@88TFalcon Does ice only come from ice? No, ice comes from water and below 0 temperatures. Does fire only come from fire? No, fire can come from sticks and friction. So to think only life can produce life is illogical. Non x produces x all the time.
Contradiction in he video here. He says we can't use oxyegn so how are we using water? Carl Sagan is a brialliant man and i hate to call him on this, but the info is outdated. You're already on youtube, watch, "Origin of Life 1. Life Came From Other Planets. Myth of the Organic Soup & Abiogenesis." Life came from the cosmos? How did it get there? Believe it or not, the best explanation I heard for that is David Wilcock, Prophies of a Golden Age... An AMAZING video for the open minded.
Be weary of anything on the origin of life. There are many people whose personal desires and emotions get in the way of the reality of the situation. Exaggerations, false confidence, and faulty extrapolations are all commonplace, including in this archaic video.
Our knowledge of the sophistication of early life is growing at a much quicker rate than any design-free explanation for its existence, thus abiogenesis is actually weakened as science advances, rather than strengthened.
Less than 20% of those clicking Like or Dislike feel that their belief in Bronze Age mythology and their belief in a sky wizard creating everything from nothing is threatened.
The biggest killer in america...death by medicine...never mind that.
We don't know how life began....never mind that.
Just give us money and we will show you that you can have a pocketfull of coins, throw them into the air and odds have it that one time they will all land stacked on edge ONE ON TOP THE OTHER, spinning in opposite direction from the lowest denomination to the highest and same denominations will appear in order by date. Odds tell us this.
@tnafguy I bet your parents must be really proud of you, i bet you never got hugged as a kid and that you are a closet homosexual, that is so clear since you apearently have an obsession with calling other people gay. Go see a psychiatrist, you need one.
Oh and stop spreading lies on your channel, you know what the bible thinks of those bearing false wittnes.
@tnafguy I have ben on your page, its full of outdated arguments, errors, lies and failed atempts at appearing legit, i could also see in the comments that others have said the same thing.
You are sad, simple as that, go ahead and worship your imagine friend.
@tnafguy Oh you poor little man, imagine to think that there still are people like you in the world, you might as well go back to bed and take your medicine, what my spare time intrests are have nothing to do with my scientific understanding of the universe.
You are one offensive man who is worth absolutley jack in my eyes now, i guess i can use what you wrote and make a compendium, i shall call it : Morons and the things they say.
You have proven you aint got anything to suport your claims.
@tnafguy Really huh? thats not what you can read in any article about the moon.
You are obviusly one one of those who it is impossible to have a rational discussion with, do you mind citing the sources for your claims? perhaps peer rewieved scientific reports? no? didnt think so.
It's kind of dumb argument too man. If someone was standing five feet away from me and then started walking away from me, I'd be ill advised to assume that the person HAD to be at one point touching me because they're moving away from me.
......Please google "Recession of the Moon" and click the first link and read. I would tell you to stop letting your ignorance shine on Youtube, but I don't want to stoop to that level. Do some research first please.
@tnafguy You are misinformed...scientists were able to test leftover vials from Miller's experiments and have found 25 different amino acids with estimates that 30 to 40 more could be isolated in low concentrations. By testing other leftover vials with mass spectrometry, more complex organic molecules were found than Miller was able to detect at the time. All life uses just 20 different amino acids.
hmm i wish to write a comment saying that life isnt as special as we think it is, how it is the same as lightning or the stars or anything else. we are simply a thing that will eventually occur after a matter of time due to physics and other things that happen in the universe. this is actually more fun than inserting a god character and claiming that this made up answer obviously is the truth. religion has caused us to lose 1500 years with the dark ages, lets make sure that doesn't happen again.
Heads up people, theres going to be a sequel to "Cosmos" planned to be released in 2013, and its going to be hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson. I hope they include this chapter about the miller-urey experiment, because I've tried to tell many people about it and they think I'm bullshitting them.
If life is so easily created - as he states - and it has likely formed on billions of planets - as he states - then it is likely that at least thousands of them evolved millions - if not billions of years prior to us and would be millions - if not billions of years in advance of us - they would be more advanced than we are to cock -roaches - or jellyfish - they would be Gods - he seems to be defending the existance of a higher (evolved) power - but he's an athiest - or is he...
@sobpatrick ...What are you trying to say? I believe that there is a lot that is just beyond our comprehension right now, im sure there are civilisations that are also beyond us. These things solidify my atheism
@mehico33 firstly the concept of a civilization is a human concept - concepts themselves are human - and you wouldn't be able to apply them to a higher power - evolved or otherwise - another human concept is infinity so if you think something is just beyond your comprehension it's like saying taking a step towards infinity gets you closer to it. As far as atheism goes - there is one place where God exists for certain - the human mind - ironically the same place where the universe exists
@sobpatrick I said "beyond our comprehension right now" as in "we dont have theories that aptly describe them". I try not to go down that existentialist pathway because you immediately realise there is no answer, answers being the purpose of my quest(ioning), I mean if you really wanna go there id have to ask: How do you really know anything? How do you know that your reality isnt being simulated for you? I prefer to limit the conversation to the physical yknow
@sobpatrick as regards infinity, I can find fruits in the journey. Is there a destination? will the hunger ever be satisfied? Could it ever be satisfied? Who knows man, how could a being that finds a week to be a long time even begin to appreciate a billion years, a trillion.
Its just very stimulating to try, and "trying" is something the religious generally dont do. Theyre content with "Poof! Its magic!"
@mehico33 Interesting your analogy of religion and "poof ! it's magic" to me the big "poof" (or bang) was science's answer to creation (unchallenged until recently). Another major example of science not "trying" is its adopting the notion of elementary particals - pretty much saying - "we can't see a purpose in there being anything smaller - so there is nothing smaller" sounds like flat earth notions - I feel embarassed to say science is humanities highest standard of intellect
@sobpatrick Thats true, though id prefer to look at it as "running with the simplest explanation until we find out more". The big bang was only the expansion of the universe, the earliest happening that we have any confidence in the existence of... forgive my horrible wording. What theory has challenged the big bang theory?
@mehico33 when you check out youtube: BBC Horizon 2010 What happened before the big bang - it pretty much puts the big bang theory to rest - you should check out the entire Horizon series
@R3volution28 he takes things that arent life, combines them in a reproduction similar to that which would have happened at the beginning and eureka, life. whats wrong with it?
@ImperialAffliction he problem is, how in the hell would he no what the environment was like back in those times? there is no way of knowing.. none.. That is why it is science.. They make assumptions that are more than likely completely wrong..
When people try to refute this experiment by saying the odds of it happening are so incredibly small, I think they really fail to realize how long 4 billion years is. It's really an amount time that is inconceivable to humans because we live for such a relatively short time. A very long human life of 100 years is only .000000025 over 1 as compared to 4 billion years. A truly mind blowing amount of time.
Those calculations take into account both the age of the Earth and the size of the universe, thus your objection fails. Simply pleading to deep-time as an explanation doesn't answer anything. It's a cheap cop-out for chance-worshipers.
I'd recommend everyone read David Abel's peer-reviewed paper, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)" (Google it; result #1). He devises a brilliant metric to determine whether a chance-based-event is plausible.
No they don't. I was merely comparing the generally believed age of the Earth, 4 billion years, and the length of a very above average human life, 100 years. I'm saying that there is more time available for such an occurence than our minds can even begin to fathom.
I do appreciate, however, that you suggest a peer-reviewed paper to read rather than suggesting some christian website like most people who leave me comments do.
@Kinjamaimai 90% of americans still believe in a magic man up in the sky, 56% british, 80% europe, 98% of indians share the same belief... we r fucked INDEED :)
Oh to have had a teacher like Carl Sagan when I was young ........ rather than the physically vicious, intensely sexually frustrated and conflicted Catholic Marist Brothers preaching bullshit and lies.
@unkhl3 You're stupid if you think they're just "mixing" "some chemicals". I won't bother to re-explain what it is they're doing since you've just watched the video and that's what you think
What the hell is wrong with you people that you can't understand that something can self assemble? No outrageous claim is being made here, and it's an old TV show. It is simply pointing to how abundant these molecules are in the universe. That under the right conditions things happen and can happen easily and unguided. If it was intelligence that created all life in the universe please tell me where that intelligence came from.
"This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance..the stubborn minded atheist also believes in no soul and spirit..pathetic
@KingsIndianCR: I'm sorry if you find my joke tasteless but you don't seriously expect me to believe a creationist would agree with this clip. Though, "Gross Ignorance" is a prevailing trait of the people who gave this video a dislike.
Isn't that what the "Scientific Method" is all about. Define, Hypothesize, Experiment (to test the Hypothisis), and on to conclusions. If the hypothesis is true it will stand under scrutiny.
When the first living cell appeared, was it just one cell or many? Because if it was just one it could have died of boredom….
The first cell was really smart: it could eat, excrete, and have baby-cells all in the first day.
Oh, yes, it could read as well. It could read its own DNA. Who wrote the DNA? What on eart? Are you a dumb creationist to believe it needs intelligence to write something?
@florinmoc No it doesn't take intelligence to create a cell. The gases and chemicals of the primordial earth combined in certain ways, such as ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, to create ribonucleotide bases, like the 4 that make up RNA. But to make a complete monoribonucleotide, a phosphate group and a sugar called ribose are needed, which scientists are in the process of explaining.. When these RNA nucleotides formed, they tended to join up in long sequences creating strands of RNA. con't
@florinmoc con't These strands of RNA however needed an environment that would suit them, and recently a certain clay called montmerilionite was discovered to have been very abundant on sea floors, in warm bodies of water, etc. This clay also was discovered to have been the perfect breeding ground for RNA, enabling it to replicate efficiently. The reason i mention RNA first is because it's been proven that single celled and very primitive life contain only RNA instead of DNA. con't
@florinmoc con't DNA on the other hand needs proteins in order to replicate itself, and these came in the forms of polypeptides, also provided in the fertile montmerilionite clay which allowed these proteins to replicate efficiently. However, one more thing is needed to fully protect this genetic information: a cell membrane. Cell membranes are made up of certain molecules called lipids, which again have been proven to have been common in the montmerilionite clay. con't
@florinmoc con't When RNA or DNA happened to inhabit the same area as lipids in the clay, which wasn't that rare an occurance seeing as how the lipids are abundant, the nucleic acids attracted the lipids, which all to commonly form in balls due to their polarity, like putting a drop of oil into water. Here we have the first proto cells, which have been artificially created in laboratories. The only things needed are proteins for the DNA and the warm moist climate.
@LucasI3434 "happened to inhabit" I watched this video youtube(dot)com/user/Egrebal76#p/a/f/1/AsYqhAWAymQ and the term "happened" is not very convincing.
Question: a dead body has the right DNA, the right proteins, the right everything. They are also in the right place, forming the right structures. Still, you have a corpse - no life!
How can you prove this is not the case with the first chemicals that "happened" to be in the right place?
@florinmoc The only reason i said "happened to inhabit" was to assume satire, because these structures inhabiting the same area was very common. "RNA or DNA happened to inhabit the same area as lipids in the clay, which wasn't that rare an occurance" Direct quote from my comment.
The dead body is still dead. It may have those structures, but those structures now rely on the complex features of the eukaryotic cell to provide for it. Those structures are dead, so the material dies as well.
@LucasI3434 So even if you have the right structures in place, you may not end up with life, right?
"Those structures are dead" Why are the structures dead? Is life something exterior to the structures, or a characteristic of those structures, intrinsic to them? If life means chemical reactions, shouldn't they keep reacting? As I said, all the right chemicals are still there. Why don't they react?
@florinmoc That's not what i said, stop twisting my words. The chemicals reacted in the air to form the nucleic acids. They fell into the warm waters and into the safety and security of a montmerilionite clay bed. This clay supports the molecules ability to replicate and combine. So to answer your first question, no, just because the right structures are there doesn't mean you'll get life. That clay, however (or something else that will support) is a requirement for the proto cell to form.
@LucasI3434 "stop twisting my words" Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I'm trying to understand how abiogenesis works. I believe that God created life, but if abiogenesis is true, shouldn't I re-evaluate my faith?
"The chemicals reacted in the air to form the nucleic acids" I think I read somewhere there was no air at the time, at least not like now, with oxygen. Did the first cells live without oxygen?
There was indeed air, however there was no oxygen. Oxygen is not required for the chemicals to react.
The first proto cells did not require oxygen, however after a series of evolutionary processes, the proto cells split into prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Prokayotes don't necessarily need oxygen to survive. There are indeed some bacteria that are aerobic and need oxygen, but there are also bacteria that are anaerobic as well as facultative anaerobes which don't NEED it cont
@LucasI3434 It's really interesting what you are writing. Are these things hypothesis, what scientists think it may have happened, or are they scientifically demonstrated with experiments and observation?
@florinmoc These are theories, but unlike hypotheses they do have evidence behind them. In 1961 a chemist named Juan Oro discovered that ammonia and hydrogen cyanide combine to form adenine base, which is the adenine nucleotide which is part of DNA/RNA just without the phosphate group or ribose needed. In the past 50 years the properties as well as the abundance of Montmerilionite clay were discovered. So yes, most of this theory is backed up by experimentation and observation.
@florinmoc But they prefer to have it. The earliest bacteria found however was aerobic meaning that through evolutionary processes they were able to siphon oxygen from the water around them. Eukaryotes on the other hand need respiration no matter what, so they evolved into multicellular organisms over millions of years in order to more efficiently use oxygen or carbon dioxide depending upon its kingdom (plantae or animalia) to its advantage. Proto cells didn't need O2, but later cells did.
@florinmoc The structures are dead because there is no longer oxygen, in the case of humans, dogs, amoebas, etc. reaching the cells to support them. Eukaryotic cells are MUCH more complex that the proto cells of primordial times as well as prokaryotes (bacteria). When the cells are unable to respire they die, as well as the structures within them. Everything ceases to function. Life is intrinsic to the structures, but they still require the necessities to continue living.
Abiogenesis = it rained for billions of years on the primeval rocks, which were dissolved forming the primeval soup, where the first living organisms appeared.
Q: Where is the primeval soup gone?
A: The primeval organisms ate it. The oceans are their pee. That’s why they are salty.
Im not sure how man playing with DNA negates the comments made by the nasa astrobiologist. She stated that one cannot expect life to just appear, even if all the molecules were together in one place. I think that anyone who thinks man playing with the "program" for a cell negates this comment does not grasp biology at all. Also, just because she said it in 2002 it makes no difference lol. It does not change the statistical inprobability. Perhaps impossibility given the time restraints.
Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..but this is now separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..they want to explain all life and how it changed but not the first cell..there's some stubborn logic...they dont want it in there theory because evolution falls apart.. evolutionists have way more blind faith.,thats why they dont want it part of evolution..evolution falls apart then
...than the shorter-legged ones, and this will eventually become the standard. So over time, minute differences like these can change whole species into completely different physical forms. THATS how evolution happened, so you can't observe anything like that and therefore can't see evolution in action. However, there are some examples we can observe, such as how strains of viruses are evolving to resist antibiotics...which could mean a bad epidemic :(
I bet you´re absolutely right, but what you just argued is not even remotely any kind of evidence on how one of those weird cambrian marine creatures, throughout a very slow process you call EVOLUTION turned or changed into human beings...
Natural selection works and works perfectly, but your argumantation is not any evidence how this could happen, you have to take in big, huge leap of faith, scientific blind faith
@CalvinandHobbes14 "are evolving to resist antibiotics" Are these "new" viruses richer in genetic information? Or is this "evolution" based on a loss of information? Could I also point out that the "evolved" viruses are...well...viruses?
I understand that viruses resistant to certain antibiotics were found in dead bodies that lived long before those antibiotics were invented. How did they become resistent to antibiotics that didn't even exist at the time?
@realhomosapiens Nooo, you got evolution wrong. True, species only reproduce their own kind, but evolution occurs over millions of billions of years through adaptation and natural selection. For example, say there are horses with normal legs and then horses with a little taller legs. The horses with longer legs will have a bigger stride, and therefore will be able to run faster. Thus they will outrun predators more effectively. Over time, the horses with longer legs will prevail more(continued)
Abiogenesis is a nice scientific fairy tale.Posting here on Youtube Videos about how abiogenesis happened is easy.Fact is that science cannot DESIGN the first step to abiogenesis.You need HIGHER INTELLIGENCE to do that and a RANDOM CHEMICAL REACTION is too dumb to produce this.But yeah keep watching videos about "Abiogenesis made easy" etc.All these are crap
@pppaaaooo13 You are an idiot! Christians cannot reproduce creation can they? Does this mean that creation did not happen??? Until one of you creationists can magically creat a man from a piece of dirt then you are full of shit!
"Fact is that science cannot DESIGN the first step to abiogenesis."
By your logic, since scientists cannot design a self-substaining thermonuclear reaction, then that means that articles on the subject that stars are powered by that process are crap, huh?
@pppaaaooo13 There's no such thing as a "random" chemical reaction. All chemical reactions are calculable and predictable, provided you know all of the factors. In other words, chemical reactions only ever happen one way, as long as the factors are constant.
When our ancestors who lived at 10.000 b.c. looked their faces on the water of a lake and said a creator exists are more right compared to modern science who tries to convince that eyes, ears and nose are random genetic mutations some people need some SERIOUS waterboarding
Oh really?Abiogenesis is impossible.But if you want to believe that life can be produced by inanimate matter you are free to believe it.I believe in Unicorns too. Also you can believe that eyes, ears, nose are random genetic mutations.They are in the correct place built in the correct way but hey:They are random.Science tells it.So dont think just stuck on the scientific dogma
And not only that, they do "believe" in the scientific superstition that given enough time, roughly 600 millions years one of those weird cambrian marine creatures (through out a process of random mutation and natural selection) turned or changed into humans, let alone all the creatures along the road...that is not only a scientific dogma, is the greatest stupidity ever made in the name of science...and worst of all, they don`t even know that...that`s a strong delusion
@pppaaaooo13 Oh really? Yes and people like you once thought flying to the moon was impossible! Some humans simply will never be as evolved as others.
So thankful for so many motivated people who made it their life's work to investigate such questions of life! I'm much more thankful for these people than those who kill other human beings and supposedly "fight for our freedom."
@shortperson1026 So you claim not to know the answer, don't wish to find out either, and then make fun of people who do? Great position to take there, sir troll.
@Sharagran There's always a question left to be answered. I'm not saying learning isn't needed, we should learn and explore, but we should never expect to get to the bottom of it.
"under the right conditions, these building blocks assemble themselves"
They would disassemble much quicker than they would assemble. This is a contained environment where everything is close together, and they still can't get it right. On top of that, there is no evidence of life which is formed with only these amino acids. This experiment is so faulty. Why didn't they include UV light in this experiment? And lightning doesn't strike constantly for a few hours. Faulty, faulty, faulty.
creationism is a mental disorder. Its like believing that the earth is flat, or that its the center of the universe, which the creationists of earlier centuries believed, and compelled others to under threat of inquisitional torture.
Either you have not pay attention to what he says or it´s music for your ears...but try to explain how anti-scientific are most of his claims is like trying to teach calculus to a just born baby...something that you´re not even remotely to grasp jajajaja
He said too many stupidities, uncountable, period
BTW, still waiting for your ridiculous claim that you´re just a MACRO-evolved ugly silurian fish, BTW did such a fish live in Australia?
Any evidence for your scientific hallucination yet? jajajajajaja
Whether you admit it or not, you have no choice other than to admit that you believe in a scientific fairy tale that goes like this:
Once upon a time long time ago and far away there were some ugly silurian fishes that decided to move home, and very slowly thery were moving out of the water, but very slowly so nobody could noticided and some millions years laters...wooow...they´re humans...jajajajaja
Hello FishyOfA...still defending the stupid idea that one of those weird Cambrian marine creature through out a very sloooooow process which you call EVOLUTION turned, changed or evolved into humans, let alone all the creatures along the road? you should ashamed, very ashamed...yes I`m laughling at you
@realhomosapiens You call yourself a Christian? After saying that it was fortunate that Carl Sagan died? You, sir (or madam) are a puerile hypocrite. Carl Sagan was a fine man, and you are glad he's dead. So much for your "love of god" and "love thy neighbor as thyself." Shame on you.
@realhomosapiens You incompetent, narrow-minded jackass! Just because someone disagrees with your faith, you call him Satan? The wickedest name you can think of? If there were a Holy Spirit, it's a cinch that he's never touched YOUR heart before. Hypocrite.
And because you believe that your great-great-great-grandpa was one of those weird Cambrian marine cretures therefore you are a wide-open-minded? don`t make me laugh...it`s ok to believe in your theology of evolution, it`s ok to be an atheist, what is not OK is to mock anybody else, even worse when your beliefs are the most stupid beliefs ever...so back to your point, please
@realhomosapiens Evolution is not theology, "du Narr." My point is you are espousing a belief, but you don't follow it. You are unknowledgeable when it comes to science or christianity. You don't understand evolution because you've apparently only read some YEC claptrap. You don't understand your faith, because you are happy that someone died. At least some Christians try to live their faith, but you ... you're pathetic.
Sure it´s and at this time you have your own high priest...guess who is he
Well not sharing your opinions on both your scientific myth or christianity does not mean I´m not knowledgeable...
I don´t understand evolution, but you do and you haven´t been able to name your cambrian marine creature ancestor...wooow
Nooope, I just read evolutionary crap that why I´ve concluded it´s science fiction, a scientific myth...I do live my faith...you haven´t read the whole Bible, have you?
@realhomosapiens "guess who is he." What is your mother language? Your English is difficult to follow. Are you having trouble following what I write? I've already stated that I have no high priest, so guessing who it is is futile. You're correct. Your lack of knowledge about natural selection has nothing to do with my opinions -- it has to do with your lack of reading. FYI, I've read the entire bible seven times in my life. I find it entertaining and amusing.
Sure you have a high priest but you`re not even enough to guess who it is he...
Lack of knowledge about natural selection, an all powerfull force that could turn a cambrian marine creature into humans?, of course given enough time...What is that?
@realhomosapiens You keep insisting that I have something which I do not. Further discussion is, therefore, a waste of effort. You refuse to read about the theory of natural selection or watch the Ken Miller video I suggested earlier. I have read your bible. As rafaravioli has stated, "I'll stick with the side that has done repeatable experiments and doesn't resort to arguing 'ad baculum.'" Or 'ad hominem.' Aufs Wiedersehen
@TenderTrap86 It doesn't require an astonomy genius to explain aspects of the solar system or planets or stars, does it? So why should it require a genius to explain abiogenesis? It requires someone who has studied and written about it. (By the way, your thinly-veiled sarcasm was rather poor, not really clever enough to be considered humor. Better luck next time.)
@footballward Water does not provide oxygen. It contains oxygen, but because the oxygen is joined with hydrogen, it isn't "free" oxygen. When plants developed, their metabolisms caused oxygen to be released into the atmosphere, slowly building in concentration, until the atmosphere today is about 1/5 oxygen. Hope that helps.
... And yet there are people who still insist that an invisible man in the sky created a man directly out of dust and then a woman from said man's rib, and their only evidence for this outrageous supernatural claim is "If you don't believe this, you will be tortured forever by the invisible man." I'll stick with the side that has done repeatable experiments and doesn't result to arguing 'ad baculum'.
It means 'argument to the cudgel' or 'appeal to the stick' -- Using threats as a way of arguing for something (ie. "You will go to hell if you don't believe my argument is true" or "Aren't you afraid you'll go to hell for not believing in God?")
@rafaravioli I couldn't agree with you more!! This is FAR more majestic and inspiring then anything I read in the bible when I was a Christian, and mind you, I read through about 4 different English translations! Not enough people understand the intense beauty of abiogenesis and evolution as a whole, IMO!
Lol i dont believe in magic sticks(but science does).Science believes in Abiogenesis that it is impossible.Science doesnt think anymore it just follows a scientific dogma
Science still hasnt produced a single living cell.How do you know that something that science cannot produce laboratory was created through random chemical reactions?At some point i believe science will manage to create a living cell but after much effort and this cell will be DESIGNED(if you know what i mean)
@pppaaaooo13 Your logic is bollocks! Just because we know how cells came into existence does not mean we have the technology to duplicate it! Will you not believe how a star works until scientists have made one???????? We know how two atoms of hydrogen are fused to make one atom of helium but have you ever tried doing that???!!! Nothing is impossible unless proven so and like your silly religions nothing has been proven! Abiogenisis is much more likely than god doing it with harry potters wand!!
Well, with except for the names and a few other changes, the story is the very sameone, jajajaja....unfortunatelly this science fiction is taught as real science all over the world...what a shame for real science and real scientists...this man man was just a science mercenary, ....make money
@realhomosapiens You make claims, but give no evidence to support them. You think Carl Sagan purposely promoted science fiction to make money? Show your evidence, or shut the f**k up.
@realhomosapiens Ah, now I understand. You're one of those: "The sun is shining in the sky, therefore Carl Sagan is a science mercenary." You got me. I've been had by a 12 year old with a computer.
@realhomosapiens You are an Eskimo transvestite. How do I know? There are stars in the sky, and you can't see that that's valid evidence? "you've got to be kidding..."
Carl Sagan what a Man what a loss.
Kennyforever100 3 days ago
nooooo life came from when god lit his fart <<---- loooooolll i kkkeeeeeed styll
yashen12345 1 week ago
Screw those scientist, everyone knows life came to be when Shodan took control of the Von Braun in order to create the many millions of years ago...
poliv67 1 week ago
Why is it that every time I go to a biology video there is always some jackass who brings up religion. Gee whiz, I only came here to learn.
jcs101194 1 week ago
Comment removed
jcs101194 2 weeks ago
Good Video. Thanks for infomatuons.
Flusercom 2 weeks ago
Good Video. Thanks for shared. Very Infomative
Spasatcom 2 weeks ago
At 4:00 minutes in, every single religious person who refutes science just got their world utterly destroyed.
circusmonkey10 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video went viral on Colombia
craigclay821 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your video is popular on Armenia
bennynewton38 3 weeks ago
@88TFalcon Does ice only come from ice? No, ice comes from water and below 0 temperatures. Does fire only come from fire? No, fire can come from sticks and friction. So to think only life can produce life is illogical. Non x produces x all the time.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
"Most of our hydrogen to trickle away to space...."
What the fuck? So there is no gravity then?
LibnanGR 2 months ago
@LibnanGR Hydrogen is very light (lightest element) - think balloons. Easily escapes from our gravitational field
AginOtaku 1 month ago
@AginOtaku
Ballons filled with helium are less dense than air, but they do NOT escape from our gravitational field. Nor does Hydrogen.
LibnanGR 1 month ago
Contradiction in he video here. He says we can't use oxyegn so how are we using water? Carl Sagan is a brialliant man and i hate to call him on this, but the info is outdated. You're already on youtube, watch, "Origin of Life 1. Life Came From Other Planets. Myth of the Organic Soup & Abiogenesis." Life came from the cosmos? How did it get there? Believe it or not, the best explanation I heard for that is David Wilcock, Prophies of a Golden Age... An AMAZING video for the open minded.
MDKpersonal 2 months ago
@MDKpersonal
Be weary of anything on the origin of life. There are many people whose personal desires and emotions get in the way of the reality of the situation. Exaggerations, false confidence, and faulty extrapolations are all commonplace, including in this archaic video.
Our knowledge of the sophistication of early life is growing at a much quicker rate than any design-free explanation for its existence, thus abiogenesis is actually weakened as science advances, rather than strengthened.
ReturnOfTheJam 3 weeks ago
Less than 20% of those clicking Like or Dislike feel that their belief in Bronze Age mythology and their belief in a sky wizard creating everything from nothing is threatened.
Bye, religious nonsense.
Good riddance.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago 2
Carl Sagan is the Captain James T Kirk of real life.
699backstab 2 months ago
The biggest killer in america...death by medicine...never mind that.
We don't know how life began....never mind that.
Just give us money and we will show you that you can have a pocketfull of coins, throw them into the air and odds have it that one time they will all land stacked on edge ONE ON TOP THE OTHER, spinning in opposite direction from the lowest denomination to the highest and same denominations will appear in order by date. Odds tell us this.
loonpolice1 3 months ago
@tnafguy I bet your parents must be really proud of you, i bet you never got hugged as a kid and that you are a closet homosexual, that is so clear since you apearently have an obsession with calling other people gay. Go see a psychiatrist, you need one.
Oh and stop spreading lies on your channel, you know what the bible thinks of those bearing false wittnes.
Sweddude 3 months ago
@tnafguy I have ben on your page, its full of outdated arguments, errors, lies and failed atempts at appearing legit, i could also see in the comments that others have said the same thing.
You are sad, simple as that, go ahead and worship your imagine friend.
You are a troll, clearly.
Sweddude 3 months ago
@tnafguy Oh you poor little man, imagine to think that there still are people like you in the world, you might as well go back to bed and take your medicine, what my spare time intrests are have nothing to do with my scientific understanding of the universe.
You are one offensive man who is worth absolutley jack in my eyes now, i guess i can use what you wrote and make a compendium, i shall call it : Morons and the things they say.
You have proven you aint got anything to suport your claims.
Sweddude 3 months ago
@tnafguy Really huh? thats not what you can read in any article about the moon.
You are obviusly one one of those who it is impossible to have a rational discussion with, do you mind citing the sources for your claims? perhaps peer rewieved scientific reports? no? didnt think so.
Sweddude 3 months ago
@tnafguy I guess you havent even bothered to look up that the leading theory is that the earth and moon where once the same.
Sweddude 3 months ago
@tnafguy
It's kind of dumb argument too man. If someone was standing five feet away from me and then started walking away from me, I'd be ill advised to assume that the person HAD to be at one point touching me because they're moving away from me.
GiraffeColin 3 months ago
......Please google "Recession of the Moon" and click the first link and read. I would tell you to stop letting your ignorance shine on Youtube, but I don't want to stoop to that level. Do some research first please.
GiraffeColin 3 months ago
Comment removed
GiraffeColin 3 months ago
Comment removed
GiraffeColin 3 months ago
@tnafguy You are misinformed...scientists were able to test leftover vials from Miller's experiments and have found 25 different amino acids with estimates that 30 to 40 more could be isolated in low concentrations. By testing other leftover vials with mass spectrometry, more complex organic molecules were found than Miller was able to detect at the time. All life uses just 20 different amino acids.
RealityScope 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tnafguy too bad you are so full of shit, let me guess you're a creationist, right?
dannyboy11490 4 months ago
hmm i wish to write a comment saying that life isnt as special as we think it is, how it is the same as lightning or the stars or anything else. we are simply a thing that will eventually occur after a matter of time due to physics and other things that happen in the universe. this is actually more fun than inserting a god character and claiming that this made up answer obviously is the truth. religion has caused us to lose 1500 years with the dark ages, lets make sure that doesn't happen again.
Marioiswicked 4 months ago
in me i do not believe that there is god, Word GOD created only by opportunist \
g0bbledygo0k 4 months ago
@Glovefullavasoline
Ok then, lol.
GiraffeColin 5 months ago
@Glovefullavasoline
No?
GiraffeColin 5 months ago
Heads up people, theres going to be a sequel to "Cosmos" planned to be released in 2013, and its going to be hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson. I hope they include this chapter about the miller-urey experiment, because I've tried to tell many people about it and they think I'm bullshitting them.
misinglink15 5 months ago
dude, carl sagan is must likely really baked in this movie....lol
216Eva 6 months ago
If life is so easily created - as he states - and it has likely formed on billions of planets - as he states - then it is likely that at least thousands of them evolved millions - if not billions of years prior to us and would be millions - if not billions of years in advance of us - they would be more advanced than we are to cock -roaches - or jellyfish - they would be Gods - he seems to be defending the existance of a higher (evolved) power - but he's an athiest - or is he...
sobpatrick 7 months ago
@sobpatrick ...What are you trying to say? I believe that there is a lot that is just beyond our comprehension right now, im sure there are civilisations that are also beyond us. These things solidify my atheism
mehico33 6 months ago
@mehico33 firstly the concept of a civilization is a human concept - concepts themselves are human - and you wouldn't be able to apply them to a higher power - evolved or otherwise - another human concept is infinity so if you think something is just beyond your comprehension it's like saying taking a step towards infinity gets you closer to it. As far as atheism goes - there is one place where God exists for certain - the human mind - ironically the same place where the universe exists
sobpatrick 6 months ago
@sobpatrick I said "beyond our comprehension right now" as in "we dont have theories that aptly describe them". I try not to go down that existentialist pathway because you immediately realise there is no answer, answers being the purpose of my quest(ioning), I mean if you really wanna go there id have to ask: How do you really know anything? How do you know that your reality isnt being simulated for you? I prefer to limit the conversation to the physical yknow
mehico33 6 months ago
@sobpatrick as regards infinity, I can find fruits in the journey. Is there a destination? will the hunger ever be satisfied? Could it ever be satisfied? Who knows man, how could a being that finds a week to be a long time even begin to appreciate a billion years, a trillion.
Its just very stimulating to try, and "trying" is something the religious generally dont do. Theyre content with "Poof! Its magic!"
mehico33 6 months ago
@mehico33 Interesting your analogy of religion and "poof ! it's magic" to me the big "poof" (or bang) was science's answer to creation (unchallenged until recently). Another major example of science not "trying" is its adopting the notion of elementary particals - pretty much saying - "we can't see a purpose in there being anything smaller - so there is nothing smaller" sounds like flat earth notions - I feel embarassed to say science is humanities highest standard of intellect
sobpatrick 6 months ago
@sobpatrick Thats true, though id prefer to look at it as "running with the simplest explanation until we find out more". The big bang was only the expansion of the universe, the earliest happening that we have any confidence in the existence of... forgive my horrible wording. What theory has challenged the big bang theory?
mehico33 5 months ago
@mehico33 when you check out youtube: BBC Horizon 2010 What happened before the big bang - it pretty much puts the big bang theory to rest - you should check out the entire Horizon series
sobpatrick 5 months ago
Sagan was, and still is, the greatest communicator of science and wonderment.
HalfpennyCat 7 months ago
@functionalist972 Grief and after that acceptance is needed for action.
Kinjamaimai 7 months ago
what is the name of the scientist at 1:00?
behnamasid 8 months ago
I always wondered how God did it, thanks for the educational blip.
homelesshandz 8 months ago
@homelesshandz fail
halflifefan84 7 months ago
How does this prove the origin of life if life hasn't even been made..
R3volution28 9 months ago
@R3volution28 he takes things that arent life, combines them in a reproduction similar to that which would have happened at the beginning and eureka, life. whats wrong with it?
ImperialAffliction 8 months ago
@ImperialAffliction he problem is, how in the hell would he no what the environment was like back in those times? there is no way of knowing.. none.. That is why it is science.. They make assumptions that are more than likely completely wrong..
R3volution28 8 months ago
This isn't even good science..
R3volution28 9 months ago
When people try to refute this experiment by saying the odds of it happening are so incredibly small, I think they really fail to realize how long 4 billion years is. It's really an amount time that is inconceivable to humans because we live for such a relatively short time. A very long human life of 100 years is only .000000025 over 1 as compared to 4 billion years. A truly mind blowing amount of time.
GiraffeColin 9 months ago 20
@GiraffeColin not 4billion years nature had 1 bilion years to create first cell
esraretin 3 weeks ago
@GiraffeColin
Those calculations take into account both the age of the Earth and the size of the universe, thus your objection fails. Simply pleading to deep-time as an explanation doesn't answer anything. It's a cheap cop-out for chance-worshipers.
I'd recommend everyone read David Abel's peer-reviewed paper, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)" (Google it; result #1). He devises a brilliant metric to determine whether a chance-based-event is plausible.
ReturnOfTheJam 3 weeks ago
@ReturnOfTheJam
No they don't. I was merely comparing the generally believed age of the Earth, 4 billion years, and the length of a very above average human life, 100 years. I'm saying that there is more time available for such an occurence than our minds can even begin to fathom.
GiraffeColin 2 weeks ago
@ReturnOfTheJam
I do appreciate, however, that you suggest a peer-reviewed paper to read rather than suggesting some christian website like most people who leave me comments do.
GiraffeColin 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
GiraffeColin 9 months ago
A video showing the origin of life has 16 thousand views. A video of Justin Bieber has 16 Million. We are all fucked.
Kinjamaimai 9 months ago 89
@Kinjamaimai I know what you mean. Idiots abound on the web.
brewerbrian420 8 months ago
@Kinjamaimai
Its actually more like 128 Million views. We are definitely fucked.
Jammed9000 7 months ago
@Kinjamaimai 90% of americans still believe in a magic man up in the sky, 56% british, 80% europe, 98% of indians share the same belief... we r fucked INDEED :)
chinamanspeakenlis 7 months ago
@Kinjamaimai hahahahaha, sad but hilarious point, my friend. You win!
The5thAmendment 5 months ago
Oh to have had a teacher like Carl Sagan when I was young ........ rather than the physically vicious, intensely sexually frustrated and conflicted Catholic Marist Brothers preaching bullshit and lies.
vjwebster 9 months ago
this video is stupid lol
"hey let's mix some chemicals and create life" lol
unkhl3 9 months ago
@unkhl3 lol haha that's so stupid, right!!11!!11 lolacopter!!! CHOO CHOO!! hahahahaha this video is SO STUPID!! rahaharhahaa lololololoLOLOLOLO!!!
¬.¬
Xan81 9 months ago
@unkhl3 You're stupid if you think they're just "mixing" "some chemicals". I won't bother to re-explain what it is they're doing since you've just watched the video and that's what you think
2CSST2 9 months ago
What the hell is wrong with you people that you can't understand that something can self assemble? No outrageous claim is being made here, and it's an old TV show. It is simply pointing to how abundant these molecules are in the universe. That under the right conditions things happen and can happen easily and unguided. If it was intelligence that created all life in the universe please tell me where that intelligence came from.
Mekiwyn 10 months ago
carl you are very wrong no building blocks have been made and where is order and genetic code coming from??? You have assumptions!!!
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
"This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance..the stubborn minded atheist also believes in no soul and spirit..pathetic
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv "the stubborn minded atheist also believes in no soul and spirit"
What, and you do? Don't call us pathetic when you're clinging to superstition against all evidence
technicallyabsurd 10 months ago
Good video!!!
evilchef100 11 months ago
Did that scientist look like a voodoo witchdoctor to anyone else?
zoebiflap 11 months ago
Creating life take a very, very, very, very, very long time something YEC's don't seem to understand....
heikkala2797 11 months ago
@KingsIndianCR: Ahh, sorry for the misunderstanding then. ^_^
Derwind 11 months ago
@KingsIndianCR: I'm sorry if you find my joke tasteless but you don't seriously expect me to believe a creationist would agree with this clip. Though, "Gross Ignorance" is a prevailing trait of the people who gave this video a dislike.
Derwind 11 months ago
@Derwind I think you misunderstood my joke. "Gross" is a term that means "144", and "Ignorance" is, as you say, a prevailing trait of creationists.
KingsIndianCR 11 months ago
@KingsIndianCR: My joke comment or 144 dislikes?
Derwind 11 months ago
@Derwind "144 creationists" = "Gross ignorance"
KingsIndianCR 11 months ago
144 creationists disliked this video. >:@
Derwind 1 year ago
@Derwind That's the definition of "gross ignorance", is it not?
KingsIndianCR 11 months ago
So ! make life already Cornell made a tub of toxic black goo You guys will believe anything if it has a dramatic sound track.
MrNewkingjames 1 year ago
So ! make life already Cornell made a tub of toxic black goo
MrNewkingjames 1 year ago
Isn't that what the "Scientific Method" is all about. Define, Hypothesize, Experiment (to test the Hypothisis), and on to conclusions. If the hypothesis is true it will stand under scrutiny.
durdle1701 1 year ago
I love it when Carl takes that long pause before exclaiming that something is amazing...and makes a raep face.
DarkJakable 1 year ago 6
When the first living cell appeared, was it just one cell or many? Because if it was just one it could have died of boredom….
The first cell was really smart: it could eat, excrete, and have baby-cells all in the first day.
Oh, yes, it could read as well. It could read its own DNA. Who wrote the DNA? What on eart? Are you a dumb creationist to believe it needs intelligence to write something?
florinmoc 1 year ago
@florinmoc No it doesn't take intelligence to create a cell. The gases and chemicals of the primordial earth combined in certain ways, such as ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, to create ribonucleotide bases, like the 4 that make up RNA. But to make a complete monoribonucleotide, a phosphate group and a sugar called ribose are needed, which scientists are in the process of explaining.. When these RNA nucleotides formed, they tended to join up in long sequences creating strands of RNA. con't
LucasI3434 1 year ago
@florinmoc con't These strands of RNA however needed an environment that would suit them, and recently a certain clay called montmerilionite was discovered to have been very abundant on sea floors, in warm bodies of water, etc. This clay also was discovered to have been the perfect breeding ground for RNA, enabling it to replicate efficiently. The reason i mention RNA first is because it's been proven that single celled and very primitive life contain only RNA instead of DNA. con't
LucasI3434 1 year ago
@florinmoc con't DNA on the other hand needs proteins in order to replicate itself, and these came in the forms of polypeptides, also provided in the fertile montmerilionite clay which allowed these proteins to replicate efficiently. However, one more thing is needed to fully protect this genetic information: a cell membrane. Cell membranes are made up of certain molecules called lipids, which again have been proven to have been common in the montmerilionite clay. con't
LucasI3434 1 year ago
@florinmoc con't When RNA or DNA happened to inhabit the same area as lipids in the clay, which wasn't that rare an occurance seeing as how the lipids are abundant, the nucleic acids attracted the lipids, which all to commonly form in balls due to their polarity, like putting a drop of oil into water. Here we have the first proto cells, which have been artificially created in laboratories. The only things needed are proteins for the DNA and the warm moist climate.
LucasI3434 1 year ago
@LucasI3434 "happened to inhabit" I watched this video youtube(dot)com/user/Egrebal76#p/a/f/1/AsYqhAWAymQ and the term "happened" is not very convincing.
Question: a dead body has the right DNA, the right proteins, the right everything. They are also in the right place, forming the right structures. Still, you have a corpse - no life!
How can you prove this is not the case with the first chemicals that "happened" to be in the right place?
florinmoc 1 year ago
@florinmoc The vital structures are no longer functioning, thus there is no life.
Also, the link isn't working. What's the name of the video? Maybe you should favorite it, so we can find it on your channel.
Oicurmtoyoy 1 year ago
@florinmoc The only reason i said "happened to inhabit" was to assume satire, because these structures inhabiting the same area was very common. "RNA or DNA happened to inhabit the same area as lipids in the clay, which wasn't that rare an occurance" Direct quote from my comment.
The dead body is still dead. It may have those structures, but those structures now rely on the complex features of the eukaryotic cell to provide for it. Those structures are dead, so the material dies as well.
LucasI3434 1 year ago
@LucasI3434 So even if you have the right structures in place, you may not end up with life, right?
"Those structures are dead" Why are the structures dead? Is life something exterior to the structures, or a characteristic of those structures, intrinsic to them? If life means chemical reactions, shouldn't they keep reacting? As I said, all the right chemicals are still there. Why don't they react?
florinmoc 1 year ago
@florinmoc That's not what i said, stop twisting my words. The chemicals reacted in the air to form the nucleic acids. They fell into the warm waters and into the safety and security of a montmerilionite clay bed. This clay supports the molecules ability to replicate and combine. So to answer your first question, no, just because the right structures are there doesn't mean you'll get life. That clay, however (or something else that will support) is a requirement for the proto cell to form.
LucasI3434 1 year ago
@LucasI3434 "stop twisting my words" Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I'm trying to understand how abiogenesis works. I believe that God created life, but if abiogenesis is true, shouldn't I re-evaluate my faith?
"The chemicals reacted in the air to form the nucleic acids" I think I read somewhere there was no air at the time, at least not like now, with oxygen. Did the first cells live without oxygen?
florinmoc 1 year ago
@florinmoc No worries.
There was indeed air, however there was no oxygen. Oxygen is not required for the chemicals to react.
The first proto cells did not require oxygen, however after a series of evolutionary processes, the proto cells split into prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Prokayotes don't necessarily need oxygen to survive. There are indeed some bacteria that are aerobic and need oxygen, but there are also bacteria that are anaerobic as well as facultative anaerobes which don't NEED it cont
LucasI3434 1 year ago
@LucasI3434 It's really interesting what you are writing. Are these things hypothesis, what scientists think it may have happened, or are they scientifically demonstrated with experiments and observation?
florinmoc 1 year ago
@florinmoc These are theories, but unlike hypotheses they do have evidence behind them. In 1961 a chemist named Juan Oro discovered that ammonia and hydrogen cyanide combine to form adenine base, which is the adenine nucleotide which is part of DNA/RNA just without the phosphate group or ribose needed. In the past 50 years the properties as well as the abundance of Montmerilionite clay were discovered. So yes, most of this theory is backed up by experimentation and observation.
LucasI3434 1 year ago
@florinmoc But they prefer to have it. The earliest bacteria found however was aerobic meaning that through evolutionary processes they were able to siphon oxygen from the water around them. Eukaryotes on the other hand need respiration no matter what, so they evolved into multicellular organisms over millions of years in order to more efficiently use oxygen or carbon dioxide depending upon its kingdom (plantae or animalia) to its advantage. Proto cells didn't need O2, but later cells did.
LucasI3434 1 year ago
@florinmoc The structures are dead because there is no longer oxygen, in the case of humans, dogs, amoebas, etc. reaching the cells to support them. Eukaryotic cells are MUCH more complex that the proto cells of primordial times as well as prokaryotes (bacteria). When the cells are unable to respire they die, as well as the structures within them. Everything ceases to function. Life is intrinsic to the structures, but they still require the necessities to continue living.
LucasI3434 1 year ago
Abiogenesis = it rained for billions of years on the primeval rocks, which were dissolved forming the primeval soup, where the first living organisms appeared.
Q: Where is the primeval soup gone?
A: The primeval organisms ate it. The oceans are their pee. That’s why they are salty.
florinmoc 1 year ago
Im not sure how man playing with DNA negates the comments made by the nasa astrobiologist. She stated that one cannot expect life to just appear, even if all the molecules were together in one place. I think that anyone who thinks man playing with the "program" for a cell negates this comment does not grasp biology at all. Also, just because she said it in 2002 it makes no difference lol. It does not change the statistical inprobability. Perhaps impossibility given the time restraints.
ukman2001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..but this is now separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..they want to explain all life and how it changed but not the first cell..there's some stubborn logic...they dont want it in there theory because evolution falls apart.. evolutionists have way more blind faith.,thats why they dont want it part of evolution..evolution falls apart then
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
...than the shorter-legged ones, and this will eventually become the standard. So over time, minute differences like these can change whole species into completely different physical forms. THATS how evolution happened, so you can't observe anything like that and therefore can't see evolution in action. However, there are some examples we can observe, such as how strains of viruses are evolving to resist antibiotics...which could mean a bad epidemic :(
CalvinandHobbes14 1 year ago
@CalvinandHobbes14
I bet you´re absolutely right, but what you just argued is not even remotely any kind of evidence on how one of those weird cambrian marine creatures, throughout a very slow process you call EVOLUTION turned or changed into human beings...
Natural selection works and works perfectly, but your argumantation is not any evidence how this could happen, you have to take in big, huge leap of faith, scientific blind faith
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@CalvinandHobbes14 "are evolving to resist antibiotics" Are these "new" viruses richer in genetic information? Or is this "evolution" based on a loss of information? Could I also point out that the "evolved" viruses are...well...viruses?
I understand that viruses resistant to certain antibiotics were found in dead bodies that lived long before those antibiotics were invented. How did they become resistent to antibiotics that didn't even exist at the time?
florinmoc 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens Nooo, you got evolution wrong. True, species only reproduce their own kind, but evolution occurs over millions of billions of years through adaptation and natural selection. For example, say there are horses with normal legs and then horses with a little taller legs. The horses with longer legs will have a bigger stride, and therefore will be able to run faster. Thus they will outrun predators more effectively. Over time, the horses with longer legs will prevail more(continued)
CalvinandHobbes14 1 year ago
Abiogenesis is a nice scientific fairy tale.Posting here on Youtube Videos about how abiogenesis happened is easy.Fact is that science cannot DESIGN the first step to abiogenesis.You need HIGHER INTELLIGENCE to do that and a RANDOM CHEMICAL REACTION is too dumb to produce this.But yeah keep watching videos about "Abiogenesis made easy" etc.All these are crap
pppaaaooo13 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13 You are an idiot! Christians cannot reproduce creation can they? Does this mean that creation did not happen??? Until one of you creationists can magically creat a man from a piece of dirt then you are full of shit!
greeny202a 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13
"Fact is that science cannot DESIGN the first step to abiogenesis."
By your logic, since scientists cannot design a self-substaining thermonuclear reaction, then that means that articles on the subject that stars are powered by that process are crap, huh?
GreatExterminator 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13 There's no such thing as a "random" chemical reaction. All chemical reactions are calculable and predictable, provided you know all of the factors. In other words, chemical reactions only ever happen one way, as long as the factors are constant.
Oicurmtoyoy 1 year ago
When our ancestors who lived at 10.000 b.c. looked their faces on the water of a lake and said a creator exists are more right compared to modern science who tries to convince that eyes, ears and nose are random genetic mutations some people need some SERIOUS waterboarding
pppaaaooo13 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13 Yes and some people need a good fucking with a burnt stick to wake them up!!!!!
greeny202a 1 year ago
@greeny202a
Oh really?Abiogenesis is impossible.But if you want to believe that life can be produced by inanimate matter you are free to believe it.I believe in Unicorns too. Also you can believe that eyes, ears, nose are random genetic mutations.They are in the correct place built in the correct way but hey:They are random.Science tells it.So dont think just stuck on the scientific dogma
pppaaaooo13 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13
And not only that, they do "believe" in the scientific superstition that given enough time, roughly 600 millions years one of those weird cambrian marine creatures (through out a process of random mutation and natural selection) turned or changed into humans, let alone all the creatures along the road...that is not only a scientific dogma, is the greatest stupidity ever made in the name of science...and worst of all, they don`t even know that...that`s a strong delusion
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13 Oh really? Yes and people like you once thought flying to the moon was impossible! Some humans simply will never be as evolved as others.
greeny202a 1 year ago
So thankful for so many motivated people who made it their life's work to investigate such questions of life! I'm much more thankful for these people than those who kill other human beings and supposedly "fight for our freedom."
bttrflykiss7701 1 year ago
Ugh, look how sick he looked at end... Poor guy. He did not deserve what happened to him.
TheWs235 1 year ago
He also forgot to mention the toxic materials also produced, which would instantly destroy anything close to what we would describe as "living".
All bullshit propaganda. Just like religion, it's all guesswork. Agnosticism ftw.
shortperson1026 1 year ago
@shortperson1026 This isn't about atheism, this is about science.
Read up on the Miller-Urey experiment. Toxic compounds like formaldehyde and HCN form amino acids.
LikeALeadZeppelin 1 year ago
@shortperson1026 So you claim not to know the answer, don't wish to find out either, and then make fun of people who do? Great position to take there, sir troll.
Sharagran 1 year ago
@Sharagran Uh no... I just have an understanding that we will never truly know how life came to be on this earth.
shortperson1026 1 year ago
@shortperson1026 Never? You sure aren't the most optimistic of the bunch, are you?
Sharagran 1 year ago
@Sharagran There's always a question left to be answered. I'm not saying learning isn't needed, we should learn and explore, but we should never expect to get to the bottom of it.
shortperson1026 1 year ago
"under the right conditions, these building blocks assemble themselves"
They would disassemble much quicker than they would assemble. This is a contained environment where everything is close together, and they still can't get it right. On top of that, there is no evidence of life which is formed with only these amino acids. This experiment is so faulty. Why didn't they include UV light in this experiment? And lightning doesn't strike constantly for a few hours. Faulty, faulty, faulty.
shortperson1026 1 year ago
@shortperson1026 See Cdk007's video on abiogenesis.
LikeALeadZeppelin 1 year ago
every creationists that deny evolution must watch this video, everyone should be aware of these experiments.
Dustencumbie 1 year ago
creationism is a mental disorder. Its like believing that the earth is flat, or that its the center of the universe, which the creationists of earlier centuries believed, and compelled others to under threat of inquisitional torture.
GaiusIuliusTaberna 1 year ago
Fortunatelly this man passed away, there were no way to stop him saying such an amount of stupidities...jajajajaja
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens "Fortunatelly this man passed away, there were no way to stop him saying such an amount of stupidities...jajajajaja "
Sagan was a great man, you are a pile of shit.
ScorpionOfApocalypse 1 year ago
@ScorpionOfApocalypse
Either you have not pay attention to what he says or it´s music for your ears...but try to explain how anti-scientific are most of his claims is like trying to teach calculus to a just born baby...something that you´re not even remotely to grasp jajajaja
He said too many stupidities, uncountable, period
BTW, still waiting for your ridiculous claim that you´re just a MACRO-evolved ugly silurian fish, BTW did such a fish live in Australia?
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens
Jajajajja!!! You giggling asshole.
ScorpionOfApocalypse 1 year ago 3
@FishyOfApocalypse
Any evidence for your scientific hallucination yet? jajajajajaja
Whether you admit it or not, you have no choice other than to admit that you believe in a scientific fairy tale that goes like this:
Once upon a time long time ago and far away there were some ugly silurian fishes that decided to move home, and very slowly thery were moving out of the water, but very slowly so nobody could noticided and some millions years laters...wooow...they´re humans...jajajajaja
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosexual
Try poison. Try a whole bottle.
ScorpionOfApocalypse 1 year ago
@FishyOfApocalypse
Poyson is proof and evidence that you´re just and MACROevolved silurian fish?
Are you drunk? JAJAJAJAJAJA
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@ScorpionOfApocalypse
Hello FishyOfA...still defending the stupid idea that one of those weird Cambrian marine creature through out a very sloooooow process which you call EVOLUTION turned, changed or evolved into humans, let alone all the creatures along the road? you should ashamed, very ashamed...yes I`m laughling at you
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens You call yourself a Christian? After saying that it was fortunate that Carl Sagan died? You, sir (or madam) are a puerile hypocrite. Carl Sagan was a fine man, and you are glad he's dead. So much for your "love of god" and "love thy neighbor as thyself." Shame on you.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665
Yes, aren`t the russian glad that Stalin died?
Well, Why should I love satan?
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens You incompetent, narrow-minded jackass! Just because someone disagrees with your faith, you call him Satan? The wickedest name you can think of? If there were a Holy Spirit, it's a cinch that he's never touched YOUR heart before. Hypocrite.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665
And because you believe that your great-great-great-grandpa was one of those weird Cambrian marine cretures therefore you are a wide-open-minded? don`t make me laugh...it`s ok to believe in your theology of evolution, it`s ok to be an atheist, what is not OK is to mock anybody else, even worse when your beliefs are the most stupid beliefs ever...so back to your point, please
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens
Well, another one bites the dust...BYE
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens Evolution is not theology, "du Narr." My point is you are espousing a belief, but you don't follow it. You are unknowledgeable when it comes to science or christianity. You don't understand evolution because you've apparently only read some YEC claptrap. You don't understand your faith, because you are happy that someone died. At least some Christians try to live their faith, but you ... you're pathetic.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665
Sure it´s and at this time you have your own high priest...guess who is he
Well not sharing your opinions on both your scientific myth or christianity does not mean I´m not knowledgeable...
I don´t understand evolution, but you do and you haven´t been able to name your cambrian marine creature ancestor...wooow
Nooope, I just read evolutionary crap that why I´ve concluded it´s science fiction, a scientific myth...I do live my faith...you haven´t read the whole Bible, have you?
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens "guess who is he." What is your mother language? Your English is difficult to follow. Are you having trouble following what I write? I've already stated that I have no high priest, so guessing who it is is futile. You're correct. Your lack of knowledge about natural selection has nothing to do with my opinions -- it has to do with your lack of reading. FYI, I've read the entire bible seven times in my life. I find it entertaining and amusing.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665
Sure you have a high priest but you`re not even enough to guess who it is he...
Lack of knowledge about natural selection, an all powerfull force that could turn a cambrian marine creature into humans?, of course given enough time...What is that?
Did you? maybe upside-down...
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realhomosapiens You keep insisting that I have something which I do not. Further discussion is, therefore, a waste of effort. You refuse to read about the theory of natural selection or watch the Ken Miller video I suggested earlier. I have read your bible. As rafaravioli has stated, "I'll stick with the side that has done repeatable experiments and doesn't resort to arguing 'ad baculum.'" Or 'ad hominem.' Aufs Wiedersehen
Xenophile665 1 year ago
can someone please explain to me how there was no oxygen in earths early atmosphere if there was water on earth at the time?
footballward 1 year ago
@footballward Wow. My thoughts exaclty. But, I'm sure you'll be given a "scientific" explantion by a supposed abiogenesis genius...
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86 It doesn't require an astonomy genius to explain aspects of the solar system or planets or stars, does it? So why should it require a genius to explain abiogenesis? It requires someone who has studied and written about it. (By the way, your thinly-veiled sarcasm was rather poor, not really clever enough to be considered humor. Better luck next time.)
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@footballward Water does not provide oxygen. It contains oxygen, but because the oxygen is joined with hydrogen, it isn't "free" oxygen. When plants developed, their metabolisms caused oxygen to be released into the atmosphere, slowly building in concentration, until the atmosphere today is about 1/5 oxygen. Hope that helps.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
... And yet there are people who still insist that an invisible man in the sky created a man directly out of dust and then a woman from said man's rib, and their only evidence for this outrageous supernatural claim is "If you don't believe this, you will be tortured forever by the invisible man." I'll stick with the side that has done repeatable experiments and doesn't result to arguing 'ad baculum'.
rafaravioli 1 year ago 28
@rafaravioli I don't mean to interrupt, but what does "ad baculum" mean? I can't locate it in my dictionary. Thanks.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665
It means 'argument to the cudgel' or 'appeal to the stick' -- Using threats as a way of arguing for something (ie. "You will go to hell if you don't believe my argument is true" or "Aren't you afraid you'll go to hell for not believing in God?")
rafaravioli 1 year ago
@rafaravioli Thanks, man. I might've misspelled it when I entered it. (Is it Latin?)
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@rafaravioli I couldn't agree with you more!! This is FAR more majestic and inspiring then anything I read in the bible when I was a Christian, and mind you, I read through about 4 different English translations! Not enough people understand the intense beauty of abiogenesis and evolution as a whole, IMO!
dave4shmups 1 year ago
@rafaravioli
Lol i dont believe in magic sticks(but science does).Science believes in Abiogenesis that it is impossible.Science doesnt think anymore it just follows a scientific dogma
pppaaaooo13 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13
And why do you think abiogenesis is impossible?
GreatExterminator 1 year ago
@GreatExterminator
Science still hasnt produced a single living cell.How do you know that something that science cannot produce laboratory was created through random chemical reactions?At some point i believe science will manage to create a living cell but after much effort and this cell will be DESIGNED(if you know what i mean)
pppaaaooo13 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13 Your logic is bollocks! Just because we know how cells came into existence does not mean we have the technology to duplicate it! Will you not believe how a star works until scientists have made one???????? We know how two atoms of hydrogen are fused to make one atom of helium but have you ever tried doing that???!!! Nothing is impossible unless proven so and like your silly religions nothing has been proven! Abiogenisis is much more likely than god doing it with harry potters wand!!
greeny202a 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13
Science can't produce a full scale hurricane either, or a full size star, so what's your point?
GreatExterminator 1 year ago
@GreatExterminator Im afraid @pppaaaooo13 is an idiot mate!
greeny202a 1 year ago
A marvelous production. Does this remind anybody of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein?
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86 lol ITS ALIVE !!!!!
prime440 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86
Well, with except for the names and a few other changes, the story is the very sameone, jajajaja....unfortunatelly this science fiction is taught as real science all over the world...what a shame for real science and real scientists...this man man was just a science mercenary, ....make money
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens
can you please die soon?
ScorpionOfApocalypse 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens You make claims, but give no evidence to support them. You think Carl Sagan purposely promoted science fiction to make money? Show your evidence, or shut the f**k up.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665
The sun is shining up on the sky...and you ask for evidence? you´ve got to be kidding...
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens Ah, now I understand. You're one of those: "The sun is shining in the sky, therefore Carl Sagan is a science mercenary." You got me. I've been had by a 12 year old with a computer.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens You are an Eskimo transvestite. How do I know? There are stars in the sky, and you can't see that that's valid evidence? "you've got to be kidding..."
Xenophile665 1 year ago