Athiests. Explain the creation of DNA.
Chaos can create patterns, but never a workable code such as DNA.
>chaos can create patterns, but it can't create this pattern
>>75694217
>but never a workable code such as DNA.
If all you saw was 1s and 0s on your screen, you would also think "there is no way that this is workable code".
It's literally just an acid molecule
>>75694501
/thread
>>75694403
>>75694217
Chaos is just what we call patterns that we haven't found the source cause of. Chaos is just the poor intellectual's word for God. tiptiptip
dude im a christian but youre a certified retard
if youre going to argue, do it at a place where you will ACCOMPLISH something, instead of an anonymous board, & get a better argument.
>>75694911
How christian are you?
The world is 6000 years old - christian?
>>75695225
nonono. its obvious that the universe is stupefyingly old.
i choose to believe in the christian god of the bible. i respect those who dont, as long as their beliefs dont directly hurt others or themselves.
i.e. islam
>>75695406
Yeah
It's easier to read one book and just go with it
>>75694217
aliens
>>75694450
Sure, except we dont see random 1s and 0s in nature
>>75694403
Code..
>>75696924
What are quantum states
>>75694217
Not an atheist, but look up the infinite monkey theorem.
While abiogenesis still isn't entirely understood, it's fairly reasonable to say that DNA became as a result of billions of years of atoms and molecules colliding and intermingling at various temperatures and pressures. Given enough time anything is possible.
>>75696924
but you do see binary systems
>>75694217
It didnt have to jump out of nowhere. It could slowly evolve from something simpler. There are many organisms that dont have their genes coded into DNA but something else.
>>75694217
DNA is just a double stranded polynucleotide with four organic bases. If these are arranged in a certain way they contain codons that allow proteins to line up in the correct order (through rna).
Literally nothing more. Doesn't require God, just enough time.
Anyways to answer your question DNA is the result of natural selection at the molecular level. Chemicals spontaneously form as the result of natural processes all the time. If one day a chemical is created that:
1) Can catalyze its own creation (even weakly)
2) Can be modified in ways that may potentially increase its ability to catalyze its own creation
Then all you have to do is play the waiting game until you end up with something analogous to DNA.
This did NOT evolve. If the universe is only 13+ billions years old, this could not have mathematically happen by chance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbB2kMkmb0w
>>75697261
Dna>rna>protein
Seems like the chicken and the egg scenario
>>75694403
DNA isn't a pattern you ignorant fuck.
>>75694450
Random chance can't create working software either.
inb4 you quote an "experiment" were some fuck writes a program to sift through simple random circuits to find the working one. That's points to a creator or God because it doesn't work without the intelligent guiding software even though the circuit and test for success are simple as fuck compared to even the simplest self replicating life form.
>>75694501
It literally is not "just an acid molecule." You fail at science.
>>75694696
No. Entropy is well defined. Shannon entropy is just as iron clad in information systems as SLoT is for energy in the physical universe. (Indeed, SLoT is the macro expression of Shannon at the quantum level.)
The Big Bang left the universe in a relatively low entropy state as far as energy is concerned. But it left it in a near maximum entropy state as far as information (specifically DNA) is concerned.
On a planet like Earth you've got the energy for work. But without an existing biological machine to harness and direct the energy you can't build the DNA or RNA needed to guide a biological machine. Raw energy randomizes a potential information space (whether that's DNA, a hard drive, a comm channel, etc).
Let's just put some math to it:
Est number of particles in the universe: 10^80
Odds of an RNA molecule forming randomly along with the biological "body" necessary for it to function and reproduce: 1 in 10^450
If our universe was a simulation with true random inputs, and you ran that simulation 10^100 times, you would never expect to see the formation of life. Indeed, if you saw it, you would assume someone fucked with your simulation.
>>75697180
DNA is a relatively simple molecule, mate. Literally just a little phosphate, bit of sugar, and a nice little N containing base. Doesn't even require much time.
>>75697180
>There are many organisms that dont have their genes coded into DNA but something else.
huh?
>>75694217
Explain these trips.
>>75697458
I... I don't think you understand what I said matey.
All DNA is is an acid that happens to contain particular organic bases. These organic bases associate with particular amino acids. RNA attaches to these amino acids and lines them up to form the proteins required for an organism to prosper.
>>75697554
Think he's referring to the fact that most of our DNA doesn't actually code for genes.
>>75697462
DNA is literally just an acid molecule.
Deoxyribonucleic acid. Just because it happens to contain codons associated with certain amino acids doesn't make it "more than just an acid".
>>75694217
Your god only exists in the receding plane of unkown information. The world was flat and was the center of the universe because god. Men would never fly because god. We would never decode the human genome because god. We would never go into space because god.
The explanation will come from better men than you and I, if the human race lasts long enough, and life will be created by men, followed by the creation of worlds. Don't think your ignorance or arrogance in your assumption is fact, simply because you can't fathom it.
Mandatory fedora tip.
Dna was not a chance happening. It is a very specific and intricate process.
>>75697455
Just because on average something isn't expected to happen in X amount of time, doesn't mean it will take that long. Statistically you'd probably have to live at least dozens of lifetimes before being struck by lightning, but it could just as easily happen in the next 5 seconds.
>>75697555
miracle of allah and his memes
>>75697455
>mathematically happen by chance.
The probability is close to 100%. Absolutely insane amount of planets, absolutely insane amount of chemical reactions per second on that planet, absolutely insane amount of time. And all what we need is just a relatively simple and small molecule.
Also, read this, it may redpill you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
>>75697741
No I think he's saying that there are organisms out there that don't use DNA to encode their genes.
>>75697462
>Odds of an RNA molecule forming randomly along with the biological "body" necessary for it to function and reproduce: 1 in 10^450
[citation needed]
>>75697815
*Kek
>>75697781
But it's not. DNA is just a polynucleotide. A nucleotide is a simple monomer, hardly more complicated than ATP.
>>75697799
Not at this level of complexity. This post had some data that I have read before:
>>75697462
I am currently reading this book. Addresses all of the current hypothesis of abiogensis. None of them hold any water.
https://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Stephen-C-Meyer-ebook/dp/B002C949BI?ie=UTF8&btkr=1&ref_=dp-kindle-redirect
>>75697555
how
>>75697920
All organisms encode genetic information with DNA. Only polynucleotides can associate with amino acids in the right way.
>>75697920
Well some viruses only use RNA and viroids only use DNA (no RNA or protein) but they generally aren't considered to be 'alive'.
>>75696924
1s and 0s are just "its there or its not". Everything follows this system.
>>75698011
Checked.
>>75697555
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRWbIoIR04c
>>75698071
>intelligent design
Wait, someone actually still advocates for that? In current year?
>>75697139
>While abiogenesis still isn't entirely understood, it's fairly reasonable to say that DNA became as a result of billions of years of atoms and molecules colliding and intermingling at various temperatures and pressures. Given enough time anything is possible.
There isn't enough time.
This universe is a bounded one with a beginning. Roughly 10^80 atoms and just under 14 billion years.
If every single atom could participate in a potential life forming event 1,000x a second you're looking at roughly 10^101 dice throws. (The vast majority of matter could never participate in this contest as first life can only occur on the surface of relatively few planets within habitable zones for relatively short periods of time. Also, first life requires more than one atom. But just for the sake of argument, let's pretend every individual atom has a chance of being/causing first life over the entire span of the existence of this universe.)
Odds of the simplest life form coming together by chance? 1 in 10^450
Abiogenesis could never occur in this universe given these physical laws. Sorry.
If this universe were infinite in space and time you would get first life. Many times. You would never get intelligent life. Why? Odds on evolution to the level of complexity of a modern mammal are 1 in 10^3,000,000. Habitable zones cannot last long enough. Since that's a physical constraint not open to chance evolution purely by random chance is dead in the water even if the universe were infinite.
I don't know where life originated or how. All I know is that the mathematics are fucking brutal and are proof that life did not originate here. Life not of our universe started and guided life in our universe.
>>75698305
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
>>75697856
I have read about that.
- It produced amino acids that were shaped the wrong way
- It assumed chemicals that were in early earth that there was no evidence for
- Requires oxygen
- 99% of the compound produced was sludge that is toxic to life; the amino acids were more likely to bond with that than with each other
- Amino acids do not equal cell, especially this small amount; Not even close. A huge mechanism is needed to save the genetic information, process it, and pass it on
- Minimum known needed is proteins, RNA, and DNA
>Chaos can create patterns, but never a workable code such as DNA
>>75697920
>>75697741
I meant HIV for example.
>Chaos can create patterns, but never a workable code such as DNA.
Evidence seems to suggest otherwise...
Why are christ fags so eager to prove god exists? Doesn't that defeat the point of faith?
Still just a pattern. Even fractals are a pattern, not a code.
Dear atheists,
I don't like it crush your beliefs, but I was able to disprove your precious Big Bang Theory.
I took a jar full of nothing and waited a billionth of a second so that it could create everything. But nothing happened!
I tried to encourage it to create everything by whispering "science" and "evilution" to it, but still nothing happened!
Now, that I have shown you the undeniable proof, that the Big Bang Theory is a fairytale for autistic children, will you still believe in these other lies, called "evolution" and "science"?
>>75698361
>Citation needed
Also, DNA isn't some super efficient coding machine. Most of it just contains useless DNA that has to be removed in splicing anyway. The fact DNA contains so much useless code is evidence it isn't divine or whatever.
>>75698454
HIV isn't strictly speaking a living organism, Though.
Well, it depends on what you constitute as "alive". But then you end up doing into the weeds of philosophy.
>>75697503
>DNA is a relatively simple molecule, mate.
Then cure cancer...a DNA error...since DNA is so fucking simple.
While you're at it cure aging, all genetic related diseases, and make everyone IQ 150 with the body of a Greek god or goddess.
All the scientists and years analyzing DNA, with all the super computing capacity we can throw at the task, and we don't know jack shit yet. We're still stuck performing statistical analysis of the form "lots of people with X condition have Y gene, so we think there may be a correlation."
>it's so simple!
>>75694217
atheist think the figured it all out, but the majority are just idiots lead astray by evil people away from the straight way.
>>75698361
So you admit there is a chance, no matter how slight? And why do you assume that this is the only "universe" where dice is being thrown? You cling to probabilities, but you don't know the full extent of the how many times they're being tested.
>>75697555
>>75698361
Hoyle's calculation puts it at 10^40,000 for the first simplest cell
http://www.coppit.org/god/hoyle.php
>>75698476
Yet you post none
>>75696924
Life is a part of nature, family
>>75694217
>I can't accept something as complicated as DNA existing
>I can accept something as complicated as an anthropomorphic universe creator existing
I don't understand you people at all.
>>75698361
Better link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado
>>75698623
Thats retarded argument. We werent the first organisms. We are complex, the first ones were simple.
>>75698529
The Jar still moved through the dimension of time, and so was not representative of the original state before the Big Bang.
If you want to try and actually learn what atheists believe you kind of need to read about the mathematics behind it. You have to put in some effort to learn physics (no, watching cosmos or reading a pop science book doesn't count).
>>75698746
You have that backwards.
>>75697555
Kek has you in His gaze
>>75698746
same to people who dont believe in God
But why can't science explain a few billion years of evolution that nobody was observing for me?
I mean come on, it's the current solar orbital increment. It shouldn't be THAT hard to prove billions of years of chemical reactions across an entire universe in such a way that adequately explains every single step leading to our current understanding of life on Earth. What's taking so long?
What's that?
You cannot answer my questions in an easily digestible format that I can understand within my own totally not biassed at all mindset in reference to my current knowledge within a few sentences?
Intelligent design confirmed!
>>75698813
No, you really don't.
You just have to accept that God isn't real.
>>75697951
Marcel E. Golay.
Michael Denton gets similar odds.
I don't know of anyone with any model that suggests favorable...or even remotely possible...odds given the size/age of this universe. Any time anyone takes their blinders off and tries to mathematically model evolution the theory of evolution gets BTFO.
There is a form of "evolution" in life on Earth, but it's not what most people think. It's not random. It's engineered. Life was seeded on this planet and "upgraded" multiple times (Cambrian explosion anyone?).
>>75698425
wait wat
It used only this: water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). All these are pretty much everywhere.
>>75698737
If youre saying our computer code of binary 1s and 0s is a part of nature then i agree, it was intelligent design by humans. Outside of intelligent design, this doesnt happen.
>>75698305
>i don't understand mathematics
>so i'll commit a horse laugh
>>75698623
Controlling how a cell replicates, and stopping a cell from replicating is entirely different to whether or not DNA is a simple molecule.
DNA is a simple molecule. Made up from mononucleotides, each containing one of four bases. These join together and coil. There's nothing more. No fairly dust.
Also, genes code for the polynucleotides that form the proteins that cause issues. That's why genes are so hard to pinpoint, because you need to go back many stages and look at complex interactions between different genes.
>>75698361
Your probabilities are the odds of mixing a bowl of deoxynucleotides and getting a genome, right? You misunderstand how chance plays a role in such things. I don't consider abiogenesis to be important for biology, but you do a disservice to the idea with this could ever occur at all. While there is a large amount of randomness, it isn't the biochemical equivalent of drawing items out of a hat. You don't start with bacteria, you start with a more simple, self-replicating molecule. Protein coding isn't necessary for early life, either (see ribozymes). Neither is using DNA specifically. Hell, there are even multiple ways for DNA to base-pair beyond the normal AT and GC.
>>75699014
>two hacks calculate probabilities with numbers pulled out of their asses based on countless variables that they can't possibly assign a numerical likelihood to
>meaningful
>evolution is driven by conscious decisions and not the chaos of natural selection
>>75698966
I'm specifically talking to the guy who mentioned the Big Bang as if he actually knows about the theory surrounding it.
How would someone call the belief that the Universe and God are the same?
Because sure as fuck that makes sense to me. I don't need any moralistic or philosophical mumbo jumbo.
And it only makes sense that the Universe tends to create life, because It needs an observation point or consciousness, else what's the point of being there?
>>75699126
Its not based on evidence dude. It literally is not science. Literally.
>>75698546
>Also, DNA isn't some super efficient coding machine. Most of it just contains useless DNA that has to be removed in splicing anyway. The fact DNA contains so much useless code is evidence it isn't divine or whatever.
Linux, OS X, and Windows all have duplicate, orphaned (useless), and inefficient code. The fact that any modern software project contains inefficient code is evidence it isn't engineered, just random chance.
Right?
>>75694217
Ultimately i dont know, no one does and most likely no one ever will. Religion exists to awnser questions we cant awnser. This is why i dont believe in any religion (Although i could be wrong)
>>75698679
>Computer scientist
>Knowing anything about genetics, chemistry or physics
Kek
>>75699014
>odds given the size/age of this universe
Right, but what if we're not the only universe? If you stop cosmology at what we can observe, the numbers might look grim, but we know fuck-all about the structure of reality outside of it. The dice could've been rolling a googolplex more times than we can currently calculate for all we know.
>>75694217
>Explain the creation of DNA.
RNA which has the propensity of self replication
ribozymes can form active sites to polymerize DNA. this has been demonstrated. the earth's conditions have had millions of years to be a chemical soup for this to occur.
Now that I'm done, you give a falsifiable hypothesis for the existence of god
>>75697462
Lots of anger, lots of ignorance.
Great job, compadre -- hope you get your PhD in pseudo-math soon.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
>>75697462
Given enough time random chance can lead to anything
>>75697462
I'm not a biologist but I was thought in school that the prevailing theory theory was that DNA came along for this never ending ride as it split from RNA to be purely instructions.
>>75698361
Where are you getting these numbers from? I mean odds that you're not a troll are basically 10^-(10^100) at this point, familiar.
>>75699353
I would think an all knowing God wouldn't make silly mistakes. Also, DNA doesn't really contain "repeats", it just contains random strings of nucleotides, and every now and again a relevant triplet emerges. Looks more like chance to me.
>>75698361
This math doesn't take into account whether combined atoms and molecules have a greater affinity towards self-replicative processes.
>>75698679
After skimming over this I don't find that number to be quite reliable. For one thing this calculation treats all building blocks of life as if they are independent of each other.
>>75698361
Who says you need to try the experiment that many times to get an uncommon result? Who says there isn't enough time? You could try it and get it on the first try
>>75699353
Also, the "useless" stuff is stuff we have not understood yet. Formerly "junk codons" are being decoded now.
>>75699542
Not code
What is chaos theory
>>75699252
All of that talk about science that the religious brings up is simply a red herring. They only bring it up to further cloud the issue, never to clarify it.
>>75699353
Software analogy is bad for your argument.
Lets assume I have simple linux program saying "hello world" on the terminal and stalls, ie a valid working program.
Lets say I'll let run a creation of completely random small files. After a few minutes max, I would have it (less than 100B of data, assuming a.out format, ia32 instructions).
All it takes is time.
>>75696924
Or do we >.>
>>75699618
he made everything perfect, humanity fucked up
>>75699703
He's struggling with concepts much too big for him to grasp. He really needs to just stop.
>>75698546
>The fact DNA contains so much useless code is evidence it isn't divine or whatever.
It's not useless
we lose base pairs at an astonishingly high rate. the redundancies and introns in our DNA serve as fail safes.
>>75699764
If he made everything perfect that means humans are also perfect. If humans are perfect how could we fuck up? :^)
>>75699647
A lot of it is junk genes that will never be activated.
>>75699014
The problem with your argument is that you can just as easily claim mathematical improbability of a God figure. All you're doing is passing the buck. If it's mathematically implausible to you that life started autonomously, isn't it similarly implausible that a God figure came into being? And if you claim that the God figure is infinite and has no beginning, couldn't you just as easily say the universe (pre-Big Bang included) similarly is infinite and has no beginning?
ITT... A bunch of butthurt tards who failed science
>>75699703
Right, and that is intelligent design. Not a natural evolution
>>75699846
well, to us 'we fucked up' but for him it's part of his plan
>>75697462
>Random chance can't create working software either.
...except it can.
If you have a program that randomly places 1s and 0s in no particular order and compiles it repeatedly to see if it works, eventually it will produce a working program.
But I would need to amend this and say that at one point in time, shortly after the inception of the first working piece of code, it becomes "sentient" in the matter of specializing in the programming it needs to adapt to its environment.
Evolution as a completely random mess of DNA code would've taken tens or hundreds of billions of years, but it didn't because life very quickly realized that adapting to an environment increases chances of propagation and therefore survival.
The simplest self-replicating lifeform is a bacterium, or a virus, depending on your view of the subject matter.
>>75697555
Blessed by kek.
>>75699839
I'm trying to talk to people with no education in biology here. The fact introns can sometimes have some purpose isn't too relevant.
>>75694217
>evolution is chaos
you shoud retake high school biology before you comment on evolution, because this is really basic stuff you aren't understanding.
evolution is primarily driven by natural selection, which is very ordered
>>75698804
>We are complex, the first ones were simple.
A self replicating biological form is not "simple" by any stretch of the imagination.
>>75699183
>Your probabilities are the odds of mixing a bowl of deoxynucleotides and getting a genome, right?
You haven't read the papers, right?
>>75699246
>>two hacks
I can play that fallacy. "Some dump fuck hack goes to an island and thinks life just pops out of no where."
>>75699327
>Its not based on evidence dude. It literally is not science. Literally.
And evolution is based on evidence? What experiment can I perform that will result in abiogenesis? NOT chemicals we think are necessary for abiogenesis to occur. Actual fucking abiogenesis.
Because that has never been observed. Nature or lab. Arguing that it must of happened because we observe life is circular reasoning at its worst.
The evolutionist retort?
>hurr durr it takes a really long time so we can't prove it in a lab
So we model the event to come up with a reasonably accurate estimate of how long it would take. And we find out it's longer than would be possible if this universe were 10^100 older than it is. Then we get:
>hurr durr that's not evidence!
Fuck off. We know enough to model the possibilities. Since multiple scientists end up with the same astronomical odds, we're right give or take 10 orders of magnitude. Abiogenesis is over 300 orders of magnitude away from being a possibility.
Life didn't start here mate.
>>75700099
Checking myself so Kek doesn't wreck myself.
>>75700011
Nobody ever claimed humans were perfect.
>>75699023
Took me a while to find; I knew I read it somewhere. Neutral compounds :CO2, Nitrogen, water vapor were abundantly present. Miller's assumptions about Earth's early atmosphere were incorrect.
Page 224 of Signature in the Cell
>>75700188
Doing a double Kek check
>>75697555
Checked and keked.
>>75700233
KEK PLEASE.
>>75700204
I don't own the book.
Mind providing his [citation]s for Miller's incorrect assumption?
>>75700233
Oh boy
>>75700053
Still intelligent design by a human being with a will. Software will never occur naturally.
>>75699876
>And if you claim that the God figure is infinite and has no beginning, couldn't you just as easily say the universe (pre-Big Bang included) similarly is infinite and has no beginning?
While I find the posted math questionable the second law of thermodynamics tells us it's impossible for the universe to be infinite. If the universe has always been it would have had an infinite amount if time to go through entropic decay. Since less entropically-favored complexities exist in the universe we can assume it has not always existed.
Any fucking RNA precursor that can self-catalyze and drive chemical equilibrium to produce more of itself
>age of science and information
>falling for the religion meme
>>75700175
Why are you confusing evolution and abiogenesis?
>it's too complex for me too comprehend
>therefore, god
every time
>>75694217
Who created God? If God is eternal, why can't a Godless universe be eternal?
>>75699956
It is not an evolution (we arent talking about evolution here afterall) but it is an analogy of abiogenesis.
I didnt point the random creation towards any direction.
I just dont see why a simple DNA (we are talking about a couple of organic molecules joined together) couldnt emerge while I see shitload of reasons why it could.
>>75697555
I am now a #KekMissile
>>75700305
>Software will never occur naturally.
I wrote a postulation which never included a time limit.
Say a computer had infinite time and electricity, could not break, and it's only instruction was to randomly place 10e20 1s and 0s, compile, and run the program.
It will create a piece of working software sooner or later.
>>75699876
As it says in the bible God is the beginning and the end. God always existed.
>>75700309
>If it can last forever then it's already over!
So God is dead?
>>75697444
well put
>>75697555
>>75698011
>>75700099
>>75700188
>>75700233
Im... I'm scared
>>75697555
PRAISE KEK
>>75697462
My father is a microbiologist, does Monsanto tier research. Even he admits the theory of first life seems implausible. Flaming atheist too by the way.
>>75699408
>Right, but what if we're not the only universe?
I can guarantee you we're not, because life did not start here.
>>75699542
>Given enough time random chance can lead to anything
This universe hasn't had enough time. Not by over 300 orders of magnitude.
>>75699618
>I would think an all knowing God wouldn't make silly mistakes.
* Point us to a "silly" mistake?
* Who said God was "all knowing" in the way you define it?
* Who said God was the only input in our formation? (Even the Jewish/Christian Bible says "Let US make man in OUR image.")
>Also, DNA doesn't really contain "repeats", it just contains random strings of nucleotides, and every now and again a relevant triplet emerges. Looks more like chance to me.
Then you don't understand either DNA or "chance."
>>75700309
This is why I included the caveat of pre-Big Bang into it. If we assume multiple iterations of the universe and a cycle of bang/crunch, doesn't that make the universe effectively infinite?
>>75700175
>abiogenesis is evolution
A-america senpai....
>>75700449
Okay, I can make a book that says "and suddenly the most primitive life appeared".
How is it less valid than Bible?
>>75700309
You seem to be dodging me. What if multiverse hypotheses are true? That adds an extra layer to your math. I'm not personally advocating them, I'm just saying that your "concrete odds" leave much to be desired given how little we actually know.
>>75700408
But a computer will never naturally occur. It takes intelligent design from a human with a will to create.
>>75700327
Your large words are making me afeared, good sir.
>>75700449
That's an absolutely retarded answer to an intrinsicly logical problem.
Why do you still believe shit a bunch of delirious camel fuckers wrote?
>>75700581
nobody know who you are lol
>>75694217
why don't you google it you massive fucking faggot
>>75700581
Because nobody cares what you write in your moms basement
>>75700519
Don't be scared, my son. Embrace it.
Kekism will replace Christianity soon... More people will CHECK 'EM than read the bible...
>>75694217
Why not the First Engine, anon?
>>75700449
We're not going off scripture, we're going off what we can conceptualize. If you want to argue based on the Bible, I could pretty easily just point you to the numerous contradictions that exist in it. But that's a different story.
>>75697758
There will be no end to your search for the truth.
>>75700602
So now we are talking about spurious creation of universe? Because the computer is the analogy to universe.
Why are you switching subjects so quickly? D-did we all get baited?
>>75700634
why do you believe in something you don't understand and cant prove?
>>75700545
>I can guarantee you we're not, because life did not start here.
Ok, so you're saying it is possible there are multiverses? So, what if there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th power universes with almost identical physical constants and starting configurations as ours? Doesn't it seem likely then that at least one of them would give rise to replicating structures?
>>75700719
Not. An. Argument.
>>75700634
Such hatred i sense
Come to the lightside brother
>>75700602
Correct.
But it was an analogy.
Life naturally occurred as a garbled mess of molecules.
>>75700502
Not quite. The universe has a set of observable laws. A God would exist outside the universe and therefore outside these physical laws. The nature of causality tells us there must be a beginning at which everything was created. It is known as the uncaused cause, which some people choose to call God.
>>75700758
I think we've been baited, lads.
>>75700290
Kindle can be a pain in the ass with copy/paste.
Towe, “Environmental Oxygen Conditions”; Berkner and Marshall, “On the Origin and Rise of Oxygen Concentration,” 225; Kasting, “Earth’s Early Atmosphere”; Brinkman, “Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen,” 5355; Dimroth and Kimberly, “Pre-Cambrian Atmospheric Oxygen,” 1161; Carver, “Prebiotic Atmospheric Oxygen Levels,” 136; Holland, Lazar, and McCaffrey, “Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans”; Kasting, Liu, and Donahue, “Oxygen Levels in the Prebiological Atmosphere”; Kerr, “Origin of Life”; Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, 73–94. 16. Holland, The Chemical Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans, 99–100; Schlesinger and Miller, “Prebiotic Synthesis in Atmospheres Containing CH4, CO, and CO2,” 376; Horgan, “In the Beginning.”
>>75697555
>>75698114
>2016
>being this new
hes using a script, like this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17tGUzOzBYE
SLIDE THREAD, IT'S BECAUSE OF THIS:
>>75697365
>>75700859
>The nature of causality tells us there must be a beginning at which everything was created
What caused God then? Or if the God doesnt have to be created (eternal and shit), why is it impossible for you that the universe may not have a creator?
>>75700859
>Makes a rule.
>It doesn't apply to God!
Just like with all imaginary friends.
>>75700752
Implying science has never contradicted itself
Whew lads
Perhaps you misunderstood
>>75701044
The bible tells us God has always been.
>>75698546
>Useless DNA.
The true redpill is understanding that the useless DNA is information. Say like an operating system or computer program that gets pre-loaded in an organism and gives it its fundamental knowledge or instinct.
>>75701071
God made the laws for us man, why is it hard to understand
>>75701135
>implying bible is evidence
>>75701074
Science adjusts its views based on whats observed. Religion is the denial of observation so that faith may be preserved.
>>75699703
>Software analogy is bad for your argument.
>Lets assume I have simple linux program saying "hello world" on the terminal and stalls, ie a valid working program.
>Lets say I'll let run a creation of completely random small files. After a few minutes max, I would have it (less than 100B of data, assuming a.out format, ia32 instructions).
>All it takes is time.
Oh boy are you about to get hammered...
By your own admission, "hello world" would require something close to but less than 100 bytes of data.
AES 256 uses a 32 byte key.
If you had 10^38 Tianhe-2 Supercomputers trying to brute force one single AES256 key, you would need roughly as much time as this universe has existed.
Which means you would need more to get "hello world".
Now...
* How much time to get software at the complexity level of Pong?
* How much time to get software at the complexity level of a modern OS?
* How much time to get a self replicating genome along with the minimum physical body to host it, obey its instructions, and reproduce?
Not in this universe.
>>75700327
Easy to say. Harder to figure out.
I am not saying "It was a directed design" but certainly we need to learn much more to claim we know what is going on.
It is more probable that the right conditions were present to result in DNA, but we cannot say for sure because we lack approlriate evidence.
So, let the smart people work on that while we hang tight and the God people have a horse in the race.
>>75700546
I'm not entirely educated on the nature of the multiverse theory but I have some knowledge on the big crunch/big bang theory. I believe you're referring to the theory that the universe is constantly crunching and rebirthing itself infinitely.
I'm assuming this would mean the universe is essentially a closed system. Again, the nature of causality would require us to infer that at some point the matter necessary for this constant cycle would have to have been placed in the closed system for it to propagate.
>>75701074
But thats a good thing. It shows that science doesnt go in a fixed line, but reacts based on new information. Unlike christfags who will look at the evidence and still claim it doesnt exist, kek
>>75699876
The universe has a beginning. They call it the Big Bang. At that moment all time and space were created within a closed system - the boundaries are expanding faster than the speed of light. The universe essentially IS time and space + matter and energy. You can't remove time from a closed system partially comprised of time.
A God, however, could exist beyond this universe and thus perhaps beyond time and space. Whether or not one does I will not attempt to answer definitively.
>>75699805
I think it's the Fedora Fags who struggle with concepts too big for them to grasp. See: >>75701300
>>75701229
God is as real as Argentinians are white.
>>75701389
what evidence?
>>75701435
prove right here that Argentinians are white
>>75694217
>Chaos can create patterns, but never a workable code such as DNA.
Prove it
>>75701464
dinos and skeletons of ancestors of homo sapiens and shit
>>75701044
>What caused God then?
Nothing. As I stated it is the uncaused cause. You're assuming that something outside the realm of our universe is bound to the nature of causality.
>>75701071
>I can't into metaphysics: the post
>>75700175
Was pretty much with you until you showed that you think evolution and abiogenesis are co-dependent. Evolution concerns the change in lifeforms over time, not their self-generation.
Saying humans evolved from primates and are still primates has nothing to do with "how did life emerge to begin with?". I feel like you'd be reading this thinking "oh wow I sure didn't know that, you fucking tool" but you are in fact expressing ignorance of this concept.
There's two very simple principles, that you probably accept, that make evolution possible.
1, organisms reproduce themselves
2, the replication is not perfect and subject to variation
given enough time do you seriously think a creature would look exactly like it did at the start of this process?
Lactose tolerance should be evidence enough of evolution.
>>75701300
My bad, cant calculate so late at night. Universe has much higher "processing power" tho. ;-) And those billions of years...
>How much time to get software at the complexity level of Pong?
Irrelevant, because of evolution. We didnt pop out randomly
>How much time to get software at the complexity level of a modern OS?
Irrelevant, because of evolution. We didnt pop out randomly
>How much time to get a self replicating genome along with the minimum physical body to host it, obey its instructions, and reproduce?
>implying you need a body
>implying "instructions"
>>75701574
they were animals that went extinct, what about it
Let me state an observation or two.
This life is amazingly interesting without a doubt.
Athiests always assume a christian is ignorant in the study of science. Why is that? Because to the athiest, science proves there is no God.. Evidence of God is required.
To the Creationist, science and God are inseparable as Science is the method used in creation, evolution included
Put God and Science together and you get the whole picture.
>>75700763
kek
Because faith is the paragon of proof
>>75701615
Why universe cant be uncaused?
>>75695406
>its obvious that the universe is stupefyingly old.
>believe in the christian god of the bible
Pick one, cherrypicking motherfucker.
Also:
>choose to believe
How the fuck do you manage that? I can choose to act as though I believe something, but I can't choose to actually believe something any more than I can choose to see the sky as pink rather than blue.
>>75701399
I think you missed my point.
You're arguing the mathematical improbability of life. Assuming the universe has gone through an infinite cycle of Big Bang and Big Crunch, the odds of life eventually occurring becomes a mathematical probability. Now you could argue that the Big Crunch is theoretical (and indeed, the Big Bang is too), but now we've come to the horizon of our understanding, meaning at the very least, its a toss up between the two ideas. At that point, I would really just argue the more standard Dawkins/Hitchens lines of bad intelligent design, poor and mixed divine messages, contradictions in scripture and theologies, the poor track record of religion versus science for applicable data gathering, etc.
>>75701903
It contradicts Bible.
>>75701300
>If you had 10^38 Tianhe-2 Supercomputers trying to brute force one single AES256 key, you would need roughly as much time as this universe has existed.
Please provide some sort of evidence for this. Before you dismiss me as some fadorafag, know that I'd love to see you proven right.
>>75700819
So you just admitted the universe itself would not occur without intelligent design
>>75702083
You cant bruteforce those key, he is right.
>>75702055
No, just the timeframes and calendars used in the times written
Example the earth used to spin faster, shorther days, months, years
>>75702106
>implying the relationship in creation of computer by humans has a connection with creation of universe
It doesnt.
>>75700546
This universe banging/crunching could not account for intelligent life in this iteration. Again, habitable zones do not last long enough.
If the laws are the same iteration to iteration then you never get intelligent life. If they can change then something would have had to have found a way to survive a cycle to start life anew here.
I would say it's more likely that there's a multiverse and life formed some where else, or that there really is some always existing God.
>>75700561
If abiogenesis cannot occur then there is a creator (a God or gods) even if said creator chose to create via evolution.
But evolution ultimately has a similar problem to abiogenesis. Code for new features could not simply pop into existence via random mutation. You would never get beyond single cells that way.
I would say there is a form of evolution taking place, but it's top down. It's intelligent code trying different possible solutions within preprogrammed ranges. Randomness plays the part of making sure that the code is always expressing a variation, thereby making sure the experiment, the adaptation, keeps going.
>>75700787
>...with almost identical physical constants and starting configurations as ours? Doesn't it seem likely then that at least one of them would give rise to replicating structures?
"Replicating structure" is too loose of a term. But yes, one of them would give rise to first life. But if they all have laws similar to ours you never move beyond a simple, self replicating life form. The habitable zone won't last long enough.
>>75702237
Lets not get into time because i could talk about that all day.
Protip: time is merely relative concept that does not actually exist
>>75698361
This is retarded. It only has to occur once, and just because the odds are mathematically lower than comprehensibly low, doesn't mean it can't or won't happen
>>75702055
let me read about it, i dont get how it contradicts the bible
>>75702106
What kind of a far reaching conflation is that?
An analogy is supposed to help explain something.
Were analogies to be 1:1 for the things they are trying to explain, then there could be no analogy.
>>75702037
>You're arguing the mathematical improbability of life
1. That's not me. I jumped in with the post you replied to, I'm not this guy:
>>75701300
I don't know math as well as either of you, I'm positive, so my position on the probability of life coming into existence by random chance is undetermined.
>Assuming the universe has gone through an infinite cycle of Big Bang and Big Crunch, the odds of life eventually occurring becomes a mathematical probability. Now you could argue that the Big Crunch is theoretical (and indeed, the Big Bang is too), but now we've come to the horizon of our understanding, meaning at the very least, its a toss up between the two ideas.
I don't think the Big Crunch theory or the Equal Entropy theory carry nearly as much empirical weight as the Big Bang theory, so I don't think it's an equal toss-up - but again, math.
>>75701311
But under that logic, wouldn't the nature of causality require us to infer that the creator would require a causality of his own, even if that thing existed beyond space and time?
Or alternatively, what if the process of the Bang/Crunch itself exists outside of the structures that define the universe? I'm having a hard time putting this into words, but if you think of the Bang/Crunch as a process in the same way as an airplane in flight, couldn't that process require a catalyst beyond time and space, in the same way that an airplane in flight is subject to aerodynamics, but requires fuels to propel it?
I don't know man, I'm just spitballing here.
>>75694217
Who created God?
>>75702163
Could you at least further explain why not then please?
This is creationism people, and science is inseparable from it.
>>75694217
You got proof to back up that statement? Doesn't seem that unreasonable that something complex could materialize over billions of years.
>>75694217
>forgetting about RNA
>>75702263
I agree that the nature of abiogenesis and evolution are intermingled and share similarities. Can you elaborate on your definition of habitable zones? Do you mean earth-like planets?
>>75702548
God has always been.
The only existence that was not created. Thats why he is called.. Creator
>>75698486
They are full of doubt and try prop up their doubt woth falsehoods.
>>75702561
Way too many combinations.
But that doesnt matter anyway, since you cant compare processing power of one computer to number of chemical reactions in universe each second.
>>75702577
What the fuck are you talking about?
Also with OP's question:
Imagine you have a fair die with a 100 billion billion sides and you roll it infinity times. If you pick any single side, you will eventually roll that side.
>>75701901
>My bad, cant calculate so late at night. Universe has much higher "processing power" tho. ;-) And those billions of years...
See: >>75698361
And the assumption that the universe has around 10^100 dice throws is false. The vast majority of matter exists in stars, black holes, and uninhabitable planets.
>>How much time to get software at the complexity level of Pong?
>Irrelevant, because of evolution. We didnt pop out randomly
Natural selection cannot direct anything. It only "chooses" between options put before it. (I hate the language surrounding discussions of natural selection because it is not a force. It's simply a consequence. To describe it in any way as a force is to misunderstand it. And that misunderstanding is at the heart of the debate.) Those options come from random mutation.
So yes, it is relevant because if there were no creator then every last feature of every last life form on Earth would have its origin in a random event.
Random formation of code for a biological feature or process isn't much better...in terms of odds...then abiogenesis. Most rudimentary steps are not likely to happen in the lifespan of a planet like Earth.
>>75702736
we are trying to prove God so you can accept Christ and dont burn all eternity in hell
we are such a bad guys
>>75699876
I see it as we don't have enough information to make proclamations one way or the other but on an anonymous message board people pretend that they have the answers to everything.
>>75702548
That which exists independently of time does not need to have a beginning.
Any omnipotent being could perpetually create itself at all points in time, everywhere at once, simultaneously. That's part of being all-powerful. Time doesn't mean shit then.
Watch an animation of a 4-D hypercube and tell me where the cycle begins and where it ends.
>>75698486
Because were trying to save your dumb ass.... I mean that with love brother
>>75698529
>I took a jar full of nothing
What is nothing, and how did you observe it if it was nothing?
Opinion discarded.
>>75698623
>cure aging
Really?
Aging is necessary to help turnover of generations so evolution can progress.
>>75702083
He is right as long as P != NP stands.
>>75702263
Your code example in previous reply was stupid as fuck. The code doesn't need to keep itself alive and reproduce in an ever changing environment. It just go through the various iterations without a care in the world if it's successful or not.
Whatever the odds of abiogenesis are there are theories that explain why sexual reproduction became a thing instead of just endlessly splitting cells. As I said, I'm not a biologist but to me, random chance is as good of an explanation as God.
>>75702837
>And the assumption that the universe has around 10^100 dice throws is false.
Yeah, it has even more each second.
>So yes, it is relevant because if there were no creator then every last feature of every last life form on Earth would have its origin in a random event.
I dont see how exactly is that a problem.
>>75702602
Marcus Aurelius never said this.
>>75702508
>But under that logic, wouldn't the nature of causality require us to infer that the creator would require a causality of his own, even if that thing existed beyond space and time?
You're assuming like the other anon that something beyond space and time is bound to the laws of causality.
>Or alternatively, what if the process of the Bang/Crunch itself exists outside of the structures that define the universe? I'm having a hard time putting this into words, but if you think of the Bang/Crunch as a process in the same way as an airplane in flight, couldn't that process require a catalyst beyond time and space, in the same way that an airplane in flight is subject to aerodynamics, but requires fuels to propel it?
Then something beyond space and time would have to create it. IE God, or the uncaused cause.
>>75702837
According to a Minister of your gospels, Mr Stephen L Wolfe, for something to be real or possible you have to have proofs there of. Proofs graduates a theory into an actuality, yes?
I said a person as complex if not more so than us, did it. That's my theory, o wait, it isn't, because every thing remotely complex and purposeful was made by intuitive, brilliant, and sophisticated, people.
Windows 10 was well over 30 years in the making and it cost around a billion to make and it took the efforts of thousands of people to create, not to mention the commonalities and contrivances along with the know hows that aided them and the technologies that facilitated all of it.
Human flesh and bone, and DNA is far more complex. Windows 10 is a bit over 43 million tiers of complex information, human DNA, well over 3 billion tiers of complex information.
And yet you're of the mind t hat brownian motion without any of the above efforts or know hows, did it. Either you're a liar, or you're as dumb as the others are if you still cling to evolution as a real possibility. Either way, it's sad.
>>75702849
Burning in hell is a meme
Hell is when you dont come back from death. Youre existance is gone forever.
The bible says the very idea of burning in an enternal flame disgusts God.
This comes from when a tribe of jews turned to paganism and burned children in an eternal garbage flame around Jerusalem.
Jews burning children.. /pol/ should like that story.
>>75703163
>everything that exists has a cause except this one thing that didn't have one because reasons
Really?
>>75701300
This is irrelevant since computers are not analogous to the universe. The universe can have infinitely many solutions being tried at the same time.
>>75702435
>This is retarded. It only has to occur once, and just because the odds are mathematically lower than comprehensibly low, doesn't mean it can't or won't happen
It has to happen over and over for evolution to occur. Random mutation of new features is hardly better from a viewpoint of odds than initial abiogenesis.
And...I would argue that at a certain point low odds means "never going to happen." And not in the "you won't win lottery" way, but in the "physically impossible" way.
But I don't need to win that argument to point out that the life we observe on Earth could simply not have happened by chance in this universe with these physical laws.
>>75694217
How could atheism be wrong?
>>75703273
Jesus talk in pretty detail about hell
read about it in Luke 16:19
>>75698679
Even if we accept that it is extremely unlikely, we are only alive to experience the universe in the case that it did happen. It is extremely unlikely that any given person will win the powerball, but if we somehow went back in time and aborted everyone who had never won it, everyone would be a powerball winner.
>>75700175
Lol bacteria are simple. It's a comparitive term.
>>75703273
This. Hell as a subterranean inferno came from a Medieval teaching device that got taken for what it was trying to represent.
>>75703327
The odds of life occurring aren't relevant because the amount of rolls for that chance to come up is so massive that it becomes inevitable.
>>75703276
It's almost like you didn't even read my post.
>>75703273
You are Correct. Gehenna is eternal destruction and its also called the lake of fire. In fact, in Revelation, I think the 21st book, Death and hell is tossed into the lake of fire to be tormented thereby the lake of fire is not a place but a state of nothingness.
>>75703313
The idea is the same, God has the universe, we computers. Both are complex systems. One's a celestial system and the other a man made system, however, the ideas are the same, or similar.
>>75703041
I assume you meant me instead of him.
>doesn't need to keep itself alive
Small DNA doesnt need to keep itself alive. Its a molecule, not a creature.
>reproduction
Cant answer that, but I am no biologist.
>why sexual reproduction became a thing
Because it significantly speeds up evolution. And therefore is itself an evolutionary advantage.
Millions of years of evolution and development via natural selection
>>75703041
>It just go through the various iterations without a care in the world if it's successful or not.
Arent you confusing abiogenesis and evolution? Because abiogenesis has no element of "successful"
>>75702658
>Can you elaborate on your definition of habitable zones? Do you mean earth-like planets?
It's a difficult definition to nail down, but at the very least: the zone around a star where a planet is neither so cold that biological processes cannot occur (every fucking thing is frozen solid), nor so hot that biological processes could not survive (i.e. the heat scrambles any ordered structure).
>>75703572
>The idea is the same, God has the universe, we computers.
No it isn't at all comparable in any fucking way you retard. Learn something about computers you fucking mongoloid.
>>75703588
and we are still here
>>75703163
> Uncaused cause.
Wouldn't this just be an extension of the natural 'greater'-universe and be similarly factored into the equation of life occurring?
>>75703580
But evolution is garbage though, didn't you hear. Unless you have observable proof of fish becoming all that is alive now then it never happened, and it shall forever remain a theory. Saying what evolution needs or doesn't need is a bit of a misnomer, for you have never observed anything becoming anything else from the earliest time to our self same day. So anything you say could only be conjecture; make believe; whys and wherefores.
>>75703588
Prove it. Show us skeletal and genetic proofs of one creature becoming another over an unbreakable chain of one species evolving into its successor mutation.
>>75703679
Fuck off with your theory, you impetuous cunt. You atheist are as much of a believer as theist are. you're as faithful as every theist you make fun of.
>>75703580
No I meant this:
>* How much time to get software at the complexity level of Pong?
>* How much time to get software at the complexity level of a modern OS?
>* How much time to get a self replicating genome along with the minimum physical body to host it, obey its instructions, and reproduce?
It's 4am though and I should probably sleep instead of trying to make sense.
>>75703820
>Fuck off with your theory, you impetuous cunt.
You mean computational theory?
You should consider suicide because you seem to have basic misunderstandings of:
1. Computers
2. Biology
3. The Universe
Go back to high school you fucking retard
>>75703327
>It has to happen over and over for evolution to occur
No it doesn't. Evolution only happens in living things. Living things self replicate. The replication isn't perfect. Some changes are good, most bad, some negligible, but always happening, "guided" by the environment. Eventually, stuff is going to pile up.
>At a certain point, low odds means basically impossible
The chances of you being you, with your exact genetic makeup, experiences and expressions, are far beyond what is actually considered possible. However, this assumes that "you" start from scratch every time something happens, as if every roll of the dice is independent of every other. When it isn't.
>>75703739
I don't understand what you mean by 'greater'-universe.
>>75703057
>>And the assumption that the universe has around 10^100 dice throws is false.
>Yeah, it has even more each second.
No, it has far, far less. Please try to keep up with the thread.
>>75703210
I don't think you meant to respond to me. I'm the guy arguing that life cannot be random in this universe.
>>75703537
Please keep up with the thread: >>75697462
>>75698361
>>75704045
The universe as understood as a process of creation and destruction triggered by events beyond space and time.
>>75703820
>genetic proofs of one creature becoming another over an unbreakable chain of one species evolving into its successor mutation
We have *seen* evolution of these:
http://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-observe-wasps-evolving-into-new-species-1446229404
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
And shitload of others.
>>75704190
Inb4 "that's not proof"
>>75703820
We cant just toss away evolution along with athiesm but i see you were making a point.
Athiests cant comprehend there is no devide between science and creation
>>75704137
If that definition asserts that the creation of the universe was originally due to a force outside space and time (call it God, the uncaused cause, whatever) then I suppose so.
