Your "stately home" vs "cell" analogy doesn't work. It's on a completely different scale. It's ridiculous! There is no way to explain a home being constructed by accident. But, we have come very, very close to creating such a cell from common elements. Not by sticking them together with force, but by putting them in the same vicinity and allowing it to happen on its own with the right conditions available. If it can happen in any condition will you give up on this nonsense?
I believe you must have alot of evil in that head of yours. Maybe I shouldn't explain how there's no God. It you believe me, I'm afraid you might kill, rape, or torture someone. You have admitted on many occasions that you would not act morally if God didn't exist. You must be holding some pretty horrible thoughts back in that head of yours due to this belief in god. I'm an atheist and I'm more moral than most of the Christians I've met. Maybe all of them!
You're right, trusting God is more than just believing in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. It's doing it because you WANT it to be true. Because you need it to be true. Because you only understand the world if it's true. Because you wouldn't want to live in a world where you're not being rewarded by him for good deeds and the evil ones aren't getting punished by him. The world wouldn't seem right without this God. What a waste of time all your believing has been.
We have no evidence whatsoever for this thing you call god. Your first mistake is there. We have, however, ALMOST created DNA and RNA from completely common elements of non-life. Now, YOU choose to believe in an imaginary creature to solve this riddle of our life. I, sir, do not! It's FAITH to believe in something completely strange with no evidence for its existence. It's not faith to see that we've almost done it! Looks like a god might not be required. We're closer every day.
I hope you win the golden crocoduck award. You REALLY do belong in the same ranks as Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and nephilimfree!!! JUST ANOTHER GENIUS!!!
With your "rock" example, I would agree. THAT wouldn't happen. But this isn't about rocks stacking themselves now is it? It's about chemicals and molecules and atoms and all the forces of nature that we're aware of coming together (one single time) in such a way to create something more complex than its original parts. It can (and does) happen every day. Simple things creating complex ones. Nothing will randomly create an Ipod. But on an atomic level, very unlikely things happen all the time.
Well I'm afraid a functioning cell is far more complex that a stately home or an Ipod. And the first cell would need to be that complex or else it wouldn't be able to replicate.
The thing you're missing in your calculation, is that while on occasion two things may combine they also will then break up again just as easily way before there is time for any more development. This is why in nature it never gets beyond the most basic of points.
....those examples. The common thread is that they take something they don't understand, insert god into it (because they have accepted god to be true before there was any reason to do so), and feel better that they understand the world a little better. It's the god of the gaps again! It makes us feel good to have all the answers. When there isn't an answer, christianity always has an explanation...GOD! We don't like the unknown, so we make up answers. Hence theism. That's all it is!
....benefit of others (which you can't explain) , in a feeling (you can't explain), a vision of a loved one long since passed (which you can't explain), a loved ones recovery from a near death illness after doctors say they believe them to have little chance (which you can't explain). Do you see the pattern here? Are any of these things EVIDENCE for god used by you or anyone you know? Every claim of proof, by every christian I've ever asked "where's your proof", was based on one of those....
"God is only unprovable to those unwilling to accept him as the answer". You're mistaken. Those who don't believe, do so because of the complete and utter lack of evidence to support the claim. I'm WILLING to accept the claim, but, NO CLAIM SHOULD BE ACCEPTED UNTIL REASONABLY PROVEN. Especially one of this magnitude. Acceptance shouldn't precede the evidence. That's your problem. Once you accept it, you'll find god everywhere. In a tree, random occurrences which turn out for the benefit....
The evidence is everywhere, our behaviour that makes no sense if there is no God, the world around us that couldn't possibly have occurred by chance, the blessing that God pours out on His people. There is lots of evidence. The only ones who can't see it are those who will accept any answer, so long as it isn't the one they don't want.
Almost every thing humans have ever sought to explain, we have. If we're not there yet, we're alot closer today than we were yesterday. It's not illogical to believe (after understanding this) that one day we probably will understand most (if not all) things. Faith (as it is commonly used) is belief despite a complete lack of evidence or when there's ample evidence to the contrary. If there's reasonable supporting evidence for the claim, you're not using faith. Therefore it's useless.
"Almost every thing humans have ever sought to explain, we have."
Errr, right, if you say so.
It is not illogical to believe something you're right. But that doesn't mean that you're acting any the less in faith. It is logical to trust God when He has come through for you every single time before too, but that is something that amusingly you would reject, ironically.
Trusting God is faith, not believing something just for which there's no evidence.
That is more of the same logic of correlation vs causation. YOU STILL DONT GET IT DO YOU! Statistics will show you that more theists commit traffic violations than atheists WORLDWIDE! Do you know why? Can you figure out this riddle? Probably not, so I'll tell you. It's because there are far more theists than atheists! There ARE more theists, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that more schools were built by theists. It proves nothing. Nothing at all.
Interesting you ask a question and then don't wait to get the answer. I'm not sure if you get this, but using exclamation marks and caps with increasing frequency doesn't make your points valid.
The "yet" is not an assumption. It's a reference to the fact that things are being discovered at an exponential rate right before our eyes every day, and, to say that we CAN'T understand something because we currently don't is dishonest. I don't use faith because it's the basis for all deceptions. Every lie ever told manipulated someone using their FAITH! Give that some thought before preaching the righteousness of faith. It's why religions wouldn't exist without it. They are misleading.
If we can't understand something currently then we can't understand it. Anything else is an act of faith on your part because your are trusting in something that you have no proof that it will happen. So the more you slander having an unproved belief (which is what I think you think faith is) the more you're undermining your own position.
The intelligent design that you're proposing isn't shown true in reality. There's not one shred of evidence for it. When oxygen and hydrogen get together, they form water. Something MORE complex forms from LESS complex parts randomly interacting. Will you really go so far as to say that god causes this to happen each and every time? If not, then you understand how random interactions can create more complex structures without any intelligent guidance whatsoever. Now apply to more complex things.
They are two wholly different types of event. A rock may fall on top of another naturally, however when I see Chatsworth house I don't think that that occurred naturally too.
They are two wholly different types of event. A rock may fall on top of another naturally, however when I see Chatsworth house I don't think that that occurred naturally too.
They are two wholly different types of event. A rock may fall on top of another naturally, however when I see Chatsworth house I don't think that that occurred naturally too.
Lol, you're talking about two entirely different levels . A rock may fall on top of another naturally, however when I see Chatsworth house I don't think that that occurred naturally too.
I did misquote you. Sorry. You said, "Clearly by the fact that they cannot explain it, it is NOT where the evidence leads". That says (basically) the same thing. Just because we cannot FULLY explain a thing, doesn't mean we can't follow the evidence wherever it leads. Your statement asserts that it isn't true because we can't explain it "yet". That's illogical. That would stop all scientific investigation in its tracks if it were true. Thankfully it isn't!
It wouldn't stop scientific investigation at all. One can continue to investigate something, but what it says is that there is no evidence for it being the case at all. People can investigate what they want, they can investigate to see if the moon has every been made of cheese if they want. But the fact remains that there is no evidence for it 'yet'.
When science comes up with a working model, it should work in tests anywhere and be able to make reasonable predictions which can be confirmed by outside sources. This is the ONLY way it can be reasonably claimed to be accurate and true. THIS IS SCIENCE! Now, explain to us again how theists prove religious claims. Science shows us what's true and gives us the tools to prove it for ourselves. Religion is faith-based, not evidence-based. That's its failure, but it's also it's strength. It's a lie.
The Bible doesn't seek to prove things, it seeks to explain them. If a Christian wants to prove something they use science. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the most famous Universities were built by Christians?
What we reject is the dodgy non-science that is passed off as science.
My belief doesn't "depend on the unprovable". I hope you meant "unproven". It's a completely different adjective with a totally different meaning. It hasn't been proven yet. Why does the "yet" bother you so much. We're adding to our knowledge of this world each and every day. And every time we explain the previously unexplained, someone somewhere loses another argument for their God. The more we learn, the more we realize that needing "god" to explain things is unnecessary.
Well it would be rather odd if it could be proven and people haven't bothered.
The 'yet' is so important because it is an assumption that it will be proven at all. You do not know the future, your belief is built upon your faith that something that isn't proved at some point will be. There is nothing to support that, it is just a tenet of your faith. And then in the same breath will slam Christians for having faith themselves.
...simply another class in school which atheists have forced upon theists. The better a person understands science, the more likely they are to understand reality as it truly is and the better their choices in life should be. Science takes a starring role in every other class being taught in schools. Science IS our guide to rational and logical thoughts and the most accurate results possible. Only religious claims are excluded from scientific verification due to the invocation of FAITH.
It truly amazes me when I hear people say how unreliable science is. It's at that point in the conversation that I realize that I'm talking with a fool. When science makes a mistake, how do we know? IT TAKES MORE SCIENCE! In every aspect of our lives, in every scenario, a scientific method is used to determine what's true (as accurately as possible). Everything in the bible that can be proven to be true was PROVEN by science! Geography, history, archeology, and so on. Science isn't simply......
To deny science is to deny common sense and rational thought. We ALL use scientific methods in nearly all aspects of our lives daily. From cooking breakfast to driving a car we use those methods. We take what we know to be true, consider likely outcomes (based on observations and a basic understanding of the laws of physics), and make the best choices possible. Walk your way through any important decision you will make today step by step. I'd bet it will be a very scientific process. Try it.
Your understanding of what "science" is is flawed. Science is the method by which humans have understood to be the most accurate way to discern fact from fiction. It's the most reliable system ever devised to reach this goal. As we searched for truth, one thing became apparent...some methods worked, some failed miserably. Science is the word we use to define the most reliable method we have ever conceived of to reach our goal...THE TRUTH. You use it every day. But you create one exception. GOD!
My belief doesn't depend on an unprovable, unseen entity which possesses abilities which defy any and all comprehension. Yours does. When abiogenesis is proven, you will simply say god did it. You can't know it's true, but you'll say it anyway. And you will consider that belief to be a logical one. No supporting evidence required right! How can you not see your failure in logic here? You just keep moving the goalpost. Again, what could ever possibly convince you that there never were any gods?
Your belief depends on the unprovable. It is not an entitiy but it is still unproved.
God is only unprovable to those unwill to accept Him as the answer. It is basically like saying show me A, just so long as A isn't your answer.
No, if abiogenesis ever happens then it will no doubt be in such insanely controlled environment, with so many amazingly engineered machines with so man millions of man hours of thought put into it, it will just further prove ID.
"by the fact that they can't explain it it clearly doesn't exist"? So did gravity not exist...until we could explain it? Please think before you post such nonsense. This is your failure in understanding. There are so many things we can't explain, but that doesn't mean we can't ever explain them. It's dishonest and lazy thinking. We should continue to strive for knowledge. We don't know everything and maybe never will. But the journey to knowledge is a noble one. So many truths were once unknown.
When did I say that? I can only see where I said that the evidence doesn't point that way. Not that if one can't explain something it doesn't exist. Which are two entirely different things.
Of course we should strive for knowledge, but that is not the same as trying to make the facts fit a worldview that they clearly don't. That is different. I've never advocated 'not finding stuff out' that is just what atheists like to pretend I've said.
I'm sorry, but I just noticed your ridiculous assertion that because we understand that things are complicated, that a god is more likely. That's nonsense! How do you connect the dots with any of these statements you're making? Theists are loaded with statements such as these. In politics, they're called talking points. One-liners. Sounds good, until you try to draw the lines from point A to B to C to D and so on. That's where it falls apart. It SOUNDS intelligent enough to fool the lazy-minded.
I'll ask again, if science can show (definitively) that abiogenesis is possible, will you simply seek out another gap in our understanding in which you will shift your gods actions, or will you accept that you have been mistaken all along? Will you feel foolish for your current beliefs or simply say..."BUT GOD MADE THOSE THINGS COME TOGETHER IN THAT WAY!" How far will you go until you admit you're wrong? What would it take to convince you? I'm starting to believe nothing ever would, sadly.
Where did you imagine that there's any evidence at all that a god had anything to do with anything? If it could have ever been proven, there wouldn't have ever been a need to search for an alternate answer. If it were proven, I would accept it. "Theories that are IMPOSSIBLE to prove or disprove"? That defines your beliefs exactly. Science doesn't claim a thing to be true until it has been proven logically, sufficiently and in such a way that denial of it would be practically pointless.
....consider billions of years of those interactions. Think about it. All the possible interactions of random chance that will happen in the next 60 seconds throughout the universe. Multiply that by a number that is almost incomprehensible and you will understand why it's not just likely that we would have existed, but, would be astonishing if we were the only life in the universe. Of course, all this hinges on abiogenesis. If it's true, life's not as rare as you would think.
Quite, and what has SETI taught us so far? Contrary to what we thought, we've found dideley squat. As far as evidence shows this universe is filled with rock, dust and particularly pretty fusion reactions. If anything, the universe is so hostile it is amazing even we exist.
The "absurd level of chance" that you speak of is funny considering the belief that YOU hold for how it all came to be. Consider the universe with billions of galaxies, each galaxy with billions of stars, and all the planets around those stars. Then consider all the possible interactions that are happening at this very moment throughout the entire universe on all those planets. Think about it. Take your time. If you've managed to wrap your head around that, now consider....
Scientist are very, very close to sparking life from non-life. I believe the probability of it happening in my lifetime is good. I could be wrong. What will you say if they do? Will you simply shift your belief or reassess it? A good believer would just find another gap. Will you concede or keep fighting? I STRONGLY believe the biblical account of creation to be preposterous and completely unfounded. Abiogenesis is exponentially more likely. It's where the evidence leads.
Clearly by the fact that they can't explain it, it is NOT where the evidence leads. This is the irony with you guys. You think that if it comes under the moniker 'science' then it is more rational to believe it. Until there is evidence for you to believe it, you have no less faith than a Muslim or Hindu etc
If your "science of the gaps" means that we understand our ignorance concerning certain subjects, create reasonable explanations for such things, then go out and build provable models which can be demonstrated to be accurate, then yes. Religions work the same way...except for the "reasonable" part and the very critical part of forming working models and gathering evidence. Religion doesn't care if something can be proven. They just want you to believe. True or not. I care if things are true.
No science of the gaps is where the answer points to one thing (God) and in order to avoid that, theories that are impossible to disprove or prove are created to make gaps.
Go back 100 years or so and look at what the church and theists attributed to God. And now, we understand that inserting god into those scenarios is unnecessary and lazy. We understand them now through science, logic, and reason. Back then, we didn't. But theists THOUGHT they did! Just like today. Theists claim to have answers but they just prey on human ignorance for their beliefs to exist. It's effective I must say. Mostly because humans are so gullible. Sad but true.
"Go back 100 years or so and look at what the church and theists attributed to God. And now, we understand that inserting god into those scenarios is unnecessary and lazy"
Not at all, we know how things work, but nonetheless the gap which is filled is filled with but more evidence for God. The more we find out, the complicated we find everything is, pointing even more strongly toward God than when we didn't know how it worked. Contrary to if everything was simple.
No, what I said was that we don't know everything "yet". And in every case, when we admit our own ignorance as humans, a theists will claim to KNOW the answer...GOD! It's dishonest and you SHOULD know it. You obviously don't and so you strengthen your beliefs with humanity's ignorance. As we understand the reality we live in better, every day, your beliefs get weaker. You're running out of gaps to hide your God. Stop hiding him already!
Saying you don't know how something could possibly happen, it just an expression that you have faith that it did happen despite having no evidence. It is honest, and it is admirable, but nonetheless it shows that even with the absurd level of 'chance' that evo-ists are willing to tolerate, there is no real answer.
No you just prefer science of the gaps. Where is there no gap, atheists make one because they doens't like the answer. Like multiverse theory.
WOW! your really really smart professor! . . . Where did you study for your doctorate? The university of retarded bullshit? Guess we can tell all the scientists over the last 150 years their wrong because you just thought of something a few minutes ago! PURE GENIUS!!!
No, actually scientists accept that they have no adequate explanation for abiogenesis.
But I'm glad that you are happy to show that if a man in a white lab coat tells you something, you do not question it but rather accept it in blind faith.
@perfacetus Your right! i should'nt bother listening to professionals "in white lab coats"- eh??? who spend decades of their lives researching these theorys. . . What do they know, right?. . . bunch of morons! I should just listen to the non-professional, unscientific, superstitious religious nuts in robes who get all their science info from ancient books! . . . and accept THAT instead! PURE GENIUS!!!
Errr, I didn't say that. Actually I'd advise you think about the matters yourself and decide for yourself rather than taking people's word for it based on status.
@perfacetus WOW! Thanks professor! I never thought about doing THAT! . . . Er, actually i have! . . . iv been learning biology/evolution AS WELL AS christian theology/doctrine, biblical studies/archeology and creation/ID "science" for over 10yrs. So id advise you to do the same instead of JUST reading an ancient collection of books and christian propaganda. Then decide for yourself rather than taking people's word for it based on their LACK of status from behind the pulpit! GENIUS IDEA!!!
If you did really study Christian doctrine, it seems very odd that you think that I'm suggesting you should "just listen to the non-professional, unscientific, superstitious religious nuts in robes" since that is against what the Bible teaches. Are you sure you've been studying it for 10 years?
I look into science myself, if I didn't I wouldn't be able to have made most of my videos. However, you just want to be sarcastic rather than make any points of any use.
@perfacetus Glad you "look into science" sporty! id just advise you to look into REAL science instead of creation/ID pseudo-anti science. . . then you could answer the questions in your own videos! Dont get me wrong its a little more difficult, complicated and time consuming than the first 2 chapters of genesis - but much more rewarding! perhaps you should try your hand at explaining the mechanics of walking on water, rising from the grave and flying into the clouds??? YOU GENIUS YOU!!!
I didn't watch the video. Just wanted to say that the title had something missing. A "yet" at the end. You don't really think we know everything about everything "yet" do you? We're learning. It's a big puzzle and we're still searching for some of the missing pieces. We have enough pieces to see that evolution is true, we're just missing a few pieces. It'll come in time. My guess is that this is a variation on the "God of the gaps" argument. Did I just debunk your video without watching it? LOL!
Lol, no you didn't. What you did was that you expressed your faith that something will turn up that you have no proof of. When you're on your death bed and it still hasn't been shown, you will have to put your hand in God's or in the 'belief' that man will so how explain the impossible. If you chose that faith, that is your call. I can't make that decision for you.
As for God of the gaps, try science of the (pretend) gaps. Science supports God.
I do. Your point has no evidence, cites nothing I said in support, it doesn't even declare what you think is the strawman. If you're going to comment I'd recommend you have some content to it rather than just being insulting for no reason.
@perfacetus I came here as you stared in a Crocoduck video. Wanted to see 'stupid' for myself. You have not a clue about what you are talking about. Zero. Read some books (not creationists web sites) then get back to me.
Errr you still haven't made any points or highlighted anything you consider inaccurate. You are speaking in broad sweeping terms avoiding making any argument at all.
Before advising me to read books and avoid creationist websites perhaps you could consider your own advice and not post insulting comments on videos just because they were mentioned by an atheist in a negative manner.
@perfacetus Listen you moron. No where does it say a bolt of lighting causes amino acids to come together to form the first cell. Cite the peer revised paper that claims this please or STFU. That is your straw man. It also shows you have NO clue as to what you are talking about. Just fucking stupid.
@csadler Do you notice that when you're challenged you get more and more aggressive rather that recognising your original comment was rude and becoming more polite? Have I been rude to you once?
Urey Miller Experiement. There are plenty of available journal articles, I can quote articles here if you want but they don't fit well into 500 characters.
@perfacetus "Urey Miller Experiment." You pathetic asshole. Do you think the point of this was to create cells? Fuck, man you have not a clue about science and how it works do you? Articles? Try PubMed - you do know what that is don't you?
@perfacetus Hahahahahaha it was to study the formation of organic molecules. Your last line "Life by definition includes cells." again shows your incompetence. 'Cell's would not have EVER been on their minds. This is why what you said is a straw man.... get it? Or are you still to thick? Urey Miller answered only 1 question. Could organics come from simpler chemistry - answer YES. End of story.
If they were looking for the origin of life then the formation of cells MUST have been in their minds since life requires "Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life."
So cells would have been in their minds or, they didn't know the definition of life, which would have been surprising considering their field of study.
It doesn't matter what steps they were working on, the fact is their aim was to show the origin of life.
@perfacetus Wrong. As someone who has participated in science and its methods, the picture is usually just way to large most of the time. Scientists can spend years understanding 1 tiny reaction, 1 process. The time span between the formation of organics and cells would be several hundred million years and untold number of other process. What gets my back up is people like you suck on the tit of science then turn around and piss in the fountain of knowledge.
"What gets my back up is people like you suck on the tit of science then turn around and piss in the fountain of knowledge."
I can only address things that actually make sense. All I can interpret from that is "it annoys me when people use science to show I'm wrong as I prefer to believe it is the exclusive domain of people adhering to my system of beliefs".
@perfacetus Thats the thing isn't it. Science has shown all religions to be wrong, over and over again. You prefer your world view to be shaped by bronze aged myths so silly children can see through them as you can tell by their questions. Science on the other hand has provided you with everything you see, touch as well as your life span, food and clean water. Science works. There is nothing in the bible that could not have been written by a person who thought the wheelbarrow was new technology.
Well no. Science didn't provide the eco-system of earth, which minus our destruction, would be in balance, beautful and more complex than anything we've ever created.
There is plenty in the Bible that is way more advanced than its years, but I discuss that in another video.
@perfacetus Science does not only build it lets us understand. And the understanding we have gained from it far, far exceeds anything in the bible - you know, the book with the talking snakes.
@perfacetus And *which* god would that be? Right, the one you picked. Lucky you eh? Good thing you were not born in Mecca, or else you would have been stuck with the wrong god. Religion is an accident of birth. Humans have created thousands of gods, and your version is no different. When you understand why you reject all other gods you will understand why I reject yours.
@perfacetus "Since Christianity is based on grace, it wouldn't make sense for you to reject Christ and Christianity on that basis."
So what? All you did was make a statement. Actually, 'works' base religions might just be better for the human species. We might all do better if humans were *trying* to be good to impress their imaginary friend.
The heart of Christianity (vicarious redemption) is immoral. Lets heap our sins on someone and have a human sacrifice. Its called scapegoating.
You see while you saw the crocoduck film, what you didn't see was the comment I left on that video showing through peer reviewed papers that actually my supposed strawman wasn't a strawman at all. But you don't really care about that, because you just like abusing creationists because you've heard enough people say they're stupid for you to be convinced that they are.
@perfacetus Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha now I know why you make such stupid videos:
search with 17008210 - let me know the article you get!
Type in Evolution and let me know how many hits you get. Or use BLAST to compare our genes to Chimps. Oh, what was your video about again??? Life? Unreal.
"US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health" is the substitle on the website.
It makes no sense why I'd limit myself to such a journal. Again, if we could make such limitations, I'm sure I could make it impossible for you to prove anything!
I don't have time to go looking through a database trying to find out exactly what it covers. Your point is, only use pubmed. My point is: that is a ridiculous condition to impose on any arguement.
I had a look, it said medicine and health. I can't be expected to magically know the breadth of it any more than any other database I don't use often.
@perfacetus Now where is the bit about the Cell? Thought so. Yes, life for sure, why else to study the formations of organics, ie organic chemistry. None of which talks about Cells now does it.
"So cells would have been in their minds" - your words.
I'm sure several other people have told you already that it's completely idiotic to attack straw men on things you don't understand. "I don't understand how evolution work, so it doesn't work" is not a clever argument. Before you can debunk any argument, you need to know what you're arguing against.
1. No, it's that you don't understand it. Your saying that you understand it doesn't disregard the fact that you're wrong in your video.
2. Yes, it is. Your saying it's not just proves that you don't know what a straw man is either. Which further proves that you're an idiot, talking about things you don't understand.
1. Sorry, that is the British understatement coming out. If I say 'I don't understand' something. It doesn't literally mean I don't understand. It means I do understand it and it is wrong. It is a cultural thing. We're just too polite to say "that's a steaming pile".
2. Lol, yeah great. Instead of trying to tell me I don't know what a strawman is, try proving that my point is a strawman.
1. Nonsense. Pullling the Brit card is just a cop out and we both know it. Assuming I'm a yank myself, are we? Or a non-Brit at any stage? Bollocks. Also, your comment doesn't fit in to the argument at all here, since you didn't say "I don't understand it".
2. See comment one. You've built a straw man and you';re attacking it full steam. Attack the argument of evolution instead. If you can't do that, you should probably re-consider the youtube argument thing. Eejit.
1. I have no idea what nationality you are. I don't even know if I said 'I don't understand in this video'. I just remember someone else pointing it out about a year ago and I explained exactly the same to them. The fact is if I said anything like that, it means it is wrong. If you don't understand my culture that sorry, but it is how we express ourselves.
2. Really? So what is the strawman that you think I've created?
@perfacetus ''Great! The more publicity the more likely people are to see the video and reallise the point I'm making is true. Thanks for the vote.'' just wow! WOW!!! your ignorant's is just wow!! WOW
First, saying wow doesn't prove or disprove anything. So you disagree? Fine. If you don't have a logical reason why you think I'm wrong I'm afraid that doesn't count for much.
Second, that would be "ignorance" not "ignorant's". I wouldn't bother highlighting something like that normally but considering the nature of the comment it is rather ironic.
@perfacetus Its not about if I agree yes or no... Its about the evidence! You people always forget that it seems...And really you gonna correct my English? English is my second language... Did that ever come to mind? Its really simple your claims can be debunked really easy by EVIDENCE! And at the same time you can't back up you claims by EVIDENCE! You get that? Conclusion your claims are suck out of your thumb like you admit in this video
If English isn't your first language then feel free to ignore that part.
There is plenty of evidence for what I'm saying. People have been trying to make cells form for years. Even in perfect lab conditions we still can't get anywhere close. And yet the theory behind abiogenesis is that it happened with no thought, intelligence or input at all!
@perfacetus Okay first of all you need to understand that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life!That is just a simple fact! Secondly yes you are right we don't know YET how life began! But that does NOT mean ''god did it'' That is as dumb as saying we don't know how it the rain comes and go's so god did it! And yes a couple of 100 years ago we thought exactly that! Some day scientist will find out how life started! Till then be humble and just except that we just don't know! YET!
Abiogenesis is required to support an atheist world view, which is the point.
No its like saying scientists will find out how the wall appeared at the end of my garden with no inteliigent input. The fact is we won't because it didn't.
Sure there are things that people didn't understand and now we do. But equally there are things we didn't understand and now we do which just point to God all the more eg the complexity of plants animals etc).
@perfacetus ''Abiogenesis is required to support an atheist world view,'' world view? What world view? ''No its like saying scientists will find out how the wall appeared at the end of my garden with no inteliigent input. The fact is we won't because it didn't.'' A wall is not a living cell! A wall cant replicate it self! Why you believe a wolf can evolve in a chiwawa but a ape can't evolve in a human? Ah wait of course because bible says so? Ah no it doesn't
You're right, a wall is a lot less complex and so would be a lot easier to come across by chance.
"A wall cant replicate it self!"
Neither can complex proteins either, unless there are other pre-existent complex proteins there to help them.
"Why you believe a wolf can evolve in a chiwawa"
I say that DNA that already exists can be rearranged into various different forms. That I know because it can be observed according to the scientific method.
@perfacetus ''You're right, a wall is a lot less complex and so would be a lot easier to come across by chance.'' Ah what chance? Evolution by natural SELECTION... see the key word there? If you don't know how evolution works don't try to argue it! Okay? But like I said i'm tired of explaining basic knowledge over and over again
Evolution? This string is about abiogenesis... see in your last comment talking about 'a living cell'. We're talking about how a single cell could possibly form on its own... which is why I was talking about how the brick wall could for at the end of my garden.
Don't worry about explaining 'basic knowledge' just check you're talking about the right subject.
I said this 'string' is about abiogenesis, not this video. String means this conversation we're having in which we were discussing whether cells could form without intelligent input.
@perfacetus "Evolution? This string is about abiogenesis" Then stop talking about EVOLVED traits and structures.
"We're talking about how a single cell could possibly form on its own" it wouldn't and it's not what abiogenesis claims. If you are gonna argue against that, then you are just arguing against a strawman.
"Then stop talking about EVOLVED traits and structures."
Errr, no. The guy was talking about how the first structures evolved. Which isn't applicable, because we were talking about how they got to the stage they could replicate in the first place (ie before evolution could possibly take place). So, I wasn't the one talking about it on that point.
"We're talking about how a single cell could possibly form on its own" it wouldn't
@perfacetus "because we were talking about how they got to the stage they could replicate in the first place" Which, according to abiogenesis, was way before those structures and traits were present. If you are gonna state otherwise, then you are arguing against a strawman. Got it now? Abiogenesis DOES NOT SAY that the first living things was a DNA based cell. IT DOES NOT. Look up "RNA world". THAT'S what abiogenesis says.
@perfacetus "It must have at some point according to you" It EVOLVED. And it probably took an extreme amount of time as well. In the billion range.
I think it would be best if you watch cdk007's series on the origins of life. It might help clear up a lot of the misconceptions you obviously have about the theory.
Maybe then you'ld refrain from stating such stupid things.
@perfacetus "a wall is a lot less complex and so would be a lot easier to come across by chance" Biology fail. There is no known mechanism by which a wall can come about by chance. But there IS a mechanism to produce diversity in life. It's called evolution through mutation and natural selection.
@perfacetus "Neither can complex proteins either, unless there are other pre-existent complex proteins there to help them"
More fail. RNA based life doesn't have the requirements DNA based life has. The complexity of today is an EVOLVED complexity. It used to be a lot simpler.
"I say that DNA that already exists can be rearranged into various different forms" And every published geneticist would disagree.
@perfacetus "So, it still needs to be made" Or it still need to evolve. But that's besides the point. RNA based life completely invalidates your point and exposes it as a strawman. You claimed life is impossible without those requirements being met. RNA based life proves that statement utterly wrong.
@perfacetus "Assumed. Where is the proof?" In the DNA, the geological record, the lab, agriculture, genetic research and just about any scientific journal.
"So what happens when a human is conceived?" Not evolution, but embryonic development, which is part of a normal life-cycle. The fact that you ask this kinda proves that you have no clue what you are talking about.
@perfacetus "Abiogenesis is required to support an atheist world view" Wrong.
"which just point to God all the more eg the complexity of plants animals" Nonsense. The complexity of biological life is very well explained with evolution theory. "god-did-it", on the other hand, explains NOTHING.
"Abiogenesis is required to support an atheist world view" Wrong
Go on?
"Nonsense. The complexity of biological life is very well explained with evolution theory."
Not even slightly. Although I won't cover why here. The rest of my videos are (largely) to do with that. So this isn't the ideal place to discuss each criticism.
@perfacetus "Go on?" Atheism is about disbelief in deities and ONLY about disbelief in deities. It's not about positive belief in some completely unreleated scientific field.
"Not even slightly." You can repeat that all you want, it won't make it true.
@perfacetus ''And yet the theory behind abiogenesis is that it happened with no thought, intelligence or input at all!'' Why is that so hard to believe? I just don't get that...
@perfacetus But i'm done arguing with people like you... Evolution is a fact and if you don't want to see the evidence... well feel free to do that! But I hope you realize that a lot of medicine and technology is based of the knowledge of evolution! Good bye
@perfacetus "Feel free to mention some technology that evolution has produced"
Well, an obvious technology would be Genetic Algorithms, which is used in optimisation modules. Boeing even uses it to produce more efficient engines. I use it as well in my software to evolve better business processes based on resources, costs, etc.
Agriculture also greatly benefits from the knowledge.
And just about any technology that has anything to do with DNA.
I'm happy to admit I don't use those algorithms, but the technology that supposedly mimics evolution has been around for years, it was called trial and error. Just because it is done repetitively on a computer doesn't mean that it didn't exist before.
@perfacetus "I'm happy to admit I don't use those algorithms" Are you 'happy' about that because it allows you to continue to stick your head in the ground?
"it was called trial and error" That's not what genetic algorithms are.
Trial and error would take supercomputers to find a viable solution to simple problems. GA's, which are cumulative -like DNA-, would solve those same problems with the CPU of a calculater in a fraction of the time. Inform yourself please.
@perfacetus Neither pyramids nore houses or televisions are bioglogical living things. Neither of them are subject to the laws and processes of chemistry and bio-chemistry.
So pointing out that pyramids etc don't "evolve" is just stating the obvious and completely pointless as an analogy. It's not even comparing apples and oranges. It's comparing organic apples with plastic oranges.
"Neither pyramids nore houses or televisions are bioglogical living things. Neither of them are subject to the laws and processes of chemistry"
Really? Chemistry doesn't apply to things shaped like a pyramid? If I have a caesium pyramid, and I pour acid on it, it won't react, because the laws of chemistry don't apply to it?
@perfacetus "Really? Chemistry doesn't apply to things shaped like a pyramid?" I meant to say biology and bio-chemistry, sorry.
You know very well what I meant.
Pyramids don't reproduce, they don't mutate and they don't have selective pressure on those mechanisms. To state that they don't evolve is like stating that rocks don't fly.
@perfacetus "People have been trying to make cells form for years" Cells evolved. When life originated, it was not in the form of cells. So asking for the creation of cells to prove abiogenesis is a strawman. It would actually disprove abiogenesis as it is formulated today.
"Even in perfect lab conditions we still can't get anywhere close" Coming up next: argument of ignorance.
"When life originated, it was not in the form of cells."
1. The biological definition of life requires cells (organisation).
2. It must have become cells at some point. The point is there is no explaination of how this happened.
"argument of ignorance"
Explain further, I want to make sure I understand your point before I answer (and potentially find out I'm addressing some other point I think you're making).
You can't argue against something simply by pointing out things that are unkown at this point in time. To do so in this context, sets the stage for an obvious argument of ignorance.
Hi @perfacetus Hows you coping with your new found fame. Hope you're not finding it too stressful. Glad to see you participating in potholers discussions and staying polite. You've got a lot of people thinking and talking. Best...
Yeah, its good and bad. Like you said, lots of people thinking and talking which is great. But previously the comments came at a rate that I could pretty much answer them all. Now its getting to the stage that I don't have enough time to work and answer all the questions. Still, I guess I'll have to try and focus where I spend my time!
As for the first cell not be able to reproduce. Well actually what scientists working on abiogenesis reckon at the moment is that life started out with a simple self-replicating (with error) molecule like RNA, which evolved into DNA, and then the first cell. So there's you're answer.
Doesn't really work though does it. For that to happen the RNA would have to be around for years and years while is (supposedly) develops into something that is useful. Which is rather impossible when you consider how unstable RNA is.
"They say a bolt of lightning caused amino acids to come together and form the first cell."
No they don't. They never have and they never will. That experiment showed how amino acids could have formed in the primordial soup, powered by lightning, but it did NOT show that the lightning caused the amino acids to form a cell.
You know you're wrong about this, why is the video still here? Just admit you're wrong this time, there's nothing shameful in that.
@perfacetus
Your "stately home" vs "cell" analogy doesn't work. It's on a completely different scale. It's ridiculous! There is no way to explain a home being constructed by accident. But, we have come very, very close to creating such a cell from common elements. Not by sticking them together with force, but by putting them in the same vicinity and allowing it to happen on its own with the right conditions available. If it can happen in any condition will you give up on this nonsense?
USHOULDTHINK 1 week ago
@perfacetus
I believe you must have alot of evil in that head of yours. Maybe I shouldn't explain how there's no God. It you believe me, I'm afraid you might kill, rape, or torture someone. You have admitted on many occasions that you would not act morally if God didn't exist. You must be holding some pretty horrible thoughts back in that head of yours due to this belief in god. I'm an atheist and I'm more moral than most of the Christians I've met. Maybe all of them!
USHOULDTHINK 1 week ago
@perfacetus
You're right, trusting God is more than just believing in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. It's doing it because you WANT it to be true. Because you need it to be true. Because you only understand the world if it's true. Because you wouldn't want to live in a world where you're not being rewarded by him for good deeds and the evil ones aren't getting punished by him. The world wouldn't seem right without this God. What a waste of time all your believing has been.
USHOULDTHINK 1 week ago
@perfacetus
We have no evidence whatsoever for this thing you call god. Your first mistake is there. We have, however, ALMOST created DNA and RNA from completely common elements of non-life. Now, YOU choose to believe in an imaginary creature to solve this riddle of our life. I, sir, do not! It's FAITH to believe in something completely strange with no evidence for its existence. It's not faith to see that we've almost done it! Looks like a god might not be required. We're closer every day.
USHOULDTHINK 1 week ago
I hope you win the golden crocoduck award. You REALLY do belong in the same ranks as Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and nephilimfree!!! JUST ANOTHER GENIUS!!!
manchean1 2 weeks ago
@manchean1
Fascinating. I'm sure you've really thought about the argument rather than blinding following (and commenting on) a video on a playlist.
Actually I make no strawman in this video. If you think so read:
Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. L 'Organic compound synthesis on the primative earth' 31 July 1959, Volume 130, Number 3370
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
With your "rock" example, I would agree. THAT wouldn't happen. But this isn't about rocks stacking themselves now is it? It's about chemicals and molecules and atoms and all the forces of nature that we're aware of coming together (one single time) in such a way to create something more complex than its original parts. It can (and does) happen every day. Simple things creating complex ones. Nothing will randomly create an Ipod. But on an atomic level, very unlikely things happen all the time.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
Well I'm afraid a functioning cell is far more complex that a stately home or an Ipod. And the first cell would need to be that complex or else it wouldn't be able to replicate.
The thing you're missing in your calculation, is that while on occasion two things may combine they also will then break up again just as easily way before there is time for any more development. This is why in nature it never gets beyond the most basic of points.
perfacetus 1 week ago
....those examples. The common thread is that they take something they don't understand, insert god into it (because they have accepted god to be true before there was any reason to do so), and feel better that they understand the world a little better. It's the god of the gaps again! It makes us feel good to have all the answers. When there isn't an answer, christianity always has an explanation...GOD! We don't like the unknown, so we make up answers. Hence theism. That's all it is!
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
I addressed this in the other post. So to avoid duplicity...
perfacetus 1 week ago
....benefit of others (which you can't explain) , in a feeling (you can't explain), a vision of a loved one long since passed (which you can't explain), a loved ones recovery from a near death illness after doctors say they believe them to have little chance (which you can't explain). Do you see the pattern here? Are any of these things EVIDENCE for god used by you or anyone you know? Every claim of proof, by every christian I've ever asked "where's your proof", was based on one of those....
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
Its not that they can't be explained, it is that they can be explained perfectly... by God.
The benefit to others for example can be explained perfectly, you look in the Bible and it spells it out for us. It only can't be explained by you.
perfacetus 1 week ago
"God is only unprovable to those unwilling to accept him as the answer". You're mistaken. Those who don't believe, do so because of the complete and utter lack of evidence to support the claim. I'm WILLING to accept the claim, but, NO CLAIM SHOULD BE ACCEPTED UNTIL REASONABLY PROVEN. Especially one of this magnitude. Acceptance shouldn't precede the evidence. That's your problem. Once you accept it, you'll find god everywhere. In a tree, random occurrences which turn out for the benefit....
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
The evidence is everywhere, our behaviour that makes no sense if there is no God, the world around us that couldn't possibly have occurred by chance, the blessing that God pours out on His people. There is lots of evidence. The only ones who can't see it are those who will accept any answer, so long as it isn't the one they don't want.
perfacetus 1 week ago
Almost every thing humans have ever sought to explain, we have. If we're not there yet, we're alot closer today than we were yesterday. It's not illogical to believe (after understanding this) that one day we probably will understand most (if not all) things. Faith (as it is commonly used) is belief despite a complete lack of evidence or when there's ample evidence to the contrary. If there's reasonable supporting evidence for the claim, you're not using faith. Therefore it's useless.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
"Almost every thing humans have ever sought to explain, we have."
Errr, right, if you say so.
It is not illogical to believe something you're right. But that doesn't mean that you're acting any the less in faith. It is logical to trust God when He has come through for you every single time before too, but that is something that amusingly you would reject, ironically.
Trusting God is faith, not believing something just for which there's no evidence.
perfacetus 1 week ago
That is more of the same logic of correlation vs causation. YOU STILL DONT GET IT DO YOU! Statistics will show you that more theists commit traffic violations than atheists WORLDWIDE! Do you know why? Can you figure out this riddle? Probably not, so I'll tell you. It's because there are far more theists than atheists! There ARE more theists, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that more schools were built by theists. It proves nothing. Nothing at all.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
Interesting you ask a question and then don't wait to get the answer. I'm not sure if you get this, but using exclamation marks and caps with increasing frequency doesn't make your points valid.
perfacetus 1 week ago
The "yet" is not an assumption. It's a reference to the fact that things are being discovered at an exponential rate right before our eyes every day, and, to say that we CAN'T understand something because we currently don't is dishonest. I don't use faith because it's the basis for all deceptions. Every lie ever told manipulated someone using their FAITH! Give that some thought before preaching the righteousness of faith. It's why religions wouldn't exist without it. They are misleading.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
If we can't understand something currently then we can't understand it. Anything else is an act of faith on your part because your are trusting in something that you have no proof that it will happen. So the more you slander having an unproved belief (which is what I think you think faith is) the more you're undermining your own position.
perfacetus 1 week ago
The intelligent design that you're proposing isn't shown true in reality. There's not one shred of evidence for it. When oxygen and hydrogen get together, they form water. Something MORE complex forms from LESS complex parts randomly interacting. Will you really go so far as to say that god causes this to happen each and every time? If not, then you understand how random interactions can create more complex structures without any intelligent guidance whatsoever. Now apply to more complex things.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
They are two wholly different types of event. A rock may fall on top of another naturally, however when I see Chatsworth house I don't think that that occurred naturally too.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
They are two wholly different types of event. A rock may fall on top of another naturally, however when I see Chatsworth house I don't think that that occurred naturally too.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
They are two wholly different types of event. A rock may fall on top of another naturally, however when I see Chatsworth house I don't think that that occurred naturally too.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
Lol, you're talking about two entirely different levels . A rock may fall on top of another naturally, however when I see Chatsworth house I don't think that that occurred naturally too.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
@perfacetus
I did misquote you. Sorry. You said, "Clearly by the fact that they cannot explain it, it is NOT where the evidence leads". That says (basically) the same thing. Just because we cannot FULLY explain a thing, doesn't mean we can't follow the evidence wherever it leads. Your statement asserts that it isn't true because we can't explain it "yet". That's illogical. That would stop all scientific investigation in its tracks if it were true. Thankfully it isn't!
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
It wouldn't stop scientific investigation at all. One can continue to investigate something, but what it says is that there is no evidence for it being the case at all. People can investigate what they want, they can investigate to see if the moon has every been made of cheese if they want. But the fact remains that there is no evidence for it 'yet'.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
When science comes up with a working model, it should work in tests anywhere and be able to make reasonable predictions which can be confirmed by outside sources. This is the ONLY way it can be reasonably claimed to be accurate and true. THIS IS SCIENCE! Now, explain to us again how theists prove religious claims. Science shows us what's true and gives us the tools to prove it for ourselves. Religion is faith-based, not evidence-based. That's its failure, but it's also it's strength. It's a lie.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
The Bible doesn't seek to prove things, it seeks to explain them. If a Christian wants to prove something they use science. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the most famous Universities were built by Christians?
What we reject is the dodgy non-science that is passed off as science.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
@perfacetus
My belief doesn't "depend on the unprovable". I hope you meant "unproven". It's a completely different adjective with a totally different meaning. It hasn't been proven yet. Why does the "yet" bother you so much. We're adding to our knowledge of this world each and every day. And every time we explain the previously unexplained, someone somewhere loses another argument for their God. The more we learn, the more we realize that needing "god" to explain things is unnecessary.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
Well it would be rather odd if it could be proven and people haven't bothered.
The 'yet' is so important because it is an assumption that it will be proven at all. You do not know the future, your belief is built upon your faith that something that isn't proved at some point will be. There is nothing to support that, it is just a tenet of your faith. And then in the same breath will slam Christians for having faith themselves.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
...simply another class in school which atheists have forced upon theists. The better a person understands science, the more likely they are to understand reality as it truly is and the better their choices in life should be. Science takes a starring role in every other class being taught in schools. Science IS our guide to rational and logical thoughts and the most accurate results possible. Only religious claims are excluded from scientific verification due to the invocation of FAITH.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
I won't reply here as I address this in my preivous comments.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
It truly amazes me when I hear people say how unreliable science is. It's at that point in the conversation that I realize that I'm talking with a fool. When science makes a mistake, how do we know? IT TAKES MORE SCIENCE! In every aspect of our lives, in every scenario, a scientific method is used to determine what's true (as accurately as possible). Everything in the bible that can be proven to be true was PROVEN by science! Geography, history, archeology, and so on. Science isn't simply......
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
To deny science is to deny common sense and rational thought. We ALL use scientific methods in nearly all aspects of our lives daily. From cooking breakfast to driving a car we use those methods. We take what we know to be true, consider likely outcomes (based on observations and a basic understanding of the laws of physics), and make the best choices possible. Walk your way through any important decision you will make today step by step. I'd bet it will be a very scientific process. Try it.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
You don't understand do you? I don't deny science. I deny that which is presented as science even though it isn't based on the scientific method.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
Your understanding of what "science" is is flawed. Science is the method by which humans have understood to be the most accurate way to discern fact from fiction. It's the most reliable system ever devised to reach this goal. As we searched for truth, one thing became apparent...some methods worked, some failed miserably. Science is the word we use to define the most reliable method we have ever conceived of to reach our goal...THE TRUTH. You use it every day. But you create one exception. GOD!
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
Real science, sure. That is the science of the scientific method: observation, test, repeat. That the real science.
The 'science' of looking at a rock or two and then making inferences based on the bias of preconceived ideas, that is different.
That is the 'science' where one can discard a result just because it doens't fit with what someone thinks the answer 'should' be.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
My belief doesn't depend on an unprovable, unseen entity which possesses abilities which defy any and all comprehension. Yours does. When abiogenesis is proven, you will simply say god did it. You can't know it's true, but you'll say it anyway. And you will consider that belief to be a logical one. No supporting evidence required right! How can you not see your failure in logic here? You just keep moving the goalpost. Again, what could ever possibly convince you that there never were any gods?
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
Your belief depends on the unprovable. It is not an entitiy but it is still unproved.
God is only unprovable to those unwill to accept Him as the answer. It is basically like saying show me A, just so long as A isn't your answer.
No, if abiogenesis ever happens then it will no doubt be in such insanely controlled environment, with so many amazingly engineered machines with so man millions of man hours of thought put into it, it will just further prove ID.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
"by the fact that they can't explain it it clearly doesn't exist"? So did gravity not exist...until we could explain it? Please think before you post such nonsense. This is your failure in understanding. There are so many things we can't explain, but that doesn't mean we can't ever explain them. It's dishonest and lazy thinking. We should continue to strive for knowledge. We don't know everything and maybe never will. But the journey to knowledge is a noble one. So many truths were once unknown.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
When did I say that? I can only see where I said that the evidence doesn't point that way. Not that if one can't explain something it doesn't exist. Which are two entirely different things.
Of course we should strive for knowledge, but that is not the same as trying to make the facts fit a worldview that they clearly don't. That is different. I've never advocated 'not finding stuff out' that is just what atheists like to pretend I've said.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
I'm sorry, but I just noticed your ridiculous assertion that because we understand that things are complicated, that a god is more likely. That's nonsense! How do you connect the dots with any of these statements you're making? Theists are loaded with statements such as these. In politics, they're called talking points. One-liners. Sounds good, until you try to draw the lines from point A to B to C to D and so on. That's where it falls apart. It SOUNDS intelligent enough to fool the lazy-minded.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
I'll ask again, if science can show (definitively) that abiogenesis is possible, will you simply seek out another gap in our understanding in which you will shift your gods actions, or will you accept that you have been mistaken all along? Will you feel foolish for your current beliefs or simply say..."BUT GOD MADE THOSE THINGS COME TOGETHER IN THAT WAY!" How far will you go until you admit you're wrong? What would it take to convince you? I'm starting to believe nothing ever would, sadly.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
Where did you imagine that there's any evidence at all that a god had anything to do with anything? If it could have ever been proven, there wouldn't have ever been a need to search for an alternate answer. If it were proven, I would accept it. "Theories that are IMPOSSIBLE to prove or disprove"? That defines your beliefs exactly. Science doesn't claim a thing to be true until it has been proven logically, sufficiently and in such a way that denial of it would be practically pointless.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
....consider billions of years of those interactions. Think about it. All the possible interactions of random chance that will happen in the next 60 seconds throughout the universe. Multiply that by a number that is almost incomprehensible and you will understand why it's not just likely that we would have existed, but, would be astonishing if we were the only life in the universe. Of course, all this hinges on abiogenesis. If it's true, life's not as rare as you would think.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
Quite, and what has SETI taught us so far? Contrary to what we thought, we've found dideley squat. As far as evidence shows this universe is filled with rock, dust and particularly pretty fusion reactions. If anything, the universe is so hostile it is amazing even we exist.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
@perfacetus
The "absurd level of chance" that you speak of is funny considering the belief that YOU hold for how it all came to be. Consider the universe with billions of galaxies, each galaxy with billions of stars, and all the planets around those stars. Then consider all the possible interactions that are happening at this very moment throughout the entire universe on all those planets. Think about it. Take your time. If you've managed to wrap your head around that, now consider....
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
My belief doesn't require absurd chance, but rather a Almight God. I know which the world reflects.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
Scientist are very, very close to sparking life from non-life. I believe the probability of it happening in my lifetime is good. I could be wrong. What will you say if they do? Will you simply shift your belief or reassess it? A good believer would just find another gap. Will you concede or keep fighting? I STRONGLY believe the biblical account of creation to be preposterous and completely unfounded. Abiogenesis is exponentially more likely. It's where the evidence leads.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
Clearly by the fact that they can't explain it, it is NOT where the evidence leads. This is the irony with you guys. You think that if it comes under the moniker 'science' then it is more rational to believe it. Until there is evidence for you to believe it, you have no less faith than a Muslim or Hindu etc
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
If your "science of the gaps" means that we understand our ignorance concerning certain subjects, create reasonable explanations for such things, then go out and build provable models which can be demonstrated to be accurate, then yes. Religions work the same way...except for the "reasonable" part and the very critical part of forming working models and gathering evidence. Religion doesn't care if something can be proven. They just want you to believe. True or not. I care if things are true.
USHOULDTHINK 2 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
No science of the gaps is where the answer points to one thing (God) and in order to avoid that, theories that are impossible to disprove or prove are created to make gaps.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
Go back 100 years or so and look at what the church and theists attributed to God. And now, we understand that inserting god into those scenarios is unnecessary and lazy. We understand them now through science, logic, and reason. Back then, we didn't. But theists THOUGHT they did! Just like today. Theists claim to have answers but they just prey on human ignorance for their beliefs to exist. It's effective I must say. Mostly because humans are so gullible. Sad but true.
USHOULDTHINK 3 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
"Go back 100 years or so and look at what the church and theists attributed to God. And now, we understand that inserting god into those scenarios is unnecessary and lazy"
Not at all, we know how things work, but nonetheless the gap which is filled is filled with but more evidence for God. The more we find out, the complicated we find everything is, pointing even more strongly toward God than when we didn't know how it worked. Contrary to if everything was simple.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
@perfacetus
No, what I said was that we don't know everything "yet". And in every case, when we admit our own ignorance as humans, a theists will claim to KNOW the answer...GOD! It's dishonest and you SHOULD know it. You obviously don't and so you strengthen your beliefs with humanity's ignorance. As we understand the reality we live in better, every day, your beliefs get weaker. You're running out of gaps to hide your God. Stop hiding him already!
USHOULDTHINK 3 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
Saying you don't know how something could possibly happen, it just an expression that you have faith that it did happen despite having no evidence. It is honest, and it is admirable, but nonetheless it shows that even with the absurd level of 'chance' that evo-ists are willing to tolerate, there is no real answer.
No you just prefer science of the gaps. Where is there no gap, atheists make one because they doens't like the answer. Like multiverse theory.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
WOW! your really really smart professor! . . . Where did you study for your doctorate? The university of retarded bullshit? Guess we can tell all the scientists over the last 150 years their wrong because you just thought of something a few minutes ago! PURE GENIUS!!!
manchean1 3 weeks ago in playlist 2011 Golden Crocoduck nominees
@manchean1
No, actually scientists accept that they have no adequate explanation for abiogenesis.
But I'm glad that you are happy to show that if a man in a white lab coat tells you something, you do not question it but rather accept it in blind faith.
perfacetus 3 weeks ago
@perfacetus Your right! i should'nt bother listening to professionals "in white lab coats"- eh??? who spend decades of their lives researching these theorys. . . What do they know, right?. . . bunch of morons! I should just listen to the non-professional, unscientific, superstitious religious nuts in robes who get all their science info from ancient books! . . . and accept THAT instead! PURE GENIUS!!!
manchean1 3 weeks ago
@manchean1
Errr, I didn't say that. Actually I'd advise you think about the matters yourself and decide for yourself rather than taking people's word for it based on status.
perfacetus 3 weeks ago
@perfacetus WOW! Thanks professor! I never thought about doing THAT! . . . Er, actually i have! . . . iv been learning biology/evolution AS WELL AS christian theology/doctrine, biblical studies/archeology and creation/ID "science" for over 10yrs. So id advise you to do the same instead of JUST reading an ancient collection of books and christian propaganda. Then decide for yourself rather than taking people's word for it based on their LACK of status from behind the pulpit! GENIUS IDEA!!!
manchean1 3 weeks ago
@manchean1
If you did really study Christian doctrine, it seems very odd that you think that I'm suggesting you should "just listen to the non-professional, unscientific, superstitious religious nuts in robes" since that is against what the Bible teaches. Are you sure you've been studying it for 10 years?
I look into science myself, if I didn't I wouldn't be able to have made most of my videos. However, you just want to be sarcastic rather than make any points of any use.
perfacetus 2 weeks ago
@perfacetus Glad you "look into science" sporty! id just advise you to look into REAL science instead of creation/ID pseudo-anti science. . . then you could answer the questions in your own videos! Dont get me wrong its a little more difficult, complicated and time consuming than the first 2 chapters of genesis - but much more rewarding! perhaps you should try your hand at explaining the mechanics of walking on water, rising from the grave and flying into the clouds??? YOU GENIUS YOU!!!
manchean1 2 weeks ago
I didn't watch the video. Just wanted to say that the title had something missing. A "yet" at the end. You don't really think we know everything about everything "yet" do you? We're learning. It's a big puzzle and we're still searching for some of the missing pieces. We have enough pieces to see that evolution is true, we're just missing a few pieces. It'll come in time. My guess is that this is a variation on the "God of the gaps" argument. Did I just debunk your video without watching it? LOL!
USHOULDTHINK 3 weeks ago
@USHOULDTHINK
Lol, no you didn't. What you did was that you expressed your faith that something will turn up that you have no proof of. When you're on your death bed and it still hasn't been shown, you will have to put your hand in God's or in the 'belief' that man will so how explain the impossible. If you chose that faith, that is your call. I can't make that decision for you.
As for God of the gaps, try science of the (pretend) gaps. Science supports God.
perfacetus 3 weeks ago
Fuck.... are you stupid. Total straw man here. At least *understand* the subject first.
csadler 1 month ago in playlist 2011 Golden Crocoduck nominees
@csadler
I do. Your point has no evidence, cites nothing I said in support, it doesn't even declare what you think is the strawman. If you're going to comment I'd recommend you have some content to it rather than just being insulting for no reason.
perfacetus 1 month ago
@perfacetus I came here as you stared in a Crocoduck video. Wanted to see 'stupid' for myself. You have not a clue about what you are talking about. Zero. Read some books (not creationists web sites) then get back to me.
csadler 1 month ago
@csadler
Errr you still haven't made any points or highlighted anything you consider inaccurate. You are speaking in broad sweeping terms avoiding making any argument at all.
Before advising me to read books and avoid creationist websites perhaps you could consider your own advice and not post insulting comments on videos just because they were mentioned by an atheist in a negative manner.
perfacetus 1 month ago
@perfacetus Listen you moron. No where does it say a bolt of lighting causes amino acids to come together to form the first cell. Cite the peer revised paper that claims this please or STFU. That is your straw man. It also shows you have NO clue as to what you are talking about. Just fucking stupid.
csadler 1 month ago
@csadler Do you notice that when you're challenged you get more and more aggressive rather that recognising your original comment was rude and becoming more polite? Have I been rude to you once?
Urey Miller Experiement. There are plenty of available journal articles, I can quote articles here if you want but they don't fit well into 500 characters.
perfacetus 1 month ago
@perfacetus "Urey Miller Experiment." You pathetic asshole. Do you think the point of this was to create cells? Fuck, man you have not a clue about science and how it works do you? Articles? Try PubMed - you do know what that is don't you?
csadler 1 month ago
@csadler
Again you are insulting. It is sad to see that you are stubborn and foolish.
The purpose of that experiement was to establish the origin of life
"Following Urey's paper is the paper by Stanley Miller, published in 1953 ... These two
papers must certainly be viewed as classics from which have ensued most of the other
work of the last 25 years on the origin of life on earth."
Life by definition includes cells.
perfacetus 1 month ago
@perfacetus Hahahahahaha it was to study the formation of organic molecules. Your last line "Life by definition includes cells." again shows your incompetence. 'Cell's would not have EVER been on their minds. This is why what you said is a straw man.... get it? Or are you still to thick? Urey Miller answered only 1 question. Could organics come from simpler chemistry - answer YES. End of story.
csadler 1 month ago
@csadler
If they were looking for the origin of life then the formation of cells MUST have been in their minds since life requires "Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life."
So cells would have been in their minds or, they didn't know the definition of life, which would have been surprising considering their field of study.
It doesn't matter what steps they were working on, the fact is their aim was to show the origin of life.
perfacetus 1 month ago
@perfacetus Wrong. As someone who has participated in science and its methods, the picture is usually just way to large most of the time. Scientists can spend years understanding 1 tiny reaction, 1 process. The time span between the formation of organics and cells would be several hundred million years and untold number of other process. What gets my back up is people like you suck on the tit of science then turn around and piss in the fountain of knowledge.
csadler 1 month ago
@csadler
"What gets my back up is people like you suck on the tit of science then turn around and piss in the fountain of knowledge."
I can only address things that actually make sense. All I can interpret from that is "it annoys me when people use science to show I'm wrong as I prefer to believe it is the exclusive domain of people adhering to my system of beliefs".
perfacetus 1 month ago
@perfacetus Thats the thing isn't it. Science has shown all religions to be wrong, over and over again. You prefer your world view to be shaped by bronze aged myths so silly children can see through them as you can tell by their questions. Science on the other hand has provided you with everything you see, touch as well as your life span, food and clean water. Science works. There is nothing in the bible that could not have been written by a person who thought the wheelbarrow was new technology.
csadler 1 month ago
@csadler
Well no. Science didn't provide the eco-system of earth, which minus our destruction, would be in balance, beautful and more complex than anything we've ever created.
There is plenty in the Bible that is way more advanced than its years, but I discuss that in another video.
perfacetus 1 month ago
@perfacetus Science does not only build it lets us understand. And the understanding we have gained from it far, far exceeds anything in the bible - you know, the book with the talking snakes.
csadler 1 month ago
@csadler
Understanding? Lol, it helps us understand the things that God made while we were still living in mud huts.
In our hands without God's righteousness, science can equally mean nuclear holocaust as easy as it means cheap electricity.
A most important of all, after thousands of years, we still can create nothing. All we do is play around with the toys God gave us in the first place.
perfacetus 1 month ago
@perfacetus And *which* god would that be? Right, the one you picked. Lucky you eh? Good thing you were not born in Mecca, or else you would have been stuck with the wrong god. Religion is an accident of birth. Humans have created thousands of gods, and your version is no different. When you understand why you reject all other gods you will understand why I reject yours.
csadler 1 month ago
@csadler
I reject other religions because they are based on working to impress God enough for Him to give you salvation, when salvation is based on grace.
Since Christianity is based on grace, it wouldn't make sense for you to reject Christ and Christianity on that basis.
perfacetus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@perfacetus "Since Christianity is based on grace, it wouldn't make sense for you to reject Christ and Christianity on that basis."
So what? All you did was make a statement. Actually, 'works' base religions might just be better for the human species. We might all do better if humans were *trying* to be good to impress their imaginary friend.
The heart of Christianity (vicarious redemption) is immoral. Lets heap our sins on someone and have a human sacrifice. Its called scapegoating.
csadler 1 month ago
@csadler
You see while you saw the crocoduck film, what you didn't see was the comment I left on that video showing through peer reviewed papers that actually my supposed strawman wasn't a strawman at all. But you don't really care about that, because you just like abusing creationists because you've heard enough people say they're stupid for you to be convinced that they are.
perfacetus 1 month ago
@perfacetus Give me a link to the papers in PubMed.....
csadler 1 month ago
@csadler
Why would I limit myself to a database about medicine?
Maybe you can prove the big bang is a peer reviewed theory by quoting journals only found in history databases?
perfacetus 1 month ago
@perfacetus Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha now I know why you make such stupid videos:
search with 17008210 - let me know the article you get!
Type in Evolution and let me know how many hits you get. Or use BLAST to compare our genes to Chimps. Oh, what was your video about again??? Life? Unreal.
csadler 1 month ago
@csadler
Right, your point being?
"US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health" is the substitle on the website.
It makes no sense why I'd limit myself to such a journal. Again, if we could make such limitations, I'm sure I could make it impossible for you to prove anything!
perfacetus 1 month ago
@perfacetus Hahahahahahahahahaha
PubMed comprises more than 21 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals
Repeat after me:
life science journals
life science journals
life science journals
Try checking out the journals they have. My *god* man.....Click around before looking so _____.
csadler 1 month ago
@csadler
I don't have time to go looking through a database trying to find out exactly what it covers. Your point is, only use pubmed. My point is: that is a ridiculous condition to impose on any arguement.
I had a look, it said medicine and health. I can't be expected to magically know the breadth of it any more than any other database I don't use often.
perfacetus 1 month ago
@perfacetus What database do you use?
csadler 1 month ago
@csadler
Can you access
Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. L 'Organic compound synthesis on the primative earth' 31 July 1959, Volume 130, Number 3370?
Just read the first few lines. It shows that is formation of life was foremost in the minds of Urey and Miller.
perfacetus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@perfacetus Now where is the bit about the Cell? Thought so. Yes, life for sure, why else to study the formations of organics, ie organic chemistry. None of which talks about Cells now does it.
"So cells would have been in their minds" - your words.
csadler 1 month ago
You idiot...
Lilja124 2 months ago in playlist 2011 Golden Crocoduck nominees
@Lilja124
Care to explain why?
perfacetus 2 months ago
@perfacetus
I'm sure several other people have told you already that it's completely idiotic to attack straw men on things you don't understand. "I don't understand how evolution work, so it doesn't work" is not a clever argument. Before you can debunk any argument, you need to know what you're arguing against.
Lilja124 2 months ago
@Lilja124
1) It isn't because I don't understand it, it is because it is wrong.
2) It isn't a strawman. I've since written on the PH video a rebuttal, showing that actually my argument is valid.
perfacetus 2 months ago
@perfacetus
1. No, it's that you don't understand it. Your saying that you understand it doesn't disregard the fact that you're wrong in your video.
2. Yes, it is. Your saying it's not just proves that you don't know what a straw man is either. Which further proves that you're an idiot, talking about things you don't understand.
Lilja124 2 months ago
@Lilja124
1. Sorry, that is the British understatement coming out. If I say 'I don't understand' something. It doesn't literally mean I don't understand. It means I do understand it and it is wrong. It is a cultural thing. We're just too polite to say "that's a steaming pile".
2. Lol, yeah great. Instead of trying to tell me I don't know what a strawman is, try proving that my point is a strawman.
perfacetus 2 months ago
@perfacetus
1. Nonsense. Pullling the Brit card is just a cop out and we both know it. Assuming I'm a yank myself, are we? Or a non-Brit at any stage? Bollocks. Also, your comment doesn't fit in to the argument at all here, since you didn't say "I don't understand it".
2. See comment one. You've built a straw man and you';re attacking it full steam. Attack the argument of evolution instead. If you can't do that, you should probably re-consider the youtube argument thing. Eejit.
Lilja124 2 months ago
@Lilja124
1. I have no idea what nationality you are. I don't even know if I said 'I don't understand in this video'. I just remember someone else pointing it out about a year ago and I explained exactly the same to them. The fact is if I said anything like that, it means it is wrong. If you don't understand my culture that sorry, but it is how we express ourselves.
2. Really? So what is the strawman that you think I've created?
perfacetus 2 months ago
lol, 1100 views, 408 comments. That my friend, is a beastly ratio
bluexepnos 3 months ago
It was such a great idea, you disabled ratings.
StarDustSid 3 months ago in playlist 2011 Golden Crocoduck nominees
@StarDustSid
My audience is atheists, I don't expect them to like what I make, in fact, quite the opposite.
perfacetus 3 months ago
A shame Potholer54 suspended the Golden Crocoduck Awards this year. Having been nominated for this video Perfacetus, you had my vote!
eyeh8u1 3 months ago in playlist 2011 Golden Crocoduck nominees
@eyeh8u1
Great! The more publicity the more likely people are to see the video and reallise the point I'm making is true. Thanks for the vote.
perfacetus 3 months ago
@perfacetus ''Great! The more publicity the more likely people are to see the video and reallise the point I'm making is true. Thanks for the vote.'' just wow! WOW!!! your ignorant's is just wow!! WOW
MrThaPatrick 3 months ago in playlist 2011 Golden Crocoduck nominees
@MrThaPatrick
First, saying wow doesn't prove or disprove anything. So you disagree? Fine. If you don't have a logical reason why you think I'm wrong I'm afraid that doesn't count for much.
Second, that would be "ignorance" not "ignorant's". I wouldn't bother highlighting something like that normally but considering the nature of the comment it is rather ironic.
perfacetus 3 months ago
@perfacetus Its not about if I agree yes or no... Its about the evidence! You people always forget that it seems...And really you gonna correct my English? English is my second language... Did that ever come to mind? Its really simple your claims can be debunked really easy by EVIDENCE! And at the same time you can't back up you claims by EVIDENCE! You get that? Conclusion your claims are suck out of your thumb like you admit in this video
MrThaPatrick 3 months ago
@MrThaPatrick
If English isn't your first language then feel free to ignore that part.
There is plenty of evidence for what I'm saying. People have been trying to make cells form for years. Even in perfect lab conditions we still can't get anywhere close. And yet the theory behind abiogenesis is that it happened with no thought, intelligence or input at all!
perfacetus 3 months ago
@perfacetus Okay first of all you need to understand that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life!That is just a simple fact! Secondly yes you are right we don't know YET how life began! But that does NOT mean ''god did it'' That is as dumb as saying we don't know how it the rain comes and go's so god did it! And yes a couple of 100 years ago we thought exactly that! Some day scientist will find out how life started! Till then be humble and just except that we just don't know! YET!
MrThaPatrick 3 months ago
@MrThaPatrick
Abiogenesis is required to support an atheist world view, which is the point.
No its like saying scientists will find out how the wall appeared at the end of my garden with no inteliigent input. The fact is we won't because it didn't.
Sure there are things that people didn't understand and now we do. But equally there are things we didn't understand and now we do which just point to God all the more eg the complexity of plants animals etc).
perfacetus 3 months ago
@perfacetus ''Abiogenesis is required to support an atheist world view,'' world view? What world view? ''No its like saying scientists will find out how the wall appeared at the end of my garden with no inteliigent input. The fact is we won't because it didn't.'' A wall is not a living cell! A wall cant replicate it self! Why you believe a wolf can evolve in a chiwawa but a ape can't evolve in a human? Ah wait of course because bible says so? Ah no it doesn't
MrThaPatrick 3 months ago
@MrThaPatrick
"A wall is not a living cell!"
You're right, a wall is a lot less complex and so would be a lot easier to come across by chance.
"A wall cant replicate it self!"
Neither can complex proteins either, unless there are other pre-existent complex proteins there to help them.
"Why you believe a wolf can evolve in a chiwawa"
I say that DNA that already exists can be rearranged into various different forms. That I know because it can be observed according to the scientific method.
perfacetus 3 months ago
@perfacetus ''You're right, a wall is a lot less complex and so would be a lot easier to come across by chance.'' Ah what chance? Evolution by natural SELECTION... see the key word there? If you don't know how evolution works don't try to argue it! Okay? But like I said i'm tired of explaining basic knowledge over and over again
MrThaPatrick 3 months ago
@MrThaPatrick
Evolution? This string is about abiogenesis... see in your last comment talking about 'a living cell'. We're talking about how a single cell could possibly form on its own... which is why I was talking about how the brick wall could for at the end of my garden.
Don't worry about explaining 'basic knowledge' just check you're talking about the right subject.
perfacetus 3 months ago
@perfacetus ''Evolution can't get the ball rolling '' enough said
MrThaPatrick 3 months ago
@MrThaPatrick
I said this 'string' is about abiogenesis, not this video. String means this conversation we're having in which we were discussing whether cells could form without intelligent input.
perfacetus 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@perfacetus '' cells could form without intelligent input.'' it can! If you studied the subject you would know that!
MrThaPatrick 3 months ago
@perfacetus "Evolution? This string is about abiogenesis" Then stop talking about EVOLVED traits and structures.
"We're talking about how a single cell could possibly form on its own" it wouldn't and it's not what abiogenesis claims. If you are gonna argue against that, then you are just arguing against a strawman.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@ScientificBob
"Then stop talking about EVOLVED traits and structures."
Errr, no. The guy was talking about how the first structures evolved. Which isn't applicable, because we were talking about how they got to the stage they could replicate in the first place (ie before evolution could possibly take place). So, I wasn't the one talking about it on that point.
"We're talking about how a single cell could possibly form on its own" it wouldn't
It must have at some point according to you.
perfacetus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@perfacetus "because we were talking about how they got to the stage they could replicate in the first place" Which, according to abiogenesis, was way before those structures and traits were present. If you are gonna state otherwise, then you are arguing against a strawman. Got it now? Abiogenesis DOES NOT SAY that the first living things was a DNA based cell. IT DOES NOT. Look up "RNA world". THAT'S what abiogenesis says.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@perfacetus "It must have at some point according to you" It EVOLVED. And it probably took an extreme amount of time as well. In the billion range.
I think it would be best if you watch cdk007's series on the origins of life. It might help clear up a lot of the misconceptions you obviously have about the theory.
Maybe then you'ld refrain from stating such stupid things.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@perfacetus "a wall is a lot less complex and so would be a lot easier to come across by chance" Biology fail. There is no known mechanism by which a wall can come about by chance. But there IS a mechanism to produce diversity in life. It's called evolution through mutation and natural selection.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@perfacetus "Neither can complex proteins either, unless there are other pre-existent complex proteins there to help them"
More fail. RNA based life doesn't have the requirements DNA based life has. The complexity of today is an EVOLVED complexity. It used to be a lot simpler.
"I say that DNA that already exists can be rearranged into various different forms" And every published geneticist would disagree.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@ScientificBob
"RNA based life doesn't have the requirements DNA based life has."
So, it still needs to be made.
"complexity of today is an EVOLVED complexity"
Assumed. Where is the proof?
Me""I say that DNA that already exists can be rearranged into various different forms"
You "And every published geneticist would disagree."
Really? So what happens when a human is conceived?
Does the genetic material stay exactly the same?
perfacetus 2 months ago
@perfacetus "So, it still needs to be made" Or it still need to evolve. But that's besides the point. RNA based life completely invalidates your point and exposes it as a strawman. You claimed life is impossible without those requirements being met. RNA based life proves that statement utterly wrong.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
Comment removed
ScientificBob 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@perfacetus "Assumed. Where is the proof?" In the DNA, the geological record, the lab, agriculture, genetic research and just about any scientific journal.
"So what happens when a human is conceived?" Not evolution, but embryonic development, which is part of a normal life-cycle. The fact that you ask this kinda proves that you have no clue what you are talking about.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@perfacetus "Abiogenesis is required to support an atheist world view" Wrong.
"which just point to God all the more eg the complexity of plants animals" Nonsense. The complexity of biological life is very well explained with evolution theory. "god-did-it", on the other hand, explains NOTHING.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@ScientificBob
"Abiogenesis is required to support an atheist world view" Wrong
Go on?
"Nonsense. The complexity of biological life is very well explained with evolution theory."
Not even slightly. Although I won't cover why here. The rest of my videos are (largely) to do with that. So this isn't the ideal place to discuss each criticism.
perfacetus 2 months ago
@perfacetus "Go on?" Atheism is about disbelief in deities and ONLY about disbelief in deities. It's not about positive belief in some completely unreleated scientific field.
"Not even slightly." You can repeat that all you want, it won't make it true.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@perfacetus ''And yet the theory behind abiogenesis is that it happened with no thought, intelligence or input at all!'' Why is that so hard to believe? I just don't get that...
MrThaPatrick 3 months ago
@MrThaPatrick
For the same reason that is someone told you the pyramids or a house or a television were a naturally occuring structure you wouldn't believe them.
perfacetus 3 months ago
@perfacetus But i'm done arguing with people like you... Evolution is a fact and if you don't want to see the evidence... well feel free to do that! But I hope you realize that a lot of medicine and technology is based of the knowledge of evolution! Good bye
MrThaPatrick 3 months ago
@MrThaPatrick
"Evolution is a fact"
You can believe that if you choose.
"a lot of medicine and technology"
Yeah, I've heard that one before. Feel free to mention some technology that evolution has produced.
perfacetus 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@perfacetus ''Yeah, I've heard that one before. Feel free to mention some technology that evolution has produced.'' Yes feel free to use Google
MrThaPatrick 3 months ago
@perfacetus "Feel free to mention some technology that evolution has produced"
Well, an obvious technology would be Genetic Algorithms, which is used in optimisation modules. Boeing even uses it to produce more efficient engines. I use it as well in my software to evolve better business processes based on resources, costs, etc.
Agriculture also greatly benefits from the knowledge.
And just about any technology that has anything to do with DNA.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@ScientificBob
I'm happy to admit I don't use those algorithms, but the technology that supposedly mimics evolution has been around for years, it was called trial and error. Just because it is done repetitively on a computer doesn't mean that it didn't exist before.
perfacetus 2 months ago
@perfacetus "I'm happy to admit I don't use those algorithms" Are you 'happy' about that because it allows you to continue to stick your head in the ground?
"it was called trial and error" That's not what genetic algorithms are.
Trial and error would take supercomputers to find a viable solution to simple problems. GA's, which are cumulative -like DNA-, would solve those same problems with the CPU of a calculater in a fraction of the time. Inform yourself please.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@perfacetus Neither pyramids nore houses or televisions are bioglogical living things. Neither of them are subject to the laws and processes of chemistry and bio-chemistry.
So pointing out that pyramids etc don't "evolve" is just stating the obvious and completely pointless as an analogy. It's not even comparing apples and oranges. It's comparing organic apples with plastic oranges.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@ScientificBob
"Neither pyramids nore houses or televisions are bioglogical living things. Neither of them are subject to the laws and processes of chemistry"
Really? Chemistry doesn't apply to things shaped like a pyramid? If I have a caesium pyramid, and I pour acid on it, it won't react, because the laws of chemistry don't apply to it?
perfacetus 2 months ago
@perfacetus "Really? Chemistry doesn't apply to things shaped like a pyramid?" I meant to say biology and bio-chemistry, sorry.
You know very well what I meant.
Pyramids don't reproduce, they don't mutate and they don't have selective pressure on those mechanisms. To state that they don't evolve is like stating that rocks don't fly.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@perfacetus "People have been trying to make cells form for years" Cells evolved. When life originated, it was not in the form of cells. So asking for the creation of cells to prove abiogenesis is a strawman. It would actually disprove abiogenesis as it is formulated today.
"Even in perfect lab conditions we still can't get anywhere close" Coming up next: argument of ignorance.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
@ScientificBob
"When life originated, it was not in the form of cells."
1. The biological definition of life requires cells (organisation).
2. It must have become cells at some point. The point is there is no explaination of how this happened.
"argument of ignorance"
Explain further, I want to make sure I understand your point before I answer (and potentially find out I'm addressing some other point I think you're making).
perfacetus 2 months ago
@perfacetus 1. No, it does not.
2. google 'evolution of the cell'.
""argument of ignorance" Explain further"
You can't argue against something simply by pointing out things that are unkown at this point in time. To do so in this context, sets the stage for an obvious argument of ignorance.
ScientificBob 2 months ago
''nominated for the golden crocoduck award''
MoveOrder 3 months ago in playlist 2011 Golden Crocoduck nominees
only kidding you make a nice argument but cells cant reproduce but chemicals can?
naz2999 3 months ago in playlist 2011 Golden Crocoduck nominees
hahahaha stupid
naz2999 3 months ago in playlist 2011 Golden Crocoduck nominees
Hi @perfacetus Hows you coping with your new found fame. Hope you're not finding it too stressful. Glad to see you participating in potholers discussions and staying polite. You've got a lot of people thinking and talking. Best...
nostalgic64 3 months ago
@nostalgic64
Yeah, its good and bad. Like you said, lots of people thinking and talking which is great. But previously the comments came at a rate that I could pretty much answer them all. Now its getting to the stage that I don't have enough time to work and answer all the questions. Still, I guess I'll have to try and focus where I spend my time!
Hope you're well.
P
perfacetus 3 months ago
As for the first cell not be able to reproduce. Well actually what scientists working on abiogenesis reckon at the moment is that life started out with a simple self-replicating (with error) molecule like RNA, which evolved into DNA, and then the first cell. So there's you're answer.
Pirate44444 3 months ago in playlist 2011 Golden Crocoduck nominees
@Pirate44444
Doesn't really work though does it. For that to happen the RNA would have to be around for years and years while is (supposedly) develops into something that is useful. Which is rather impossible when you consider how unstable RNA is.
perfacetus 3 months ago
@perfacetus RNA doesn't have to be stable... it self-replicates.
Pirate44444 3 months ago
"They say a bolt of lightning caused amino acids to come together and form the first cell."
No they don't. They never have and they never will. That experiment showed how amino acids could have formed in the primordial soup, powered by lightning, but it did NOT show that the lightning caused the amino acids to form a cell.
You know you're wrong about this, why is the video still here? Just admit you're wrong this time, there's nothing shameful in that.
Pirate44444 3 months ago in playlist 2011 Golden Crocoduck nominees
@Pirate44444
What then happened to those amino acids? (According to the theory).
perfacetus 3 months ago