Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Provide me direct measurable evidence for the existence of Gravity or Evolution. They're called theory for a reason.

I'll wait for you to capture me a Graviton.

You're another one who understands nothing about how science works. Here's a screenshot of the scientific method. Let me know where your supernatural creatures fit in:



As for giving you examples, the scientific literature is voluminous with examples. Your ignorance of science and history is astounding.

en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=The%20Cavendish%20experiment%2C%20performed%20in%201797%E2%80%931798%20by%20English,to%20yi eld%20accurate%20values%20for%20the%20gravitational%20constant.

originally posted by: Phantom423

He does not believe in evolutionary biology. He believes in magic wands

Welcome back, let's pick up where we left off:

originally posted by: cooperton

cooperton: Your beliefs insist that the original cell emerged from an aqueous solution of organic compounds. Do you agree or disagree

phantom: I have NEVER said that. Neither has any textbook or credible scientist.

This is quite an outlandish claim you made that scientists have never said that organic life required organic compounds in an aqueous solution to derive the abiogenesis event. You're clearly not capable of scientific dialog, and your erroneous ad hominems don't give you a degree in anything it just makes you look like a fool.

You refuse to discuss the necessity of a consistent chirality among these organic polymers. Refusing to do so because you probably have no idea how to even comprehend what it's saying.

Quite frankly you refuse to engage in any sort of scientific discussions, and when you do you make outlandish claims like scientists don't believe organic life came from organic compounds and water. Lol

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Again, it's a fictitious force, much like Gravity or Evolution, indirectly referenced and inferred by logic. Design is intelligent IMO, i've never seen an entropic system show any ability to evolve or adapt naturally so must conclude the origins are something other than chaos.

You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to your own science without evidence.

a reply to: Phantom423

Yeah, i know nothing of science. When you resort to belittling me it's time to exit left. I don't waste time on fools who are incapable of compromise due to inflated ego's.

a reply to: Phantom423

Still waiting on that Graviton capture.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Yeah, i know nothing of science. When you resort to belittling me it's time to exit left. I don't waste time on fools who are incapable of compromise due to inflated ego's.

There are hundreds of journals on evolutionary biology and as of now, over a quarter million peer-reviewed articles. Find an article in one of them that you don't agree with and we'll discuss it.



And I'm not belittling you. I'm point out your ignorance on a subject that you know nothing about.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Yeah, i know nothing of science. When you resort to belittling me it's time to exit left. I don't waste time on fools who are incapable of compromise due to inflated ego's.

Yeah phantom is by far the worst on this website. They're horrified to actually debate me. They resort to insult because they don't know enough to support what they belief

originally posted by: Phantom423

You're another one who understands nothing about how science works.

Lolol how you can think in your head that you're the intellectual superior in any situation regarding scientific discussions is the epitome of delusions of grandeur. Xtrozero and terraliga, neither of which claim to have a science degree, are at least able to make relevant points here and there and describe things in their own words. You just copy and paste irrelevant articles that you're incapable of reading that end up proving my point.

The best was when you posted that one you thought would disprove my assertion about organic compounds in an aqueous solution yet it very quickly in The paper listed a host of organic compounds and water.

originally posted by: Phantom423
And I'm not belittling you. I'm point out your ignorance on a subject that you know nothing about.

Phantom I'm not being mean I'm just being honest when I say this. You're the dumbest person on this forum. I wouldn't hammer down on you if you weren't such an arrogant wretch

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

He does not believe in evolutionary biology. He believes in magic wands

Welcome back, let's pick up where we left off:

originally posted by: cooperton

cooperton: Your beliefs insist that the original cell emerged from an aqueous solution of organic compounds. Do you agree or disagree

phantom: I have NEVER said that. Neither has any textbook or credible scientist.

This is quite an outlandish claim you made that scientists have never said that organic life required organic compounds in an aqueous solution to derive the abiogenesis event. You're clearly not capable of scientific dialog, and your erroneous ad hominems don't give you a degree in anything it just makes you look like a fool.

You refuse to discuss the necessity of a consistent chirality among these organic polymers. Refusing to do so because you probably have no idea how to even comprehend what it's saying.

Quite frankly you refuse to engage in any sort of scientific discussions, and when you do you make outlandish claims like scientists don't believe organic life came from organic compounds and water. Lol

I repeat: I have NEVER said that. Neither has any textbook or credible scientist.

originally posted by: Phantom423

I repeat: I have NEVER said that. Neither has any textbook or credible scientist.

OK maybe you're just a bot. One of those reject bots that aren't really good at their job because they end up in feedback loops doubling down on the same patently false statements.

I literally quoted what you said from your own post haha, you definitely said it.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
And I'm not belittling you. I'm point out your ignorance on a subject that you know nothing about.

Phantom I'm not being mean I'm just being honest when I say this. You're the dumbest person on this forum. I wouldn't hammer down on you if you weren't such an arrogant wretch

Here's what dumb looks like -

a reply to: Phantom423

How many have replicated these processes they profess to understand in a laboratory environment?

originally posted by: Phantom423

Here's what dumb looks like -

Your memes are like what a bot made in 2008 would generate. They always have watermarks too, which really makes me think you are just a bot. Sad I've wasted so much time

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

How many have replicated these processes they profess to understand in a laboratory environment?

None. It's impossible to get monomers to polymerize consistently in the same orientation without a ribosome or a polymerase. Abiogenesis is trash. That's why there's no papers that show the thermodynamic feasibility of any of these major steps.

a reply to: Grenade

Here's your "graviton capture" - why don't you write them a letter and tell them to withdraw the article.

Angular momentum of zero-frequency gravitons
Paolo Di Vecchia, Carlo Heissenberg & Rodolfo Russo
Journal of High Energy Physics volume 2022, Article number: 172 (2022) Cite this article


ABSTRACT
By following closely Weinberg’s soft theorem, which captures the 1/ω pole contribution to the amplitude for soft graviton emissions (ω < Λ) on top of an arbitrary background hard process, we calculate the expectation value of the graviton’s angular momentum operator for arbitrary collisions dressed with soft radiation. We find that the result becomes independent of the cutoff Λ on the graviton’s frequency, effectively localizing at ω = 0. In this way, our result captures the contribution to the angular momentum that comes from the zero-frequency modes. Like the soft theorem, our formula has an exact dependence on the kinematics of the hard particles and is only a function of their momenta. As an example, we discuss in some detail the case of the 2 → 2 scattering of spinless particles in General Relativity and N
= 8 supergravity.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

How many have replicated these processes they profess to understand in a laboratory environment?

I'm not going to teach you laboratory methodology. You can look up everything I've posted, find the Materials and Methods sections of published papers, and figure it out for yourself.

And to answer your question: Every article published in a peer-reviewed journal requires laboratory evidence. Your ignorance of scientific methodology is really astounding. This is high school stuff.

a reply to: Phantom423

Feel free to provide a singular example.

originally posted by: Phantom423

I'm not going to teach you laboratory methodology. You can look up everything I've posted, find the Materials and Methods sections of published papers, and figure it out for yourself.

This is your way of saying you have no clue you just rely on blind belief.

a reply to: Phantom423

Again, that's theorem, proven only on a blackboard with zero observational science or direct measurement.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Feel free to provide a singular example.

I just gave you a link for gravity. Read it.