I will humor you for just a sec and assume a jar of peanut butter is an adequate test of abiogenesis (which it is not, and amino acids have been created in labs from mixtures of chemicals beleived to exist on prelife earth)
Even on this assumpion you hear the crucial flaw in his argument, he says 1) there is no life inside and 2) if we did find life inside it is because of outside contamination. Hence his theory is non-falsifiable and thus not a proper scientific theory.
But again, you just said that your convictions are only assumptions, to you truth is relative, therefore even your statements are not to be taken as truth.
@AxeMan0170 My questions were quite relevant to the last piece of the video. If you have the answers, please tell, instead of being a dopey smart arse.
@13eyeofthebeholder It is a shame that you have to resort to abusive name calling, from that I can only assume you are an angry little person or a verbally unimaginative agnostic. Now, the questions may be relevant, but they are not very well asked. Do you want answers because you are actually honestly openminded, or have you already, in your mind, a rebuttal to whatever the answer is?
@AxeMan0170 No one knows of an existence of a God or not. Not with true conviction anyway. So in that sense I suppose I am Agnostic. I would appreciate your answers though. The questions were perfectly asked in response to the last piece of text shown on the video, other than my battery drained Keyboard robbed me of the 't' in 'it'. So please, feel free to answer my three questions.
@13eyeofthebeholder If people did not have a true conviction of the existence of God, they would not be prepared to die for that conviction or knowledge for that matter, history is plagued with testimonies to that effect, and it assures us that they were not deluded. Even today people are dying for that same conviction in places where it is 'illegal' to believe in God.
@13eyeofthebeholder The book of Daniel, in the Bible, (to name but one) describes events in history before they happened, to an extent where skeptic scholars tried to date it to much later after it was actually written. This fact (and there are many more) attests to the reality that space-time is a physical property and that God is not subject to it. He saw the end from the beginning, he communicated it to us through his prophets, and the Trinity was there. Does that answer you questions?
@AxeMan0170 Nothing in Daniel is specific to any event that has actually occured throughout history in the predictory sense. People assuming they have conviction is simply an assumption, not bonafide actual conviction that guarantees God's existence. People will always die for their beliefs whether they be God any other God/Gods or other things which people may feels strongly about or worship. People's concluded convictions are not actual true convictions at all. No one has ever seen
@AxeMan0170 My theory on mathematics is a universal one and relies on infinite scale which just means calculations are irrevelant without a basis for judging the size of the equation. This is physics that is universal in our galaxy and proven through scientific discovery, so there's a bit of conviction there. I haven't made any claimed convictions other than claiming that no one knows of God. If you can PROVE me wrong, go for it.
@13eyeofthebeholder Do you even read what you write? Your theory on maths may be universal but many qualified mathematicians do not adhere to it with "conviction". And NO, physics has not proven "infinity" unless you are talking about Q.Ph. or else where do you leave the entropy principles and thermodynamics? Good try though. If you don't know God exists do not try to imply you have all the answers to the contrary. You've made your mind, and that's ok. I sir, do not have to prove anything to you
@AxeMan0170 Actually the Noble peace prize for physics was awarded last year to the discoverers of the rapid acceleration of the expanding universe. The expanding universe means that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light for an indeterminable time. Therefore to the human perception of physics, the universe is seemingly infinite. If you actually read me you'll see that I've made no claim of an existence of God or not. Your implication that I've made up my mind
@AxeMan0170 re God is just a reflection on your own short sightedness and inability to understand what I'm saying. If you believe in God though , do you also believe the bible is God's word. That is a very important question when determining one's scientific degree.
@13eyeofthebeholder Indeed, and the NOBEL Peace prize was awarded to Barack Obama the year he was elected, yet he is fighting more wars than his predecessor. If you read papers on the expanding of the universe they all agree that that is more evidence of the big bang, therefore a beginning hence not infinite. Re. scientific degrees Go and tell that to all the Theist, Christian, and religious scientists that are very competitive in their fields. How much do you know about the Bible?
@13eyeofthebeholder Making quasi-intelligent remarks about a subject does not make you an expert, and I can see that in regards to the Bible you also know very little. Now, you said yourself you were an Agnostic, now go and see what that term translate into Latin and then you will see what you are calling yourself. I do not desire to get into a word of words with you, and I shall not continue to give you more ammunition for your Agnosticism.
@AxeMan0170 or witnessed anything that could not be explained as something simpler than the Holy. Your take on mathematics is a bit silly because actual mathematics as the average maths whiz dies when it comes to matters of the universe. The probability scale begins working on an infinite or near infinite scale. As evidence suggests that the universe is forever expanding, the mathematical scale of the universe may well be infinite. Life on a planet would be more likely
Peanut butter is made usually with preservatives, and the airtight seal prevents bacteria from entering the container. Why would life be created out of peanut butter? Is there anywhere in evolution that says that life was originally created out of peanut butter? No there isn't, and you've made a retarded argument out of an obvious impossibility that evolution never said was possible in the first place. How about understanding the theory before disputing it?
No I didn't. Life was created under certain conditions that are not present here. You cannot just say this is how life is made up, because the theory says life was made from non-life. It does not say anywhere that life is made from peanut butter. It's like saying toothpaste is not made from glass - and then you proceed to prove that toothpaste is not made from glass. It's obvious in the first place that it isn't made from glass, because the original premise was wrong.
@OxyMiracle Thanks, you touched on a very important issue: "THEORY". Many theories cannot all be true. Now, the point was not "life from peanut butter" but life from non life.
Well nucleic acids prior to any DNA stage more than likely incorporated various other nucleic acids and formed something more lifelike, and from there a cycle emerged and those cells evolved. The earliest cell would have had their own blueprint to replicate... it's a much more likely theory than believing in God. Certain scientific facts make evolution more viable to believe in. The Bible is proof for nothing since it was written by man in early history without science.
@OxyMiracle "more than likely" entails a sense of insecurity, there fore you are affirming to nothing, and again only theories. You see, by using words as "blueprints", "replicate" you are implying 'cognition', intelligence. Where does that come from?,give me one, just one example alive today of it happening without external interference.
I do not mean to insult you, but you just proved that you have very little knowledge in regards to the Bible. You would be amazed at what Science has found it
No, it does not mean insecurity. You are using an ad hominem argument. I clearly said that nucleic acids formed a cell which then replicated itself. The conditions for which that happened under are much different than they are today, as the Earth was a volatile form. And sorry, I am a Christian turned Atheist and was taught about the bible for a majority of my life. The Bible and science are two seperate things, after all - in the Bible they thought the earth was flat.
I learned to become an Atheist because it was a more intelligent option. The Bible talked about Giants existed before and after the flood, of Unicorns and rooster-serpents... the origin of language as explained by the Bible (Babel) is completely wrong. The 'Flood' itself is a ridiculous thing in the first place. All these things are PROVEN by science to not be true, yet you put faith in it. You'd have think the Earth God created, he'd know it was round.
@OxyMiracle Wow, I am amazed at your own conclusions about the Bible and science. a) where in the Bible does it speak of Unicorns and rooster-serpent? b) Don't you know that science has 'proven' that all languages are derived from one ancient language? c) Don't you think it is at least a bit strange that there's evidence of 'local floods' everywhere and that all major ancient cultures have legends about a flood in them? How it is that the Bible assumes that you can go E or W unendingly?
@OxyMiracle You learned to become an atheist because it was more convenient. Remove absolute truth and absolute morals and everything becomes relative, with no real point of reference. Believing and trusting in anything, anything at all requires will. But your will is to live your life your way, and that is fine, but don't forget that for you to pass any moral judgement at all, you need to borrow from the Judeo-Christian worldview point of reference, and that my friend is double standard.
Absolute truth? Religion is not back up by reason nor science. Science is fact and experiments are able to be replicated in the same way each time. Convenient? No, I chose to not believe in something that is simply not true - for God is only used as a contingency to explain things that have not yet been explained by science. As mentioned, bible taught about the flat earth and ends of the earth (WRONG), taught the Moon was a light source (WRONG)... among other things.
@OxyMiracle Where are you getting your information from? Since science, as you would know, is the search for truth, right? and as you would also know it is never settled, that's why we keep having to do more and more investigation and come up with more and more theories, right? Re. absolute truth, are you saying there is no absolute truth??? if that is the case why do you continue to try to convince me of your 'truth'???
Morals can be learned through education. Religion has brought about some of the most atrocious conflicts throughout history - it is not without its flaws. By learning about things like racism, societal injustices, propaganda dissemination and its effects, media effects, and many other topics gives a good world view and understanding of how to treat others. Religion is not necessary for that. You might think religion is necessary for morals, but that is your opinion.
@OxyMiracle 'Morals can be learned from education' Seriously??? and who taught the neanderthals? and the ones before them, as I said before, EVOLUTION is amoral at best!!!
Indeed wars 'in the NAME of religion' have been bad, but remember those that did it in the name of Christianity had to go directly against their own beliefs. And also, what about the crimes of atheism??? Stalin killed 15 million of his own ppl, Mao, another 20 million, that's to mane a coulple, and who are they ultimately...
Stalin and Mao might be Atheists, but you don't seem to understand. Atheism is not a belief, it is the disbelief which means it can encompass a wide range of people. To say, these people are Atheists and have committed huge crimes - is very misled since Atheism is nothing in specific other than not believing in God. I did not say there is no absolute truth, but truth has nothing to do with religion's elasticity around Science (Sam Harris would agree, renowned scientist)
@OxyMiracle So not believing in God = Believing there is no God, right? is that not a belief? Your argument is a major cop out, and it has been heard many times before, atheists are quick to defend what they are not, but can hardly define what they are. My point was that when you remove moral objectives, or absolutes, you leave an open door to any type of injustices, and what those people mentioned earlier, and others, had in common was a 'disbelief' in God.
I am not believing in something, I am believing in nothing. Religion is the belief in supernatural, atheism is not believing in anything. Just because I am using the term, 'believing' it does not mean atheism is a belief. We still kill each other because it is innate for humans to do so, there is no such thing as a utopian society. What flaws have been debunked? The bible said that light was created before light sources, and the moon is a light source itself?
@OxyMiracle So you are saying you are using a term, 'belief', for a concept that cannot be clearly explained by other words, right? I'll accept that.
If then it is innate for humans to kill each other, where does objective morals come from?, is nature confused?
Since you use a word to convey a concept that it is difficult to portray, i.e. 'belief in nothing', could not light, in biblical terms, mean something more profound? or does that premise only apply when convenient?
Evolution aside, we can agree that it is more rational to follow something that is backed by fact rather than faith... so the fact that gravity does exist and not the faith that gravity exists (if it was only faith, there would be the chance that a ball might fall upwards because gravity was not actually proven).
Why would the Bible give an account of Earth's creation in a contextual manner, how is this useful?
Neanderthals were not educated, which is why they had tribe like tendencies/ killed each other and also did not have developed brains. This is not the same association, and it is an uneducated assumption to make. The amount of philosophy and general education has advanced much since then, which allows for a broad worldview that provides moral reasoning without any need for an elastic religion that tries to still justify its existence despite major flaws that I have named before.
@OxyMiracle Since we have 'advanced so much' how is it that we are still killing each other, raping, stealing, lying, pedophiling, etc? All the 'flaws' you have mentioned before, if you care to do proper investigation, have been debunked. Besides, I did ask some questions of my own which you have not addressed. Re. moral absolutes: Since evolution abrogates for natural selection and the survival of the fittest, does that not go against moral values?
Just because religion is elastic, it modifies itself to hide its flaws. If the Bible is God's work, then why did he think the earth was flat and the inherent issues in creation? I never said nature provides morals, no where did I say that. I said EDUCATION provides a moral view, because you are educated in racial issues and conflicts - why they occurred and what can be done to stop it. Studying theory provides morals. It's not hard to imagine an alternative to religion.
@OxyMiracle Again, and I'm sorry you feel I'm attacking you, but your understanding of scriptures are a bit off. Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:21, Psalm 103:12 are pretty good references to the curvature of the earth. Education in India is very different from education in America, yet the intrinsic value of life and moral objectivity are universal, care to explain that? Nazi Germany tried to change those values, and educated its people accordingly, based on a naturalist 'non belief' Nietzsche.
Sorry, there isn't any point of continuing this argument. I really don't care that you feel you need to justify your faith over YouTube, convincing me God exists changes nothing in your life. Enjoy believing in God, I'd rather not - Science does not agree with religion, religion conforms around science to instill fear into people - organized religion and its propaganda has brought about some of the worst crime in history.
@OxyMiracle It is completely compatible with science, just not scientism. Anyone actually seeking the truth will find it. Check out the list of Catholic scientists, and you will see how many scientists who have made absolutely critical contributions to modern understanding also believed in G-d, and saw no contradiction.
I realize the flaws in evolution, but evolution still has scientific backing unlike ANY religion which only chooses to form around certain scientific facts ONLY if it agrees. We will never know the origins of life, but it is more rational to believe in a scientific cause with factual proof than a faith-based cause with absolutely no scientific facts. This is true, and the fact is - there isn't much way of denying it. It is more rational to believe in nothing at all, than religion.
@OxyMiracle Wrong again. Are you saying that the discoveries of Newton, Pascal, even Einstein, are worthless because they believed in a Supernatural creator?? Real science is the pursuit of truth. And many, many scientists who believe in a creator accept that you can observe the methods, or mechanics of how things came to be and are able to differentiate between the 'process' and Processor'
@OxyMiracle... responsible to?? according to their 'beliefs' to no body. I see, from your responses that you are either very young or very naive. Rule #1 of logic + rule of no contradiction, two opposing statements can not both be true. You decide which one is true: God or No God. but make sure you choose wisely. Because if I am deluded, what have I lost?? but if you are the one deluded, what do you could loose a lot?
You are still relying on ad hominem arguments, which hurts any argument you have in the first place - lesson one in arguing. God or no God is a circular argument, to say there is a God there can be absolutely no truth in creation or anything - but to agree and say there is No God would be to explain the world using science - a more logical route. In 2005, a Kripke Center study found that Atheists generally have lower rates of crime than religious people, look into it.
@OxyMiracle Your logic has no logic. Again, both statements cannot both be true. Secondly, your argument has a major flaw in categorizing God and Nature. Nature is incapable of providing objective values, or moral absolutes, since nature is amoral. And as far I understand you believe we are simply products of nature. Again, you are comparing mechanisms, with the one that created those mechanisms. Bye the way Sam Harris has been responded to by very capable people, maybe you should look into that
That's your opinion, you choose faith - I chose reason and science. Faith and religion contains no facts, and I would rather choose not to believe in something that contains no proof whatsoever. If that was the case, I'd believe in Santa Claus as well because he is well known though no one has seen him. People who believe in religion simply can't imagine a world without God, though I can acknowledge one with it - that is the difference. You cannot accept another standpoint.
@OxyMiracle OK, lets see: a) Many millions years ago, by random chance, there was an explosion that produced all the elements we now know. b) By random chance also, the now accepted physical laws and entropic principles came to be. c) By random chance galaxies, solar systems planets and were organized. c) again by random chance our planet had all the necessary elements at the right levels to produce aminoacids and proteins to produce life.
@OxyMiracle d) once again, random chance and millions of years intervened so these aminoacids and proteins would combine themselves at the right levels. e) random chance once again produced a quite intricate and complex information string (DNA) that would allow for a 'simple' cell to be created. f)another few millions of years and random chance once again would plot to allow mitosis and life to explode on earth. g)evolution which works through random chance, would take care of producing (cont)
@OxiMiracle a variety of the biggest animals on earth, and of course random chance would permit for reptiles to dominate the earth.h) Random chance would cause for a meteorite to hit the earth thus eliminating dinosaurs.i) Random chance once again would cause for mammals to evolve faster and better than any other species on earth. j) once again chance and chance alone would permit for primates to evolve more than, say felines or canines.k) Natural selection is also a product of random chance.
@AxeMan0170 l) By random chance and because is convenient for us as 'social' being, never mind what tribe er are from, we come up with universal moral laws that permeate societies around the world. If that is not faith or a belief system I don't know what is.
@OxyMiracle It may be that I do not accept a world without God, it would certainly be more convenient for me and my selfish desires. But (un)fortunately the facts do point the other way. The argument that the Bible is no more specific in communicating how things were created is a bit weak, since it is not a science book, despite that it is very consistent with science, if you care to look more attentively, I already gave you a couple of examples. By the way your last statement: ad hominem.
What scientists do is that they subject matter to conditions, nothing more. Are you going to tell me that because matter was under some conditions that it proves god did the same thing ?? I would suggest you search "Carl Sagan origin of life" and check the video titled "Abiogenesis : The origin of life"
An ad hominem is in order. Carl Sagan is a fucking loonie.
What scientists do is that they subject matter to conditions, nothing more. Are you going to tell me that because matter was under some conditions that it proves god did it ??
I would suggest you search "Carl Sagan origin of life" and check the video titled "Abiogenesis : The origin of life"
@Quartrez eerr, no it has not been proven. As a matter of fact the Miller-Urey experiment you might be referring to did not use the correct 'building blocks of life' as they are known to be, therefore the experiment was flawed. And lets say that is the case... how many missing links do you see walking about, or primitive life forms. Since it is so easy to create life from non-life and nature is so...'intelligent', it should be constantly replicating first life. Don't you think?
@Quartrez no, I haven't seen you even mention any videos, but tell me something, if I ask you to watch some videos that I may propose, would you watch them? my point is that Abiogenesis is, at best, still being debated by very competent scientists. What's more, and T trust you already know this, real science is never settled.
@AxeMan0170 "my point is that Abiogenesis is, at best, still being debated by very competent scientists" It's probably being debated as to HOW it happened, not as to whether it happened.
The video I'm talking about is titled "Abiogenesis : The origin of life", here's the link : watch?v=yet1xkAv_HY
@Quartrez Thanks for your response. I watched the video, and apart from saying that there is much to be said about Carl Sagan, I will say that that experiment is an exact reproduction of the Miller-Urey experiment, Sagan says it himself. I am not going to ask you to watch any videos since I believe your mind is pretty much made up. I'll only say that since there are many many scientists (in all fields) who do not support an abiogenesis theory (it is still one) I think the issue is not settled.
@AxeMan0170 I've done some research, and here's what I found :
The first Miller-Urey experiment did not, indeed, use the correct quantities of the different gases that made up the early Earth's atmosphere. HOWEVER, experiments using conditions that more accurately represent early Earth's atmosphere have produced even BETTER results.
You can look up the Miller-Urey experiment on Wikipedia, which explains it in better details, and before you say "Wikipedia is BS" : The entire article has sources.
@Quartrez I commend you for your researching before replying attitude, I must agree that I do not 100% subscribe to wikipedia, but I also use it for minor research. Just one question in regards to these experiments, and remember we are discussing the origins of life: Was there any external interference in combining those elements?? I mean did the researchers have to put the elements together and twik with the instruments?? or did they just observe how it all happened naturally?
@AxeMan0170 You have to understand that the experiment's purpose was not to create life, but to simulate the conditions of the early Earth and see if that would produce life. If instruments were tweaked, it was to better match the conditions of the early Earth.
@Quartrez But I do understand, seriously. The problem is that even mathematically it does not add up. Do you know what the chances are for life to begin on earth, let alone the universe, by random chance are?? Cosmologically there is not enough time in the universe for this to have happened by chance. In any case, it seems to me you have made up you mind in what to put your trust. Up until today random chance has been good to you, go and play a lottto ticket, maybe you'll win.
@AxeMan0170 The problem when you talk about "probabilities" like that, is that you seem to forget that things don't happen "randomly" in the Universe. Things in the Universe behave a certain way (and we describe these behaviors as "laws of physics"). If I drop a pen, what are the chances that it actually drops down, at the exact velocity at which it's gonna drop ? They're VERY slim, because if you don't consider gravity, the pencil can go in any direction at any given velocity.
@AxeMan0170 bound to happen than not. Every scenario on an infinite scale would actually become possible. There's nothing really that special about Earth, it's just rare in our limited fraction of the universe we've discovered. Scientists have just discovered an Earth like planet that has a temperature of around 22 degrees celsius and breathable atmospheres. Chances are life may evolve on that planet if the right circumstances present themselves. Who knows? BTW. You avoided answering
Many of you seem to have missed one major point of this video, disprove his theory, go ahead do it please that's what we are all waiting for, oh right you cant... don't come on here and bash him when you have no facts to disprove him. Facts can be respected insults cant! and don't be so naive as to believe that knowledge can only be gained from taking college classes, every human on this earth can learn without ever stepping foot in a classroom.
@HarleyQuinnOy If creationists believe god created something from nothing, and evolutionists believe a natural process created something from nothing, both sides are saying the same thing - something from nothing! If your arguement is that something can't come from nothing, then it follows logically that God cannot create something from nothing....you've argued yourself out of existence!! This is not a logical, rational, sensable or reasonable arguement!
@myguykaikai, If you read my post carefully you will see I never made that argument, I simply asked someone too disprove his theory. But for the fun of a good debate :) I will add that you have it a little wrong, see creationists believe God made something, evolutionists believe nothing made something. God did not create something from nothing he simply created something. From the standpoint of an atheist though nothing created something because they believe god is nothing (non-existent).
@HarleyQuinnOy "God did not create something from nothing he simply created something. "
What did god create this out of ?
"From the standpoint of an atheist though nothing created something "
No. As an atheist, something was the cause of something. What that something was is open for debate. Think god did it ?? Then provide evidence that god exists
@podoau here's some evidence that God exists, how is it possible that you wake up every morning? How is it possible that a tree can grow from a single seed? How is it possible that ever part of this earth is made perfectly for humans to survive on it? Not to mention that the bible must have been made by God, a man would never write such a story, you can argue against that all day but in the end it is the truth, Jesus is the truth.
@podoau All the things I stated are phenomenon's that cannot be explained away by science, because God makes them work, and "Jesus is the truth" was obviously not one of my evidence points lol, don't be condescending. I have read many great books but none have the power to change your life the way the bible does, A man would not write a story about God sacrificing himself for us and asking for nothing in return (not one thing) it is a free gift, all we have to do is believe.
@HarleyQuinnOy " none have the power to change your life the way the bible does,"
That depends on how desperate you are for your life to be changed. Ive read the bible. Its a sad collection of myths about an egotistic, murdering god, some bloke who said some good things, but who was also suffering some delusion about being the son of some diety, and fancifial other fairytales written by goat herders.
Its full of errors and contradictions, and quite frankly, holds very little creditibity.
@podoau You are on a bad path in your life holding those beliefs Podoau, you believe the lies of the world, lies of the devil, there are no contradictions in the bible not one. But, I will leave you with one last thought, If the rapture comes during your lifetime, I pray that you see the truth that day and turn to the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob, he will save your soul and lead you and eternity of love and joy. Hopefully your soul gets saved before that time though!
it's these questions, where the original cells came from, that made humans create god. at least scientists are trying to discover where life came from. religious people are arrogantly smug and think the bible has all the answers.
Neat. Listing up his credentials. I don't see anything about biology or any other life-science there. All the other things you've listed in the vid are irrelevant to the discussion about abiogenesis.
There is no defence for Chuck Missler. He's either stupid, a liar, or a stupid liar. I'm betting on all three alternately. The uploader of this video and anybody who agrees with it are just plain stupid.
Atheists havent been in charge of the debate, scientists have.And that is because all the facts and evidence support evolution and absolutely nothing supports the bronze age creation myth (starring the genocidal war god yahweh)
Guys, Evolution does not disprove God and God does not disprove evolution, Evolution is a fact not a theary, climates change and animals do not stay in one place, if they can't evolve to fit the needs of their environment they will die, but does this mean God is fake, NO, it just means that God knows what he is doing. I believe that he uses evolution to make some of his miracles work.
Interesting that you define the straw man so carefully, because that's exactly what Chuck Missler has produced with the peanut butter argument. To imply that matter+energy=cellular life is completely misleading and it is of course laughable to suggest that the manufacture of peanut butter could result in the spontaneous production of new cells. Your defence is a fallacy based on a fallacy. Abiogenesis is a difficult and confusing theory, but this does not make it false. Try again.
Thank you. Atheists have been the erroneous self implied intelligentsia of this debate for too long. The facts are that their fallacious arguments and personal attacks belie their intrinsic ignorance.
Lets assume he disproved the primordial soup mix with his ridiculous argument. Someone could just as easily conclude panspermia or a dozen other alternatives that we have not even thought of yet. Creationists are stupid, just because someone is educated does not mean they are intelligent, and even if they are intelligent, the fact that they would deny the evidence of Evolution and cling to young Earth Creation in light of this evidence means they are either stupid. crazy, or ignorant.
...or that for the first billion years of the earth, the surface was a stew of ever more complex hydrocarbs, leading to the precursors to DNA (PNA, p-RNA, TNA and RNA), leading to the cellular precursors, and then the actual first simple cells and continuing to evolve and develop ever more complexity until today 2.5 billion yrs later we are here discussing it.
6000 years ago the deity created the universe and all creatures we see today, yet for some inexplicable reason ALSO created the vast interconnection of evidence that the universe is MUCH MUCH older than it actually is
There is no defense for the Peanut Butter Man. It's pulpit science designed to impress the uneducated flock. Anyone who defends this joke is a liar just the same as the Peanut Butter Nutter.
- Matter + energy = life is complete bullshit. In physics, matter + energy = Energy tranfer, and a different effect depending on the amount of energy and the nature of the matter (This is the basis of Nuclear physics, the photoelectric effect was explained by Einstein in 1905 I think)
- The "heat" and "air" surrounding us aren't energy, you moron. They're PARTICLES that contain a certain amount of energy, but not necessarily giving it away to their environment.
In response to his ignorant and stupid argument, life can't come from ANY matter + energy.. It can come from SPECIFIC matter + energy. That's like saying any chemical + fire = cumbustion. Or any number + 2 = 5.
He doesn't even mention amino acids.. I honestly can't believe how incredibly misinformed yet confident this man is.
BTW: Scientists HAVE verified that life can come from non life.
@DaFleegsta Christian idiots aren't capable of understanding that they are stupid because they are just TOO STUPID to realise things like the rest of us can. They are of THAT LOW a mentality, I'm afraid. The first chapter of Genesis proves that. Talking snakes and magic fruit? It is written that it was 'the devil' who 'took the form of the snake' but then to any thinking person, that only proves what a big dupe god is in that he didn't know this and punished all the snakes in the world forever.
@Immortalsouls That was debunked just like your "man-tracks" in Texas. The originator of this Creationist ruse, is Robert Gentry. Gentry is a "physicist" with only an MS degree, not a geologist. He doesn't follow accepted geologic reporting practice and consistently fails to provide the information that a third party would need to collect comparable samples for testing. He is religiously motivated to "prove" a conclusion (young earth) by circumventing the scientific method.
how the hell did he have the balls to go on tv infront of a crowd of people with such incorrect information? he must of felt like an idiot after learning how abiogenesis actually works
Take water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen, mix thoroughly and run an electric current through it and viola, you get amino acids which are the basic building blocks of life. We don't understand everything about the origin of life but rest assured that some very smart people are working on it. :)
@blackjack39 That doesnt change that this man knows nothing about this subject. Scientists doesnt just make stuff up. They conclude the facts after research.
Evolution is possible because earth is not a closed system. 1st law of thermodynamics is that energy can be transferred but cannot be created. That being said, if there was nothing in peanut butter jar, nothing can be created. The difference between the peanut butter jar and the earth is that the earth is not in a closed system. We have outside source that helps life become possible. It's called the Sun.
@odinata My feelings have nothing to do with anything. How did we get onto that anyways? There just simply isn't proof for evolution. The fossil record is a joke, DNA proves that DNA exists, adaptation proves, well, adaptation. EVOLUTION IS AN ASSUMPTION. What can't you understand???
I will humor you for just a sec and assume a jar of peanut butter is an adequate test of abiogenesis (which it is not, and amino acids have been created in labs from mixtures of chemicals beleived to exist on prelife earth)
Even on this assumpion you hear the crucial flaw in his argument, he says 1) there is no life inside and 2) if we did find life inside it is because of outside contamination. Hence his theory is non-falsifiable and thus not a proper scientific theory.
TechnoDevotee 1 month ago
But again, you just said that your convictions are only assumptions, to you truth is relative, therefore even your statements are not to be taken as truth.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
Comment removed
Quartrez 1 month ago
How did God tell us how i all ended up? What was his means of communication? Who did he tell?
13eyeofthebeholder 1 month ago
@13eyeofthebeholder a) How did God tell US how YOU all ended up??? b) How do you communicate? c)Don't you know who was there?
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 My questions were quite relevant to the last piece of the video. If you have the answers, please tell, instead of being a dopey smart arse.
13eyeofthebeholder 1 month ago
@13eyeofthebeholder It is a shame that you have to resort to abusive name calling, from that I can only assume you are an angry little person or a verbally unimaginative agnostic. Now, the questions may be relevant, but they are not very well asked. Do you want answers because you are actually honestly openminded, or have you already, in your mind, a rebuttal to whatever the answer is?
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 No one knows of an existence of a God or not. Not with true conviction anyway. So in that sense I suppose I am Agnostic. I would appreciate your answers though. The questions were perfectly asked in response to the last piece of text shown on the video, other than my battery drained Keyboard robbed me of the 't' in 'it'. So please, feel free to answer my three questions.
13eyeofthebeholder 1 month ago
@13eyeofthebeholder If people did not have a true conviction of the existence of God, they would not be prepared to die for that conviction or knowledge for that matter, history is plagued with testimonies to that effect, and it assures us that they were not deluded. Even today people are dying for that same conviction in places where it is 'illegal' to believe in God.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@13eyeofthebeholder The book of Daniel, in the Bible, (to name but one) describes events in history before they happened, to an extent where skeptic scholars tried to date it to much later after it was actually written. This fact (and there are many more) attests to the reality that space-time is a physical property and that God is not subject to it. He saw the end from the beginning, he communicated it to us through his prophets, and the Trinity was there. Does that answer you questions?
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 Nothing in Daniel is specific to any event that has actually occured throughout history in the predictory sense. People assuming they have conviction is simply an assumption, not bonafide actual conviction that guarantees God's existence. People will always die for their beliefs whether they be God any other God/Gods or other things which people may feels strongly about or worship. People's concluded convictions are not actual true convictions at all. No one has ever seen
13eyeofthebeholder 1 month ago
@13eyeofthebeholder So, even your convictions are only assumptions??
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 My theory on mathematics is a universal one and relies on infinite scale which just means calculations are irrevelant without a basis for judging the size of the equation. This is physics that is universal in our galaxy and proven through scientific discovery, so there's a bit of conviction there. I haven't made any claimed convictions other than claiming that no one knows of God. If you can PROVE me wrong, go for it.
13eyeofthebeholder 1 month ago
@13eyeofthebeholder Do you even read what you write? Your theory on maths may be universal but many qualified mathematicians do not adhere to it with "conviction". And NO, physics has not proven "infinity" unless you are talking about Q.Ph. or else where do you leave the entropy principles and thermodynamics? Good try though. If you don't know God exists do not try to imply you have all the answers to the contrary. You've made your mind, and that's ok. I sir, do not have to prove anything to you
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 Actually the Noble peace prize for physics was awarded last year to the discoverers of the rapid acceleration of the expanding universe. The expanding universe means that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light for an indeterminable time. Therefore to the human perception of physics, the universe is seemingly infinite. If you actually read me you'll see that I've made no claim of an existence of God or not. Your implication that I've made up my mind
13eyeofthebeholder 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 re God is just a reflection on your own short sightedness and inability to understand what I'm saying. If you believe in God though , do you also believe the bible is God's word. That is a very important question when determining one's scientific degree.
13eyeofthebeholder 1 month ago
@13eyeofthebeholder Indeed, and the NOBEL Peace prize was awarded to Barack Obama the year he was elected, yet he is fighting more wars than his predecessor. If you read papers on the expanding of the universe they all agree that that is more evidence of the big bang, therefore a beginning hence not infinite. Re. scientific degrees Go and tell that to all the Theist, Christian, and religious scientists that are very competitive in their fields. How much do you know about the Bible?
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@13eyeofthebeholder Making quasi-intelligent remarks about a subject does not make you an expert, and I can see that in regards to the Bible you also know very little. Now, you said yourself you were an Agnostic, now go and see what that term translate into Latin and then you will see what you are calling yourself. I do not desire to get into a word of words with you, and I shall not continue to give you more ammunition for your Agnosticism.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 or witnessed anything that could not be explained as something simpler than the Holy. Your take on mathematics is a bit silly because actual mathematics as the average maths whiz dies when it comes to matters of the universe. The probability scale begins working on an infinite or near infinite scale. As evidence suggests that the universe is forever expanding, the mathematical scale of the universe may well be infinite. Life on a planet would be more likely
13eyeofthebeholder 1 month ago
Comment removed
mickeyvegas1 2 months ago
Peanut butter is made usually with preservatives, and the airtight seal prevents bacteria from entering the container. Why would life be created out of peanut butter? Is there anywhere in evolution that says that life was originally created out of peanut butter? No there isn't, and you've made a retarded argument out of an obvious impossibility that evolution never said was possible in the first place. How about understanding the theory before disputing it?
OxyMiracle 2 months ago
@OxyMiracle I think you missed the point.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
No I didn't. Life was created under certain conditions that are not present here. You cannot just say this is how life is made up, because the theory says life was made from non-life. It does not say anywhere that life is made from peanut butter. It's like saying toothpaste is not made from glass - and then you proceed to prove that toothpaste is not made from glass. It's obvious in the first place that it isn't made from glass, because the original premise was wrong.
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle Thanks, you touched on a very important issue: "THEORY". Many theories cannot all be true. Now, the point was not "life from peanut butter" but life from non life.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
Well nucleic acids prior to any DNA stage more than likely incorporated various other nucleic acids and formed something more lifelike, and from there a cycle emerged and those cells evolved. The earliest cell would have had their own blueprint to replicate... it's a much more likely theory than believing in God. Certain scientific facts make evolution more viable to believe in. The Bible is proof for nothing since it was written by man in early history without science.
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle "more than likely" entails a sense of insecurity, there fore you are affirming to nothing, and again only theories. You see, by using words as "blueprints", "replicate" you are implying 'cognition', intelligence. Where does that come from?,give me one, just one example alive today of it happening without external interference.
I do not mean to insult you, but you just proved that you have very little knowledge in regards to the Bible. You would be amazed at what Science has found it
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
No, it does not mean insecurity. You are using an ad hominem argument. I clearly said that nucleic acids formed a cell which then replicated itself. The conditions for which that happened under are much different than they are today, as the Earth was a volatile form. And sorry, I am a Christian turned Atheist and was taught about the bible for a majority of my life. The Bible and science are two seperate things, after all - in the Bible they thought the earth was flat.
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
I learned to become an Atheist because it was a more intelligent option. The Bible talked about Giants existed before and after the flood, of Unicorns and rooster-serpents... the origin of language as explained by the Bible (Babel) is completely wrong. The 'Flood' itself is a ridiculous thing in the first place. All these things are PROVEN by science to not be true, yet you put faith in it. You'd have think the Earth God created, he'd know it was round.
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle Wow, I am amazed at your own conclusions about the Bible and science. a) where in the Bible does it speak of Unicorns and rooster-serpent? b) Don't you know that science has 'proven' that all languages are derived from one ancient language? c) Don't you think it is at least a bit strange that there's evidence of 'local floods' everywhere and that all major ancient cultures have legends about a flood in them? How it is that the Bible assumes that you can go E or W unendingly?
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle You learned to become an atheist because it was more convenient. Remove absolute truth and absolute morals and everything becomes relative, with no real point of reference. Believing and trusting in anything, anything at all requires will. But your will is to live your life your way, and that is fine, but don't forget that for you to pass any moral judgement at all, you need to borrow from the Judeo-Christian worldview point of reference, and that my friend is double standard.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
Absolute truth? Religion is not back up by reason nor science. Science is fact and experiments are able to be replicated in the same way each time. Convenient? No, I chose to not believe in something that is simply not true - for God is only used as a contingency to explain things that have not yet been explained by science. As mentioned, bible taught about the flat earth and ends of the earth (WRONG), taught the Moon was a light source (WRONG)... among other things.
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle Where are you getting your information from? Since science, as you would know, is the search for truth, right? and as you would also know it is never settled, that's why we keep having to do more and more investigation and come up with more and more theories, right? Re. absolute truth, are you saying there is no absolute truth??? if that is the case why do you continue to try to convince me of your 'truth'???
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
Morals can be learned through education. Religion has brought about some of the most atrocious conflicts throughout history - it is not without its flaws. By learning about things like racism, societal injustices, propaganda dissemination and its effects, media effects, and many other topics gives a good world view and understanding of how to treat others. Religion is not necessary for that. You might think religion is necessary for morals, but that is your opinion.
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle 'Morals can be learned from education' Seriously??? and who taught the neanderthals? and the ones before them, as I said before, EVOLUTION is amoral at best!!!
Indeed wars 'in the NAME of religion' have been bad, but remember those that did it in the name of Christianity had to go directly against their own beliefs. And also, what about the crimes of atheism??? Stalin killed 15 million of his own ppl, Mao, another 20 million, that's to mane a coulple, and who are they ultimately...
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
Stalin and Mao might be Atheists, but you don't seem to understand. Atheism is not a belief, it is the disbelief which means it can encompass a wide range of people. To say, these people are Atheists and have committed huge crimes - is very misled since Atheism is nothing in specific other than not believing in God. I did not say there is no absolute truth, but truth has nothing to do with religion's elasticity around Science (Sam Harris would agree, renowned scientist)
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle So not believing in God = Believing there is no God, right? is that not a belief? Your argument is a major cop out, and it has been heard many times before, atheists are quick to defend what they are not, but can hardly define what they are. My point was that when you remove moral objectives, or absolutes, you leave an open door to any type of injustices, and what those people mentioned earlier, and others, had in common was a 'disbelief' in God.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
I am not believing in something, I am believing in nothing. Religion is the belief in supernatural, atheism is not believing in anything. Just because I am using the term, 'believing' it does not mean atheism is a belief. We still kill each other because it is innate for humans to do so, there is no such thing as a utopian society. What flaws have been debunked? The bible said that light was created before light sources, and the moon is a light source itself?
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle So you are saying you are using a term, 'belief', for a concept that cannot be clearly explained by other words, right? I'll accept that.
If then it is innate for humans to kill each other, where does objective morals come from?, is nature confused?
Since you use a word to convey a concept that it is difficult to portray, i.e. 'belief in nothing', could not light, in biblical terms, mean something more profound? or does that premise only apply when convenient?
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
Evolution aside, we can agree that it is more rational to follow something that is backed by fact rather than faith... so the fact that gravity does exist and not the faith that gravity exists (if it was only faith, there would be the chance that a ball might fall upwards because gravity was not actually proven).
Why would the Bible give an account of Earth's creation in a contextual manner, how is this useful?
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
Neanderthals were not educated, which is why they had tribe like tendencies/ killed each other and also did not have developed brains. This is not the same association, and it is an uneducated assumption to make. The amount of philosophy and general education has advanced much since then, which allows for a broad worldview that provides moral reasoning without any need for an elastic religion that tries to still justify its existence despite major flaws that I have named before.
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle Since we have 'advanced so much' how is it that we are still killing each other, raping, stealing, lying, pedophiling, etc? All the 'flaws' you have mentioned before, if you care to do proper investigation, have been debunked. Besides, I did ask some questions of my own which you have not addressed. Re. moral absolutes: Since evolution abrogates for natural selection and the survival of the fittest, does that not go against moral values?
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
Just because religion is elastic, it modifies itself to hide its flaws. If the Bible is God's work, then why did he think the earth was flat and the inherent issues in creation? I never said nature provides morals, no where did I say that. I said EDUCATION provides a moral view, because you are educated in racial issues and conflicts - why they occurred and what can be done to stop it. Studying theory provides morals. It's not hard to imagine an alternative to religion.
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle Again, and I'm sorry you feel I'm attacking you, but your understanding of scriptures are a bit off. Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:21, Psalm 103:12 are pretty good references to the curvature of the earth. Education in India is very different from education in America, yet the intrinsic value of life and moral objectivity are universal, care to explain that? Nazi Germany tried to change those values, and educated its people accordingly, based on a naturalist 'non belief' Nietzsche.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
Sorry, there isn't any point of continuing this argument. I really don't care that you feel you need to justify your faith over YouTube, convincing me God exists changes nothing in your life. Enjoy believing in God, I'd rather not - Science does not agree with religion, religion conforms around science to instill fear into people - organized religion and its propaganda has brought about some of the worst crime in history.
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle It Figures, Ad hominem. It's been a pleasure.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle It is completely compatible with science, just not scientism. Anyone actually seeking the truth will find it. Check out the list of Catholic scientists, and you will see how many scientists who have made absolutely critical contributions to modern understanding also believed in G-d, and saw no contradiction.
twilligon 2 weeks ago
@AxeMan0170
I realize the flaws in evolution, but evolution still has scientific backing unlike ANY religion which only chooses to form around certain scientific facts ONLY if it agrees. We will never know the origins of life, but it is more rational to believe in a scientific cause with factual proof than a faith-based cause with absolutely no scientific facts. This is true, and the fact is - there isn't much way of denying it. It is more rational to believe in nothing at all, than religion.
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle Wrong again. Are you saying that the discoveries of Newton, Pascal, even Einstein, are worthless because they believed in a Supernatural creator?? Real science is the pursuit of truth. And many, many scientists who believe in a creator accept that you can observe the methods, or mechanics of how things came to be and are able to differentiate between the 'process' and Processor'
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle... responsible to?? according to their 'beliefs' to no body. I see, from your responses that you are either very young or very naive. Rule #1 of logic + rule of no contradiction, two opposing statements can not both be true. You decide which one is true: God or No God. but make sure you choose wisely. Because if I am deluded, what have I lost?? but if you are the one deluded, what do you could loose a lot?
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
You are still relying on ad hominem arguments, which hurts any argument you have in the first place - lesson one in arguing. God or no God is a circular argument, to say there is a God there can be absolutely no truth in creation or anything - but to agree and say there is No God would be to explain the world using science - a more logical route. In 2005, a Kripke Center study found that Atheists generally have lower rates of crime than religious people, look into it.
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle Your logic has no logic. Again, both statements cannot both be true. Secondly, your argument has a major flaw in categorizing God and Nature. Nature is incapable of providing objective values, or moral absolutes, since nature is amoral. And as far I understand you believe we are simply products of nature. Again, you are comparing mechanisms, with the one that created those mechanisms. Bye the way Sam Harris has been responded to by very capable people, maybe you should look into that
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170
That's your opinion, you choose faith - I chose reason and science. Faith and religion contains no facts, and I would rather choose not to believe in something that contains no proof whatsoever. If that was the case, I'd believe in Santa Claus as well because he is well known though no one has seen him. People who believe in religion simply can't imagine a world without God, though I can acknowledge one with it - that is the difference. You cannot accept another standpoint.
OxyMiracle 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle OK, lets see: a) Many millions years ago, by random chance, there was an explosion that produced all the elements we now know. b) By random chance also, the now accepted physical laws and entropic principles came to be. c) By random chance galaxies, solar systems planets and were organized. c) again by random chance our planet had all the necessary elements at the right levels to produce aminoacids and proteins to produce life.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle d) once again, random chance and millions of years intervened so these aminoacids and proteins would combine themselves at the right levels. e) random chance once again produced a quite intricate and complex information string (DNA) that would allow for a 'simple' cell to be created. f)another few millions of years and random chance once again would plot to allow mitosis and life to explode on earth. g)evolution which works through random chance, would take care of producing (cont)
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@OxiMiracle a variety of the biggest animals on earth, and of course random chance would permit for reptiles to dominate the earth.h) Random chance would cause for a meteorite to hit the earth thus eliminating dinosaurs.i) Random chance once again would cause for mammals to evolve faster and better than any other species on earth. j) once again chance and chance alone would permit for primates to evolve more than, say felines or canines.k) Natural selection is also a product of random chance.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 l) By random chance and because is convenient for us as 'social' being, never mind what tribe er are from, we come up with universal moral laws that permeate societies around the world. If that is not faith or a belief system I don't know what is.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@OxyMiracle It may be that I do not accept a world without God, it would certainly be more convenient for me and my selfish desires. But (un)fortunately the facts do point the other way. The argument that the Bible is no more specific in communicating how things were created is a bit weak, since it is not a science book, despite that it is very consistent with science, if you care to look more attentively, I already gave you a couple of examples. By the way your last statement: ad hominem.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
Are you aware that it has been proven and successfully tested that life CAN in fact come from non-life ?
Quartrez 2 months ago
@Quartrez Are you aware of the fact that you dont' know what the fuck you're talking about?
MaximusArurealius 1 month ago
@MaximusArurealius Are you aware of the fact that I DO know what the fuck I'm talking about ? Seriously.
Quartrez 1 month ago
Comment removed
Quartrez 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Quartrez Tell us so we can have a good laugh at your expense. Seriously.
MaximusArurealius 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Quartrez hey dummass, what happened to this?
What scientists do is that they subject matter to conditions, nothing more. Are you going to tell me that because matter was under some conditions that it proves god did the same thing ?? I would suggest you search "Carl Sagan origin of life" and check the video titled "Abiogenesis : The origin of life"
An ad hominem is in order. Carl Sagan is a fucking loonie.
MaximusArurealius 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximusArurealius You don't understand it...
What scientists do is that they subject matter to conditions, nothing more. Are you going to tell me that because matter was under some conditions that it proves god did it ??
I would suggest you search "Carl Sagan origin of life" and check the video titled "Abiogenesis : The origin of life"
Quartrez 1 month ago
@Quartrez eerr, no it has not been proven. As a matter of fact the Miller-Urey experiment you might be referring to did not use the correct 'building blocks of life' as they are known to be, therefore the experiment was flawed. And lets say that is the case... how many missing links do you see walking about, or primitive life forms. Since it is so easy to create life from non-life and nature is so...'intelligent', it should be constantly replicating first life. Don't you think?
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 I can already tell you haven't watched the videos I mentioned.
Quartrez 1 month ago
@Quartrez no, I haven't seen you even mention any videos, but tell me something, if I ask you to watch some videos that I may propose, would you watch them? my point is that Abiogenesis is, at best, still being debated by very competent scientists. What's more, and T trust you already know this, real science is never settled.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 "my point is that Abiogenesis is, at best, still being debated by very competent scientists" It's probably being debated as to HOW it happened, not as to whether it happened.
The video I'm talking about is titled "Abiogenesis : The origin of life", here's the link : watch?v=yet1xkAv_HY
Quartrez 1 month ago
@Quartrez Thanks for your response. I watched the video, and apart from saying that there is much to be said about Carl Sagan, I will say that that experiment is an exact reproduction of the Miller-Urey experiment, Sagan says it himself. I am not going to ask you to watch any videos since I believe your mind is pretty much made up. I'll only say that since there are many many scientists (in all fields) who do not support an abiogenesis theory (it is still one) I think the issue is not settled.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 I've done some research, and here's what I found :
The first Miller-Urey experiment did not, indeed, use the correct quantities of the different gases that made up the early Earth's atmosphere. HOWEVER, experiments using conditions that more accurately represent early Earth's atmosphere have produced even BETTER results.
You can look up the Miller-Urey experiment on Wikipedia, which explains it in better details, and before you say "Wikipedia is BS" : The entire article has sources.
Quartrez 1 month ago
@Quartrez I commend you for your researching before replying attitude, I must agree that I do not 100% subscribe to wikipedia, but I also use it for minor research. Just one question in regards to these experiments, and remember we are discussing the origins of life: Was there any external interference in combining those elements?? I mean did the researchers have to put the elements together and twik with the instruments?? or did they just observe how it all happened naturally?
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 You have to understand that the experiment's purpose was not to create life, but to simulate the conditions of the early Earth and see if that would produce life. If instruments were tweaked, it was to better match the conditions of the early Earth.
Quartrez 1 month ago
@Quartrez But I do understand, seriously. The problem is that even mathematically it does not add up. Do you know what the chances are for life to begin on earth, let alone the universe, by random chance are?? Cosmologically there is not enough time in the universe for this to have happened by chance. In any case, it seems to me you have made up you mind in what to put your trust. Up until today random chance has been good to you, go and play a lottto ticket, maybe you'll win.
Cheers
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
Comment removed
Quartrez 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AxeMan0170 The problem when you talk about "probabilities" like that, is that you seem to forget that things don't happen "randomly" in the Universe. Things in the Universe behave a certain way (and we describe these behaviors as "laws of physics"). If I drop a pen, what are the chances that it actually drops down, at the exact velocity at which it's gonna drop ? They're VERY slim, because if you don't consider gravity, the pencil can go in any direction at any given velocity.
Quartrez 1 month ago
@Quartrez That is metaphysics at its best. Right there you are negating the work of many a physics-theorists.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 "Right there you are negating the work of many a physics-theorists."
Please explain. Until then, I will consider yours statement as invalid.
Quartrez 1 month ago
@Quartrez Consider it as you please, that's your prerogative.
AxeMan0170 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 Still haven't presented an argument to justify your claim, I see.
Quartrez 1 month ago
@AxeMan0170 bound to happen than not. Every scenario on an infinite scale would actually become possible. There's nothing really that special about Earth, it's just rare in our limited fraction of the universe we've discovered. Scientists have just discovered an Earth like planet that has a temperature of around 22 degrees celsius and breathable atmospheres. Chances are life may evolve on that planet if the right circumstances present themselves. Who knows? BTW. You avoided answering
13eyeofthebeholder 1 month ago
@13eyeofthebeholder any of my questions like so many devoutees before you.
13eyeofthebeholder 1 month ago
"Nothing" doesnt exist. All in the Universe has properties, also the empty space.
And religious/creationists people discussing Cience are pathetics, they should stay inside their churches.
roner61 2 months ago
@roner61 Please don't spell Science wrong...
Quartrez 2 months ago
wow.. Do you support Bananaman and the Crocoduck Kid as well ?? Wake up idiot.
podoau 3 months ago
I'm astonished by your ignorance.
jollyjohnnyd 3 months ago
@jollyjohnnyd Please tell me where is the ignorance?
HarleyQuinnOy 3 months ago
Many of you seem to have missed one major point of this video, disprove his theory, go ahead do it please that's what we are all waiting for, oh right you cant... don't come on here and bash him when you have no facts to disprove him. Facts can be respected insults cant! and don't be so naive as to believe that knowledge can only be gained from taking college classes, every human on this earth can learn without ever stepping foot in a classroom.
HarleyQuinnOy 3 months ago
@HarleyQuinnOy If creationists believe god created something from nothing, and evolutionists believe a natural process created something from nothing, both sides are saying the same thing - something from nothing! If your arguement is that something can't come from nothing, then it follows logically that God cannot create something from nothing....you've argued yourself out of existence!! This is not a logical, rational, sensable or reasonable arguement!
myguykaikai 3 months ago
@myguykaikai, If you read my post carefully you will see I never made that argument, I simply asked someone too disprove his theory. But for the fun of a good debate :) I will add that you have it a little wrong, see creationists believe God made something, evolutionists believe nothing made something. God did not create something from nothing he simply created something. From the standpoint of an atheist though nothing created something because they believe god is nothing (non-existent).
HarleyQuinnOy 3 months ago
@HarleyQuinnOy "God did not create something from nothing he simply created something. "
What did god create this out of ?
"From the standpoint of an atheist though nothing created something "
No. As an atheist, something was the cause of something. What that something was is open for debate. Think god did it ?? Then provide evidence that god exists
podoau 2 months ago
@podoau here's some evidence that God exists, how is it possible that you wake up every morning? How is it possible that a tree can grow from a single seed? How is it possible that ever part of this earth is made perfectly for humans to survive on it? Not to mention that the bible must have been made by God, a man would never write such a story, you can argue against that all day but in the end it is the truth, Jesus is the truth.
HarleyQuinnOy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HarleyQuinnOy " how is it possible that you wake up every morning?"
My mind and body has rested sufficiently
"How is it possible that a tree can grow from a single seed? "
Self replicating DNA. Processing of natural chemicals.
" ever part of this earth is made perfectly for humans to survive on it?"
This statement is incorrect
podoau 2 months ago
@HarleyQuinnOy " Not to mention that the bible must have been made by God, a man would never write such a story,"
You havent read many of the great works of liturature have you. Read Lord of the Rings then get back to me with your claim
"Jesus is the truth." "here's some evidence that God exists"
Nothing you said is proof. Its simply the god of gaps..
podoau 2 months ago
@podoau All the things I stated are phenomenon's that cannot be explained away by science, because God makes them work, and "Jesus is the truth" was obviously not one of my evidence points lol, don't be condescending. I have read many great books but none have the power to change your life the way the bible does, A man would not write a story about God sacrificing himself for us and asking for nothing in return (not one thing) it is a free gift, all we have to do is believe.
HarleyQuinnOy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HarleyQuinnOy "All the things I stated are phenomenon's that cannot be explained away by science"
Actually, every one of them CAN be explained by science.
"God makes them work,"
Provide testable evidence to support this claim
podoau 2 months ago
@HarleyQuinnOy " none have the power to change your life the way the bible does,"
That depends on how desperate you are for your life to be changed. Ive read the bible. Its a sad collection of myths about an egotistic, murdering god, some bloke who said some good things, but who was also suffering some delusion about being the son of some diety, and fancifial other fairytales written by goat herders.
Its full of errors and contradictions, and quite frankly, holds very little creditibity.
podoau 2 months ago
@podoau You are on a bad path in your life holding those beliefs Podoau, you believe the lies of the world, lies of the devil, there are no contradictions in the bible not one. But, I will leave you with one last thought, If the rapture comes during your lifetime, I pray that you see the truth that day and turn to the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob, he will save your soul and lead you and eternity of love and joy. Hopefully your soul gets saved before that time though!
HarleyQuinnOy 2 months ago
@HarleyQuinnOy "You are on a bad path in your life holding those beliefs Podoau"
My life is just fine. Im basing things on REAL evidence. Not some fairytale.
" lies of the devil, "
Provide testable evidence that this devil is real. C'mon., dont be a wuss.. REAL evidence
" there are no contradictions in the bible not one"
Then you havent read it. There are plenty. Google bible contratradictions, then wake up
podoau 2 months ago
@HarleyQuinnOy " If the rapture comes "
What rapture ?? The one talked about in your fairytale ??
"I pray that you see the truth"
I'll think for you. Ive seen the truth. Its proven by real evidence, and bot a god to be seen
" turn to the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob,"
Whats wrong with Thor, or Zuez, or Ra ?? Al as credible as your mythical sky friend
Proide REAL evidence to support your claims.. I want to see it. EVIDENCE
podoau 2 months ago
@HarleyQuinnOy you absolute idiot.
chaoslord108 1 month ago
@HarleyQuinnOy "Many of you seem to have missed one major point of this video, disprove his theory"
What theory would that be ??
podoau 3 months ago
@podoau That every time you open a jar of peanut butter the laws that would make evolution true are dis-proven!
HarleyQuinnOy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HarleyQuinnOy "That every time you open a jar of peanut butter the laws that would make evolution true are dis-proven! "
wtf ?? I dont even understand that comment
podoau 2 months ago
@HarleyQuinnOy .
Just to clarify: Are you asking me to disprove the peanut butter theory?
jollyjohnnyd 2 months ago
it's these questions, where the original cells came from, that made humans create god. at least scientists are trying to discover where life came from. religious people are arrogantly smug and think the bible has all the answers.
skarfaced 3 months ago
Neat. Listing up his credentials. I don't see anything about biology or any other life-science there. All the other things you've listed in the vid are irrelevant to the discussion about abiogenesis.
Shiva4815162342 3 months ago
You must be trollin
you sir are an idiot
TheJMan11000111 3 months ago
He's a DR eh? Well, makes me confident that I can get my medical degree after all.
chimmychainsaw 4 months ago
There is no defence for Chuck Missler. He's either stupid, a liar, or a stupid liar. I'm betting on all three alternately. The uploader of this video and anybody who agrees with it are just plain stupid.
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
complete ignorance
MrJimbeam4me 4 months ago
where the fuck is the dislike button?
MrJimbeam4me 4 months ago
Please notice that his credentials at the end have NOTHING to do with:Biology,Evolution or even CHEMISTRY.
Stevoukos 5 months ago
Atheists havent been in charge of the debate, scientists have.And that is because all the facts and evidence support evolution and absolutely nothing supports the bronze age creation myth (starring the genocidal war god yahweh)
SammyHales 5 months ago
Swing, and a miss.
alianchild 5 months ago
Guys, Evolution does not disprove God and God does not disprove evolution, Evolution is a fact not a theary, climates change and animals do not stay in one place, if they can't evolve to fit the needs of their environment they will die, but does this mean God is fake, NO, it just means that God knows what he is doing. I believe that he uses evolution to make some of his miracles work.
Curti74 5 months ago
@Curti74
(blank)
O.O
Okay...
I am not a philosophy major but what ever.
TheMrgoku1985 5 months ago
Interesting that you define the straw man so carefully, because that's exactly what Chuck Missler has produced with the peanut butter argument. To imply that matter+energy=cellular life is completely misleading and it is of course laughable to suggest that the manufacture of peanut butter could result in the spontaneous production of new cells. Your defence is a fallacy based on a fallacy. Abiogenesis is a difficult and confusing theory, but this does not make it false. Try again.
vermeergirl 5 months ago
Thank you. Atheists have been the erroneous self implied intelligentsia of this debate for too long. The facts are that their fallacious arguments and personal attacks belie their intrinsic ignorance.
hdregmore 6 months ago
Lets assume he disproved the primordial soup mix with his ridiculous argument. Someone could just as easily conclude panspermia or a dozen other alternatives that we have not even thought of yet. Creationists are stupid, just because someone is educated does not mean they are intelligent, and even if they are intelligent, the fact that they would deny the evidence of Evolution and cling to young Earth Creation in light of this evidence means they are either stupid. crazy, or ignorant.
Mcommander23 6 months ago
...or that for the first billion years of the earth, the surface was a stew of ever more complex hydrocarbs, leading to the precursors to DNA (PNA, p-RNA, TNA and RNA), leading to the cellular precursors, and then the actual first simple cells and continuing to evolve and develop ever more complexity until today 2.5 billion yrs later we are here discussing it.
Vote for me.
SysyphusJones 6 months ago
...or 2.5 billion years ago Jesus landed on earth with his junior chemistry set and mixed up the first procaryotes to kick start life ...
Vote for me.
SysyphusJones 6 months ago
So what's more likely?
6000 years ago the deity created the universe and all creatures we see today, yet for some inexplicable reason ALSO created the vast interconnection of evidence that the universe is MUCH MUCH older than it actually is
Vote for me.
SysyphusJones 6 months ago
Im not sure whats worse, the man himself or some idiot trying to defend him!
1Munro3000 6 months ago
There is no defense for the Peanut Butter Man. It's pulpit science designed to impress the uneducated flock. Anyone who defends this joke is a liar just the same as the Peanut Butter Nutter.
fingleur1 6 months ago
Christians are the most dangerous creatures on Earth.
.
SCIENCE FLIES YOU TO THE MOON. RELIGION FLIES YOU INTO BUILDINGS...
.
.
.
IncomingMonkeyTurd 6 months ago
Did he expect to see a monkey in that jar?
I life would appear in that jar, then it would take about a couple hundred million years to evolve into anything that he would possibly see.
MrSpartay 6 months ago
- Matter + energy = life is complete bullshit. In physics, matter + energy = Energy tranfer, and a different effect depending on the amount of energy and the nature of the matter (This is the basis of Nuclear physics, the photoelectric effect was explained by Einstein in 1905 I think)
- The "heat" and "air" surrounding us aren't energy, you moron. They're PARTICLES that contain a certain amount of energy, but not necessarily giving it away to their environment.
atomheartother 6 months ago
He has no background in biology or chemistry. Why would I take his opinion seriously?
samfisherkiller 6 months ago
@samfisherkiller Just like one would not take advise from and English major on how to perform an appendectomy.
jknengr796 6 months ago
In response to his ignorant and stupid argument, life can't come from ANY matter + energy.. It can come from SPECIFIC matter + energy. That's like saying any chemical + fire = cumbustion. Or any number + 2 = 5.
He doesn't even mention amino acids.. I honestly can't believe how incredibly misinformed yet confident this man is.
BTW: Scientists HAVE verified that life can come from non life.
DaFleegsta 6 months ago
@DaFleegsta can they explain how Polonium Radioactive Radiowave Halo's appear in Granite lol!!!
God = 1
Evolutionists = 0
Immortalsouls 6 months ago
@Immortalsouls If science doesn't know something, they look for the right answer, where as religion would rather accept a false one.
Science = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
God = 0
DaFleegsta 6 months ago
@DaFleegsta science isn't only attributed to atheists when God is the ultimate scientist.
GOD = Infinite!
Immortalsouls 6 months ago
@Immortalsouls 99.98% of scientists are atheists.. It just so happens that really smart people don't beleive in god.. Why do you think that is?
GOD = make beleive
Infinite! = Infinite!
DaFleegsta 6 months ago
@DaFleegsta 99.98% of scientists are atheists? Where's your data from, your pants.
Immortalsouls 6 months ago
@Immortalsouls No, unlike you I actually get my information from trustworthy sources.
DaFleegsta 6 months ago
@DaFleegsta from your pants is untrustworthy, but being delusional towards yourself is ok I suppose. As long as it doesn't harm anyone else.
Immortalsouls 6 months ago
@Immortalsouls It must suck to be ignorant.
DaFleegsta 6 months ago
@DaFleegsta Christian idiots aren't capable of understanding that they are stupid because they are just TOO STUPID to realise things like the rest of us can. They are of THAT LOW a mentality, I'm afraid. The first chapter of Genesis proves that. Talking snakes and magic fruit? It is written that it was 'the devil' who 'took the form of the snake' but then to any thinking person, that only proves what a big dupe god is in that he didn't know this and punished all the snakes in the world forever.
zideffil 6 months ago
@zideffil Yeah the amount of contradictions in the bible is incredible.
DaFleegsta 6 months ago
Comment removed
Immortalsouls 6 months ago
@Immortalsouls Nice, "IM NOT IGNORANT, YOU'RE IGNORANT, LALALALAAAA".
Really helping your argument..
DaFleegsta 6 months ago
@Immortalsouls That was debunked just like your "man-tracks" in Texas. The originator of this Creationist ruse, is Robert Gentry. Gentry is a "physicist" with only an MS degree, not a geologist. He doesn't follow accepted geologic reporting practice and consistently fails to provide the information that a third party would need to collect comparable samples for testing. He is religiously motivated to "prove" a conclusion (young earth) by circumventing the scientific method.
jknengr796 6 months ago
how the hell did he have the balls to go on tv infront of a crowd of people with such incorrect information? he must of felt like an idiot after learning how abiogenesis actually works
DaFleegsta 6 months ago
Beyond stupid!
masala505 6 months ago
Take water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen, mix thoroughly and run an electric current through it and viola, you get amino acids which are the basic building blocks of life. We don't understand everything about the origin of life but rest assured that some very smart people are working on it. :)
librasun2629 6 months ago
So if all living thigs came from 1 spore, then where did that spore come from?
blackjack39 6 months ago
@blackjack39 It wasn't a 'spore', like a fungus or plant uses in fertilization. Read librasun2629's comment and you have your answer.
TheReliquarian 6 months ago
@blackjack39 That doesnt change that this man knows nothing about this subject. Scientists doesnt just make stuff up. They conclude the facts after research.
blackjack39 6 months ago
Therefore....God exists?
DeadlyThrashViking 6 months ago
So, for example, Biology classifies, say, foxes and wolves--as Canidae.
Are they actually related?
Genetic testing shows that indeed they are.
How can genetic testing do this?
BECAUSE WE F***ING KNOW WHERE ORGANISMS GET THEIR GENES FROM!
odinata 6 months ago
How does this relate to evolution, you might ask....
Well, evolution is the process where by organisms pass on HERITABLE traits....
And as we have already seen, the genetic inheritance can be tested for--relatedness can be tested for.
Using DNA.
odinata 6 months ago
If you don't know where an organism gets its DNA from, you aren't going to grasp the next point.
odinata 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is possible because earth is not a closed system. 1st law of thermodynamics is that energy can be transferred but cannot be created. That being said, if there was nothing in peanut butter jar, nothing can be created. The difference between the peanut butter jar and the earth is that the earth is not in a closed system. We have outside source that helps life become possible. It's called the Sun.
FreeTheenkur 6 months ago
There isn't "proof" that allele frequencies in populations of organisms change over time?
Bullshit.
odinata 6 months ago
Your feelings are in direct contradiction with the facts..
Its reminiscent of the guy who FEELS that a hammer SHOULD fall faster than a feather....
odinata 6 months ago
@odinata My feelings have nothing to do with anything. How did we get onto that anyways? There just simply isn't proof for evolution. The fossil record is a joke, DNA proves that DNA exists, adaptation proves, well, adaptation. EVOLUTION IS AN ASSUMPTION. What can't you understand???
tpstrat14 6 months ago
@tpstrat14
"My feelings have nothing to do with anything."
Agreed.
Learn something. It wont hurt you.
odinata 6 months ago
@tpstrat14
There isn't proof that foxes and wolves share a common ancestor?
Your'e FEELINGS on the subject are WRONG.
odinata 6 months ago
@tpstrat14
So you don't know what DNA is?
odinata 6 months ago
@odinata what about DNA proves or even supports evolution? Let's see some sources
tpstrat14 6 months ago
@tpstrat14
Where does an organism get its compliment of DNA from, Mr. Mentally Challenged Person?
odinata 6 months ago