diy solar

diy solar

America's melting pot

"He then returned and decided the best way to engage me was to call me stupid for believing in intelligent design"

Citation please.

Granted, people using the scientific method for answers don't always get things right, but overall the scientific method is good enough for you to be able to spout your absurdities here.

Providing you don't force the absurdities on others, or harm any one, please feel free to follow your religion, in the mean time keep your religious absurdities (intelligent design is an absurd hypothesis) out of science classes.

Saying that my beliefs and my interpretation of the data we have is absurd is akin to saying I am stupid.

You realize that you have yet to supply any "science" to explain how DNA, mRNA, amino acids, proteins, etc. just magically appeared out of nowhere, yet you call my belief absurd that all of those are so complex that they had to be designed. Please, explain the gigantic gap between humans and all of our animal brethren that we supposedly "evolved" with. Notice how the majority of animals possess roughly the same skill sets, abilities, etc.? Why is it that humans are completely off the scale? Our intelligence just magically showed up as a result of some "mutation" and then lots and lots of time. That sounds reasonable and testable?

I guess there are no mirrors in science land...
 
You claim that Wikipedia is unreliable doesn't address the fact that "Intelligent design is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science". There is simply no better way to formulate the concept and I have no problem using the exact same terms, even copy pasting it. I am not going to debate if Wikipedia is reliable or not, there are inaccuracies found in all encyclopedia's, including Wikipedia. A single fact wrong would be sufficient evidence to support the claim that Wikipedia is inaccurate. That claim of being inaccurate can be pointed at you as well, as you got the translation of the Voltaire quote wrong. Or your assertion that it is 'your "science"', it's isn't my science or any one's science, science is a method, or as Wikipedia puts it "Science is a strict systematic discipline that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the world." It is just one of the many feeble attempts to avoid the conversation that we should be having about the fact that there is simply no testable evidence for your claim that everything? is created.

I have no problem with your personal belief that everything is created, I have a problem with introducing your belief into science classes and since it is your personal belief, I don't think it is suitable for comparative religion classes either. It's just a "nice story bro".

As is usual with the "science" crowd, you take a statement out of context, try to steer the conversation down a rabbit hole and avoid again the simple question I keep asking all of the "science" people to answer.

I said: "Quoting a source as unreliable as Wikipedia can be, with a single sentence and not adding your own dialog, is lazy and adds nothing to the conversation being had."

I bolded and underlined what I said because details matter and words mean things. I have no issue with quoting sources - as long as there is context in the conversation behind the quote.

You also tried to discredit my quote from Voltaire, as if that somehow bolsters your spontaneous life argument. FWIW - here is the quote, translated to English:

 
so then I started looking at people my age with much bigger IQ's them me, but only found
an echo chamber in deGrasse Tyson


I'm still looking, still searching for unicorns. 🤪
 
so then I started looking at people my age with much bigger IQ's them me, but only found
an echo chamber in deGrasse Tyson


I'm still looking, still searching for unicorns. 🤪
I understand him completely. 😎 Doesn’t mean agree with him because he comes up with lot of stuff say No to. He pushed vaccines. Worship of science. He pushed climate change as if we can actually stop change it vs describing the actual natural process and best we could do was a 1 degree difference but….. I under stand him. Don’t agree
 
he meet carl Sagon when he was 17, I would trade a kidney for a opportunity like that.

I under stand him. Don’t agree
D71, my tribal instinct match his, what I like about him is he never criticizes the messenger
no matter how out there the message, we/I could learn something from that IMO

what I find lacking is I have not heard his hypothesis on the natural process for life getting started :unsure:
I would think cosmic forces(energy transfer/molecules shredded/atom smashed) would need to be involved, time alone
leaves me wanting/wondering/doubting

some of my doubts can be found in enhydro agates, if time was all that needed the life that got trapped in them
would have evolved, but they end up being just time capsules .

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: D71
Please, explain the gigantic gap between humans and all of our animal brethren that we supposedly "evolved" with.
B-ManFX4, my bad, this was not directed at me, but I feel I know the answer.
all other animals are content to be animals, modern man is never satisficed.
I would simplify it by calling it greed/glutting which when added to pattern
recognition/dot connecting, even when they only connect in our heads.
these issue effect even the lowest among us(me).

example:
say some knucklehead wants to shovel the snow from every driveway within a 3 block radius
of his house , and wants to do it from his home while drinking hot coffee and chatting on the net,
even the lowest among us could conjure up an image in our heads of a way to make it happen and
we would think nothing of ripping the resources(steel/iron/oil) out of the earth to make it happen.

greed/glutting which when added to pattern recognition/dot connecting, even when they only connect in our heads

IMG_5197.JPG IMG_5150.JPG IMG_5204.JPG
 
Saying that my beliefs and my interpretation of the data we have is absurd is akin to saying I am stupid.

You realize that you have yet to supply any "science" to explain how DNA, mRNA, amino acids, proteins, etc. just magically appeared out of nowhere, yet you call my belief absurd that all of those are so complex that they had to be designed. Please, explain the gigantic gap between humans and all of our animal brethren that we supposedly "evolved" with. Notice how the majority of animals possess roughly the same skill sets, abilities, etc.? Why is it that humans are completely off the scale? Our intelligence just magically showed up as a result of some "mutation" and then lots and lots of time. That sounds reasonable and testable?

I guess there are no mirrors in science land...
You are a liar, your forceful assertions of intelligent design are absurd, that is quite different from calling you an idiot. Furthermore, you injected the terms "absurd" into the conversation. I merely agreed that if you can make people believe in absurdities, they can commit atrocities and I used examples from the bible to support the case. Have you considered that maybe that by using the Voltaire quote, you intended to call some else an idiot? Maybe you should have a look in that mirror of yours...

It is not up to you to prove that Vogons are not intending to destroy the earth to make room for an intergalactic highway. Do you understand why that is? If so, why don't you seem to be able to grasp that it is not up to me to disprove intelligent design?
 
Last edited:
You are a liar, your forceful assertions of intelligent design are absurd, that is quite different from calling you an idiot. Furthermore, you injected the terms "absurd" into the conversation. I merely agreed that if you can make people believe in absurdities, they can commit atrocities and I used examples from the bible to support the case. Have you considered that maybe that by using the Voltaire quote, you intended to call some else an idiot? Maybe you should have a look in that mirror of yours...

It is not up to you to prove that Vogons are not intending to destroy the earth to make room for an intergalactic highway. Do you understand why that is? If so, why don't you seem to be able to grasp that it is not up to me to disprove intelligent design?

First off - I am not a liar. And I did not use the Voltaire quote to call anyone anything. If I intend to say something to someone, that is what I do. And as far as my "forceful assertions" are concerned, are you really going to suggest that having evolution taught as fact in public schools is a less "forceful assertion" than me conversing with people on the Internet in a forum? Grow up.

I have never asked you to disprove intelligent design - I asked you to prove your abiogenesis idea. Which apparently you can't. You have yet to interject a single idea on how any of the items I mention came to be by accident. You have yet to interject a single thought of your own - you simply parrot Internet horseshit as fact. You avoid even trying to offer up a single data point to support your position. Instead, you continually denigrate me and my thought process regarding intelligent design, all while offering exactly ZERO to support your own stance.

There's a reason it's incorrectly called "The Theory of Evolution" and not "The Law of Evolution". It isn't really a theory by definition (it is a hypothesis) but it has been taught as if it is a theory for so long it has become accepted, mostly because people are too lazy to think for themselves.

Perhaps you are more educated and informed than this list of scientists who have arrived at the conclusion that Darwinism is flat out wrong. I don't know. Note that many, many of these scientists (many of whom carry Ph.D. credentials in chemistry, molecular biology, geology, etc.) are not "religious" or "creationists" - they simply say that the overwhelming complexity of life as we now understand it, and the data gathered in the quest to understand how life "works", means everything could not have evolved from a single ancestor.


Isn't that what the scientific method is all about? Gather data, analyze it, draw hypothesis and test them, maybe roll onto creating a theory, etc.? When someone presents facts like how DNA works and you blindly believe it can be created by accident, you are not following the scientific method. You are simply defending what you have been taught because admitting you are wrong is too big a blow to your ego. That is the same problem with millions of scientists today. Believing DNA happened by accident is more far-fetched scientifically than believing chimpanzees will mine ores, create tools and then create a Rolex watch. How probable is the chimpanzee idea? Abiogenesis is billions of times less probable than that.

If you were to show Darwin himself the evidence of how complex the simplest of life forms is, and how complex the human body is in comparison, he would not have arrived at the same conclusions he did back in the 1850's. He was simply ignorant of the subject matter at hand because the tech did not exist to delve into the intricacies of life at the molecular level. You and I do not have that excuse - the data has been collected and published. You have to choose to remain ignorant. I refuse to do that.

If you can't support intelligent design, offer up something else that is plausible. Lightning bolts, mud puddles, comets and lots of time passing do not stand up to any scientific method reasoning for how amino acids, DNA, etc. were constructed. For anyone to assert that idea as being any type of "science" is silly with what we know about those life building blocks today.
 
There's a reason it's incorrectly called "The Theory of Evolution" and not "The Law of Evolution".
B-ManFX4, because the only records we have of things before modern man started craving
in stone or jotting notes on paper are fossil records, so I'm forced to use what information can
be gleamed from fossils. which does seem to support evolutionary development.


if I glance at reasoning examples in the animal/insect world


Ants are believed to have first appeared on Earth between 140 and 168 million years ago, during the Jurassic period.


It is estimated that the genera Homo and Pan diverged 5-6 million years ago, followed by a split in the genus Pan roughly 2.4 million years ago, eventually culminating into the chimpanzees and bonobos present today


Anatomically modern humans, or Homo sapiens, evolved in Africa around 200,000 years ago. Fossils show that modern human characteristics developed over time, with brains becoming modern by at least 100,000 years ago.

no video aid needed(mirror).


Believing DNA happened by accident is more far-fetched scientifically than believing chimpanzees will mine ores, create tools and then create a Rolex watch. How probable is the chimpanzee idea?
you may just be ahead of your time(one or two million years), the current top of the brain food chain(us) came from the primate group
there is no reason to doubt the next could also . :unsure:

It is now generally accepted that apes can learn to sign and are able to communicate with humans. are we training our
replacements :unsure: as life(brain) learns new information it forms new pathways in the brain, which DNA can pass on. :unsure:

while none of the above eliminates a designer, but it does seem to point to the end design coming much later then
the design phase(RNA/DNA). :unsure: kind of like a deadbeat parent, drops his load then moves on, letting darwin's idea play out.
(that was an unfair line to guys, because females can be deadbeat parents also, I've seen it)



found some backup information on an older topic that highlights a point I was attempting to convey

 
Last edited:
B-ManFX4, because the only records we have of things before modern man started craving
in stone or jotting notes on paper are fossil records, so I'm forced to use what information can
be gleamed from fossils. which does seem to support evolutionary development.


if I glance at reasoning examples in the animal/insect world

Ants are believed to have first appeared on Earth between 140 and 168 million years ago, during the Jurassic period.


It is estimated that the genera Homo and Pan diverged 5-6 million years ago, followed by a split in the genus Pan roughly 2.4 million years ago, eventually culminating into the chimpanzees and bonobos present today


Anatomically modern humans, or Homo sapiens, evolved in Africa around 200,000 years ago. Fossils show that modern human characteristics developed over time, with brains becoming modern by at least 100,000 years ago.

no video aid needed.



you may just be ahead of you time(one or two million years), the current top of the brain food chain came from the primate group
there is no reason to doubt the next could also . :unsure:
De-evolve. Why do humans have rules and laws? Do we lick ourselves in public and walk around naked as a general rule?

17:30 on hmmmm ever notice we are animal like.
 
D71, but, but some of us still rape the weak, kill the innocents and feel they are justified in their
defective minds :sick: or as it was designed. :unsure:

which begs the question, can evolving social norms change created/designed human brain pathways :unsure:
right now 1% of us are in some lockup, is that number distended to go down or stay the same over time :unsure:
if darwin is correct because they are locked up not making babies the number would go down over time. :unsure:

autism may lead us into the future
 
Last edited:
First off - I am not a liar. And I did not use the Voltaire quote to call anyone anything. If I intend to say something to someone, that is what I do. And as far as my "forceful assertions" are concerned, are you really going to suggest that having evolution taught as fact in public schools is a less "forceful assertion" than me conversing with people on the Internet in a forum? Grow up.

I have never asked you to disprove intelligent design - I asked you to prove your abiogenesis idea. Which apparently you can't. You have yet to interject a single idea on how any of the items I mention came to be by accident. You have yet to interject a single thought of your own - you simply parrot Internet horseshit as fact. You avoid even trying to offer up a single data point to support your position. Instead, you continually denigrate me and my thought process regarding intelligent design, all while offering exactly ZERO to support your own stance.

There's a reason it's incorrectly called "The Theory of Evolution" and not "The Law of Evolution". It isn't really a theory by definition (it is a hypothesis) but it has been taught as if it is a theory for so long it has become accepted, mostly because people are too lazy to think for themselves.

Perhaps you are more educated and informed than this list of scientists who have arrived at the conclusion that Darwinism is flat out wrong. I don't know. Note that many, many of these scientists (many of whom carry Ph.D. credentials in chemistry, molecular biology, geology, etc.) are not "religious" or "creationists" - they simply say that the overwhelming complexity of life as we now understand it, and the data gathered in the quest to understand how life "works", means everything could not have evolved from a single ancestor.


Isn't that what the scientific method is all about? Gather data, analyze it, draw hypothesis and test them, maybe roll onto creating a theory, etc.? When someone presents facts like how DNA works and you blindly believe it can be created by accident, you are not following the scientific method. You are simply defending what you have been taught because admitting you are wrong is too big a blow to your ego. That is the same problem with millions of scientists today. Believing DNA happened by accident is more far-fetched scientifically than believing chimpanzees will mine ores, create tools and then create a Rolex watch. How probable is the chimpanzee idea? Abiogenesis is billions of times less probable than that.

If you were to show Darwin himself the evidence of how complex the simplest of life forms is, and how complex the human body is in comparison, he would not have arrived at the same conclusions he did back in the 1850's. He was simply ignorant of the subject matter at hand because the tech did not exist to delve into the intricacies of life at the molecular level. You and I do not have that excuse - the data has been collected and published. You have to choose to remain ignorant. I refuse to do that.

If you can't support intelligent design, offer up something else that is plausible. Lightning bolts, mud puddles, comets and lots of time passing do not stand up to any scientific method reasoning for how amino acids, DNA, etc. were constructed. For anyone to assert that idea as being any type of "science" is silly with what we know about those life building blocks today.
You falsely claimed I called you an idiot first and when I asked for citation, you didn't provide any, hence you are a liar. You didn't even have the decency to apologize, but instead doubled down.

How many of those scientists are named "Steve"? If you don't get the reference, here is a link to help you out.

As for the definition of the words "theory" and "law" in the context of science, again I urge you to open an encyclopedia as you seem a little confused about the terms.

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." Link.

"Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology). Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented." Link.

It is your responsibility to prove your version of your intelligent design hypothesis.
 
You falsely claimed I called you an idiot first and when I asked for citation, you didn't provide any, hence you are a liar. You didn't even have the decency to apologize, but instead doubled down.

How many of those scientists are named "Steve"? If you don't get the reference, here is a link to help you out.

As for the definition of the words "theory" and "law" in the context of science, again I urge you to open an encyclopedia as you seem a little confused about the terms.

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." Link.

"Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology). Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented." Link.

It is your responsibility to prove your version of your intelligent design hypothesis.

I provided two instances of you saying my thinking is absurd - your words. See post # 476. I also stated that you disparaging my thinking and beliefs is akin to calling me stupid. I stand by that statement.

I then asked you to provide ANYTHING to try and support your belief in abiogenesis. You still can't offer up a cogent thought or any data to support it. Instead, you want to argue semantics and social beliefs because you have exactly ZERO understanding of the underlying complexity of what your idea is trying to support. In other words, you are not educated enough on the "what" to try and discuss the "how". You simply parrot what "experts" say, without any data to prove their ideas.

Again, please tell me how you can test and predict ANYTHING in your evolution "theory". People have been trying since Darwin published his work and it has yet to be done. Darwin himself saw the issue of the Cambrian explosion and admitted it was a huge problem with his ideas. There are exactly ZERO transition fossils that have been found and proved to demonstrate a species evolving from one thing to another. If Darwin was correct there should be MILLIONS of transitional fossils to be found everywhere - yet there are none.

At what point will you admit that you are wrong? You can't test it, you can't predict anything from it and you can't corroborate anything - hence, it is not a theory. Read your own definition above and then apply it to the subject matter at hand.

Don't regurgitate it. Don't ignore the HUGE issues with it. (Cambrian fossil record, complexity of DNA / RNA / amino acids / etc.) Please provide the evidence of how we went from a sterile planet to an amoeba which then evolved into a human, a sequoia tree, a grasshopper, an earthworm and a blue whale via "natural selection". What do you suppose is the mathematical probability of genes and DNA being spontaneously assembled by chance in nature? And then being modified literally millions of times to create all of the past and present life forms? Please explain how we went from simple cell division reproduction to sexual reproduction with gestation periods.

It is your responsibility to prove your version of Darwin's evolution hypothesis.

Repeating Darwin quotes is not proof of evolution. All Darwin did was make observations and draw erroneous conclusions from those observations. Molecular science proves every day that he was wrong. The Cambrian fossil record proves he was wrong. Common sense tells us that if we cannot create even a single cell organism in a laboratory, it did not happen by accident on a sterile planet. Abiogenesis is bullshit.

Here's a research paper you can read. Scientists are taking a living cell, replacing the DNA within the cell and then observing how it changes the cell. Read carefully how many genes have been manipulated to try and make the cell "behave properly" when reproducing. Note that the original cell has roughly 500 - 1,000 genes, many more than the <500 in the experimental cell. Also note that humans typically have ~ 30,000 genes. Note that their first attempt did not divide / reproduce correctly - and it took them YEARS to identify 7 genes that corrected the defective reproduction behavior. Research continues to try and develop cells that have distinct capabilities to cure diseases.


Takeaways -

They started with an already living organism. They are not able to create even a single cell organism - they have to modify an existing one.

It took years to isolate just 7 genes to enable their modified cell to reproduce properly. What other deficiencies that still exist in the cell and will have to be addressed are yet to be known. The research continues.

They have assembled DNA to create a different cell to try and change the cell to have different capabilities. They have suffered through thousands of failures to have the one success so far. The research continues.

This is a textbook example of intelligent design - and it doesn't address the issues of creating life - they are just manipulating existing life. You want to believe that this complexity happened by chance? A moron can see there is no possible way even a single cell organism happened by accident - and then you want to believe it evolved into fauna and flora. Don't call yourself a science believer - the science in this simple single cell organism shows abiogenesis is not possible. Science elsewhere shows evolution is not real.

As you like to point out, I don't have to disprove them - you have to prove them. POST UP YOUR PROOF OF ABIOGENESIS AND EVOLUTION.
 
POST UP YOUR PROOF OF ABIOGENESIS AND EVOLUTION.
B-ManFx4, IMO the line should be "POST UP YOUR HYPOTHESIS OF ABIOGENESIS AND EVOLUTION"

IMO there is no way to prove/disprove GODs, DESIGNER, ABIOGENESIS AND EVOLUTION, (or even my tornado hypothesis :))
no data to work with... :unsure: plate tectonics bleachBited it.

very complex rabbit hole :oops:

even defining intelligence is convoluted
 
Last edited:
D71, but, but some of us still rape the weak, kill the innocents and feel they are justified in their
defective minds :sick: or as it was designed. :unsure:

which begs the question, can evolving social norms change created/designed human brain pathways :unsure:
right now 1% of us are in some lockup, is that number distended to go down or stay the same over time :unsure:
if darwin is correct because they are locked up not making babies the number would go down over time. :unsure:

autism may lead us into the future
There's no doubt that selective breeding can influence the gene pool ..... You can even breed a dog and a wolf and have a "new" type of canine ..... but, the offspring will still be a canine .... You won't suddenly get a duck which lays eggs.

I'd go back to what I said a few pages ago ... I don't see any reason both things can't be true.

For a VERY long time in Japan, they were a closed society .... the Shoguns controlled their society.
If a person got caught stealing their hand was lopped off .... if a person with one had got caught stealing their head was lopped off .... the genetic pre-disposition to steal pretty much disappeared.
When I briefly lived in southern Japan in the late 60's and early 70's, that characteristic was still almost non existent in their gene pool ..... None of them laid eggs instead of live birth.
 
Last edited:
There's no doubt that selective breeding can influence the gene pool ..... You can even breed a dog and a wolf and have a "new" type of canine ..... but, the offspring will still be a canine .... You won't suddenly get a duck which lays eggs.

I'd go back to what I said a few pages ago ... I don't see any reason both things can't be true.
Probably why “some arabs” don’t have any “kids” with their goats.
 
I'd go back to what I said a few pages ago ... I don't see any reason both things can't be true.
Bob, that's what makes this a sweet topic for all of us, we all could be right. :)
the only difference my tornado hypothesis has a possibility of being understood
once we meet new life. if that other planet has a moon and life on it my hypothesis
may be documented at some future point, gods and designers are beyond documentation.

we'll have more information also once we get back to the moon, it does not have plate tectonic
so we should be able to carbon date when the rogue planet hit earth, see if we had standing liquid
water when the impact happened.

it's seem most likely the impact that supplied the energy for life here was a large hit on the moon
ejecting the energy and matter for life then hitting the earth.


*cut/paste
AI Overview

Geological evidence suggests that Earth may have had liquid water as early as 4.4 billion years ago, shortly after its formation. This evidence comes from the chemical composition of zircons and the oldest known terrestrial rock, which is 4.4 billion years old. The rock sample suggests that early Earth was cool enough for water, continents, and conditions that could support life. This contradicts the textbook view that Earth was covered in magma for its first half billion years.
*

You can even breed a dog and a wolf and have a "new" type of canine
wonder what he were called when he had tails :unsure: 30 million years ago, which some people are
still born with tails or even horns, or even gills :oops:

during embryonic development the embryo does develop gill slits in the region of the neck
These pharyngeal slits develop into the bones of the inner ear and jaw


Capture690.PNG

 
Last edited:
You can even breed a dog and a wolf and have a "new" type of canine ..... but, the offspring will still be a canine ....
Yes. In Genesis this is refered to as "their own KIND". Dog kind, cat kind, horse kind, etc.. through this we get a vast differing vareity of dogs, cats, horses.. peoples. this is not evolution. Nothing is evolving.
 
interesting facts :unsure:
a bananas are more banana(less Microbial DNA-then banana DNA)(unless the banana is rotted )
then humans are human(1 to 3% Microbial DNA in human body-not human DNA)



first AI encounter for me

I asked my son about AI's he said he used one call bard, I couldn't find that one but I found one called gemini.
I asked it to tell a story.
*copy/paste


tell the story of how an asteroid hitting our moon sparked life to form on earth



In the ageless abyss, a celestial nomad named Luna, our Moon, orbited Earth in a silent dance. On Earth itself, life was a desolate dream, a simmering soup of potential in the primeval oceans. Then, from the depths of space, a harbinger arrived – a colossal asteroid, scarred and battle-worn, hurtling towards Luna on a collision course.
The impact was a symphony of destruction. It carved a gaping wound across Luna's face, a crater that would forever bear the name of the fallen giant. On Earth, a tremor ran through the planet, a colossal wave rocking the fledgling oceans. Tsunamis surged across continents, leaving behind a trail of devastation.
But amidst the wreckage, a miracle unfolded. The violence of the impact did more than just scar – it unlocked a hidden potential. The superheated debris from the asteroid, laced with exotic elements forged in the heart of a distant star, rained down on Earth.
These alien elements acted as catalysts, igniting a spark within the primordial soup. In the sheltered pockets of newly formed hydrothermal vents, the strange elements danced with the building blocks of life. Complex organic molecules, never seen before on Earth, began to assemble.
These alien-born molecules weren't merely inert chemicals; they were replicators. They interacted, forming even more intricate structures, fueled by the geothermal vents and the faint glow of radioactive elements embedded in the debris. One by one, single-celled organisms, unlike anything Earth had ever known, sputtered into existence.
They were hardy pioneers, thriving in the harsh conditions left behind by the impact. They fed off the vents' chemical bounty and the faint energy radiating from the alien elements. Slowly, they diversified, evolving new ways to survive and reproduce. The impact, a herald of doom, had become the midwife of creation.
Millions of years trickled by, each one a testament to the tenacity of this newfound life. The once barren oceans teemed with bioluminescent creatures, a mesmerizing ballet of light and life. The skies, choked with dust in the aftermath, slowly cleared, revealing a breathtaking spectacle – a vibrant tapestry of life woven from the threads of the old and the new.
Earth, forever marked by the lunar scar, pulsated with life. The legacy of the rogue asteroid, a lonely wanderer of the cosmos, lived on in every living being – a constant reminder that even in devastation, the potential for new beginnings can be found. The spark of life, ignited by a celestial collision, had forever changed the destiny of a planet.
*
if I come back, I want to come back as an AI 🤪
 
Last edited:
interesting facts :unsure:
a bananas are more banana(less Microbial DNA-then banana DNA)(unless the banana is rotted )
then humans are human(1 to 3% Microbial DNA in human body-not human DNA)



first AI encounter for me

I asked my son about AI's he said he used one call bard, I couldn't find that one but I found one called gemini.
I asked it to tell a story.
*copy/paste


tell the story of how an asteroid hitting our moon sparked life to form on earth



In the ageless abyss, a celestial nomad named Luna, our Moon, orbited Earth in a silent dance. On Earth itself, life was a desolate dream, a simmering soup of potential in the primeval oceans. Then, from the depths of space, a harbinger arrived – a colossal asteroid, scarred and battle-worn, hurtling towards Luna on a collision course.
The impact was a symphony of destruction. It carved a gaping wound across Luna's face, a crater that would forever bear the name of the fallen giant. On Earth, a tremor ran through the planet, a colossal wave rocking the fledgling oceans. Tsunamis surged across continents, leaving behind a trail of devastation.
But amidst the wreckage, a miracle unfolded. The violence of the impact did more than just scar – it unlocked a hidden potential. The superheated debris from the asteroid, laced with exotic elements forged in the heart of a distant star, rained down on Earth.
These alien elements acted as catalysts, igniting a spark within the primordial soup. In the sheltered pockets of newly formed hydrothermal vents, the strange elements danced with the building blocks of life. Complex organic molecules, never seen before on Earth, began to assemble.
These alien-born molecules weren't merely inert chemicals; they were replicators. They interacted, forming even more intricate structures, fueled by the geothermal vents and the faint glow of radioactive elements embedded in the debris. One by one, single-celled organisms, unlike anything Earth had ever known, sputtered into existence.
They were hardy pioneers, thriving in the harsh conditions left behind by the impact. They fed off the vents' chemical bounty and the faint energy radiating from the alien elements. Slowly, they diversified, evolving new ways to survive and reproduce. The impact, a herald of doom, had become the midwife of creation.
Millions of years trickled by, each one a testament to the tenacity of this newfound life. The once barren oceans teemed with bioluminescent creatures, a mesmerizing ballet of light and life. The skies, choked with dust in the aftermath, slowly cleared, revealing a breathtaking spectacle – a vibrant tapestry of life woven from the threads of the old and the new.
Earth, forever marked by the lunar scar, pulsated with life. The legacy of the rogue asteroid, a lonely wanderer of the cosmos, lived on in every living being – a constant reminder that even in devastation, the potential for new beginnings can be found. The spark of life, ignited by a celestial collision, had forever changed the destiny of a planet.
*
I'm already regretting that AI question.
 
Last edited:
I provided two instances of you saying my thinking is absurd - your words. See post # 476. I also stated that you disparaging my thinking and beliefs is akin to calling me stupid. I stand by that statement.

I then asked you to provide ANYTHING to try and support your belief in abiogenesis. You still can't offer up a cogent thought or any data to support it. Instead, you want to argue semantics and social beliefs because you have exactly ZERO understanding of the underlying complexity of what your idea is trying to support. In other words, you are not educated enough on the "what" to try and discuss the "how". You simply parrot what "experts" say, without any data to prove their ideas.

Again, please tell me how you can test and predict ANYTHING in your evolution "theory". People have been trying since Darwin published his work and it has yet to be done. Darwin himself saw the issue of the Cambrian explosion and admitted it was a huge problem with his ideas. There are exactly ZERO transition fossils that have been found and proved to demonstrate a species evolving from one thing to another. If Darwin was correct there should be MILLIONS of transitional fossils to be found everywhere - yet there are none.

At what point will you admit that you are wrong? You can't test it, you can't predict anything from it and you can't corroborate anything - hence, it is not a theory. Read your own definition above and then apply it to the subject matter at hand.

Don't regurgitate it. Don't ignore the HUGE issues with it. (Cambrian fossil record, complexity of DNA / RNA / amino acids / etc.) Please provide the evidence of how we went from a sterile planet to an amoeba which then evolved into a human, a sequoia tree, a grasshopper, an earthworm and a blue whale via "natural selection". What do you suppose is the mathematical probability of genes and DNA being spontaneously assembled by chance in nature? And then being modified literally millions of times to create all of the past and present life forms? Please explain how we went from simple cell division reproduction to sexual reproduction with gestation periods.

It is your responsibility to prove your version of Darwin's evolution hypothesis.

Repeating Darwin quotes is not proof of evolution. All Darwin did was make observations and draw erroneous conclusions from those observations. Molecular science proves every day that he was wrong. The Cambrian fossil record proves he was wrong. Common sense tells us that if we cannot create even a single cell organism in a laboratory, it did not happen by accident on a sterile planet. Abiogenesis is bullshit.

Here's a research paper you can read. Scientists are taking a living cell, replacing the DNA within the cell and then observing how it changes the cell. Read carefully how many genes have been manipulated to try and make the cell "behave properly" when reproducing. Note that the original cell has roughly 500 - 1,000 genes, many more than the <500 in the experimental cell. Also note that humans typically have ~ 30,000 genes. Note that their first attempt did not divide / reproduce correctly - and it took them YEARS to identify 7 genes that corrected the defective reproduction behavior. Research continues to try and develop cells that have distinct capabilities to cure diseases.


Takeaways -

They started with an already living organism. They are not able to create even a single cell organism - they have to modify an existing one.

It took years to isolate just 7 genes to enable their modified cell to reproduce properly. What other deficiencies that still exist in the cell and will have to be addressed are yet to be known. The research continues.

They have assembled DNA to create a different cell to try and change the cell to have different capabilities. They have suffered through thousands of failures to have the one success so far. The research continues.

This is a textbook example of intelligent design - and it doesn't address the issues of creating life - they are just manipulating existing life. You want to believe that this complexity happened by chance? A moron can see there is no possible way even a single cell organism happened by accident - and then you want to believe it evolved into fauna and flora. Don't call yourself a science believer - the science in this simple single cell organism shows abiogenesis is not possible. Science elsewhere shows evolution is not real.

As you like to point out, I don't have to disprove them - you have to prove them. POST UP YOUR PROOF OF ABIOGENESIS AND EVOLUTION.
Even IF you equate the word "absurd" with the word "stupid", then clearly you used it first.

Your intelligent design hypothesis is absurd by definition Link. You do not have to disprove any other widely accepted scientific theories. Nor does any one other than you need to prove anything! This is the fourth time I am trying to explain this and I am seriously beginning to question your intelligence.

 
Last edited:
Even IF you equate the word "absurd" with the word "stupid", then clearly you used it first.

Your intelligent design hypothesis is absurd by definition Link. You do not have to disprove any other widely accepted scientific theories. Nor does any one other than you need to prove anything! This is the fourth time I am trying to explain this and I am seriously beginning to question your intelligence.


Your interpretation or definition of what one needs to do does not make sense. You are a typical snowflake - you can't think for yourself so you try to hide behind bullshit. I don't question your intelligence - you obviously have command of a keyboard and the English language. I do question your ability to think and reason. You have demonstrated quite clearly your capacity to do either is quite limited. For what it is worth, a theory "widely accepted" by science means nothing to anyone with a brain. Your "science" tried to re-define what a vaccine is. Guess what - as time goes by more and more scientists are calling that bullshit - and the same is true with Darwinism and abiogenesis. Just because you choose to ignore those that have a different belief than you does not make them irrelevant.

Not that you care about facts and data but you should read some of the work published by Dr. James Tour. He is acknowledged as being one of the world's leading experts in organic chemistry, as well as nanotechnology, molecular electronics, etc. He has posted his research which details, in very pointed manners, how it is virtually impossible for the structures we know as DNA / RNA / etc. to have been created spontaneously. I suppose you think you know more than he about this subject matter - which is a cornerstone of how life "works". You have to explain it's existence - you don't get to just say "it's here". I posit it had to have been designed by someone or something with incredible intelligence. Dr. Tour will tell you he does not espouse intelligent design via science because using the tools he has available, he has no way to test for it. I'm OK with that - he is speaking from a pure scientific research perspective. Here is a short excerpt from an article he published. (https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/) I highlighted two of the points regarding how the idea of abiogenesis is absurd:

"The origin of life (often encompassing the terms prebiotic chemistry or abiogenesis) article that I cite above is long and I need not repeat it. But even in that article, I never addressed the issue of information. The information or coding within the DNA (or RNA) that corresponds to the sequence of the nucleic acids is primary to the entire discussion of life. Some would rightly argue that the information is even more fundamental than the matter upon which it is encoded. I merely showed that the requisite molecules (lipids, proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates) are so unlikely to have occurred in the states and quantities needed, that we could never have gotten to the point of figuring out the genesis of the requisite code or information. The code is analogous to the difference between the Library of Congress and a big box of alphabetic letters— the library has a huge amount of embedded information while the random box of letters has little. So origin of first life is the ‘nail holding the coffin closed’ on the emergence of biological evolution. Without that first life, or simple cell, which requires the four molecule types plus information, all proposals regarding biological evolution are without the base of life. And it is difficult to discuss biology without life.

But even if one were given all the molecules needed in complete stereochemical purity, and the information code, could a cell be constructed using the chemical and biochemical tools that we have today? I have written about such a hypothetic experiment, and how it would be impossible, using today’s expertise, to even construct the lipid bilayer, namely the exterior packaging that holds the cell’s nanomachinery in place. Just the lipid bilayer (which itself surrounds thousands of nanosystems) is beyond our ability to synthesize. The conclusion of that thought experiment is that “life based upon amino acids, nucleotides, saccharides and lipids is an anomaly. Life should not exist anywhere in our universe. Life should not even exist on the surface of the earth.” Yet we are led to believe that 3.8 billion years ago the requisite compounds could be found in some cave, or undersea vent, and somehow or other they assembled themselves into the first cell.”

If you have knowledge of chemical or biochemical synthesis, or nanosystem assembly, I encourage you to read that short article and judge for yourself. If I am wrong, then enlighten me on my error. If I am correct, then ponder how far afield we have gone in projecting to the public our knowledge of life’s origin. http://inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues

Finally, there is severe discord between the claims of Origin of Life researchers and the actual state of the research. It is time to call a timeout on the research until we can define what would constitute an advancement rather than sophistry: https://inference-review.com/article/time-out

Now it's your turn to explain your own thoughts. Don't forget that even when man assemble proteins, DNA, etc. himself in a lab, it still isn't "alive". Since I have already asserted that you do not understand the basic building blocks of life it is not really a surprise that you can offer no data to support your belief. One might wonder when you will decide to start learning and forming your own ideas, as opposed to following the masses that are also untrained and not educated enough to arrive at an informed opinion.

Absurd - that is the perfect description of abiogenesis. There is literally ZERO data to support the premise, yet you cling to it like a life saver. I question your ability to comprehend even simple questions because I have asked you OVER AND OVER AND OVER to post even one data point explaining HOW even a single cell organism can just pop into existence - and you have yet to do anything but denigrate me.

Unless you post some very compelling evidence to the contrary, you cannot claim that abiogenesis is any better of a hypothesis than intelligent design. If one is absurd then both are.
 
Your interpretation or definition of what one needs to do does not make sense. You are a typical snowflake - you can't think for yourself so you try to hide behind bullshit. I don't question your intelligence - you obviously have command of a keyboard and the English language. I do question your ability to think and reason. You have demonstrated quite clearly your capacity to do either is quite limited. For what it is worth, a theory "widely accepted" by science means nothing to anyone with a brain. Your "science" tried to re-define what a vaccine is. Guess what - as time goes by more and more scientists are calling that bullshit - and the same is true with Darwinism and abiogenesis. Just because you choose to ignore those that have a different belief than you does not make them irrelevant.

Not that you care about facts and data but you should read some of the work published by Dr. James Tour. He is acknowledged as being one of the world's leading experts in organic chemistry, as well as nanotechnology, molecular electronics, etc. He has posted his research which details, in very pointed manners, how it is virtually impossible for the structures we know as DNA / RNA / etc. to have been created spontaneously. I suppose you think you know more than he about this subject matter - which is a cornerstone of how life "works". You have to explain it's existence - you don't get to just say "it's here". I posit it had to have been designed by someone or something with incredible intelligence. Dr. Tour will tell you he does not espouse intelligent design via science because using the tools he has available, he has no way to test for it. I'm OK with that - he is speaking from a pure scientific research perspective. Here is a short excerpt from an article he published. (https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/) I highlighted two of the points regarding how the idea of abiogenesis is absurd:



Now it's your turn to explain your own thoughts. Don't forget that even when man assemble proteins, DNA, etc. himself in a lab, it still isn't "alive". Since I have already asserted that you do not understand the basic building blocks of life it is not really a surprise that you can offer no data to support your belief. One might wonder when you will decide to start learning and forming your own ideas, as opposed to following the masses that are also untrained and not educated enough to arrive at an informed opinion.

Absurd - that is the perfect description of abiogenesis. There is literally ZERO data to support the premise, yet you cling to it like a life saver. I question your ability to comprehend even simple questions because I have asked you OVER AND OVER AND OVER to post even one data point explaining HOW even a single cell organism can just pop into existence - and you have yet to do anything but denigrate me.

Unless you post some very compelling evidence to the contrary, you cannot claim that abiogenesis is any better of a hypothesis than intelligent design. If one is absurd then both are.
I am the snowflake? It is you who pretends to be insulted because some one on the internet wrote that your hypothesis is "absurd", a word you yourself introduced first.

For the fifth time, I don't have to prove anything, it is you who made the claim, it is up to you to provide the evidence to support that claim. And it is stupid to think that by shooting down other hypotheses, it somehow support yours. James Tour, gets that, why don't you?
 

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top