-Let's get ONE THING STRAIGHT... macro evolution presupposes abiogenesis. The logical prediction to make when you believe in evolution is that of abiogenesis. You cannot avoid this prediction that evolution makes. Since abiogenesis is flat-out wrong and also nothing more than a new spin on spontaneous generation thought up by a fool who thought he was wise 2300 years ago (Aristotle), we can safely say all life comes from life as it is observed in real life and not some atheists' imagination.
@chriscoolguy15 Oh goody another creationist has shown up with a 500 character supply bullshit. One question please. What explanation do you accept for the appearance of common ancestry both in living species and the fossil record, and do you have any evidence at all for your explanation.
@Ansonidak You need to get over yourself, evolution is the bullshit being flung around here. Please excuse me, I just have to indulge a little with the foul language. I see you have assumed that I'm a creationist, good for you, well I guess I assume you are a Mindless Nothingist. That is how you believe we came into existence right? Out of mindless guidance from nothingness? Tell me. Do you honestly believe that life can come from none life?
@Ansonidak Please don't bore me by trying to be smart by asking sarcastically if I really believe in a sky daddy. Please, God and his existence is something every man, woman and child can be sure of with certain knowledge, you just chose to believe other wise. You wont admit that you enjoy searching for mental excuses to say to yourself that there is no god. I could go on all day but you know what? I'm just going to ignore the rest of your future comments regardless of what you type.
@chriscoolguy15 RE:" ? I'm just going to ignore the rest of your future comments regardless of what you type."
Good. Please ignore me. I never asked for or wanted you here anyway. I mirrored this video because I thought it was interesting and wanted to share it with other people who might be interested in this field of science
I assume and hope that since you are going to ignore me you will not be posting any more comments here. Thank you for going away. Have a nice life.
@chriscoolguy15 This is bullshit, I can't be sure of that, why the hell would "he" let all this happend (DERP GAWD WIRKZ N MISTERIOUS WEIGHS!!!!!) don't give me that shit, there is no god, you people took those books to seriously dare I say... Bible fanboys? that's what religion is, it's a fanclub.
@shadowtygo Fool, I pity you all. You can't see the purpose of the question was to lure out a purpose to live but you and all your friends said, "bla bla bla f- him bla bla bla f-him some more.." Bravo, bravo! TO bad, a world without a creator is a stupid accident of worthless, selfish, heartless men running around waiting for death. You will not and can not see because you refuse to, just like that pesky old book (bible) said you would, being that of a soul with a unconverted heart.
@chriscoolguy15 What? I don't even understand what you are trying to say..
How is that selfish and if it is, WHO GIVES A FUCK, I'm not waiting for death you retarded godfuckers are, I make MY OWN PURPOSE you ignorant shit.
Oh I'm sorry I don't gullibly believe unprovable lies from an old book (meant to be read for liesure not taken seriously.) We have no souls, what we have is the combined information of memories, and learned information stored in the brain.
@chriscoolguy15 You pathetic Zealots are the ones who are foolish, You cannot see that the universe is NOT an intelligent creation, for if it was why would:
Children be raped
Innocent people killed ALL THE TIME
Criminals getting off
Wars
Don't even pull out that excuse "God works in mysterious ways" how is raping and murdering a little say.. 6 year old girl "Mysterious" that's fucking ingnorant.
@chriscoolguy15 And another thing, the reason you fools stick to your failing traditions is because YOU not I but YOU are afraid not having a purpose,you are afraid of dying and NOT going to holyland or whatever, YOU are scared of knowing that after death criminals NO LONGER get punishment... it's sad really, you are too insecure to understand the concept of "Get the fuck over it and move on..." Unlike you i'm not devoting my time to false traditions..
@Ansonidak You know what>? Scratch that last part out when I said I would ignore you. I decided to ask an interesting question of you. Forget the other questions I asked for now. High-pathetically speaking -Mr. Atheist- (If I had you tied to a chair in a room and I than decided that I was going to shoot you in the head with a gun in my hand, what would you say to me to stop me from shooting you or - tell me why I should not shoot you and instead let you go free?) Ethically wise...
@shadowtygo I didn't answer his ethical question because I was trying to encourage him to go away.
It's interesting to note however the way he words his "ethical". He doesn't say "if someone had you tied up and was threatening you with a gun......"
No He makes it very personal and postulates that HE would tie me up and that HE would decide to shoot me in the head. He then questions what I would do "ethically" in that situation.
@Ansonidak Yes, I do have a twistedness about me but so dose every man on earth. You will find that info also in the book you always urinate on. Life has and will always come from life. GET OVER IT! What A biogenesis purposes is nothing more then a fairytale dressed up with half-truths," what-ifs", "it could happens" and a whole heap of useless terminology that men go to to protect their worthless intellectual egos. P.S. I come and go as the spirit leads me not by you and your words.
@chriscoolguy15 "macro evolution presupposes abiogenesis" What? Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution is about what happened after life arose on Earth. So no, macroevolution (evolution that produces large changes) need have nothing to do with abiogenesis. You could say 'macroevolution presupposes microevolution' (Gould would perhaps argue against this) but at least you would be making sense.
@eastjones Now where do you get off saying macro evolution predicts/presupposes micro? That's like saying existence of Bigfoot proves the existence of small monkeys, even though Bigfoot has never been proven. Now I do see a lot of people saying that micro predicts macro evolution, which is ridicules and only believable in the imagination. Never-the-less FullBlown evolutionary theory uses characteristics that will lead to origins. Hence the book by Darwin is called,"Origin of Species."
@chriscoolguy15 here is what I said "You could say 'macroevolution presupposes microevolution' " your analogy is just plain silly. It is no stretch to say that small changes can add up to large changes, just as adding 1 + 1 enough times gets you to a million eventually. Judging a book by title only is just as silly, evolution can explain the origin of species, but not the origin of life itself. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, which is only about how life changes over time.
@chriscoolguy15 this deserves further comment. Your analogy first postulates the existence of bigfoot, makes an unrelated claim about 'small monkeys' , then uses the fact of 'no proof' of bigfoot to make some kind of point. IF Bigfoot were 'proven', THEN yes, you could predict that there were 'smaller bigfeet' around as well. Mico- predicts macro- simply because of cumulative change- add up enough small changes and you get large changes.
@eastjones Ok, you have obviously understood the silliness of my Bigfoot analogy but then took a left turn off into -reading to much into it-. Bigfoot is silly and ridicules and untrue just like macro evolution is completely untrue. If you say macro evolution is true then tell me why but not because of micro evolution. Those two concepts live in two completely different abstract worlds. Just get over it. Macro evolution is completely bogus and that is just the way things are.
@chriscoolguy15 There are so many proofs of evolution it is the foundation of modern biology. For starters: every fossil ever found is 'where it should be', not a single fossil has ever been found in the wrong strata or era (no "rabbits in the pre-cambrian"). But the list is too long, better to check out the 'made easy ' series. youtube search this phrase "PotHoler54 Made EASY ALL EPISODES FULL" several people have uploaded all episodes into one long show, or watch them 1 by 1. Enjoy! .)
@chriscoolguy15 Here is the "Evolution Made Easy " Episode by itself youtu.be /EEK qqrf Wevc (you have to patch ypu the link, take out the spaces) or search "potholer54 Evolution made Easy (for schools)" the other one has "everything" explained so it's an hour long
@eastjones If you go from human to proto one-celled organisms by unaided mindless natural means then it demands the following question, “Does the first poto-cell go back to randomly scattered chemicals by unaided mindless natural means as well?" If you hold the first world-view that evolution gives and yet deny abiogenesis or spontaneous generation than you would be inconsistent and dishonest to your own (beliefs/views) of the (universe/world).
@chriscoolguy15 "If you go from human to proto one-celled organisms by unaided mindless natural means" this is gibberish. The TOE explains how life changes over time, and yes, it does show how life could go from single celled organisms to humans, or whichever other species you care to study. Why is it difficult for you to accept that little changes can add up to large ones (micro to macro) or to see the difference between life changing over time, and the origin of life in the first place.
you said this was a 'mirror' video, but it doesn't look reversed to me, it's just the exact same video! boy, evolutionaryists are such liars. mirror video, hmph.
@eastjones RE:"you said this was a 'mirror' video, but it doesn't look reversed to me, it's just the exact same video! boy, evolutionaryists are such liars. mirror video, hmph."
@Ansonidak thanks, just having a little fun .) Rather than getting upset with creationists (which is easy to do! .) I like to make it fun by thinking up parody words like those that Creationists use use to describe people who accept the fact of evolution. "Darwinists" is fairly common. My favorites are Evolutionaryists, Evolutonisters, Darwinistas, Darwinalutionaryists, &c. ("&c." is how Darwin wrote 'etc' in 'Origin', so I like to use it too.) btw, "a 500 character supply bullshit". nice one
@eastjones I figured you were just messing with me :) Yeah I think making fun of them is the best approach. I sure the hell wont "debate" them. We don't debate flat earthers do we? You'll notice that any part of science that doesn't challenge their dogma is OK but evolution, cosmology and such gets targeted. If atomic theory contradicted their bronze age myth then there would be legions of antiatomicists explaining how atoms were impossible and there is a conspiracy to suppress facts.
Technically the music is from Beethoven's 9th symphony, 4th movement, beginning after the introduction at the very first "Ode to Joy" variation. Mmkay!
glad to see someone at harvard figured this out when i figured this out during a debate with a creationist when i was 14, same exact concept i explained almost and had never heard of this theory of abiogenesis till now XD
now to explain how this evolved into complex live from just chemical live, only existing due to chemistry and physics, to when live reacted to stimuli.
I don't know what comments you could make that wouldn't just be saying the same thing you've already said in a different way. I didn't really mirror this video to make it a forum for debate, or provide evangelists with a pulpit, but I won't block you unless you become insufferable.
RE: "I'll pray for you"
It's a deal. You pray for my soul, and I'll hope for your mind.
this video is so full of it if they figured out how life began without GOD then do it in a lab they cant it was impossible that it was chance haters of God they are
@Ansonidak ofcourse he did it all it had to be a mind that started it you cant see it because your blind i seen angels God is real. now write something back like your crazy but he real atheist are wrong sorry to disappoint you all but we can have eternal life threw faith in Christ.
yes it had to be a mind that started it all deny all the evidence like they did in oj simpson trial i seen angels so i know atheist are dead wrong sorry to disappoint you all but we can have eternal life threw faith in Christ. now go ahead write something nasty back will that change what i seen your wrong he exist and for whatever reason he loves you
@Ansonidak you see you did write something nasty.the bible the only book in the world that predicted the future,there is much evidence that jesus really rose ,and you have to admit there a strong argument that god exist in science example the fine tuned universe a language in dna where did matter come from and so on. now with all that should you put me in the same box with people who see aliens do i sound crazy how about GOD real and he gave a glimpse of the invisible world
The only evidence that Jesus really rose or even existed is in the Bible. This reasoning is quite circular and I reject it for that reason.
The fine tuned universe is unconvincing. A) the vast majority of locations in the universe are inimical to life. B) If the universe was different then it would be different. Another circular argument.
Calling DNA a code or a language is simply a label. Yes I've read Demski
Yes I do put you in the box with crazy people who see aliens (angels).
@Ansonidak because men took eyewitness accounts of jesus resurrection and added that to the bible thats makes untrustworthy no historian doubt jesus existed so i wont bother defending that thats just silly.but jesus tomb was empty his body was gone jews did not deny the empty tomb then Christ appeared to12 disciples who would be whip jailed and put to death for there belief christ rose then paul who was killing Christians sees christ and becomes another witness who gave his life telling others
@Ansonidak ran out of space but Paul sees Christ and he suffered preaching being whip stoned ship wreck jailed and executed wow that's powerful what do you have in response for your believes words they gave there lives i belieave them and the fine tuned universe isn't proof if the universe weighed a dime more or less then no life it weighted exactly wright and you call me crazy
The incoherent arguments you write convince me of it.
Saying loudly that the bible proves the bible is true won't make it so. It's circular reasoning no matter how many scriptures you cite. You haven't made one argument I haven't seen dozens of times. I have seen no convincing evidence for God or other supernatural phenomenon. Put aside superstition and wishful thinking. Learn how beautiful the world is without the fear of an evil bronze age God.
@Ansonidak but i have seen it why cant you believe you could be wrong i prayed for years and saw nothing never ask to see anything then God open my eyes and i seen what is invisible are you so hard hearted you cant pray if you touch his heart he will forgive you and call you son pray asK GOD TO HEAL YOU YOU HAVE BEEN HURT AND YOU CANT BELIEVE UNLESS HE HEALS YOU
Why can't people like you just accept that not every one believes as you do and let it alone? What does it take to get through to you? Yeah sure, maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is a God. Maybe I COULD be convinced but it's going to take something better than bible verses, worn out apologetics or William Demski. And it's certainly going to take something better than your chiding me about my hard heart and your assertions of personal knowledge.
@Ansonidak ok i wont leave you comments for a little while i would like to leave comments on this site for others if that's ok? iwill keep praying for you i think God chose for us to talk.
- incorrect, Paul never infact saw Jesus, he simply had a hallucination in a ditch.
"he suffered preaching being whip stoned ship wreck jailed and executed wow that's powerful"
- is it really? it seems on par with all the other crazies throughout history who have died for religious beliefs, some of which are radically different to your own....TWIN TOWERS RING A BELL
@types10000 the resurrection happened that's why your argument fails miserably. does your version of what happen to Paul explain Jesus empty tomb why his disciples seen him and a persecutor of the church sees him with others that's some hallucination Paul's mind playing games so much others see it to? so the best explanation that fits the facts is Christ rose.
"the resurrection happened that's why your argument fails miserably"
- there is no evidence the resurrection ever happened.
- there are no eyewitnesses to it.
- the Jesus myth itself is riddled with historical inaccuracies especially in regard to his location of birth and the fact every miracle he allegedly performed already existed in a predating tradition.
"does your version of what happen to Paul" - yes, he hallucinated in a ditch.
"explain Jesus empty tomb" - i am yet to be presented with any evidence this tomb actually existed, but suppose it did, a person moving the body is a much more likely explanation than; it magically came back to life; also no eyewitness accounts whatsoever.
"disciples seen him and a persecutor of the church sees him " - there is no evidence for any of this.
"so the best explanation that fits the facts is Christ rose. "
the problem is you dont have any facts:
- the evidence Jesus existed as a human is sketchy at best, the evidence he was divine is non-existent.
- you have ZERO eyewitness accounts
- virtually every event you've mentioned has nothing to substantiate it, but even if you did in almost every case a much more plausible naturalistic explanation already exists eg. your 'most likely' explanation for why a tomb is empty.
to clarify the only recordings of Jesus' alleged miracles come from the Gospels.
- the Gospels are attributed to the Disciples but there is no evidence they were infact written by them and in some instances significant evidence they werent.
- Paul by his own admission he never actually saw Jesus, he saw a light and 'heard Jesus'...then he woke-up.
@types10000 william craig debated bart ehrman bart a historian use to believe now he has sadly turned away from truth. but bart a historian agree on some points Jesus was crucified his tomb was discovered empty his disciples truly believed they saw the risen christ and paul was converted after what paul says chris appeared to him. bart doesn't deny these facts and he is against christ and spent years of research so if you going to discredit Christianity give us all a explanation what did happen
-if Jesus tomb was found to be empty a much more logical explanation would that someone moved the body
- if the disciples (as depicted in the bible) actually turned out to exist then their level of devotion is simply on par with all the other religious nutbags throughout history; many of which had beliefs that contradict the bible
- in regard to paul: people are converted to numerous faiths after near death experiences, the mind is incredibly open to delusion. simple hallucination
@types10000 you see again you cant explain it away your arguments are poor because christ really did rise.the tomb was guarded the stoned was thousands of pounds it had a seal from Pilate. it was impossible to steal it love ones and enemies saw christ and there's no doubt that they all truly believed in there hearts christ rose so much they died now with hallucinations how do more then one person see something thats not real.think some more and write back you cant explain it away no 1 ever has
- more importantly i pointed out that you have no evidence for any of them (and hence no evidence they actually happened) making any explanation redundant
"was guarded the stoned was thousands of pounds it had a seal from Pilate" - where is the evidence for any of this? all you've claimed so far is that a tomb was empty and you haven't even provided evidence of that!
"there's no doubt that they all truly believed in there hearts christ rose"
- based on what? you dont have any eyewitness accounts at all.
"so much they died" - and many others did so for religions that contradict your own. TWIN TOWERS jump to mind.
"now with hallucinations how do more then one person see something thats not real." - simple, they dont, but you dont have any evidence of multiple people or accounts from them.
@types10000 you say thers no evidence for jesus existence that is silly any historian christian or atheist will tell you he existed even roman historians wrote him. now the empy tomb the disciples in the middle of Jerusalem said christ rose they no you stole the body so if the tomb wasn't empty why did the jews say it is empty but you stole his body. evidence of eyewitnesses we have pauls letters and the gospels and peter they saw and wrote it and died for it.you said twin towers died to
"you say thers no evidence for jesus existence that is silly any historian christian or atheist will tell you he existed even roman historians wrote him."
- this incorrect, the evidence Jesus existed as a human is sketchy at best and the evidence he was a divine being is non-existant.
"even roman historians wrote him" - you have failed to present any.
"now the empy tomb the disciples in the middle of Jerusalem said" - there are no verified first hand accounts of anything.
"why did the jews say it is empty but you stole his body"
- the tomb isnt mentioned anywhere in history and since the accounts of the Gospels cannot be linked to those they are attributed (and in some cases conclusively shown to be fabrications) this tomb you mention has nothing to back it up
- however even if such a thing did occur ie. an empty tomb, a grave robbery would still be far more likely than 'the dead body spontaneously coming back to life.'
@types10000 but the twin towers men where not there with muhammad they cant tell if they are killing for a lie jesus disciples knew if they where lying about christ risen from the dead if they where lying no one would die for that and they all did have a horrible death peter was crucified for his believe that christ rose why would anyone die for a hoax show me where in history men died for a hoax twin towers they killed christ disciples hurt no 1 they laid there life down for christ
- correct, they did not meet Muhammad but were willing to martyr themselves as a testament to their religion and his existence.
- this is a demonstration of how far deluded people are willing to go, and contrasts perfectly with the disciples martyrdom (if it actually happened)
if these people are willing to martyr themselves with less of a basis than the disciples, how can you claim the actions of the disciples as evidence of anything?
@types10000 and why shouldn't we believe the gospels luke a companion to paul went and investigated carefully all the invents of christ interviewing eyewitnesses mark was peter companion and john and mathew where eyewitness themselves paul gives a list of eyewitnesses of jesus appearances after he rose which included 500 people who where still alive so if your in court and 500 people testify they seen christ alive would you think he was dead?
- because none of them can be linked to those they are attributed to
- because some can be shown to NOT be written by those they are attributed to.
"luke a companion to paul went and investigated carefully all the invents of christ interviewing eyewitnesses...500"
- you no evidence this ever took place, you make that statement with only the gospels to back you up and their credibility is the very thing in question.
@types10000 no evidence we have the books they left if it was today we have there video tapes you say jesus not real then why all these people writing about him they all agree a famous lawyer greanleaf examined the evidence and he concluded it on evidence it happen but you think your smater then a famous lawyer you dont even think he exist at all that's really dumb all historians say he existed but not you your wright and the world is wrong
"no evidence we have the books they left if it was today we have there video tapes you say jesus not real then why all these people.."
- there exist no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in all of history
- the fact allot of people believe he exist has no bearing on what is true AS EVIDENCED by all the people who believe in religions that contradict your own.
the Jesus of the bible is pure fiction, i have presented evidence of this, you are yet to present any evidence to the contrary.
I love hearing this "bible is history" by theists.
Please demonstrate how any supernatural biblical claims can be validated as fact???
There are no original manuscripts, only copies of copies which were written nu many unknown authors, over hundreds of years, replete with a massive amount of errors. So again, how do you take an ancient mass of confusion and prove it's supernatural claims as fact?
"paul gives a list of eyewitnesses of jesus appearances after he rose which included 500 people who where still alive so if your in court and 500 people testify they seen christ alive would you think he was dead?"
- there is no verification from any of Paul's claimed witnesses, only Paul's assertion.
@types10000 christ never existed? when scholars debate the resurrection not one of them says he didn't exist that tells me something about you. you don't understand a thing no one argues that christ existed only if God raised him to life so the great evidence of his resurrection we have wont help you you don't care you will keep denying it
- correct, Jesus christ as described in the bible never existed.
"when scholars debate the resurrection not one..." - incorrect, many do, they dont bother arguing the point of whether THE MAN Jesus existed (no magical powers) as that has little point.
"you don't understand a thing" - incorrect, i have formal education on the subject and know exactly what im talking about ie. religion and society units 1-4 with a focus on the historicity of Jesus.
@types10000 the eyewitnesses you dont believe you think paul was hallucinating when his companions saw the light to you dont believe the gospels or that his tomb was empty and even the jews admitted this so we have a empty tomb appearances of christ a enemy of christ is converted by a appearance of christ they where killed for it and your answer is proof it proof it take a class we can proof it all but you refuse to believe it no matter what
- it's not a matter of me not believing them, it's a matter of you not having any evidence they actually existed.
"you think paul was hallucinating " - Paul by his own admission never met Jesus and his recount is consistent with a hallucination.
"his companions saw the light to" - you have no evidence these people existed either, plus the two versions of the story in Acts contradict eachother on this point.
"you dont believe the gospels" - there is no evidence they are true and significant evidence they are untrue, that combined with the numerous historical inaccuracies present in them makes my rejection of them justified.
"or that his tomb was empty" - there is no evidence of any tomb, however if there were, someone moving the body would be a more logical explanation.
"even the jews admitted this so we have a empty tomb " - where is your evidence of this? all you've done is assert.
@types10000 they wrote it down you dont believe them you dont believe jesus the gospels are rock solid you cant refute them you just say there false with no evidence they are lies.
"they wrote it down you dont believe them" - incorrect, the Gospels CANNOT be linked to the discuples and in some cases have been conclusively shown NOT to be written by them.
Second, phophoamides do not undergo melting and annealing like DNA and RNA do. They require temperatures much higher than fatty acid membranes can withstand (shown in Lancet article in 2005 I believe). Thirdly, the jump from nucleotides to proteins is much more difficult than the video would show. enzymatic RNA is primarily single stranded and non-self replicating. The transition from enzyematic nucleotides to amino acids is also not shown. The video seems to ignor amino acids completely.
There seem to be a few holes in the argument. First, where did the matter for the early nucleotides and fatty acids come from. It is one thing to say that they existed in nature, it is another to prove that they actually did in any significant concentration in whatever "hostile" environment is being segessted.
@Jnest55 I've already checked dissent dot org. It's nothing new. Have you heard of Project Steve? Google it. I'll summarize: It's a list of scientists that support evolution. But they only get put on the list if their first name is Steve (approx 1%). There are currently more names on that list than there are on the dissent list. It's mostly tongue in cheek - science isn't about taking votes.
@Ansonidak Id just like to point out that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the Dark Ages believed that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth
There were only a few that believed otherwise
My point is simply that not ALL scientists believe in evolution- there are quite a few inteligent people who DO NOT believe in evolution
Not all anti-evolutionists are ignorant hicks,as some people like to say
" majority of scientists in the Dark Ages believed that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth"...wow....google that please.....and see why the "scientists" thought the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.......<ehem-god-ehem>.....the dark ages were against true science.....think about witches and warlocks and devil worshipers......yup.....real scientists slandered by the church....pathetic reallly!!
@alienincognito "wow....google that please.....and see why the "scientists" thought the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.......<ehem-god-ehem>."
Or should I say the Catholic church...nowheres in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat(actually it says it is round) but this is besides the point:
Just because the majority believes something doesnt make it true...
Prove everything in your own mind...
With that said, I would like to hear your proof for evolution.
@alienincognito "wow....google that please.....and see why the "scientists" thought the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.......<ehem-god-ehem>."
Or should I say the Catholic church...nowheres in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat(actually it says it is round) but this is besides the point:
Just because the majority believes something doesnt make it true...
Prove everything in your own mind...
With that said, I would like to hear your proof for evolution.
proof??...how about.....the fossil record, modern genetics, dna, commonalities(ie: four limbs, two eyes, two ears and a nose), goosebumps....c'mon....use google....it's all there...prove otherwise!!
@Jnest55 wrong. abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with evolution. evolution is about how life CHANGES. not how life began. hence my comparison of gravity and germs. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE GOT STARTED.
Wow, you claim you are logical but yet you argue for the sake of ignorance... Where's the logic in that?
You don't understand science but you refuse to learn about it... but doesn't stop you from making erroneous statements. Where's the logic in that? How can you make a logical rebuttal if you don't know what you are talking about & don't know the subject?
@Jnest55 it's all fact. didn't you read what cdk said? "this is a summary of dr jack stoszak's experiment" meaning dr. stoszak's lab experiment, where he left a pool (made of water and some primitive organic materials + heater) sitting around for weeks/months/years and took a peak in and found proto cell's forming. it's all documented day by day what he saw, how it happened. the video doesn't say THIS IS HOW LIFE STARTED ON EARTH. it says this is how life COULD start. there is a difference.
@Jnest55 no, not magically, but through chemistry and thermodynamics it can create a very very primitive proto cell that fits all the criteria for life. given hundreds of thousands of years more that proto cell has the potential to become life, ie a bacteria. as for your implied mockery, keep in mind this has already been observed. under pre-biotic conditions THIS HAPPENED, in a lab. that's all there is to it. it happened.
@Ansonidak it is incredibly sad how many people in the world lack critical thinking and are blinded by a book. if we talk about the moral value's of the bible, then people should worship spiderman books instead. at least in spiderman you'll learn decent morals as opposed to stoning people for picking up sticks, not believing in fairy tales, wearing 2 types of cloth, etc etc.
people hear something that shatters their silly beliefs and they instantly pull out strawmen MUD PUDDLE! LIGHTNING durr
@kingbane2 Strawmen, misdirection and outright lies is all they have. Jnest55's last comment is another example. More cut and paste creationist bullshit. He claims that the Urey-Miller experiment was hailed as proof of abiogenesis when the truth is NO competent scientist has ever claimed any such thing. It simply showed the feasibility of the idea that amino acids could form spontaneously in a pre-biotic environment.
@kingbane2 I think option E from my previous comment is probably in order. Jnest55 is willfully and permanently ignorant. Reasoned explanations and logical arguments simply don't have any effect. Some of these guys will even proudly admit that facts and logic will not sway them. They don't want to learn anything that might possibly cause them to question their mythology. It's a sad commentary on human nature.
then, where do you think we came from??? god?? did he create the heavens and the earth from nothing but his will?? oh...wait...you can't make life from non-life!! i forgot.
@Jnest55 sigh. 1 abiogenesis does not = evolution. second you need to read the experiment not just the conclusion and szostak's remarks on the current problems. yes there is a huge gap between life and the proto cell's szostak's experiment shows. but it's like saying we could never reach the moon just because the wright brother's couldn't. it's a first step.
@Jnest55 sigh. it's not that evolution CANNOT account for where life comes from, it's that evolution DOES NOT. there is a difference. it's like saying "GERM THEORY DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR GRAVITY! DURRR DURRR!!!" it's 2 DIFFERENT things. evolution has NOTHING to do or even say about how life begins. they are seperate things. if you cannot see what the experiment demonstrates you're either, a. being obstinate, or b. you haven't watched or read the research at all.
@kingbane2 Hold up, germ theory is about germs, gravity is about the force of gravty, which has nothing to do with germs...two entirely different things
abiogenesis however, has everything to do with evolution...without abiogenesis, there is no life for evolution to work on in the first place...
in the evolutionary timeline we have this:
Big Bang theory- Abiogenesis- Evolution
without the two before, evolution could not happen because there would be nothing for it to happen to
@Jnest55 oh jeez i should have read your whole post then i could ignore. you're seriously going to throw in big bang cosmology as well? SERIOUSLY?! why not just ask why addition theory in mathematics doesn't explain why the sun is bright. come on. either you're being a troll or you're just being stupid. my bet's on the latter, as is the case with nearly all creationists. it doesn't matter "which theory needs to happen first" each theory deals with DIFFERENT things.
@kingbane2 and it does matter which theory happens first because each theory fits with each other
Creation accounts for the begining of the universe, the begining of life, and how life is today
evolution accounts for how life is today(not really...), abiogenesis accounts for the begining of life, and the Big Bang the begining of the universe...
they have EVERYTHING to do with eachother
but since you dont like the subject of abiogenesis or the Big Bang we can talk about evolution...
@Jnest55 sigh i guess i shouldn't be surprised that a "goddidit" person would try and tie everything together and make it fit all nicely. there's nothing more to say here. you try to connect theories that have no say whatsoever about each other, really have no connection other then the one you want them to have. then use that as a weapon to discredit each theory in turn.
@Jnest55 if you cannot disprove a theory on it's own merits you shouldn't bother to connect it with another theory then claim see it can't account for this! therefore it fails and thus wrong. you want to argue big bang cosmology then that, you want evolution argue evolution. dont bring abiogenesis into it, when you're talking evolution. dont bring evolution into arguments about abiogenesis. the 2 are seperate theories, they explain COMPLETELY different things.
You claim you already researched evolution so at least you have an idea how the eye evolved, even if you reject the evidence. But you don't know the process at all so I have to assume you have not done research & so are lying for the sake of winning an argument.
So your claim you cannot google it may be true, you don't want too at all.
I take it for what it is… what I read from you comments, you are being dishonest & I feel you will lie. If I try to post this in YouTube with the 500 words limit, it will take me forever therefore here’s a link, since you don’t know how to google something: en(dot)Wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye.
Here’s a better wisdom, never reject a hard fact, even if it goes counter to your beliefs.
Now about you making honest discussions… LMAO! You? Don’t make me laugh!
You claim you are not interested of aimless speculation, none have made aimless speculations but you do conjure fairy tails insisting they are true. You’ve been given examples that you are wrong but your arrogance keeps you from admitting it.
Yeah you do try to stay polite, that is true but you making honest discussion is not your forte. I doubt you are going to go to the link I provided to you.
@OverlordShamala According to the article, the first "eye" was a "eyespot"- but it fails to account for how this developed
The article then says that the pits "deepened" and the eye became a "pinhole camera" but fails to account for how this happened
It goes on to say that the modern eye(which has tens of millions of specialized cells without which it could not work, and over 40 different sub systems that all contribute to its function) came into being by very small stages
Again the pinhole started as an indentention. This stages can be observed how it occured by studying which living animal lack certain sensor & how it developed. If you want to find out more, study. You have the tools.
Not only can it not account for where the first "sensor" eye came from- Ive heard Dawkins say that it was a freckle, which is another ridiculous idea all to itself- but it fails to provide any evidence that this indeed did happen
The "evolution of the eye" is both laughable to the extreme and quite revealing about how desperate evolution is to find ways for it to be possible
Actually the evidence is still around us, a cluster of nerves sensitive to light is all I takes, in time bunching up to make freckles or eye spots. From there it takes off.
The most advance eyes are octopuses & eagles; they see far better then humans. But you can reject the hard verifiable evidence.
There are people that still think the Earth is flat & they find the idea of a spherical Earth laughable & that's proof that geologist are desperate.
Oh? So a cluster of nerves in the right place is nothing? That's why there is what's called mutation. A parent may have cluster of nerves spread out all over its body, but its offspring may be born with a mutation that has its nerves concentrated in one region of its body. Subsequent generation refines that sense, in a sequence of mutation until it has them concentrated in freckles or spots. Mutation is a very important factor in evolution, in that is observable.
No mutations are ever positive, at best they are neutral and at worst they are extremely harmful-never completely passed on and integrated with the gene sequence
Show me examples of mutations that were helpful and were integrated into the DNA and I will take this claim seriously
Then you don't know what is a mutations, a mutation is as simple as being slightly taller or smaller. If you have a rose garden, look at the different petal pattern from each plant.
But the best example is the Peppered Moth in England. Normally the species is light grey with black spots hence their name Peppered moth. But their is a mutated form that is totally black. Google & read about how change in the environemnt favored the black Peppered moth over the normal speckled form.
So you understand how mutation works, like you said, you do like to play dumb.
But another variation can appear when the genetic code has a "misspelling", for example the Peppered month where there is a mutation that makes the moth all black, thanks to the soot of power plants, have made the trees dark. Helping the black mutated moth to camouflage on the dark trees when it was the other way around. Light colored bark with moss & lichen helped camouflage the speckled colored moth.
@OverlordShamala Overlord why dont you cite evidence that this has happened rather than simply say that "soot from power plants has made trees dark and a mutated peppered moth survived there better"
Thats not even what happened with the peppered moth, but regardless I will take what you said seriously if you provide evidence that it happened(Ie: reliable sources that state facts not speculation)
Problem is you have no proof, othet then fairy tale stories.You are the type that will reject facts because it goes counter to your dogmas that cannot be proved. You will deny, then play dumb.
Your so called evidence is quite dumb, we can also say the creator is a very cruel god. Easily prone to fits of anger. And when he unleashes his anger, boy does he really let himself loose. Even plants are not safe from his holy wrath, then claim its justice.
@OverlordShamala Overlord,I just gave you proof, shot down your "proof" and still you are denying that I gave proof
You completely ignored what I just said and say that Im rellying on "fairy tail sources"-If youre denying that there are 30,000,000 cells in the eye,40 different subsystems,and many different kinds of cells working together to allow you to see, and perfectly balanced between mobility and clarity, then I guess our discussion is done-I didnt get that from a ":Creationist" web site
Boy now you are putting, how would you say it? Why are you saying that I have denied there are 30,000,000 cells in the eye, 40 different subsystems, & many different kinds of cells working together & so on?
The problem you rely in magic to explain what you willfully ignore. For example, how how did that rock in the river become round? Oh… God made it so. That suffice as explanation for you, ignoring & rejecting the natural process explaining how a rock became round.
@OverlordShamala And theres another straw man- you see I never said that a round rock in a river was round because God made it that way(although he certainly could have)
I acknowledge- there ARE natural processes simply put in place by God
You didn't provide any proof what-so-ever of the existence of a God. On the other hand, as you read it yourself, science has explained how the eye has evolved.
And yes you willfully are lying, you did get it from a creationist website. Creationists now call themselves "intelligent design" advocates. As always, relying on magic to explain how thing came to be to prove the existence on god. I.D. have been proven in court without a doubt they are creationists under a different name.
But you have to admit, there is a God higher then the one your worship. Has to because that lower ranking God Yaweh had to sacrifice his Son Jesus to redeem the human race.
An all powerful God doesn't need to sacrifice unless his an underling to another God.
the eye is made up of 40 different sub systems containing 30,000,000 cells-including 3 different types of cone cells, also rods,nerves,etc...
The eye functions as an extremely complex and efficient camera, able to capture images and transmit them in milliseconds to the brain to be processed
Just ONE small defect in any system involved in the eye can cause complete blindness- ie without just one system or a few cells the eye would be useless
@Ansonidak The eye is millions of times better than anything human techknowledgy could ever come up with
As a matter of fact scientists are trying to copy the human eyes design because of how efficient and effective it is- all this from something that developed by complete chance and had no "design"
-Let's get ONE THING STRAIGHT... macro evolution presupposes abiogenesis. The logical prediction to make when you believe in evolution is that of abiogenesis. You cannot avoid this prediction that evolution makes. Since abiogenesis is flat-out wrong and also nothing more than a new spin on spontaneous generation thought up by a fool who thought he was wise 2300 years ago (Aristotle), we can safely say all life comes from life as it is observed in real life and not some atheists' imagination.
chriscoolguy15 2 months ago
@chriscoolguy15 Oh goody another creationist has shown up with a 500 character supply bullshit. One question please. What explanation do you accept for the appearance of common ancestry both in living species and the fossil record, and do you have any evidence at all for your explanation.
Ansonidak 2 months ago
@Ansonidak You need to get over yourself, evolution is the bullshit being flung around here. Please excuse me, I just have to indulge a little with the foul language. I see you have assumed that I'm a creationist, good for you, well I guess I assume you are a Mindless Nothingist. That is how you believe we came into existence right? Out of mindless guidance from nothingness? Tell me. Do you honestly believe that life can come from none life?
chriscoolguy15 1 month ago
@Ansonidak Please don't bore me by trying to be smart by asking sarcastically if I really believe in a sky daddy. Please, God and his existence is something every man, woman and child can be sure of with certain knowledge, you just chose to believe other wise. You wont admit that you enjoy searching for mental excuses to say to yourself that there is no god. I could go on all day but you know what? I'm just going to ignore the rest of your future comments regardless of what you type.
chriscoolguy15 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 RE:" ? I'm just going to ignore the rest of your future comments regardless of what you type."
Good. Please ignore me. I never asked for or wanted you here anyway. I mirrored this video because I thought it was interesting and wanted to share it with other people who might be interested in this field of science
I assume and hope that since you are going to ignore me you will not be posting any more comments here. Thank you for going away. Have a nice life.
Ansonidak 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 This is bullshit, I can't be sure of that, why the hell would "he" let all this happend (DERP GAWD WIRKZ N MISTERIOUS WEIGHS!!!!!) don't give me that shit, there is no god, you people took those books to seriously dare I say... Bible fanboys? that's what religion is, it's a fanclub.
shadowtygo 1 month ago
@shadowtygo Fool, I pity you all. You can't see the purpose of the question was to lure out a purpose to live but you and all your friends said, "bla bla bla f- him bla bla bla f-him some more.." Bravo, bravo! TO bad, a world without a creator is a stupid accident of worthless, selfish, heartless men running around waiting for death. You will not and can not see because you refuse to, just like that pesky old book (bible) said you would, being that of a soul with a unconverted heart.
chriscoolguy15 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 What? I don't even understand what you are trying to say..
How is that selfish and if it is, WHO GIVES A FUCK, I'm not waiting for death you retarded godfuckers are, I make MY OWN PURPOSE you ignorant shit.
Oh I'm sorry I don't gullibly believe unprovable lies from an old book (meant to be read for liesure not taken seriously.) We have no souls, what we have is the combined information of memories, and learned information stored in the brain.
I
shadowtygo 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 You pathetic Zealots are the ones who are foolish, You cannot see that the universe is NOT an intelligent creation, for if it was why would:
Children be raped
Innocent people killed ALL THE TIME
Criminals getting off
Wars
Don't even pull out that excuse "God works in mysterious ways" how is raping and murdering a little say.. 6 year old girl "Mysterious" that's fucking ingnorant.
shadowtygo 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 And another thing, the reason you fools stick to your failing traditions is because YOU not I but YOU are afraid not having a purpose,you are afraid of dying and NOT going to holyland or whatever, YOU are scared of knowing that after death criminals NO LONGER get punishment... it's sad really, you are too insecure to understand the concept of "Get the fuck over it and move on..." Unlike you i'm not devoting my time to false traditions..
I'm living the only life I got.
shadowtygo 1 month ago
@Ansonidak You know what>? Scratch that last part out when I said I would ignore you. I decided to ask an interesting question of you. Forget the other questions I asked for now. High-pathetically speaking -Mr. Atheist- (If I had you tied to a chair in a room and I than decided that I was going to shoot you in the head with a gun in my hand, what would you say to me to stop me from shooting you or - tell me why I should not shoot you and instead let you go free?) Ethically wise...
chriscoolguy15 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 I don't know what he would do, but I wouldn't beg it's not my nature to I would say FUCK YOU and die.
shadowtygo 1 month ago
@shadowtygo I didn't answer his ethical question because I was trying to encourage him to go away.
It's interesting to note however the way he words his "ethical". He doesn't say "if someone had you tied up and was threatening you with a gun......"
No He makes it very personal and postulates that HE would tie me up and that HE would decide to shoot me in the head. He then questions what I would do "ethically" in that situation.
He's a twisted fuck.
Twisted.
Ansonidak 1 month ago
@Ansonidak Don't worry that bastard is batshit insane, he will be shot by the police b 2019..
shadowtygo 1 month ago
@Ansonidak Yes, I do have a twistedness about me but so dose every man on earth. You will find that info also in the book you always urinate on. Life has and will always come from life. GET OVER IT! What A biogenesis purposes is nothing more then a fairytale dressed up with half-truths," what-ifs", "it could happens" and a whole heap of useless terminology that men go to to protect their worthless intellectual egos. P.S. I come and go as the spirit leads me not by you and your words.
chriscoolguy15 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 RE: "P.S. I come and go as the spirit leads me not by you and your words."
Not here you don't. I think I've given you plenty of chances to state your views. You are now blocked. Have a nice life, it's the only one you'll get.
Ansonidak 1 month ago
@Ansonidak Wow I said the exact same thing "it's the only one you'll get" two great minds think alot I guess.. XD
shadowtygo 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 Lol you can't call a damn thing a fairy tale if you read the bible and believe that fantasy shit.. get over yourself..
At least Science has "it could happens" as opposed to your religion that is "IMPOSSIBLE"
but do go on Hypocriteguy15
shadowtygo 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 "macro evolution presupposes abiogenesis" What? Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution is about what happened after life arose on Earth. So no, macroevolution (evolution that produces large changes) need have nothing to do with abiogenesis. You could say 'macroevolution presupposes microevolution' (Gould would perhaps argue against this) but at least you would be making sense.
eastjones 2 months ago
@eastjones Now where do you get off saying macro evolution predicts/presupposes micro? That's like saying existence of Bigfoot proves the existence of small monkeys, even though Bigfoot has never been proven. Now I do see a lot of people saying that micro predicts macro evolution, which is ridicules and only believable in the imagination. Never-the-less FullBlown evolutionary theory uses characteristics that will lead to origins. Hence the book by Darwin is called,"Origin of Species."
chriscoolguy15 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 here is what I said "You could say 'macroevolution presupposes microevolution' " your analogy is just plain silly. It is no stretch to say that small changes can add up to large changes, just as adding 1 + 1 enough times gets you to a million eventually. Judging a book by title only is just as silly, evolution can explain the origin of species, but not the origin of life itself. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, which is only about how life changes over time.
eastjones 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 this deserves further comment. Your analogy first postulates the existence of bigfoot, makes an unrelated claim about 'small monkeys' , then uses the fact of 'no proof' of bigfoot to make some kind of point. IF Bigfoot were 'proven', THEN yes, you could predict that there were 'smaller bigfeet' around as well. Mico- predicts macro- simply because of cumulative change- add up enough small changes and you get large changes.
eastjones 1 month ago
@eastjones Ok, you have obviously understood the silliness of my Bigfoot analogy but then took a left turn off into -reading to much into it-. Bigfoot is silly and ridicules and untrue just like macro evolution is completely untrue. If you say macro evolution is true then tell me why but not because of micro evolution. Those two concepts live in two completely different abstract worlds. Just get over it. Macro evolution is completely bogus and that is just the way things are.
chriscoolguy15 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 There are so many proofs of evolution it is the foundation of modern biology. For starters: every fossil ever found is 'where it should be', not a single fossil has ever been found in the wrong strata or era (no "rabbits in the pre-cambrian"). But the list is too long, better to check out the 'made easy ' series. youtube search this phrase "PotHoler54 Made EASY ALL EPISODES FULL" several people have uploaded all episodes into one long show, or watch them 1 by 1. Enjoy! .)
eastjones 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 Here is the "Evolution Made Easy " Episode by itself youtu.be /EEK qqrf Wevc (you have to patch ypu the link, take out the spaces) or search "potholer54 Evolution made Easy (for schools)" the other one has "everything" explained so it's an hour long
eastjones 1 month ago
@eastjones If you go from human to proto one-celled organisms by unaided mindless natural means then it demands the following question, “Does the first poto-cell go back to randomly scattered chemicals by unaided mindless natural means as well?" If you hold the first world-view that evolution gives and yet deny abiogenesis or spontaneous generation than you would be inconsistent and dishonest to your own (beliefs/views) of the (universe/world).
chriscoolguy15 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 "If you go from human to proto one-celled organisms by unaided mindless natural means" this is gibberish. The TOE explains how life changes over time, and yes, it does show how life could go from single celled organisms to humans, or whichever other species you care to study. Why is it difficult for you to accept that little changes can add up to large ones (micro to macro) or to see the difference between life changing over time, and the origin of life in the first place.
eastjones 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
«Con gli atomi di un miliardo di stelle, il caso cieco non riuscirebbe ad approntare neppure una sola proteina utile ad un vivente».
PROF. ADOLF BUTENANDT, Premio Nobel
CostantinoLenzi 3 months ago
you said this was a 'mirror' video, but it doesn't look reversed to me, it's just the exact same video! boy, evolutionaryists are such liars. mirror video, hmph.
eastjones 5 months ago
@eastjones RE:"you said this was a 'mirror' video, but it doesn't look reversed to me, it's just the exact same video! boy, evolutionaryists are such liars. mirror video, hmph."
You got me on that one. Good job.
Ansonidak 2 months ago
@Ansonidak thanks, just having a little fun .) Rather than getting upset with creationists (which is easy to do! .) I like to make it fun by thinking up parody words like those that Creationists use use to describe people who accept the fact of evolution. "Darwinists" is fairly common. My favorites are Evolutionaryists, Evolutonisters, Darwinistas, Darwinalutionaryists, &c. ("&c." is how Darwin wrote 'etc' in 'Origin', so I like to use it too.) btw, "a 500 character supply bullshit". nice one
eastjones 2 months ago
@eastjones I figured you were just messing with me :) Yeah I think making fun of them is the best approach. I sure the hell wont "debate" them. We don't debate flat earthers do we? You'll notice that any part of science that doesn't challenge their dogma is OK but evolution, cosmology and such gets targeted. If atomic theory contradicted their bronze age myth then there would be legions of antiatomicists explaining how atoms were impossible and there is a conspiracy to suppress facts.
Ansonidak 2 months ago
GREAT.
VictorHugoFlores 6 months ago
great explanation... congratulations, simple and elegant... no fantasy and false magic... pure science!! thanks
huguin70 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Technically the music is from Beethoven's 9th symphony, 4th movement, beginning after the introduction at the very first "Ode to Joy" variation. Mmkay!
Lifeforlove22 11 months ago
glad to see someone at harvard figured this out when i figured this out during a debate with a creationist when i was 14, same exact concept i explained almost and had never heard of this theory of abiogenesis till now XD
now to explain how this evolved into complex live from just chemical live, only existing due to chemistry and physics, to when live reacted to stimuli.
minipancho94 1 year ago
cdk pwns
managarm1349 1 year ago
as it was said legendary in jurasic park "life will find a way"
carbonfconfusion 1 year ago
I don't know what comments you could make that wouldn't just be saying the same thing you've already said in a different way. I didn't really mirror this video to make it a forum for debate, or provide evangelists with a pulpit, but I won't block you unless you become insufferable.
RE: "I'll pray for you"
It's a deal. You pray for my soul, and I'll hope for your mind.
Peace.
Ansonidak 1 year ago 12
this video is so full of it if they figured out how life began without GOD then do it in a lab they cant it was impossible that it was chance haters of God they are
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13 Right, God did it all. Go back to sleep now.
Ansonidak 1 year ago
@Ansonidak ofcourse he did it all it had to be a mind that started it you cant see it because your blind i seen angels God is real. now write something back like your crazy but he real atheist are wrong sorry to disappoint you all but we can have eternal life threw faith in Christ.
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
yes it had to be a mind that started it all deny all the evidence like they did in oj simpson trial i seen angels so i know atheist are dead wrong sorry to disappoint you all but we can have eternal life threw faith in Christ. now go ahead write something nasty back will that change what i seen your wrong he exist and for whatever reason he loves you
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
RE: "deny all the evidence"
What evidence? If you quote scripture as evidence for God I'm going to quote Star Wars as evidence for Darth Vadar.
RE: "i seen angels so i know God is real"
And other people have seen aliens. They know aliens are real.
RE: "now go ahead and write something nasty back"
I was thinking that would be counter productive. Or maybe not, if it caused you to go back into the woodwork and leave me alone.
Ansonidak 1 year ago
@Ansonidak you see you did write something nasty.the bible the only book in the world that predicted the future,there is much evidence that jesus really rose ,and you have to admit there a strong argument that god exist in science example the fine tuned universe a language in dna where did matter come from and so on. now with all that should you put me in the same box with people who see aliens do i sound crazy how about GOD real and he gave a glimpse of the invisible world
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
The only evidence that Jesus really rose or even existed is in the Bible. This reasoning is quite circular and I reject it for that reason.
The fine tuned universe is unconvincing. A) the vast majority of locations in the universe are inimical to life. B) If the universe was different then it would be different. Another circular argument.
Calling DNA a code or a language is simply a label. Yes I've read Demski
Yes I do put you in the box with crazy people who see aliens (angels).
Ansonidak 1 year ago
@Ansonidak because men took eyewitness accounts of jesus resurrection and added that to the bible thats makes untrustworthy no historian doubt jesus existed so i wont bother defending that thats just silly.but jesus tomb was empty his body was gone jews did not deny the empty tomb then Christ appeared to12 disciples who would be whip jailed and put to death for there belief christ rose then paul who was killing Christians sees christ and becomes another witness who gave his life telling others
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@Ansonidak ran out of space but Paul sees Christ and he suffered preaching being whip stoned ship wreck jailed and executed wow that's powerful what do you have in response for your believes words they gave there lives i belieave them and the fine tuned universe isn't proof if the universe weighed a dime more or less then no life it weighted exactly wright and you call me crazy
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13 RE: "and you call me crazy"
The incoherent arguments you write convince me of it.
Saying loudly that the bible proves the bible is true won't make it so. It's circular reasoning no matter how many scriptures you cite. You haven't made one argument I haven't seen dozens of times. I have seen no convincing evidence for God or other supernatural phenomenon. Put aside superstition and wishful thinking. Learn how beautiful the world is without the fear of an evil bronze age God.
Ansonidak 1 year ago
@Ansonidak but i have seen it why cant you believe you could be wrong i prayed for years and saw nothing never ask to see anything then God open my eyes and i seen what is invisible are you so hard hearted you cant pray if you touch his heart he will forgive you and call you son pray asK GOD TO HEAL YOU YOU HAVE BEEN HURT AND YOU CANT BELIEVE UNLESS HE HEALS YOU
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
Why can't people like you just accept that not every one believes as you do and let it alone? What does it take to get through to you? Yeah sure, maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is a God. Maybe I COULD be convinced but it's going to take something better than bible verses, worn out apologetics or William Demski. And it's certainly going to take something better than your chiding me about my hard heart and your assertions of personal knowledge.
Ansonidak 1 year ago
@Ansonidak ok i wont leave you comments for a little while i would like to leave comments on this site for others if that's ok? iwill keep praying for you i think God chose for us to talk.
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13 Actually the apostle Paul never met Jesus personally, as inferrable from Acts and from his own letters.
Spiritplumber 1 year ago
@Spiritplumber
Actually, nobody in the real world met Jesus.
Jesus is a character in a book.
odinata 1 year ago
@odinata What I meant was, if we take the New Testament as historical record, Paul STILL never met Jesus.
Spiritplumber 1 year ago
@Spiritplumber
The New Testament ISN'T a historical record.
Its a contrivance.
odinata 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"ran out of space but Paul sees Christ "
- incorrect, Paul never infact saw Jesus, he simply had a hallucination in a ditch.
"he suffered preaching being whip stoned ship wreck jailed and executed wow that's powerful"
- is it really? it seems on par with all the other crazies throughout history who have died for religious beliefs, some of which are radically different to your own....TWIN TOWERS RING A BELL
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 the resurrection happened that's why your argument fails miserably. does your version of what happen to Paul explain Jesus empty tomb why his disciples seen him and a persecutor of the church sees him with others that's some hallucination Paul's mind playing games so much others see it to? so the best explanation that fits the facts is Christ rose.
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"the resurrection happened that's why your argument fails miserably"
- there is no evidence the resurrection ever happened.
- there are no eyewitnesses to it.
- the Jesus myth itself is riddled with historical inaccuracies especially in regard to his location of birth and the fact every miracle he allegedly performed already existed in a predating tradition.
types10000 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"does your version of what happen to Paul" - yes, he hallucinated in a ditch.
"explain Jesus empty tomb" - i am yet to be presented with any evidence this tomb actually existed, but suppose it did, a person moving the body is a much more likely explanation than; it magically came back to life; also no eyewitness accounts whatsoever.
"disciples seen him and a persecutor of the church sees him " - there is no evidence for any of this.
types10000 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"so the best explanation that fits the facts is Christ rose. "
the problem is you dont have any facts:
- the evidence Jesus existed as a human is sketchy at best, the evidence he was divine is non-existent.
- you have ZERO eyewitness accounts
- virtually every event you've mentioned has nothing to substantiate it, but even if you did in almost every case a much more plausible naturalistic explanation already exists eg. your 'most likely' explanation for why a tomb is empty.
types10000 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
to clarify the only recordings of Jesus' alleged miracles come from the Gospels.
- the Gospels are attributed to the Disciples but there is no evidence they were infact written by them and in some instances significant evidence they werent.
- Paul by his own admission he never actually saw Jesus, he saw a light and 'heard Jesus'...then he woke-up.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 william craig debated bart ehrman bart a historian use to believe now he has sadly turned away from truth. but bart a historian agree on some points Jesus was crucified his tomb was discovered empty his disciples truly believed they saw the risen christ and paul was converted after what paul says chris appeared to him. bart doesn't deny these facts and he is against christ and spent years of research so if you going to discredit Christianity give us all a explanation what did happen
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"william craig debated bart ehrman bart a historian use to believe now he has sadly turned away from truth. but bart a historian agree on...."
- i dont care what one random historian agrees with, i care about what there is evidence to support.
unless you can provide evidence for the tomb and the resurrection no-one has any reason to believe they happened.
and again, the accounts attributed to the disciples cannot be verified and Paul never actually met Jesus by his own admission
types10000 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
-if Jesus tomb was found to be empty a much more logical explanation would that someone moved the body
- if the disciples (as depicted in the bible) actually turned out to exist then their level of devotion is simply on par with all the other religious nutbags throughout history; many of which had beliefs that contradict the bible
- in regard to paul: people are converted to numerous faiths after near death experiences, the mind is incredibly open to delusion. simple hallucination
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 you see again you cant explain it away your arguments are poor because christ really did rise.the tomb was guarded the stoned was thousands of pounds it had a seal from Pilate. it was impossible to steal it love ones and enemies saw christ and there's no doubt that they all truly believed in there hearts christ rose so much they died now with hallucinations how do more then one person see something thats not real.think some more and write back you cant explain it away no 1 ever has
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"you see again you cant explain it away"
incorrect:
- i did infact provide more logical explanations
- more importantly i pointed out that you have no evidence for any of them (and hence no evidence they actually happened) making any explanation redundant
"was guarded the stoned was thousands of pounds it had a seal from Pilate" - where is the evidence for any of this? all you've claimed so far is that a tomb was empty and you haven't even provided evidence of that!
types10000 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"there's no doubt that they all truly believed in there hearts christ rose"
- based on what? you dont have any eyewitness accounts at all.
"so much they died" - and many others did so for religions that contradict your own. TWIN TOWERS jump to mind.
"now with hallucinations how do more then one person see something thats not real." - simple, they dont, but you dont have any evidence of multiple people or accounts from them.
your argument fails.
types10000 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
i'll ask again, where is your evidence that Jesus of the bible actually existed and performed miracles?
- the gospels are out as none can be connected to those they are attributed to and in some cases conclusively disproven
- Paul by his own admission never met Jesus, he simply saw a bright light and heard a voice.
surely of the alleged thousands of people who witnessed Jesus' miracles ATLEAST ONE would have left SOMETHING.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 you say thers no evidence for jesus existence that is silly any historian christian or atheist will tell you he existed even roman historians wrote him. now the empy tomb the disciples in the middle of Jerusalem said christ rose they no you stole the body so if the tomb wasn't empty why did the jews say it is empty but you stole his body. evidence of eyewitnesses we have pauls letters and the gospels and peter they saw and wrote it and died for it.you said twin towers died to
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"you say thers no evidence for jesus existence that is silly any historian christian or atheist will tell you he existed even roman historians wrote him."
- this incorrect, the evidence Jesus existed as a human is sketchy at best and the evidence he was a divine being is non-existant.
"even roman historians wrote him" - you have failed to present any.
"now the empy tomb the disciples in the middle of Jerusalem said" - there are no verified first hand accounts of anything.
types10000 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"why did the jews say it is empty but you stole his body"
- the tomb isnt mentioned anywhere in history and since the accounts of the Gospels cannot be linked to those they are attributed (and in some cases conclusively shown to be fabrications) this tomb you mention has nothing to back it up
- however even if such a thing did occur ie. an empty tomb, a grave robbery would still be far more likely than 'the dead body spontaneously coming back to life.'
types10000 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"evidence of eyewitnesses we have pauls letters and the gospels and peter they saw and wrote it and died for it"
- Paul by his own admission never met Jesus.
- the gospels cannot be shown to be linked to those they are attributed to (and in some cases conclusively disproven)
- the alleged accounts from Peter suffer from the same problems as the gospels.
you dont have any eyewitness accounts.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 but the twin towers men where not there with muhammad they cant tell if they are killing for a lie jesus disciples knew if they where lying about christ risen from the dead if they where lying no one would die for that and they all did have a horrible death peter was crucified for his believe that christ rose why would anyone die for a hoax show me where in history men died for a hoax twin towers they killed christ disciples hurt no 1 they laid there life down for christ
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"but the twin towers men where..."
- correct, they did not meet Muhammad but were willing to martyr themselves as a testament to their religion and his existence.
- this is a demonstration of how far deluded people are willing to go, and contrasts perfectly with the disciples martyrdom (if it actually happened)
if these people are willing to martyr themselves with less of a basis than the disciples, how can you claim the actions of the disciples as evidence of anything?
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 and why shouldn't we believe the gospels luke a companion to paul went and investigated carefully all the invents of christ interviewing eyewitnesses mark was peter companion and john and mathew where eyewitness themselves paul gives a list of eyewitnesses of jesus appearances after he rose which included 500 people who where still alive so if your in court and 500 people testify they seen christ alive would you think he was dead?
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"and why shouldn't we believe the gospels"
- because none of them can be linked to those they are attributed to
- because some can be shown to NOT be written by those they are attributed to.
"luke a companion to paul went and investigated carefully all the invents of christ interviewing eyewitnesses...500"
- you no evidence this ever took place, you make that statement with only the gospels to back you up and their credibility is the very thing in question.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 no evidence we have the books they left if it was today we have there video tapes you say jesus not real then why all these people writing about him they all agree a famous lawyer greanleaf examined the evidence and he concluded it on evidence it happen but you think your smater then a famous lawyer you dont even think he exist at all that's really dumb all historians say he existed but not you your wright and the world is wrong
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"no evidence we have the books they left if it was today we have there video tapes you say jesus not real then why all these people.."
- there exist no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in all of history
- the fact allot of people believe he exist has no bearing on what is true AS EVIDENCED by all the people who believe in religions that contradict your own.
the Jesus of the bible is pure fiction, i have presented evidence of this, you are yet to present any evidence to the contrary.
types10000 1 year ago
MMAGUY13
I love hearing this "bible is history" by theists.
Please demonstrate how any supernatural biblical claims can be validated as fact???
There are no original manuscripts, only copies of copies which were written nu many unknown authors, over hundreds of years, replete with a massive amount of errors. So again, how do you take an ancient mass of confusion and prove it's supernatural claims as fact?
Cootabux 8 months ago
@MMAGUY13
"paul gives a list of eyewitnesses of jesus appearances after he rose which included 500 people who where still alive so if your in court and 500 people testify they seen christ alive would you think he was dead?"
- there is no verification from any of Paul's claimed witnesses, only Paul's assertion.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 christ never existed? when scholars debate the resurrection not one of them says he didn't exist that tells me something about you. you don't understand a thing no one argues that christ existed only if God raised him to life so the great evidence of his resurrection we have wont help you you don't care you will keep denying it
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"christ never existed?"
- correct, Jesus christ as described in the bible never existed.
"when scholars debate the resurrection not one..." - incorrect, many do, they dont bother arguing the point of whether THE MAN Jesus existed (no magical powers) as that has little point.
"you don't understand a thing" - incorrect, i have formal education on the subject and know exactly what im talking about ie. religion and society units 1-4 with a focus on the historicity of Jesus.
types10000 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
you have presented no evidence that Jesus existed at all, every single piece of evidence you have attempted to present has been shot-down completely.
- there is no evidence the gospels are written by those they are attributed to
- Paul never even met Jesus
- there is no evidence for the intricacies of the Jesus myth, empty tomb .etc
- there exists far more plausible explanations for the intricacies of the Jesus myth if they did occur.
- martyrdom is by no means indicative of truth
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 the eyewitnesses you dont believe you think paul was hallucinating when his companions saw the light to you dont believe the gospels or that his tomb was empty and even the jews admitted this so we have a empty tomb appearances of christ a enemy of christ is converted by a appearance of christ they where killed for it and your answer is proof it proof it take a class we can proof it all but you refuse to believe it no matter what
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"the eyewitnesses you dont believe"
- it's not a matter of me not believing them, it's a matter of you not having any evidence they actually existed.
"you think paul was hallucinating " - Paul by his own admission never met Jesus and his recount is consistent with a hallucination.
"his companions saw the light to" - you have no evidence these people existed either, plus the two versions of the story in Acts contradict eachother on this point.
types10000 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"you dont believe the gospels" - there is no evidence they are true and significant evidence they are untrue, that combined with the numerous historical inaccuracies present in them makes my rejection of them justified.
"or that his tomb was empty" - there is no evidence of any tomb, however if there were, someone moving the body would be a more logical explanation.
"even the jews admitted this so we have a empty tomb " - where is your evidence of this? all you've done is assert.
types10000 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"empty tomb appearances of christ a enemy of christ is converted by a appearance of christ they where killed for it"
- there is no evidence for anything regarding the tomb or any of the other fables listed.
"they where killed for it" - martyrdom is not an indication of truth. ref. 9/11 hijackers and every other religion that contradicts christianity.
"we can proof it all but you refuse to believe it no matter what" - if you have proof then present it but thus far you have nothing
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 they wrote it down you dont believe them you dont believe jesus the gospels are rock solid you cant refute them you just say there false with no evidence they are lies.
MMAGUY13 1 year ago
@MMAGUY13
"they wrote it down you dont believe them" - incorrect, the Gospels CANNOT be linked to the discuples and in some cases have been conclusively shown NOT to be written by them.
ie. you have no evidence of any eyewitnesses.
types10000 1 year ago
Second, phophoamides do not undergo melting and annealing like DNA and RNA do. They require temperatures much higher than fatty acid membranes can withstand (shown in Lancet article in 2005 I believe). Thirdly, the jump from nucleotides to proteins is much more difficult than the video would show. enzymatic RNA is primarily single stranded and non-self replicating. The transition from enzyematic nucleotides to amino acids is also not shown. The video seems to ignor amino acids completely.
BlueDevilFan100 1 year ago
There seem to be a few holes in the argument. First, where did the matter for the early nucleotides and fatty acids come from. It is one thing to say that they existed in nature, it is another to prove that they actually did in any significant concentration in whatever "hostile" environment is being segessted.
BlueDevilFan100 1 year ago
Srsly I could not concentrate on the video - the music was faaar to good!
Freude trinken alle Wesen an den Brüsten der Natur!
SeltsamerAttraktor 1 year ago
@Ansonidak I appreciate your apology...
You must understand that I am neither a scientist or a scholar, however I do do alot of reading and I consider myself a very logical person
I do not understand everything about science, neither do I need to
A very funny claim by some evolutionists is that "no scientists believe in anything other than evolution" or "all scientists believe in evolution"
I would like to humbly show that that statement is not true
check out Dissentfromdarwin (dot) com
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55 I've already checked dissent dot org. It's nothing new. Have you heard of Project Steve? Google it. I'll summarize: It's a list of scientists that support evolution. But they only get put on the list if their first name is Steve (approx 1%). There are currently more names on that list than there are on the dissent list. It's mostly tongue in cheek - science isn't about taking votes.
Ansonidak 1 year ago
@Ansonidak Id just like to point out that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the Dark Ages believed that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth
There were only a few that believed otherwise
My point is simply that not ALL scientists believe in evolution- there are quite a few inteligent people who DO NOT believe in evolution
Not all anti-evolutionists are ignorant hicks,as some people like to say
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
" majority of scientists in the Dark Ages believed that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth"...wow....google that please.....and see why the "scientists" thought the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.......<ehem-god-ehem>.....the dark ages were against true science.....think about witches and warlocks and devil worshipers......yup.....real scientists slandered by the church....pathetic reallly!!
alienincognito 1 year ago
@alienincognito "wow....google that please.....and see why the "scientists" thought the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.......<ehem-god-ehem>."
Or should I say the Catholic church...nowheres in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat(actually it says it is round) but this is besides the point:
Just because the majority believes something doesnt make it true...
Prove everything in your own mind...
With that said, I would like to hear your proof for evolution.
Jnest55 1 year ago
@alienincognito "wow....google that please.....and see why the "scientists" thought the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.......<ehem-god-ehem>."
Or should I say the Catholic church...nowheres in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat(actually it says it is round) but this is besides the point:
Just because the majority believes something doesnt make it true...
Prove everything in your own mind...
With that said, I would like to hear your proof for evolution.
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
proof??...how about.....the fossil record, modern genetics, dna, commonalities(ie: four limbs, two eyes, two ears and a nose), goosebumps....c'mon....use google....it's all there...prove otherwise!!
alienincognito 1 year ago
@Jnest55 wrong. abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with evolution. evolution is about how life CHANGES. not how life began. hence my comparison of gravity and germs. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE GOT STARTED.
kingbane2 1 year ago
@kingbane2 OK and all I said that there would be no life for evolution to work on without a theory that explains how life began
so then lets back up
Do you or do you not agree that abiogenesis goes along with evolution and could be characterized as an "evolutionist" theory just like the Big Bang?
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
Wow, you claim you are logical but yet you argue for the sake of ignorance... Where's the logic in that?
You don't understand science but you refuse to learn about it... but doesn't stop you from making erroneous statements. Where's the logic in that? How can you make a logical rebuttal if you don't know what you are talking about & don't know the subject?
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
is there a single bit of solid fact in this video or all conjecture? lol
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55 it's all fact. didn't you read what cdk said? "this is a summary of dr jack stoszak's experiment" meaning dr. stoszak's lab experiment, where he left a pool (made of water and some primitive organic materials + heater) sitting around for weeks/months/years and took a peak in and found proto cell's forming. it's all documented day by day what he saw, how it happened. the video doesn't say THIS IS HOW LIFE STARTED ON EARTH. it says this is how life COULD start. there is a difference.
kingbane2 1 year ago
@kingbane2 the video was almost entirely speculation...
he said SO many things that he neglected to back up with evidence-not to mention the ridiculousness of most of the things he said
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55 none of it was speculation. you didn't even read my reply either. it's a summary of an experiment ALREADY done.
kingbane2 1 year ago
@kingbane2 if you say so....
according to you then, a puddle of water can magically make a living creature?
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55 no, not magically, but through chemistry and thermodynamics it can create a very very primitive proto cell that fits all the criteria for life. given hundreds of thousands of years more that proto cell has the potential to become life, ie a bacteria. as for your implied mockery, keep in mind this has already been observed. under pre-biotic conditions THIS HAPPENED, in a lab. that's all there is to it. it happened.
kingbane2 1 year ago
@kingbane2 I'm glad I mirrored this video. It has definitely provided some entertaining moments.
Example:
Jnest55 wrote "....according to you then, a puddle of water can magically make a living creature"?
Insert your choice of
A Facepalm
B LOL
C Attempt a reasoned explanation in reply to this idiocy
D Define strawman argument.
E Conclude that this guy is a lost cause, willfully and permanently ignorant, and move on.
Or you can do combinations! =)
Ansonidak 1 year ago
@Ansonidak it is incredibly sad how many people in the world lack critical thinking and are blinded by a book. if we talk about the moral value's of the bible, then people should worship spiderman books instead. at least in spiderman you'll learn decent morals as opposed to stoning people for picking up sticks, not believing in fairy tales, wearing 2 types of cloth, etc etc.
people hear something that shatters their silly beliefs and they instantly pull out strawmen MUD PUDDLE! LIGHTNING durr
kingbane2 1 year ago
@kingbane2 Strawmen, misdirection and outright lies is all they have. Jnest55's last comment is another example. More cut and paste creationist bullshit. He claims that the Urey-Miller experiment was hailed as proof of abiogenesis when the truth is NO competent scientist has ever claimed any such thing. It simply showed the feasibility of the idea that amino acids could form spontaneously in a pre-biotic environment.
Ansonidak 1 year ago
@kingbane2 I think option E from my previous comment is probably in order. Jnest55 is willfully and permanently ignorant. Reasoned explanations and logical arguments simply don't have any effect. Some of these guys will even proudly admit that facts and logic will not sway them. They don't want to learn anything that might possibly cause them to question their mythology. It's a sad commentary on human nature.
Ansonidak 1 year ago
@kingbane2 as a matter of fact, that expiriment didnt even create life!
Ill go so far as to say that there is NO solid evidence for abiogensis:
There is NO proof,in the lab or otherwise, that proves that life,spontaniously or otherwise, developed from non life
Now I ask you, how can evolution work if there is no life to evolve from?
Another gap in evolutionary theory
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
then, where do you think we came from??? god?? did he create the heavens and the earth from nothing but his will?? oh...wait...you can't make life from non-life!! i forgot.
alienincognito 1 year ago
@Jnest55 sigh. 1 abiogenesis does not = evolution. second you need to read the experiment not just the conclusion and szostak's remarks on the current problems. yes there is a huge gap between life and the proto cell's szostak's experiment shows. but it's like saying we could never reach the moon just because the wright brother's couldn't. it's a first step.
kingbane2 1 year ago
@kingbane2 again I never said abiogenesis= evolution
however it allows evolutionist theororists to account for where life came from BECAUSE EVOLUTION CANNOT
this expiriment couldnt create life, couldnt create anything except a black hole for money
what did this expiriment prove?
absolutely nothing...
evolution still cannot account for life, and theres no proof for abiogenesis
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55 sigh. it's not that evolution CANNOT account for where life comes from, it's that evolution DOES NOT. there is a difference. it's like saying "GERM THEORY DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR GRAVITY! DURRR DURRR!!!" it's 2 DIFFERENT things. evolution has NOTHING to do or even say about how life begins. they are seperate things. if you cannot see what the experiment demonstrates you're either, a. being obstinate, or b. you haven't watched or read the research at all.
kingbane2 1 year ago
@kingbane2 Hold up, germ theory is about germs, gravity is about the force of gravty, which has nothing to do with germs...two entirely different things
abiogenesis however, has everything to do with evolution...without abiogenesis, there is no life for evolution to work on in the first place...
in the evolutionary timeline we have this:
Big Bang theory- Abiogenesis- Evolution
without the two before, evolution could not happen because there would be nothing for it to happen to
makes sense?
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55 oh jeez i should have read your whole post then i could ignore. you're seriously going to throw in big bang cosmology as well? SERIOUSLY?! why not just ask why addition theory in mathematics doesn't explain why the sun is bright. come on. either you're being a troll or you're just being stupid. my bet's on the latter, as is the case with nearly all creationists. it doesn't matter "which theory needs to happen first" each theory deals with DIFFERENT things.
kingbane2 1 year ago
@kingbane2 and it does matter which theory happens first because each theory fits with each other
Creation accounts for the begining of the universe, the begining of life, and how life is today
evolution accounts for how life is today(not really...), abiogenesis accounts for the begining of life, and the Big Bang the begining of the universe...
they have EVERYTHING to do with eachother
but since you dont like the subject of abiogenesis or the Big Bang we can talk about evolution...
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55 sigh i guess i shouldn't be surprised that a "goddidit" person would try and tie everything together and make it fit all nicely. there's nothing more to say here. you try to connect theories that have no say whatsoever about each other, really have no connection other then the one you want them to have. then use that as a weapon to discredit each theory in turn.
kingbane2 1 year ago
@Jnest55 if you cannot disprove a theory on it's own merits you shouldn't bother to connect it with another theory then claim see it can't account for this! therefore it fails and thus wrong. you want to argue big bang cosmology then that, you want evolution argue evolution. dont bring abiogenesis into it, when you're talking evolution. dont bring evolution into arguments about abiogenesis. the 2 are seperate theories, they explain COMPLETELY different things.
kingbane2 1 year ago
@kingbane2 good point good point..
Ill disprove evolution then
Evolution is unable to explain the existance of complex organisms...you can call it Irriduceable Complexity if you like
Take the eye for instance...
the eye is made up of 40 different subsystems, all of which needed for the system to function
the retina alone has 130 MILLION(yes million) cells that recieve light and transmit signals...
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
You claim you already researched evolution so at least you have an idea how the eye evolved, even if you reject the evidence. But you don't know the process at all so I have to assume you have not done research & so are lying for the sake of winning an argument.
So your claim you cannot google it may be true, you don't want too at all.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
@OverlordShamala Now overlord, dont you think youre being a bit hasty to judge me as intelectually dishonest?
I didnt say that about you- I am assuming that you are intelectually honest when I talk to you and I expect the same...
Now heres a bit of wisdom- never ask a question in a debate that you dont know the answer to
What I want from you is a description of how the eye "evolved", and evidence that it did indeed evolve
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
I take it for what it is… what I read from you comments, you are being dishonest & I feel you will lie. If I try to post this in YouTube with the 500 words limit, it will take me forever therefore here’s a link, since you don’t know how to google something: en(dot)Wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
@Jnest55 If you were aware of the corrispondence between Darwin and Helmholtz you wouldn't even ask the question.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@OverlordShamala Im not interested in aimless speculation and conjured up fairy tails- and this is what I have by and large heard so far
Ask people who have debated me: If Im proven wrong Ill admit it
I try to be honest in my discussions and I expect the same from others
I also try to be polite and do my best to avoid insulting those who I am debating
All of this is common courtesy: I ask the same from you
I have no interest in having an arguement, but I do in having a honest discussion
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
Here’s a better wisdom, never reject a hard fact, even if it goes counter to your beliefs.
Now about you making honest discussions… LMAO! You? Don’t make me laugh!
You claim you are not interested of aimless speculation, none have made aimless speculations but you do conjure fairy tails insisting they are true. You’ve been given examples that you are wrong but your arrogance keeps you from admitting it.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
@Jnest55
Yeah you do try to stay polite, that is true but you making honest discussion is not your forte. I doubt you are going to go to the link I provided to you.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
@OverlordShamala According to the article, the first "eye" was a "eyespot"- but it fails to account for how this developed
The article then says that the pits "deepened" and the eye became a "pinhole camera" but fails to account for how this happened
It goes on to say that the modern eye(which has tens of millions of specialized cells without which it could not work, and over 40 different sub systems that all contribute to its function) came into being by very small stages
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
Again the pinhole started as an indentention. This stages can be observed how it occured by studying which living animal lack certain sensor & how it developed. If you want to find out more, study. You have the tools.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
@Jnest55 Except that most of the intermediate stages are extant today.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@OverlordShamala This idea is ridiculous
Not only can it not account for where the first "sensor" eye came from- Ive heard Dawkins say that it was a freckle, which is another ridiculous idea all to itself- but it fails to provide any evidence that this indeed did happen
The "evolution of the eye" is both laughable to the extreme and quite revealing about how desperate evolution is to find ways for it to be possible
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
Actually the evidence is still around us, a cluster of nerves sensitive to light is all I takes, in time bunching up to make freckles or eye spots. From there it takes off.
The most advance eyes are octopuses & eagles; they see far better then humans. But you can reject the hard verifiable evidence.
There are people that still think the Earth is flat & they find the idea of a spherical Earth laughable & that's proof that geologist are desperate.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
@OverlordShamala "a cluster of nerves is all that it takes"
You are acting like a cluster of nerves in just the right place is nothing
Like thousands of highly specialized cells can just come together randomly and that that sort of thing happens all the time
Of course this "Freckle" or "indentation" could have randomly appeared in just the place that a bundle of nerves just so happened to be
Then this "freckle" somehow changed into an eye over millions of years
Makes sense?
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
Oh? So a cluster of nerves in the right place is nothing? That's why there is what's called mutation. A parent may have cluster of nerves spread out all over its body, but its offspring may be born with a mutation that has its nerves concentrated in one region of its body. Subsequent generation refines that sense, in a sequence of mutation until it has them concentrated in freckles or spots. Mutation is a very important factor in evolution, in that is observable.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
@OverlordShamala lol mutations eh?
No mutations are ever positive, at best they are neutral and at worst they are extremely harmful-never completely passed on and integrated with the gene sequence
Show me examples of mutations that were helpful and were integrated into the DNA and I will take this claim seriously
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
Then you don't know what is a mutations, a mutation is as simple as being slightly taller or smaller. If you have a rose garden, look at the different petal pattern from each plant.
But the best example is the Peppered Moth in England. Normally the species is light grey with black spots hence their name Peppered moth. But their is a mutated form that is totally black. Google & read about how change in the environemnt favored the black Peppered moth over the normal speckled form.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
@OverlordShamala Overlord while mutations CAN cause someone to be shorter or taller,or differing petal patterns,etc, that is not what a mutation is
What you just described is variation within a species, which is alot different
Mutation creates a new trait(this trait seldom being good and passed on), variation simply brings out a trait already present in the genetic code
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
So you understand how mutation works, like you said, you do like to play dumb.
But another variation can appear when the genetic code has a "misspelling", for example the Peppered month where there is a mutation that makes the moth all black, thanks to the soot of power plants, have made the trees dark. Helping the black mutated moth to camouflage on the dark trees when it was the other way around. Light colored bark with moss & lichen helped camouflage the speckled colored moth.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
@OverlordShamala Again it isnt a mutation its variation- I do know what a mutation is and its not the cause of what you said it caused...
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
But you are the type of person who like to argue for the sake of ignorance.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
@OverlordShamala Overlord why dont you cite evidence that this has happened rather than simply say that "soot from power plants has made trees dark and a mutated peppered moth survived there better"
Thats not even what happened with the peppered moth, but regardless I will take what you said seriously if you provide evidence that it happened(Ie: reliable sources that state facts not speculation)
I await your reply
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55 Why don't you site evidence that God created - anything. (ie: reliable sources that state facts and not speculation)
Ansonidak 1 year ago
@Ansonidak Well what kind of God do you want proof for?
You see I am simply attempting to prove that there was a Creator, and after that is proven we can progress to specifics about who God is
So here is evidence for a Creator:
1:logically,evidence of design, is evidence for a designer
2:the universe shows evidence of design
3:therefore there must be a designer
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55 "So here is evidence for a Creator:
1:logically,evidence of design, is evidence for a designer
2:the universe shows evidence of design
3:therefore there must be a designer"
Oh yeah, where was my thinking! Thank you so much for that proof! I just needed to follow the circle of reasoning around until I got to God!
"The eye is millions of times better than anything human techknowledgy could ever come up with"
That's hilarious!
Ansonidak 1 year ago
@Jnest55
Problem is you have no proof, othet then fairy tale stories.You are the type that will reject facts because it goes counter to your dogmas that cannot be proved. You will deny, then play dumb.
Your so called evidence is quite dumb, we can also say the creator is a very cruel god. Easily prone to fits of anger. And when he unleashes his anger, boy does he really let himself loose. Even plants are not safe from his holy wrath, then claim its justice.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
@OverlordShamala Overlord,I just gave you proof, shot down your "proof" and still you are denying that I gave proof
You completely ignored what I just said and say that Im rellying on "fairy tail sources"-If youre denying that there are 30,000,000 cells in the eye,40 different subsystems,and many different kinds of cells working together to allow you to see, and perfectly balanced between mobility and clarity, then I guess our discussion is done-I didnt get that from a ":Creationist" web site
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
Boy now you are putting, how would you say it? Why are you saying that I have denied there are 30,000,000 cells in the eye, 40 different subsystems, & many different kinds of cells working together & so on?
The problem you rely in magic to explain what you willfully ignore. For example, how how did that rock in the river become round? Oh… God made it so. That suffice as explanation for you, ignoring & rejecting the natural process explaining how a rock became round.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
@OverlordShamala And theres another straw man- you see I never said that a round rock in a river was round because God made it that way(although he certainly could have)
I acknowledge- there ARE natural processes simply put in place by God
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
You didn't provide any proof what-so-ever of the existence of a God. On the other hand, as you read it yourself, science has explained how the eye has evolved.
And yes you willfully are lying, you did get it from a creationist website. Creationists now call themselves "intelligent design" advocates. As always, relying on magic to explain how thing came to be to prove the existence on god. I.D. have been proven in court without a doubt they are creationists under a different name.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago 4
@Jnest55
But you have to admit, there is a God higher then the one your worship. Has to because that lower ranking God Yaweh had to sacrifice his Son Jesus to redeem the human race.
An all powerful God doesn't need to sacrifice unless his an underling to another God.
OverlordShamala 1 year ago
@Ansonidak Take the human eye for example
the eye is made up of 40 different sub systems containing 30,000,000 cells-including 3 different types of cone cells, also rods,nerves,etc...
The eye functions as an extremely complex and efficient camera, able to capture images and transmit them in milliseconds to the brain to be processed
Just ONE small defect in any system involved in the eye can cause complete blindness- ie without just one system or a few cells the eye would be useless
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Ansonidak The eye is millions of times better than anything human techknowledgy could ever come up with
As a matter of fact scientists are trying to copy the human eyes design because of how efficient and effective it is- all this from something that developed by complete chance and had no "design"
truely are we "beautifully and wonderfully made"
Jnest55 1 year ago
@Jnest55
the human eye is not perfect far from it....
It is just the most suited eye for a human...
While a cats eye is more suited for a cat
odd huh
You read the research paper the actual science i sent ya yet?
Ya know the one hosted on yale?
sykeo123 1 year ago