It seems that Darwinism becoming outdated and obsolete.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

You do not seem to understand that it all magically occuring by itself is just as unlikely as any other magical theory.

Exactly. The magic required for the leap from non-life to life is extensive. Sure, they can believe it happened by randomness, but they have to understand that is the extremely less probable explanation. The scientific field has promised to have figured this out by now, but I won't hold my breath. The requirements for the first living viable cell are too much for randomness to assimilate - unless a miracle occurs.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

What's funny is earlier today I was talking to a random person and joked that I rather see any other topic than MSM Trump wars and said Id listin to even a totally random Creation v Darwin debaters lol.

I wasn't serious really but you popped right up so lol. Hmmmm I wonder why I haven't seen many lately. Oh yeah Msm debates, ugh noooo

a reply to: muzzleflash

The mind is powerful. Even a side thought can manifest reality. That's how I found the video's in the lecture, otherwise, I'm not generally interested in biology.

To prove my point, I thought to myself one day, how nice it would be to own a savannah cat. The very next week, someone gave me one for free.

a reply to: ParasuvO


Don't understand why anyone with half a brain would say that. It looks so very planed.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ParasuvO

You do not seem to understand that it all magically occuring by itself is just as unlikely as any other magical theory.

Exactly. The magic required for the leap from non-life to life is extensive. Sure, they can believe it happened by randomness, but they have to understand that is the extremely less probable explanation.

As opposed to?
I'm genuinely just curious

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: muzzleflash

The mind is powerful. Even a side thought can manifest reality.

And oddly enough that is why most believe in god, they believe it and it "manifests" in their life.

Anyways the video in the OP is mostly BS. Evolution is the most substantially backed theory in the history of science. It's not in danger of going obsolete, it's updating as we learn more.

originally posted by: GreenGunther

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ParasuvO

You do not seem to understand that it all magically occuring by itself is just as unlikely as any other magical theory.

Exactly. The magic required for the leap from non-life to life is extensive. Sure, they can believe it happened by randomness, but they have to understand that is the extremely less probable explanation.

As opposed to?
I'm genuinely just curious

Absolutely no magic required in god speaking everything into existence. LOL. But he says scientific studies are magical when they are just observations of how chemicals react. Non life to life is too black and white when you look at abiogenesis. You can't define the exact point, it's an incremental process.

a reply to: Barcs

Anyways the video in the OP is mostly BS. Evolution is the most substantially backed theory in the history of science. It's not in danger of going obsolete, it's updating as we learn more.

Yes. Your mind has manifested that reality for you.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: GreenGunther

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ParasuvO

You do not seem to understand that it all magically occuring by itself is just as unlikely as any other magical theory.

Exactly. The magic required for the leap from non-life to life is extensive. Sure, they can believe it happened by randomness, but they have to understand that is the extremely less probable explanation.

As opposed to?
I'm genuinely just curious

Absolutely no magic required in god speaking everything into existence. LOL. But he says scientific studies are magical when they are just observations of how chemicals react. Non life to life is too black and white when you look at abiogenesis. You can't define the exact point, it's an incremental process.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the idea.
I was a Christian up until my teens, if I have to some up the macro-reasoning for becoming an atheist..
So many religions and everyone thinking their skyfairy is the bestest skyfairy. It just shows the human minds affinity for grabbing hold of a God/Creators theory.

I think it's also very plausible that aliens 'cultivated' us and these may be the Gods of old?
But the universe contains so many fantastic questions.

4th and 5th dimensions etc.
I also think the primordial-soup theory is plausible, but I still think it's arrogance to a certain extent? Much like religion often says we're the only life in the universe. We're making a mistake thinking we started randomly. The life that put us here may have started randomly etc.

But also, the way life started, plants first etc. holds water with the primordial-soup way of thinking and the theory of evolution. Also not much of a theory anymore Life adapts, it's obvious.

I fear I've already opened myself up to persecution, there's a few members I prefer not to answer in this thread...
As I've mentioned before in this thread, I don't have all the answers, I like looking at the facts I'm comfortable with (yes, bias). But I can entertain many ideas re. the universe and it's coming to fruition.

The laws of attraction/synchronicity is also entertaining.

For now I'm happy to say I don't know, but hopefully I've still got some time to observe.
The human race could've been so much further along with scientific knowledge, but instead we fight and have votes between a carrot and a witch, violence caused by religion, corrupt governments etc.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

You are missing the point. I've shown to several other posters online, what my credentials are. Others have deduced them, and who I am. I'm not exposing who I am online. Given the current state of how people act.

a reply to: ParasuvO

You of course can back all of this up right? Rather than say things. All I ask is a hint of proof.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Again, you will show proof. I'm a scientist, who's not part of an instutution. I work in industry, and my job is to deliverr the product (Pharmaceuticals), not to publish.

a reply to: Noinden

I am also going to point out, you are distracting from the conversation of he topic. This is an indication, you can't actually debate it, and are moving to the fallacy, to appear to have won.

originally posted by: GreenGunther

As opposed to?
I'm genuinely just curious

As opposed to being designed by an intelligent force. It is more likely that ordered systems were created by intelligence. It is the genetic code after all, code requires a programmer.

originally posted by: Barcs
Evolution is the most substantially backed theory in the history of science.

Evolution is updating as we learn more.

This is contradictory. If it is substantially backed and thoroughly understood, then it wouldn't need updating.

Non life to life is too black and white when you look at abiogenesis. You can't define the exact point, it's an incremental process.

But the interdependence of proteins and DNA makes it so that it could not have been an incremental process. You need all parts in play to have a replicating living organism. DNA codes for proteins, but the protein production process requires proteins. So how could the DNA make proteins if it doesn't have the necessary proteins? Therefore, This factory-like sequence could not have come about in an incremental manner because all the pieces need to be present for it to function.

a reply to: Noinden

I too take great care in observing...
And as such have come to the conclusion that without proof from you about your scientific credentials
aside from your consistent blather about being an actual scientist...
Well I’ll just have to disregard any scientific opinion you present as your own thoughts...
Of course anything you present from an actual scientist will be considered with some modicum of interest and respect...

a reply to: cooperton

More likely .... so you perhaps will admit that there is a chance its not from "intelligent design"? I have repeatedly said in posts here (not for a while admittedly, and that is on me) there is a chance of divine creation (and that could be any divine being or group there of), you can't quantify the level of likelihood however.


DNA does not make proteins, it is DNA to RNA to Protien. That is not quibbling either, its the mechanism.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Good for you. Run along, your acceptance or lack there of is not important to me. I've said people have tracked me down, from here even. It does not take a genious to do so, I just will not advertise myself on here. If you don't understand why, then taht is on you.

In the end, you have shown very little understanding of science, so you are of no matter. This entire attempt by you to discredit me, is ammusing. You can't speak to the topic.

a reply to: Noinden

I was dismissing you... You’re here once more going on about yourself...
So you are making yourself the topic...
I am simply the one letting you know your validity is strained...
Perhaps several more threads require you to inform us all that you’re a scientist so we can believe you...
Or perhaps more importantly that you may believe for yourself...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

You have to actually have power over me to dismiss me neighbour. When you can talk about the topic I will speak to you seriously. Till then, tough luck.

Like I said, you are of no moment. I don't care what you think of me. I'm old enough and ugly enough to know, that you are trying to appear in control. Sort of what I expect from creationists.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

DNA does not make proteins, it is DNA to RNA to Protien. That is not quibbling either, its the mechanism.

I said "DNA codes for proteins" which is true. When I said "how could DNA make proteins if it doesn't have the necessary proteins", the word make was referring to the entire process of transcription and translation. It was a semantic shortcut to simplify the sentence. I assume anyone with a science background would understand, but I wanted it to be readable for the lay-man as well.

So instead of arguing semantics, could you explain how DNA could undergo the process of transcription with the subsequent translation of its RNA fragments to create proteins when the proteins that are necessary for these functions are not yet present?