Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
True, it is not scientific as the implied answers are genuinely beyond the scope of what science can address.The article centers on how unlikely it would be for all the right ingredients and circumstances to be present to form the original life forms. That is NOT scientific debunking of anything.
I'm afraid the entirety of your attempt at argument is no more supported than "..... because I say so."That's rich. All I've seen from you is mockery. Mostly the repetition of a single phrase..."Because I said so." You have contributed exactly nothing of value, let alone anything worth replying to. I gave you every chance. Good bye. I'll be ignoring you from now on.I offered plenty to respond to. You have not refuted anything I've posted. All I saw from you was the usual talking points. I can see that you are not interested in a honest discussion of the facts. Remain ignorant then. I don't really care.You offered nothing of interest to respond to.You're repeating yourself. I heard it the first time. Repeating it will not make you sound any more intelligent."... It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it."
... because I say so!
"The gawds did it" is hardly an argument.
Classic. You're unable to respond to a single comment I've posted so you stomp your feet like a petulant child.
YouTube videos - despite their bright colors and flashy graphics- are not the most accurate rendition of science.Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.Answer me this. If you look at a computer, there is no doubt that someone designed and built it. DNA is more complex than our most advanced computers. It's information density is far superior to anything our technology has produced. And you actually believe that it was the result of chance? Unbelievable. Do yourself a favor. Do a little research on Gene regulatory networks. These are networks with thousands of components, all working together to regulate living processes. They exist in every cell. Not only that, there are meta GRN's comprised of multiple networks. And if just one of the thousands of components were missing, the cell would die. Our most powerful computers cannot model how they work. They are too complex. And all of this is managed by a microscopic molecule called DNA. If you cannot see the hand of the Creator in all of that, then you are willfully ignorant.No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so. Or do you know of an example of such a thing actually being observed to happen? Didn't think so. Care to try again? And I'm still waiting for someone to try refuting anything from the article I posted. My guess is that you can't. Would you care to try?"... It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it."
... because I say so!
"No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so."
... because I say so.
It's getting old, Bunky.
I'm afraid you're simply reiterating the Disco'tute party line
CI110: Complex Specified Information indicates design.
Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view
Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.Answer me this. If you look at a computer, there is no doubt that someone designed and built it. DNA is more complex than our most advanced computers. It's information density is far superior to anything our technology has produced. And you actually believe that it was the result of chance? Unbelievable. Do yourself a favor. Do a little research on Gene regulatory networks. These are networks with thousands of components, all working together to regulate living processes. They exist in every cell. Not only that, there are meta GRN's comprised of multiple networks. And if just one of the thousands of components were missing, the cell would die. Our most powerful computers cannot model how they work. They are too complex. And all of this is managed by a microscopic molecule called DNA. If you cannot see the hand of the Creator in all of that, then you are willfully ignorant.No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so. Or do you know of an example of such a thing actually being observed to happen? Didn't think so. Care to try again? And I'm still waiting for someone to try refuting anything from the article I posted. My guess is that you can't. Would you care to try?"... It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it."
... because I say so!
"No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so."
... because I say so.
It's getting old, Bunky.
I'm afraid you're simply reiterating the Disco'tute party line
CI110: Complex Specified Information indicates design.
Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view
The impossible does not become possible, no matter how much time you give it.Science has a pretty good grasp of the minimum complexity required for life. Scientists have found the minimum complexity of life to be about 2000 genes for a self supporting microbe, and about 400 genes for a parasitic microbe. So it is not enough that there be life's building blocks present - they must be arranged in a precise order (and all amino acids must be left-handed) in order for life to function at all. Think about that. Not only do you require the minimum number in the correct order, they must all be left handed. Do you really believe that's possible?No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so. Or do you know of an example of such a thing actually being observed to happen? Didn't think so. Care to try again? And I'm still waiting for someone to try refuting anything from the article I posted. My guess is that you can't. Would you care to try?"... It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it."
... because I say so!
The entire article can be refuted by asking you if the first cells were as complex as cells alive now? Unless you know that to be true, pointing out the complexity of current life forms does not debunk anything.
In the length of time we are talking about? Absolutely.
But the implausibility of random coincidences of astronomical proportions IS MOST CERTAINLY circumstantial proof of a Creator, dude, not to mention the Infinite Regression Fallacy.The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.
Random coincidences facing astronomical odds against it is not proof of anything.
Random coincidences facing astronomical odds against it is not proof of anything.
Sure it is.
How many times would a poker dealer have to give himself a "random" hand of Royal Flushes before you become convinced that he is cheating?
Dont be stupid for rhetorical purposes. It doesnt work.
Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.Answer me this. If you look at a computer, there is no doubt that someone designed and built it. DNA is more complex than our most advanced computers. It's information density is far superior to anything our technology has produced. And you actually believe that it was the result of chance? Unbelievable. Do yourself a favor. Do a little research on Gene regulatory networks. These are networks with thousands of components, all working together to regulate living processes. They exist in every cell. Not only that, there are meta GRN's comprised of multiple networks. And if just one of the thousands of components were missing, the cell would die. Our most powerful computers cannot model how they work. They are too complex. And all of this is managed by a microscopic molecule called DNA. If you cannot see the hand of the Creator in all of that, then you are willfully ignorant.No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so. Or do you know of an example of such a thing actually being observed to happen? Didn't think so. Care to try again? And I'm still waiting for someone to try refuting anything from the article I posted. My guess is that you can't. Would you care to try?
"No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so."
... because I say so.
It's getting old, Bunky.
I'm afraid you're simply reiterating the Disco'tute party line
CI110: Complex Specified Information indicates design.
Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view
I don't need a video to tell me that cellular structure is complex. I have not argued that at all.
But without knowing how complex the first cells were, the argument fails.
Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.Answer me this. If you look at a computer, there is no doubt that someone designed and built it. DNA is more complex than our most advanced computers. It's information density is far superior to anything our technology has produced. And you actually believe that it was the result of chance? Unbelievable. Do yourself a favor. Do a little research on Gene regulatory networks. These are networks with thousands of components, all working together to regulate living processes. They exist in every cell. Not only that, there are meta GRN's comprised of multiple networks. And if just one of the thousands of components were missing, the cell would die. Our most powerful computers cannot model how they work. They are too complex. And all of this is managed by a microscopic molecule called DNA. If you cannot see the hand of the Creator in all of that, then you are willfully ignorant."No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so."
... because I say so.
It's getting old, Bunky.
I'm afraid you're simply reiterating the Disco'tute party line
CI110: Complex Specified Information indicates design.
Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view
I don't need a video to tell me that cellular structure is complex. I have not argued that at all.
But without knowing how complex the first cells were, the argument fails.
You are not listening. Scientists now know what the minimum requirements for life are. There are actually microscopic critters alive, today, that are at the borderline of that requirement. The simple fact is that nothing less complex can live. So there are no simpler precursors to life as we know it. What you see is what there is. We also know how many thousands of processes are going on inside a cell. It is more complex that a major city. And people like you believe that this wondrous level of complexity, this miracle of life, is the result of random processes. Words fail me.
Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.Answer me this. If you look at a computer, there is no doubt that someone designed and built it. DNA is more complex than our most advanced computers. It's information density is far superior to anything our technology has produced. And you actually believe that it was the result of chance? Unbelievable. Do yourself a favor. Do a little research on Gene regulatory networks. These are networks with thousands of components, all working together to regulate living processes. They exist in every cell. Not only that, there are meta GRN's comprised of multiple networks. And if just one of the thousands of components were missing, the cell would die. Our most powerful computers cannot model how they work. They are too complex. And all of this is managed by a microscopic molecule called DNA. If you cannot see the hand of the Creator in all of that, then you are willfully ignorant."No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so."
... because I say so.
It's getting old, Bunky.
I'm afraid you're simply reiterating the Disco'tute party line
CI110: Complex Specified Information indicates design.
Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view
I don't need a video to tell me that cellular structure is complex. I have not argued that at all.
But without knowing how complex the first cells were, the argument fails.
You are not listening. Scientists now know what the minimum requirements for life are. There are actually microscopic critters alive, today, that are at the borderline of that requirement. The simple fact is that nothing less complex can live. So there are no simpler precursors to life as we know it. What you see is what there is. We also know how many thousands of processes are going on inside a cell. It is more complex that a major city. And people like you believe that this wondrous level of complexity, this miracle of life, is the result of random processes. Words fail me.
Why not claim that you have a functioning brain?...Oh, wait.Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.Answer me this. If you look at a computer, there is no doubt that someone designed and built it. DNA is more complex than our most advanced computers. It's information density is far superior to anything our technology has produced. And you actually believe that it was the result of chance? Unbelievable. Do yourself a favor. Do a little research on Gene regulatory networks. These are networks with thousands of components, all working together to regulate living processes. They exist in every cell. Not only that, there are meta GRN's comprised of multiple networks. And if just one of the thousands of components were missing, the cell would die. Our most powerful computers cannot model how they work. They are too complex. And all of this is managed by a microscopic molecule called DNA. If you cannot see the hand of the Creator in all of that, then you are willfully ignorant.
Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view
I don't need a video to tell me that cellular structure is complex. I have not argued that at all.
But without knowing how complex the first cells were, the argument fails.
You are not listening. Scientists now know what the minimum requirements for life are. There are actually microscopic critters alive, today, that are at the borderline of that requirement. The simple fact is that nothing less complex can live. So there are no simpler precursors to life as we know it. What you see is what there is. We also know how many thousands of processes are going on inside a cell. It is more complex that a major city. And people like you believe that this wondrous level of complexity, this miracle of life, is the result of random processes. Words fail me.
Normally I avoid this topic with people who think the scientific method involves having a result in mind and working to only use facts that support that preconceived notion.
Yes, scientists think they know the requirements for life. Not long ago that included a dependence on sunlight as part of their food chain. That is no longer true.
And there are only 4 nucleotides that make up the dna strand. All of the information contained in dna is due to the which nucleotides are used and their positioning.
Claiming intelligent design as "scientific", when there is absolutely no scientific proof of any "creator" is not scientific. Why not claim life was originally formed by aliens seeding planets?
Why not claim that you have a functioning brain?...Oh, wait.Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view
I don't need a video to tell me that cellular structure is complex. I have not argued that at all.
But without knowing how complex the first cells were, the argument fails.
You are not listening. Scientists now know what the minimum requirements for life are. There are actually microscopic critters alive, today, that are at the borderline of that requirement. The simple fact is that nothing less complex can live. So there are no simpler precursors to life as we know it. What you see is what there is. We also know how many thousands of processes are going on inside a cell. It is more complex that a major city. And people like you believe that this wondrous level of complexity, this miracle of life, is the result of random processes. Words fail me.
Normally I avoid this topic with people who think the scientific method involves having a result in mind and working to only use facts that support that preconceived notion.
Yes, scientists think they know the requirements for life. Not long ago that included a dependence on sunlight as part of their food chain. That is no longer true.
And there are only 4 nucleotides that make up the dna strand. All of the information contained in dna is due to the which nucleotides are used and their positioning.
Claiming intelligent design as "scientific", when there is absolutely no scientific proof of any "creator" is not scientific. Why not claim life was originally formed by aliens seeding planets?
What do you think "it happening" is exactly?It is not about it happening over and over. It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.
What do you think "it happening" is exactly?It is not about it happening over and over. It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.
A bunch of molecules inexplicably hurling themselves together to form a flat screen TV is more plausible.
The probability approaches ZERO. Mathematicians tell us us that once you reach a high enough number, the probability is essentially zero. The probability of random atoms forming life from non life is higher than the total number of atoms in the observable universe. The impossible is still impossible, no matter how much time you give it.What do you think "it happening" is exactly?It is not about it happening over and over. It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.
A bunch of molecules inexplicably hurling themselves together to form a flat screen TV is more plausible.
A bunch of chemicals and compounds being stirred, shaken, and lit up with lightning or volcanic heat. Over hundreds of millions of years, the idea that the right combination comes together is not impossible.
What do you base that on? Your sincere desire for it to be true?A bunch of chemicals and compounds being stirred, shaken, and lit up with lightning or volcanic heat. Over hundreds of millions of years, the idea that the right combination comes together is not impossible.
The probability approaches ZERO. Mathematicians tell us us that once you reach a high enough number, the probability is essentially zero. The probability of random atoms forming life from non life is higher than the total number of atoms in the observable universe. The impossible is still impossible, no matter how much time you give it.What do you think "it happening" is exactly?It is not about it happening over and over. It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.
A bunch of molecules inexplicably hurling themselves together to form a flat screen TV is more plausible.
A bunch of chemicals and compounds being stirred, shaken, and lit up with lightning or volcanic heat. Over hundreds of millions of years, the idea that the right combination comes together is not impossible.
