'Monumental' experiment suggests how life on Earth may have started

Life was not created by "god." That's only a
childish fair tale.

Where did the RNA come from?

Random mixing of molecules.

Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?

Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can
be synthesised into complex molecules, some significant to
terrestrial life, with modest input energy like ultraviolet
light or electric discharges.
Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted
abiotic creation and longetivity.
We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins. RNA
replication without proteins? That's what the news is
about, an example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping
proteins.
We got theories to take us from models of early earth
almost to most of the molecules of inefficient but possible
life. Best on chance and organic chemistry without needing
a god. It's rational for a person to conclude we will be
able to explain everything without a god.
There's no evidence a god was not involved.

That's fucking stupid. We *never* talk about "evidence" to
support a negative; there's no such thing. We talk about
evidence to support a positive, or *lack* of evidence to
support a positive. This is nonsense: "there is no evidence
to support a belief that 'god' didn't create the universe."
It's not just nonsense, it's bullshit.

But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come
from?

just saying 'god' is not the answer. Where did god come from?

All of creation points to a Creator. God is the creator.
Nothing created God. Nothing had to. If something always existed
(eternal) then nothing can create it.
When God created the Universe, he also created time. Time needs
space and matter to exist, and neither existed until God created
them. “Before creation” technically is a misnomer because God
exists in eternity and isn’t bound by the constraints of a
timeline. Time didn’t exist until God declared it to exist.

Just typing those words into a keyboard doesn't make it fact. It
sounds silly when you really think about it. I can type absolutely
any idea into a keyboard, that doesn't count as evidence. Why would
it? Why would god exist for trillions of years then decide to create
humans? Completely pointless exercise.

There are only two choices:

1. time, matter, and energy spontaneously popped into existence from
absolute nothingness and kept re-assembling itself spontaneously until
we've got what we got today

2. an extremely powerful (some would say, 'all-powerful') entity that
already existed beyond time and space somehow called into existence
matter and energy in what can (and has) been deemed a creation event

neither of the above can be adequately explained by the empirical
evidence we can examine, though the second is certainly more plausible
than the first

your job is to provide a third alternative as to how matter and energy
suddenly popped into existence from absolute nothingness

as of today, only ONE of the two choices is a possibility, and there are
only two choices possible

deism is forced to concede the eternal presence of an intelligent being

atheism is forced to concede not only the spontaneous popping into
existence of matter and energy from absolute nothingness, but also the
popping into existence of different TYPES of matter (such as the basic
elements), along with the spontaneous re-organization of the different
types of matter and energy into everything we've got today (planets,
stars, water, people, animals, plants, etc..) over a relatively short
(13.5 billion year) span of time -- the winning of back-to-back-to-back,
ad infinitum, lotteries in the way of these elements re-assembling
themselves into things that ALSO just happen to co-exist with one
another in countless symbiotic relationships (a simple example being the
eyes and the brain of any given species -- which one "evolved" first?)

deism is charged with only one unanswerable question

atheism is charged with MILLIONS of unanswerable questions

Typical atheist fuckwit: "but we're gathering more and more answers
every day"

Noop.. secular science has ALREADY disproved the possibility of a
general evolution (no transitional fossils) ..they simply choose not to
report it, along with the mainstream media

micro-evolution within any given species is what Darwin was referring to

MACRO-evolution (one species evolving into another species) has already
been wholly discounted by the simple lack of what should not only be
billions upon billions of transitional fossils, but billions upon
billions of LIVING TRANSITIONAL EXAMPLES of this extra-species
transformation -- i.e., not only should we find fossils of the
transition from (you name it.. cats to dogs, lizards to birds, rabbits
to horses ..___________ species to ___________ species), but we should
also find LIVING examples of transitions between species

not only THAT, but evolutionists can only specify a few species that
they speculate COULD be transitions, the best being apes eventually
becoming niggers (or vice versa)

Mitchell Holman

2024-03-18 17:35:12 UTC

Cyanobacteria and all bacteria showed late for the game. Life
started a lot simpler.

how simple.. maybe organic molecules synthesized in the atmosphere
that rained down into the oceans? Seeing as RNA and DNA molecules
â the genetic material for all life â are just long chains of
simple nucleotides that happen to have the ability to reproduce,
copying their genetic material and passing it on to their
"offspring" would seem the most logical next step, but you're
talking about chance SO random, that the chances of it occurring
multiple times in close enough proximity for the chains of
nucleotides to start building off one another would be akin to
winning hundreds of thousands of Powerball lottos back-to-back
the mere belief in such a theory takes more faith than every person
who's ever lived had during their entire lives

What is your proposed alternative?

1. time, matter, and energy spontaneously popped into existence from
absolute nothingness and kept re-assembling itself spontaneously until
we've got what we got today
2. an extremely powerful (some would say, 'all-powerful') entity that
already existed beyond time and space somehow called into existence
matter and energy in what can (and has) been deemed a creation event
neither of the above can be adequately explained by the empirical
evidence we can examine, though the second is certainly more plausible
than the first
atheist's job is to provide a third alternative as to how matter and
energy suddenly popped into existence from absolute nothingness
as of today, only ONE of the two choices is a possibility, and there
are only two choices possible
deism is forced to concede the eternal presence of an intelligent
being
atheism is forced to concede not only the spontaneous popping into
existence of matter and energy from absolute nothingness, but also the
popping into existence of different TYPES of matter (such as the basic
elements), along with the spontaneous re-organization of the different
types of matter and energy into everything we've got today (planets,
stars, water, people, animals, plants, etc..) over a relatively short
(13.5 billion year) span of time -- the winning of
back-to-back-to-back, ad infinitum, lotteries in the way of these
elements re-assembling themselves into things that ALSO just happen to
co-exist with one another in countless symbiotic relationships (a
simple example being the eyes and the brain of any given species --
which one "evolved" first?)
deism is charged with only one unanswerable question
atheism is charged with MILLIONS of unanswerable questions

Atheism is able to accept unanswered question.

Deism just makes up answers.

Post by á¹á´
Noop.. secular science has ALREADY disproved the possibility of a
general evolution (no transitional fossils) ..they simply choose not
to report it, along with the mainstream media

Of course there are transitional fossils.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

https://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/transitional-fossils

https://ncse.ngo/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-
transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/?sh=5192f4bb2d8d

Mitchell Holman

2024-03-19 12:55:03 UTC

how simple.. maybe organic molecules synthesized in the
atmosphere that rained down into the oceans? Seeing as RNA and
DNA molecules â the genetic material for all life â are just
long chains of simple nucleotides that happen to have the
ability to reproduce, copying their genetic material and
passing it on to their "offspring" would seem the most logical
next step, but you're talking about chance SO random, that the
chances of it occurring multiple times in close enough
proximity for the chains of nucleotides to start building off
one another would be akin to winning hundreds of thousands of
Powerball lottos back-to-back
the mere belief in such a theory takes more faith than every
person who's ever lived had during their entire lives

What is your proposed alternative?

1. time, matter, and energy spontaneously popped into existence
from absolute nothingness and kept re-assembling itself
spontaneously until we've got what we got today
2. an extremely powerful (some would say, 'all-powerful') entity
that already existed beyond time and space somehow called into
existence matter and energy in what can (and has) been deemed a
creation event
neither of the above can be adequately explained by the empirical
evidence we can examine, though the second is certainly more
plausible than the first
atheist's job is to provide a third alternative as to how matter
and energy suddenly popped into existence from absolute
nothingness
as of today, only ONE of the two choices is a possibility, and
there are only two choices possible
deism is forced to concede the eternal presence of an intelligent
being
atheism is forced to concede not only the spontaneous popping into
existence of matter and energy from absolute nothingness, but also
the popping into existence of different TYPES of matter (such as
the basic elements), along with the spontaneous re-organization of
the different types of matter and energy into everything we've got
today (planets, stars, water, people, animals, plants, etc..) over
a relatively short (13.5 billion year) span of time -- the winning
of back-to-back-to-back, ad infinitum, lotteries in the way of
these elements re-assembling themselves into things that ALSO just
happen to co-exist with one another in countless symbiotic
relationships (a simple example being the eyes and the brain of any
given species -- which one "evolved" first?)
deism is charged with only one unanswerable question
atheism is charged with MILLIONS of unanswerable questions

Atheism is able to accept unanswered question.

..and come up with dozens of theories so long as they don't involve
intelligent design

There is no evidence for ID.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Deism just makes up answers.

we've got historical, archeological, astronomical, and physical proofs
everywhere, many of which even pass the peer-reviewed status of wholly
biased scientists

There is no proof of a garden of
eden, a talking snake, a global flood,
a tower of babel. Those are fables.

Post by á¹á´
Noop.. secular science has ALREADY disproved the possibility of a
general evolution (no transitional fossils) ..they simply choose
not to report it, along with the mainstream media

Of course there are transitional fossils.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

kind of telling that 90+% of those named in the article don't have a
follow-up link, mainly because they're speculative artist renditions
of shit they never actually found

Post by Mitchell Holman
https://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/transitional-fossils

a couple of cartoon pics

Post by Mitchell Holman
https://ncse.ngo/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare

mainly a chart of hominid skulls and a few sketches

Post by Mitchell Holman
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-
transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/?sh=5192f4bb2d8d

an article in a business magazine with two pictures of skeletons and
two artist renditions of animals that are prolly still alive somewhere
in the Amazon jungle

Transitional fossils are a fact.

even with all the silly paintings and lack of true fossil evidence,
atheists always forget the MOST important detail.. we shouldn't just
be seeing millions upon millions of TRANSITIONAL fossils but millions
up millions of _living transitional examples_ instead of tens of
thousands of distinct species with nothing in between

You don't understand fossilization.

there should be rats that hop like rabbits, hippos with various sized
rhinoceros horns.. animals that are clearly in transition to something
else
instead, we see that cats have always been cats, dogs dogs, horses
horses (regardless of size variations), sharks sharks, etc..
tortoises and crocks haven't evolved even remotely into something else
and they're supposedly millions of years old
example after example of fully formed animals _suddenly_ appearing in
the strata and evolutionists are still hiring cartoonists to paint a
blatantly false narrative

If a species isn't in the fozzil record
does that mean it never existed?

Mitchell Holman

2024-03-23 01:38:33 UTC

how simple.. maybe organic molecules synthesized in the
atmosphere that rained down into the oceans? Seeing as RNA
and DNA molecules â the genetic material for all life â are
just long chains of simple nucleotides that happen to have
the ability to reproduce, copying their genetic material
and passing it on to their "offspring" would seem the most
logical next step, but you're talking about chance SO
random, that the chances of it occurring multiple times in
close enough proximity for the chains of nucleotides to
start building off one another would be akin to winning
hundreds of thousands of Powerball lottos back-to-back
the mere belief in such a theory takes more faith than
every person who's ever lived had during their entire
lives

What is your proposed alternative?

1. time, matter, and energy spontaneously popped into
existence from absolute nothingness and kept re-assembling
itself spontaneously until we've got what we got today
2. an extremely powerful (some would say, 'all-powerful')
entity that already existed beyond time and space somehow
called into existence matter and energy in what can (and has)
been deemed a creation event
neither of the above can be adequately explained by the
empirical evidence we can examine, though the second is
certainly more plausible than the first
atheist's job is to provide a third alternative as to how
matter and energy suddenly popped into existence from absolute
nothingness
as of today, only ONE of the two choices is a possibility, and
there are only two choices possible
deism is forced to concede the eternal presence of an
intelligent being
atheism is forced to concede not only the spontaneous popping
into existence of matter and energy from absolute nothingness,
but also the popping into existence of different TYPES of
matter (such as the basic elements), along with the spontaneous
re-organization of the different types of matter and energy
into everything we've got today (planets, stars, water, people,
animals, plants, etc..) over a relatively short (13.5 billion
year) span of time -- the winning of back-to-back-to-back, ad
infinitum, lotteries in the way of these elements re-assembling
themselves into things that ALSO just happen to co-exist with
one another in countless symbiotic relationships (a simple
example being the eyes and the brain of any given species --
which one "evolved" first?)
deism is charged with only one unanswerable question
atheism is charged with MILLIONS of unanswerable questions

Atheism is able to accept unanswered question.

..and come up with dozens of theories so long as they don't
involve intelligent design

There is no evidence for ID.

figures you've never seen David Blaine

Figures you can't post any proof of ID.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Deism just makes up answers.

we've got historical, archeological, astronomical, and physical
proofs everywhere, many of which even pass the peer-reviewed status
of wholly biased scientists

There is no proof of a garden of eden, a talking snake, a global
flood, a tower of babel. Those are fables.

explain how all of the components necessary to run an individual cell,
each of which is vital to the life of that cell, evolved outside a
cellular environment only to decide at a particular point that they

were

ready to become part of the cell.. and how did they find the cells to
pair with?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17987-how-life-evolved-10-steps-
to-the-first-cells/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240229124507.htm

Post by á¹á´
Noop.. secular science has ALREADY disproved the possibility of
a general evolution (no transitional fossils) ..they simply
choose not to report it, along with the mainstream media

Of course there are transitional fossils.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

kind of telling that 90+% of those named in the article don't have
a follow-up link, mainly because they're speculative artist
renditions of shit they never actually found

Post by Mitchell Holman
https://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/transitional-fossils

a couple of cartoon pics

Post by Mitchell Holman
https://ncse.ngo/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare

mainly a chart of hominid skulls and a few sketches

Post by Mitchell Holman
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-

transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/?sh=5192f4bb2d8d

an article in a business magazine with two pictures of skeletons
and two artist renditions of animals that are prolly still alive
somewhere in the Amazon jungle

Transitional fossils are a fact.

the same as AI porn is a "fact", but still a fake rendition of the real
thing, while transitional fossil art is a fact that tries to illustrate
a fictional idea

Since you deleted all the proofs
I posted of transitional fossils there
is nothing else to say.

even with all the silly paintings and lack of true fossil
evidence, atheists always forget the MOST important detail.. we
shouldn't just be seeing millions upon millions of TRANSITIONAL
fossils but millions up millions of _living transitional examples_
instead of tens of thousands of distinct species with nothing in
between

You don't understand fossilization.

you don't understand the reality of irreducible complexity

There is no such thing.

Evolution Of 'Irreducible Complexity' Explained
April 6, 2006
https://tinyurl.com/nheams6k

there should be rats that hop like rabbits, hippos with various
sized rhinoceros horns.. animals that are clearly in transition to
something else
instead, we see that cats have always been cats, dogs dogs, horses
horses (regardless of size variations), sharks sharks, etc..
tortoises and crocks haven't evolved even remotely into something
else and they're supposedly millions of years old
example after example of fully formed animals _suddenly_ appearing
in the strata and evolutionists are still hiring cartoonists to
paint a blatantly false narrative

If a species isn't in the fozzil record does that mean it never
existed?

there could be a few whole species that have yet to produce fossils,

but

of all the ones that have, none are transitional forms of anything else
other than inter-species genetic adaptations to environment

Andrew

2024-03-23 11:12:28 UTC

how simple.. maybe organic molecules synthesized in the
atmosphere that rained down into the oceans? Seeing as RNA
and DNA molecules â?" the genetic material for all life â?" are
just long chains of simple nucleotides that happen to have
the ability to reproduce, copying their genetic material
and passing it on to their "offspring" would seem the most
logical next step, but you're talking about chance SO
random, that the chances of it occurring multiple times in
close enough proximity for the chains of nucleotides to
start building off one another would be akin to winning
hundreds of thousands of Powerball lottos back-to-back
the mere belief in such a theory takes more faith than
every person who's ever lived had during their entire
lives

What is your proposed alternative?

1. time, matter, and energy spontaneously popped into
existence from absolute nothingness and kept re-assembling
itself spontaneously until we've got what we got today
2. an extremely powerful (some would say, 'all-powerful')
entity that already existed beyond time and space somehow
called into existence matter and energy in what can (and has)
been deemed a creation event
neither of the above can be adequately explained by the
empirical evidence we can examine, though the second is
certainly more plausible than the first
atheist's job is to provide a third alternative as to how
matter and energy suddenly popped into existence from absolute
nothingness
as of today, only ONE of the two choices is a possibility, and
there are only two choices possible
deism is forced to concede the eternal presence of an
intelligent being
atheism is forced to concede not only the spontaneous popping
into existence of matter and energy from absolute nothingness,
but also the popping into existence of different TYPES of
matter (such as the basic elements), along with the spontaneous
re-organization of the different types of matter and energy
into everything we've got today (planets, stars, water, people,
animals, plants, etc..) over a relatively short (13.5 billion
year) span of time -- the winning of back-to-back-to-back, ad
infinitum, lotteries in the way of these elements re-assembling
themselves into things that ALSO just happen to co-exist with
one another in countless symbiotic relationships (a simple
example being the eyes and the brain of any given species --
which one "evolved" first?)
deism is charged with only one unanswerable question
atheism is charged with MILLIONS of unanswerable questions

Atheism is able to accept unanswered question.

..and come up with dozens of theories so long as they don't
involve intelligent design

There is no evidence for ID.

figures you've never seen David Blaine

Figures you can't post any proof of ID.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Deism just makes up answers.

we've got historical, archeological, astronomical, and physical
proofs everywhere, many of which even pass the peer-reviewed status
of wholly biased scientists

There is no proof of a garden of eden, a talking snake, a global
flood, a tower of babel. Those are fables.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17987-how-life-evolved-10-steps-
to-the-first-cells/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240229124507.htm

Your links posit unscientific fantasized scenarios which tell us that
you likely are a gullible believer therein, as long as they agree with
your philosophical bias.

However those who value truth, will know the difference between
real world *science*, and 'unscientific fantasy' as in the above links
posted by Mitchell Holman..

Andrew

2024-03-23 14:04:21 UTC

Post by Andrew

What is your proposed alternative?

1. time, matter, and energy spontaneously popped into
existence from absolute nothingness and kept re-assembling
itself spontaneously until we've got what we got today
2. an extremely powerful (some would say, 'all-powerful')
entity that already existed beyond time and space somehow
called into existence matter and energy in what can (and has)
been deemed a creation event
neither of the above can be adequately explained by the
empirical evidence we can examine, though the second is
certainly more plausible than the first
atheist's job is to provide a third alternative as to how
matter and energy suddenly popped into existence from absolute
nothingness
as of today, only ONE of the two choices is a possibility, and
there are only two choices possible
deism is forced to concede the eternal presence of an
intelligent being
atheism is forced to concede not only the spontaneous popping
into existence of matter and energy from absolute nothingness,
but also the popping into existence of different TYPES of
matter (such as the basic elements), along with the spontaneous
re-organization of the different types of matter and energy
into everything we've got today (planets, stars, water, people,
animals, plants, etc..) over a relatively short (13.5 billion
year) span of time -- the winning of back-to-back-to-back, ad
infinitum, lotteries in the way of these elements re-assembling
themselves into things that ALSO just happen to co-exist with
one another in countless symbiotic relationships (a simple
example being the eyes and the brain of any given species --
which one "evolved" first?)
deism is charged with only one unanswerable question
atheism is charged with MILLIONS of unanswerable questions

Atheism is able to accept unanswered question.

..and come up with dozens of theories so long as they don't
involve intelligent design

There is no evidence for ID.

figures you've never seen David Blaine

Figures you can't post any proof of ID.