It just doesn't happen

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: TzarChasm

Lets try this a different way. If we are willing to indulge the possibility that your divine creation story is reliable, would you allow yourself to suspend your disbelief in abiogenesis and evolution and acknowledge them as viable?

Negative

Don Edstrom
I am a Ph.D. trained synthetic organic chemist, actually was in the same laboratory with Dr. Tour some 30 yrs ago. He speaks the truth. The whole story of prebiotic chemistry is a total hoax with no basis in reality. I read over 400 scientific papers in this area and they do not explain anything.

The academic world has been hoaxing you and everyone else.
I appreciate the offer Chaz but a compromise is not what I'm after.

Douglas Morales
As a Biology major from UCLA I can say that Dr. Tour is correct. Biologist do not make anything. I laughed because it’s true

I'm 100% what you guys are spreading is a hoax
Man: I can manipulate molecules to create life!
God: Create your own molecules.

A fair debate that only cost you 10 mins. Please watch.

You should at the very least agree that "Who created the Creator" is an eternally
ignorant question.

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
/ˌābīōˈjenəsəs/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"
HISTORICAL

This is 100% impossible

Did you post that cute little debate video because you don't have any actual evidence of divine interference or supernatural activity at your disposal? Unfortunately it's much less taxing on the imagination to read an article on evolution and fill in the blanks with a quick Wikipedia search. But if you have solid data from a direct encounter with this so called God then please share with us. An location where we can meet this creature is even better.

a reply to: TzarChasm

That's not even addressing the point Chaz. The point being
what you suggest explains the origins of life on this planet
is impossible with out cognitive information. Information is
of mind.

That is proof because the intelligence it took is beyond you or any
human being. Did you even watch the vid?

Cronin gets so flustered he says he doesn't even know what life is.
Yet he's being funded to create something he can't even identify.

The permutations of protein to protein interactions is 10 to the seventy
nine billionth power and only one will work?

As they say the proof is in the pudding.
As well as everything you see and touch and smell
and experience and remember etc.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: TzarChasm

That's not even addressing the point Chaz. The point being
what you suggest explains the origins of life on this planet
is impossible with out cognitive information. Information is
of mind.

That is proof because the intelligence it took is beyond you or any
human being. Did you even watch the vid?

Cronin gets so flustered he says he doesn't even know what life is.
Yet he's being funded to create something he can't even identify.

The permutations of protein to protein interactions is 10 to the seventy
nine billionth power and only one will work?

As they say the proof is in the pudding.
As well as everything you see and touch and smell
and experience and remember etc.

Truth is, modern science does have a fair amount of difficulty nailing down what it means to be "alive" let alone "conscious" or "sentient" which leads me to the question, how do you know the cause behind reality as we know it today was a sentient or even living being? How do you know the way it thinks? How do you know that it doesn't lie or manipulate? But this is a whole separate can of worms. It's not like there's a specimen we can interact with to inform ourselves directly on this subject. Pure speculation and ontological rhetoric.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Phantom423

Please cite a biology textbook or research article that says that humans were made "through sheer stupid luck". And what are the 4 elements? Thank you.

Do you think there's a text book that would say that?
Of course not in those specific words. And yet those specific words
are a good demographic aren't they? I believe they are.

Then by self admission your thesis is wrong. You can't cite even a single text or research paper which endorses your position. We are talking science here and science requires validation of ideas, opinions, hypotheses, etc. There are over 500 journals on evolutionary biology and over 200,000 research papers, not to mentions a plethora of textbooks. Are they all wrong?

What you believe about any particular area of science is irrelevant without the work to back it up. You have none. Zero.

Not sure what you mean by a "good demographic". Demographic relates to populations.

Genesis is not a book of science. If you choose to take it literally, that's your problem. Science requires evidence. Would you fly in an airplane that hadn't been tested? Would you take a drug that had no clinical trials? That's what good science does - test, repeat, test again.

Your man in the video also got it wrong. Darwin never said that things change as a result of a purely natural process. Darwin observed change. That's it. He had no way of determining whether change was the result of natural processes or some spook in the sky.

The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Pure speculation and ontological rhetoric.

OMG you are completely blind at every turn. What do have to say when
science is factually guilty of the same thing on a much more deceptive
level. That's perfectly fine with you.


No one has ever seen molecules assemble themselves toward life?
Even if a scientist could do this he has only proven intelligence had to
be involved so what's the point?

Molecules have no sensitivity towards life what so ever and would
flat out never accomplish even the first spark of life any where in
the universe. Because it is impossible. It just doesn't happen that
way. There is only one other way it can happen. Why do run away
from that Chaz? It must be something personal because scientifically
it makes no sense.

How do you know the way it thinks?

It doesn't matter?

How do you know that it doesn't lie or manipulate?

Again it doesn't matter

Cognitive dissonance?

a reply to: Phantom423

Then by self admission your thesis is wrong. You can't cite even a single text or research paper which endorses your position. We are talking science here and science requires validation of ideas, opinions, hypotheses, etc. There are over 500 journals on evolutionary biology and over 200,000 research papers, not to mentions a plethora of textbooks. Are they all wrong?

Where's the evidence that says they aren't. If you can't
show an example of molecules assembling themselves
in the pursuit of life you have nothing.

What you believe about any particular area of science is irrelevant without the work to back it up. You have none. Zero.

No that's what you have and also what you believe about
any particular area of science is irrelevant
because all you have is a belief. A very biased hypocritical belief.

Science requires evidence.

Apparently not!

sci·en·tism
/ˈsīənˌtizəm/
Learn to pronounce
nounRARE
thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

a reply to: carsforkids

It's up to you to prove that they're wrong. If you have evidence, present it. It's that simple.

Bet you can't do it.

a reply to: Phantom423

LOL

What the hell are you talking about?



You prove me wrong?

a reply to: carsforkids

You simply don't understand evolution then and how processes like binary partitioning trees can filter options down in the trillions in the a few steps.

Your lack of understanding does not undo the knowledge and experience millions of very intelligent people have.

The issue is with you.

a reply to: ziplock9000

The issue is with you.

Do you agree that a supreme being is the most likely explanation
for the origins of life on this planet?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Phantom423

LOL

What the hell are you talking about?

You prove me wrong?

Yes. You have been proven wrong so many times we've all stopped counting.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Yes. You have been proven wrong so many times we've all stopped counting.

Yet you still can't give us one example of a population of organisms evolving. Rats remain rats, fruit flies remain fruit flies... organisms do not evolve.

It's up to you to prove that they're wrong.

It's not our responsibility to prove a negative. It is your responsibility to show us one clear observable and repeatable example that shows organisms can evolve into something else. If you can't prove that, then evolution is not science, it is faith.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Yes. You have been proven wrong so many times we've all stopped counting.

Yet you still can't give us one example of a population of organisms evolving. Rats remain rats, fruit flies remain fruit flies... organisms do not evolve.

It's up to you to prove that they're wrong.

It's not our responsibility to prove a negative. It is your responsibility to show us one clear observable and repeatable example that shows organisms can evolve into something else. If you can't prove that, then evolution is not science, it is faith.

All that has been posted so many times it's beyond comprehension that even an idiot like you can't understand it.

You and your pal are more evidence that there is no evidence for anything you propose. You belong to a wacko cult whose goal is to perpetrate fraud and financially capitalize on the guppies who pay to listen to you. Did you ever pay the GoFundMe contributors back when they took down your fraudulent crowdfunding effort? I doubt it.

You're a cheap shot, Cooperton. You've been flattened so many times it's a wonder you can stand up straight (maybe you don't).

a reply to: Phantom423

All that has been posted so many times it's beyond comprehension that even an idiot like you can't understand it.

Look at this childish behavior from the big brain of science
Atheists always gotta be the first to start name calling and
attacking when their science balks.

Unbelievable it never fails. lol


Question fer ya!

Do you agree that a mind superior to our own is the most likely explanation
for the origins of life on this planet?

a reply to: carsforkids

Question fer ya!

Do you agree that a mind superior to our own is the most likely explanation
for the origins of life on this planet?

There is no evidence either way. Personal belief: NO.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Yes. You have been proven wrong so many times we've all stopped counting.

Yet you still can't give us one example of a population of organisms evolving. Rats remain rats, fruit flies remain fruit flies... organisms do not evolve.

It's up to you to prove that they're wrong.

It's not our responsibility to prove a negative. It is your responsibility to show us one clear observable and repeatable example that shows organisms can evolve into something else. If you can't prove that, then evolution is not science, it is faith.

Can you explain what you mean by "organisms can evolve into something else" maybe use more specific wording.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: carsforkids

Question fer ya!

Do you agree that a mind superior to our own is the most likely explanation
for the origins of life on this planet?

There is no evidence either way. Personal belief: NO.

There's only one planet with life on it. If intelligent design was responsible you can be sure that it wouldn't stop at just one.

There has been no communication that can be verified as an intelligent transmission from extraterrestrial agencies. This suggests either we are alone or we are too stupid to detect their transmissions and therefore ill prepared for this kind of debate.

No one has tried to invade our planet even once, and if humans are any indication of what intelligence looks like, that's a little weird.

Just some notes that draw a pretty compelling picture in my mind.

originally posted by: Phantom423

All that has been posted so many times it's beyond comprehension that even an idiot like you can't understand it.

You and your pal are more evidence that there is no evidence for anything you propose. You belong to a wacko cult whose goal is to perpetrate fraud and financially capitalize on the guppies who pay to listen to you. Did you ever pay the GoFundMe contributors back when they took down your fraudulent crowdfunding effort? I doubt it.

You're a cheap shot, Cooperton. You've been flattened so many times it's a wonder you can stand up straight (maybe you don't).

Anyone who has been following these threads knows by now that there is no observable verifiable examples of a population of organisms evolving. All organisms remain essentially the same: fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice, microbes remain microbes, etc. Evolution doesn't happen, despite over a hundred years of scientists trying to do so through artificial selection..

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

All that has been posted so many times it's beyond comprehension that even an idiot like you can't understand it.

You and your pal are more evidence that there is no evidence for anything you propose. You belong to a wacko cult whose goal is to perpetrate fraud and financially capitalize on the guppies who pay to listen to you. Did you ever pay the GoFundMe contributors back when they took down your fraudulent crowdfunding effort? I doubt it.

You're a cheap shot, Cooperton. You've been flattened so many times it's a wonder you can stand up straight (maybe you don't).

Anyone who has been following these threads knows by now that there is no observable verifiable examples of a population of organisms evolving. All organisms remain essentially the same: fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice, microbes remain microbes, etc. Evolution doesn't happen, despite over a hundred years of scientists trying to do so through artificial selection..

The facts remain the same no matter how much you whine and complain. We have the fossils, microbiology and geology studies, astrophysics experiments and common sense. None of them support intelligent design. The only possible explanation for "why do we need god" is that humans are lonely and selfish creatures who desperately need to believe that the universe isn't a cold lonely place that accidentally gave us life just to toy with us for three quarters of a century. Problem is no one has ever come back from the dead to tell us what is waiting at the far shore or if there is anything at all. Trillions of bodies throughout history and no post mortem testimony of the afterlife. Almost as if there's nothing to tell. Circumstantial speculation and ontological rhetoric doesn't explain away these observations which are just as incredulous as your objections to evolution.

a reply to: Phantom423

There is no evidence either way. Personal belief: NO.

Has nothing to do with evidence but you did say NO!

So you think the building blocks of life can just magically
come together and spark life in an organism that was waiting
how ever long it takes. In a puddle some where, rather than
what is obvious to me. That the permutations of protein
to protein interactions being 10 to the seventy nine billionth
power and only one will work? A being only of superior mind
could be responsible for transient information succeeding.
The mind is without doubt more likely than no intelligence
involved. This mind would also explain the spark of life that
is truly the miracle never to be replicated by humans ever
any way.

I think therefore you and science are making the extraordinary claim
that requires extraordinary evidence.

You seem to be hiding behind a call for evidence when there really
is no need to prove the obvious?

When scientists can create life then they can sell their evolution.
But if you can't prove the magic you suggest you certainly can't have
evolution.