People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[Boss]

What are the odds of DNA persisting and then existing, billions of years later? ? Apparently, 100%, in this universe, same as the odds that stars will form and die. Or, using Hoyle's fallacy (as you do all the time), it's virtually 0%. Clearly, it's a nonsensical question, as no answer is more correct or incorrect than any other. You wield a LOT of nonsense like this, Boss.

Apparently, you don't understand what DNA is or how it works. DNA is not this ubiquitous thing that just so happens to exist in living things. It is a complex 16-bit code defining every single aspect of the living organism it belongs to. Every living thing contains unique DNA... that's why it is so useful in crime scene investigations. All DNA is not the same. While it is unique to each organism, it also contains comparatively common markers allowing us to define species, genus, family, order, class, etc. We know the difference between the DNA of a monkey and that of a human. They have similarity because both are members of the same genetic family but they are never the same.

I've not argued ANY type of fallacy, I am merely interjecting philosophy of honesty here. You can't run around waving your science book at me and proclaim things fact that you haven't proven. Maybe you'll prove them one day, but that's not today, bucko!

You fool...guess who does understand DNA? The scientists who discovered it and dedicated their lives to studying it, and who are now testing the hypothesis of abiogenesis by selection, exactly as I have described it. No, your contrived bullshit that "anyone who doesn't apply your magical bullshit and fallacies to this idea just doesnt understand it" is not worth shit. Get that weak shit out of here.

This is just utter nonsense. "Selection" implies a choice was consciously made by something! If there is no physical living thing to consciously select, what does that leave? ...Seems to be abundantly clear to me that it wasn't something physical.

Abiogenesis is a theory without any valid scientific support. It currently has about 127 iterations, many of which conflict with each other radically. Scientists simply can't collectively agree on a set abiogenesis theory. So this becomes sort of like hurling mud at the wall and claiming you've figured it all out. Well you haven't figured it out! IF you had, this debate would be settled and it's obviously not.

There is not anything "magical" about the belief in a possibility we're dealing with something beyond physical nature. Or at least, our current understanding of physical nature. Dismissing a possibility simply because it interferes with your secular anti-God belief system is NOT an application of science. It is a reliance on your faith-based belief... or in this case, disbelief.

I'm not willing to go there with you, nor is most of the human race. The overwhelming majority of humans believe in some force greater than self. Always have, always will. To keep our minds open to the possibility that something outside our understanding of physical nature COULD BE responsible for things, is pragmatic thinking. It's certainly not something to be ridiculed and mocked they way you constantly do. I'm not the one proclaiming MY view as the empirical truth, but that seems to be YOUR position. I've only submitted it's a possibility and I stand by that.

 

[Boss]

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that life can only be DNA-based

Except the fact that EVERY form of life relies on DNA.

Now you are just making stuff up again, Shaman Boss. You have no way of knowing such a thing.

Well then, reel me off a few examples of living organisms DEVOID of DNA?

HIV & other viruses, red blood cells

https://www.quora.com/Do-all-living...-examples-of-living-things-that-dont-have-DNA

Thanks.. that actually SUPPORTS my argument! Well done!

 

[Boss]

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that life can only be DNA-based

Except the fact that EVERY form of life relies on DNA.

Current life on earth disclaimer.

Exploring Life's Origins: Ribozymes & the RNA World

Do Humans and Bacteria Share Common Genetic Codes?

The code can be different (thar's that stubborn evolution thang again, duck!)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi

We share 57% of our genetic code with a banana.... I guess that explains your intellect?

 

[MarkDuffy]

This is fundamentally loaded and based on fallacy from the start. For one, the "odds" (nonsensical term in this context, but I will use it anyway) are excellent that selection, given enough time and iterations, would produce complicated chemicals that persist and even self-replicate.

"Selected" by WHAT?

By physical laws and environmental pressures, of course. Just as stable molecules like water are "selected for". Just as certain molecular rock structures are "selected for". Just as spheroid objects in space are "selected for".

Ahh.. So a molecule of oxygen decides it wants to select two hydrogen molecules to bond with and form water? Rocks decide to select their formation? Perhaps there is actual PURPOSE in my continuous arguing with rock heads like you on the Internet?

Indiana is doing much better than you are here. Your post is best described as anal.

 

[Boss]

Thank you for a very clear illustration of your very poor grasp of logic. A person would not have to produce an example to refute your claim. It is you who would have to survey every cubic millimeter of the universe to prove your claim. I give some people credit for using conman tactics intentionally, but I think we all know your logical errors are quite by accident.

Well now, you're just circling back around to another "Just So Happens!™" argument! Na-na-na-na-boo-boo-- you can't disprove my claims because you don't know all the information the universe holds! It's easy to be a brain-dead moron without a real argument, you just fall back on circular reasoning!

 

[Boss]

This is fundamentally loaded and based on fallacy from the start. For one, the "odds" (nonsensical term in this context, but I will use it anyway) are excellent that selection, given enough time and iterations, would produce complicated chemicals that persist and even self-replicate.

"Selected" by WHAT?

By physical laws and environmental pressures, of course. Just as stable molecules like water are "selected for". Just as certain molecular rock structures are "selected for". Just as spheroid objects in space are "selected for".

Ahh.. So a molecule of oxygen decides it wants to select two hydrogen molecules to bond with and form water? Rocks decide to select their formation? Perhaps there is actual PURPOSE in my continuous arguing with rock heads like you on the Internet?

Indiana is doing much better than you are here. Your post is best described as anal.

Fun Baggz i failing just as badly as you are, McDuff! Still waiting for some actual EVIDENCE to support your goofy beliefs. *crickets*

 

[MarkDuffy]

What are the odds of DNA persisting and then existing, billions of years later? ? Apparently, 100%, in this universe, same as the odds that stars will form and die. Or, using Hoyle's fallacy (as you do all the time), it's virtually 0%. Clearly, it's a nonsensical question, as no answer is more correct or incorrect than any other. You wield a LOT of nonsense like this, Boss.

Apparently, you don't understand what DNA is or how it works. DNA is not this ubiquitous thing that just so happens to exist in living things. It is a complex 16-bit code defining every single aspect of the living organism it belongs to. Every living thing contains unique DNA... that's why it is so useful in crime scene investigations. All DNA is not the same. While it is unique to each organism, it also contains comparatively common markers allowing us to define species, genus, family, order, class, etc. We know the difference between the DNA of a monkey and that of a human. They have similarity because both are members of the same genetic family but they are never the same.

I've not argued ANY type of fallacy, I am merely interjecting philosophy of honesty here. You can't run around waving your science book at me and proclaim things fact that you haven't proven. Maybe you'll prove them one day, but that's not today, bucko!

You fool...guess who does understand DNA? The scientists who discovered it and dedicated their lives to studying it, and who are now testing the hypothesis of abiogenesis by selection, exactly as I have described it. No, your contrived bullshit that "anyone who doesn't apply your magical bullshit and fallacies to this idea just doesnt understand it" is not worth shit. Get that weak shit out of here.

This is just utter nonsense. "Selection" implies a choice was consciously made by something! If there is no physical living thing to consciously select, what does that leave? ...Seems to be abundantly clear to me that it wasn't something physical.

Abiogenesis is a theory without any valid scientific support. It currently has about 127 iterations, many of which conflict with each other radically. Scientists simply can't collectively agree on a set abiogenesis theory. So this becomes sort of like hurling mud at the wall and claiming you've figured it all out. Well you haven't figured it out! IF you had, this debate would be settled and it's obviously not.

There is not anything "magical" about the belief in a possibility we're dealing with something beyond physical nature. Or at least, our current understanding of physical nature. Dismissing a possibility simply because it interferes with your secular anti-God belief system is NOT an application of science. It is a reliance on your faith-based belief... or in this case, disbelief.

I'm not willing to go there with you, nor is most of the human race. The overwhelming majority of humans believe in some force greater than self. Always have, always will. To keep our minds open to the possibility that something outside our understanding of physical nature COULD BE responsible for things, is pragmatic thinking. It's certainly not something to be ridiculed and mocked they way you constantly do. I'm not the one proclaiming MY view as the empirical truth, but that seems to be YOUR position. I've only submitted it's a possibility and I stand by that.

From previous embedded post here

It is a complex 16-bit code defining every single aspect of the living organism it belongs to

Careful here, Hoss, this is incorrect. The reason we cannot make life or even a cell from DNA is that the cell also has information. Reproduction is not only the DNA, it is also the other cellular structures and even the information in the matrix itself. All are required, not just DNA.

This post.

Indiana is not talking about natural selection (I hope) when referring to abiogenesis. It would something more like physical and chemical selection. Perhaps a better term should be used, but I think you really understand and are just being argumentative.

Natural selection does not "implies a choice was consciously made by something".

 

[MarkDuffy]

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that life can only be DNA-based

Except the fact that EVERY form of life relies on DNA.

Now you are just making stuff up again, Shaman Boss. You have no way of knowing such a thing.

Well then, reel me off a few examples of living organisms DEVOID of DNA?

HIV & other viruses, red blood cells

https://www.quora.com/Do-all-living...-examples-of-living-things-that-dont-have-DNA

Thanks.. that actually SUPPORTS my argument! Well done!

Does it now? LOL Glad I made your day!

 

[MarkDuffy]

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that life can only be DNA-based

Except the fact that EVERY form of life relies on DNA.

Current life on earth disclaimer.

Exploring Life's Origins: Ribozymes & the RNA World

Do Humans and Bacteria Share Common Genetic Codes?

The code can be different (thar's that stubborn evolution thang again, duck!)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi

We share 57% of our genetic code with a banana.... I guess that explains your intellect?

You hate bananas too? Damn, you are an embarrassment to your ancestors.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Show me how my God doesn't exist.

Duh!!!!!

What don't you understand about the meaning of Pantheism?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Remember when you were misusing the term Gish Gallop?

You mean when I was referring to the responses you provide like the this post?

Just so you dont live the rest of your life in ignorance of the meaning of the term, save that last post of yours and refer back to it whenever the meanimg of Gish Gallop eludes you.

I treasure each and every idiotic post you send me.

Why should I try to disprove your God? It has no bearing on anything ata all, except your obviously bizarre state of mind.

I see... So now you won't even touch the subject of discussing my God because you know you'll lose the argument. Just like you avoid discussing any religious dogma that you accuse me posting.

Your cackling at my explanation of how science works only embarrasses and discredits you, not me.

Actually you're the one who should be embarrassed but I realize that lemmings have small craniums and can only concentrate on one task at a time.

Again, anytime you are done with your long phase of public masturbation and would like to put on your big boy pants, feel free to step up and challenge the theory of evolution.

That's being revised all the time by people more qualified than myself and obviously much more qualified than you'll ever be.

No, your self-soothing, self-aggrandizing rants will not be of any use to you, then. If that is all you come armed with, be prepared to get laughed right out of the room.

Only if I show up at the local convention of lemmings worshiping at the alter of scientific consensus and ranting how the world is coming to an end in five years then nearly ten years later being in denial over it all.

Let me know when you're going to schedule the next apocalypse so I can check your data prior to you scientific consensus high priests manipulate it to see if you might be right.

*****CHUCKLE******





Otherwise I doubt I'll be laughed at.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thank you for a very clear illustration of your very poor grasp of logic. A person would not have to produce an example to refute your claim. It is you who would have to survey every cubic millimeter of the universe to prove your claim. I give some people credit for using conman tactics intentionally, but I think we all know your logical errors are quite by accident.

Well now, you're just circling back around to another "Just So Happens!™" argument! Na-na-na-na-boo-boo-- you can't disprove my claims because you don't know all the information the universe holds! It's easy to be a brain-dead moron without a real argument, you just fall back on circular reasoning!

""Just So Happens!™" argument!"

haha, another YEC canard... yes, it "just so happens" that gravity forces large bodies in to spheroid shapes in space. yes, it "just so happens" that a water molecule is stable enough to persist, yet unstable enough to react with a o lot of other chemicals. Yes, it 'just so happens" that the pressure of gravity forces fusion inside stars. What a idiotic, laughable talking point. You're a snake oil salesman, getting frustrated because he is fooling exactly nobody. Your talking points are nothing but a young-earth creationist laundry list. Dime a dozen, pal.

your talking points are tired and irrational. You attempt to enter a discussion of abiogensis without even knowing what the term "selection" means. You're out of your depth, big guy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Remember when you were misusing the term Gish Gallop?

You mean when I was referring to the responses you provide like the this post?

Just so you dont live the rest of your life in ignorance of the meaning of the term, save that last post of yours and refer back to it whenever the meanimg of Gish Gallop eludes you.

I treasure each and every idiotic post you send me.

Why should I try to disprove your God? It has no bearing on anything ata all, except your obviously bizarre state of mind.

I see... So now you won't even touch the subject of discussing my God because you know you'll lose the argument. Just like you avoid discussing any religious dogma that you accuse me posting.

Your cackling at my explanation of how science works only embarrasses and discredits you, not me.

Actually you're the one who should be embarrassed but I realize that lemmings have small craniums and can only concentrate on one task at a time.

Again, anytime you are done with your long phase of public masturbation and would like to put on your big boy pants, feel free to step up and challenge the theory of evolution.

That's being revised all the time by people more qualified than myself and obviously much more qualified than you'll ever be.

No, your self-soothing, self-aggrandizing rants will not be of any use to you, then. If that is all you come armed with, be prepared to get laughed right out of the room.

Only if I show up at the local convention of lemmings worshiping at the alter of scientific consensus and ranting how the world is coming to an end in five years then nearly ten years later being in denial over it all.

Let me know when you're going to schedule the next apocalypse so I can check your data prior to you scientific consensus high priests manipulate it to see if you might be right.

*****CHUCKLE******





Otherwise I doubt I'll be laughed at.

I looked through all of your posts for some semblance or single shred of anything that shows you know anything about evolution. Didn't find a single one. I also looked for your published science... oops, none of that, either. At what point did you decide you were so special, that you should be taken seriously at all and not laughed out of the room? Was it when mom told you that you were special? or was it later? because you, sir, definitely think you are granted some special authority. I'll chalk it up to religious nuttery.

 

[Boss]

Thank you for a very clear illustration of your very poor grasp of logic. A person would not have to produce an example to refute your claim. It is you who would have to survey every cubic millimeter of the universe to prove your claim. I give some people credit for using conman tactics intentionally, but I think we all know your logical errors are quite by accident.

Well now, you're just circling back around to another "Just So Happens!™" argument! Na-na-na-na-boo-boo-- you can't disprove my claims because you don't know all the information the universe holds! It's easy to be a brain-dead moron without a real argument, you just fall back on circular reasoning!

""Just So Happens!™" argument!"

haha, another YEC canard... yes, it "just so happens" that gravity forces large bodies in to spheroid shapes in space. yes, it "just so happens" that a water molecule is stable enough to persist, yet unstable enough to react with a o lot of other chemicals. Yes, it 'just so happens" that the pressure of gravity forces fusion inside stars. What a idiotic, laughable talking point. You're a snake oil salesman, getting frustrated because he is fooling exactly nobody. Your talking points are nothing but a young-earth creationist laundry list. Dime a dozen, pal.

your talking points are tired and irrational. You attempt to enter a discussion of abiogensis without even knowing what the term "selection" means. You're out of your depth, big guy.

Well at least you admit your faith-based beliefs are based on random chance magically happening in an otherwise chaotic universe. We normally have to drag that out of you kicking and screaming in protest.

I do know what "selection" means. It's a conscious choice made from more than one option. My question was WHAT makes this choice and you answered brilliantly. I'm glad you have the faith required to believe what you do. I personally can't bring myself to that kind of conclusion. It makes more sense to me that a force outside of physical nature makes those choices and they're not random at all. Just because I cannot prove that force exists through physical science, doesn't mean it cannot exist.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I looked through all of your posts for some semblance or single shred of anything that shows you know anything about evolution. Didn't find a single one. I also looked for your published science... oops, none of that, either. At what point did you decide you were so special, that you should be taken seriously at all and not laughed out of the room? Was it when mom told you that you were special? or was it later? because you, sir, definitely think you are granted some special authority. I'll chalk it up to religious nuttery.

I've had a paper published while I was in college, a university that is well respected for studies in the fields of science, that dealt with astronomical phenomenon and genesis of life in the universe.

Want to guess what I was studying?

Can you say as much?

If what you've had to say so far is any indication I'd be embarrassed as hell if I were you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[BreezeWood]

Sooo, DNA code was created just by accident? Riiight! LOL

No, it was probably created by selection, which is nonrandom. Is this an epiphany for you? All this time you have been calling it "random", and "an accident". Now you know you were ass backwards wrong the entire time.

Has this new knowledge changed your views?

Let's talk about this "selection" you keep bringing up when debating origin of life. Before there was any form of life in our universe, it was full of inorganic matter floating around randomly in space. At some point, there had to be approximately 27 specific amino acids and 14 enzymes which found their way to one another and coalesced to create the very first strand of DNA. We don't know how that happened or by what sort of "selective" process it could've occurred, but it certainly had to happen for DNA to exist. What force, natural or supernatural, do you suppose controlled the selection of these components? What are the odds out of the thousands of possibilities that the correct combination just happened to fall together in order to form the very first living organism? It's not a question that is easy to answer or we would have answered it by now. We simply have to presume one of two possibilities... "Just So Happens!™" or "God Did It!™" Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion.

SO... Now we have the very first DNA and living organism. What force, natural or supernatural, determined which amino acids and enzymes to switch around or change in order to produce a completely different DNA required for a completely different form of life? Are you claiming the organism itself has the capacity to "select" on it's own accord, without any outside input? That's pretty incredible. But it had to happen somehow in order for there to be another form of life. Again... "Just So Happens!™" or "God Did It!™" Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion.

At some point, there was the monumental leap from single-cell life to multi-cellular life and that required some phenomenal happening we've yet to be able to figure out. Even with full understanding of amino acids and enzymes, even with state-of-the-art laboratories and controlled environments, we can't seem to replicate this feat. But again... it had to happen somehow and we're looking at the two possibilities... "Just So Happens!™" or "God Did It!™" Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion.

Obviously, you are in the "Just So Happens!™" camp. But as we examine the utter complexity of life and the abundance of life forms, it becomes quite unbelievable that so many insurmountable odds were met with nothing but random chance involved. And really, it's just as easy to believe "God Did It!™" ...Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion.

.

At some point, there was the monumental leap from single-cell life to multi-cellular life and that required some phenomenal happening we've yet to be able to figure out.

we've yet to be able to figure out ...


there was no leap from cellular to multicellular life, there is only single celled and single multisubdivided cellular life on earth - no life form exists composed of multidisimilar cells in combination with dissimilar DNA.
all multisudivided cellular organisms have the same DNA in each cell. all life on earth is single celled or derivative single celled organisms.

the facts speak for themselves and having been made aware of to this poster before and simply reinforces the fact they have no other objective than pointless argumentation rather than resolutions that infringe their misconceptions.

 

[MarkDuffy]

From one cell to many: How did multicellularity evolve?

Indeed, no matter how it is defined, scientists agree that multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many clades. Defined in the loosest sense, as an aggregation of cells, multicellularity has evolved in at least 25 lineages. However, even when defined more strictly -- requiring that cells be connected, communicate, and cooperate in some fashion or another -- it has still notably evolved once in animals, three times in fungi, six times in algae, and multiple times in bacteria.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm

Boss is desperate. The evolution of multicellularity is one of the great evidences of evolution due to all the independent times it has occurred.

 

[Boss]

It is a complex 16-bit code defining every single aspect of the living organism it belongs to

Careful here, Hoss, this is incorrect. The reason we cannot make life or even a cell from DNA is that the cell also has information. Reproduction is not only the DNA, it is also the other cellular structures and even the information in the matrix itself. All are required, not just DNA.

Wow! So, to counter my argument that life is not simply a fluke of nature and random chance and must be very complex because DNA is very complex... you add that DNA isn't the only complexity, it's actually MORE complex! I think you just moved the goal posts to my advantage! I've never seen anyone do that before! Amazing!

 

[MarkDuffy]

It is a complex 16-bit code defining every single aspect of the living organism it belongs to

Careful here, Hoss, this is incorrect. The reason we cannot make life or even a cell from DNA is that the cell also has information. Reproduction is not only the DNA, it is also the other cellular structures and even the information in the matrix itself. All are required, not just DNA.

Wow! So, to counter my argument that life is not simply a fluke of nature and random chance and must be very complex because DNA is very complex... you add that DNA isn't the only complexity, it's actually MORE complex! I think you just moved the goal posts to my advantage! I've never seen anyone do that before! Amazing!

The fact that life is complex causes the magic argument to fail.

If God's magic was creation, then life would have current magical properties and be simple. Where is the magic?

 

[Boss]

From one cell to many: How did multicellularity evolve?

Indeed, no matter how it is defined, scientists agree that multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many clades. Defined in the loosest sense, as an aggregation of cells, multicellularity has evolved in at least 25 lineages. However, even when defined more strictly -- requiring that cells be connected, communicate, and cooperate in some fashion or another -- it has still notably evolved once in animals, three times in fungi, six times in algae, and multiple times in bacteria.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm

Boss is desperate. The evolution of multicellularity is one of the great evidences of evolution due to all the independent times it has occurred.

Scientists DON'T agree. That's what you fuckwits claim whenever you can't support your conclusions. Yes, multi-cellular life is explicitly defined as cells working, communicating, cooperating and functioning TOGETHER, that's precisely what makes an organism "multi-cellular" in nature. And no... you have ZERO evidence it has ever happened in anything. You can't replicate this process in a lab experiment and you've been attempting to do it for nearly 100 years. You have THEORIES but you cannot support them with evidence!