Evolution

[Mr. Perfect]

why start now ?

you arent interested in it because it complicates your strawman.

No strawman. And there is no science to support your sacred belief, that's why no one is posting any science.

It's chicken entrails all the way down.

[Typhoon]

You have been repeatedly been provided with explanations.

Any understanding is now up to you.

[Mr. Perfect]

Stories bro. Stories. I've been asking for science, and none has been given. Just backflips, distractions, diversions, subject changes, and a big pot full of fallacies.

No science has been given.

None.

[Mr. Perfect]

There is no science to support your belief.

None.

[Zack Morris]

This hilarious running argument demonstrates a problem with American education (outside of liberal enclaves that produce most of the nation's intellectual capital): people graduate local colleges without even grasping the scientific method. Sad!

[Mr. Perfect]

And we can add one more name to the list of atheists who cannot support their sacred religious belief with a single shred of science. Thanks for making it so easy.

[Zack Morris]

And we can add one more name to the list of atheists who cannot support their sacred religious belief with a single shred of science. Thanks for making it so easy.

There is literally infinitely more evidence for the scientific, evolution-based worldview than there is for your beliefs by simple virtue of the fact that you have zero evidence. And we all know from mathematics that dividing a finite number by zero tends to infinite I mean, there isn't even one single piece of evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, which is pretty fundamental to your belief system.

[Mr. Perfect]

Cool stories bro. So do you have any science whatsoever that indicates DNA can spontaneously and randomly create itself. Nobody else does.

[Parodite]

The statement: "the natural emergence of DNA on planet earth is impossible" = false.

How so.

Unless one posits it as a theory to be further investigated but then it is more like a question than an answer.

Here is a theory. I can get a hubcap to levitate. Not right now, but eventually. Given enough time. Maybe a billion years.

An analogy is not a proof or disproof of anything. It is just an effort to make something look bad without fact or argument. A keyfob needs human engineering and something to fall down needs gravity. Nothing else to it. It does not prove/disprove anything about anything else. It is poetry not science to compare apples with oranges.

A theory is like a question. Is it possible that natural emergence of DNA is simply impossible under all circumstances?
Nothing wrong with this question. Mr. P. claims he has the answer to that question already but is unable to provide it. The debunking of flimsy faulty statistics have already been linked by Typhoon.

No. His links didn't do that.

Yes they do.

Tell me, possible or impossible. E=MC^2 can spontaneously write itself on a piece of paper. Let me know.

Same way irrelevant question as with your keyfob.

In accordance with the scientific method (and ironically in the context of this discussion) one would have to "look for the black swan" and try falsify the theory that DNA cannot have emerged naturally on planet earth. Which would mean to do what scientists are doing exactly at this moment; looking for facts and clues, keep digging deeper for how DNA emerged (and further developed) naturally. It would be the proper thing to do.

But after 100 years they are unable to do it. Does that concern you.

You are wrong. All evidence and indirect evidence point towards the emergence of cellular life and speciation as revealed in the fossil records. Everything else discovered in science, in physics, astrophysics, chemistry and biochemistry reveals that natural law is able to account to for more and more facts with new theories evolving and being tested to account for gaps in our understanding. This puzzle of origins and speciation is not without gaps; as always in science there is more to discover.

The only contribution of creationists has been to come up with keyfob analogies and making philosophical claims about the need for an intelligent Master Engineer. Since I assume that a Master Engineer must be way more complex than his own creations, it begs the question who created that Master Engineer. Or Master Keyfob

Infinite regression. Dog won't ever hunt. Dead end. Skulls and bones.

Because all those scientists are doing what Mr.P. himself should be doing I suspect there is some conspiracy going on. That the scientific community on purpose launched Mr.P. making his claims to make it easier for them to explain why they are doing what they are doing and why it is the only way ahead. It helps to get funding!

I was able to discern the outcome without spending billions of tax payer dollars. You can too.

Well, all I'm doing is trying to help prevent God look like an improbable idi*t. I'm not an atheist, I'm just not religious the same way you are.

[Typhoon]

. . .

if we are going to get into unsatisfying origin stories, the big bang is right up there for me - a lump of super concentrated atom-stuff is just sitting there and then explodes. right.

an explosion is in itself neither here nor there, the setup before the explosion is where all the good stuff lies, so many questions about the context for why it was sitting there, what triggered it, what wider 'universe' contains lumps of such stuff.

infinity is always turtles, causes need causes.

The Big Bang was an explosion of the spacetime of the universe itself rather than a clump of matter embedded in an existing universe.

The existence of the 2.7K cosmic microwave background along with the ongoing expansion of the universe are probably the two strongest bits of empirical - observational evidence for the Big Bang hypothesis.

You may be interested in the Roger Penrose public lectures on this issue in the Physics thread, especially Lecture 3.
The lectures are targeted at the general public.

As for the why this occurred, one may invoke one's preferred metaphysical explanation, turtles, or whatever appeals.

[Typhoon]

Nature | The energy expansions of evolution

[Mr. Perfect]

An analogy is not a proof or disproof of anything. It is just an effort to make something look bad without fact or argument. A keyfob needs human engineering and something to fall down needs gravity. Nothing else to it. It does not prove/disprove anything about anything else. It is poetry not science to compare apples with oranges.

It's a falsification argument. And it destroyed your theory.

Yes they do.

No they don't. They illustrate that Colonel Sun completely failed to produce any science to support the spontaneous generation of DNA. Because there isn't any. Because it is impossible.

Same way irrelevant question as with your keyfob.

Same damning falsification story. There are so many.

You are wrong. All evidence and indirect evidence point towards the emergence of cellular life

Absolutely not. The spontaneous formation of DNA is physically impossible, and Colonel Sun could not produce one piece of science to say otherwise.

and speciation as revealed in the fossil records. Everything else discovered in science, in physics, astrophysics, chemistry and biochemistry reveals that natural law is able to account to for more and more facts with new theories evolving and being tested to account for gaps in our understanding.

Undefined assertions.

This puzzle of origins and speciation is not without gaps; as always in science there is more to discover.

Like impossibility. We discover limits all the time.

The only contribution of creationists

Creationists created science itself and most of science. You owe almost everything you know about science to creationists.

has been to come up with keyfob analogies and making philosophical claims about the need for an intelligent Master Engineer. Since I assume that a Master Engineer must be way more complex than his own creations, it begs the question who created that Master Engineer. Or Master Keyfob

Falsification tests are critical to science. In this case it destroys the idea of the spontaneous formation of DNA.

Infinite regression. Dog won't ever hunt. Dead end. Skulls and bones.

Falsification tests are not infinite regressions. What is regressive is to believe DNA could form spontaneously. It cannot. Even Colonel Sun could not produce one piece of science to say otherwise. None exists. It is impossible in this world.

Well, all I'm doing is trying to help prevent God look like an improbable idi*t. I'm not an atheist, I'm just not religious the same way you are.

God is doing just fine.

[Mr. Perfect]

The Big Bang was an explosion of the spacetime of the universe itself rather than a clump of matter embedded in an existing universe.

The existence of the 2.7K cosmic microwave background along with the ongoing expansion of the universe are probably the two strongest bits of empirical - observational evidence for the Big Bang hypothesis.

You may be interested in the Roger Penrose public lectures on this issue in the Physics thread, especially Lecture 3.
The lectures are targeted at the general public.

As for the why this occurred, one may invoke one's preferred metaphysical explanation, turtles, or whatever appeals.

For many people, these 2 points are insufficient. Big bang relies on the idea that space expands, a phenomena that is unobservable and untestable and would appear to be impossible. Also the conditions immediately preceding the big bang come to bear on the possibility of the singularity itself rather than being metaphysical questions.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The spontaneous formation of DNA is...

...something only you believe in.

There are only so many ways to say it: no one can answer the question because no one currently thinks that's an answer. Life's origins pre-date the DNA structure. The best theory going is that dna comes from some molecule that was more rna-like. The first instance of dna would be spontaneously generated in a sense but not in the virtual particle sort of way you keep insisting we prove.

[Mr. Perfect]

No I don't believe that and after several pages none of you are even able to articulate anything you believe or why you believe it.

I would invite you all to ponder why that is. Why facing the truth is so terrifying.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

No I don't believe that and after several pages none of you are even able to articulate anything you believe or why you believe it.

I would invite you all to ponder why that is. Why facing the truth is so terrifying.

There are only so many ways to say it: no one can answer the question because no one currently thinks that's an answer. Biochemical information systems almost likely pre-date the DNA structure. The best theory going is that dna comes from some molecule that was more rna-like. The first instance of dna would be spontaneously generated in a sense but not in the virtual particle sort of way you keep insisting we prove.

[Mr. Perfect]

Nothing that you wrote is true.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Nothing that you wrote is true.

And yet it is, and like the questions presented to you earlier, you are free to ignore it all you like, but that is on you and you alone.

[noddy]

No I don't believe that and after several pages none of you are even able to articulate anything you believe or why you believe it.

I would invite you all to ponder why that is. Why facing the truth is so terrifying.

pondered it long and hard.

why is it so important to you that we believe in spontaneous dna ? why do you try and force that non theory on us ?

was spontaneous dna mean to you as a child ?

[noddy]

The Big Bang was an explosion of the spacetime of the universe itself rather than a clump of matter embedded in an existing universe.

The existence of the 2.7K cosmic microwave background along with the ongoing expansion of the universe are probably the two strongest bits of empirical - observational evidence for the Big Bang hypothesis.

You may be interested in the Roger Penrose public lectures on this issue in the Physics thread, especially Lecture 3.
The lectures are targeted at the general public.

As for the why this occurred, one may invoke one's preferred metaphysical explanation, turtles, or whatever appeals.

thanks, ill read that later.

i meant unsatisfying in the sense that it instantly demands a "why" that leaves us back at square one.. also the only thing that does my poor little monkey brain damage more than infinity is !infinity.

[Mr. Perfect]

Nothing that you wrote is true.

And yet it is, and like the questions presented to you earlier, you are free to ignore it all you like, but that is on you and you alone.

Abolutely not. Nothing you said is true, it's not remotely science. You are passing off non science as science. You haven't posted one pice of science to validate your fairy tales and whining and sobbing and begging doesn't change any of it. Was this a rude awakening for you, apparently yes, but welcome to adulthood. If you peddle BS you will find that some people won't blithely swallow what you spew when it is patently false. Recall, you refused to answer questions first. When you answer my questions I'll answer yours.

[Mr. Perfect]

pondered it long and hard.

why is it so important to you that we believe in spontaneous dna ? why do you try and force that non theory on us ?

was spontaneous dna mean to you as a child ?

As a child every science book published claimed that life came into being when some rock soup got struck by lightning and to not accept that made you a champion of anti humanity. Now we have atheists crawling out of the woodwork who will destroy your life if you question their beliefs in public and bill Nye has publicly stated he would like to see such people go to jail, and none of his compatriots took issue with it.

Enough is enough. Abiogenesis is idiotic and it's far past time to say so. There is no science to indicate that it is possible and it's past time for everyone to admit it.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Nothing that you wrote is true.

And yet it is, and like the questions presented to you earlier, you are free to ignore it all you like, but that is on you and you alone.

Abolutely not. Nothing you said is true, it's not remotely science. You are passing off non science as science. You haven't posted one pice of science to validate your fairy tales and whining and sobbing and begging doesn't change any of it. Was this a rude awakening for you, apparently yes, but welcome to adulthood. If you peddle BS you will find that some people won't blithely swallow what you spew when it is patently false. Recall, you refused to answer questions first. When you answer my questions I'll answer yours.

We see your temper-tantrum that its spinach.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

As a child every science book published claimed that life came into being when some rock soup got struck by lightning

Welcome from 1955!

and to not accept that made you a champion of anti humanity. Now we have atheists crawling out of the woodwork who will destroy your life if you question their beliefs in public and bill Nye has publicly stated he would like to see such people go to jail, and none of his compatriots took issue with it.

non-sequitur- fanaticism doesn't invalidate anything

Enough is enough. Abiogenesis is idiotic and it's far past time to say so. There is no science to indicate that it is possible and it's past time for everyone to admit it.

People say so all the time. Saying-so is not brave and it doesn't advance an argument.

prebiotic organic compounds as well as short rna molecules have been artificially produced in labs

[Typhoon]

The Big Bang was an explosion of the spacetime of the universe itself rather than a clump of matter embedded in an existing universe.

The existence of the 2.7K cosmic microwave background along with the ongoing expansion of the universe are probably the two strongest bits of empirical - observational evidence for the Big Bang hypothesis.

You may be interested in the Roger Penrose public lectures on this issue in the Physics thread, especially Lecture 3.
The lectures are targeted at the general public.

As for the why this occurred, one may invoke one's preferred metaphysical explanation, turtles, or whatever appeals.

For many people, these 2 points are insufficient. Big bang relies on the idea that space expands, a phenomena that is unobservable and untestable and would appear to be impossible. Also the conditions immediately preceding the big bang come to bear on the possibility of the singularity itself rather than being metaphysical questions.

Okay, I get it, you have no clue that you have no clue.