UFO's

[WillBrink]

Because evolution refutes the existence of God?

Such a comment indicates a poor to zero knowledge of science. A nicely written article:

http://time.com/77676/why-science-do...-disprove-god/

[Adrenaline_6]

As we have only one example (Earth) to look at, it's currently impossible to calculate with any reasonable accuracy at all as to the mathematical likelihood of "...life spontaneously forming" or otherwise and anything else is hypothesis (read mental masturbation) and biased. By all accounts however, the shear numbers we are working with suggests it's mathematically improbable that life does not exist other than earth, and that's not disputed by anyone in the field really. Whether that lift has ever visited us, is a completely different issue/topic.

Shear numbers? Did you actually watch the video? If not, please do. He explains how hard it is to make something. He goes into detail the purity needed, the exact temperature changes required, that DNA isn't even the complicated part. That in order for DNA to be made, their has to have enzymes in place to check it for errors and fix it to begin with which is more complicated than the DNA itself. How does a super complicated enzyme form to check something that doesn't exist and then the applicable DNA then form for it to check?

Like he mentions over and over in the video. Nobody knows, the scientists purposely leave it out of their research and never try to explain it because they can't, there never has been life made with chemicals, they have been lying the whole time. There are so many gotchas in there that result in ultimate fail and the process having to start from the beginning again (millions of years back to square one), it is literally impossible to look at it from a scientific standpoint and say "yeah, I still think this could happen" and not consider this theory a faith based religion in itself.

An all knowing God that figured this all out and designed it is a million times more believable when you watch this (actually 10 to the 79,000,000,000th if you watched the video, you'll get the reference).

One could argue the alternative is too much to bear because it doesn’t make sense.

Actually watch the video, realize the sheer impossibility of this happening and then see which one actually doesn't make sense. His science silences Atheist everywhere because he uses science to demonstrate the absolute garbage that we have been fed on this theory. Zero advancement on the theory in over 60 years. Why? Garbage.

[WillBrink]

Like he mentions over and over in the video. Nobody knows, the scientists purposely leave it out of their research and never try to explain it because they can't, there never has been life made with chemicals, they have been lying the whole time.

That statement alone suggests this area science is not your lane. No one is "lying" nor has any scientist claimed they know, much less proved, how life on earth started. Again, they hypothesize how it may have taken place, minus any assumption God(s), higher powers, or extraterrestrials were involved, and over time have better models of what may have taken place. No one knows, nor does anyone claim to know, nor did anyone in my many science courses taken, text books read, lectures attended, etc, etc ever claim to know how life began on earth.

There's an approximate knowledge when life started, and a very good model for how it evolved over time, but how it started is unknown, and strictly theoretical at this time. Way more Qs then answers exist on that one.

Not sure why they needs to be repeated over and over here. And again, the shear numbers we are working with suggests it's mathematically improbable that life does not exist other than earth, and that's not disputed by anyone in the field really. To repeat, whether it's common or incredibly rare can't be ascertained currently as we have only one example to work with.

It's a shame this interesting thread is going in an utterly unnecessary direction that will see it locked soon.

One of the more prestigious publications discussing possible pathways by which life formed, not a one, making any claims at all it's conclusively understood and being clear as many Qs remain as answers:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-life-begin1/

[Adrenaline_6]

That statement alone suggests this area science is not your lane. No one is "lying" nor has any scientist claimed they know, much less proved, how life on earth started. Again, they hypothesize how it may have taken place, minus any assumption God(s), higher powers, or extraterrestrials were involved, and over time have better models of what may have taken place. No one knows, nor does anyone claim to know, nor did anyone in my many science courses taken, text books read, lectures attended, etc, etc ever claim to know how life began on earth.

There's an approximate knowledge when life started, and a very good model for how it evolved over time, but how it started is unknown, and strictly theoretical at this time. Way more Qs then answers exist on that one.

Not sure why they needs to be repeated over and over here. And again, the shear numbers we are working with suggests it's mathematically improbable that life does not exist other than earth, and that's not disputed by anyone in the field really. To repeat, whether it's common or incredibly rare can't be ascertained currently as we have only one example to work with.

It's a shame this interesting thread is going in an utterly unnecessary direction that will see it locked soon.

That's the problem tough right, there are no better models, that theory like he mentioned has had no real advancement in 60+ years, unlike, pretty much everything else. You keep mentioning sheer numbers, but ignore the sheer numbers that he mentions. I don't understand that and as far as disputing it...he does. He explains it in detail how improbable this swirl of chemicals in an uncontrolled, unpure environment is likely to happen and how many different ways it will fail and forced to start over from the absolute beginning.

[TomMcC]

One could argue the alternative is too much to bear because it doesn’t make sense.

Take your pick existential nihilism or something like I think.

[WillBrink]

That's the problem tough right, there are no better models, that theory like he mentioned has had no real advancement in 60+ years,

According to who? Him? Do you actually follow the science? I suspect not, and maybe you et al should be less gullible to statements that support personal wishes and bias. Hint: it's not true. Incredible advancement and knowledge obtained made in "60+" years. In terms of the basic model, there's nothing to change. I'm agnostic about the possibility that some outside intelligence like extraterrestrials had a hand in it some how, like seeded the planet or other, but minus any actual support for it, the basic model that like happened cuz it happened, is where the model will and should remain. And "I can't believe it happened like that so God did it" is not a reason to alter how science approaches the Q. As far as Tour is concerned, not actually his lane which he readily admits to:

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/0...nderstand.html

unlike, pretty much everything else. You keep mentioning sheer numbers, but ignore the sheer numbers that he mentions. I don't understand that and as far as disputing it...he does. He explains it in detail how improbable this swirl of chemicals in an uncontrolled, unpure environment is likely to happen and how many different ways it will fail and forced to start over from the absolute beginning.

Irrelevant and already covered. In bold, you don't know what you don't know and I supplied an excellent article for those who want to know what the latest intel on the topic is.

If you wish to ignore that in favor of a vid, all good by me.

[Hmac]

Take your pick existential nihilism or something like I think.

Over the course of the last several decades evaluating various theories and available evidence, I did take my pick.

[TomMcC]

Over the course of the last several decades evaluating various theories and available evidence, I did take my pick.

And what did you pick, one of those 2 or something else?

[Hmac]

Actually watch the video, realize the sheer impossibility of this happening and then see which one actually doesn't make sense. His science silences Atheist everywhere because he uses science to demonstrate the absolute garbage that we have been fed on this theory. Zero advancement on the theory in over 60 years. Why? Garbage.

I think that video, as is true of many such tracts and rationalizations since the time of LaPlace, is an example of wishing so hard that disciples of that ethos will actually believe the presentation regardless of whether or not it makes any sense.

[Hmac]

And what did you pick, one of those 2 or something else?

Something else.