I have a life I need to attend to

lol

I am glad.

> Yo, if Khaine got it, then it's understandable.
@Vlad

Are you implying something

Groups normally were about 150 people and not bigger than that, groups would easily steal, rape and murder one another, idk how far you think that group instinct goes

No, I am not saying you're stupid.

I am saying that if one person got it,

then it has to be understandable.

I'm kidding lol

You got it, therefore it's understandable.

Well, sure.

then u dum

sorry

You don't have to apologize for not understanding us Vlad

We forgive you

u checkmatedu rself there

Rude

it only joke

But yeah, that's what I meant.

So do these guys still not get the piggy white worms example

It would seem like it.

But I don't even give a shit anymore.

What?

wow

😳

Apparently it wasn't the point in the first place.

o.o

Dude, you twisted my word

s

I didn't say that

Let me ask you a question @Yusa

I said you didn't read the question correctly

Do you believe in god?

Ok

Yes, I do

Why?

But, I am exploring other views now

Because God is the only logical explanation for life be formed

How?

I am not twisting your words, @Yusa.

But where did God come from?

I said "apparently, it wasn't the point".

That does not suggest that I am saying that you lied.

Maybe I missed a line.

Maybe I misunderstood something.

I thought the question was about man.

@Khaine Because it doesn't make sense that even if you have the basic ingredients to life, they randomly become life. It's against the law of biogenesis and the second law of thermodynamics

They don't "randomly" become life.

Just because we dont have another explanation for how life came to be doesn't mean that your explanation is correct

Nothing "randomly" becomes something.

Oh, then how do they become life without a guiding force?

Combined with instinctual influence, human activity is shaped more by things like societies, cultures, and religious doctrines. The thing is though that you *do* have cultures that are more warlike than others, and ones that do things that others would find completely intolerable. So because there are groups of people that all have at least slightly differing views of the world and their purpose, then what proof is there for a single overarching purpose besides ultimately continuing the species?

@Yusa How does God exist?

Same answer

Most people just take "God" out of the equation

Because if you can justify some high being as coming out of nowhere

Than why can't you apply that logic to anything else

@Cuccolover God has always been. He wasn't formed

We dont know how life came to be. We may someday, but we do not know now.

Just because we dont know how life came to be doesn't mean "god did it" or that god even exists

Same for life

Universe has always been

Life has always been

You could argue that life has always been

@Cuccolover Wrong. Because if that were true, we would have no sun.

Not to mention no earth

My dude, those stars you see far away

half of them are gone.

Those are suns of the planets nearby those stars

You can *believe* that there is some overarching force or god or whatever, I'm lukewarm to that myself, but there isn't any real way you can *prove* this other than through assertions.

Solar systems aren't unique you know

There's more than just this one

The sun is dying out and the earth is dying out. If it has "always been", then it would be dying

How do you know god has always been though?

You can't

You are special pleading yusa

Because he "has to" have been, you see.

For some reason they don't understand applying the answer to God didn't actually solve the equation

this old chestnut

It's more of an excuse to refrain from admitting that you _can't possibly know_

@Cobra Commander You can't **know** God exists. But it takes less faith then believing that something that contradicts the laws of nature exists

There ya go

So basically, it just feels right

Because it feels wrong not to know

It doesn't though, because by definition god is entirely disconnected from laws of nature to begin with

If you cant prove god's existence, then why believe in him?

Cognitive dissonance at best

@Cobra Commander Well, if God created the laws of nature, that makes sense

It doesn't feel safe to have insecurity over the matter

How?

More sense then life coming from non-life

Any suggestion that God did that?

But God is classified as life how?

We can't measure him

Also, I will say this again, just because we dont know how life came to be, doesn't mean "god did it"

It just means we dont have an explanation

Again, you can *believe* that, but I'm arguing about *knowing.* Just claiming something is because it is isn't actually knowing.

God didn't create men, men created God. And they have done so before christianity was even a thing

Tons of Gods

@Cobra Commander Because if there are no laws of science to begin with, and God creates the laws of science, wouldn't he know how to add to them or use them in his advantage?

Can't explain it? God!

Rather have a simple, bogus non-answer because people can't admit their lack of knowledge

Again, you're presuming God just exists

You're not understanding my point

God was against science

Just for the record

Its easier just to admit we dont know how life originated

@Yusa, think about how long you subjected my infinitely basic example through a vigorous examination for, even though it was just that, and think about how quick you are to assume that God is behind anything you don't know the origins of

Ask yourself why does that happen.

@Vlad Well, the example was your problem because you didn't answer my question. If I had asked how life turned into man, I wouldn't of questioned your example

I know how life can turn into man

You asked for the origins of man originally not the origins of life

That's just dishonest.

The problem is finding life

It was obvious what point I was referring to.

I asked how **matter** turns into man

I said it *3000* times.

And now you're changing the subject.

Why do I have to keep explaining that?

You don't. It's literally irrelevant.

lol

> @Yusa, think about how long you subjected my infinitely basic example through a vigorous examination for, even though it was just that, and think about how quick you are to assume that God is behind anything you don't know the origins of

I **didn't** ask how **life** turned into man

K?

That's not the topic.

I quoted myself.

I agree with your example

@Yusa you're conflating abiogenesis with evolution. You're asking two separate questions with two different answers expecting one linear explanation.

If you can't actually *prove* that god exists, then logically you can't claim to truly *know* that he does. Lets say that he is outside the realm of reality, the problem is that you are still bound by those laws. Even if he is real, if you are separated effectively by the laws of reality itself then obviously *you yourself* cannot truly know for certain if he exists. This is not on the same level as the origin of life, we already know that there are simple organic molecules and compounds, which we already know for certain can be created naturally, that can *likely* give rise to life.

And now that I understand that you weren't answering my question, I agree with your example

Well, okay, but that's still not relevant.

Irregardless of why you did it, you still subjected my example through an examination.

@Cobra Commander Well, life coming from non-life has a bigger problem then God. Not only can you not prove it, but it goes against the laws of science.

And you're not doing that with the idea of God doing shit.

Why?

You see, if God created the laws of science, he wouldn't have been subjected to them in the beginning

Laws of science are created by men.

They're describing natural phenomenons.

And nature, which the men of science are describing, could have originated from non-divine means.

So, what you're saying is irrelevant.

Let me ask you a quick question

I literally just said that organic molecules and compounds are able to appear. There is no problem with that, but we can only infer that this leads to actual life forms instead of truly claim to know. That's why I didn't say that we know this was the case for absolute certainty.

Is the god you believe in omnipotent @Yusa

@Vlad They are describing natural phenomenons that always repeat themselves. They are the rules of nature. "Laws" are "rules".

K?

@Cobra Commander Well because I view the world differently, I can **know** that the theory of life coming from non-life is not true

How so?

You understand that you are operating on complete certainty that god exists without anything being able to substantiate that right?

I've answered that question 3000 times!

Good job!

lol

@Cobra Commander Well, now that I logically came to that conclusion, I know it's true.

You can't actually. You can believe that but you can easily infer that it is possible through organic compounds for primitive life forms to appear.

So yes

You didn't use logic though.

@Cobra Commander How?

How can you infer that?

It takes more belief to believe that then it takes to believe in a God

Because you haven't used anything to actually determine that, you've only claimed it and ignored my explanation regarding how primitive life can come from pre existing organic compounds.

GG @Cobra Commander, you just advanced to level 28!

Again wrong, as already explained here.

You have to use more belief to come to the conclusion that "god *is* real and life *cannot* come from 'non-life'" instead of just "life can *maybe* come around due to these existing compounds"

Well, I did suggest he should read about hypothermal vents.

I don't think anyone here is claiming "life did come from non life"

People are saying "life could come from non life"

@Cobra Commander I saw your explanation and don't see how it infers that life can be "created naturally". We know that the molecules are there, but they need to be organized in a complex way to create life. This happening by random natural processes disobeys the law of biogenesis. If there was a God who created life, he would not be bound by those laws. Therefore, it is more reasonable to say that a God created the Universe.

God *could* exist, but there is no evidence for his existence

Well, those "microbes" you pondered about

or at least the earliest forms of microorganisms

It does not violate the second law of thermodynamics

were found in hydrothermal vents.

I don't think you understand that law

Why there?

@Cobra Commander Ok, I think I am, but I'll give you that one. If you could explain why though, that would be helpful. The law of biogenesis goes against it though.

Nor does it violate the law of biogenesis since this law disproves spontaneous generation (as in, complex life appearing from literally nothing), not a procedural process in which inorganic compounds become amino acids, which from there can become more advanced structures (relatively speaking) that gradually become more complex until finally leading to actual cells and RNA (possibly with an outside catalyst though, like lightening or volcanic activity). Read about the Miller-Urey Experiment and Proteinoids.

The Law of Thermodynamics means that in an isolated system energy and organization decreases over time, and I assume you believe the Earth is an isolated system. It's not, all life on the planet is ultimately based off of solar energy.

Which is an external influence.

Ah!

Mee6 deleted my message!

It said "I shouldn't post the same thing over and over again", but I didn't!

@Cobra Commander The law of bio-genesis doesn't say that life can't be created from "literally nothing". It says that life can only be produced by life.

I had a much better response, but Mee6 deleted it because it thought I posted it before even though I didn't

Also, you're right. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't work in this circumstance. I was thinking of something else

It's a different logical path that brought me to the conclusion of God

@Yusa how can you tell the difference between god's intervention or that of a timeless, interdimensional computer?

You effectively just repeated what I said in regards to biogenesis and left out the rest of my explanation

Argh! Mee6 did it again

<@&508200811625447449> Why is Mee6 deleting my post?

Too long probably.

Partition it.

Oh, ok

Although I don't see how it could be too long...

Yea

Idk why it’s deleting it

It looks semi-long.

Why do I get a notification for mod pings

@Cobra Commander Alright, I'm going to break this post up into section so that Mee6 won't get mad

So, I responded to your points twice, but mee6 deleted both of those posts. The way biogenesis was proved shows that spontaneous generation of life is false.

In an experiment, Louis Pasteur made a liquid broth of nutrient-rich material such as chicken broth and put it in a flask that had a curved neck

I know that spontaneous generation was disproved, and I explained how the process to the cell is most likely procedural instead of immediate; that is not spontaneous generation. I already told you to look up the Miller-Urey experiment and the creation of Proteinoids, it's interesting stuff.

-unmute @Yusa

🔊 Unmuted `Yusa#7538`

Idk why it keeps saying duplicated text

> The curved neck allowed air to reach the infusion, but because microorganisms are heavier than air, any microorganisms present would be trapped at the bottom of the curve.

> When Pasteur repeated some experiments Needham (Experiments that Needham thought proved spontaneous generation) had done in the curved flask, no microorganisms appeared.

> In a final blow, Pasteur even showed that if you tipped the flask once to allow any microorganisms that might be trapped to fall into the infusion, microorganisms would appear in the infusion.

> Thus, Pasteur showed that even microorganisms cannot spontaneously generate.

Like this, @Yusa.

Ok

It all has to be that short?

Well, anyways.

@Cobra Commander That experiment doesn't prove anything about life coming from non-life

I genuinely don't see how you aren't getting my point

TLDR knowing why life exists is irrelevant

ultimately true

Wrong, it's everything.

Do you really want me to argue that?

Knowing why life exists is everything

I'm still horrified that Yusa lives in a world where bacteria are running around the size of rats and stuff

An actual nightmare

@Yusa Mee6 deleted my dick because it was too long aswell

Yusamac you haven't been able to explain why that matters, all you've done is asserted it.

@Cobra Commander Alright, so first off, the Miller-Urey experiment uses a few assumptions about earth's early atmosphere. This is very dangerous because earth's ancient atmosphere is not observable, has not been observed by anyone, and is technically not repeatable.

uh yes it is, ice core samples are a thing.

How do you know that those "ice core samples" are from when the world began

the ice core samples contain bubbles. In those bubbles are little samples of astmpospheres, 10, 100, 10,000, 100,000 years ago.

How do you know that they are that old?

Cause we can test them chemically

Radiometric dating

also by the depth from which they are extracted, not unlike tree rings.

Science dosen't lie

@Cobra Commander Radiometric dating is unreliable and is based off of assumptions.

You can also use geological history to infer what the atmosphere was like at a given time

"infer"

No it's not, and I know you're conflating carbon dating as being the entirety of radiometric dating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructing_ancient_climates

there's not one single tool or method to any of this. It's a massive collaboration requiring the hard work of scientists of multiple disciplines.

And if you successfully debunked any of it, you would win a Nobel Prize.

Yeah

GG @!.MESSIEH, you just advanced to level 2!

@Cobra Commander All of those methods are based on assumptions and scientists admit that they are not necessarily the truth. Also, people have devoted their lives to debunking it and they have debunked many of the methods used

not to the satisfaction of peer review.

Science adapts to the best standing evidence.

From the second sentence on wikipedia's Radioemtric Decay page: "The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay"

I don't think you have any idea about this subject if you think this is debunked.

Alright, so I need to go, but here are my closing arguments:

First, @Puerto Rican Nelson You are wrong. The majority of people actually believe in a God creating the universe. Imagine how much more would be convinced if we had fair media attention. There is so much evidence that evolution is statistically impossible, but we don't get a fair chance to share it.

No they don't

Most dont i whould say

Second, @Cobra Commander Under different circumstances, that rate can change.

@Yusa the majority of people centuries back believed blood letting was an effective medical treatment for most things.
Ad populum.

How exactly can that change?