
Can you say the leaf was brought there by fairies simply because we have no other explanation? No. If you don't know, then just say "I don't know", don't start going off on fairy tales as if they're valid.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@mikedg4104 How did the first infant survive?
Well how do baby turtles survive? Their mother does nothing for them. They hatch and walk to the sea to make it on their own.
Not every animal needs parental care. So if you go from being one of those animals to one that does need parental care, it'll be a gradual process. So there's no one infant dying because it didn't have any parental care. This just shows you have no idea what evolution even is.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
Magic?? look at your answer there is no answer there. somewhere in that so called evolution of man how can you go from self nurturing to a nurturing animal. How do you cross over and have the first infant survive? Talk about magic... DNA would have come from nothing to something am I correct? point to me how this crossover could have happened how does that make sense
mikedg4104 1 month ago
@mikedg4104 Your understanding of evolution is terrible.
There are animals that have evolved from land to go into the water, or vice versa, and you think going from non-nurturing to nurturing is a large change?
You're not interested in learning anything about evolution, you just want to believe what your redneck preacher tells you to believe, and anything else is automatically false.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ Wow my redneck preacher! Nice argument. I am aware that there are forms of evolution that are proven which do not prove there is no God. But you point at other Ideas in order not to answer my question directly.
mikedg4104 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 Just an FYI I am hispanic not that this should matter
mikedg4104 1 month ago
Awww you Youtube Scientists are just adorable! Cmon though...lets leave it to the professionals.
Wezzipooh 1 month ago
@Wezzipooh Awh, but that's no fun! Besides, what if the professionals are also liars? ;)
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
I've been watching a different video on You Tube:
The Century Of The Self-Full Length Documentary
l
It's totally off this topic but, it is eye opening....
geezusispan 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor You tried. Fair apologetic. Let's pray the Holy Spirit uses it for correction :)
dougmoerhoffman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dougmoerhoffman Aye, that is true. There is only so much you can say.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuburbiaSurvivor On the one hand you say the scientists don't know a lot. On the other hand you say biogenesis is impossible and you have the SCIENCE to back up your claim! Do you see the problem you have created for yourself? Not to mention, there is NO evidence for your intelligent designer....none.
geezusispan 1 month ago
I feel so sorry for Richard Dawkins
MissLeanaFaith 1 month ago
That wasn't a very nice thing to say...
MissLeanaFaith 1 month ago
@MissLeanaFaith nice and true
maestro4110 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuburbiaSurvivor
intelligent design??? hahahah
Now show us YOUR evidence!! Let's compare the evidence for evolution and the evidence for intelligent design..... are you ready to cry now?
geezusispan 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor
intelligent design??? hahahah
Now show us YOUR evidence!! Let's compare the evidence for evolution and the evidence for intelligent design..... are you ready to cry now?
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan Yes, everything about what we see screams of intelligent design. The intricate design of a cell, the complex, still not completely understood code of the DNA, the thousands of survival techniques of various creatures.
And the law of biotics. Life comes from life. There has never been a single observed example of life coming from non-living matter.
That's right, buddy. I'm crying a river. Your insults cut me so deep... :(
Sike :D C'est la vie! Trolls gunna troll.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor says - everything about what we see screams of intelligent design. The intricate design of a cell, the complex, still not completely understood code of the DNA, the thousands of survival techniques of various creatures.
l
Not one of those things demonstrate a designer, not even in the least. You lose again....
I will admit we don't know where life comes from but, there is NO hint of a designer, except in brainwashed religious fantics' pea brains...
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan What you're saying is like looking at a car and thinking "That came about randomly".
In what way do these things not demonstrate a designer? Do you mean that you did not see the designer design them? Perhaps that means that everything we did not see designed was not designed.
Interesting: Explain how logic, reason, universalism, and morality can exist without a creator giving source to them.
Only the insecure resort to insults. Who hurt you?
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor
There are MANY things way beyond human knowledge possibly beyond comprehension. There is NO hint of an ultimate designer. All you are saying is the same old same old, I don't understand it so it must be gawd. You spend your time arguing against evolution which has had scientific proofs for over a century. Then you believe in a hypothesis, more like a leap of faith, with NO evidence.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan Wrong* I'm saying I do understand it which is why it must be Gawd. :) Explain the helium leakage rate. If you don't understand it, learn it. Then explain to me why helium leakage dates rock A to 5,000 years when U to Pb dating throws out an estimate of a billion years with a margin of error of several million years. Then laugh with me about people who think you can tell the age of a rock with carbon dating.
sj15tx 1 month ago
@geezusispan No hint of an ultimate designer? Elaborate.
No, I'm saying I do understand much of the world, and by understanding what I do know of the world, I understand that the world and complexity, and therefore understand that the world must have been created.
Proof of evolution? Ha. Let's hear it.
Sure I believe in a hypothesis, so do you: Abiogenesis. See? We both believe in our own flying spaghetti monsters.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor says - No hint of an ultimate designer? Elaborate.
l
No the burden of proof is on you.
l I'm not convinced about biogenisis, I also don't rule it out, but, there is a LOT more evidence of that than a "designer".
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan Ha, staying on the defensive, are we? It's not as strong a position as you may think. Everything we see today is extremely more elaborate and complex then the world's most famous painting. Therefore, since order and complexity comes from intelligent design, I can only logically assume that there is an intelligent designer. Very simple.
*Abiogenesis. Biogenesis would be biology being created, not creating itself, or just happening.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor
Comparing a human making a painting and what the universe has done in billions of years to create the entire is? Straw man argument....
You are right that your logic and conclusion is simple, in fact a little too simple.
l
When it comes to a creator... I'm a militant agnostic, " I don't know and neither do you!"
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan You're assuming the universe is billions of years (in relation to earth's timestream), and that life came about naturally and randomly. So no, not a straw man.
Too simple? Einstein said if you can't explain something to a 3 year old you don't understand it yourself.
Understandable, yet in your skepticism you have no room to be arrogant, since you admit that you do not know. Because I could very well be right.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@geezusispan Now that I have given you my "proof", you must now either offer a refutation or rebuttal to my claim that order and complexity arise from intelligent design, or attack the logical set up of my argument.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Can life come from something that isn't alive? Sure, why not? Is that any stranger than your deity, I mean designer? Has life been created in a laboratory? They seem to be getting closer. Has the creator shown up at all? Nope... Did life originate on Earth? Why reinvent the wheel, maybe every planet that is 'right' can grow the seeds of life that are all over the universe. I don't think we know enough to make a really good guess.
l
Are you a Christian?
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan God is alive, therefore if he created everything, then life can never come from non-living matter. Especially randomly.
Closer? I beg to differ. The more they discover they discover how improbable it is.
Has the creator shown up at all? I could argue that he's done it multiple times, but that would rely upon you believing personal experiences, testimonies, and ancient texts.
So aliens? Haha! Better stock up on your lazer pistols ;)
Yes, sir! Guilty as charged.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor says - that would rely upon you believing personal experiences, testimonies, and ancient texts.
l
I don't believe that nosense to be factual, it's just written mythology, any adult should know that.
Your being a christian ends the conversation for me. You no longer have ANY credibility.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor The following can indicate a delusion: The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force. That idea appears to exert an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent. Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan Hahaha! In that case atheists/agnostics are deluded as well! In fact, we're ALL deluded if we believe in ANYTHING! Where'd you get that idea? From that pornstar who debated Ray Comfort?
How do you know the bible is mythology?
I have no credibility? Or you're just looking for a way to cop out of a conversation with someone who isn't intimidated by your insults in the slightest? ;)
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor You have no credibility because you have a delusional disorder, sad but true...
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan Oh, really? I guess ninjajesus81 is delusional too. Did you see how pissed off he got? He must delusional...
In fact, anyone who gets mad must be delusional. Have you ever gotten mad? Yes, you're delusional.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor = delusional disorder
There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Is the world so complex that it blows human thinking out of the water? Oh yeah! Does that mean that because we don't understand it there is a designer? No, of course not, especially since there is not even a trace of a designer. I don't have to explain any of your questions, although I can answer some of them. YOU however, have to show some actual evidence of your gawd, oh i mean "designer".
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan We're not the only ones who need to provide evidence. Darwin said that if evolution is true, the fossil record will get simpler the deeper you go. Darwin is dead, and the fossil record has greatly expanded.The older the fossil, the more complicated the organism... Microevolution is true. Things change over time, and the change are nearly always deletions. Macroevolution is false. We have no legitimate examples of additions to DNA, just duplications or deletions.
sj15tx 1 month ago
@sj15tx Darwin was 19th century, has science dis[proved his work? Yeah, some of it.
Does that mean there must be a gawd? Hell no..... Does the age of rocks prove or disprove a gawd? I don't see how... Science changes as new 'truths' are uncovered, that's a good thing Mythologies tell us that ALL gods live within the hearts of humans.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan Do you remember the video you commented on? This one.. Where Dawkins says there is no refutation of Darwin in existence? Re-run the 12 seconds. I guess he's accurate. The fossil record doesn't refute Darwin because Darwin said he would deny macroevolution if the fossil record turned out the way it has. But Dawkins is being manipulative in telling people that makes evolution fool proof. Darwin wasn't refuted by the fossil record, but his theory was.
sj15tx 1 month ago
@geezusispan I do commend you for one thing. You admit that science changes whereas truth does not. Truth is not relative. We disagree, but at least we both have a genuine desire to know what information is actually true.
sj15tx 1 month ago
@sj15tx says - We disagree, but at least we both have a genuine desire to know what information is actually true.
l
That is very close to true right there. Ultimate "truth" my be unknowable to humans, we are a long way off right now. It's a work in progress, to say this happened for sure at the beginning of time/space HAS to be conjecture. The beginning of life is the same, logical guessing is all we have.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan No, I am not making an argument from ignorance. Quite the contrary, I am making an argument from knowledge. It's like studying a painting. At first, it looks simple, perhaps paint fell on this canvas, but upon examination, you understand that it would be impossible for the painting to look the way it does without extreme care to have been taken.
Evidence? Any kind of evidence? Alright, everything that exists today.
Give one example of nothing creating something. I'm waiting...
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Is your designer more like the christian god or more like the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Can you get her to email me?
geezusispan 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Comparing a car to a human is a fallacy. A car did not come about through generations of evolution.
Also, I would like you to check your own logic: logic is what happens when 1+1 = 2. Logic is a human process, it does not need a divine being to be created at all.
Furthermore, there is absolutely NO evidence of intelligent design in any form, I would like to know why you think this is so true.
NoPlantzPlz 1 month ago
@NoPlantzPlz That statement assumes we came about by means of evolution. It makes an un-proved implication.
Interesting, I would like to ask you how logic could even exist without a supreme being giving source to it. Logic is completely, 100%, not arbitrary. Therefore it is uniform. How could uniformity arise without a being giving source to that uniformity?
Interesting, I disagree. There's plenty of suggestive evidence for intelligent design.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor I would like to ask you, what evidence? Give me clear, categorical and empirical evidence that a creator MUST have designed life. I assure you there is none. Logic of course, can exist without a creator, I believe, however this argument is impossible to argue from both sides.
For instance you cannot prove indefinitely that without some intangible divine being there would be no logic, just as I can't argue that with the pretense of a god, logic exists from them
NoPlantzPlz 1 month ago
@NoPlantzPlz Oops, I meant to say just as you can't argue that logic could not exist without a god.
NoPlantzPlz 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Please stop insulting people, you are making a more and more ad hominem argument.
By the way, there WAS an example of life forming from amino bases and nucleotides, this has been observed.
I team of researchers at whatever university, I forget, was able to synthesise a form of bacterium which has successfully responded to chemical stimuli. We have been creating retroviruses for many years also.
Nucleotide bases, amino acids were formed experimentalliy in 1952.
NoPlantzPlz 1 month ago
@NoPlantzPlz Actually, I've remained quite calm for a few weeks. If you're willing to abstain from ad hominem, I will as well.
Can you site a source for the creation of this bacterium and give more details on the background of this research? I do not see this as an example of spontaneous example, but I can't make much of a case against it until you provide more details.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@NoPlantzPlz Are you referring to the Miller/Urey experiment? For one, the amino acids were racemic. Making them useless for life. Also, the only nucleotides that were made in 1952 were adenine and guanine. Cytosine was made but through a process that was extremely unlikely to have taken place (I will make a case against cytosine production, if you wish to hear it). Also Ribose and deoxyribose would not have existed either to create the double helix polynucleotide RNA.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuburbiaSurvivor So which is it, is abiogenesis altogether impossible, or is the hypotheses put forth by scientists impossible? Just because you can find problems with a hypothesis of abiogenesis, doesn't do anything to disprove abiogenesis.
Einstein found problems with Newton's theory of gravity, so did that disprove gravity itself?
And I'm not even admitting your problems are legitimate. You're reading the book the scientists wrote and saying they're wrong.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor So which is it, is abiogenesis altogether impossible, or is the hypotheses put forth by scientists impossible? Just because you can find problems with a hypothesis of abiogenesis, doesn't do anything to disprove abiogenesis.
Einstein found problems with Newton's theory of gravity, so did that disprove gravity itself?
And I'm not even admitting your problems are legitimate. You're reading the book the scientists wrote and saying they're wrong.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 Both. Au contraire, my friend. If you proposed that you could fly, and I pointed out the problem " have no wings", that would disprove your claim, wouldn't it?
Gravity is observable. Abiogenesis? Not so much.
No, I'm reading their book and saying the problems they find with their own hypothesis are legitimate problems. Go research Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey critique of abiogenesis hypothesis's. I happen to like his reasonable approach to his own theory.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Both? So you're saying abiogenesis altogether is impossible? And you're saying their hypotheses are impossible?
You've done nothing to prove either impossible. But even if I granted you that you proved their hypotheses impossible, that does NOTHING to prove that abiogenesis itself is impossible.
And good job completely misunderstanding the point of the gravity analogy. You misunderstood it so bad that it seems like you purposely ignored the point of it.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 Yes.
Actually, I have proven current hypothesis to be impossible. And if you'd like more proof, I'd be happy to give it to you.
I'm sorry, were you trying to say that abiogenesis is possible because gravity is a theory? Pardon me for misinterpreting. Bad, SuburbiaSurvivor, Bad SuburbiaSurvivor!
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, let me repeat myself again, like I keep having to do, just because you prove a hypothesis for abiogenesis wrong (not even saying you did, because I'm sure you haven't even come close to doing that), that doesn't prove abiogenesis wrong. If you prove my hypothesis of how gravity works wrong, does that prove gravity wrong? No. And no, I'm not equating gravity with abiogenesis, for fuck's sake.
Go read that analogy again until you understand it. Unbelievable
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 Here's my point: The building blocks for life can't form under prebiotic conditions, they can't come together on their own into any DNA, RNA, or DNA derivative polynucleotide, they can't fully self-replicate, they can't repair themselves when they do semi-self-replicate, and there's no way a mechanism for reading and comprehending the DNA code could come about. It's a lot more then just enzymes. There's organization.
That's why abiogenesis is impossible.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor And your proof for all of that is where? In your imagination? That does no good in the real world.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 I've already stated the evidence at least 3 times. Must I post it again? With all the cute little references to science books and journals? Maybe if I post it a fourth time you'll acknowledge that I'm not making all this up, and then you can start giving serious responses that deal with real issues instead of side-stepping them claiming life came about "some other way".
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor I saw the "evidence" you posted. You just posted something and assumed you could just start listing things that it proves.
So you're saying uracil needed life to already exist for it to be created?
Well apparently not.
Here's a Wikipedia quote.
"In a scholarly article published in October 2009, NASA scientists reported having reproduced uracil from pyrimidine by exposing it to ultraviolet light under space-like conditions."
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 Mmhmm. I know about that. Do you even know what pyrimidine is? It's the base pair cytosine and uracil Basically what happened is, they found a way to get uracil from cytosine.
Problem: No cytosine.
You're back where you started.
Oh, and Miller created cytosine from a cytosine intermediate that was not only too unstable to accumulate in the desired amounts, but wouldn't have existed in the first place.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Where the hell are you getting your information about pyrimidine? It's not cytosine at all. Pyrimidine is C4H4N2. Cytosine is C4H5N3O. Big difference.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 Cytosine is a pyrimidine. To be technically accurate it is a pyrimidine derivative. Pyrimidine is the base that forms cytosine and uracil. I'm not sure exactly how it works. But pyrimidines are cytosine and uracil, and purines are adenine and guanine.
Essentially the NASA turned the pyrimidine cytosine into uracil using UV light. Which is great. If you have cytosine.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor No, they're not the same thing. Stop being dishonest. Cytosine is a pyrimidine derivative. That means cytosine is made from pyrimidine.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 Oh, I just looked it up and you're right. When I first heard about scientists making uracil, they had exposed cytosine to UV light. Anyway, uracil can't bond into a base pair without cytosine or ribose. The main problem has always been a lack of cytosine anyway, since once they have that, they can make uracil from it by exposing it to UV light. But now they can make it from pyrimidine, which is cool, but not really that helpfull.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor So what are you arguing? That abiogenesis is impossible because the current form of DNA couldn't have been made? You would need to prove that abiogenesis could only start with the current form of DNA, which you can't do, so you blow it off, saying there's no evidence of any other form of DNA, therefore it didn't exist.
Cool, then we go straight to the heart of the issue. No proof of god, then god doesn't exist.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
.@ninjajesus81 Dawkins admits he does not know the origins of life came so why do all atheist talk as if they do by arguing other points. Can an atheist explain to me how an infant whether a monkey infant or human infant survive without a nurturing parent. An infant cannot survive by itself somewhere In that stream of evolution you would have had the first infant? Think about it, this allows me to believe that man was created in adult hood for life to exist. This is a sincere question.
mikedg4104 1 month ago
@mikedg4104 We don't know the origins of life, but we know DNA had to evolve. It didn't just magically appear.
And about your monkey question; some animals don't need nurturing. Monkeys and humans evolved into a species that has infants that require nurturing.
But this is what drives me crazy. You have a serious question that you don't know the answer to, so instead of finding out the true answer, you just assume it was magic. How does that make sense at all?
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 I'm arguing that abiogenesis is impossible for multiple reasons, I'm just starting off with DNA because it's an easy target. Of course, if you want to get into DNA derivates we could talk about RNP etc. Let's say we did have a fully formed, double helix DNA strand. That's still not life. There are dozens of other mechanisms required to read the DNA and fix any mutations that have taken place during replication etc.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor You started off with DNA because you thought you had an argument, which you don't.
First, your reason for why abiogenesis is impossible is because cytosine needs life to already exist for it to exist, which assumes that the first life, or first self-replicating molecule needed cytosine; something you still haven't even bothered to try to prove. And I found out that you don't need life to make cytosine, and now you're ready to move onto something else.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 No, not just cytosine. I had two other points, and those were just my favorites. I could write a 5 page essay on the problems with abiogenesis, in fact, I am.
Oh you did, did you? From the cytosine derivative, right? Let's hear it.
Oh yeah, and apparently there are two more DNA bases: 5-formylcytosine and 5 carboxylcytosine.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor You could write a 5 page essay on anything if your information is bullshit.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 Wait, is that your comment? I thought you were going to mention how cyanoacetylene and cyanoacetaldehyde are produced in some spark charge expiriments and when concentrated purely and reacted with other chemicals it creates small yields of cytosine!
Hahaha, you insult me as if you think I care! Come now, let's stay on topic.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor You're obviously getting your information from creationists websites that have lists of "problems" with various scientific topics. You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just copying and pasting. Neither of us are chemists, which is why you have such an inclination to discuss chemistry; you think you can bullshit me.
I already proved you wrong on one point, and now you want to move to another. You have a bunch of points? Yeah, and they're all BS.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 Who cares where I get my source? Why not try debating against the points, not the source? Creationists present facts with a different take on things then evolutionists. The facts are still true. I may not be a chemist, but you don't need to be one to understand this stuff. It's basic.
Well, you proved they can create uracil. So kudos for that. However, my main point was an absence of cytosine, which makes the other two nucleobases: 5-formylcytosine and 5 carboxylcytosine.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Creationists present facts? You haven't proven that they're facts. Posting words and calling them facts doesn't make them really facts.
Your argument is that abiogenesis is impossible. We don't need to go point by point of every molecule in DNA that could or couldn't have existed from the beginning, because you would need to prove that the current form of DNA is the only molecule that can self-replicate. You haven't done that.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 I haven't presented facts? I gave scientific, non-creationist sources for my facts. Honestly, dude, you sound like you're in denial.
Irrelevant. Unless you can prove that there is a molecule other then DNA/RNA that can self-replicate and can evolve into DNA/RNA, abiogenesis hypothesis is as much a fairy tale as the flying spaghetti monster. This is your theory, not mine, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor What scientific facts have you given me? You're naming scientific words, but you're not proving any of your points with them.
You're claiming that abiogenesis was impossible because today's DNA couldn't have been made. You need to prove that today's DNA was required. You're blowing it off because you can't do that.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 Read our comment section, it was like two days ago. Here's how the facts show abiogenesis is impossible: It shows that the ingredients for life couldn't have existed in pre-biotic earth. Therefore life couldn't have spontaneously arose.
I know of no organisms that use a form of DNA different then the classic DNA and RNA that we use. Also, I have heard of no processes in which RNP etc. could evolve into DNA and RNA.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor For you to say the ingredients for life couldn't have existed in pre-biotic Earth means you know what ingredients are REQUIRED for life. You don't. You just know what ingredients are required for the life we've discovered and observed.
And your statement also says that life couldn't have arose here, but we're life, and we're here. So obviously there's a huge problem with your conclusion.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 Here's the problem: I can't prove life didn't come from some other form of DNA because there are no known organisms that utilize any sort of DNA derivative other then the DNA that we see today. It's like proving flying spaghetti monsters don't exist. No one has ever seen a flying spaghetti, nor is there evidence of one. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but essentially we end up discussing fairy tales.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor You keep trying to make it sound like I'm asking you to prove a negative. I'm not. I said it several times now. I'm asking you to prove that the modern form of DNA is the only way life could have arose. Because that's exactly what you're arguing. You're arguing that the first life needed modern DNA (Prove it), and modern DNA couldn't have existed back then.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 I can't prove that the first life (assuming the first life was a simple cell in the first place) didn't have modern DNA because not only do we not have any fossil record of any such first life, we also have no examples of any sort of organism that utilizes any sort of DNA other then modern DNA.
So that's my point. I can't disprove it, because there's literally no evidence for it in the first place.
Yes, obviously. But that doesn't mean intelligent design wasn't involved.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor How many times do I have to say this? I'm not telling you to disprove something.
I told you that for you to prove abiogenesis is impossible, you must prove that modern DNA couldn't have been made, and you need to prove that modern DNA was required. You keep twisting that into me telling you to prove a negative. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself before you understand.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 You seem to be completely missing the point. I can not disprove it because there's no evidence for it. You're telling me to prove abiogenesis couldn't have produced some sort of primitive DNA derivative that then somehow evolved into modern DNA.
If you want to take absence of evidence as proof that it can't happen, then sure, it didn't.
It's like me asking you to prove God doesn't exist.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor I've made it clear that I wasn't telling you to disprove something. You can't be this stupid, so that means you're trolling.
Quote where I said to disprove something. I told you to PROVE something, not disprove something, troll.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ninjajesus81 "I told you that for you to prove abiogenesis is impossible, you must prove that modern DNA couldn't have been made, and you need to prove that modern DNA was required."
I did prove modern DNA couldn't have been made. And I already told you I can not prove modern DNA was required for any sort of first life. I have told you this a multiple times now.
Yes, you are asking me to disprove abiogenesis by disproving these claims that you have made.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 You're using the the logical fallacy "negative proof".
There's no evidence that there was any first organism, or that the first organism used DNA other then modern DNA.
But there's also no evidence that these organisms DIDN'T use a DNA derivative therefore you conclude that they did.
Seriously, for a defender of logic and reason, you really need to work on your logic and reason...
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor There's no evidence that there was any first organism because that evidence would be almost impossible to find. How do you scour the Earth for evidence of the first microscopic piece of life that lived billions of years ago? You can't. And you don't get to say that until we find that evidence, that it's impossible for it to exist.
I conclude that they did use a DNA derivative? Quote it. If you're going to keep making up bullshit, I'm telling you to quote.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 If you'd read my comments, you would realize that I'm not making a claim that it's impossible for the first life to have arisen from a DNA derivative (a form of DNA different then the classic DNA all organisms utlize). I'm just saying attempting to prove it to be impossible would be like proving kryptonite exists. There's just no evidence.
Now if you claim RNP was the first DNA, I can work with that. But I can't disprove an unspecified claim with no evidence for it whatsoever.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor You made the claim that modern DNA was needed. Prove it.
You didn't prove that the first life had modern DNA, because that's self-evident. A DNA molecule is extremely complex; a molecule like that doesn't just assemble in one step.
I'm not making a claim. There's no evidence how it happened, but there is evidence THAT it happened; life exists. So it must have happened. And it would have happened with the natural laws of chemistry and natural selection.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 There are no examples of any organism that doesn't use modern DNA. All life requires DNA. There is no evidence that disproves this claim.
So you're saying it's obvious the first life had modern DNA? Then on what grounds do you make an argument? You're essentially agreeing with me!
Yes, but the fact that there is life does not prove abiogenesis took place. That's like saying humans and monkeys look similar therefore they are distant cousins.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor There are no examples of an organism that doesn't use modern DNA? So? You said that organisms require modern DNA,or they can't exist. Prove it.
I didn't say the first life had modern DNA. You suck at reading comprehension, among other things.
The fact that life exists proves you wrong. You say the first life needed modern DNA, but modern DNA couldn't exist when the first life existed. So reality proves you wrong.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 "You didn't prove that the first life had modern DNA, because that's self-evident" You're right, it is self-evident.
So? It proves all life as we know it needs modern DNA. Maybe there are some magical organisms that use another type of DNA, but maybe cheetahs exist on the moon.
What? No, it proves that life was created, somehow, with modern DNA. It doesn't prove abiogenesis. Your logical structure is biased agains the existence of a God. Rendering it a fallacy.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 "The fact that life exists proves you wrong. You say the first life needed modern DNA, but modern DNA couldn't exist when the first life existed. So reality proves you wrong."
I'm going to assume you're trolling. And let you take that comment back. The logic in that assessment is so flawed a 6 year old could point it out.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor I quoted you, and then you come back saying what I said was illogical, when what I was saying was what you said. So you're saying that what you said was illogical? You're crazy.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 You're argument is that life exists, therefore abiogenesis is possible, because abiogenesis is the only possible means for life to come about.
My argument is that life exists, therefore intelligent design is the cause, because all life comes from life, and all things have a cause.
At least mine is based upon a scientific law (biogenesis). Yours is backed up by a hypothesis with not a shred of proof to give it sustenance.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor My argument is that life exists, therefore it arose through established scientific means. Chemistry and natural selection are established facts in science, so those are two ways that life probably arose.
Your argument is that life comes from life, therefore god created life? So god is living? God is made of flesh and blood? Does he have DNA too? Your argument eats itself.
ninjajesus81 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 What scientific means? Abiogenesis is in no way an established scientific means. It's not even considered part of evolution/natural selection etc.
God is life, obviously. He is the source of life. He certainly isn't dead. Life doesn't require flesh, blood, or DNA.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor It is not what is Christian in it, but the universal heathen character of its usages, which has favored the spread of this world-religion; its ideas, rooted in both the Jewish and the Hellenic worlds, have from the first known how to raise themselves above national and racial niceties and exclusiveness as though these were merely prejudices.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor said - If you'd read my comments, you would realize that I'm not making a claim that it's impossible for the first life to have arisen from a DNA derivative (a form of DNA different then the classic DNA all organisms utlize). I'm just saying attempting to prove it to be impossible, it would be like proving Jesus or Yahweh exists. There's just no evidence.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan There are various ancient texts that discuss Jesus. It is accepted even in the atheist world that a person named Jesus did in fact exist. Most just say he was a wise teacher.
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago
@ninjajesus81 "...and you need to prove that modern DNA was required."
If you don't conclude that the first life used a DNA derivative (a form of DNA different then the sort we use today), then logicly, you must conclude that the first organisms used classic DNA. Which I have proven to be impossible.
"...and you need to prove that modern DNA was required."
Let's make this simple for both of us. What is your claim as far as abiogenesis, and what evidence do you have to support that claim
SuburbiaSurvivor 1 month ago