- This topic has 134 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Just a reminder that there is still NO scientifically plausible theory of how life could have emerged from the primordial soup.
-
why are RNA world and lipid vesicle protocells not scientifically plausible?
-
because they arevin tjermodynamic equlibrium
I personally prefer the "metabolism-first" theory with the origin on white smokers (hydrotermal vents)-
>arevin tjermodynamic
*are in thermodynamic equilibrium
goddamit
-
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQrCsPrh11M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html>why are RNA world and lipid vesicle protocells not scientifically plausible?
There are insane paradoxes that must be overcome by some unknown means for that hypothesis to work
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15You are 2nd from top left in pic related
-
>All this is not to suggest that OORT is a problem of "irreducible complexity" and that the systems of replication and translation could not emerge by means of biological evolution. It remains possible that a compelling evolutionary scenario is eventually developed and, perhaps, validated experimentally.
Thanks for proving our point.
Unless we come up with a more compelling hypothesis than MUH MULTIVERSE or MUH DESIGNER, we’ll stick with abiogenesis.-
>Thanks for proving our point.
Denial is one hell of a drug
The topic of this thread was no plausible explanation for abiogenesis. The link I gave that went very far over your head explains that there is in fact no current plausible explanation due to multiple unresolved paradoxes he laid out that exist within the current abiogenesis hypothesis (more particularly, the OORT aspects as he defined them). Your own poor choice of quote selection blatantly illustrates this when he merely says it "perhaps" could be experimentally validated. ie it hasn’t been and it’s just an unproven hypothesis.
The "MUH MULTIVERSE" is an alternative that the author says should be taken seriously. The fact that you imply it’s nonsense on is just reaffirming that your own current belief is equal nonsense. Your hypothesis is not "more compelling" whatsoever, which is why the author wrote the paper giving an alternative hypothesis he verbatim said should be taken seriously.The author is making a huge cope that you quoted btw so thanks for bringing it up. He says it’s not a matter of irreducible complexity because it "perhaps" could be "validated experimentally." Hilarious. He has no reason to say it doesn’t boil down to irreducible complexity other than wishful thinking. He even says anything is possible in an infinite multiverse, so it’s meaningless to say it "remains possible" because he already said anything imaginable is possible. It could be less likely than throwing a deck of cards to the wind and having them land arranged in perfect order.
>Unless we come up with a more compelling hypothesis
>we’ll stick with abiogenesis
care to explain those massive, unresolved paradoxes the author listed then or are you content with looking like a blissful fool by pretending something is "plausible" despite containing massive paradoxes? Can you even admit they are paradoxes?Like other anon , you are 2nd from the top left in pic related here
[…]
>why are RNA world and lipid vesicle protocells not scientifically plausible?
There are insane paradoxes that must be overcome by some unknown means for that hypothesis to work
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15[…]
You are 2nd from top left in pic related-
>no plausible explanation
close enough-
>sosocrates
-
Then stop teaching abiogenesis in schools then yes? If you agree it’s not plausible and you likewise agree that if something is not plausible then it’s no different than religion then it should not be taught in schools yes?
go back to /poo/ you tourist
>Yes, I am
So you acknowledge you don’t understand the scientific method. I agree.>Either life originated from non-living matter, or… Or what?
The author is saying his hypothesis, as well as the other paradoxical "mainstream" one he is offering an alternative to (abiogenesis), both have life originating from non-living matter.
ROFL even the Bible says some life originated from non-living matter.
The question is how.>There’s no other plausible explanation
you are begging the question that abiogenesis is a "plausible" explanation for life arising from inorganic matter. I directly asked if you, or any scrotebrain reading it, acknowledges the outlined paradoxes in that paper.
As it stands abiogenesis is not plausible until those paradoxes are addressed and resolved. They never will be. All you’re doing is saying "there is no plausible explanation so we should believe my unplausible explanation because I feel like it">Where did the designer come from etc.
There is no "etc" here. You are asking a logically unnecessary question because you want to cling to your belief system instead of question it.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging abiogenesis is a failed hypothesis due to unresolved paradoxes and abiogenesis should be rejected outright. You are creating strawmen to circumvent this fact; making the fallacy that other options must be impossible so all we are left with is your understanding of abiogenesis, so it must be "truth". You are literally creating a false premise in the famous Sherlock Holmes pic related quote to justify your belief system. Nothing more.-
>not plausible
but it is-
>too dumb to understand multiple unresolved paradoxes mean a hypothesis is "not plausible"
>posts anyway
>tries to think up catchy response
>"b-b-b-b-b-but it is plausible i promise!!?!!..!"
haha what a scrotebrain>ITSSSCRIIIINNNNGEEEEE
And you can’t point out a single thing wrong with it. Now go back-
>haha what a scrotebrain
let me guess, you think angels did it-
Not an argument.
It’s a pathetic, shameful mark of failure to resort to saying "y-y-yeah?? w-w-w-well you probably have a worse hypothesis than me!!!!" instead of actually being capable of defending your own.
-
-
-
-
>There is nothing wrong with acknowledging abiogenesis is a failed hypothesis due to unresolved paradoxes and abiogenesis should be rejected outright.
So let’s replace it.
What with?-
>So let’s replace it.
>What with?
rofl not my problem. If your best hypothesis falls flat on its face due to being riddled with paradoxes (according to the paper i linked) then the only thing that im required to do is point out its failure. You invent another theory. Good luck.But of course you’re just being a little shit and cant even admit the hypothesis is failed. You’re only asking for a replacement hypothesis to disingenuously misdirect/dodge the issue because you can’t defend your own belief, so you’d rather go on the offense. It’s very obvious. And again, it’s where the meme above comes from. The ironic stupidity and failure to understand the scientific method when saying you need a better theory first before you reject a terrible one… most anons here are following it to a t.
-
You know what I think?
I think so-called "paradoxes" have historically turned out to not be paradoxes at all, jsut errors in formulation, preconceived notions or missing knowledge.
I can defend my belief very much. Life has to come from somewhere. Wether it’s DNA or RNA first, or no matter how difficult we find it to happen, eventually the evolution of helium and hydrogen atoms led to us. Wether life on Earth came from it, or was generated from someplace else, or was designed, it’s irrelevant: somehow, non-living matter became living.
If it had to start somewhere, it might as well have started here with us.-
No plants will survive on Mars, evolutionscrote.
-
Wow, that’s a nice rebuttal to…
To what, exactly? What you said doens’t have anything to do with anything we were discussing here -
I’m not here to babysit your brain, scrotebrain-scroteron.
Either you don’t understand or you do. -
I understand you recurred to a non-sequitur to deflect the discussion to something you were more comfortable attacking me wth, and then went to shit-flinging when called out on it.
-
Yes. Sorry about that, anon. I have have some problems expressing my feelings so it tends to get frustrating and sometimes I lash out. I might need to get some therapy.
-
>I think so-called "paradoxes" have historically turned out to not be paradoxes at all, jsut errors in formulation, preconceived notions or missing knowledge.
HAHA imagine thinking I care what you "think"…tell what you "think" to Dr. Koonin because he is the world renowned evolutionist who pointed out these paradoxes in abiogenesis, not me. Actually you might be right. It is a "paradox due to preconceived notions" and those preconceived notions are the idea chemical evolution leading to biological life is possible without intelligent design. Once you throw out that false premise and realize it’s impossible there is no longer a paradox.>I can defend my belief very much. Life has to come from somewhere. Wether it’s DNA or RNA first, or no matter how difficult we find it to happen
Babble/drivel/bloviating here, no point in saying any of this>eventually the evolution of helium and hydrogen atoms led to us
This is not a defense you are just randomly now stating your mythical belief.>Wether life on Earth came from it, or was generated from someplace else, or was designed, it’s irrelevant: somehow, non-living matter became living.
Begging the question and abiogenesis is paradoxical as laid out. You have not defended anything yet. Still waiting.>If it had to start somewhere, it might as well have started here with us.
Oh ok so your defense is "you might as well be right bc life might as well have started on earth"??Haha please, sit down. You can’t defend your beliefs worth shit.That obviously is someone else you tard. He’s right though.
-
Still waiting for anyone – even renowned evolutionist Dr. Koonin – to come up with a more plausible explanation for the origin of life
-
>more plausible explanation
I explained this already. It’s not plausible if it is full of paradoxes. Can not read? Are you in denial? Are you too scrotebrained to understand that very basic fact? It’s all three as far as I can tell.His hypothesis is equally "plausible" as it stands which is why he said it should be taken seriously. You are just in religious denial.
>only that for the chances for it to do so, you have to have an infinite universe – which might as well be true
HAHA I’ve never seen someone so ignorantly say I’m right but still is so blissfully ignorant he thinks he’s saying I’m wrong.
Of course you need infinite chances for it to be plausible, because it is soooo insanely implausible if you have only one chance/universe to accomplish this feat. Your "might as well be true" is pure cope nonsense and completely false. In fact, if you actually entertain his idea and think the current situation might as well be that infinite universes is valid, then his hypothesis is more plausible ROFL. Way to contradict yourself.>So, in fact, your world renowned biologist did admit that under the right circumstances, it’s possible for life to overcome the "paradoxes" and evolve from matter
I know. I verbatim said this hereThe author is making a huge cope that you quoted btw so thanks for bringing it up. He says it’s not a matter of irreducible complexity because it "perhaps" could be "validated experimentally." Hilarious. He has no reason to say it doesn’t boil down to irreducible complexity other than wishful thinking. He even says anything is possible in an infinite multiverse, so it’s meaningless to say it "remains possible" because he already said anything imaginable is possible. It could be less likely than throwing a deck of cards to the wind and having them land arranged in perfect order.
>Unless we come up with a more compelling hypothesis
>we’ll stick with abiogenesis
care to explain those massive, unresolved paradoxes the author listed then or are you content with looking like a blissful fool by pretending something is "plausible" despite containing massive paradoxes? Can you even admit they are paradoxes?Like other anon , you are 2nd from the top left in pic related here […]
in 2nd paragraph.
It’s insanely implausible to the point we should consider it impossible and state and refer to it as such: impossible. It’s like saying perpetual motion machines are impossible. Maybe they’re not and it’s POSSIBLE there is just an insane amount of knowledge we coincidentally missed that could lead to it being possible, but we still rightfully state it’s impossible etc.
I’m going circles around you and it’s taking forever for you to catch up to my levelDon’t be a moron and put paradoxes in quotes either. They are paradoxes. Fact. You are just in complete denial which is why I asked if you could even acknowledge the paradoxes forever ago. You can’t, you’re too much in denial just like I knew.
-
The thing you don’t seem to understand about how probability and the anthropic principle work is: even if the probability of life taking root in the observable universe was one in one quadrillion…
You don’actually need one quadrillion universes to accomplish it
You only need to live in and observe the one where it all went right, and you won’tever know if it’s the one quadrillionth one, the five hundredth, or the first
All you know it’s the result
For a simpler example, it’s like I told you
>I threw a d6 and came up with 5
And you went
>Then according to probability you MUST have thrown it a total of six times and gotten a different number from 5 each other time
Bottom line is: life happened, it doens’t matter how complicated it is or not, we don’t know anything about a "multiverse" or preceeding iterations of this universe (Big Crunch / Big Bounce theory has fallen out of favor btw) and it’s useless to even speculate
Since life clearly happened, we’d clearly best be served to understand HOW it happened, rather than calculate how it could have not -
>even if the probability of life taking root in the observable universe was one in one
You can’t even admit the paradoxes of abiogenesis make the odds astronomically nonsensically low. Shut up already.
>You don’actually need one quadrillion universes to accomplish it
wtf yes you do you scrotebrain. You have no clue how the anthropic principle works. The AP just makes very low odds seem irrelevant from our perspective. It does not eliminate the need for many many trials to overcome those odds.
>You only need to live in and observe the one where it all went right
There is no evidence the multiverse exists. Living in "one" is conjecture thus your point is invalid.
>For a simpler example, it’s like I told you
>I threw a d6 and came up with 5
You were talking to someone else. This was not a response to any of my posts. Try to keep track please.>Since life clearly happened, we’d clearly best be served to understand HOW it happened, rather than calculate how it could have not
Nonsense. If someone tries to figure out how it happened it’s highly useful to know if their hypothesis for life happening should be rejected due to being riddled with paradoxes, just like abiogenesis should be rejected because it is riddled with paradoxes. -
You seem a bit slow dude
For the last time
You can’t reject that abiogenesis happened because the results are here
However improbable it was: life exists
For another example: it’s like seeing an object fall and then going I REJECT THAT OBJECTS WITH MASS ATTRACT EACH OTHER IT’S PARADOXICAL
It’s like seeing five apples and then going NOOOOOO IT’S IMPOSSIBLE THAT THIS IS THE SUM OF THREE APPLES AND TWO APPLES
The object fell, deal with it, and if you have an alternative to gravitation, we are all ears
So, there’s no abiogenesis despite clearly being life
Where did life come from?
This is your last chance to convince us that you actually have a rational hypothesis instead of hollow criticism -
>Where did life come from
angels did it
duh -
>You can’t reject that abiogenesis happened because the results are here
You really don’t know what abiogenesis is do you? Wow, just fuck I didn’t realize you were this scrotebrained.Abiogenesis does NOT simply mean "nonliving matter turned into living matter." bc that fits the definition of "spontaneous generation" too. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that gradualism via chemical evolution of non living matter gave rise to the first biological life/living matter.
I can’t believe I came this far and didn’t catch your abject stupidity in that you are arguing for abiogenesis and didn’t actually know what it means. Gosh I feel almost as scrotebrained as you actually are.Here’s a child’s level intro that should be on your level
>https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
The relevant part to BTFO your ignorance:
>While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disprovedYou OBVIOUSLY can reject abiogenesis and it absolutely should be rejected as a viable hypothesis due to its paradoxical nature. It only hasn’t been disproved because you can’t prove a negative. The very fact you therefore said "you can’t reject that [unproven hypothesis] happened" proves without a doubt you had no idea what "abiogenesis" means.
>Where did life come from?
>This is your last chance to convince us that you actually have a rational hypothesis instead of hollow criticism
For the final time, you don’t need a more plausible hypothesis to reject a terrible one. Implying you do is proof you are as ignorant to the scientific method as you are ignorant to the word "abiogenesis"
There was no hallow criticism whatsoever. I was destroying you the whole time and you’ve proven now you don’t even know what "abiogenesis" means. -
>wall-of-text schizo
errytime -
What can I say, I enjoy thoroughly destroying every last bit of the pathetic ignorance of morons who disagree with me who still believe in a failed hypothesis like abiogenesis. The more ignorance, the more I have to type like I did with that pathetic moron I just completely btfo’d.
-
all you’ve done is foamed at the mouth
go back to LULZ -
And I’m not asking you for a scientific theory, merely a hypothesis
If abiogenesis (which I intended exactly as you explained it, so you are scrotebrained) can’t happen like we think it did: where does all the living matter come from?
But your wall of text is more chimping out, you have no argument and are not interested in a civil discussion, so goodbye, see you out here if you ever make it out of the cave -
>you don’t need a more plausible hypothesis to reject a terrible one
You must not have read this part the 3 times I said it
You are using a stalling tactic to avoid admitting abiogenesis should be rejected as a failed hypothesis because it has no plausibility whatsoever and you can’t defend it. This entire thread has been nothing more.>If abiogenesis (which I intended exactly as you explained it, so you are scrotebrained) can’t happen like we think it did
>happen like we think it did
>it did
Nope, abiogenesis is unproven but here you are again qualifying it as if it’s an undeniable given that IT DID happen and we just need to figure out how it happened. You should have said "if abiogenesis didn’t happen" if you knew what the word means. You don’t and continue to demonstrate so.>nonsense, made up excuses, and projection
>so goodbye
I agree, you’ve been BTFO’d so hard you’ve had enough and should quit -
I’m not stalling
I’m trying to ask you: if life didn’t come from non-living matter, where did it come from? -
I told you already that angels did it, so stfu
-
You know what, I’m sorry I freaked out like that and made all those baseless accusations. I used to love being a jackass to people, but lately it’s been leaving me feeling even worse than before.
I’ll be calling my therapist today after a long cease. Have a good one bros, maybe abiogenesis is true after all, but I still hate evolution and God is Good! -
You freaking brainlet scrotebrain
All this thread you’ve been admitting yourself, AS YOUR SOURCES DO, that the evolution of life as we theorize it is not impossible, just very unlikely
You don’t get to roll a d100, get a 67 and go
>NOOOOOO HOW COULD I GET A 67 DON’T YOU KNOW IT’S ONLY A 1 IN 100 LIKELIHOOD
Especially you don’t get to argue the process after the result it’s witnessed
It’s not a "paradox", it would be one if an RNA first world was undeniably mathematically impossible
But we can clearly see that something happened to make us
When I’m asking you how else it coukd have happened, I’m not asking you to replace my theory with a better one, I’m not putting any onus of proof on you
I’m just asking you: how? How can you say "we" never went through an abiogenesis process when "we" in the origin were nothing more than clouds of hydrogen and helium?
Spoiler alert: I already know the answer that would defend your "theory" and BTFO me, and it’s very simple (no it’s not God), but I want to see if you can make any logical argument instead of calling us dumb and posting soijacks -
>Shut up already.
>you scrotebrain
>Try to keep track
People aqe trying to have a civil discussion with you and all you do is fling shit.
Not a good look, nor a good way to present your argument and be taken seriously. Screeching and flailing is for chimps, not civilized humans. -
>all you do is fling shit.
Why should I be civil to scrotebrains like you who dishonestly pretend that destroying an argument with multiple lines of evidence, links, and reasoning is just "flinging shit"? KYS -
Dude your "world renowned biologist" reduced his argument to M-MUH MULTIVERSE
And even then, his paper didn’t even deny that life could indeed have arisen from primordial prebiotic soup, only that for the chances for it to do so, you have to have an infinite universe – which might as well be true
So, in fact, your world renowned biologist did admit that under the right circumstances, it’s possible for life to overcome the "paradoxes" and evolve from matter
-
-
-
-
-
-
Blah blah blah all I’m reading is I’m in love with magic sky man
Whatever we come up with as a possible explanation for abiogenesis, it will be better than your caveman fairytale nonsense-
all I’m reading is ooh ooh ooh aah aah aah I love bananas
-
I do, in fact, love bananas. They are my favorite fruit.
-
-
-
>you are 2nd from the top left in pic related here
Yes, I am
The fact remains that on Earth, there was no life and then there was, and presumably the same for the whole universe (if we believe panspermia, we just shift the origin of life from the Earth oceans to somewhere else)
Either life originated from non-living matter, or… Or what? There’s no other plausible explanation
>muh deisgner
Where did the designer come from etc.
-
-
-
What a terrible meme. Cringe as hell.
-
/thread
-
-
-
theories about events that transpired in the distant past are early all fundamentally disprovable and completely unscientific.
[…]
is <—-thataway
-
Wrong.
-
wew lad
abiogenesis =/= evolution
-
-
-
*slurp* good soup *spoon clanks against bowl*
-
And religious people have a completely stupid, obviously wrong, explanation of how life emerged. What’s your point?
-
how does
"in the beginning, god created everything"
differ from
"in the beginning, big bang created everything"?
theres practically no difference, soience and gnomish bible fairy tales are nearly identical belief systems-
worse than that. it’s so obviously lifted from religion directly.
-
>be catholic soientist
>create big bang theory to explain how the universe existed
>many decades later, some scrotebrain thinks atheist scientists copied le ebin bible
cringe
-
-
worse than that. it’s so obviously lifted from religion directly.
>theres practically no difference, soience and gnomish bible fairy tales are nearly identical belief systems
Let me correct both your thinking: Science produces tangible positive results.
So then one has to look at the root tenets of each belief system to see why one produces results and the other does not.-
>Science produces tangible positive results.
if thats the case then why did you feel the need to pair your post with a dishonest image that depicts the fantasy of science as reality?
science can’t make cripple children walk, if that was possible then there wouldn’t be any crippled kids in wheelchairs, science would’ve cured them all.
jesus is the guy famous for curing cripples, your image is essentially telling the same biblical fairy tale as the ones about jesus, its just crediting the cure to atheism instead of god. in both cases its a lie an nobody was cured of anything.
NIH has been working on a "cure for cancer" for more than half a century, they’ve spent a trillion dollars on it, but have produced no results.-
What are you talking about? Science hasn’t solved everything yet is not an argument.
-
The meme is a reference to the polio vaccine you dumb scrote.
-
-
quintessential reddit post
-
It’s kind of interesting sociological phenomenon that people will pretend to be scrotebrained to be contrarians against a (perceived) social group they don’t like.
I wonder if this kind of stuff translates to real life behavior.
I’m being entirely sincere. -
This is what a scientist looks like.
-
>it is simple, really
it is never simple.
Science can be used to evaporate you, your family, and millions of people around you. Science can empower us, if it is used right, or cripple and sometimes just simply anihilate you if it’s used wrong. -
Results are meaningless, since each proposed truth needs to be independently evaluated.
The theories invented by scientists regarding both the reason for existence or the emergence of consciousness are comical, and never any better than Greek mythology about Medusa and minotaurs… I genuinely don’t know how they get published. Materialists need to stick to the material domain and stop making idiotic metaphysical claims.
-
Religion is the death of curiosity and thus what makes one really a human and a living person, everything is just god this god that good goy don’t question.
-
>Religion is the death of curiosity
>t. IFLS cultist-
>Does God exist?
>Yes
>Why?
>Because God said so
>What about the other gods?
>Paganism, if you worship them you go to Hell
>How do we know that’s true?
>Because God said so
Doesn’t sound like a very curious life to me-
Why are you vomoting your braindead IFLS cult strawmen at me?
-
-
-
You could never disprove the existence of God no matter how curious you are. You could be the most curious person ever and still be religious.
-
-
-
>in the beginning, big bang created everything
Bit of a strawman because the big bang theory does not state that the big bang created everything. It merely states that that universe used to be in a denser state and expanded from that state. It doesn’t say anything about how everything got here.You can believe "God created everything" and "the universe used to be more compact and dense before it expanded" and not have those two beliefs conflict with one another.
-
>You can believe "God created everything" and "the universe used to be more compact and dense before it expanded" and not have those two beliefs conflict with one another.
They are nearly identical belief systems, why would they contradict each other? Scientific cosmology and biblical cosmology tell the same tale. -
Not that anon, but I would sincerely appreciate anyone who can point me to some theories as to why shit exists in the first place. Every argument I’ve seen falls back into a philosophical/religious explanation. While that’s reasonable given that we just can’t say for sure that we even have a start of a clue, I’d appreciate a logical reason for why matter decided to just exist all of the sudden. I have my own ideas, but something real and researched would be cool
-
Stephen Hawking’s final book actually covers this in a really approachable way.
-
-
-
>god creates everything in 7 days (or epochs, whatever)
>iterative processes optimize organisms for their specific environment through billions of years
if you can’t see the difference you’re scrotebrained.-
Time is relative sucka. But really the minutae is irrelevant, the basic element is the same and entails the exact same problem.
-
no, scrotebrain
-
Oh yes. Just because someone wrote some idiotic fairy tales about God it doesn’t mean such a thing does not exist. Ultimately big bang didit does not solve the issues with the proposal of intelligent design at all.
-
-
-
-
-
-
>fatty bubble forms
>random chemical interactions that form fatty bubbles start to collect inside fatty bubbles
>these random interactions begin developing complexity
>fatty bubbles that last longer become more common
>complexity keeps going up-
>>these random interactions begin developing complexity
LMFAO
Do sointists really?-
-
RNA molecules have already been observed in space sis.
-
Really?
Not trolling you, I’m genuinely curious, can you source me up?
-
-
-
-
And there never will be
-
Read The Revolutionary Phenotype
-
-
Impressive, did you quote that from your PhD?
-
What do you mean? It’s just a theory I read.
-
-
-
Make a better one then
-
>Make a better one then
What’s the problem in stating "we simply don’t know"? We don’t know where we come from, where we ho, where we are and where or what has made that. Are there others, are we alone or are there any reasons.We have not the slightest grasp and there is no hint that we even can. The only thing we had done is that we know much more than our primitive ancestors because they did not know anything. We needed a six to seven digit of years just just to find out the light moves at all. Now we know – we don’t know what it is out of what it is and why it moves, but we are pretty schure we know so much that we can make a theory how things work.
Sounds stupid, is’nt it`?
-
>What’s the problem in stating "we simply don’t know"?
People don’t like it when you imply their religious beliefs they pretend are science are not "truth" that must be accepted.
-
-
-
lightning struck a mud puddle and dna was randomly assembled now stop asking questions
-
-
I agree it came from space. Primodial soup is bullshit theory.
-
What does it change? How exactly did if form in space?
Either way, religious scrotebrains should have shut the fuck up after the organic molecules were made up out of inorganic ones, if they cared about the truth. But those scrotebrains are too dumb to appreciate the truth, so they appreciate the power instead.-
Not that anon but let me expand. Life on Earth came from somewhere else. Okay, so now you ask yourself, how did that life originate? Here’s the thing: that life too came from somewhere else. Okay, so now you ask yourself how did that life originate? That life too came from somewhere else. Okay so now you ask yourself, how did that life originate? Here’s the thing: if you don’t reply to this post your mother will die in her sleep tonight.
-
-
>I agree it came from space. Primodial soup is bullshit theory.
It’s far more likely that life assembled itself from an environment rich in pre-biotic molecules, churned and smashed together by vents, currents and tidal pools, than in the depth of space, where average density is one atom per cubic meter
-
-
I’d like to settle this discussion by saying that an omnipotent God that cares about us doesn’t exist.
Also, there’s no way that this all happened at random.In conclusion, there is a guy that created this on purpose, but he either doesn’t care about us, or wants to watch us suffer.
-
It’s all in God’s plan bro
If you got raped as a kid, shunned by your whole family, got testicular cancer and cna’t even afford treatment, you’ll be commensurately rewarded in the Kingdom of Heaven, though you have to suffer and die for a bit first
…Unles you happen to have had sex out of wedlock, in this case better get on with the repenting-
It almost seems like the most plausible theory is that some scrotebrained scientist created this universe for a meme, and just doesn’t give a shit. It’s kind of like the Rick & Morty mini-verse. I don’t like saying that.
-
After a trillion years in the afterlife paradise will you really still be upset that Stacy dumped you because you had testicular cancer? Really?
-
-
-
There are three possibilities given our current knowledge of the universe.
>life formed on earth from nonliving materials
>life was magically created by a magical being that magically has evaded all attempts at detection
>life has always existed in the universe and survived a molten earth, a protoplanetary disc and even the big bang itself
I don’t believe in magic and the last one seems improbable given that no life has even been shown to survive something as low energy as a pool of lava, so life arose from non-living material through a natural process.-
>I don’t believe in magic
really because your first one sounds like magic-
Well, that’s because you’re stupid.
-
-
-
Urey Miller experiment was pretty plausible and a rather fundamental experiment. idk why you just choose to neglect knowledge like that
-
-
human life is a spiritual alien project
-
Anthropic principle baby
However unlikely it was, with a sample size of 1 and having already witnesses the results, it happened-
>Anthropic principle baby
Referencing this meme should be classified as a fallacy at this point.-
And making muh impossible abiogenesis threads should be a bannable offense on this board, yet here we are
-
>making muh impossible abiogenesis threads should be a bannable offense on this board
It’s a great containment thread for brainlets like you.
-
-
-
-
>theory
Or as I like to call it, scientific headcanon. -
>Post pic of an organism that had billions of years to evolve
>Thinking that is what emerged in abiogenesis
It probably looked like the JCVI minimal cell, barely able to hold itself together and reproduce. Just like you. -
The 1st issue with this discussion is getting soibois to understand that just because you don’t buy into evolution, you must believe in god or some shit.
No soibois, there are other scientific ways humans were created and god is not a factor, nor is your mystery goo.
Simple fac tof the matter is that we know that it is SCIENZTIFICALLLY possible to build a human(or any other type of life you wish) using genetic principles/code/etc. ALL evidence supports the fact that humans were engineered. By who/what and why, I do not know, but guess what soiscrotes, that’s ok to not know and admit you don’t know. Stop pushing your evolutionary bullshit. It makes you look dumb as shit and we all laugh at you.
This however sets us back on many issues. If we are a creation of another life form, then our entire existence changes.
Interestingly enough, the ruling class goes to great lengths to hide this….. I wonder why
-
>No soibois, there are other scientific ways humans were created and god is not a factor, nor is your mystery goo.
Such as?
It always comess down to that: youmake this claim, then what?
>ALL evidence supports the fact that humans were engineered.
Oh, then you’re ignorant and/or a schizo
Guess animal life was intelligently designed to be prone to prion replication diseases, becase the lizardman freemason garden gnome aliens thought it wold have been fun
Guess they simply forgot to finish intelligently designing the other great apes -
>ALL evidence supports the fact that humans were engineered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve
lolno-
>"natural selection of the gaps" fallacy
-
-
>ALL evidence supports the fact that humans were engineered
you have 0 evidence of that, chud. -
>ALL evidence supports the fact that humans were engineered.
t.only species in the world to suffer from scoliosis-
But haven’t we overcome many natural negative selection pressures, that would normally cull bad genes, because our technology and society and our big brains make those pressures effectively irrelevant?
Even if humans were perfectly engineered at one point by God or aliens we could still end up with bad mutations circulating in the genepool bc we’re smart enough to "compensate" and allow our progeny to spread our genes.-
If we were intelligently designed, would the designer not have the knowledge to make sure those mutations would not be possible?
Unless they just wanted to have a good laugh at us
-
-
-
You would not believe the amount of idiotic hackjobs that exist in every complex organism. Other anons have posted some already but the more you dig into biology it becomes increasingly obvious that either it’s all evolved or God is an 80IQ scrotebrain who has trouble with even the simplest of engineering tasks.
Did you know that you have a huge blind spot right in the center if your vision? All the neuronal wiring goes IN FRONT of the lens of your eye and then through a hole in the center to get to your brain instead of just plugging in from the back. Your brain constantly has to edit out the wires and the giant blindspot or you’d never see anything.
-
I agree in principle but the blind spot and reverse wiring is not really a problem. Your eyes are never still enough for the blindspot to block anything, and the retina is actually composed of fiber optic cells so there is no blocking of the light.
-
-
-
Why would then, there be a universe? OH SHIT YOU CAN’T ANSWER THAT DUMBFUCK
-
U mad?
-
-
Aliens seeded the Earth with the first proto-lifeforms that eventually evolved into humanity. This also solves the Fermi Paradox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDOj9XEezDQ -
JESUS DID IT YOU DUMB scrote
-
This but unironically.
-
-
>scientific theory
Absolutely is. Especially when you know the elements involved.
What there is not, is probabilistic theory as to WHY those things are how they are. -
There is. It’s called the revolutionary phenotype
-
There is literally no argument presented ITT that damages the theory of evolution via natural selection.
-
Not OP, but rather than evolution, the crux is how matter managed to go from abiotic to biotic – in other words, how it is possible that the mechanisms of evolution and replication developed if a system of evolution of replication wasn’t already in place
-
-
the fact that there are no aliens is further proof of that
-
All that’s required is a self-replicating mechanism. It will eventually become us.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.