Less than 2 minutes

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yeah, well I had to cut down a tree in my yard and we chopped it all up and then thought better of it but we couldn't make a tree out of the scraps either.

Another example of weaponized pseudo-science. Gee, I ran over this dog and it was in pieces and I can't for the life of me make it alive again.

I wonder how many people fall for this scam?

You can easily fix this by planting the seed for a new tree or planting a tree and letting it grow making sure it gets plenty of water and light from the sun.

And to replace the dog, go to the dog pound and adopt another dog.

I am sure you have never fallen for a scam because you are way too smart for that, right?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You can easily fix this by planting the seed for a new tree or planting a tree and letting it grow making sure it gets plenty of water and light from the sun.

And to replace the dog, go to the dog pound and adopt another dog.

I am sure you have never fallen for a scam because you are way too smart for that, right?

In other words, that so-called scientist can just put in more good cells after he pokes the ones already there and therefore he will have a viable experiment.

Sure. And you think its not a scam.

But then again, you ARE an assshole.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Disproving Evolution, Abiogenesis, and Atheism in 81 Seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2NhTS1-QIc

This is only 1 minute and 21 seconds.

🙂

Originally posted by Suzianne
OK, the 'rational' card comes out. Anyone for 'sane'?




Mind you, I haven't even looked at it, but I get the gist of this post.

I'm sorry what is the gist of the post?

Originally posted by OdBod
I think you will find that the precursor for life is suggested to be self replicating molecules, not fully formed cells.

I believe his point was that if you have everything you need in one place that
does not mean you will get the results you want. I'm all for replicating
how life began in a sterile environment without human intervention, can you
tell me how it began and where we can see it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe his point was that if you have everything you need in one place that does not mean you will get the results you want.

And everybody here agrees with that claim. Where we disagree, is when he then claims that this fact somehow disproves evolution, abiogensis and atheism.

I'm all for replicating how life began in a sterile environment without human intervention, can you tell me how it began and where we can see it?
I'm all for replicating it too, but that doesn't mean I know how. But my lack of knowledge in that area does not disprove evolution, abiogenesis or atheism.
All your two minute video proves is that the creator of the video doesn't know how to life began, and is so desperate to disprove evolution, abiogenesis and atheism, that he is willing to talk nonsense for 2 minutes and put it on YouTube, thus embarrassing himself for life.

Originally posted by OdBod
I think you will find that the precursor for life is suggested to be self replicating molecules, not fully formed cells.

That seems stupid. I will only believe that when I see it.

Where's the beef?

YouTube

Originally posted by twhitehead
And everybody here agrees with that claim. Where we disagree, is when he then claims that this fact somehow disproves evolution, abiogensis and atheism.

[b]I'm all for replicating how life began in a sterile environment without human intervention, can you tell me how it began and where we can see it?
I'm all for replicating it too, but that doesn' ...[text shortened]... illing to talk nonsense for 2 minutes and put it on YouTube, thus embarrassing himself for life.[/b]

You don't know how but you just expect it to all come together by itself. Now that is really stupid. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't know how but you just expect it to all come together by itself. Now that is really stupid. 😏

When did I say I 'just expect it to all come together by itself'? I think you have got me confused with the guy in the YouTube video in the OP.

Originally posted by twhitehead
When did I say I 'just expect it to all come together by itself'? I think you have got me confused with the guy in the YouTube video in the OP.

You did not say it, but the implications are that you believe in evolution and abiogenesis.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm all for replicating
how life began in a sterile environment without human intervention, can you
tell me how it began and where we can see it?

No.

What is your point?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You did not say it, but the implications are that you believe in evolution and abiogenesis.

No, I did not imply any such thing. Pointing out that an argument is illogical doesn't automatically imply that you believe the thing that argument is trying to disprove is true. But more importantly, evolution and abiogenesis are not religions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I did not imply any such thing. Pointing out that an argument is illogical doesn't automatically imply that you believe the thing that argument is trying to disprove is true. But more importantly, evolution and abiogenesis are not religions.

Well, do you believe in the Law of Biogenesis?
It is an accepted fact by scientists that the Law of Biogenesis disproved the theory of spontaneous generation.

Do you believe in abiogenesis?
Why is abiogenesis any different from spontaneous generation?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, do you believe in the Law of Biogenesis?
It is an accepted fact by scientists that the Law of Biogenesis disproved the theory of spontaneous generation.

Do you believe in abiogenesis?
Why is abiogenesis any different from spontaneous generation?

Well, do you believe in the Law of Biogenesis?
It is an accepted fact by scientists that the Law of Biogenesis disproved the theory of
spontaneous generation.

You have been shown that this is wrong enough times that you know that this is not
true and this statement is thus a flat out lie. [you are also working in a straw man for
good measure]

Do you believe in abiogenesis?
Why is abiogenesis any different from spontaneous generation?

Spontaneous generation, life suddenly popping into existence, is what YOU believe in.
Your god magically poofing life into existence.

Abiogenesis is a process whereby organic chemistry leads to the formation of self
replicating molecules [of various kinds] which are then acted on by Evolution by
Natural selection to form better self replicating molecules which eventually lead
to living cells. This is a long process in which life slowly forms and there is no
magic point where you can say 'before this there was no life, and after this there was'.
It's a grey scale continuum with non-life at one end and life at the other and somewhere
in between it went from one to another, over millions of steps, over millions of years.
[probably].

There are numerous pathways from one side to the other and we don't and maybe cannot
know which was taken, it might be several.


Aron Ra explains the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.

YouTube


And then gives more details on abiogenesis.

YouTube

Originally posted by googlefudge

Well, do you believe in the Law of Biogenesis?
It is an accepted fact by scientists that the Law of Biogenesis disproved the theory of
spontaneous generation.

You have been shown that this is wrong enough times that you know that this is not
true and this statement is thus a flat out lie. [you are also working in a straw man for
...[text shortened]...


And then gives more details on abiogenesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdozVq81gog

Re-reading this I realise I need to clarify my post a bit, but I cannot edit it any more.

The first part of my answer is assuming [I believe reasonably] that RJHinds is operating
under the assumption that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same thing.
And thus his post reads as "the law of Biogenesis disproved abiogenesis" which is what
I responded to.

I apologise if that was not the case.

I point this out, not because I think I am wrong about this, but as I then went on to
define Spontaneous Generation to be different from Abiogenesis I find that I am guilty
of inconsistent word use in the post and thus needed to clarify.