The problem of asserting that the origin of life or the origin of the universe are random, chance events is that science can't proove that something is lacking order or design, negative statements can't be proven, therefore scientific naturalism oversteps the bounds of science by claiming there is nothing outside of the natural realm. And yes the chances of drawing any 5 cars is the same, but if we were playing poker and I kept getting royal flushes, youd say I was cheating
My pregnant sister was a passenger in a car, when all of a sudden, the car was struck from the rear by another vehicle. The impact caused her to go into labour, and she ended up delivering a baby right there on the spot. This proves the point of your video!! Life is truly an accident!!
@soctratesforthewin: yes, especially because all those blokes who make up gigantic numbers for the universe are just pulling stuff out of their asses.
We start with an infinite number of POSSIBLE universes. The ones which don't work, don't form or die out pretty fast. Those that do work, work, stay in existence and can easily lead to life, somewhere, at some time. Creationists claim the universe is fine-tuned for life...if this were the case, we'd find life EVERYWHERE.
GREAT retort. When all else fails just insult legendary physicists and mathematicians in favour of the ramblings of some doped-up Belgian kid? Wow - how utterly intellectual of you!!
@soctratesforthewin: when all else fails, throw in ad hominems, use arguments from authority, arguments from ignorance, use fucked up philosophies, use lots of made-up huge numbers, threaten with imaginary hell and so on. Yeah, got it all before.
@soctratesforthewin: because of all the spamming you just did, constantly using insulting me and presenting bullshit, you're now blocked.
You think you're smart, but reality's a bitch and sure disagrees with you. I've lost my patience with retards like you. You play all high and mighty, but when push comes to shove, you have nothing to support yourself.
And you can't START with a presupposition. You must START with what we do know. What we know is that there is ONE universe NOT an infinite number [which, by the way, commits the actual infinite fallacy]!! Dunce.
@soctratesforthewin: actually, you CAN start with a presupposition. That's why they call it a pre-supposition...you SUPPOSE it's true, before (PRE) you confirmed it...
What we know: there's one universe WE CAN PERCEIVE. We also see that all of nature uses Darwinian Evolution, meaning that a large number of events occur, but only those that work get passed on. Then loads of quantum physics and so on and you get to infinite universes, in which we live in one that works.
I love the irony. Apparently the best scientists in the world are not allowed to give their views on physics but YOU are allowed to talk about quantum mechanics!!
@soctratesforthewin: I didn't say anyone isn't allowed to give their views. I'm just saying the guy pulled that number out of his ass. Also, I didn't talk about quantum mechanics. I just threw in the term. Now, unless you have any facts or evidence for your claims and beliefs, kindly fuck off and stop spamming my channel and vids.
Roger Penrose is one of the most respected physicists working in England today. To make that ad hominem attack is absurd from you and it is ad hominem. You wouldn't even be able to make that calculation he did because you are no mathematician and you are no physicist. In fact you're no kind of intellectual at all.
Since you cannot make up your mind whether you're arguing with or against science you can easily be dismissed as irrational. Go study probability theory before making a complete and utter fool of yourself. Nob.
@RAKEYREDARMS: actually, no it doesn't. It encompasses every living being on Earth. Everything on Earth evolved through Darwinian Evolution, by completely natural means. Specified complexity is a result of natural selection, where the complexity helps the organism survive. If an organism gets too complex, it can't survive either. But here's an idea: how about you stick to not knowing your own beliefs and don't feel the need to expand your sphere of ignorance to science.
Were we to ignore the specific and complex features of the Mount Rushmore Monument, we could say that its structure was just as unlikely as the structure of any mountainside, but because its structure (the faces of four American presidents) exhibits a specific pattern, assuming randomness can explain its form is a stretch.
If you played poker with someone who continuously got royal flushes, would you assume it's just dumb luck? Or could they be cheating?
@jjstevens03: We know Mount Rushmore is a result of an intelligent designer, because we made it ourselves. We know life ISN'T a result of an intelligent designer, because we know it originated naturally and that there's no intelligent designer around to make life. Also, you first need life to originate naturally, before you can get ANY intelligent designers.
As for Poker: if all non-royal flushes get discarded, as happens in nature, then yes, it would be dumb luck.
and learn..they may not have brains .. and think like you or me... but make no mistake... "nature makes a choice" infact I believe that is one of paul dirac's books.
ok then.... don't call it technology... but never the less..... you have to admit that there is a lot of information in the genes... the schematics for fruit fly wings just being one thing.... and countless life forms and compilations of life forms come into play to maintain, reproduce, and to do the duties to fulfill the directions contained in the genes..... and life is so very simmilar.. genes are the language of life. that is why microorganisms can exchange sequenced dna.. they comunnicate
@MasterChince: you keep inserting religious bullshit in science. Nature is as it is and if infinitely more wonderful without any magical sky daddy/intelligent designer/creator, whatever. Now you're trying to insert information and technology, then design and then an intelligent designer. Just stick with the scientific facts and dismiss the rest.
Information is everywhere and is action and reaction. Impulse and response. Very simple principles can become complex beings.
listen kid...if you don't think that the development of the fruit fly wings ..or eyes develloped by various creatures through out history then your a damn fool....... and they may not have brains and think the exact same way as we do but something definitely thinks...and devellops methods of surviving... its not just a mindless automaton
@MasterChince: actually: IT IS JUST THAT! You have your genes and every generation, random mutations happen, which alter the traits of the organism. Depending on the new traits, this organism can be better at surviving or worse. The better they are at surviving, the more likely they'll survive and reproduce, passing on their genes and so on and so forth. Nobody and nothing thinks in this entire process. The mutations happen randomly and nature simply selects the good ones. It's all random nature
are having problems understanding... infact.. tons of our cutting edge technollogy comes from studying these complex dynamical "self organizing" systems...... so lots of our technollogy comes from copying and studying their technollogy
how to make the appropriate antibody to nuetralize it. they quickly subdue it... there are lots of factors of how that works.. from the limbic system to the lymphatic system.. your immune system ... and your blood and t cells /... all those things think and conspire to figuer out the invading body... wich it itself is also counter engineering..there is a whole Microcosm of things that are working on and solving problems whole groups of the most elite thinkers combined with super computers cont
@MasterChince: white blood cells and such don't think, as they don't have a brain. They're chemical and physical reactions, intended to stay alive and propagate into one big machine: our body.
So in the end: our technology comes from NATURAL TRAITS, not from other technology. Again, if I grew a hammer instead of a hand, it wouldn't be technology, but an evolutionary trait.
what you say sounds as if humans are the only intelligence that has ever worked on complex problems and develloped technollogies for peace and war... and I say that this is just not true... look at how our body fights off infection for a better exsample... if your body has never encounterd a certain bacteria in your blood.. your white blood cells will surround it... and they will study it for weeks if need be.. and litterally rip the things appart... and if they eventually do figuere out ..cont
@MasterChince: on Earth, only primates can make technology, although many more can use it. There are many intelligent beings to various degrees and in various ways, but we're the only ones capable of making technology. We're also the only ones waging war. The examples you give are not technology, they're evolutionary traits. If I grew a hammer instead of a hand, it wouldn't be technology either. It'd be an evolutionary trait. Technology is something that doesn't evolve naturally.
cont... and one of the 2% of the alterred creatures gets more fur.... well ...chances are it will have a better chance of surviving... but there are things that are AWARE of the enviroment... and take the measures to overcome it... and creatures evollve accordingly or die... there have been lots of failure prototypes in the past... but I mean .. our whole planet was terraformed ... there is tons of intelligent life that are operating and working on levels we can hardly fathom
@MasterChince: you are completely wrong in your understanding of intelligence/technology. Your basic assessment of Evolution is okay. Things evolve randomly and those who happen to be better adapted have a higher survival rate and thus are better able to reproduce. The post "prototypes" aren't failures: they're all successes at some point. They just didn't evolve to meet the new conditions. We may be dominant now, but might go extinct in a few years for all we know. And not terraformed at all.
say a new wing design... something undoubtedly decides ... and when a creature is up against something in the enviroment that threatens it....about 2% of the species becomes the guinea pigs...and they suddenly evollve a bit differently.... and here is were natural selection comes into play.. if it lives it reproduces that new design to the rest.. say it gets colder
it definitely is a technollogy and tons of things work to the overall refining of it... the centrioles are the things that make their appearance only when the cell reproduces ... its a little arm that comes out to grab the needed chromosomes to complete the genes...and it makes a choice of which ones to grab.... the best ones it thinks it needs at that time....... anyway... because it is very mysterious how those processes happen... such as the development of a new TECHNOLLOGY... s
by micro organisms.... and alot of mollocules and organisms operate like a "simple" program... but that is just to better deal with this mathamatical existence...... they experience fear anger and satisfaction just like us... so to say they are just programs.. is also saying we are just programs.... wich you can do I suppose... because I ultimately came to the conclusion that that is indeed what we are...
a program developed by the rest of the brain to navigate the body to achieve its goals... wich is to eat.. stay alive.. and reproduce.... keeping the vast amount of "the technollogies of life" {the genes} alive
@MasterChince: some corrections: DNA is not technology. Technology can be used to manipulate it, but DNA itself is NOT technology. Technology is: "The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.". DNA is thus NOT a technology.
@PJDesseyn YES... BUT YOU DON'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SOCIETIES OF MICRO ORGANISMS ... sry cps lock was on ... and it is a technollogy that was devell9oped .. albiet not humans... but that is just semantics .. a mere technicallity... have you heard of centrioles ?
@MasterChince: DNA existed prior to micro organisms and is in absolutely no way a technology. Even if you consider a lump of micro organisms a society, you still don't have any technology. Ants, bees and the likes may be the first with technology, but again, DNA is not technology at all.
Centrioles are at the centres of genomes, if I recall well.
@MasterChince: and it would take maybe 6 billion years before any advanced life forms would arise. Given humans took 4 billion years to evolve from scratch, one could image us being of the third generation. First advanced lifeforms arising 8 billion years ago, then a second wave 4 billion years ago and then we have us, who are still evolving.
@MasterChince: first of all: they do not possess intelligence, it's a "simple" program running inside of them, just like simple robots we make. Second: Earth itself is only 4.6 billion years old and our solar system is 5 billion years old, so how can there be life on Earth prior to there being an Earth?
@PJDesseyn@PJDesseyn ............alright... if you don't consider the genes technollogy, your a fool... and if you think that those life forms were just a "simple" program that obeyed specific signals from the genesyour a fool... some thing undoubtedly tried and faild the first time they tried to fly... once the first things started to fly.. many other things learnt how. and they store that info in the genes . and go through the pain staking ordeal of replicating it everysingle time thy rprdce
at one point on earths history a cataclysm happened... and all life was in jeapody ... and these micro organisnms that have waged war for so long stoped fighting... and made universal ports to exchange huge amounts of sequenced dna ... the script of life... this would be like the equivelent of the spider . telling the fly how it made is web.. and its spinnerettes... and the fly telling the spider how to make eyes like itsw or its wings and ect. so syng tht thr ws no intlgnt dsgn bfr hmns s wrng
@MasterChince: again, there was no intelligence in the sense of making technology, before humans. (unknown alien life excluded) Also, most organisms came together through being eaten, while others of the same group formed colonies. That's not like a spider making friends with a fly, that's a spider being friends with many spiders and making a big web, catching bigger prey. Or a spider genetically enhancing himself with fly DNA to be able to fly.
and these "things" {complex microorganisms} waged war for millions and millions of years .. perfecting technollogies in dealing with each other and the enviroment...so I say... there were many things opperating that were well aware of their surroundings and what they were doing... and they eventually made creatures like us .. the intelligent design? the genes of course... huge amount of info stored in a macro-mollocule.. and some thing/s made that.. and some thing/s utillizes that
@MasterChince: you're confusing intelligence with the laws of nature: survival of the fittest. Organisms developed random traits and those organisms with the best traits had the best chances of survival and thus passed on those traits. There was absolutely no intelligence involved at all and certainly no technologies either. They weren't aware of their surroundings either, they simply spread and if they couldn't spread any further, they stopped.
I would have to say that your ansewer is only half correct.... sure... the forces and constants that this universe has needed to be there for the first microscopic life forms to form... but to say it was JUST random events that made life, that is a little rediculous..... and now that there IS intelligent life... there are countless factors (being mostly other life forms and obviously the natural forces} that come into play in the evollution of a careature
that is were you are wrong... there was countless creatures that were evollving technollogies creating things like us for millions of years before humans arose... for the first 2 billion years of life on this planet .. they were only complex micro organisms {fungi to pe percise} and these fungi undoubtedly came from space... and they terraformed this planet making it possible for plants .. and they became the first nutrient system for them... and many other "things" some how came to be .
@MasterChince: actually, that hypothesis (panspermia) is very doubted. Asteroids hit Earth, providing WATER, but life originated on Earth. That's the working hypothesis.
PJDesseyn well ... it was actually a Canadian team that found that spores from earth drift out of our solar system all the time... and that due to their extremely tight electron shell packing are impervious to the radiations of space... and infact can catch waves of light and be propelled to half the speed of light.... the closest star is 1.7 light years away I believe
just look at how our planet was teraformed .... I was a little wrong... it was the first 2 billion years of life above the ocean that was fungi,,,,,... .. I will be back after clarifying some things
Bacteria and Fungi we`re before plants but plants have been around for 600 million years. @ that time even fungi-algae symbiosis was taking place. I would imagine mycorrhizal fungi came onto the scene and helped the plant world BIG TIME early on. Just as they do today. Simple cells came well before fungi. Sorry dude. Fungi which are complex cells "Eurakaryote cells" these include animals&fungi. In fact the two are now one super kingdom. That's current. Earliest fungi are from: proterozoic era.
It TOOK 2 billion years for complex cells to develop. Fungi we're the FIRST to COME ONTO LAND. Maybe that's why you're mixed up. Bacteria and Achaea are worth looking into. Earliest fungi fossils supposedly come from 1,430 million years ago. But it's BELIEVED(because of the changing periods making fungi fossils hard to keep) That fungi have colonized the land 500 million years ago.
@MasterChince Spores may not die from radiation. But I'm sorry my friend some corrections are in order. :) Firstly a good spore print is only REALLY valuable to a grower for about a year. Even by the 6 month mark up to half of your spores can be inactive. And trust me, HEAT does kill spores. I`ve learned that the hard way when being over zealous with a lighter nuking my syringe between injections. You can fry spores. In fact you can even her them pop. They die in a BOLD, BEAUTIFUL way. :)
anyway... the first 2 billion years of life was fungi... and only fungi... and they are starting to believe that it actually came here from space as spores... anjd they believe that spores are the way they are..{billions of them that can travel tens of thousands of years the harsh evnviroment and vaccum of space} to actually pollonate planets like ours.... and that our planet is not where life originally started... we already have found evidence of life on mars...
@MasterChince: Fungi came later on. The first life forms were single celled blobs, then single celled organisms, then algae, then bacteria, and then first multicellular life and then fungi. And no, we haven't found evidence of life on Mars. We've found instances where life would've been possible on Mars, in the past, but we haven't found evidence of life itself on Mars.
First off, you are aluring to the idea that life starting by "chance" is the same as drawing a Royal Flush, in reality it's FAR greater than that. It's more like drawing 100 Royal flushes IN A ROW and that's a Conservative estimate. On top of that, the 2nd draw reflects NO LIFE since your analogy says the Royal Flush (Life as we know it) is the one that were looking for. So, it's a DISHONEST comparison.
That's because you don't get the comparison. The video was meant to show that, the odds for making life as we know it, are exactly the same odds for making life any way different. Haven't you listened to the part about the dinosaurs, mutations, random events and such? Also note that life doesn't start by mere chance. The laws of nature have a lot to do with it too. The conditions on Earth were ideal for life to arise, thus increasing the odds astronomically. Don't debate things you don't get.
The "LAWS" of nature?? LAWS... Laws come from God That's INFORMATION.. information comes from intelligence.... and your wrong about the SAME odds because in your second anology (with the random cards) that would NOT reflect life. They BOTH can't be "life" for the illustration to make any sense.
We defined the laws, jackass. 1+1=2, whether there's intelligence to see it or not. Laws of nature do not require law-givers. And most certainly not some fictional character, made up by man, called God. Stop believing in freakin fairy tales man.
As for random chance: you can have 4 different kinds of royal flushes, so consider that small variations on how life is right now. Change a card and you'll get a slightly bigger variation, etcetera. Life can be very different, but still be life.
I said laws OF NATURE do not require law-givers. A law of nature is not the same as a law of man. We make laws to maintain our society. Nature has laws inherently. Just like morality exists without a maker, for that maker couldn't be moral if morality had yet to be made, thus being incapable of making morality.
Laws of nature and other things like morality, require no maker at all and that's completely logical.
God, however is completely illogical. (which is logical, since he's a fairy tale)
KJB. I think you're being far too accomadating comparing the chance of life with 100 royal flushes in a row in fact if you would have said 100,000,000 in a row that would have been too kind because life in all of it's diverse array of complexity would have so many zeros after the 100 that they wouldn't even fit on this page. But I guess you were trying to be nice since it was Deesyn's birthday, right?
Blacky, how many times do I have to tell you TO STOP THE FUCK LYING ALL THE TIME!?!
Life isn't that improbable as you think. There are millions of planets like ours, where life as we know it may exist and trillions more, where life in general is possible. And that's just with the lifeforms we know. For all we know, life could live on very hostile planets we might not see as possible right now.
You guys are utterly retarded when it comes to reality, the truth and the facts.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
From this whole entire galaxy, from all the stars and planets that exist in our universe, only 0,00000000000000000073% of it is habitable. So 9,99999999999999999927% of our universe is INCAPABLE of producing life. Doesn't sound like a fine-tuned-for-life-galaxy to me and the odds of us being here are SO small that with your reason you would say it's impossible, but yet we're here. But does that support the idea of intelligent design? No, it doesn't, we're just the royal flush of nature.
@MortalLuc planets r made form tiny dust particles flaoting in space hiting and joining together, thats how earth was formed, as it gets biger it causes high friction, that causes high tempreatures theres ur center of the earth and melted rock releases iron or w/e is in the specific rok theres are magnetic field form the core of the earth theres r atmosphere as gas colects in magnitism, bang ive just explained how earth was made simple enuff 4 any1 to grasp no god there just circumstances
The problem of asserting that the origin of life or the origin of the universe are random, chance events is that science can't proove that something is lacking order or design, negative statements can't be proven, therefore scientific naturalism oversteps the bounds of science by claiming there is nothing outside of the natural realm. And yes the chances of drawing any 5 cars is the same, but if we were playing poker and I kept getting royal flushes, youd say I was cheating
jjstevens03 9 months ago
@jjstevens03:
1) energy cannot be created nor destroyed and is thus eternal
2) Quantum Darwinism
3) we already conclusively know that all gods are imaginary, as we know we imagined them.
Stop believing in fairy tales, start accepting reality.
PJDesseyn 9 months ago
My pregnant sister was a passenger in a car, when all of a sudden, the car was struck from the rear by another vehicle. The impact caused her to go into labour, and she ended up delivering a baby right there on the spot. This proves the point of your video!! Life is truly an accident!!
PissGargle 1 year ago
The chance of getting a Royal Flush = 1 in 649,739
Roger Penrose worked out the chances of the Laws of our universe being what they need to be for life = 1 in 10 to the power of 10^123.
Do you really think the two are analogous?!
soctratesforthewin 1 year ago
@soctratesforthewin: yes, especially because all those blokes who make up gigantic numbers for the universe are just pulling stuff out of their asses.
We start with an infinite number of POSSIBLE universes. The ones which don't work, don't form or die out pretty fast. Those that do work, work, stay in existence and can easily lead to life, somewhere, at some time. Creationists claim the universe is fine-tuned for life...if this were the case, we'd find life EVERYWHERE.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
GREAT retort. When all else fails just insult legendary physicists and mathematicians in favour of the ramblings of some doped-up Belgian kid? Wow - how utterly intellectual of you!!
soctratesforthewin 1 year ago
@soctratesforthewin: when all else fails, throw in ad hominems, use arguments from authority, arguments from ignorance, use fucked up philosophies, use lots of made-up huge numbers, threaten with imaginary hell and so on. Yeah, got it all before.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
Amazing how kids like you accuse people of 'spamming' just for disagreeing!!
soctratesforthewin 1 year ago
@soctratesforthewin: because of all the spamming you just did, constantly using insulting me and presenting bullshit, you're now blocked.
You think you're smart, but reality's a bitch and sure disagrees with you. I've lost my patience with retards like you. You play all high and mighty, but when push comes to shove, you have nothing to support yourself.
Cheery-o, disgrace to mankind.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
And you can't START with a presupposition. You must START with what we do know. What we know is that there is ONE universe NOT an infinite number [which, by the way, commits the actual infinite fallacy]!! Dunce.
soctratesforthewin 1 year ago
@soctratesforthewin: actually, you CAN start with a presupposition. That's why they call it a pre-supposition...you SUPPOSE it's true, before (PRE) you confirmed it...
What we know: there's one universe WE CAN PERCEIVE. We also see that all of nature uses Darwinian Evolution, meaning that a large number of events occur, but only those that work get passed on. Then loads of quantum physics and so on and you get to infinite universes, in which we live in one that works.
no fallacies made by me.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
I love the irony. Apparently the best scientists in the world are not allowed to give their views on physics but YOU are allowed to talk about quantum mechanics!!
soctratesforthewin 1 year ago
@soctratesforthewin: I didn't say anyone isn't allowed to give their views. I'm just saying the guy pulled that number out of his ass. Also, I didn't talk about quantum mechanics. I just threw in the term. Now, unless you have any facts or evidence for your claims and beliefs, kindly fuck off and stop spamming my channel and vids.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
Roger Penrose is one of the most respected physicists working in England today. To make that ad hominem attack is absurd from you and it is ad hominem. You wouldn't even be able to make that calculation he did because you are no mathematician and you are no physicist. In fact you're no kind of intellectual at all.
soctratesforthewin 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
Since you cannot make up your mind whether you're arguing with or against science you can easily be dismissed as irrational. Go study probability theory before making a complete and utter fool of yourself. Nob.
soctratesforthewin 1 year ago
This video COMPLETELY ignores specified complexity and as a result is a total failure
RAKEYREDARMS 1 year ago
@RAKEYREDARMS: actually, no it doesn't. It encompasses every living being on Earth. Everything on Earth evolved through Darwinian Evolution, by completely natural means. Specified complexity is a result of natural selection, where the complexity helps the organism survive. If an organism gets too complex, it can't survive either. But here's an idea: how about you stick to not knowing your own beliefs and don't feel the need to expand your sphere of ignorance to science.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
You sure are the ugliest human being I've ever seen! Shit - what were your parents? That gene pool was pretty sparce eh!
dooyeweerd 1 year ago
@dooyeweerd: maybe I can get into the Guinness Book of Records then? Thanks for your support!
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Were we to ignore the specific and complex features of the Mount Rushmore Monument, we could say that its structure was just as unlikely as the structure of any mountainside, but because its structure (the faces of four American presidents) exhibits a specific pattern, assuming randomness can explain its form is a stretch.
If you played poker with someone who continuously got royal flushes, would you assume it's just dumb luck? Or could they be cheating?
jjstevens03 1 year ago
@jjstevens03: We know Mount Rushmore is a result of an intelligent designer, because we made it ourselves. We know life ISN'T a result of an intelligent designer, because we know it originated naturally and that there's no intelligent designer around to make life. Also, you first need life to originate naturally, before you can get ANY intelligent designers.
As for Poker: if all non-royal flushes get discarded, as happens in nature, then yes, it would be dumb luck.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PJDesseyn How do we know it originated naturally? What evidence do you have?
RAKEYREDARMS 1 year ago
and learn..they may not have brains .. and think like you or me... but make no mistake... "nature makes a choice" infact I believe that is one of paul dirac's books.
MasterChince 1 year ago
ok then.... don't call it technology... but never the less..... you have to admit that there is a lot of information in the genes... the schematics for fruit fly wings just being one thing.... and countless life forms and compilations of life forms come into play to maintain, reproduce, and to do the duties to fulfill the directions contained in the genes..... and life is so very simmilar.. genes are the language of life. that is why microorganisms can exchange sequenced dna.. they comunnicate
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: you keep inserting religious bullshit in science. Nature is as it is and if infinitely more wonderful without any magical sky daddy/intelligent designer/creator, whatever. Now you're trying to insert information and technology, then design and then an intelligent designer. Just stick with the scientific facts and dismiss the rest.
Information is everywhere and is action and reaction. Impulse and response. Very simple principles can become complex beings.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
listen kid...if you don't think that the development of the fruit fly wings ..or eyes develloped by various creatures through out history then your a damn fool....... and they may not have brains and think the exact same way as we do but something definitely thinks...and devellops methods of surviving... its not just a mindless automaton
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: actually: IT IS JUST THAT! You have your genes and every generation, random mutations happen, which alter the traits of the organism. Depending on the new traits, this organism can be better at surviving or worse. The better they are at surviving, the more likely they'll survive and reproduce, passing on their genes and so on and so forth. Nobody and nothing thinks in this entire process. The mutations happen randomly and nature simply selects the good ones. It's all random nature
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
are having problems understanding... infact.. tons of our cutting edge technollogy comes from studying these complex dynamical "self organizing" systems...... so lots of our technollogy comes from copying and studying their technollogy
MasterChince 1 year ago
how to make the appropriate antibody to nuetralize it. they quickly subdue it... there are lots of factors of how that works.. from the limbic system to the lymphatic system.. your immune system ... and your blood and t cells /... all those things think and conspire to figuer out the invading body... wich it itself is also counter engineering..there is a whole Microcosm of things that are working on and solving problems whole groups of the most elite thinkers combined with super computers cont
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: white blood cells and such don't think, as they don't have a brain. They're chemical and physical reactions, intended to stay alive and propagate into one big machine: our body.
So in the end: our technology comes from NATURAL TRAITS, not from other technology. Again, if I grew a hammer instead of a hand, it wouldn't be technology, but an evolutionary trait.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
what you say sounds as if humans are the only intelligence that has ever worked on complex problems and develloped technollogies for peace and war... and I say that this is just not true... look at how our body fights off infection for a better exsample... if your body has never encounterd a certain bacteria in your blood.. your white blood cells will surround it... and they will study it for weeks if need be.. and litterally rip the things appart... and if they eventually do figuere out ..cont
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: on Earth, only primates can make technology, although many more can use it. There are many intelligent beings to various degrees and in various ways, but we're the only ones capable of making technology. We're also the only ones waging war. The examples you give are not technology, they're evolutionary traits. If I grew a hammer instead of a hand, it wouldn't be technology either. It'd be an evolutionary trait. Technology is something that doesn't evolve naturally.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
cont... and one of the 2% of the alterred creatures gets more fur.... well ...chances are it will have a better chance of surviving... but there are things that are AWARE of the enviroment... and take the measures to overcome it... and creatures evollve accordingly or die... there have been lots of failure prototypes in the past... but I mean .. our whole planet was terraformed ... there is tons of intelligent life that are operating and working on levels we can hardly fathom
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: you are completely wrong in your understanding of intelligence/technology. Your basic assessment of Evolution is okay. Things evolve randomly and those who happen to be better adapted have a higher survival rate and thus are better able to reproduce. The post "prototypes" aren't failures: they're all successes at some point. They just didn't evolve to meet the new conditions. We may be dominant now, but might go extinct in a few years for all we know. And not terraformed at all.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
say a new wing design... something undoubtedly decides ... and when a creature is up against something in the enviroment that threatens it....about 2% of the species becomes the guinea pigs...and they suddenly evollve a bit differently.... and here is were natural selection comes into play.. if it lives it reproduces that new design to the rest.. say it gets colder
MasterChince 1 year ago
it definitely is a technollogy and tons of things work to the overall refining of it... the centrioles are the things that make their appearance only when the cell reproduces ... its a little arm that comes out to grab the needed chromosomes to complete the genes...and it makes a choice of which ones to grab.... the best ones it thinks it needs at that time....... anyway... because it is very mysterious how those processes happen... such as the development of a new TECHNOLLOGY... s
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY A TECHNOLOGY, AS PROVEN BY ITS VERY DEFINITION. IT IS !!!!!NOT!!!!! A TECHNOLOGY!!!!
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
well I stand corrected on a few things but never the less...... the info in genes is a technollogy... and it has been refined for millions of years
MasterChince 1 year ago
by micro organisms.... and alot of mollocules and organisms operate like a "simple" program... but that is just to better deal with this mathamatical existence...... they experience fear anger and satisfaction just like us... so to say they are just programs.. is also saying we are just programs.... wich you can do I suppose... because I ultimately came to the conclusion that that is indeed what we are...
MasterChince 1 year ago
a program developed by the rest of the brain to navigate the body to achieve its goals... wich is to eat.. stay alive.. and reproduce.... keeping the vast amount of "the technollogies of life" {the genes} alive
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: some corrections: DNA is not technology. Technology can be used to manipulate it, but DNA itself is NOT technology. Technology is: "The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.". DNA is thus NOT a technology.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn YES... BUT YOU DON'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SOCIETIES OF MICRO ORGANISMS ... sry cps lock was on ... and it is a technollogy that was devell9oped .. albiet not humans... but that is just semantics .. a mere technicallity... have you heard of centrioles ?
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: DNA existed prior to micro organisms and is in absolutely no way a technology. Even if you consider a lump of micro organisms a society, you still don't have any technology. Ants, bees and the likes may be the first with technology, but again, DNA is not technology at all.
Centrioles are at the centres of genomes, if I recall well.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
this universe is 13.7 billion years old that is how long photons and the other wave/particles have existed
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: and it would take maybe 6 billion years before any advanced life forms would arise. Given humans took 4 billion years to evolve from scratch, one could image us being of the third generation. First advanced lifeforms arising 8 billion years ago, then a second wave 4 billion years ago and then we have us, who are still evolving.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Comment removed
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: first of all: they do not possess intelligence, it's a "simple" program running inside of them, just like simple robots we make. Second: Earth itself is only 4.6 billion years old and our solar system is 5 billion years old, so how can there be life on Earth prior to there being an Earth?
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn @PJDesseyn ............alright... if you don't consider the genes technollogy, your a fool... and if you think that those life forms were just a "simple" program that obeyed specific signals from the genesyour a fool... some thing undoubtedly tried and faild the first time they tried to fly... once the first things started to fly.. many other things learnt how. and they store that info in the genes . and go through the pain staking ordeal of replicating it everysingle time thy rprdce
MasterChince 1 year ago
at one point on earths history a cataclysm happened... and all life was in jeapody ... and these micro organisnms that have waged war for so long stoped fighting... and made universal ports to exchange huge amounts of sequenced dna ... the script of life... this would be like the equivelent of the spider . telling the fly how it made is web.. and its spinnerettes... and the fly telling the spider how to make eyes like itsw or its wings and ect. so syng tht thr ws no intlgnt dsgn bfr hmns s wrng
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: again, there was no intelligence in the sense of making technology, before humans. (unknown alien life excluded) Also, most organisms came together through being eaten, while others of the same group formed colonies. That's not like a spider making friends with a fly, that's a spider being friends with many spiders and making a big web, catching bigger prey. Or a spider genetically enhancing himself with fly DNA to be able to fly.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
and these "things" {complex microorganisms} waged war for millions and millions of years .. perfecting technollogies in dealing with each other and the enviroment...so I say... there were many things opperating that were well aware of their surroundings and what they were doing... and they eventually made creatures like us .. the intelligent design? the genes of course... huge amount of info stored in a macro-mollocule.. and some thing/s made that.. and some thing/s utillizes that
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: you're confusing intelligence with the laws of nature: survival of the fittest. Organisms developed random traits and those organisms with the best traits had the best chances of survival and thus passed on those traits. There was absolutely no intelligence involved at all and certainly no technologies either. They weren't aware of their surroundings either, they simply spread and if they couldn't spread any further, they stopped.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
meant to say creature
MasterChince 1 year ago
I would have to say that your ansewer is only half correct.... sure... the forces and constants that this universe has needed to be there for the first microscopic life forms to form... but to say it was JUST random events that made life, that is a little rediculous..... and now that there IS intelligent life... there are countless factors (being mostly other life forms and obviously the natural forces} that come into play in the evollution of a careature
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: lets just say that prior to human ingenuity, all life evolved naturally and there was no creator/designer anywhere.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
that is were you are wrong... there was countless creatures that were evollving technollogies creating things like us for millions of years before humans arose... for the first 2 billion years of life on this planet .. they were only complex micro organisms {fungi to pe percise} and these fungi undoubtedly came from space... and they terraformed this planet making it possible for plants .. and they became the first nutrient system for them... and many other "things" some how came to be .
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: actually, that hypothesis (panspermia) is very doubted. Asteroids hit Earth, providing WATER, but life originated on Earth. That's the working hypothesis.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
PJDesseyn well ... it was actually a Canadian team that found that spores from earth drift out of our solar system all the time... and that due to their extremely tight electron shell packing are impervious to the radiations of space... and infact can catch waves of light and be propelled to half the speed of light.... the closest star is 1.7 light years away I believe
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: spores FROM Earth is not spores from outer space. You first need the spores on Earth before they can come back.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
just look at how our planet was teraformed .... I was a little wrong... it was the first 2 billion years of life above the ocean that was fungi,,,,,... .. I will be back after clarifying some things
MasterChince 1 year ago
Bacteria and Fungi we`re before plants but plants have been around for 600 million years. @ that time even fungi-algae symbiosis was taking place. I would imagine mycorrhizal fungi came onto the scene and helped the plant world BIG TIME early on. Just as they do today. Simple cells came well before fungi. Sorry dude. Fungi which are complex cells "Eurakaryote cells" these include animals&fungi. In fact the two are now one super kingdom. That's current. Earliest fungi are from: proterozoic era.
HashyBee 1 year ago
It TOOK 2 billion years for complex cells to develop. Fungi we're the FIRST to COME ONTO LAND. Maybe that's why you're mixed up. Bacteria and Achaea are worth looking into. Earliest fungi fossils supposedly come from 1,430 million years ago. But it's BELIEVED(because of the changing periods making fungi fossils hard to keep) That fungi have colonized the land 500 million years ago.
HashyBee 1 year ago
@MasterChince: life hasn't been above the ocean for 2 billion years yet. Maybe 1 billion years at best, but certainly not 2 billion.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@MasterChince Spores may not die from radiation. But I'm sorry my friend some corrections are in order. :) Firstly a good spore print is only REALLY valuable to a grower for about a year. Even by the 6 month mark up to half of your spores can be inactive. And trust me, HEAT does kill spores. I`ve learned that the hard way when being over zealous with a lighter nuking my syringe between injections. You can fry spores. In fact you can even her them pop. They die in a BOLD, BEAUTIFUL way. :)
HashyBee 1 year ago
anyway... the first 2 billion years of life was fungi... and only fungi... and they are starting to believe that it actually came here from space as spores... anjd they believe that spores are the way they are..{billions of them that can travel tens of thousands of years the harsh evnviroment and vaccum of space} to actually pollonate planets like ours.... and that our planet is not where life originally started... we already have found evidence of life on mars...
MasterChince 1 year ago
@MasterChince: Fungi came later on. The first life forms were single celled blobs, then single celled organisms, then algae, then bacteria, and then first multicellular life and then fungi. And no, we haven't found evidence of life on Mars. We've found instances where life would've been possible on Mars, in the past, but we haven't found evidence of life itself on Mars.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
true they never found hard evidence of life yet...
MasterChince 1 year ago
Bt "chance" I happened to stop by.
There are many FLAWS with your logic.
First off, you are aluring to the idea that life starting by "chance" is the same as drawing a Royal Flush, in reality it's FAR greater than that. It's more like drawing 100 Royal flushes IN A ROW and that's a Conservative estimate. On top of that, the 2nd draw reflects NO LIFE since your analogy says the Royal Flush (Life as we know it) is the one that were looking for. So, it's a DISHONEST comparison.
KingJamesBible 2 years ago
That's because you don't get the comparison. The video was meant to show that, the odds for making life as we know it, are exactly the same odds for making life any way different. Haven't you listened to the part about the dinosaurs, mutations, random events and such? Also note that life doesn't start by mere chance. The laws of nature have a lot to do with it too. The conditions on Earth were ideal for life to arise, thus increasing the odds astronomically. Don't debate things you don't get.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
The "LAWS" of nature?? LAWS... Laws come from God That's INFORMATION.. information comes from intelligence.... and your wrong about the SAME odds because in your second anology (with the random cards) that would NOT reflect life. They BOTH can't be "life" for the illustration to make any sense.
KingJamesBible 2 years ago 2
We defined the laws, jackass. 1+1=2, whether there's intelligence to see it or not. Laws of nature do not require law-givers. And most certainly not some fictional character, made up by man, called God. Stop believing in freakin fairy tales man.
As for random chance: you can have 4 different kinds of royal flushes, so consider that small variations on how life is right now. Change a card and you'll get a slightly bigger variation, etcetera. Life can be very different, but still be life.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Jackass? That's a Bible term.
There can be laws with NO Lawgiver????? Completely Illogical
KingJamesBible 2 years ago 2
I said laws OF NATURE do not require law-givers. A law of nature is not the same as a law of man. We make laws to maintain our society. Nature has laws inherently. Just like morality exists without a maker, for that maker couldn't be moral if morality had yet to be made, thus being incapable of making morality.
Laws of nature and other things like morality, require no maker at all and that's completely logical.
God, however is completely illogical. (which is logical, since he's a fairy tale)
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
KJB. I think you're being far too accomadating comparing the chance of life with 100 royal flushes in a row in fact if you would have said 100,000,000 in a row that would have been too kind because life in all of it's diverse array of complexity would have so many zeros after the 100 that they wouldn't even fit on this page. But I guess you were trying to be nice since it was Deesyn's birthday, right?
blackaboe 2 years ago
Blacky, how many times do I have to tell you TO STOP THE FUCK LYING ALL THE TIME!?!
Life isn't that improbable as you think. There are millions of planets like ours, where life as we know it may exist and trillions more, where life in general is possible. And that's just with the lifeforms we know. For all we know, life could live on very hostile planets we might not see as possible right now.
You guys are utterly retarded when it comes to reality, the truth and the facts.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
From this whole entire galaxy, from all the stars and planets that exist in our universe, only 0,00000000000000000073% of it is habitable. So 9,99999999999999999927% of our universe is INCAPABLE of producing life. Doesn't sound like a fine-tuned-for-life-galaxy to me and the odds of us being here are SO small that with your reason you would say it's impossible, but yet we're here. But does that support the idea of intelligent design? No, it doesn't, we're just the royal flush of nature.
MortalLuc 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Whoops. Typo. Of course I meant that 99,99999999999999999927% of our universe is incapable of producing life.
MortalLuc 2 years ago
@MortalLuc planets r made form tiny dust particles flaoting in space hiting and joining together, thats how earth was formed, as it gets biger it causes high friction, that causes high tempreatures theres ur center of the earth and melted rock releases iron or w/e is in the specific rok theres are magnetic field form the core of the earth theres r atmosphere as gas colects in magnitism, bang ive just explained how earth was made simple enuff 4 any1 to grasp no god there just circumstances
raver4lyfe16 2 years ago
If only it were that simply to get creationists to understand it...
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Dess "Happy B-day". Keep up pounding sense into these religious zealots ! Nice work !
TheBoopski 2 years ago
A house consists of many bricks. I simply lay down my own.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Happy Birthday
PT109Boat 2 years ago
Thanks. I'm glad to have survived another year on this dangerous planet with this dangerous species called Homo Sapiens.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
I agree.
The probablity of getting
1,2,3,4,5 and 6
in the State Lottery are EXACTLY the same probability of getting
8,12,18,23,34 and 41.
If you buy 1 2 3 4 5 and 6 it doesn't mean that you will never win the lottery, you have the same chances.
PT109Boat 2 years ago