On 12/03/2024 2:08 am, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <oywHN.113452$GX69.29299@fx46.iad>, webspermeater@polaris.net
> says...
>>
>> On 3/10/2024 6:37 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>
>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be synthesised into
>>> complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial life, with modest input
>>> energy like ultraviolet light or electric discharges.
>>>
>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic creation and
>>> longetivity.
>>>
>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an example of
>>> replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>>
>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to most of the
>>> molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance and organic chemistry
>>> without needing a god. It's rational for a person to conclude we will be able to
>>> explain everything without a god.
>>>
>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved.
>>
>> That's fucking stupid. We *never* talk about "evidence" to support a negative;
>> there's no such thing. We talk about evidence to support a positive, or *lack*
>> of evidence to support a positive. This is nonsense: "there is no evidence to
>> support a belief that 'god' didn't create the universe." It's not just nonsense,
>> it's bullshit.
>
> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come from?

just saying 'god' is not the answer. Where did god come from?

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024, Dawn Flood wrote:

> On 3/11/2024 8:10 AM, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Whisper wrote on 11/3/24 8:02 pm:
>>> On 11/03/2024 7:27 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>> Siri Cruise wrote on 11/3/24 12:37 pm:
>>>>>
>>>>> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or
>>>>> disbelieve.
>>>>>
>>>> In 2007, Prof Brian Cox
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_%28physicist%29 was in Australia
>>>> for the Total Solar Eclipse and, whilst he was here, he
>>>> did a Lecture Tour.
>>>>
>>>> At the end of the Melbourne lecture there was a 'Q and A' session
>>>> and one of the Questions was along the lines of 'What was there
>>>> BEFORE The Big Bang?' and his reply was along the lines of one of
>>>> the, then, current Theories was that there had previously existed
>>>> Universes in other Dimensions and two if Those 'Other' Dimensions
>>>> Universes had bumped into each other (i.e, The Big Bang) and some
>>>> of the Matter from those two Dimensions had leaked through into
>>>> what became OUR Dimension to form OUR Universe.
>>>>
>>>> Logically, if you take that theorm back two, three, fifty,
>>>> whatever, iterations, you MUST get to the point where some Creator
>>>> made the first iteration of whatever there was!!
>>>
>>> But then someone would have had to make the creator right?
>>
>> Owwww! I'll have to think about that for a while. ;-P
>>
>>> If you're going to say something along the lines 'god created
>>> himself' or 'was always there' then it's you essentially you saying
>>> 'I give up lol' : )
>>
>> I'll accept that.
>>
>>> My personal view is if there is a god remotely resembling what our
>>> religions teach us then there would be no need for galaxies etc.  He
>>>  would just create a flat earth and put people on it to judge/test
>>> their morals etc.
>>
>> Ah!! But would there be an Elephant in each cornet, holding it up??
>>
>>> I also believe the answers to these questions are beyond human
>>> comprehension so we shouldn't beat our selves up over it.
>>
>> Yeap .... but, if you've got nothing better to do ..........!
>>
>>> It would be like expecting an ant to comprehend sql.
>>
>> A Very Smart Ant, maybe .... like Antman! ;-P
>
> Read Professor Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"; if God exists, then God
> must be complex, certainly, more complex than any Big Bang singularity. Do
> "something from nothing" models exist for our Universe? Yes, they do, right
> here:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tryon
>
> Here's his paper (behind a pay wall):
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/246396a0
>
> Or, you can sign-up & then cancel here, or, just watch an ad:
>
> https://www.scribd.com/document/529131369/Edward-Tryon-P-is-the-Universe-a-Vacuum-Fluctuation
>
> Do planets move because there are angelic beings pushing them? Well, maybe,
> but by the Law of Parsimony, it is not necessary to believe in such entities,
> of which there are an infinite number.
>
> Ditto for God.
>
> Dawn
>

Thank you very much for the links Dawn, very interesting.

On 12 Mar 2024, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> posted some
news:65f01909$1@news.ausics.net:

> On 12/03/2024 2:08 am, Skeeter wrote:
>> In article <oywHN.113452$GX69.29299@fx46.iad>,
>> webspermeater@polaris.net says...
>>>
>>> On 3/10/2024 6:37 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair
>>>>>>>> tale.
>>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>>
>>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
>>>> synthesised into complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial
>>>> life, with modest input energy like ultraviolet light or electric
>>>> discharges.
>>>>
>>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
>>>> creation and longetivity.
>>>>
>>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>>>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
>>>> example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>>>
>>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to
>>>> most of the molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on
>>>> chance and organic chemistry without needing a god. It's rational
>>>> for a person to conclude we will be able to explain everything
>>>> without a god.
>>>>
>>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved.
>>>
>>> That's fucking stupid. We *never* talk about "evidence" to support a
>>> negative; there's no such thing. We talk about evidence to support a
>>> positive, or *lack* of evidence to support a positive. This is
>>> nonsense: "there is no evidence to support a belief that 'god'
>>> didn't create the universe." It's not just nonsense, it's bullshit.
>>
>> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come from?
>
>
> just saying 'god' is not the answer. Where did god come from?

All of creation points to a Creator. God is the creator.

Nothing created God. Nothing had to. If something always existed (eternal)
then nothing can create it.

When God created the Universe, he also created time. Time needs space and
matter to exist, and neither existed until God created them. �Before
creation� technically is a misnomer because God exists in eternity and
isn�t bound by the constraints of a timeline. Time didn�t exist until God
declared it to exist.

On 12/03/2024 8:16 pm, G. Ress wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2024, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> posted some
> news:65f01909$1@news.ausics.net:
>
>> On 12/03/2024 2:08 am, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <oywHN.113452$GX69.29299@fx46.iad>,
>>> webspermeater@polaris.net says...
>>>>
>>>> On 3/10/2024 6:37 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair
>>>>>>>>> tale.
>>>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
>>>>> synthesised into complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial
>>>>> life, with modest input energy like ultraviolet light or electric
>>>>> discharges.
>>>>>
>>>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
>>>>> creation and longetivity.
>>>>>
>>>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>>>>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
>>>>> example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>>>>
>>>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to
>>>>> most of the molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on
>>>>> chance and organic chemistry without needing a god. It's rational
>>>>> for a person to conclude we will be able to explain everything
>>>>> without a god.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved.
>>>>
>>>> That's fucking stupid. We *never* talk about "evidence" to support a
>>>> negative; there's no such thing. We talk about evidence to support a
>>>> positive, or *lack* of evidence to support a positive. This is
>>>> nonsense: "there is no evidence to support a belief that 'god'
>>>> didn't create the universe." It's not just nonsense, it's bullshit.
>>>
>>> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come from?
>>
>>
>> just saying 'god' is not the answer. Where did god come from?
>
> All of creation points to a Creator. God is the creator.
>
> Nothing created God. Nothing had to. If something always existed (eternal)
> then nothing can create it.
>
> When God created the Universe, he also created time. Time needs space and
> matter to exist, and neither existed until God created them. “Before
> creation” technically is a misnomer because God exists in eternity and
> isn’t bound by the constraints of a timeline. Time didn’t exist until God
> declared it to exist.

Just typing those words into a keyboard doesn't make it fact. It sounds
silly when you really think about it. I can type absolutely any idea
into a keyboard, that doesn't count as evidence. Why would it? Why
would god exist for trillions of years then decide to create humans?
Completely pointless exercise.

Le 2024-03-12 à 05:16, G. Ress a écrit :

> All of creation points to a Creator. God is the creator.
No, it don't.
>
> Nothing created God. Nothing had to. If something always existed (eternal)
> then nothing can create it.
That reeks of the Special Pleading fallacy.
>
> When God created the Universe, he also created time. Time needs space and
> matter to exist, and neither existed until God created them. “Before
> creation” technically is a misnomer because God exists in eternity and
> isn’t bound by the constraints of a timeline. Time didn’t exist until God
> declared it to exist.
And, a second special pleading.
There is NO need for a god. Then, IF a god do exist, what make you think
that it MUST be your version on that particular god ?

Le 2024-03-11 à 18:08, Skeeter a écrit :

>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>
>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>
>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>
>> Nobody. Do you not understand the definition of the word "random"?
>>
> They had to come from somewhere.
>
>
The Universe started as a state of extreme energy density.
After a moment, that energy crystallized into mater : Hydrogen and helium.
Then, the first stars formed, fused those into heavier elements and
exploded into massive supernovas. That cycle repeat itself several
1000's of times.
Eventually, the Sun and the Earth formed out of clouds enriched in heavy
element.
Thru natural processes, molecules formed. Some of them happened to be
aminoacids.
Then, those participated in some self catalyzed reactions. Those
eventually led to the emergence of very primitive life.
From then onward, evolution blindly selected whatever worked better and
discarded whatever didn't work as well.

100% natural processes. Blind, goal less, purposeless, unguided, natural
processes.

In article <3hPHN.86297$zF_1.69550@fx18.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 3/11/2024 3:08 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>
> > In article <cauuuit0l4odb2eobnse9mj2snusbsbpc8@4ax.com>,
> > governor.swill@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:19:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Brady <jbrady@amazon.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote in
> >>> news:pM4HN.167482$JLvf.50567@fx44.iad:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/9/2024 1:11 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
> >>>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <XK3HN.59087$zF_1.34615@fx18.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> By Mark Johnson
> >>>>>> March 9, 2024 at 8:00 a.m. EST
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A much-debated theory holds that 4 billion years ago, give or take,
> >>>>>> long before the appearance of dinosaurs or even bacteria, the
> >>>>>> primordial soup contained only the possibility of life. Then a
> >>>>>> molecule called RNA took a dramatic step into the future: It made a
> >>>>>> copy of itself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then the copy made a copy, and over the course of many millions of
> >>>>>> years, RNA begot DNA and proteins, all of which came together to
> >>>>>> form a cell, the smallest unit of life able to survive on its own.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory,
> >>>>>> scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla,
> >>>>>> Calif., have carried out a small but essential part of the story. In
> >>>>>> test tubes, they developed an RNA molecule that was able to make
> >>>>>> accurate copies of a different type of RNA.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National
> >>>>>> Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing
> >>>>>> an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ?Then it would be alive,? said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and
> >>>>>> one of the authors of the new paper. ?So, this is the road to how
> >>>>>> life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the
> >>>>>> universe.?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-
> >>>>>> world/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
> >>>>
> >>>> Random mixing of molecules.
> >>>
> >>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
> >>
> >> Nobody. Do you not understand the definition of the word "random"?
> >>
> > They had to come from somewhere.
>
> No, fuckwit, they didn't. They didn't "come from" anywhere. They just were, and are.

Entropy proves you are wrong. You cant prove you're right.

On 3/12/2024 11:06 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <3hPHN.86297$zF_1.69550@fx18.iad>,
> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>
>> On 3/11/2024 3:08 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>
>>> In article <cauuuit0l4odb2eobnse9mj2snusbsbpc8@4ax.com>,
>>> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:19:56 -0000 (UTC), "No Man" Nescio lied:

>>>>
>>>>> Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote in
>>>>> news:pM4HN.167482$JLvf.50567@fx44.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 1:11 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <XK3HN.59087$zF_1.34615@fx18.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By Mark Johnson
>>>>>>>> March 9, 2024 at 8:00 a.m. EST
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A much-debated theory holds that 4 billion years ago, give or take,
>>>>>>>> long before the appearance of dinosaurs or even bacteria, the
>>>>>>>> primordial soup contained only the possibility of life. Then a
>>>>>>>> molecule called RNA took a dramatic step into the future: It made a
>>>>>>>> copy of itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then the copy made a copy, and over the course of many millions of
>>>>>>>> years, RNA begot DNA and proteins, all of which came together to
>>>>>>>> form a cell, the smallest unit of life able to survive on its own.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory,
>>>>>>>> scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla,
>>>>>>>> Calif., have carried out a small but essential part of the story. In
>>>>>>>> test tubes, they developed an RNA molecule that was able to make
>>>>>>>> accurate copies of a different type of RNA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National
>>>>>>>> Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing
>>>>>>>> an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ?Then it would be alive,? said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and
>>>>>>>> one of the authors of the new paper. ?So, this is the road to how
>>>>>>>> life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the
>>>>>>>> universe.?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-
>>>>>>>> world/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>>
>>>> Nobody. Do you not understand the definition of the word "random"?
>>>>
>>> They had to come from somewhere.
>>
>> No, fuckwit, they didn't. They didn't "come from" anywhere. They just were, and are.
>
> Entropy proves you are wrong.

No, it doesn't. Entropy is about energy, not matter.

You're stupid. You don't know a fucking thing about physics.

Whisper wrote:
> On 12/03/2024 2:08 am, Skeeter wrote:
>> In article <oywHN.113452$GX69.29299@fx46.iad>,
>> webspermeater@polaris.net
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 3/10/2024 6:37 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair
>>>>>>>> tale.
>>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>>
>>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
>>>> synthesised into
>>>> complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial life, with
>>>> modest input
>>>> energy like ultraviolet light or electric discharges.
>>>>
>>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted
>>>> abiotic creation and
>>>> longetivity.
>>>>
>>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>>>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is
>>>> about, an example of
>>>> replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>>>
>>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost
>>>> to most of the
>>>> molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance and
>>>> organic chemistry
>>>> without needing a god. It's rational for a person to conclude
>>>> we will be able to
>>>> explain everything without a god.
>>>>
>>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved.
>>>
>>> That's fucking stupid. We *never* talk about "evidence" to
>>> support a negative;
>>> there's no such thing. We talk about evidence to support a
>>> positive, or *lack*
>>> of evidence to support a positive. This is nonsense: "there is
>>> no evidence to
>>> support a belief that 'god' didn't create the universe." It's
>>> not just nonsense,
>>> it's bullshit.
>>
>> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come from?
>
>
> just saying 'god' is not the answer.  Where did god come from?

Where did human intelligence come from?

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

Whisper wrote:
> Just typing those words into a keyboard doesn't make it fact.  It

And just typing those words doesn't make it false.

> sounds silly when you really think about it. I can type absolutely
> any idea into a keyboard, that doesn't

'Silly' is your personal aesthetics. Others have other aesthetics.
What makes yours superior?

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

Kualinar wrote:
> Le 2024-03-12 à 05:16, G. Ress a écrit :
>
>> All of creation points to a Creator.  God is the creator.
> No, it don't.
>>
>> Nothing created God. Nothing had to. If something always existed
>> (eternal)
>> then nothing can create it.
> That reeks of the Special Pleading fallacy.
>>
>> When God created the Universe, he also created time. Time needs
>> space and
>> matter to exist, and neither existed until God created them.
>> “Before
>> creation” technically is a misnomer because God exists in
>> eternity and
>> isn’t bound by the constraints of a timeline. Time didn’t exist
>> until God
>> declared it to exist.
> And, a second special pleading.
> There is NO need for a god. Then, IF a god do exist, what make you
> think that it MUST be your version on that particular god ?

No need. So everyone gets to make their own decision for their
particular god.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

Le 2024-03-12 à 15:11, Siri Cruise a écrit :
> Whisper wrote:
>> On 12/03/2024 2:08 am, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <oywHN.113452$GX69.29299@fx46.iad>, webspermeater@polaris.net
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 3/10/2024 6:37 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
>>>>> synthesised into
>>>>> complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial life, with
>>>>> modest input
>>>>> energy like ultraviolet light or electric discharges.
>>>>>
>>>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
>>>>> creation and
>>>>> longetivity.
>>>>>
>>>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>>>>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
>>>>> example of
>>>>> replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>>>>
>>>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to
>>>>> most of the
>>>>> molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance and
>>>>> organic chemistry
>>>>> without needing a god. It's rational for a person to conclude we
>>>>> will be able to
>>>>> explain everything without a god.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved.
>>>>
>>>> That's fucking stupid. We *never* talk about "evidence" to support a
>>>> negative;
>>>> there's no such thing. We talk about evidence to support a positive,
>>>> or *lack*
>>>> of evidence to support a positive. This is nonsense: "there is no
>>>> evidence to
>>>> support a belief that 'god' didn't create the universe." It's not
>>>> just nonsense,
>>>> it's bullshit.
>>>
>>> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come from?
>>
>>
>> just saying 'god' is not the answer.  Where did god come from?
>
> Where did human intelligence come from?
>
An emerging property if a complex brain.

In article <usqf5b$g9dd$1@dont-email.me>, kuakinar@videotron.ca says...
>
> Le 2024-03-12 à 15:11, Siri Cruise a écrit :
> > Whisper wrote:
> >> On 12/03/2024 2:08 am, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> In article <oywHN.113452$GX69.29299@fx46.iad>, webspermeater@polaris.net
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/10/2024 6:37 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> >>>>> Jon Brady wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
> >>>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
> >>>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
> >>>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
> >>>>> synthesised into
> >>>>> complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial life, with
> >>>>> modest input
> >>>>> energy like ultraviolet light or electric discharges.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
> >>>>> creation and
> >>>>> longetivity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
> >>>>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
> >>>>> example of
> >>>>> replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to
> >>>>> most of the
> >>>>> molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance and
> >>>>> organic chemistry
> >>>>> without needing a god. It's rational for a person to conclude we
> >>>>> will be able to
> >>>>> explain everything without a god.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's fucking stupid. We *never* talk about "evidence" to support a
> >>>> negative;
> >>>> there's no such thing. We talk about evidence to support a positive,
> >>>> or *lack*
> >>>> of evidence to support a positive. This is nonsense: "there is no
> >>>> evidence to
> >>>> support a belief that 'god' didn't create the universe." It's not
> >>>> just nonsense,
> >>>> it's bullshit.
> >>>
> >>> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come from?
> >>
> >>
> >> just saying 'god' is not the answer.  Where did god come from?
> >
> > Where did human intelligence come from?
> >
> An emerging property if a complex brain.

Where did the brain come from.

Kualinar wrote:
> Le 2024-03-12 à 15:11, Siri Cruise a écrit :
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2024 2:08 am, Skeeter wrote:
>>>> In article <oywHN.113452$GX69.29299@fx46.iad>,
>>>> webspermeater@polaris.net
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/10/2024 6:37 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish
>>>>>>>>>> fair tale.
>>>>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can
>>>>>> be synthesised into
>>>>>> complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial life,
>>>>>> with modest input
>>>>>> energy like ultraviolet light or electric discharges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted
>>>>>> abiotic creation and
>>>>>> longetivity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>>>>>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is
>>>>>> about, an example of
>>>>>> replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost
>>>>>> to most of the
>>>>>> molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance
>>>>>> and organic chemistry
>>>>>> without needing a god. It's rational for a person to
>>>>>> conclude we will be able to
>>>>>> explain everything without a god.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's fucking stupid. We *never* talk about "evidence" to
>>>>> support a negative;
>>>>> there's no such thing. We talk about evidence to support a
>>>>> positive, or *lack*
>>>>> of evidence to support a positive. This is nonsense: "there
>>>>> is no evidence to
>>>>> support a belief that 'god' didn't create the universe." It's
>>>>> not just nonsense,
>>>>> it's bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come from?
>>>
>>>
>>> just saying 'god' is not the answer.  Where did god come from?
>>
>> Where did human intelligence come from?
>>
> An emerging property if a complex brain.

God is an emergent property of a complex universe.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 3/12/2024 4:00 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024, Dawn Flood wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/2024 8:10 AM, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote on 11/3/24 8:02 pm:
>>>> On 11/03/2024 7:27 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>> Siri Cruise wrote on 11/3/24 12:37 pm:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or
>>>>>> disbelieve.
>>>>>>
>>>>> In 2007, Prof Brian Cox
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_%28physicist%29 was in
>>>>> Australia for the Total Solar Eclipse and, whilst he was here, he
>>>>> did a Lecture Tour.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the end of the Melbourne lecture there was a 'Q and A' session
>>>>> and one of the Questions was along the lines of 'What was there
>>>>> BEFORE The Big Bang?' and his reply was along the lines of one of
>>>>> the, then, current Theories was that there had previously existed
>>>>> Universes in other Dimensions and two if Those 'Other' Dimensions
>>>>> Universes had bumped into each other (i.e, The Big Bang) and some
>>>>> of the Matter from those two Dimensions had leaked through into
>>>>> what became OUR Dimension to form OUR Universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Logically, if you take that theorm back two, three, fifty,
>>>>> whatever, iterations, you MUST get to the point where some Creator
>>>>> made the first iteration of whatever there was!!
>>>>
>>>> But then someone would have had to make the creator right?
>>>
>>> Owwww! I'll have to think about that for a while. ;-P
>>>
>>>> If you're going to say something along the lines 'god created
>>>> himself' or 'was always there' then it's you essentially you saying
>>>> 'I give up lol' : )
>>>
>>> I'll accept that.
>>>
>>>> My personal view is if there is a god remotely resembling what our
>>>> religions teach us then there would be no need for galaxies etc.  He
>>>>  would just create a flat earth and put people on it to judge/test
>>>> their morals etc.
>>>
>>> Ah!! But would there be an Elephant in each cornet, holding it up??
>>>
>>>> I also believe the answers to these questions are beyond human
>>>> comprehension so we shouldn't beat our selves up over it.
>>>
>>> Yeap .... but, if you've got nothing better to do ..........!
>>>
>>>> It would be like expecting an ant to comprehend sql.
>>>
>>> A Very Smart Ant, maybe .... like Antman! ;-P
>>
>> Read Professor Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"; if God exists,
>> then God must be complex, certainly, more complex than any Big Bang
>> singularity.  Do "something from nothing" models exist for our
>> Universe?  Yes, they do, right here:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tryon
>>
>> Here's his paper (behind a pay wall):
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/246396a0
>>
>> Or, you can sign-up & then cancel here, or, just watch an ad:
>>
>> https://www.scribd.com/document/529131369/Edward-Tryon-P-is-the-Universe-a-Vacuum-Fluctuation
>>
>> Do planets move because there are angelic beings pushing them?  Well,
>> maybe, but by the Law of Parsimony, it is not necessary to believe in
>> such entities, of which there are an infinite number.
>>
>> Ditto for God.
>>
>> Dawn
>>
>
> Thank you very much for the links Dawn, very interesting.

You are so very welcome!

Dawn

On 3/12/2024 1:51 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>
>>> Either a god added itself or no god. Your aesthetics are irrelevant.
>>> Reality is what reality is, and we're whistling past the graveyard
>>> with all our theories and philosophies. Belief and disbelief are
>>> equally rational.
>>>
>>
>> Problem is that there are an infinite number of "beliefs" but really
>> only one "disbelief".  As the "beliefs" contradict each
>
> Oh. twaddle. You're doing that tired old bit demanding all religion be
> the same. You're imposing your aesthetics and hidden assumptions on
> reality.
>
>> other, at least in some respects, they cannot all be true; how to
>
> I admire constructive math. That has a more nuanced view of 'true' then
> you're capable of understanding. Or just indexing nondenumerable vector
> spaces.
>
>> choose?  On the other hand, "disbelief" is at least falsifiable,
>
> Read Curry's textbook on logic, and you'll realise how controversial the
> 'Exclude Middle' is.
>
>> which makes it more rational than all the others, because "disbelief"
>> opens itself up to being proved wrong.
>
> You got the axioms of your system of 'rational disbelief'?
>

Sure, talk down to me. Mathematical systems, at least as understood by
mathematicians, are consistent; here's an informative & entertaining
example:

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

The same mathematician giving a parody:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsOXvQn3JuE

Now, I don't expect you to watch both of those but I encourage others to
do so; some things in mathematics & science are counter-intuitive.

In any case, atheism is well-respected in the Academy. Most
philosophers are atheistic:

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

As are most esteemed scientists:

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478

And, so, atheism is an acceptable philosophical conclusion among scholars.

As for religious faith, I don't care; if others want to believe, that's
their choice & they can devote whatever resources they want to their
endeavor, as long as they do not interfere in the lives of other human
beings and/or the private choices that they make for themselves.

Dawn

On 3/12/2024 1:41 AM, Richard Trickle wrote:
> In <usokiq$3g7l$2@dont-email.me> Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/11/2024 4:58 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>> Le 2024-03-10 à 21:37, Siri Cruise a écrit :
>>>>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair
> tale.
>>>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
>>>>> synthesised into complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial
>>>>> life, with modest input energy like ultraviolet light or electric
>>>>> discharges.
>>>>>
>>>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
>>>>> creation and longetivity.
>>>>>
>>>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>>>>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
>>>>> example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>>>>
>>>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to
> most
>>>>> of the molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance
> and
>>>>> organic chemistry without needing a god. It's rational for a person
>>>>> to conclude we will be able to explain everything without a god.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved. It remains that it is
> as
>>>>> rational to believe in a creator god as to disbelieve.
>>>>>
>>>>> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or
> disbelieve.
>>>>>
>>>> Adding a god does nothing but add complexity to the problem and
> don't
>>>> solve anything.
>>>
>>> Either a god added itself or no god. Your aesthetics are irrelevant.
>>> Reality is what reality is, and we're whistling past the graveyard
> with
>>> all our theories and philosophies. Belief and disbelief are equally
>>> rational.
>>>
>>
>> Problem is that there are an infinite number of "beliefs" but really
>> only one "disbelief". As the "beliefs" contradict each other, at
> least
>> in some respects, they cannot all be true; how to choose? On the
> other
>> hand, "disbelief" is at least falsifiable, which makes it more
> rational
>> than all the others, because "disbelief" opens itself up to being
> proved
>> wrong.
>
> or right as facts present themselves.

Sure, let God, if He exists, instantaneously and fully heal an adult
amputee, and then let's talk.

Dawn

Dawn Flood wrote:

>> You got the axioms of your system of 'rational disbelief'?
>>
>
> Sure, talk down to me.  Mathematical systems, at least as
> understood by mathematicians, are consistent; here's an
> informative & entertaining example:

What? If you talk down to christians, don't whine when your
limitations are explored.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINfzxSnnIE
>
> The same mathematician giving a parody:

vihart does comedy. She's parodying people like you.

> Now, I don't expect you to watch both of those but I encourage
> others to do so; some things in mathematics & science are
> counter-intuitive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mdEsouIXGM

> In any case, atheism is well-respected in the Academy.  Most
> philosophers are atheistic:

Philosophy is academic masturbation. Do it if you enjoy it, but
don't expect me to stick around.
>
> https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

> As are most esteemed scientists:

Okay. Biologists aren't esteemed. No skin off my phylum.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
>
> And, so, atheism is an acceptable philosophical conclusion among
> scholars.
>
> As for religious faith, I don't care; if others want to believe,
> that's their choice & they can devote whatever resources they want
> to their endeavor, as long as they do not interfere in the lives
> of other human beings and/or the private choices that they make
> for themselves.

You're fine with them as long as no one points out they might be
more rational or intelligent than you.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

In article <DX0IN.563771$xHn7.524220@fx14.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 3/12/2024 11:06 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>
> > In article <3hPHN.86297$zF_1.69550@fx18.iad>,
> > mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
> >>
> >> On 3/11/2024 3:08 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
> >>
> >>> In article <cauuuit0l4odb2eobnse9mj2snusbsbpc8@4ax.com>,
> >>> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:19:56 -0000 (UTC), "No Man" Nescio lied:
>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote in
> >>>>> news:pM4HN.167482$JLvf.50567@fx44.iad:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/9/2024 1:11 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article <XK3HN.59087$zF_1.34615@fx18.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
> >>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> By Mark Johnson
> >>>>>>>> March 9, 2024 at 8:00 a.m. EST
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A much-debated theory holds that 4 billion years ago, give or take,
> >>>>>>>> long before the appearance of dinosaurs or even bacteria, the
> >>>>>>>> primordial soup contained only the possibility of life. Then a
> >>>>>>>> molecule called RNA took a dramatic step into the future: It made a
> >>>>>>>> copy of itself.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Then the copy made a copy, and over the course of many millions of
> >>>>>>>> years, RNA begot DNA and proteins, all of which came together to
> >>>>>>>> form a cell, the smallest unit of life able to survive on its own.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory,
> >>>>>>>> scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla,
> >>>>>>>> Calif., have carried out a small but essential part of the story. In
> >>>>>>>> test tubes, they developed an RNA molecule that was able to make
> >>>>>>>> accurate copies of a different type of RNA.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National
> >>>>>>>> Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing
> >>>>>>>> an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ?Then it would be alive,? said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and
> >>>>>>>> one of the authors of the new paper. ?So, this is the road to how
> >>>>>>>> life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the
> >>>>>>>> universe.?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-
> >>>>>>>> world/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
> >>>>
> >>>> Nobody. Do you not understand the definition of the word "random"?
> >>>>
> >>> They had to come from somewhere.
> >>
> >> No, fuckwit, they didn't. They didn't "come from" anywhere. They just were, and are.
> >
> > Entropy proves you are wrong.
>
> No, it doesn't. Entropy is about energy, not matter.
>
> You're stupid. You don't know a fucking thing about physics.

Matter is energy, you know nothing of why absolute zero can never be
achieved.

In article <uspp89$b44f$1@dont-email.me>, kuakinar@videotron.ca says...
>
> Le 2024-03-11 à 18:08, Skeeter a écrit :
>
> >>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
> >>>>
> >>>> Random mixing of molecules.
> >>>
> >>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
> >>
> >> Nobody. Do you not understand the definition of the word "random"?
> >>
> > They had to come from somewhere.
> >
> >
> The Universe started as a state of extreme energy density.
> After a moment, that energy crystallized into mater : Hydrogen and helium.
> Then, the first stars formed, fused those into heavier elements and
> exploded into massive supernovas. That cycle repeat itself several
> 1000's of times.
> Eventually, the Sun and the Earth formed out of clouds enriched in heavy
> element.
> Thru natural processes, molecules formed. Some of them happened to be
> aminoacids.
> Then, those participated in some self catalyzed reactions. Those
> eventually led to the emergence of very primitive life.
> From then onward, evolution blindly selected whatever worked better and
> discarded whatever didn't work as well.
>
> 100% natural processes. Blind, goal less, purposeless, unguided, natural
> processes.

So you were there?

On 3/12/2024 7:06 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Dawn Flood wrote:
>
>>> You got the axioms of your system of 'rational disbelief'?
>>>
>>
>> Sure, talk down to me.  Mathematical systems, at least as understood
>> by mathematicians, are consistent; here's an informative &
>> entertaining example:
>
> What? If you talk down to christians, don't whine when your limitations
> are explored.

Christianity is hardly monolithic, either across space or across time.
When I say that I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a crazy Jewish
apocalyptic preacher, I am just offering my historical opinion; I am not
"talking down" to anyone.

>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINfzxSnnIE
>>
>> The same mathematician giving a parody:
>
> vihart does comedy. She's parodying people like you.

I don't know her exact credentials, but it is clear that she has at
least done graduate work in mathematics. Did you even watch both (or
either) of her videos?

>
>> Now, I don't expect you to watch both of those but I encourage others
>> to do so; some things in mathematics & science are counter-intuitive.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mdEsouIXGM
>
>> In any case, atheism is well-respected in the Academy.  Most
>> philosophers are atheistic:
>
> Philosophy is academic masturbation. Do it if you enjoy it, but don't
> expect me to stick around.

Have you read anything by Professor Daniel Dennett? I read his
"Breaking the Spell" book, which I found to be very insightful.

>>
>> https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
>
>> As are most esteemed scientists:
>
> Okay. Biologists aren't esteemed. No skin off my phylum.

Charles Darwin was not esteemed?? Biologists are not the only atheistic
group. I have read that most mathematicians are atheistic, also.

>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
>>
>> And, so, atheism is an acceptable philosophical conclusion among
>> scholars.
>>
>> As for religious faith, I don't care; if others want to believe,
>> that's their choice & they can devote whatever resources they want to
>> their endeavor, as long as they do not interfere in the lives of other
>> human beings and/or the private choices that they make for themselves.
>
> You're fine with them as long as no one points out they might be more
> rational or intelligent than you.
>

Have I ever claimed that I am "right", that is, that there is no God??
What does being rational or intelligent have to do with God existing (or
not)?

Dawn

Dawn Flood wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 7:06 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>
>>>> You got the axioms of your system of 'rational disbelief'?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, talk down to me.  Mathematical systems, at least as
>>> understood by mathematicians, are consistent; here's an
>>> informative & entertaining example:
>>
>> What? If you talk down to christians, don't whine when your
>> limitations are explored.
>
> Christianity is hardly monolithic, either across space or across
> time. When I say that I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a crazy
> Jewish apocalyptic preacher, I am just offering my historical
> opinion; I am not "talking down" to anyone.

Dawn Flood wrote:
> choose? On the other hand, "disbelief" is at least
> falsifiable, which makes it more rational than all the others,
> because "disbelief" opens itself up to being proved wrong.

Are you claiming 'disbelief' is more rational than the hoi polloi
or no?

>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINfzxSnnIE
>>>
>>> The same mathematician giving a parody:
>>
>> vihart does comedy. She's parodying people like you.
>
> I don't know her exact credentials, but it is clear that she has
> at least done graduate work in mathematics.  Did you even watch
> both (or either) of her videos?

I've watched many of them. Read up on her hexiflexagons.

I don't blame her for not doing second order finite differences;
even I am not that good with finite calculus. I've wonderred how
it can be adapted to rationals. A finite calculus over rationals
bypasses the whole question of continuum assumed by general
relativity. I've wonderred if the reliance on continuous calculus
is what stands in the way of GUT.

Oh, dear. I don't suppose you tried to use my presumed ignorance
of Miss vihart to speak down to me?

I thought she did some videos on noneuclidean spaces, but that
might be someone else.

Oh there it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsE2UKkIKXU

This what I was thinking of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztsi0CLxmjw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNHdQHnCdN0

>>> As are most esteemed scientists:
>>
>> Okay. Biologists aren't esteemed. No skin off my phylum.
>
> Charles Darwin was not esteemed??  Biologists are not the only
> atheistic group.  I have read that most mathematicians are
> atheistic, also.

Because biologists are nonesteemable, a few can hide their
christian tendencies.

> Have I ever claimed that I am "right", that is, that there is no
> God?? What does being rational or intelligent have to do with God
> existing (or not)?

Speaking of biologists, do you remember how atheists demanded
Frances Collins be removed from the Human Genome Project when they
found out he was a christian? I think it's great how much more
tolerant atheists are than those witch burning christians.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 13/03/2024 6:11 am, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> On 12/03/2024 2:08 am, Skeeter wrote:
>>>
>>> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come from?
>>
>>
>> just saying 'god' is not the answer.  Where did god come from?
>
> Where did human intelligence come from?
>

From humans. We defined 'intelligence' based on our perceptions of the
universe around us. If the sun exploded there goes human intelligence,
as if we never existed. Universe carries on like nothing happened.

Dawn Flood wrote on 13/3/24 10:21 am:
> On 3/12/2024 1:41 AM, Richard Trickle wrote:
>> In <usokiq$3g7l$2@dont-email.me> Dawn Flood
>> <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2024 4:58 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>>> Le 2024-03-10 à 21:37, Siri Cruise a écrit :
>>>>>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a
>>>>>>>>>> childish fair tale.
>>>>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules
>>>>>> can be synthesised into complex molecules, some significant
>>>>>> to terrestrial life, with modest input energy like
>>>>>> ultraviolet light or electric discharges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted
>>>>>> abiotic creation and longetivity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins. RNA
>>>>>> replication without proteins? That's what the news is
>>>>>> about, an example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping
>>>>>> proteins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth
>>>>>> almost to most of the molecules of inefficient but possible
>>>>>> life. Best on chance and organic chemistry without needing
>>>>>> a god. It's rational for a person to conclude we will be
>>>>>> able to explain everything without a god.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved. It remains
>>>>>> that it is as rational to believe in a creator god as to
>>>>>> disbelieve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or
>>>>>> disbelieve.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Adding a god does nothing but add complexity to the problem
>>>>> and don't solve anything.
>>>>
>>>> Either a god added itself or no god. Your aesthetics are
>>>> irrelevant. Reality is what reality is, and we're whistling
>>>> past the graveyard with all our theories and philosophies.
>>>> Belief and disbelief are equally rational.
>>>
>>> Problem is that there are an infinite number of "beliefs" but
>>> really only one "disbelief". As the "beliefs" contradict each
>>> other, at least in some respects, they cannot all be true; how to
>>> choose? On the other hand, "disbelief" is at least falsifiable,
>>> which makes it more rational than all the others, because
>>> "disbelief" opens itself up to being proved wrong.
>>
>> or right as facts present themselves.
>
> Sure, let God, if He exists, instantaneously and fully heal an adult
> amputee, and then let's talk.

Being a Right Arm Above Elbow amputee for almost 50 years I'd be
interested in this, too!! ;-P
--
Daniel

Le 2024-03-12 à 17:50, Skeeter a écrit :
> In article <usqf5b$g9dd$1@dont-email.me>, kuakinar@videotron.ca says...
>>
>> Le 2024-03-12 à 15:11, Siri Cruise a écrit :
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/2024 2:08 am, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <oywHN.113452$GX69.29299@fx46.iad>, webspermeater@polaris.net
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 6:37 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>>>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>>>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
>>>>>>> synthesised into
>>>>>>> complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial life, with
>>>>>>> modest input
>>>>>>> energy like ultraviolet light or electric discharges.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
>>>>>>> creation and
>>>>>>> longetivity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>>>>>>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
>>>>>>> example of
>>>>>>> replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to
>>>>>>> most of the
>>>>>>> molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance and
>>>>>>> organic chemistry
>>>>>>> without needing a god. It's rational for a person to conclude we
>>>>>>> will be able to
>>>>>>> explain everything without a god.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's fucking stupid. We *never* talk about "evidence" to support a
>>>>>> negative;
>>>>>> there's no such thing. We talk about evidence to support a positive,
>>>>>> or *lack*
>>>>>> of evidence to support a positive. This is nonsense: "there is no
>>>>>> evidence to
>>>>>> support a belief that 'god' didn't create the universe." It's not
>>>>>> just nonsense,
>>>>>> it's bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come from?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> just saying 'god' is not the answer.  Where did god come from?
>>>
>>> Where did human intelligence come from?
>>>
>> An emerging property if a complex brain.
>
> Where did the brain come from.
Evolution.