I dont believe in abiogenesis. All the theories on the precursors of true life rely on huge coincidences that could never overcome entropy, and even if you were to grant them these coincidences, theyre still unable to account for all chemical elements occurring.Like really, you need at least 40 genes for life MINIMUM and all those just suddenly come into being from catalytic RNA? Really?And i'm not even a creationist, this just all smells like BS.
>>16958890>could never overcome entropy,kek, he doesn't know
Abiogenesis appears to be extremely rare. As far as we know, it happened exactly once ever. But the thing is, we don't really know what the prerequisites are. Those conditions might not even be present on the current earth, perhaps inhospitable to life as we know it. Or maybe it happens all the time and the precursors just get swallowed up by existing life before it can develop. We just don't know.What we do know is a lot of the building blocks, such as amino acids and lipids, can form abioticly. Fully synthetic lipid "protocells" have been shown to be capable of a form of cell division given a fairly precise ebb and flow of Ph and nutrients. And these lipid bubbles have been shown to provide a stable environment for DNA replication to take place. It can't be called truly synthetic "life" since it's metabolism and replication is fully environmentally mediated. But it would provide a stable platform for evolution to begin occurring. What I'm trying to say is any probability based argument is meaningless here. We don't even know what circumstances we're calculating probabilities for but we do have a solid foundation for what's theoretically possible.
>>16958979You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded. You have faith in something no one has ever witnessed and no one can reproduce in a lab.Just admit evolution is a religion, not a science.
>>16959159What's your scientific alternative to abiogenesis?
>>16959163Science is a method of discerning truth from falsehood using experiments. It is NOT a dogmatic set of beliefs that requires you to recite a creed every morning.Nobody knows how life came to exist because it happened before anyone was born, its too complicated for any technology available to us to begin to understand, and it can't be replicated in a laboratory with experimental methods.We don't know, and that's OK. You dont need to pretend to have an answer to every question, even if people realize you are just making shit up. It means there are still things left for people to figure out. "Science" is not complete and you don't know it all. Religion is actually more honest about this kind of thing when they describe something as a Divine Mystery instead of acting like a know-it-all fag that no one can stand.
>>16959171>Its too complicated for any technology available to us to begin to understand, it can't be replicated in a laboratory with experimental methods.Are you a fucking vitalist or something? Did you just come out of a time machine from the 19th century? Well, you've got a lot of catching up to do.
>>16959159>You have faith in something no one has ever witnessed and no one can reproduce in a lab.I literally cited a laboratory experiment with protocells you retard.
>>16959159Evolution deniers are to Biology what Flat Earthers are to Astronomy.
>>16959171We can extrapolate present data to accurately predict future events. It's something we do every single day.Why is it somehow difficult for retards to understand that we can extrapolate present data to accurately discern past events?
>nobody ever wins the lottery because winning a lottery is unlikely>nothing can temporarily overcome entropythis is how retarded you sound
>>16959201You cited a bunch of horseshit. "Protocells" are not cells, not anything that resembles a cell, and not something that will ever become a cell, even given 6 gorillion years.
>>16959213Admitting that evolution is not science is not the same as denying evolution. One can believe in evolution while admitting that they arrived at their belief through means other than the scientific method.
>>16959243>If I sit in the same spot long enough, random molecules bumping into each other will spontaneously assemble a Sydney Sweeny clone in front of me and she will cook me a stack of pancakesThis is how retarded you sound. Its like you don't understand entropy and think that enough time is a magic wand that can make anything happen.You are full of shit and you know it. If a religious person tried to explain something that way, "perhaps Moses parted the Red Sea by the molecules of the ocean just randomly, accidentally, moving in one direction. Given infinite time and an infinite universe, anything is possible."–you would instantly call bullshit. Whenever someone points out the probability of your theory is near zero, you think you can just say "infinite time" and it is proven.
>>16959246That's quite the bold claim. Got anything to back it up?
>>16959213Evolutionists and astrophysicists are fake scientists. They are science fiction writers that larp as scientists.Do you want to know what we call real scientists? Engineers. They have to create products that actually work, not sit around and dream about what life was like on planet Reptar 400 million years ago.
>>16959213Evolution is fine, the problem is abiogenesis
>>16959253I don't need to back up my assertion because I'm not the one making the claim, you are. You say "protocells", which are just oil droplets in water, could eventually become cells. OK. So show me. Show me how it happens even with you manipulating every variable to make a process that is supposed to be spontaneous happen by brute force. But you can't because Jülicher’s model of the protocell has never been shown able to contain chemical reactions–it is theorized but has never been demonstrated experimentally.If you make an outrageous claim, that given enough time a cheese wheel will spontaneously form into an airplane and fly away–it is up to YOU to demonstrate how that happens, not up to me to prove it doesn't.Do you want to know how I know Chicago pizza isn't pizza? Because you call it deep dish pizza. Do you know what we call pic related? Pizza.Do you want to know how I know protocells aren't cells? Because you call them protocells, not cells.
>>16959264>I'm not the one making the claim, you are.You said "they never will become cells." That is a positive claim that you need to back up. If you had said "I'm not convinced they will," that would be a different story.The evidence supporting the claim that they could become cells is induction. These are lipid membranes capable of reproduction in particular environments and hosting DNA replication. That much has been empirically shown. If the DNA can replicate, it can replicate with variation. If the DNA can replicate under this set of conditions, then this set of conditions is subject to the same evolutionary process which all life is subject to.Now that I have presented my evidence that protocells could potentially become cells, I have infinitely more backing up my claim than you do yours.
>>16958890>I only believe in entropy when I want and would never actually apply it to the magical demons theory I am definitely trying to prove.>Like really, you need at least 40 genes for life MINIMUM and all those just suddenly come into being from catalytic RNA? Really?So basically, you are saying that you know it is definitely mathematically possible, but you think low odds means the same as completely impossible which makes you also believe cliches like lightning can't strike the same person twice?
Men do not reason their way to atheism with clean hands. They desire its conclusions and work backward to its premises. Then they have the audacity to call this "science".
>>16959288Thank you for posting this. Today is the day to turn from my sins. I pray that God will have mercy on me, a sinner.
>>16959288Sure, you totally met god and didn't just learn about your own limitations and mortality then cope with it by leaning into some audacious premise of an immortal all powerful magician who will totally save you the exact moment you die.>two more sins and the billionaire pedos ruining the world will totally get punished
>>16958890https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r53u0mjnFOchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQHRmnTU1jwwatch these two and then come back to me
>>16959369Doesnt really explain it, because viruses just hijack much of the required cellular machinery from their host.
Abiogenesis isn't even a theory it's just something that had to happen at some point
>>16959491>had to happen at some pointWhy?
>>16959512Life used to not exist and now does exist
>>16959514What if life existed before the big bang and was brought to this new universe?
>>16958890The Miller-Urey experiment showed how amino-acids form on their own. Scientists have also managed to make self-replicating RNA like QT45. The gap for abiogenesis to cover really isn't that big, and it's pretty consistent with how we observe everything in the world demonstrating complexity arising out of simplicity.
>>16959252>If I sit in the same spot long enough, random molecules bumping into each other will spontaneously assemble a Sydney Sweeny clone in front of me and she will cook me a stack of pancakes>Given infinite time and an infinite universe, anything is possible.Yes and YesBro disprove himself
>>16958890Of course abiogenesis is very hypothetical because we can't observe it and it's far too difficult and complicated to simulate. What more do you want? Nobody really thinks abiogenesis is a proven fact. It's merely an attempt. You're welcome to make your own if you can do better, or whatever. Silly faggot.
>>16959252I’ve sat in the same spot for a long time watching random molecules bumping into each other and so far I’ve only gotten a Jackie Chan and four Tilda Swintons. No Sydney Sweeney just yet but I’m not giving up
>>16958890if you're against abiogenesis as a concept rather than just the current theories about it then you're by definition a creationist since the alternative to life arising by natural processes is that it was created.
>>16958979Holy fucken cope
>>16959913No, the alternative is that life started outside the universe and has always existed.
>>16959960which is turbo logical but doesn't solve anything eitherit's like >life started in planet earth>life started in a planet 6 trillion über light years away from herein reality it doesn't make much of a difference
What i find disturbing is that maybe there really is a 1 in a billion chance of everything going right on primordial Earth for this to happen. Maybe if just one molecule was out of position, life just never would've happened
>>16959957What about any of that sounds remotely like cope to you?
>>16958890darwinism is an excuse to push social darwinism
if these little shits randomly mutated and evolved to not produce oxygen anymore we'd all just go extinct (and they've been around for billions of years)
>>169592522/10 troll
>>16958890what is the alternative? something intelligent made us? was it life? then you wind up with infinite regress. or was is non-life? non-living matter cannot impart information, so it would have to be something metaphysical, like god.it's more rational to assume life spontaneously arising is incredibly rare, and it happened here. if we ever get around to sending probes to other planets, then we'll know just how rare it is. either it's nothing but rocks and noble gases out there, or there is life somewhere else and we will have another piece of the puzzle. i expect we'll find potentially lots of primitive life and exactly zero alien intelligences.
Something must be able to survive Black holes.
chemical reactions can overcome entropy if they are endothermic (happen at high enough temperatures). This also happens if driven by another chemical reaction that does obey entropy or another source of energy is put in.Next question.
>>16960436I think i said the temperature thing the wrong way but same point, entropy violation is pretty normal if it can be paid for by something else
>>16959252Those molecules wouldn't sponaneously do that, but they could be assembled into a Syndey Sweeney. That in fact already did happen once, driven by sunlight over 4 billion years.
>>16959159>Y-YOU'RE A RELIGION, J-JUST LIKE US!!!!!ah, the age-old religicuck cope.no, we don't have a mindvirus like you honey, we're not the same.
>>16959171>uhhhh it's too complicated guise>lets just believe in religious schizonoise instead it's so much more honest because it KNOWS it doesn't know and then makes up fake bullshit anyway.KEK
>>16958890Dinosaurs are fake and gay.
>>16959965There's probably trillions of planets that have the right conditions for it in theory, but have just never hit the lottery chain of molecular collisions for life to form. The thing is, though, there isn't anybody on those planets to sit around and be sad about it. Only those who have already won the lottery can worry about the odds of winning the lottery.
>>16958890>be inorganic nothing>suddenly evolve into organic matter without explanation or reason>within that suddenly evolve into strains of protein for absolutely no reason at all>from there suddenly create DNA that would map out the evolution that life form for millions of years to come. >all of this happened naturally through a series of accidents just BECAUSE. It's not passing the smell-test.
Life comes from oilWe have the whole process backwards
>>16959288Abiogenesis is completely compatible with God anyway.
>>16958890it makes more sense that nature has some kind of "brain" that can predetermine shitjust not real brain
>>16959514this was the same faulty argument used for spontaneous generation.
Creationism is true, but God practically does not exist. Our universe is in a black hole, and microbial life somehow got on Earth through that black hole from our parent universe.God is active in the parent universe and hears the prayers of people there, but He cannot hear anyone in a black hole and we cannot reach Him either.
>>16958979>never tell me the odds>NO PLEASE STOP DON'T TELL ME THE ODDS>SERIOUSLY STOP IT STOP TELLING ME THE ODDSSSREEEEEEEEE
>>16960072Some of them don't produce oxygen, though. A few cynobacteria in a colony will become nitrogen-fixers and give nitrogen to others in the colony in exchange for food. Others become endospores.
>>16959534Why/How is there a preference for L type amino acids and homochirality in biochemical pathways ?The Miller-Urey experiment produced a racemic mixture of AA's and so we should expect heterochiral life evolve from that.Enzymatic pathways regulate from their precursors and their productsProtein folding into proper 3D shapes for allostery is a huge jump in complexity
>>16962025Any odds you tell me are pulled out of your ass.>>16962045This is a genuine mystery in biochemistry. Answer is probably as simple as "one form of life developed before the other and quickly rendered the environment inhospitable to the other form."
>>16962057>genuine mysteryWe do not see any counterexamplesThere should be some; there are noneThen, the emergent complexity of the 20 AA's folding into cooperating blobs that also catalyze chemical reactions is understatedAnd then, encoding this protein information for repeated used in ribonucleic 5 carbon rings (which we havent made in primordial soup in a lab)
Yeah maybe there is a Logos/demiurge but there is no way for us to knowBut even if there was, that also doesn't mean your desert jew religion is real.
>>16962070>We do not see any counterexamples>There should be some; there are noneThis is an assertion which you must back up. I already explicitly provided a plausible explanation why we don't see counter examples.>Then, the emergent complexity of the 20 AA's folding into cooperating blobs that also catalyze chemical reactions is understatedEven if your assertion were true, this conclusion does not follow from it.
>>16958890I thought some people already recreated it in a lab using similar conditions lol.
>>16961846Are you suggesting that life has never not existed?
>>16961846No it's not. The argument for spontaneous generation had little to due with origin of life. It was more of an attempt to explain how maggots get in to rotting food when nobody saw the maggots crawling to it.
The time travel hypothesis is correct. Some guy went back in time to lifeless earth but he accidentally brought some bacteria with him, which was the origin of life.
>>16958890they're actually the lowest energy configuration of the molecues.
>>16959271thats just the counterposition of your outlandish claim, and a perfectly reasonable position to have considering you have no evidence of natural environments producing protocells that then naturally produce living cells.
>>16962299Now you're just shifting goalposts.The conditions required for protocells to form and reproduce are naturally feasible. Given that they can reproduce and host DNA reproduction, natural selection operates on them in very much the same way that it operates on life. This is inductive evidence for the position. My claim wasn't even that protocells *did* turn into cells. It is one pathway that abiogenesis *could have* occurred. Which, since this thread is all about the supposed absurdity of abiogenesis, is sufficient to refute the core claim.If you want to support the claim that "protocells can't become cells," it is on you to suggest a specific biochemical barrier that prevents it.
>>16962057>odds you are gay>100.99%
>>16962308Please point out the biochemical process preventing you from being sufferable.
>>16962362None exists. But you're the one who addressed me thinking you had some kind of gotcha that affirmed your beliefs.That you now resort to personal attacks when I respond indicates that it's not really me you find insufferable, but reality itself.
>>16959172Caching up to what? If you said yourself you don't know how life started.
>>16959271>not a single cell has ever been formed>proof by inductionYou aren't very good at this.
>>16958890>40 genes minimumList please?
>>16960465yes you do, libtard
>>16963841https://www.snexplores.org/article/genes-how-few-needed-lifeIt's actually much more than 40
>>16960438Yeah your definitions are a bit mixed up, but this is generally true; in statistical mechanics, a given ensemble will have an associated free energy, and reactions with a decrease in free energy are spontaneous. Spontaneous entropy decreasing reactions exist, but the Gibbs free energy has an entropic term.[math] G=H-TS, \Delta G<0 [/math]
>>16963850This is a fun experiment but not really a concrete number. It's not surprising that prokaryotic cells have some necessary genes, modern prokaryotes are structured around a single genome. At the very least you'll need all of the necessary translation and transcription architecture for DNA.
Creationism is scientifically the most reasonable stance, as a math PhD I also obviously hold it, as do probably most of my peers. Say goodbye to ANY grants if you so much as say anything remotely like this on record so most of us don't. Protip: get a couple of math or physics PhD's that trust each other together and get them drunk in a private setting with no surveillance, they will tell you everything
>>16963754>proofNot a thing in science. Try again.
>>16963884This makes sense, since I've never met a mathematician who knew anything about the real world.
>>16958890>believe in abiogenesis.Others do, but why did that belong to an "scientific" site even it's only larping to do or primitive propaganda?
>>16958890Do you believe you exist? The number of coincidences that had to happen to make you is immeasurable. Every single one of your ancestors had to survive, meet and reproduce. And the genetic makeup of each one of your ancestors was also one in millions? (not sure on how many combinations there are). So you were the product of a long chain of very unlikely events, and yet somehow you exist.
>>16959288Atheism has nothing to do with science.
>>16961345Depends if you are a blasphemer or not. Creationists insult god, by implicitly asserting that god is to incompetent to design an air-tight fully self-consistent back-story for existence.
>>16958979Cope
>>16963900>Do you believe you existnot really, no
>>16958979Im the sixteenth century there was an alchemist named Paracelsus that everybody thought was the smartest söyentist ever. He thought that he could grow an artificial human, a homunculus, by placing semen in an artificial womb made of horse manure.Turns out, he was just a pervert masturbating in a pile of horse shit. Turns out, close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. Turns out, you haven't created life no matter how close you think you are–thinking you are close to creating life in a jar only shows how ignorant you really are of just how complicated life is. Turns out, you're no smarter than a retard masturbating in a pile of horse shit.
>>16966089Apples aren't oranges. Abiogenesis isn't alchemy.
>>16962362>absolutely zero counter argumentKek. Sounds about right.
>>16966100Then please show me a living being you created from non living matter. Go on. I'll wait.
>>16966100>Abiogenesis isn't alchemyabiogenesis is chemistry and chemistry is alchemy
>>16966110>chemistry is alchemyNo, it very obviously isn't. "Chemia" is what chemistry is derived from (not that it even is chemistry, anyway).
>>16966109Show me Jesus, Yahweh, or Allah, then.
>>16966122>Show me Jesus, Yahweh, or Allah, then.Gladly.
>>16966121sorry, I meant that chemistry is a superset of alchemy
>>16966133that's a picture of Jesus, not Jesus
>>16958890Both atheism and agnosticism are naturalist positions thus not creationist positions. There are only 2 available ontological primitives for how the universe/existence arrived (naturalism or creationism), TRUE DICHOTOMY NO POSSIBLE 3RD POSITION - disjunctive syllogismBoth atheism and agnosticism are positions of non-positions, the difference is agnostics say they dont have enough information to make the callBoth positions are still in contradiction with conservation of mass, 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics. The law of entropy proves matter and energy had a starting point, and isn't infiniteif atheism were true P then it would be supported by natural laws and natural science Q. not Supported Q atheism not true P. If P then Q not Q therefore not P. -modus tollensThe existence of information is not matter nor energy. All information is traced back to an intelligent source>God is empirically logically and scientifically proven. Atheism debunked by science
>>16966187now prove christianity
>>16966133>only shows up in historical records during the 14th century>radiocarbon dated to the 11th century>woven in a pattern that wasn’t invented until the 10th centuryYeah that’s not Jesus
>>16966187>All information is traced back to an intelligent sourceHow does not knowing the origin of matter prove this?
>>16966109Chemically synthetized genome transplanted into a cell stripped of its DNA, which then continues producing living matter according to the artificial blueprint, has been achieved.Artificial vesicles that encapsulate transcription-translation systems and produce metabolic enzymes and other proteins, create membrane pores, transmit and receive signals, and divide. Some have been engineered to have artificial organelles and produce their own ATP. They're not exactly free living yet (they're basically on life support and can't reliably replicate), but that's much closer to a simulacrum of life than any alchemist has gotten.Furthermore there are half a dozen projects to create such artificial cells.There are also effort to develop organisms that rely on xeno-nucleic acids (analogs of DNA/RNA) or non-standard amino acids, the latter in particular have been quite successful.
>>16966257>>only shows up in historical records during the 14th centuryIn the 6th and 7th centuries some pilgrims to the Holy Land witnessed cloths identified as Christ’s sudarium or linteamen (linen). The Hungarian prayer codex (pic related) clearly depicts the shroud 400 years prior.>>radiocarbon dated to the 11th centuryYour söyence is out of date. It has been well established that the shroud was damaged in a fire in the 16th century and the burnt edges were later repaired by nuns. The original carbon dating study took material from the repaired portion and got the date wrong. The most recent study from 2022 proves it is 2000 years oldhttps://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47>>woven in a pattern that wasn’t invented until the 10th centuryAlthough no other examples of that pattern were found in linen, there are examples of the pattern in wool and silk from the period. Furthermore, there is only one other example of the pattern from the medieval period, proving that it was at all times an expensive and very rare cloth. The weave on the cloth made it more consistent with the linen cloth provided by Joseph of Arimathea in the gospels than a medieval forgery.The 3d image on the shroud is not paint pigment. It is burned into the cloth at a depth of 200nm. This would require an instantaneous light output of 30 terawatts–and the entire US power grid is only capable of producing 1.3 terawatts.https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/GJAA.MS.ID.555837.php#:~:text=The%20ENEA%20team%20showed%20that%20a%20radiation,cell%20wall)%20as%20it%20is%20for%20theThe resurrection of Christ is proven by observable, measurable physical reality. Peer reviewed research conducted in a laboratory.Your theory of abiogenesis has always been a faith based approach that someday you can create life, despite your utter failure today. From its beginnings with a pervert furiously jacking off in a pile of horse dung to today, its just promises that are never fufilled.
>>16966187>If your choice is "God,"... you kinda have some BIG PROBLEMS:>God can not create itself, because that would mean it existed prior to its existence.>Logical Seppuku and...
>>16966285>Chemically synthetized genome transplanted into a cell stripped of its DNA, which then continues producing living matter according to the artificial blueprint, has been achieved.Wow! So your saying you can create life if you start with a living cell! Did you ride to school on a short bus?
>>16966480>>God can not create itself, because that would mean it existed prior to its existence.Correct. God did not create Himself, because He is not created. He is eternal, with no begining and no end.
>>16966187Atheism isn't supposed to be "true" or "false." It's just a non-belief due to insufficient evidence either way (e.g. something is unfalsifiable).
>>16966482>Correct. The universe did not create itself because the universe is not created. The universe is eternal with no beginning and no end.
>>16966490It doesn't work when you say it like that. God is something outside our universe not bound by its laws of time and space–being outside our universe that causes it to exist is a logical necessity of the laws of causality.
>>16966500Can the universe really be said to be "inside" itself?
>>16966504You are just playing word games. Literally everything is within its own bounds. Everything exists within its own category and not outside it.
>>16966538If your argument is that "everything within the universe needs a cause -> therefore the universe needs a cause," then you must address the fact that a set does not need to contain itself. Prove the universe itself needs a cause.
>>16966478>some pilgrims to the Holy Land witnessed cloths identified as Christ’s sudarium or linteamen (linen). They witnessed a cloth>The Hungarian prayer codex (pic related) clearly depicts the shroudIt depicts a shroudBig assumption that both of these accounts refer to the same shroud or that either refer to the Turin shroud. Nothing connects them aside from the fact that somebody claimed it was Jesus’ hundreds of years after his death>It has been well established that the shroud was damaged in a fire in the 16th century and the burnt edges were later repaired by nuns. The original carbon dating study took material from the repaired portion and got the date wrongMultiple experts who directly examined the shroud disagree. There’s no evidence of the sample being from a repair>The most recent study from 2022 proves it is 2000 years oldThe sample they used is from the same part of the cloth that was radiocarbon dated though. So is it 2000 years old or not? Did you not read the paper? Also they are making a huge assumption about the storage conditions>there are examples of the pattern in wool and silk from the periodNo there aren’t>Furthermore, there is only one other example of the pattern from the medieval period, proving that it was at all times an expensive and very rare clothThe pattern is a result of the type of loom used. It has nothing to do with scarcity or price. The material is just flax. Actual cloths of the time were not woven in this pattern, including the comparative sample in the 2022 paper>It is burned into the cloth at a depth of 200nm. This would require an instantaneous light output of 30 terawatts–and the entire US power grid is only capable of producing 1.3 terawattsIt exhibits none of the fluorescent properties consistent with scorching. The oxidation is more likely chemical
>>16966478>The resurrection of Christ is proven by observable, measurable physical realityIf anything the shroud "proves" the "miraculous" imprinting of a picture of some guy who may or may not be Jesus, it says nothing about anyone's resurrection.
>>16958890aaaaand it was a poorly disguised christian propaganda thread. imagine my shock
>>16966538Only from the perspective of this universe. You have no grounding to say anything about something outside of this universe.
>>16966562>Prove the universe itself needs a cause.Its called vertical causation, and it proceeds Christianity by about 300 years.https://youtu.be/oty7xR9WmJ0?si=z7yIT-n9ZExUPdII
>>16958890Yup, God is good. With evolution there is no morality and as we know evolutionary psychology is fake and gay, negating the "actually altruism even to the point of death is beneficial because then ppl like you more" so we look at each subsequent religious development striving to bring societies closer to God's altruistic flame without which we would not see man's implicit tendency towards morality. Even science religionists just employ reason to try to bring them closer to Christ's ethics which always fails obviously because their soul, still not entirely corrupted, still perceives right from wrong. I just don't think we would see this with natural selection as the one fundamental rule of life
>>16963850>>16963854No but seriously how do 400 genes just randomly pop up
>>16966624Having a name for something isn't proof if its existence. The concept predating Christianity is literally irrelevant.Why does the universe need a cause?
>>16966729You are literally denying Aristotelian metaphysics which is foundational to Western civilization.
>>16966481As recently as the early 20th century, mouthbreathers like you claimed such experiments were fundamentally impossible because living matter was somehow special.
>>16966732>Aristotelian metaphysics>foundational to Western civilization.You are not correct.
>>16963884>Protip: get a couple of math or physics PhD's that trust each other together and get them drunk in a private setting with no surveillance, they will tell you everything
bump
Theoretically i fully understand how both abiogenesis and evolution are possible, but i just cannot fathom it. The sheer amount of coincidences needed is beyond comprehension. Especially abiogenesis.
>>16966478>This would require an instantaneous light output of 30 terawatts–and the entire US power grid is only capable of producing 1.3 terawatts.How do people post results like this and not immediately realize their assumptions are retarded? You might as well have said "it'd take more energy than a supernova"
>>16969429The time scales are insane. For roughly 1 to 1.5 billion years, we had nothing but prokaryotes. Not even unicellular eukaryotes, it was just bacteria.The Cambrian was 500 million years ago. Multiply that by 3 and you get the period during which earth was nothing but a wasteland with some bacteria
>>16969478Apparently 20 times the power output of the US grid is only enough to lightly char a linen cloth. This is so retarded you can disprove it by sticking a fork in the power outlet.
>>16969429That's why we are alone in the universe, the thought that another planet shuffled a deck of 5000+ cards in the exact same order as Earth is absurd. It can't even be done on Earth a second time.
>>16966478>The resurrection of Christ is proven by observable, measurable physical realityAnd a dirty piece of cloth proves this how?
>>16969965>Weird filaments in 1 billion year old rocks>*OMG I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE THESE WERE ANCIENT BACTERIA*>Face of Jesus on a shroud>*ehm, that proves nothing chud*
>>16966187You have no comprehension of what scientific laws are. Laws are just are just statements about how the universe behaves under certain conditions. Take the ideal gas law for example, gases don't really exist, but under certain conditions gas is a useful construct. You say that the 1st and 2nd law are violated, but the creation of the universe steps far outside of the conditions under which those laws have been tested.
>>16969972>Face of Jesus on a shroudYou’re still yet to prove it’s the face of Jesus though
the entire universe is a singular living organism. To say "life created itself" inside of something that is itself alive is pretty retarded. Imagine if someone said life spontaneously evolved in a womans womb into a baby. It is the same level of retardation
>>16969972Even if you could prove that it was Jesus’ face (you can’t) that still wouldn’t prove his resurrection. Those are two different claims requiring separate evidence. Believing in Jesus is fine but you’re just making yourself look retarded by claiming it’s proven by measurable physical reality when you can’t even prove the cloth is as old as you say it is
>>16969429>>16969692>>16969932Seriously i can't be the only one who's disturbed by these time scales. Not out of religious beliefs or something, but just how massive they are.
>>16963884It's amazing how literally nothing in this post is true.
>>16969429 #>The sheer amount of coincidencesTo get to this exact state, yes. But when you realize that some kind of state had to occur, it becomes obvious that even if they all had an extremely low probability, then at least one of them must occur; ergo a nominally low probability state did occur.
Evolution is just one more jewish lie of "deep time".
>>16970672Young earth creationism is the jewish fairyale belief. The bible is the jewish lie.
>>16970713I don't care about christianity (except that I agree with it on the truth of natural law). Any stance about deep time is still fake and fundamentally gay.
>>16969692I wonder what crazy things will exist in a billion years, considering that mammals only became a thing 200 million years ago
