The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific

[Weatherman2020]

You’re post is exactly what I refer to in many threads. Put on a lab coat or have a title of professor and you can say water is not wet and 1/2 the people will nod in agreement. They’ve all been trained to turn their brains off.

That's idiotic and wrong, and really shows how little you understand about the scientific process. Seriously man, you are embarrassing yourself

What do you mean, you had just stated so. You believe anything someone says if they claim to be a scientist.

You see it all of the time here on USMB. It must be true, scientists say so BS.

The left cannot think on their own, and always look to someone else to do the thinking for them. The left are bobblehead dolls.

You're a shameless little liar. I never said that, nor has anyone else. You have run out of stupid and wrong things to say about science, so now you are crybabying about me.

"90% of all scientists say manmade global warming is real"

I see. So now, "a scientist" has become "90% of scientists". I would accuse you of the charlatan's tactic of "bait and switch", but we both know you are not that clever and have no idea of the dumb thing you just did.

Btw, it's more than 90%. And no, that's not why I accept the conaensus view. You see, scientists go to great lengths to create charts and articles for nonscientists to understand their work. Admittedly, one must still be somewhat educated and have some science knowledge to understand them. So they're not for you.

Your straw men just get dumber and dumber as you attempt to defend carbon atoms being sentient.

 

[alang1216]

Your straw men just get dumber and dumber as you attempt to defend carbon atoms being sentient.

What are you saying? That only God can create sentient atoms?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's idiotic and wrong, and really shows how little you understand about the scientific process. Seriously man, you are embarrassing yourself

What do you mean, you had just stated so. You believe anything someone says if they claim to be a scientist.

You see it all of the time here on USMB. It must be true, scientists say so BS.

The left cannot think on their own, and always look to someone else to do the thinking for them. The left are bobblehead dolls.

You're a shameless little liar. I never said that, nor has anyone else. You have run out of stupid and wrong things to say about science, so now you are crybabying about me.

"90% of all scientists say manmade global warming is real"

I see. So now, "a scientist" has become "90% of scientists". I would accuse you of the charlatan's tactic of "bait and switch", but we both know you are not that clever and have no idea of the dumb thing you just did.

Btw, it's more than 90%. And no, that's not why I accept the conaensus view. You see, scientists go to great lengths to create charts and articles for nonscientists to understand their work. Admittedly, one must still be somewhat educated and have some science knowledge to understand them. So they're not for you.

Your straw men just get dumber and dumber as you attempt to defend carbon atoms being sentient.

I don't think you inderstand the term "straw man". Also, you are proof that a collection of molecules can be sentient. There's not much more anyone can tell you.

 

[sealybobo]

This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
View attachment 152348

Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them. Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
View attachment 152347

No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.

View attachment 152349

Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way. Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB. Atoms just do not care.

How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.

This mantis shrimp (Gonodactylus smithii) might have a much more elaborate brain than previously thought. That’s the conclusion of the first study to peer into the head of more than 200 crustaceans, including crabs, shrimp, and lobsters. Researchers discovered that the brain of mantis shrimp contains memory and learning centers, called mushroom bodies, which so far have been seen only in insects. The team also found similar structures in close relatives of these sea creatures: cleaner shrimp, pistol shrimp, and hermit crabs. This may not be a coincidence, the researchers say, because mantis shrimp and their brethren are the only crustaceans that hunt over long distances and might have to remember where to get food. But the finding, reported in eLife, is likely to stir debate: Scientists agree that mushroom bodies evolved after the insect lineage split off from the crustacean lineage about 480 million years ago; finding these learning centers in mantis shrimp means that either mushroom bodies are much more ancient than scientists realized and were lost in all crustaceans but mantis shrimp, or that these structures are similar to their counterparts in insects but have evolved independently.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...emory-and-learning-centers-found-only-insects

 

[Old Rocks]

Taste like chicken!

It REALLY doesn't.

Don't really know. The only part of a human I have tasted was rather fishy tasting.

 

[fncceo]

Also, you are proof that a collection of molecules can be sentient.

I wouldn't rush to judgement on something like that until all the facts are in.

 

[Old Rocks]

I've noticed that when buffoons are stumped and recognize that they have no way to dispute what I've posted, they pretend that 'cut and paste' is some sort of pejorative.

It isn't.

If I wanted to converse with Google I'd just cut out the middle man and go there. Providing links to supporting info is fine but if you can't put an idea into your own words you probably don't understand it.

I link, source and document everything I post.

Perhaps, if you go to college, you'll understand the importance of doing so.

Been there, done that. And I well understand from that experience just how full of shit you truly are. A consensus among scientists simply means that the experts in that discipline accept that as the best model, at present, for what we see in nature. And that model is based on facts, evidence, and observations. Whereas almost everything you have ever presented is based on your skewed political and religious views of this world.

 

[Old Rocks]

Nor is your brain pattern the same as when you were 10. Doesn’t mean we can kill you at ten.

At 3 weeks the babies heart is beating. So your stopping a heart beating.

The same can be said of almost any animal and we can kill any animal (we own) at any stage in their lives Why should human beings be granted special rights? How are humans different from other animals?

Because only humans are created in the image of God.

Since 1962 school kids could no longer be told they were each created equally in the image of God. This was replaced with telling kids they are no more important than a tree.

We are bearing the fruits of that change now with the rapid escalation of mass murder in our society.

Well, that is your opinion. I much prefer the Native American image of a deity, a spirit imbued in all things in the Universe. Personally, I don't think that if there is a Deity, that it gives a flying fuck about any of us. The universe that brought forth life by the laws of the universe, has granted us self awareness. Now what happens to our species is entirely up to us, provided the universe does not accidentally kill us off like it did the dinosaurs.

 

[bripat9643]

Scientists are the first to admit that they don't have The Answer to the origin of our existence. Yet. Such egotistical beliefs have the exclusive domain of the various religions of the world for thousands of years.
.

How is it "egotistical" to believe that a higher power created the universe?

It's certainly egotistical to believe that some kind of vertebrate with testicles created the universe.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've noticed that when buffoons are stumped and recognize that they have no way to dispute what I've posted, they pretend that 'cut and paste' is some sort of pejorative.

It isn't.

If I wanted to converse with Google I'd just cut out the middle man and go there. Providing links to supporting info is fine but if you can't put an idea into your own words you probably don't understand it.

I link, source and document everything I post.

Perhaps, if you go to college, you'll understand the importance of doing so.

Been there, done that. And I well understand from that experience just how full of shit you truly are. A consensus among scientists simply means that the experts in that discipline accept that as the best model, at present, for what we see in nature. And that model is based on facts, evidence, and observations. Whereas almost everything you have ever presented is based on your skewed political and religious views of this world.

I mean a real college,not the Barnum & Baily Clown College that you attended.

And,,,,too bad your upbringing never included what language is appropriate outside of the boys bathroom.



But, I never mind educating the ignorant....you.
Take notes:

"The biochemical complexity of cascades of enzymes required to perform a single function in the cell is mind-boggling, and for a structure or function to be selected it must be functionally complete. The formation of amino acids from ammonia and methane under extremes of pressure and temperature is quoted, but this synthesis is nothing compared with the complexity of a single protein enzyme, let alone a series of highly specialised enzymes functioning in a cascade sequence.

Such irreducibly complex systems are of no selective value unless they are complete." Alan H. Linton is emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. Scant search for the Maker | Biological sciences | Times Higher Education



One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species.
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475

 

[PoliticalChic]

"If you really want a glimpse at how complex "simple organisms" are, and how incredible it is that anyone could believe they spontaneously formed by chance, just consider the cell's nucleus.

This organelle contains DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), a coiled supermolecule, a "digitally coded" database containing the roughly4,000,000 pieces of information (nucleotide base pairs) required to replicate the cell.

And nucleotide sequencing along the DNA supermolecule must be exact "to the nucleotide" or results could be disastrous.

DNA is so complex that within the tiniest-known and simplest living organism (bacteria called mycoplasma genitalium), 111 of the roughly 300 protein-coding genes essential to the little organism's existence were of unknown function as of this writing.

Yes, more than one third of the DNA—of just this one organelle—is so complex its function is unknown.

In fact, it is said that a "simple" bacterium contains over 100 billion bits of data stored in the DNA's genes and chromosomes.

In other words, what experts "don't want you to know" is the fact that the "simplest organism" is not, as they mislead folks to believe, "simple."

It is the antithesis of simple.

Its astonishing complexity easily dwarfs any technology created by the human mind.

Stanford University's Dr. Lubert Stryer noted that the DNA from a single human cell contains roughly 2.9 billion base pairs. This means to record the human genome it would require roughly 3,000 books of 1,000,000 characters each (assuming each base pair was recorded as a character).

And yet, this incredible technology is most efficiently packaged. Experts tell us that if one could extract the DNA coils (~3 meters in length) from every cell of your body (~2-5 trillion) and unravel them—placed end to end the distance would span more than 5 billion miles. Yet the genetic information for reproduction of the entire human population would fit comfortably inside a thimble.

Quite plainly, experts don't come close to understanding—much less reconstructing or synthesizing—the simplest organisms on earth. And some of them are finally realizing this is not going to happen, that life will never be reproduced by any scientist from scratch."
5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org



Simple organisms formed as a result of an 'accident'???

Hardly.

 

[alang1216]

"The biochemical complexity of cascades of enzymes required to perform a single function in the cell is mind-boggling, and for a structure or function to be selected it must be functionally complete. The formation of amino acids from ammonia and methane under extremes of pressure and temperature is quoted, but this synthesis is nothing compared with the complexity of a single protein enzyme, let alone a series of highly specialised enzymes functioning in a cascade sequence.

Such irreducibly complex systems are of no selective value unless they are complete."

Outside of the creationist fringe, I don't believe the scientific community accepts irreducibly complexity. It seems to me to be just another version of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

Since you like a good cut and paste:
The theological argument from design was presented in creation science with assertions that evolution could not explain complex molecular mechanisms, and in 1993 Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, presented these arguments in a revised version of Of Pandas and People.[4]In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box he called this irreducible complexity and said it made evolution through natural selection of random mutations impossible.[5] This was based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research.[4]Evolutionary biologists have published rebuttals showing how systems discussed by Behe can evolve,[6][7] and examples documented through comparative genomics show that complex molecular systems are formed by the addition of components as revealed by different temporal origins of their proteins.[8][9]

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[1]

 

[alang1216]

"If you really want a glimpse at how complex "simple organisms" are, and how incredible it is that anyone could believe they spontaneously formed by chance, just consider the cell's nucleus...

Strawman alert! No scientist seriously believes cells just spontaneously formed by chance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The biochemical complexity of cascades of enzymes required to perform a single function in the cell is mind-boggling, and for a structure or function to be selected it must be functionally complete. The formation of amino acids from ammonia and methane under extremes of pressure and temperature is quoted, but this synthesis is nothing compared with the complexity of a single protein enzyme, let alone a series of highly specialised enzymes functioning in a cascade sequence.

Such irreducibly complex systems are of no selective value unless they are complete."

Outside of the creationist fringe, I don't believe the scientific community accepts irreducibly complexity. It seems to me to be just another version of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

Since you like a good cut and paste:
The theological argument from design was presented in creation science with assertions that evolution could not explain complex molecular mechanisms, and in 1993 Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, presented these arguments in a revised version of Of Pandas and People.[4]In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box he called this irreducible complexity and said it made evolution through natural selection of random mutations impossible.[5] This was based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research.[4]Evolutionary biologists have published rebuttals showing how systems discussed by Behe can evolve,[6][7] and examples documented through comparative genomics show that complex molecular systems are formed by the addition of components as revealed by different temporal origins of their proteins.[8][9]

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[1]

Science, real science, is based on the scientific method....the results of experiments that are reproducible....not conjecture....

...sooooo....can you provide proof of the creation of life....or even of any new species?

Of course you can't.




Even the most noted of atheistic Marxists, such ass Gould, admit same.

““Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)


Sudden appearance....fully formed.....as though they were place on earth....

By Whom?

 

[alang1216]

Science, real science, is based on the scientific method....the results of experiments that are reproducible....not conjecture....

...sooooo....can you provide proof of the creation of life....or even of any new species?

Of course you can't.

Science has been studying the fossil record for over a century and have found trillions of fossils. They all support evolution. If there is a creator he is trying hard to trick us.

 

[SeaGal]

We know what ratio of elements we are.
Mix away and make yourself a new friend.

That's an interesting concept - science can break a blade of grass down to it's molecular level, put all the components together in a beaker, shake it well, yet cannot make it grow again.

God vs big bang - both are theories, both have devoted believers - none of us have scientific proof. I think bangers have even shakier ground to stand on - positing that life came from non life. Believers at least have empirical evidence...the incredible complexity, beauty and order of life. Explosions create chaos, not order.

 

[alang1216]

God vs big bang - both are theories, both have devoted believers - none of us have scientific proof.

The Big Bang theory explains why EVERYWHERE look we see the universe expanding. Why would God create an expanding universe?

 

[SeaGal]

God vs big bang - both are theories, both have devoted believers - none of us have scientific proof.

The Big Bang theory explains why EVERYWHERE look we see the universe expanding. Why would God create an expanding universe?

Why would He not?

I would say the big bang theory does not explain why we are unique, thus far, in the universe...in fact, the opposite should be the case.

In reality we are all believers in an unproven theory of one kind or another - tho' only some of us can admit it.

I believe that I see the hand of a Creator in the wonderful complexity and diversity of life. The perfect placement of the earth, the composition of the atmosphere. The harmony in the cycle of life.

But that is my personal belief, without scientific proof, and hold no animosity toward those who believe it all an accident, without scientific proof.

 

[alang1216]

The Big Bang theory explains why EVERYWHERE look we see the universe expanding. Why would God create an expanding universe?

Why would He not?

Is he a trickster or just trying to hide? He made galaxies so far away that their light took billions of years to reach us and then told us the world was created in six days.

You say the big bang theory does not explain why we are unique, thus far, in the universe...in fact, the opposite should be the case. If we are unique why did God make so many other galaxies that we've never even been able to see until recently? If we're unique why so many others? A trick?

Why does faith always have to be blind?

 

[SeaGal]

Why does faith always have to be blind?

An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.