@SpursHackney You're such a Fail troll. I know you need my attention because your life sucks and you're only let out of your daddies tool shed once a day to go to the public library and try to get the attention of people you could only dream of being friends with. It makes you feel not so pathetic when ever anyone gives you that attention your parents never gave you LOL! =D
@JungleJargon "...then explain why you feel that objects made you what you are."
Ya but don't liik up what "order" means in the dictionary because we don't accept it? right buddy? Aww man, when we don't have to listen to people, life is way sweeter. You wanna meet up and have, like, a bible prayer study?
In the scientific methods, we base our concepts on 'evidence'. If you can show evidence, then PoP (Proof of Principal) can be established. If you believe in a stance, without evidence backing it up, this is not of sound nature and is right up there with believing in ghosts and the spaghetti monster. Look at the evidence and where it points and you can see a different path than what Evolution teaches. Here's why in the next few posts... Remember that one must show PoP of self-originating code...
@nooneeagle Very well said, I have been saying the same thing in mechanical terms. The function of working parts and mechanisms cannot possibly order themselves.
Have you tried submitting an article for peer review?
The essential function that hydrogen has working inside of us as ordered requires a very great Maker.
The Maker of the essential function that hydrogen has working inside of us as ordered is the Maker of the entire universe *consisting* initially of hydrogen.
@JungleJargon I'm working on a paper for submission but I am working out the finer 'kinks' of arguement in forums all across the internet. As soon as I sew up my point that can't be refuted in any manor then I will submit the paper and the peers will have a hard time denying the 'falsification' of current ToE. After all the natural aspect is what ToE relies on and by taking that away effectively falsifies the stance and shows that other means of creation and design are 'possible'.
@nooneeagle Excellent! Just be aware that having a good argument does not mean that they will print it. I just want them to see that they are being illogical and irrational in their conclusions. Whether they will have a change of heart is anothier issue.
Saying that mechanisms have a maker is logical and rational.
Saying that objects made us is very illogical and irrational.
They have all been taught wrong and they need to see that.
@JungleJargon "Saying that mechanisms have a maker is logical and rational."
100% agree cause as we all know, the universe is EXACTLY like a machine....
"Saying that objects made us is very illogical and irrational."
Ya you idiots, what, do you think? Your PARENTS are objects. Psh, how dumb are you people? God exists, and that's not a presupposition. The function of hydrogen proves it, right jj?
@JungleJargon "The function of working parts and mechanisms cannot possibly order themselves."
That's correct! The Neo-Darwinian 'assumes' that it can happen without evidence of such and this is their arguement. Once we can show this 'assumption' to be "false" then they can no longer use this false assumption :)))
@nooneeagle The 'key' lies in the code. If many computer programmers stand up and create the "Laws of Codecs" just as we have for the Laws of gravity and the Laws of Physics, then we can show that there is no such thing as 'self-creating' code and that such a stance is fallacy and then the biological section of the sciences will be forced to abide by the same laws of 'code' that code life. No where in the history of humanity has 'self-creating' code ever been found to exist!
If one can simply show a mathematical formula to how code can self create then they would solve Natural Origins but such a stance can be shown "not" to exist in the logistics of code, thus it will just be a matter of publishing these "Laws" and then being accepted by peers by way of PoP (Proof of Principal). I started a crusade and am going to see it through by way of evidence and principal that can't be denied. In the meantime if anyone can show this self-creating code, feel free.
@nooneeagle They assume that an infinate number of universes like bubbles make it inevitable that one single universe would have the enough function that things would order themselves.
There is no evidence that even one other universe exists and there is still the problem of the ordering of enough functional proteins in the right places at the right time.
Even if there was a life form, there is no mechanism for evolution to occur.
@nooneeagle They should already know that a working code does not order itself, they are just in denial because many people have pointed that out to them already. (It doesn't hurt to remind them on a regular basis.)
We need to get regular scientists to put the pressure on biologists to support their wild claims that objects made them what they are because these biologists are not even following the scientific method.
Biologists need to be held accountable for their wild assertions.
@nooneeagle They argue that once a mechanism is in place, "evolution" takes over.They fail to see two or more things, no external factors, not already compatible, ever organize anything in the genome and everything that does happen is to the credit of the preexisting viable genome and the working parts which are most of the most common elements. The Maker of the function of hydrogen is the Maker of the entire universe and all matter in the universe. Our Maker is not made of matter.
Yea numb nuts? What? do you think it takes something PHYSICAL to actually build and interact with PHYSICAL things? Psh, you all are stupid. God isn't made of matter, he's the MAKER of matter. And AGAIN, that's not a presupposition, because I say it's not, right JJ?
@TacoBurgher327 The function of hydrogen proves that the Maker of the ordered function of hydrogen is not made of matter because all matter is derived from hydrogen so the Maker of hydrogen is not made of the matter that He made.
All the scientists are making me look smart and you taco, are the first person who admits understanding what I am saying.
Patently false. There are many massive particles that exist totally independent of hydrogen. Additionally, we don't know what dark matter is, but we know it is NOT hydrogen. PLEASE - take at least a HS-level physics course before posting.
@JungleJargon "All the scientists are making me look smart and you taco, are the first person who admits understanding what I am saying."
I'm shocked as what you are saying is so logical. Order requires a maker. Never mind galaxies are ordered, we will NOT presuppose God made what we can gravity, work. That is in no way a presupposition, because WE say it's not. Really? No one else has EVER came around? SHOCKED!
@TacoBurgher327 Galaxies are part of the fabrication of time space that makes our existence possible.
It is so simple, a function, working parts and mechanisms all require a maker and life forms are no exception to the rules of science. Life forms have a very great Maker.
If we had a blank computer, would the software ever write itself? Of course not!
What if we had nanotech computers that made copies of itself? Would it do anything other than what it was ordered to do???
@JungleJargon "Galaxies are part of the fabrication of time space that makes our existence possible."
That's right buddy. and scientists in no way, shape, or form understand that "fabrication" called gravity. screw science! Yay god!
" a function, working parts and mechanisms all require a maker "
Yup, and as i said before, the universe is EXACTLY like a machine. The fact scientists can't create it PROVES god. We're so smart. The universe is IDENTICAL to my car. It's so simple!
@JungleJargon Bro, number one "DNA is more advanced than our computer software." who cares? AGAIN DNA, people, LIVING things can't be compared to NON living things as computers don't REPRODUCE. LIVING THINGS DO....
@JungleJargon "Nanotech is the same thing as the technology in life forms."
No it's not because AGAIN, nothing made of steel and iron can reproduce. You can THINK these made up "nanobots" are the same, but their simply not. LIFE reproduces, your made up "nano bots" don't.
"The only difference is that men design and make nanobots"
Sure, because we KNOW machines need a builder. we DON'T know if organic life needs a maker. YOU think you know, but you present NOTHING as evidence.
Nanobots can reproduce if they are made to reproduce.
The evidence is that there is nothing physical that is able to make life forms *and* the Maker of the function of hydrogen in life forms is the Maker of the entire universe.
@JungleJargon " Nanotech is not made of steel and iron.'
... dude 'm not playing your "I make up things and can say whatever I want about them... nanotech, nanobots, whatever. They are NOT real, and NOT alive. Stop comparing NONliving things to LIVING things. Just stop it...
"Nanobots can reproduce if they are made to reproduce."
It's not just reproduction that's involved with evolution. Natural selection, right? Well, that's ENVIRONMENTALLY driven. There are many factors to evolution.
@TacoBurgher327 Nanotech is uses the same function of the same working parts that life forms use and all function, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker equal to or greater than the things that are made to work.
There are essentially no mutations that have no side effects so there is nothing for evolution to work with so there is no evolution at all.
@JungleJargon "The evidence is that there is nothing physical that is able to make life forms "
You're saying that on a Miller Urey video... did ya even push play?
"You cannot understand what never happens, evolution never happens."
Can you understand a unicorn? Has a unicorn ever happened? wrong on the FIRST part, seconds a presupposition. You CAN understand things even if they don't "happen." You believe in god, yet you need your "proof," right? you understand god, right?
@JungleJargon " the Maker of the function of hydrogen in life forms is the Maker of the entire universe."
Ha ha you KNOW i wasn't the one addressing THIS issue, because i'm not a biologist, but i HAVE seen people address this to you. Hydrogen plays a very SMALL role in the development of life, and the REASON hydrogen created US, is because hydrogen is light and abundant in the universe.
@TacoBurgher327 Hydrogen is an essential working part inside of us which requires having a Maker greater than the entire universe consisting of hydrogen.
@JungleJargon "Objects making you what you are requires objects to be able to do magic."
I asked what kind of magic you're talking about. You understand magic is an ILLUSION, right? ha ha you simply place these words on things you don't understand to justify yourself. Magic uses ILLUSION to make it seem real. Are you suggesting evolution ALSO uses an illusion to APPEAR real? If so, what give you the justification to say this illusion ISN'T real?
@JungleJargon "f we had a blank computer, would the software ever write itself? Of course not!"
OF course not! Then again, computer data doesn't reproduce, and reproduction IS needed for evolution, but who cares? if we just keep saying the same thing over and over again, people will think we're right! Ya! Don't call me a USB 1 GB ZIP DRIVE YOU STUPID EVOLUTIONISTS!
@TacoBurgher327 Computer data indeed can be made to reproduce.
What do you think DNA is?
The genome is a thousand times more accurate with the copies that it makes than computer software.
Imagination fantasy magic assumption speculation and conjecture are needed for evolution. It doesn't happen even if we include the few known "beneficial" human mutations with side effects.
OK, so we have cycle cell, now what is going to be our next "beneficial" mutation to make us better?
@JungleJargon and the FUNNIEST thing to me is no one is even CLAIMING machines can produce themselves. People are saying HUMANS AREN'T FUCKING MACHINES ha ha ha. We're NOT. MACHINES DON'T REPRODUCE, WE DO. God, you tell ME to think yet you just pretend you have NO idea what people are telling you ha haha. SURE, machines NEED a maker. HUMANS AREN'T MACHINES
"Software and the genome are both mechanisms that require a maker."
So what? I understand evolution and understand what it says and doesn't and NO WHERE does evolution state deer produce whales, because AGAIN, where would ALL the other mammals come from? Again, you make claims with NO justification to make them. I ask where all the other mammals come from, since scientists apparently say deer produce whales, and you have no response. That's because THEY DON'T say that. You are lying....
@JungleJargon "Your pathetic teaching of evolution "
Not MY teaching of evolution, SCIENCES teaching. Ya know, that pesky little CLASS where EVERYONE'S involved. Plus, you need to be educated to TEACH evolution, not like just ANYONE could "preach" it, eh? ;) Pathetic how bad theists really need science to be EXACTLY like their cult. ha ha ha
@JungleJargon Plus, I don't see why you have such a problem accepting evolution as a theist. You do understand there are MANY scientists who are ALSO theists, right? It's not like an exclusive club where you HAVE to believe one or the other. Hell, THE POPE can admit evolution is the best known process for the diversity of species, yet YOU can't? So, you're smarter then 99.98% of ALL scientists out there AND the person who LITERALLY represents Jesus, here on earth? Wow, pretty arrogant....
@JungleJargon " Evolution does not happen because the genome is the only thing able to reorganize the genome"
Nobody is claiming it doesn't. What myself and many others are trying to tell you is evolution doesn't deal with HOW the genome originated, but what happens to it once it's here. ALL life, not just genomes, and their origins have NOTHING to do with evolution... at all...
@TacoBurgher327 The fact that the genome is the only thing that reorganizes the genome relates to the fact that there is no evolution and the fact that there is no abiogenesis.
@JungleJargon "The fact that the genome is the only thing that reorganizes the genome relates to the fact that there is no evolution "
I don't know what else to say to you. You are not even reading what i'm saying. This is a NON issue in evolution. WHAT does evolution have to do with this? What does evolution state that goes against Genomes recognizing genomes. I mean, You literally make me so sad, i don't even know what to do. Hopefully you're an adult, and not some kid subjected to this....
@TacoBurgher327 Evolution has nothing to do with anything because it does not even exist. There are no good mutations so there is nothing for evolution to use. Good variations are what the genome does because only the genome is able to reorganize the genome. Nothing else can and natural selection has to select what is reorganized by the genome.
@JungleJargon Well, God doesn't exist, so why should we learn about religion? The issues? Have you even taken a science course? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
@rossisaurus The function of hydrogen working as ordered inside of you proves that you have a Maker. That is the issue. Are you able to address the issues at all?
@JungleJargon There have been so many "issues" in this forum. Ok, hydrogen. What is your point about hydrogen? And please don't just spout your "there is no evolution" line; I want to know what your actual point is.
@rossisaurus The function of hydrogen working inside of you as directed requires a Maker. All functions, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker equal to or greater than whatever is made to work. The Maker of the function of hydrogen is the Maker of the entire universe consisting of hydrogen and such elements that work as ordered inside of us.Most of the most common elements are working parts inside of us and are all derived from hydrogen so there's One Maker of all things.
@rossisaurus The function of hydrogen working inside of you as directed requires a Maker. All functions, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker equal to or greater than whatever is made to work. The Maker of the function of hydrogen is the Maker of the entire universe consisting of hydrogen and such elements that work as ordered inside of us.Most of the most common elements are working parts inside of us and are all derived from hydrogen so there's One Maker of all things.
@JungleJargon "What if we had nanotech computers that made copies of itself?"
Ya, what if nano computers fucked all the time? and kept reproducing babies that had minor, genetic mutations, the good surviving for millions of years? Psh, what? Do you think we'd see MILLIONS of different, "robot" species? Psh....
"Would it do anything other than what it was ordered to do???"
Maybe.... i mean, no! No way! Again, lets not elude to the fact we started with a WRONG concept, our END is correct!
@TacoBurgher327 There is a catch because there was no program for the nano computers to back up and correct their directives. If there was, it indeed would resist changing the same as our human genome resists changing what we were made to be.
@JungleJargon "There is a catch because there was no program for the nano computers to back up and correct their directives. If there was, it indeed would resist changing the same as our human genome resists changing what we were made to be."
I don't even understand what this means, but you HAVE to be right, as no one can prove evolution happens to us! We're 100% correct, and ALL scientists in the world are wrong! Get em Jungle Jargon!
Show me the 'proof' (evidence) to any sort of "self-creating" code and you'll change my mind to the concept of Natural Origins. You must show me this simple proceedure to make the claim of natural origins for without such evidence, all you have is a faith-based idea without any supporting evidence to the contrary... Show me the logic, how any mathematical proceedure can self-create, such is needed in the concept of origins... Show me the logistics or admit that you 'believe' on faith alone.
We have evidence of synthetic biology ('creation') in the lab and 'design' (genetic engineering) in the lab but no evidence in the lab of natural origins. So if the possibility exists of design and creation, then the stance of natural origins must consider these evidence based positions as 'possibilities' of life and evolution by 'outside means' other than by natural means only. NeoDarwinians ‘ignore’ the evidence in favor of natural origins, which has no evidence or validating lab work...
In the concept of creating and manipulating 'code', the creator of such code can program code to replicate and even evolve but in the history of man, never has any evidence arriven that code, any sort of code, can naturtally originate as in the concept of self creating itself especially self-create into intelligence as is the claim of Natural Origins, the cornerstone and basis of Evolution. If you think it's possible, produce the evidence to such to back your claim...
In the logistical stance of computer programming in codecs, the concept of 'self-creating' code is a fallacy that is known and accepted to be a false stance (no evidence and intelligently accepted as being false) For someone in the biological fields to state otherwise as in the stance of natural origins has no basis for such claim in which they use an un-proven stance as the cornerstone of lifes origins in which the ToE fails the scientific method.
Self-creating code, evolving into intelligence is a stance that has no evidence, which makes it a stance based on faith alone. Natural Origins is a 'faith' based cult in which, is the cornerstone and basis of the atheist "religion" we call Evolution. Evolution is not a true Theory when it's based on faith and consciously ignores supporting evidence to the contrary.
Code has never been shown to 'self-create'. There is no evidence in the history of humanity that code, any type of code as in RNA/DNA/Computer code can originate out of nothing... 0 + 0 = 0 is a true statement where Abiogenesis/Natural Origins takes this stand, 0 + 0 = 1 in which it is a false statement in the logic of codecs.
We have evidence of synthetic biology ('creation') in the lab and 'design' (genetic engineering) in the lab but no evidence in the lab of natural origins. So if the possibility exists of design and creation, then the stance of natural origins must consider these evidence based positions as 'possibilities' of life and evolution by 'outside means' other than by natural means only. NeoDarwinians ‘ignore’ the evidence in favor of natural origins, which has no evidence or validating lab work...
@SpursHackney wow this is the 4th video you stalked me to creep. Man I see you made another troll acount also. Your mommy must never gave you any attention. What a creepy weirdo stalker you are! Man I'm glad I'm not you! So what's your plan stalk me till you make me shut down my channel. Sorry not going to happen. But your IP will get banned way before that just like all the trolls before you dumbshit =D
FAIL!!! Homochirality destroys the evolutionists theory of life came from raw chemicals, molecules could have never organized themselves in perfect order and digital code that takes Intelligence! Life from non life is chemically and mathematically impossible!
@NorthForkFisherman The irony is that oxygen breaks down amino acids and we would not live or be able to order amino acids without oxygen. Our design has to be in place before it will function. That is also the reason we have to grow from one cell that is already in place with our entire genome and other DNA.
@NorthForkFisherman You are not addressing or proving anything. Hydrogen ion pumps are used to form an uneven gradient that powers hydrogen ion motors that turn shafts that each manufacture 3 ATP molecules per revolution that make our existence possible. It is much more than chemistry. It is ordered nano functions utilizing quantum physics in ways we don't yet understand. It is not a coincidence that antioxidants are found in plant matter that is the best fuel that we should be eating.
@JungleJargon You are aware that you are addressing oxidative phosphorylation, a process that not all life uses? And yes, we do understand how it works. It's evolutionary pathway is not clear yet, but that not my field. I'm more interested in antibiotic resistance. It's chemistry, very complex and sophisticated chemistry, but still just carbon atoms doing their thing. So, I guess we've established your education level, and certainly your ability to parrot creationist screeds.
@NorthForkFisherman All life forms need ATP. No ATP means no life and they don't even know how the hydrogen ion motors work or how the ATP is fabricated.
Your "education" taught you to give the credit for the function and ordering of the carbon atoms to the atoms themselves. So your belief is a false assumption no different than giving creidit to idols. It's the same thing.
Lesser functions always have a maker and no other lesser function is nearly as advanced. You are not proving anything.
@JungleJargon Er, yes they do. You really should sit down and read The Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th ed. It's available online in it's entirity via the NCBI online library. Simply making statments from some supposed authority that you do not have simple do not have make them true. But, hey, whatever, I'm getting a laugh out of listening to you.
@NorthForkFisherman ...yes they do (what?). No lesser function is without a maker and no lesser function is nearly as advanced as the nanotechnology utilized in life forms.
You didn't even respond to what I said because you likely didn't even know what I was saying.
@NorthForkFisherman You're a stronger human than I. I've been getting more and more annoyed with these intellectual hacks that use pseudo-scientific jargon to try to prove the existence of a Creator (!). The problem is, many of them wind up in socially responsible positions (teaching politics) where they can influence the minds of the masses. I'm tired of letting them "get away" with spouting such nonsense. The first words of the Bible or ID documents should be "credo quia absurdum est."
@rossisaurus Then the best thing you can do is pick a subject field that you know clearly and hammer away on these proudly ignorant twits with data. Don't let them try to drag you off subject. Become an expert in that field. And when you have time, get involved. My school board is very familiar with me and my views on what constitutes a quality education. Getting people to think critically is very hard, but worthwhile. And don't lose your cool. You know the truth, revel in that
@rossisaurus There's a view point that I like to embrace that really covers this: That the logical, skeptical mind is better able to appreciate the world because it has a reductionist process. By examining the smallest part and it's beauty and complexity, it's forms most wonderful, we have a better understanding of the symphony of the whole and its rare and precious majesty. We're mayflies at the edge of the cosmos, contemplating the eternal. Enjoy your day.
@qabala That is a careless assumption to say there was no free oxygen and that is only one of many problems with objects ordering themselves. There are still no orders for any parts of life forms. There are not even any proteins yet and even a protein can do nothing by itself. Everything has to be ordered.
There is also no chance of evolution because only the genome is able to reorder the genome not external factors and natural selection only selects what is ordered by the genome.
For some reason, there is no oxidation present in rocks from the time. You're propositing free oxygen that doesn't react?
Amino acids combining to form proteins is a chemical reaction that you can witness in a lab whenever you want. Montmorillonite catalyzes the synthesis of nucleotides and the formation of chains. No order, per se, and yet they still produced what you think is order.
A genome does not reorder itself. Recombination reorders the genome.
@qabala Rotting vegetable matter eats up free oxygen.
You cannot witness proteins being made without the preexisting orders to make them.
The genome is the *only* physical thing that reorders the genome. No external factors of any kind are able to order anything in the genome. It's the genome that reorders the selections, nothing else does. Get that simple fact through your head and you will see there is no mechanism to make evolution possible.
There doesn't need to be order in random mutations when they are acted upon by natural selection. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the actual theory of evolution before you attempt to refute it.
Amino-acids naturally chemically interact with other amino acids to create proteins (As I said, you can recreate this in the lab anytime you want to). There is no "order" needed. Perhaps you should take a first-semester chemistry class to familiarize yourself with the topic.
@qabala random mutations will make proteins useless.
Proteins cannot exist without being ordered because they consist of chains of amino acids hundreds of units in length and then they have to be folded correctly.
Proteins utilized in life forms do not form naturally, they have to be ordered and even proteins by themselves are useless. Life forms consist of specific proteins for specific functions that are ordered correctly, refined and then sent to where they are needed.
Once again, I cordially invite you to take ANY chemistry class available.
You'll find that only 20 amino acids are required for the most basic human proteins, and they only fold in one particular pattern.
And yes, they do form naturally in montmerillonite clay.
Seriously, I've given you everything you need to empirically witness protein formation and you continue to pretend that you have any kind of authority here.
@qabala Back up a bit, you were wrong about the length of the protein chains and there is no way for proteins to be ordered correctly in order to have the intened function.
I am saying there is evidence that we were ordered into being by a Maker.
You are saying that objects made us what we are and that is illogical, irrational and contrary to science.
There is no mechanism to increase complexity and it has never been observed.
No, I was not wrong about the length of protein chains. I addressed "the most basic" protein chains. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a "correctly" ordered chain as there is no "intended" function.
Please present the evidence that that we were ordered.
I am NOT saying that "objects" made us what we are. I am saying the environment killed off our ancestors that were unfit.
An increase in complexity has been observed in : The flavobacterium, Italian Wall Lizards, etc
@qabala There is enough information in the genome of a simple green grasshopper to turn it into a ravenous loucust. It should not be a suprise that there is information in the genome for things we don't know about.
The environment does not order anything in the genome. It is the genome that reorders the selections. No external factors are able to reorganize the genome.
The first part of your response is not an argument of any sort. Not to mention, it is slightly erroneous. The change in the flavobacterium was the result of two particular mutations that resulted in an increase in the genome.
You really need to find out what the causes of mutation are. You will find that the sun is one of them.
@qabala I would not have a problem with evolution if it only said there are uniform variations that fluctuate back and forth in accordance with the limited information in the genome.
Of course evolutionists claim that life forms sometimes morph from one thing to another.
There is no mechanism for that but that is what they believe happens, sometimes.
You need to expain your belief about objects in nature making you what you are.
Yes, the genome, like any other finite thing, is limited, but it does not order anything. At best, it catalyzes protein folding.
You make yourself what you are in response to the outside world.
NO evolution does not claim anything EVER morphs. Darwins theory REPLACED LaMarckism which claimed that creatures morphed. Darwins theory makes no such claim.
Try actually reading a scientific source about it.
Once again you are misrepresenting evolution. It does NOT claim we came from an amoeba. Before you debate this topic, you really should find out what evolution ACTUALLY PROPOSES.
And while you're at it, look up free radicals which do change the genome, but are, in no way, part of the genome.
I'll take that as an admission that you don't know the difference between and amoeba, a bacteria, or a protozoan (which is sad since Google is free).
If you want to equate change to destruction, feel free.
Once again, you will not be quote-mining me. I did NOT say objects made or refined me. The fact that you just, knowingly, lied about me bespeaks the dishonesty behind your position.
If I change one letter at a time I'll bet that each time, the change will make sense. You seem to think genetic change is all at once.
You might notice that I have never dictated to you what you believe. When you can prove to me that you're psychic I'll let you tell me what I think. Until then, you're repeating a strawman based on your ignorance of what evolution actually is.
I didn't say we came from an amoeba, nor a bacteria. Once again, you've made a strawman.
It's really cute that you think a bacteria is even more absurd than an amoeba, but that doesn't change the fact that you were using the two words interchangeably, demonstrating that you were, and probably still are, ignorant of the very terms you were using.
Since you've already demonstrated that you don't know what evolution actually proposes, you are in no position comment on the sensibility, rationality, nor logic behind it.
@qabala I see you are presenting no logic so you cannot complain about someone who does have logic. You have to address the issues, you cannot prove anything with ad hominem. Evolution has no logic. It is all very bad reasoning.
Science is better than that. Evolution is an insult and a disgrace to science.
The genetic test used to determine the relationship between different people is the very same test used to determine relationship between different species. So, not only is there ample evidece in genetics to scientifically prove evolution, but genetics also proves it legally as well.
Evolutionary theory predicted EXACTLY where TikTaalik would eventually be discovered. What scientific predictions have ever been made using the assumption of creation?
So you're telling me that, if there were no similarity between genomes, it would disprove common design? If not, then it can't prove it, either.
You are obviously confusing the terms "proof" and evidence.
A singular piece of "evidence" does not "prove" anything. However, it CAN "support" a theory.
So no, Tiktaalik does not prove anything other than the fact that the theory of evolution can actually be tested, as opposed to intelligent design, which can't.
@qabala It is evidence of a common Maker. You cannot know how many life forms were made.
The function of 17 universally interchangeable working parts that make up everything we consist of, when ordered, absolutely and positively requires a Maker.
There are far too many "coincidences" going on. The side that has the most evidence by far is Creation by a Maker.
Tiktaalik is evidence of nothing other than it too had the same Maiker.
Now you've stated that similarity AND difference are proof of common design. You have hereby admitted that creation has no predictive power and that you have no idea what a scientific prediction is.
Explain how a designer is required for these interchangable parts.
If creation by a maker has any evidence, then show what it predicts.
Tiktaalik is not just evidence, but confirmation of the predictive capability of evolution. Something ID does not possess.
If it is a true prediction, then where is this creator?
Give me an example of a "universally interchangeable" part. I suspect you are using the term incorrectly.
Who says anything in nature is organized?
Read again. I did not say Tiktaalik proved anything. However, it, like many other specific morphologies, was PREDICTED by evolutionary theory, and then CONFIRMED (unlike this "maker that we must answer to" that can't be seen and can't be demonstrated).
@qabala You expect *me* to show you the Maker of all matter in the universe.
You can't even see all the matter in the universe.
Every life form is organized by a preexisting word writte in and with the function that most of the most common elements were made to have as the universally interchangeable parts that they are.
Tiktaalik was not predicted because it's not even what you are really looking for. There's a missing universe of changes that are missing between each of the species.
@qabala I don't have to show you the hunter to prove there was one that used arrowheads.
I can show you all of the universally interchangeable workiing parts that are essential to life forms. There are 17 of them. Each one is absolutely essential for life to exist. Each one is impossible without having a Maker.
All function, working parts and mechanisms that work as directed always have a maker equal to or greater than whatever is ordered and directed to work.
Well, now you're going to have to show how these supposed "interchangeable" parts were directed or ordered. Then you hunter/arrowhead argument might be relevant.
Until then you're doing nothing but making a "god of the gaps" fallacy.
But please list these 17 parts. Then please explain how they are "interchangeable". I still suspect you're using the word wrong and you seem too be afraid to give me your definition.
Fine, show me a directed function and explain how you know it's directed.
Show me an "ordered" function and explain how it is ordered.
Whoa there! You just switched terminology. So what happened to the "universally interchangeable" part and where did the term, "common element" come from? Obfuscate much?
I'm predicting now that the only way you can form a consistent argument is to make it circular. Let's see if I'm right.
A mountain functions as a natural barrier to wind. Just because something serves a function does not mean it was made. And if, by chance, a volcano should make a mountain does not mean the maker was intelligent. You mach nothing but presumptions and discard testable science.
So you're saying living things are composed of common elements and this somehow makes life unlikely? Do you even know what you're arguing?
As I've shown function is not necessarily directed.
@qabala You never proved the mountain does not have a Maker but that is not the way to know it has a Maker because a mountain has no visible directives that order it to have any function. It is just there because of properties of the earth.
You are confusing function with perceived purpose that you ascribe to the mountain.
It is not about purpose, it is about directed functions, working parts and mechanisms that always have a maker.
You showed nothing because purpose isn't a function.
Oxygen is an-organic.The producer clearly hasn't learned his biology lesson.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@ChildKillerRapist Funny how EVERY one sees YOU as the
perennial loser, isn't it? Ridiculous videso, username and mask?
Ohh you're REAL WINNER HEHHEE!!
Try your meds again, just TAKE THE WHOLE BOTTLE AT ONCE!
Will cure you that much quicker, demented asshole!
SpursHackney 1 month ago
@SpursHackney You're such a Fail troll. I know you need my attention because your life sucks and you're only let out of your daddies tool shed once a day to go to the public library and try to get the attention of people you could only dream of being friends with. It makes you feel not so pathetic when ever anyone gives you that attention your parents never gave you LOL! =D
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
Pathetic troll needs my attention NOW! What a sad kid. LOL @ fail troll!
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@CRay062163 ...then explain why you feel that objects made you what you are.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon "...then explain why you feel that objects made you what you are."
Ya but don't liik up what "order" means in the dictionary because we don't accept it? right buddy? Aww man, when we don't have to listen to people, life is way sweeter. You wanna meet up and have, like, a bible prayer study?
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
CRay062163 There is no element that exists appart from the same constants that made hydrognen possible.
Why don't you share your "information"?
JungleJargon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon > There is no element that exists appart from the same constants that made hydrognen possible
1. You didn't say "element". You said "matter".
2. You said all matter is "derived" from hydrogen.
> Why don't you share your "information"
Open any textbook that covers fundamental particle physics.
CRay062163 1 month ago
lol cool story bro
TheIraqi96 1 month ago
In the scientific methods, we base our concepts on 'evidence'. If you can show evidence, then PoP (Proof of Principal) can be established. If you believe in a stance, without evidence backing it up, this is not of sound nature and is right up there with believing in ghosts and the spaghetti monster. Look at the evidence and where it points and you can see a different path than what Evolution teaches. Here's why in the next few posts... Remember that one must show PoP of self-originating code...
nooneeagle 1 month ago
@nooneeagle Very well said, I have been saying the same thing in mechanical terms. The function of working parts and mechanisms cannot possibly order themselves.
Have you tried submitting an article for peer review?
The essential function that hydrogen has working inside of us as ordered requires a very great Maker.
The Maker of the essential function that hydrogen has working inside of us as ordered is the Maker of the entire universe *consisting* initially of hydrogen.
Awesome!
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon I'm working on a paper for submission but I am working out the finer 'kinks' of arguement in forums all across the internet. As soon as I sew up my point that can't be refuted in any manor then I will submit the paper and the peers will have a hard time denying the 'falsification' of current ToE. After all the natural aspect is what ToE relies on and by taking that away effectively falsifies the stance and shows that other means of creation and design are 'possible'.
nooneeagle 1 month ago
@nooneeagle Excellent! Just be aware that having a good argument does not mean that they will print it. I just want them to see that they are being illogical and irrational in their conclusions. Whether they will have a change of heart is anothier issue.
Saying that mechanisms have a maker is logical and rational.
Saying that objects made us is very illogical and irrational.
They have all been taught wrong and they need to see that.
I refine the argument every time I send it.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "Saying that mechanisms have a maker is logical and rational."
100% agree cause as we all know, the universe is EXACTLY like a machine....
"Saying that objects made us is very illogical and irrational."
Ya you idiots, what, do you think? Your PARENTS are objects. Psh, how dumb are you people? God exists, and that's not a presupposition. The function of hydrogen proves it, right jj?
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 The laws of the universe are the same everywhere in the universe.
Your parents were ordered the same as everyone else.
The function of hydrogen working inside of us as ordered does prove that we have a very great Maker.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "The function of working parts and mechanisms cannot possibly order themselves."
That's correct! The Neo-Darwinian 'assumes' that it can happen without evidence of such and this is their arguement. Once we can show this 'assumption' to be "false" then they can no longer use this false assumption :)))
nooneeagle 1 month ago
@nooneeagle The 'key' lies in the code. If many computer programmers stand up and create the "Laws of Codecs" just as we have for the Laws of gravity and the Laws of Physics, then we can show that there is no such thing as 'self-creating' code and that such a stance is fallacy and then the biological section of the sciences will be forced to abide by the same laws of 'code' that code life. No where in the history of humanity has 'self-creating' code ever been found to exist!
nooneeagle 1 month ago
If one can simply show a mathematical formula to how code can self create then they would solve Natural Origins but such a stance can be shown "not" to exist in the logistics of code, thus it will just be a matter of publishing these "Laws" and then being accepted by peers by way of PoP (Proof of Principal). I started a crusade and am going to see it through by way of evidence and principal that can't be denied. In the meantime if anyone can show this self-creating code, feel free.
nooneeagle 1 month ago
@nooneeagle They assume that an infinate number of universes like bubbles make it inevitable that one single universe would have the enough function that things would order themselves.
There is no evidence that even one other universe exists and there is still the problem of the ordering of enough functional proteins in the right places at the right time.
Even if there was a life form, there is no mechanism for evolution to occur.
If there was a mechanism, it would have a Maker.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@nooneeagle They should already know that a working code does not order itself, they are just in denial because many people have pointed that out to them already. (It doesn't hurt to remind them on a regular basis.)
We need to get regular scientists to put the pressure on biologists to support their wild claims that objects made them what they are because these biologists are not even following the scientific method.
Biologists need to be held accountable for their wild assertions.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@nooneeagle They argue that once a mechanism is in place, "evolution" takes over.They fail to see two or more things, no external factors, not already compatible, ever organize anything in the genome and everything that does happen is to the credit of the preexisting viable genome and the working parts which are most of the most common elements. The Maker of the function of hydrogen is the Maker of the entire universe and all matter in the universe. Our Maker is not made of matter.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "Our Maker is not made of matter."
Yea numb nuts? What? do you think it takes something PHYSICAL to actually build and interact with PHYSICAL things? Psh, you all are stupid. God isn't made of matter, he's the MAKER of matter. And AGAIN, that's not a presupposition, because I say it's not, right JJ?
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 The function of hydrogen proves that the Maker of the ordered function of hydrogen is not made of matter because all matter is derived from hydrogen so the Maker of hydrogen is not made of the matter that He made.
All the scientists are making me look smart and you taco, are the first person who admits understanding what I am saying.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
Comment removed
CRay062163 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon > all matter is derived from hydrogen
Patently false. There are many massive particles that exist totally independent of hydrogen. Additionally, we don't know what dark matter is, but we know it is NOT hydrogen. PLEASE - take at least a HS-level physics course before posting.
> All the scientists are making me look smart
Um, no. See above.
CRay062163 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "All the scientists are making me look smart and you taco, are the first person who admits understanding what I am saying."
I'm shocked as what you are saying is so logical. Order requires a maker. Never mind galaxies are ordered, we will NOT presuppose God made what we can gravity, work. That is in no way a presupposition, because WE say it's not. Really? No one else has EVER came around? SHOCKED!
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 Galaxies are part of the fabrication of time space that makes our existence possible.
It is so simple, a function, working parts and mechanisms all require a maker and life forms are no exception to the rules of science. Life forms have a very great Maker.
If we had a blank computer, would the software ever write itself? Of course not!
What if we had nanotech computers that made copies of itself? Would it do anything other than what it was ordered to do???
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "Galaxies are part of the fabrication of time space that makes our existence possible."
That's right buddy. and scientists in no way, shape, or form understand that "fabrication" called gravity. screw science! Yay god!
" a function, working parts and mechanisms all require a maker "
Yup, and as i said before, the universe is EXACTLY like a machine. The fact scientists can't create it PROVES god. We're so smart. The universe is IDENTICAL to my car. It's so simple!
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 It is the mass of the fabrication of time space that causes gravity.
It is not the universe that is the machine, the machines are in the life forms.
One cell in your body has more mechanisms than your car. Your entire body has many trillions of mechanisms.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "One cell in your body has more mechanisms than your car. Your entire body has many trillions of mechanisms."
Dude i'm agreeing with you, remember? Cars reproduce and are living, so it's FAIR to compare them to living things, right?
"Computer data indeed can be made to reproduce. What do you think DNA is?"
DNA is computer data, DUH. There IDENTICAL, right?
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 DNA is more advanced than our computer software.
They do not have to be identical to be working mechanisms that require a maker.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon Bro, number one "DNA is more advanced than our computer software." who cares? AGAIN DNA, people, LIVING things can't be compared to NON living things as computers don't REPRODUCE. LIVING THINGS DO....
" Magic is needed for evolution"
What kind of "magic" are you even talking about?
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 Nanotech is the same thing as the technology in life forms.
The only difference is that men design and make nanobots.
It all works because there are mechanisms by a maker.
Objects making you what you are requires objects to be able to do magic.
Please, don't tell me you never thought of that.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "Nanotech is the same thing as the technology in life forms."
No it's not because AGAIN, nothing made of steel and iron can reproduce. You can THINK these made up "nanobots" are the same, but their simply not. LIFE reproduces, your made up "nano bots" don't.
"The only difference is that men design and make nanobots"
Sure, because we KNOW machines need a builder. we DON'T know if organic life needs a maker. YOU think you know, but you present NOTHING as evidence.
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 Nanotech is not made of steel and iron.
Nanobots can reproduce if they are made to reproduce.
The evidence is that there is nothing physical that is able to make life forms *and* the Maker of the function of hydrogen in life forms is the Maker of the entire universe.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon " Nanotech is not made of steel and iron.'
... dude 'm not playing your "I make up things and can say whatever I want about them... nanotech, nanobots, whatever. They are NOT real, and NOT alive. Stop comparing NONliving things to LIVING things. Just stop it...
"Nanobots can reproduce if they are made to reproduce."
It's not just reproduction that's involved with evolution. Natural selection, right? Well, that's ENVIRONMENTALLY driven. There are many factors to evolution.
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 Nanotech is uses the same function of the same working parts that life forms use and all function, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker equal to or greater than the things that are made to work.
There are essentially no mutations that have no side effects so there is nothing for evolution to work with so there is no evolution at all.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon "The evidence is that there is nothing physical that is able to make life forms "
You're saying that on a Miller Urey video... did ya even push play?
"You cannot understand what never happens, evolution never happens."
Can you understand a unicorn? Has a unicorn ever happened? wrong on the FIRST part, seconds a presupposition. You CAN understand things even if they don't "happen." You believe in god, yet you need your "proof," right? you understand god, right?
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@JungleJargon " the Maker of the function of hydrogen in life forms is the Maker of the entire universe."
Ha ha you KNOW i wasn't the one addressing THIS issue, because i'm not a biologist, but i HAVE seen people address this to you. Hydrogen plays a very SMALL role in the development of life, and the REASON hydrogen created US, is because hydrogen is light and abundant in the universe.
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 Hydrogen is an essential working part inside of us which requires having a Maker greater than the entire universe consisting of hydrogen.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon "Objects making you what you are requires objects to be able to do magic."
I asked what kind of magic you're talking about. You understand magic is an ILLUSION, right? ha ha you simply place these words on things you don't understand to justify yourself. Magic uses ILLUSION to make it seem real. Are you suggesting evolution ALSO uses an illusion to APPEAR real? If so, what give you the justification to say this illusion ISN'T real?
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "f we had a blank computer, would the software ever write itself? Of course not!"
OF course not! Then again, computer data doesn't reproduce, and reproduction IS needed for evolution, but who cares? if we just keep saying the same thing over and over again, people will think we're right! Ya! Don't call me a USB 1 GB ZIP DRIVE YOU STUPID EVOLUTIONISTS!
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 Computer data indeed can be made to reproduce.
What do you think DNA is?
The genome is a thousand times more accurate with the copies that it makes than computer software.
Imagination fantasy magic assumption speculation and conjecture are needed for evolution. It doesn't happen even if we include the few known "beneficial" human mutations with side effects.
OK, so we have cycle cell, now what is going to be our next "beneficial" mutation to make us better?
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "The genome is a thousand times more accurate with the copies that it makes than computer software."
Ya, and AGAIN, since the genome and computer software are IDENTICAL, it's fair to compare the two... We're so smart!
"Imagination fantasy magic assumption speculation and conjecture are needed for evolution."
Of course, but it's NOT needed to assume a magical man in the sky. Again, we're SO smart!
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 Magic is needed for evolution and magic is not needed for all mechanisms to have a maker. You could have figured that out.
Software and the genome are both mechanisms that require a maker.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon and the FUNNIEST thing to me is no one is even CLAIMING machines can produce themselves. People are saying HUMANS AREN'T FUCKING MACHINES ha ha ha. We're NOT. MACHINES DON'T REPRODUCE, WE DO. God, you tell ME to think yet you just pretend you have NO idea what people are telling you ha haha. SURE, machines NEED a maker. HUMANS AREN'T MACHINES
"Software and the genome are both mechanisms that require a maker."
we know, we know!
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 Nanobots do reproduce themselves.
You are denying reality because even evolutionary biologists would say we are machines.
We do indeed consist entirely of working mechanisms ordered by a preexisting word.
You don't teach anything in school.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "You don't teach anything in school."
So what? I understand evolution and understand what it says and doesn't and NO WHERE does evolution state deer produce whales, because AGAIN, where would ALL the other mammals come from? Again, you make claims with NO justification to make them. I ask where all the other mammals come from, since scientists apparently say deer produce whales, and you have no response. That's because THEY DON'T say that. You are lying....
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 You cannot understand what never happens, evolution never happens.
Your pathetic teaching of evolution says that some deer like animals became deer and others became whales!
I can't help it if you can't understand English.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "Your pathetic teaching of evolution "
Not MY teaching of evolution, SCIENCES teaching. Ya know, that pesky little CLASS where EVERYONE'S involved. Plus, you need to be educated to TEACH evolution, not like just ANYONE could "preach" it, eh? ;) Pathetic how bad theists really need science to be EXACTLY like their cult. ha ha ha
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 Evolution does not cease to be pathetic.
It does not take education for people to say that objects made or refine what they are.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon Plus, I don't see why you have such a problem accepting evolution as a theist. You do understand there are MANY scientists who are ALSO theists, right? It's not like an exclusive club where you HAVE to believe one or the other. Hell, THE POPE can admit evolution is the best known process for the diversity of species, yet YOU can't? So, you're smarter then 99.98% of ALL scientists out there AND the person who LITERALLY represents Jesus, here on earth? Wow, pretty arrogant....
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 Evolution does not happen because the genome is the only thing able to reorganize the genome, nothing else can.
Only those who tell the truth represent Yeshua.
The truth is that only our Maker is able to remake us again because there is no one else who can.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon " Evolution does not happen because the genome is the only thing able to reorganize the genome"
Nobody is claiming it doesn't. What myself and many others are trying to tell you is evolution doesn't deal with HOW the genome originated, but what happens to it once it's here. ALL life, not just genomes, and their origins have NOTHING to do with evolution... at all...
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 The fact that the genome is the only thing that reorganizes the genome relates to the fact that there is no evolution and the fact that there is no abiogenesis.
I don't know why you are becoming so incoherent.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "The fact that the genome is the only thing that reorganizes the genome relates to the fact that there is no evolution "
I don't know what else to say to you. You are not even reading what i'm saying. This is a NON issue in evolution. WHAT does evolution have to do with this? What does evolution state that goes against Genomes recognizing genomes. I mean, You literally make me so sad, i don't even know what to do. Hopefully you're an adult, and not some kid subjected to this....
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 Evolution has nothing to do with anything because it does not even exist. There are no good mutations so there is nothing for evolution to use. Good variations are what the genome does because only the genome is able to reorganize the genome. Nothing else can and natural selection has to select what is reorganized by the genome.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon go take a first year (university) biology class before you say any more. I'm embarrassed for you to be reading your comments.
rossisaurus 3 weeks ago 2
@rossisaurus Address the issues because you are not proving anything with your slander and ad hominem.
Objects did not make or refine what you are and all life forms are not related.
Evolution does not even exist so I cannot learn about what does not happen
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon Well, God doesn't exist, so why should we learn about religion? The issues? Have you even taken a science course? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
rossisaurus 3 weeks ago
@rossisaurus The function of hydrogen working as ordered inside of you proves that you have a Maker. That is the issue. Are you able to address the issues at all?
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon There have been so many "issues" in this forum. Ok, hydrogen. What is your point about hydrogen? And please don't just spout your "there is no evolution" line; I want to know what your actual point is.
rossisaurus 3 weeks ago
@rossisaurus The function of hydrogen working inside of you as directed requires a Maker. All functions, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker equal to or greater than whatever is made to work. The Maker of the function of hydrogen is the Maker of the entire universe consisting of hydrogen and such elements that work as ordered inside of us.Most of the most common elements are working parts inside of us and are all derived from hydrogen so there's One Maker of all things.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rossisaurus The function of hydrogen working inside of you as directed requires a Maker. All functions, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker equal to or greater than whatever is made to work. The Maker of the function of hydrogen is the Maker of the entire universe consisting of hydrogen and such elements that work as ordered inside of us.Most of the most common elements are working parts inside of us and are all derived from hydrogen so there's One Maker of all things.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon " It doesn't happen even if we include the few known "beneficial" human mutations with side effects."
Ya, idiots. Something doesn't happen even though we've SEEN it happen. Man, how dumb ARE you evolutionists?
" so we have cycle cell, now what is going to be our next "beneficial" mutation to make us better?"
Ya! Predict the future for me pesky evolutionists!
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "What if we had nanotech computers that made copies of itself?"
Ya, what if nano computers fucked all the time? and kept reproducing babies that had minor, genetic mutations, the good surviving for millions of years? Psh, what? Do you think we'd see MILLIONS of different, "robot" species? Psh....
"Would it do anything other than what it was ordered to do???"
Maybe.... i mean, no! No way! Again, lets not elude to the fact we started with a WRONG concept, our END is correct!
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 There is a catch because there was no program for the nano computers to back up and correct their directives. If there was, it indeed would resist changing the same as our human genome resists changing what we were made to be.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon "There is a catch because there was no program for the nano computers to back up and correct their directives. If there was, it indeed would resist changing the same as our human genome resists changing what we were made to be."
I don't even understand what this means, but you HAVE to be right, as no one can prove evolution happens to us! We're 100% correct, and ALL scientists in the world are wrong! Get em Jungle Jargon!
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
Show me the 'proof' (evidence) to any sort of "self-creating" code and you'll change my mind to the concept of Natural Origins. You must show me this simple proceedure to make the claim of natural origins for without such evidence, all you have is a faith-based idea without any supporting evidence to the contrary... Show me the logic, how any mathematical proceedure can self-create, such is needed in the concept of origins... Show me the logistics or admit that you 'believe' on faith alone.
nooneeagle 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have evidence of synthetic biology ('creation') in the lab and 'design' (genetic engineering) in the lab but no evidence in the lab of natural origins. So if the possibility exists of design and creation, then the stance of natural origins must consider these evidence based positions as 'possibilities' of life and evolution by 'outside means' other than by natural means only. NeoDarwinians ‘ignore’ the evidence in favor of natural origins, which has no evidence or validating lab work...
nooneeagle 1 month ago
In the concept of creating and manipulating 'code', the creator of such code can program code to replicate and even evolve but in the history of man, never has any evidence arriven that code, any sort of code, can naturtally originate as in the concept of self creating itself especially self-create into intelligence as is the claim of Natural Origins, the cornerstone and basis of Evolution. If you think it's possible, produce the evidence to such to back your claim...
nooneeagle 1 month ago
In the logistical stance of computer programming in codecs, the concept of 'self-creating' code is a fallacy that is known and accepted to be a false stance (no evidence and intelligently accepted as being false) For someone in the biological fields to state otherwise as in the stance of natural origins has no basis for such claim in which they use an un-proven stance as the cornerstone of lifes origins in which the ToE fails the scientific method.
nooneeagle 1 month ago
Self-creating code, evolving into intelligence is a stance that has no evidence, which makes it a stance based on faith alone. Natural Origins is a 'faith' based cult in which, is the cornerstone and basis of the atheist "religion" we call Evolution. Evolution is not a true Theory when it's based on faith and consciously ignores supporting evidence to the contrary.
nooneeagle 1 month ago
Code has never been shown to 'self-create'. There is no evidence in the history of humanity that code, any type of code as in RNA/DNA/Computer code can originate out of nothing... 0 + 0 = 0 is a true statement where Abiogenesis/Natural Origins takes this stand, 0 + 0 = 1 in which it is a false statement in the logic of codecs.
nooneeagle 1 month ago
We have evidence of synthetic biology ('creation') in the lab and 'design' (genetic engineering) in the lab but no evidence in the lab of natural origins. So if the possibility exists of design and creation, then the stance of natural origins must consider these evidence based positions as 'possibilities' of life and evolution by 'outside means' other than by natural means only. NeoDarwinians ‘ignore’ the evidence in favor of natural origins, which has no evidence or validating lab work...
nooneeagle 1 month ago
JESUS DID IT WITH HIS MAGIC HAMBURGER!!!!! THE BIBLE TOLD ME SOOOO!!! =D
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago 2
@GodKillerAtheist you trolling me on here also?
You sent me 132 pm's and you STILL have to troll here also?
You lonely freak!!
SpursHackney 1 month ago
@SpursHackney wow this is the 4th video you stalked me to creep. Man I see you made another troll acount also. Your mommy must never gave you any attention. What a creepy weirdo stalker you are! Man I'm glad I'm not you! So what's your plan stalk me till you make me shut down my channel. Sorry not going to happen. But your IP will get banned way before that just like all the trolls before you dumbshit =D
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist Why don't you shut that big hillbilly face of yours?
If you want to speak, at least REPENT to God for all the child abusing
you carried out wearing your retarded gimp mask. That way, when every
other mortal STILL hates your fat kiddy fiddling face, at least God would have forgiven you!...PEDO FAG!!
SpursHackney 1 month ago
What a load of crock. The FSM made us, end of story.
tucsondog 4 months ago 2
This is great and all, but did that HAVE to call it "Primordial soup"? That's an ucky sounding name. :c
Goldbloodeddragon 4 months ago
Creationists didn't evolve from humans. They're too stupid to be related to the rest of us. If God made 'em, must have been a boo-boo. Oopsie.
Rep0007 4 months ago 5
thank you sir. easiest homework i ever did :)
coconut13man 6 months ago
@coconut13man i lose all volume when i fast forward or rewind? I was wondering if this happens to you as well?
hallnoats4ever 6 months ago
IT'S ALIIIIIVVVVEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!
AgowTisro 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FAIL!!! Homochirality destroys the evolutionists theory of life came from raw chemicals, molecules could have never organized themselves in perfect order and digital code that takes Intelligence! Life from non life is chemically and mathematically impossible!
5tonyvvvv 7 months ago
The earth consists of 30 percent oxygen.
There was also never a time that there was no oxygen on the earth.
Baseless claims are not science.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
@JungleJargon Free oxygen, free oxygen. It's the details that get you every time.
NorthForkFisherman 8 months ago
@NorthForkFisherman The irony is that oxygen breaks down amino acids and we would not live or be able to order amino acids without oxygen. Our design has to be in place before it will function. That is also the reason we have to grow from one cell that is already in place with our entire genome and other DNA.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
@JungleJargon Man, you are just not getting this are you? OK, let's get some backgrounding clear, do you have any college level chemistry recently?
NorthForkFisherman 8 months ago 2
@NorthForkFisherman You are not addressing or proving anything. Hydrogen ion pumps are used to form an uneven gradient that powers hydrogen ion motors that turn shafts that each manufacture 3 ATP molecules per revolution that make our existence possible. It is much more than chemistry. It is ordered nano functions utilizing quantum physics in ways we don't yet understand. It is not a coincidence that antioxidants are found in plant matter that is the best fuel that we should be eating.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
@JungleJargon You are aware that you are addressing oxidative phosphorylation, a process that not all life uses? And yes, we do understand how it works. It's evolutionary pathway is not clear yet, but that not my field. I'm more interested in antibiotic resistance. It's chemistry, very complex and sophisticated chemistry, but still just carbon atoms doing their thing. So, I guess we've established your education level, and certainly your ability to parrot creationist screeds.
NorthForkFisherman 8 months ago 2
@NorthForkFisherman All life forms need ATP. No ATP means no life and they don't even know how the hydrogen ion motors work or how the ATP is fabricated.
Your "education" taught you to give the credit for the function and ordering of the carbon atoms to the atoms themselves. So your belief is a false assumption no different than giving creidit to idols. It's the same thing.
Lesser functions always have a maker and no other lesser function is nearly as advanced. You are not proving anything.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
@JungleJargon Er, yes they do. You really should sit down and read The Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th ed. It's available online in it's entirity via the NCBI online library. Simply making statments from some supposed authority that you do not have simple do not have make them true. But, hey, whatever, I'm getting a laugh out of listening to you.
NorthForkFisherman 8 months ago 8
@NorthForkFisherman ...yes they do (what?). No lesser function is without a maker and no lesser function is nearly as advanced as the nanotechnology utilized in life forms.
You didn't even respond to what I said because you likely didn't even know what I was saying.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
@NorthForkFisherman
I never read a book on evolution but i have read that and berg's biochem on there... and both can't be understood w/o evolution.
unassumption 3 months ago
@unassumption Which is a known part of biological existence. So I'm not sure what you're on about here, mate.
NorthForkFisherman 3 months ago
@NorthForkFisherman You're a stronger human than I. I've been getting more and more annoyed with these intellectual hacks that use pseudo-scientific jargon to try to prove the existence of a Creator (!). The problem is, many of them wind up in socially responsible positions (teaching politics) where they can influence the minds of the masses. I'm tired of letting them "get away" with spouting such nonsense. The first words of the Bible or ID documents should be "credo quia absurdum est."
rossisaurus 3 weeks ago
@rossisaurus Then the best thing you can do is pick a subject field that you know clearly and hammer away on these proudly ignorant twits with data. Don't let them try to drag you off subject. Become an expert in that field. And when you have time, get involved. My school board is very familiar with me and my views on what constitutes a quality education. Getting people to think critically is very hard, but worthwhile. And don't lose your cool. You know the truth, revel in that
NorthForkFisherman 3 weeks ago 2
@rossisaurus There's a view point that I like to embrace that really covers this: That the logical, skeptical mind is better able to appreciate the world because it has a reductionist process. By examining the smallest part and it's beauty and complexity, it's forms most wonderful, we have a better understanding of the symphony of the whole and its rare and precious majesty. We're mayflies at the edge of the cosmos, contemplating the eternal. Enjoy your day.
NorthForkFisherman 3 weeks ago 2
@NorthForkFisherman oops ... (teaching **or** politics) ...
rossisaurus 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon
He did NOT say there was no oxygen. He said there was no oxygen in a free state.
If you don't understand the difference between free oxygen and bonded oxygen, then I cordially invite you to take a first-semester chemistry class.
qabala 2 months ago
@qabala That is a careless assumption to say there was no free oxygen and that is only one of many problems with objects ordering themselves. There are still no orders for any parts of life forms. There are not even any proteins yet and even a protein can do nothing by itself. Everything has to be ordered.
There is also no chance of evolution because only the genome is able to reorder the genome not external factors and natural selection only selects what is ordered by the genome.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
For some reason, there is no oxidation present in rocks from the time. You're propositing free oxygen that doesn't react?
Amino acids combining to form proteins is a chemical reaction that you can witness in a lab whenever you want. Montmorillonite catalyzes the synthesis of nucleotides and the formation of chains. No order, per se, and yet they still produced what you think is order.
A genome does not reorder itself. Recombination reorders the genome.
qabala 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@qabala Rotting vegetable matter eats up free oxygen.
You cannot witness proteins being made without the preexisting orders to make them.
The genome is the *only* physical thing that reorders the genome. No external factors of any kind are able to order anything in the genome. It's the genome that reorders the selections, nothing else does. Get that simple fact through your head and you will see there is no mechanism to make evolution possible.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
Once again, look up montmorillonite.
Look up catalyzation of polymers.
Proteins arrange themselves all the time.
And, once again, the genome does not "reorder" itself. Random mutations, do.
Should I cite references?
If I did, would you even bother to read them?
There are no pictures attached and they aren't from creationist websites so I doubt that you will.
Maybe you can cite YOUR sources!
qabala 2 months ago
@qabala There is no order in "random mutations". You don't know what you are talking about.
Mutations offer no order to the genome, they offer only disorder that has to be reordered by the genome to remain viable.
It is absolutely impossible to make a protein without the preexisting orders to make them. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.
If you cannot explain what you believe in your own words, there is nothing you can tell me.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
There doesn't need to be order in random mutations when they are acted upon by natural selection. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the actual theory of evolution before you attempt to refute it.
Amino-acids naturally chemically interact with other amino acids to create proteins (As I said, you can recreate this in the lab anytime you want to). There is no "order" needed. Perhaps you should take a first-semester chemistry class to familiarize yourself with the topic.
qabala 2 months ago
@qabala random mutations will make proteins useless.
Proteins cannot exist without being ordered because they consist of chains of amino acids hundreds of units in length and then they have to be folded correctly.
Proteins utilized in life forms do not form naturally, they have to be ordered and even proteins by themselves are useless. Life forms consist of specific proteins for specific functions that are ordered correctly, refined and then sent to where they are needed.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
Once again, I cordially invite you to take ANY chemistry class available.
You'll find that only 20 amino acids are required for the most basic human proteins, and they only fold in one particular pattern.
And yes, they do form naturally in montmerillonite clay.
Seriously, I've given you everything you need to empirically witness protein formation and you continue to pretend that you have any kind of authority here.
You don't and you won't do the lab work anyway.
qabala 2 months ago
@qabala Not so, when proteins are folded incorrectly, they have to be dismantled.
The average length of a human protein chain is 480 and they can be as many as several thousand amino acids chained together.
There are around 20,000 human proteins.
The one who is telling the truth is the one who has the authority to say something.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
Yes, proteins that fold incorrectly do not function correctly and, thus, do not usually survive - AKA NATURAL SELECTION.
Reread what I wrote, "THE MOST BASIC PROTEINS". There was no lying there, only your own dishonest bias in reading.
You think that humans poofed into existence with complex proteins.
I, on the other hand, realize there were simpler precursors that became more and more complex as the genome duplicated. This can be observed today.
qabala 2 months ago
@qabala Back up a bit, you were wrong about the length of the protein chains and there is no way for proteins to be ordered correctly in order to have the intened function.
I am saying there is evidence that we were ordered into being by a Maker.
You are saying that objects made us what we are and that is illogical, irrational and contrary to science.
There is no mechanism to increase complexity and it has never been observed.
The genome already has duplicate information.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
No, I was not wrong about the length of protein chains. I addressed "the most basic" protein chains. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a "correctly" ordered chain as there is no "intended" function.
Please present the evidence that that we were ordered.
I am NOT saying that "objects" made us what we are. I am saying the environment killed off our ancestors that were unfit.
An increase in complexity has been observed in : The flavobacterium, Italian Wall Lizards, etc
qabala 2 months ago
@qabala There is enough information in the genome of a simple green grasshopper to turn it into a ravenous loucust. It should not be a suprise that there is information in the genome for things we don't know about.
The environment does not order anything in the genome. It is the genome that reorders the selections. No external factors are able to reorganize the genome.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
The first part of your response is not an argument of any sort. Not to mention, it is slightly erroneous. The change in the flavobacterium was the result of two particular mutations that resulted in an increase in the genome.
You really need to find out what the causes of mutation are. You will find that the sun is one of them.
qabala 2 months ago
@qabala Mutations and such do *not* organize the genome. Get that one thing straight and you will see there is no mechanism for evolution.
Duplication of information is not a change in information. The genome already has duplications. in it.
Some bacteria are able to share adaptations which is information that is already viable and organized.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@qabala It is true that a small green grasshopper turns into a locust.
It never turns into anything else.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon
Evolution does not predict that any creature turns into another.
Perhaps you should find out what evolution ACTUALLY claims.
qabala 2 months ago
@qabala Evolution claims that something like a bacteria turned into what you are, you need to learn what evolution actually claims.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon
No it doesn't.
Try again.
qabala 1 month ago
@qabala I would not have a problem with evolution if it only said there are uniform variations that fluctuate back and forth in accordance with the limited information in the genome.
Of course evolutionists claim that life forms sometimes morph from one thing to another.
There is no mechanism for that but that is what they believe happens, sometimes.
You need to expain your belief about objects in nature making you what you are.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon
If you take out the words "uniform" and "limited" you might be closer to reality.
They do not claim that anything morphs at all. Again, you should educate yourself on what evolutionary theory actually claims.
I didn't ever claim that objects in nature make you what you are.
I'm sure you'll readily quote-mine a scientist, but you won't be quote-mining me.
qabala 1 month ago
@qabala You can't take the facts away.
The genome is limited and it does order the formation of both sides of us uniformly.
You do believe that objects make you what you are.
Evolution does claim that life forms morph from one thing to another. That is the whole point of evolution and there is no mechanism for that.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon
Yes, the genome, like any other finite thing, is limited, but it does not order anything. At best, it catalyzes protein folding.
You make yourself what you are in response to the outside world.
NO evolution does not claim anything EVER morphs. Darwins theory REPLACED LaMarckism which claimed that creatures morphed. Darwins theory makes no such claim.
Try actually reading a scientific source about it.
qabala 1 month ago
@qabala You are having an issue with the definition of morphing.
Yes, evolution does claim that a bacteria turned into a human being, that is morphing.
It doesn't matter how long they claim it took to happen, the claim is still made.
The genome does not allow for morphing. It allows for variations of the same kind of species. It never turns into anything else.
We know there is order in the genome by seeing traits in fanilies..
I have seen two deformed people have a perfect child.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
BackInTheCage 1 month ago
@JungleJargon
No animal has ever turned into anything else. Evolution does not claim they did.
All of your arguments for "morphing" are misguided.
Traits in families are evidence of heredity, but generations later, those traits are squelched.
Yes, deformed people can have completely normal children. Your point?
qabala 3 weeks ago
@qabala Evolution claims we came from an an ameoba!
The point is that only the genome is able to reorganize the genome, nothing else can.
Natural selection has to "select" what the genome reorganizes.
Yes, mutations are corrected by the genome. If not for that, we would already be extinct.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon
Once again you are misrepresenting evolution. It does NOT claim we came from an amoeba. Before you debate this topic, you really should find out what evolution ACTUALLY PROPOSES.
And while you're at it, look up free radicals which do change the genome, but are, in no way, part of the genome.
qabala 3 weeks ago 2
@qabala Evolution does say that we came from a bacteria.
Don't lie.
Free radicals do nothing to organize the genome, they only disorganize the genome.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon
Well which is it? A bacteria or an amoeba (IE, a protozoan)?
Free radicals change the genome.regardless of your terminology (Which I've already shown to be inconsistent).
Maybe you should actually understand the terms you're using.
qabala 3 weeks ago
@qabala Evolution does not exist so it is neither bacteria nor amoeba.
Yes, free radicals destroy the genome.
Maybe you should prove that objects made or refined you before to suggest such a thing.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon
I'll take that as an admission that you don't know the difference between and amoeba, a bacteria, or a protozoan (which is sad since Google is free).
If you want to equate change to destruction, feel free.
Once again, you will not be quote-mining me. I did NOT say objects made or refined me. The fact that you just, knowingly, lied about me bespeaks the dishonesty behind your position.
qabala 3 weeks ago
@qabala Change the letters of the words of your post and see if it has any significance.
Yes, you do believe that objects made or refined you, if you believe in evolution and if you believe in abiogenesis, it is all true about you.
Saying we came from bacteria is even more absurd than saying we came from an amoeba. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon
If I change one letter at a time I'll bet that each time, the change will make sense. You seem to think genetic change is all at once.
You might notice that I have never dictated to you what you believe. When you can prove to me that you're psychic I'll let you tell me what I think. Until then, you're repeating a strawman based on your ignorance of what evolution actually is.
I didn't say we came from an amoeba, nor a bacteria. Once again, you've made a strawman.
qabala 3 weeks ago
@qabala You should know the genome doesn't work that way.
You think that objects refined what you are. That is no better.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon
It's really cute that you think a bacteria is even more absurd than an amoeba, but that doesn't change the fact that you were using the two words interchangeably, demonstrating that you were, and probably still are, ignorant of the very terms you were using.
qabala 3 weeks ago
@qabala Different people believe different things. I was just throwing that out there to see what people thought.
Objects still did not make or refine what you are. Your belief is senselss, irrational and illogical.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon
Since you've already demonstrated that you don't know what evolution actually proposes, you are in no position comment on the sensibility, rationality, nor logic behind it.
qabala 3 weeks ago
@qabala I see you are presenting no logic so you cannot complain about someone who does have logic. You have to address the issues, you cannot prove anything with ad hominem. Evolution has no logic. It is all very bad reasoning.
Science is better than that. Evolution is an insult and a disgrace to science.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon
The genetic test used to determine the relationship between different people is the very same test used to determine relationship between different species. So, not only is there ample evidece in genetics to scientifically prove evolution, but genetics also proves it legally as well.
Evolutionary theory predicted EXACTLY where TikTaalik would eventually be discovered. What scientific predictions have ever been made using the assumption of creation?
qabala 3 weeks ago
@qabala Genetic testing only proves similar designs, not common anscestry.
You are assuming far too much for that to be science.
Tik Taalik does not prove anything.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon
So you're telling me that, if there were no similarity between genomes, it would disprove common design? If not, then it can't prove it, either.
You are obviously confusing the terms "proof" and evidence.
A singular piece of "evidence" does not "prove" anything. However, it CAN "support" a theory.
So no, Tiktaalik does not prove anything other than the fact that the theory of evolution can actually be tested, as opposed to intelligent design, which can't.
qabala 3 weeks ago
@qabala It is evidence of a common Maker. You cannot know how many life forms were made.
The function of 17 universally interchangeable working parts that make up everything we consist of, when ordered, absolutely and positively requires a Maker.
There are far too many "coincidences" going on. The side that has the most evidence by far is Creation by a Maker.
Tiktaalik is evidence of nothing other than it too had the same Maiker.
JungleJargon 2 weeks ago
@JungleJargon
Now you've stated that similarity AND difference are proof of common design. You have hereby admitted that creation has no predictive power and that you have no idea what a scientific prediction is.
Explain how a designer is required for these interchangable parts.
If creation by a maker has any evidence, then show what it predicts.
Tiktaalik is not just evidence, but confirmation of the predictive capability of evolution. Something ID does not possess.
qabala 2 weeks ago
@qabala We have predicted there is a Maker that we will answer to and that is a true prediction.
You explain to me how you can have working universally interchangeable parts without having a Maker. That is your dilema!
The evidence of Creation by a Maker is the fact that all function, working parts and mechanisms that are organized always have a maker.
Tiktaalik proves nothing. We already know from records the seas were filled with all kinds of life forms before there was a flood.
JungleJargon 2 weeks ago
@JungleJargon
If it is a true prediction, then where is this creator?
Give me an example of a "universally interchangeable" part. I suspect you are using the term incorrectly.
Who says anything in nature is organized?
Read again. I did not say Tiktaalik proved anything. However, it, like many other specific morphologies, was PREDICTED by evolutionary theory, and then CONFIRMED (unlike this "maker that we must answer to" that can't be seen and can't be demonstrated).
qabala 2 weeks ago
@qabala You expect *me* to show you the Maker of all matter in the universe.
You can't even see all the matter in the universe.
Every life form is organized by a preexisting word writte in and with the function that most of the most common elements were made to have as the universally interchangeable parts that they are.
Tiktaalik was not predicted because it's not even what you are really looking for. There's a missing universe of changes that are missing between each of the species.
JungleJargon 2 weeks ago
@JungleJargon
If you can't show something to be true, then you don't have a demonstrably true prediction. End of story.
I still think you don't know what "universally interchangeable". I assure you, no part of any creature is universally interchangeable.
What word would this be? How is it spelled?
Actually it is EXACTLY what they were looking for. I can cite others. They were predicted and then found.
Intelligent Design has yet to predict anything that was later found.
qabala 2 weeks ago
@qabala I don't have to show you the hunter to prove there was one that used arrowheads.
I can show you all of the universally interchangeable workiing parts that are essential to life forms. There are 17 of them. Each one is absolutely essential for life to exist. Each one is impossible without having a Maker.
All function, working parts and mechanisms that work as directed always have a maker equal to or greater than whatever is ordered and directed to work.
JungleJargon 1 week ago
@JungleJargon
Well, now you're going to have to show how these supposed "interchangeable" parts were directed or ordered. Then you hunter/arrowhead argument might be relevant.
Until then you're doing nothing but making a "god of the gaps" fallacy.
But please list these 17 parts. Then please explain how they are "interchangeable". I still suspect you're using the word wrong and you seem too be afraid to give me your definition.
qabala 1 week ago
@qabala Any directed function always requires a maker.
The only way to disprove that is to show me an ordered function that does not have a maker.
Most of the most common elements are the working parts inside of us.
JungleJargon 1 week ago
@JungleJargon
Fine, show me a directed function and explain how you know it's directed.
Show me an "ordered" function and explain how it is ordered.
Whoa there! You just switched terminology. So what happened to the "universally interchangeable" part and where did the term, "common element" come from? Obfuscate much?
I'm predicting now that the only way you can form a consistent argument is to make it circular. Let's see if I'm right.
qabala 1 week ago
@qabala There is nothing circular about anything I said, it is all in a direct line of cause and effect.
Function always requires a maker and directed function requires a maker more than once. It is a fact of life.
Most common elements in the table of elements are the universally interchangeable working parts inside of you only when directed to function.
All functions are directed, I say say they are directed as a qualifier so people don't try to say natural occurances are directed.
JungleJargon 1 week ago
@JungleJargon
A mountain functions as a natural barrier to wind. Just because something serves a function does not mean it was made. And if, by chance, a volcano should make a mountain does not mean the maker was intelligent. You mach nothing but presumptions and discard testable science.
So you're saying living things are composed of common elements and this somehow makes life unlikely? Do you even know what you're arguing?
As I've shown function is not necessarily directed.
qabala 1 week ago
@qabala You never proved the mountain does not have a Maker but that is not the way to know it has a Maker because a mountain has no visible directives that order it to have any function. It is just there because of properties of the earth.
You are confusing function with perceived purpose that you ascribe to the mountain.
It is not about purpose, it is about directed functions, working parts and mechanisms that always have a maker.
You showed nothing because purpose isn't a function.
JungleJargon 1 week ago