It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DarkSide
Originally posted by Kitsunegari
I think aliens are harder to believe in, and thats why so many people refuse to believe, and so much more people believe in god than in aliens.
they'd much rather believe in god, because god, pretty much cant hurt you, when aliens are very real and can.
we are all in denial.
There is evidence for alien life. It's a fact, it exists wether you believe in it or not.
There is no evidence for God, people believe in him because of fear or ignorance.
Originally posted by eazy_mas
In the Quran there is many evidence of God here is the website
www.jalyat.net...
They maybe Aliens but not like those seen it TV maybe bacteria or some sore of but not as advance as us
Originally posted by eazy_mas
There is another thing , one of the islamic scientist prove some disbeliver
the disbelivers said that the earth was created my consicional so he told them to meet him in an island.
When those people where waiting for a long time till the islamic scientist came to them so they asking him why was he late so he answer
" when i was at the port there was not boat so by consicience wood ,nails and hammer was on the water , they started to move and the hammer build the boat and then i came to you"
You would guessed those people reaction to say it impossible so he answered back that the world is not been created by consicience but God created it.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Science has been unable to show how DNA or RNA could have formed from a more primitive substance.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Though if evolution is true, and there is extraterrestrial life, your argument that those life-forms might use base substances other than DNA or RNA doesn't invalidate my argument. The complexity of a sentient life-form would require some type of base substance that, though possibly different from nucleic acid, is generally equivelant to the complexity of the two we have on earth: DNA and RNA.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Even if the odds of a DNA or RNA strand forming on its own was dramatically more realistic than the odds i've presented, it must be created spontaneously by something less complex, whatever that might be, which still leaves you with the "spontaneous formation" problem.
Originally posted by nappyhead
It hasn't happened -- don't act as if it has; if it does happen then I will join you ranks, but until then don't use that as an argument.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Actually I take both sides of the issue and compare the probabilities. Which-ever side is more logical after I compare the two is what I choose. The existence of my God is either a 'yes' or a 'no,' it is a 2:1 chance.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Evolution on the other hand has thousands of contradictions, millions of improbabilities (the least of which being the equations I stated),
Originally posted by nappyhead
You state that creationists have already 'rejected' the self-replicating molecules as if you were stating a fact, but I have read dozens of articles written by creationists on the issue.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Your 'snippets of RNA' replicated, but didn't remain stable for an extended period of time as one would in the cellular environment.
Originally posted by nappyhead
An equation has already shown that the original dense ball couldn't have overcome the gravitational forces.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Current theory suggests that the energy that is already in the physical universe can remain at a net constant, but where did it originally come from? That question doesn't change.
Originally posted by nappyhead
It all boils down to one thing: things exist. Things must have a source. Things must be explained somehow. God explains that source.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Ahhhh... so now you are taking an eternal matter and energy approach even though matter cannot be eternal... well... ok.
Originally posted by nappyhead
First thing, you are using human physical terms to explain way something you can't comprehend -- the paraphysical, the spiritual.
Secondly, it is still a theory that time is directly tied to matter and energy.
Originally posted by nappyhead
And even if time is tied to matter and energy, i've already explained that I believe in an omnipotent Creator who can do anything... even what you, a human, cannot comprehend.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Evidence 1: A human footprint and an allosaurus footprint have been found in the same layer of rock, in several instances, in and around Glen Rose, Texas.
Why? If God is an alien, then who created him? If there is no God, why do some choose to beleive that the human race was placed on earth by a bunch of reptiles from another galaxy? Who created the reptiles and their galaxy? there is certainly less "evidence" to support that notion than simply believing in God. At least there's the Bible to support that traditional belief.
If God is an alien, then who created him?
If there is no God, why do some choose to beleive that the human race was placed on earth by a bunch of reptiles from another galaxy?
Who created the reptiles and their galaxy?
there is certainly less "evidence" to support that notion than simply believing in God. At least there's the Bible to support that traditional belief.
Agreed, these have not been shown. However, all the principles necessary have been demonstrated. The argument you're making is akin to "we can only know gravity operates when we directly observe it. At any moment, we might go floating off into space because it has not been proven that gravity will continue to work. Therefor it's the beating of angel wings that pushes us down onto the earth."
The bottom line is, even if you managed to prove evolution were false, that does not give any credit to your creation myth. You would have to eliminate all possible natural explanations before it would be reasonable to conclude "supernatural".
The Bible speaks of the earth having four corners. Why do you accept this as figurative language, but insist on the six days of creation as literal?
OK, so now you define life as "having DNA or being sentient"? What about nonsentient life forms on the planet the aliens came from? Are those considered life?
Do you consider viruses to be "life"? What about prions?.
But it need not form spontaneously from dramatically less similar substances. Like I said before (a couple of times already), self replicating molecules have been observed to evolve. Read that again. Then read it again. Then go do some research and verify what I just told you is true. We have observational evidence of amino acid chains evolving into more complex chains. There's no fundamental reason that process couldn't continue. Do a bit of research on the theories you're trying to discredit. Your argument from ignorance is not the least bit impressive.
If current abiogenesis theory is the explanation of the spark of life, then the experiment has already happened, and you and I are it's result.
Ugh. You have no understanding of probability whatsoever yet you claim your using it in your decision process. When you flip a coin, there are three possibilities. It could land heads up, heads down, or on its edge. By your argument, the odds it will land on its edge is 1 in 3.
God either exists or doesn't. Probability is meaningless in that context.
The equation I stated, from your reference is a straw man. It as no validity whatsoever, and adds nothing to any argument as a result. It is an attempt at deception.
I don't know why I've wasted this much time with someone who refuses to recognize that an invalid argument is evidence only of the willingness of the person makeig it to lie. You are taking your "evidence" from people who I have already proven are willing to lie.
Now that you know they are liars, your propogation of that same argument makes you a liar as well. You realize that don't you? Are you a liar or do you still not undersand that abiogenesis theory has nothing to do with the spontaneous formation of DNA from base chemicals?
As have I. They don't reject the result, they reject the process as being artificial, which it is of course, but don't you see that creation of a sentient life form in the lab would also be artificial?
Stability is not the issue, self replication outside a cellular environment is the point.
Is this another equation akin to the 1 in 10^40,000 equation? Even so, if we can show that it is not possible for a static "ball" containing the universe to have overcome its own gravity, then that isn't how it happened. That isn't the same as proving god did it. But even if you conclude "god did it", you're back to theistic evolution again. If your can accept that god created a bunch of stuff in succession, why is it then invalid to accept that god caused the universe to explode? Neither premise has a greater explanatory power. The first one is consistent with the Bible, but the second one is consistent with observation at this point.
If everthing we can observe shows energy is forever constant, then the logical conclusion is that it has always existed and didn't come from anything. This conclusion is consistent with our knowledge of spacetime.
Your premise, that the universe was created, is inconsistent with both conservation of energy, as well as being meaningless, since you must presume the existence of time before the universe. But I don't expect you to actually use the logic you claim you're using.
Things do exist. And "things", i.e., particular arrangements of energy within the context of the universe, must have a source. That does not imply that the framework itself must have a source. But even so, god as the source explains nothing, since it begs the question, "what is the source of god"?
If you simply repeat that the universe must have been created, we're done.
We observe that energy is eternal. Why wouldn't I take that position? You keep repeating ad nauseum that energy can not be eternal, even though all observational evidence suggests that it is.
It's true I can't comprehend it, but neither can you. You are trying to prove the existence of something that can't even be comprehended. You can't, because proofs require comprehension of the components.
Relativity has been observed, it's not just conjecture.
Finally a bit of honesty. You formed your beliefs before examining the evidence, and will maintain them no matter what. You are simply looking for ad hoc arguments to sustain those belefs, rather than looking for evidnece to falsify them, which is what science does.
I asked you to present your best single argument, because I'm only going to adress one. I assume that since this is at the top of your list, it's the best one you have.
I have personally been to Glen Rose and walked in the tracks of the "human footprint". There's no way those are human. They're long and skinny and don't even look like human feet. The stride is huge, suggesting maybe a 10 or 12 foot "human".
Originally posted by nappyhead
There has to be some kind of non-physical force that is not bounded by the rules of decay and physics and the like, and exhibits unlimited power and intellect -- therefore 'God' exists.
Originally posted by nappyhead
In my opinion viruses are not life and neither are prions. Viruses could not have been ancestors of unicellular or multicellular organisms and cannot reproduce on their own.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Before we continue on about molecules 'evolving' into more molecules, let me ask you a question, which perhaps you can answer: where has it ever been observed that one organism evolves into another that is more complex? (Excluding viruses and bacterial diseases; because this is not real evolution)
Originally posted by nappyhead
But you cannot prove that this 'experiment' has even taken place. There is know observable evidence that your theory is true.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Even if that one equation is useless that doesn't change the fact that there are still thousands of others...
Originally posted by nappyhead
Why would DNA form in the first place? What purpose would it have? Answer that.
Originally posted by nappyhead
I'm talking about explanations that take into consideration natural creation of self-replicating molecules.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Without extended stability what purpose would the RNA snippets serve??
Why would nature ever create RNA in the first place? As a lone molecule it is pointless.
Originally posted by nappyhead
I've said this twice before: I don't believe God started the "Big Bang." I was simply suggesting that even if the "Big Bang" were true it would still take a deity to start it.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Energy is constant, but not unlimited. As you well know, my belief is in a God who is omnipotent... "And let there be a net constant of energy," said God, and so there was. He is omnipotent. He can make energy constant in the physical universe if he wants to. That argument doesn't prove anything against my God.
Originally posted by nappyhead
"What is the source of God?" I have said this several times already. It has been observed that physical things must have sources.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Did you forget that I said I DIDN'T HAVE A FAVORITE PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
Funny you didn't even bother to read or comment on the rest of the things I presented. Did you not know that the creation model assumes that humans were 10 or 12 feet tall???? Go to this site and look at the "New Mexico" tracks near the bottom.
Originally posted by White Widow
God is hardest to believe.
God is a figment of our imagination, people need something or someone to believe in, people don't want to think that if they die nothing happens after that, so they believe in heaven and hell. Basicaly people are afraid of the truth.
Originally posted by CommonSense
You're right! People are afraid of the truth. The truth is that God does exist and we will be held accountable for what we've done in our lives. Those who can't accept that truth and live life accordingly simply opt not to believe in God. They are afraid of the consequences of the truth.
Originally posted by CommonSense
[You're right! People are afraid of the truth. The truth is that God does exist and we will be held accountable for what we've done in our lives. Those who can't accept that truth and live life accordingly simply opt not to believe in God. They are afraid of the consequences of the truth.
Originally posted by Jakko
You would think that, at some point, people would automaticly question themselevs and the world around them. People would notice the difference between humans and animals, read the bible and just wonder wether it's a hoax or not.
Originally posted by Jakko
A reason for many people not to believe in God is, because they think belieiving in God would take away their freedom.
Originally posted by Jakko
They want to have as much fun, sex, drugs and whatnot as they please and think a religion will make this impossible.
Originally posted by Jakko
Reality is that this is quite a retarded reason not to believe in God.
Originally posted by Jakko
It's a strange discussion though, sometimes I think christians and nonchristians just really live in 2 different worlds.
Originally posted by Mistress of Night
Look, has anyone ever seen an Alien? Huh? Anyone? Please do not tell me anything about UFOs. I threw a frisbee in the air once, in the shape of a Space craft. And all these people came around and started pointing at it saying; Oh My God its and Alien. Come on, there is no proof of them so stop saying that there is until you can tell me there is. The devil's just trying to decieved you. Again.
You keep referring to rules of decay, but have not addressed the point I made a couple of times already, which is that all observations indicate that energy is eternal and is not itself subject to the "rules of decay". But even if you could prove that one day the universe will cease to exist, there is still no basis for the assumption of the existence of something of unlimited power, and if there is something metaphysical, there is no basis for assuming it is even intelligent, let alone infinitely intelligent.
I have a question. If actual infinites are not possible, and god is said to actually have infinite power and intellect, why are these premises not contradictory?
It seems your definition of life is rather complex and ad hoc. Viruses have DNA, which was your previous definition, but since they are not "cellular", they are not life. Prions have a reproductive code, but it is not DNA based, and they are not cellular.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Before we continue on about molecules 'evolving' into more molecules, let me ask you a question, which perhaps you can answer: where has it ever been observed that one organism evolves into another that is more complex? (Excluding viruses and bacterial diseases; because this is not real evolution)
You have to explain what you mean by "more complex". If you simply mean an increase in genetic material, it's observed all the time.
But excluding noncellular and single celled organisms is cheating, because that's where most of the "increase in complexity" is thought to have taken place - before multicellular organisms formed. One of the mechanisms of evolution involves retroviruses tampering with the genetic code causing there own genes to be passed on in future copies. These are refered to as retrotransposons.
Bacteria exchange genetic material like crazy. This is the postulated mechanism by which sexual reproduction first formed.
Originally posted by nappyhead
But you cannot prove that this 'experiment' has even taken place. There is know observable evidence that your theory is true.
That's what this whole discussion is about. Although not every step of the natural experiment has been observed, we have enough observations to fill in the missing pieces.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Even if that one equation is useless that doesn't change the fact that there are still thousands of others...
If that one is bogus, and you know that the author of that bogus equation also knows it's bogus, it would be best to strike that individual from the list. Presenting thousands, or even millions, of invalid arguments is evidence only of the willingness of someone to lie. The more knowingly invalid arguments that propogate, the greater the evidence of their lack of integrity. This is the method that creationists use. Throw out thousands of bogus arguments (an easy thing to do), knowing that the opposition will have to debunk each one (a hard thing to do). If you find someone willing to expend the effort to debunk them, by the time the process has finished, there's no-one left in the audience.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Why would DNA form in the first place? What purpose would it have? Answer that.
Reproduction. You seem obsessed with DNA. I don't know how the self replicating and evolving amino acid chains made no impression on you. Some of the reproductive mechanism observed by these chemicals is quite complex.
Originally posted by nappyhead
I'm talking about explanations that take into consideration natural creation of self-replicating molecules.
We understand how abiogenesis could have happened (to the point of self replicating amino acids), we observe candidate amino acids reproducing and evolving, we observe snippets of noncellular RNA reproducing. It isn't hard to fill in the missing pieces with a likely scenario by which self reproducing amino acids formed a small RNA chain which got stuck to itself during reproduction forming the first small DNA snippet. That snippet continued to mutate rapidly until the beginnings of a cell membrane formed, most likely within a clay substrate that acted as the pre-cellular cell membrane. The ability to protect itself provided this new quasi-cellular thing mobility from the protective clay substrate. Once free, each new copy that enhanced that membrane had better mobility and a higher success rate until the first fully cellular organism was complete.
What are the odds of this scenario? No-one knows, but they are not zero, and there's no reason to think they are impossibly high either. That isn't to say it's been observed, but it's a reasonable mechanism that works its way incrementally to DNA. It's enough to refute the claims of impossibility.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Without extended stability what purpose would the RNA snippets serve??
Why would nature ever create RNA in the first place? As a lone molecule it is pointless.
The answer to all these "what purpose" questions is "reproduction", which is the fundamental "purpose" of evolution. It isn't a purpose in the sense of intelligent purpose, it's merely a positively reinforcing feedback loop. Whatever does not contribute to the feedback (reproduction in the case of biology) is overwhelmed by that which does.
It's conceptually no different from putting a microphone near an amplifier. A tone will evolve extremely rapidly, even though there's no purpose for it to do so, and even though the tone starts off as completely random and informationless noise. Generally within no more than a couple of seconds, a loud sustained tone will form from nothing, based on the same principle of positive feedback that we see with self replicating organic material.
If you start from random noise, the odds of a tone spontaneously forming are impossibly small. So the tone-creationist argument would be that god made the first complete tone. The tone-evolutionist would try to sample as much of the intermediate formation as possible, and draw inferences for the undersampled middle points. The tone-creationist would pick apart each of those samples with arguments like "Yah, but we've never observed the missing middle part, and until I observe a complete continuum starting from random noise to a complete tone that looks exactly like this one, I refuse to accept your premise."
Within engineering fields, positive feedback loops are well understood. They always converge to a point of sustainability, where nonlinearities limit further growth, and so that which doesn't contribute to the sustained result is totally squelched out.
We don't need to observe the missing middle part to know it's there by induction from our knowledge of positive feedback loops in general.
Originally posted by nappyhead
I've said this twice before: I don't believe God started the "Big Bang." I was simply suggesting that even if the "Big Bang" were true it would still take a deity to start it.
You've said it, but you haven't supported it. If what you are saying is true, and it would be impossible for a universe ball to overcome gravity and begin to expand, then that isn't how it happened. That's a far cry from proving god did it. You are simply discounting all other scenarios (including unknown scenarios) without justification in order to arrive at another false dichotomy.
But even so, suppose the universe were compressed arbitrarily close to a singularity (pick however close you want to be), and gravity created a potential well that could not be overcome within any reasonable probability. It could still be overcome with unreasonable probability. Given an eternity to overcome it, the odds that the event would happen (within a quantum mechanical perspective) are 100%, no matter how small the odds are within a given interval, as long as they are not identically 0. 1 in 10^40,000 would be trivially easy to overcome given an eternal timeframe. So would any other level of improbability. If it is merely improbable, given unlimited trials, an event is guaranteed to happen.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Energy is constant, but not unlimited. As you well know, my belief is in a God who is omnipotent... "And let there be a net constant of energy," said God, and so there was. He is omnipotent. He can make energy constant in the physical universe if he wants to. That argument doesn't prove anything against my God.
What difference does it make if energy is limited or not, if it always remains constant? By the way, we don't know that energy is limited.
Originally posted by nappyhead
"What is the source of God?" I have said this several times already. It has been observed that physical things must have sources.
The universe is not a physical thing, in the sense of things that must have sources and are observed to decay - things within the universe - it is the container for such things. Must a bucket used to carry water have the same properties as water? You are committing a categorical fallacy by applying inferences gleaned from observation within the context of the universe and applying them to the existence of the universe itself.
We observe that any particular arrangement of energy has a source (say an apple), and decays, but we do not observe that the energy itself has a source or decays.
The fundamental laws of physics, such as conservation of energy, are much closer to direct inference of the nature of the universe. Those laws indicate the universe is eternal.
But more than that, we can arrive at the same conclusion simply through metaphysics, as long as we know that spacetime is an aspect of the universe and not something transcendental. It is meaningless to say "before the universe" once you understand that time is part of the universe.
We're done. You do not seem capable of comprehending that the universe itself is not a "thing" within the universe. It's the sum of all such things plus the framework in which they exist. You keep trying to apply properties of things within the framework of the universe to the existence of the framework itself.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Did you forget that I said I DIDN'T HAVE A FAVORITE PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
Funny you didn't even bother to read or comment on the rest of the things I presented. Did you not know that the creation model assumes that humans were 10 or 12 feet tall???? Go to this site and look at the "New Mexico" tracks near the bottom.
I'm not going to refute every piece of BS evidence you troll off creation sites. You had your shot. If you were serious and really wanted to know more, you'd just go to talkorigins. Pretty much all the garbage evidence creationists use has already been addressed there.
What difference does it make what conjecture such a model makes. There's no model other than "magically humans were transformed" to explain why we are not still 10-12 feet tall - you can't appeal to evolution in your "model". Your "model" is nothing more than an appeal to magic at every step where it contradicts either itself or observation.
Originally posted by DarkSide
Originally posted by Mistress of Night
Look, has anyone ever seen an Alien? Huh? Anyone? Please do not tell me anything about UFOs. I threw a frisbee in the air once, in the shape of a Space craft. And all these people came around and started pointing at it saying; Oh My God its and Alien. Come on, there is no proof of them so stop saying that there is until you can tell me there is. The devil's just trying to decieved you. Again.
There are official documents that prove their existance.Some governments have already acknoleged their extra-terrestrial origin and there have been loads of sightings by serious witnesses backed up by radar confirmation. There are official organisations studying them in most countries...the list of evidence goes on. In a scientific point of view, life has to exist throughout the universe.
Oh,where is the proof for your God?
There is evidence for alien life. It's a fact, it exists wether you believe in it or not.
There is no evidence for God, people believe in him because of fear or ignorance.
Originally posted by nappyhead
spam
I have a question. If actual infinites are not possible, and god is said to actually have infinite power and intellect, why are these premises not contradictory?
Infinites are only possible in the realm that God resides in. He created our universe differently. Our physical universe operates under different laws in which infinites are not possible unless God himself intercedes.
Originally posted by nappyhead
We can base the existence of an omni^3 God on many things, for example:
1. There must be an infinite-conscience source to explain our universe and the fact that things DO exist. God fits that source perfectly.
Originally posted by nappyhead
By more complex I mean 1 species becoming an entirely different species.
Originally posted by nappyhead
We don't have anywhere near enough observation to prove evolution... that is undebatable.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Most of the creationists I've talked with prefer to use evidence to prove creationism rather than evidence to disprove evolution. Your making a stereotypical argument that creationists have a lack of integrity.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Because you believe that my one initial argument about sentient life forming is inaccurate doesn't mean that the thousands upon thousands of other arguments are inaccurate.
Originally posted by nappyhead
They didn't make an impression on me because they just became another amino acid chain... they never became a life form, nor anything remotely close to one.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Your statement still doesn't explain why DNA formed. Why would the parent molecule of the DNA become DNA?
Originally posted by nappyhead
spam
I have a question. If actual infinites are not possible, and god is said to actually have infinite power and intellect, why are these premises not contradictory?
Infinites are only possible in the realm that God resides in. He created our universe differently. Our physical universe operates under different laws in which infinites are not possible unless God himself intercedes.
You've explained nothing. You've merely made an incomprehensible assertion.
Originally posted by nappyhead
We can base the existence of an omni^3 God on many things, for example:
1. There must be an infinite-conscience source to explain our universe and the fact that things DO exist. God fits that source perfectly.
Another baseless and meaningless assertion, I'll just skip the rest.
Originally posted by nappyhead
By more complex I mean 1 species becoming an entirely different species.
That sems to be an arbitrary threshold set at a level you don't think can be met to your satisfaction, especially when you've left the ambiguous term "species" undefined. Why would it not be sufficient to show that not only can genes increase, but chromosomes as well?
Originally posted by nappyhead
We don't have anywhere near enough observation to prove evolution... that is undebatable.
I assume that by "undebatable", you mean nothing can change your mind. I think we agree on that.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Most of the creationists I've talked with prefer to use evidence to prove creationism rather than evidence to disprove evolution. Your making a stereotypical argument that creationists have a lack of integrity.
Creationists on whole are only looking for evidence that supports their position, while simultaneously ignoring anything that doesn't. It's an advanced form of Biblical apologetics.
Are any of the leaders in the filed of creation hypothesis making any kind of a serious attempt to falsify their position? It isn't science if they aren't.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Because you believe that my one initial argument about sentient life forming is inaccurate doesn't mean that the thousands upon thousands of other arguments are inaccurate.
But it does mean that the sources supporting that invalid argument are summarily dismissed as a result of their dishonesty/blatant-ignorance (whichever the case), including their thousands upon thousands of other claims.
If you can find a different source who has not put forth that bogus argument, then we can examine another piece of evidence (one at a time only). Pick your best, and this time do a bit of research to make sure the argument is valid.
I've formed the theory that you are being lazy in this discussion and hoping that simply presenting a bucketload of bogus arguments will wear me out. Won't you help me falsify that theory?
Originally posted by nappyhead
They didn't make an impression on me because they just became another amino acid chain... they never became a life form, nor anything remotely close to one.
Of course it didn't become a life form by your arbitrary and ever changing definition of 'life'. If it had, I have full confidence you would simply have morphed the definition again.
Originally posted by nappyhead
Your statement still doesn't explain why DNA formed. Why would the parent molecule of the DNA become DNA?
You are to be congratulated! You've succeeded where many have failed in proving that I don't have all the answers. Please accept this e-cookie as a prize. :e-cookie:
I concede that since I can't show how DNA formed, that the only possible explanation is that it formed by magic. After all, you and I both know I possess all non-magic knowledge.