Origins Thread

[Tiger]

This guy thinks that an "awkward question" for "evolutionists" is one a child could answer - but he can't. Nor of course does he accept the answer, twas always thus

My question has you on the ropes. The two 24 hour online bums are on the run.

There has been precisely zero satisfactory answers to the question. Zero.

 

[Haven]

Ladies and gentlemen, just a reminder that this is the question that has stumped the purveyors of scientism in their tracks…

If random mutations almost always break existing functions rather than create new ones, how can they plausibly explain the origin of the complex information encoded in even the simplest cell?

Insert AI deflection here

If I post a response, you have to tell us what AI site you will use to generate a reply.
We all know you are using one. Just tell us and we can move on.

 

[AN2]

My question has you on the ropes. The two 24 hour online bums are on the run.

There has been precisely zero satisfactory answers to the question. Zero.

D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L

 

[AN2]

My question has you on the ropes. The two 24 hour online bums are on the run.

There has been precisely zero satisfactory answers to the question. Zero.

If you had any interest in improving yourself.. you'd realise that you asked a stupid question (mostly based on a false premise) that has a simple answer

But you don't, you just double down and have summoned your pals here to try to deflect from your (latest) self-own

 

[AN2]

Your credibility is shot. You have been caught. Badly.

You are using AI and least you can do is tell us which one you are using.

At the end of the day, the reason he has no credibility is because he's an IDiot, who doesn't have even a remedial understanding of evolution

You have to laugh every time he talks about 'Fake Dave' (the reason they call him Fake is as dull as they are) but other IDiots like Stephen Meyer are like scientists 'n shit

 

[AN2]

91% that the content is human generated.

I think this AI stuff is actually somewhat of a red herring that suits Tiger (after all, he doesn't have an actual argument)

I also think that it was certainly a fail by @Hermit, fail is fail, and I'm not sure that you've interpreted the result correctly. What it says, in English, is that it's overwhelmingly likely that you wrote that post yourself

 

[Tiger]

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason Tank and Jimmy cannot answer the question is straightforward: it exposes a fundamental weakness in the evolutionary fairytale, one that they want to quietly ignore.

Random mutations destroy existing functions, and natural selection could only possibly act on what is already alive and capable of replication. Yet their AI responses (they personally provided zero personal response) want us to be impressed by prebiotic chemistry experiments and impossible hypotheticals, while the real question remains: how did lifeless molecules ever organise themselves into a cell capable of storing and transmitting functional information? Simple.

No schoolyard taunts, no trolling, no clever phrasing, no AI-generated summary, no appeal to “vast stretches of time” can cover the fact that the mechanism for creating life’s first functional information is entirely absent. That is the reality. That's why they are stumped. They won’t engage the debate in good faith. James seems slightly traumatised.

The two trolls will inevitably reply to this post with more trolling and no debate.

 

[AN2]

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason Tank and Jimmy cannot answer the question is straightforward: it exposes a fundamental weakness in the evolutionary fairytale, one that they want to quietly ignore.

Random mutations destroy existing functions, and natural selection could only possibly act on what is already alive and capable of replication. Yet their AI responses (they personally provided zero personal response) want us to be impressed by prebiotic chemistry experiments and impossible hypotheticals, while the real question remains: how did lifeless molecules ever organise themselves into a cell capable of storing and transmitting functional information? Simple.

No schoolyard taunts, no trolling, no clever phrasing, no AI-generated summary, no appeal to “vast stretches of time” can cover the fact that the mechanism for creating life’s first functional information is entirely absent. That is the reality. That's why they are stumped. They won’t engage the debate in good faith. James seems slightly traumatised.

The two trolls will inevitably reply to this post with more trolling and no debate.

 

[Tiger]

View attachment 8318

Troll

@mods are ye keeping an eye on James today? He’s in the mood for trolling.

 

[AN2]

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason Tank and Jimmy cannot answer the question is straightforward: it exposes a fundamental weakness in the evolutionary fairytale, one that they want to quietly ignore.

Random mutations destroy existing functions, and natural selection could only possibly act on what is already alive and capable of replication. Yet their AI responses (they personally provided zero personal response) want us to be impressed by prebiotic chemistry experiments and impossible hypotheticals, while the real question remains: how did lifeless molecules ever organise themselves into a cell capable of storing and transmitting functional information? Simple.

No schoolyard taunts, no trolling, no clever phrasing, no AI-generated summary, no appeal to “vast stretches of time” can cover the fact that the mechanism for creating life’s first functional information is entirely absent. That is the reality. That's why they are stumped. They won’t engage the debate in good faith. James seems slightly traumatised.

The two trolls will inevitably reply to this post with more trolling and no debate.

Notice where he's slips in abiogenesis above. It's becoming very obvious what his playbook is..

 

[Wolf]

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason Tank and Jimmy cannot answer the question is straightforward: it exposes a fundamental weakness in the evolutionary fairytale, one that they want to quietly ignore.

Random mutations destroy existing functions, and natural selection could only possibly act on what is already alive and capable of replication. Yet their AI responses (they personally provided zero personal response) want us to be impressed by prebiotic chemistry experiments and impossible hypotheticals, while the real question remains: how did lifeless molecules ever organise themselves into a cell capable of storing and transmitting functional information? Simple.

No schoolyard taunts, no trolling, no clever phrasing, no AI-generated summary, no appeal to “vast stretches of time” can cover the fact that the mechanism for creating life’s first functional information is entirely absent. That is the reality. That's why they are stumped. They won’t engage the debate in good faith. James seems slightly traumatised.

The two trolls will inevitably reply to this post with more trolling and no debate.

Two trolls or one?

 

[Haven]

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason Tank and Jimmy cannot answer the question is straightforward: it exposes a fundamental weakness in the evolutionary fairytale, one that they want to quietly ignore.

Random mutations destroy existing functions, and natural selection could only possibly act on what is already alive and capable of replication. Yet their AI responses (they personally provided zero personal response) want us to be impressed by prebiotic chemistry experiments and impossible hypotheticals, while the real question remains: how did lifeless molecules ever organise themselves into a cell capable of storing and transmitting functional information? Simple.

No schoolyard taunts, no trolling, no clever phrasing, no AI-generated summary, no appeal to “vast stretches of time” can cover the fact that the mechanism for creating life’s first functional information is entirely absent. That is the reality. That's why they are stumped. They won’t engage the debate in good faith. James seems slightly traumatised.

The two trolls will inevitably reply to this post with more trolling and no debate.

More AI. But some modifications made before posting, as I know you would.

 

[AN2]

Two trolls or one?

Just when you think that the most mentally retarded person on this thread is Tiger...

 

[Tiger]

More AI. But some modifications made before posting, as I know you would.

View attachment 8319

Troll

Couldn’t argue his way out of a paper bag.

The smell of desperation is pungent.

 

[AN2]

Troll

I think, objectively, that's all you're doing now..

 

[Tiger]

Two trolls or one?

Two. Both on the scratcher with too much time on their hands and very little going on upstairs.

 

[Tiger]

I think, objectively, that's all you're doing now..

Nope, screaming “AI” to every uncomfortable post which rocks your worldview is definitely trolling. Tank has never once engaged in a debate in good faith.

 

[Tiger]

Notice where he's slips in abiogenesis above. It's becoming very obvious what his playbook is..

Abiogenesis is a fairytale.

 

[AN2]

Nope, screaming “AI” to every uncomfortable post which rocks your worldview is trolling.

More delusion

Your question (which you've slipped abiogenesis into now*) was answered by me 70 posts ago, as has been pointed out to you

*Possibly some part of you understands that a kid could have answered it, and that's why you've now included abiogenesis

 

[AN2]

Abiogenesis is a fairytale.

Abiogenesis and evolution are separate

As the dumb creationist you are, you don't understand that, even though you've been told it countless times, literally from day one

 

[Tiger]

Abiogenesis and evolution are separate

As the dumb creationist you are, you don't understand that, even though you've been told it countless times, literally from day one

Nobody said they’re the same you trolling wally.

They’re both fairytales.

 

[AN2]

Nobody said they’re the same you trolling wally.

They’re both fairytales.

You link the two

 

[AN2]

This is how it's basically worked over the last two days..

Tiger has displayed that he doesn't have even a rudimentary understanding of evolution, asked a supposedly awkward question about it that a child could answer, making a fool of himself, and now he's scrambling for abiogenesis..

 

[Tiger]

This is how it's basically worked over the last two days..

Tiger has displayed that he doesn't have even a rudimentary understanding of evolution, asked a supposedly awkward question about it that a child could answer, making a fool of himself, and now he's scrambling for abiogenesis..

*yawn

So, Is James…

A) A bonfide simpleton
B) An online troll with no interest in good faith debates
C) A lonely old geezer looking for interaction and stimulation
D) All of the above

Winning answer to be announced later today!

 

[AN2]

You link the two

Btw, this is a common tactic from creationists. Let's have a look and see..

AI, does abiogenesis undermine evolution?

 

[Wolf]

Just when you think that the most mentally retarded person on this thread is Tiger...

Along pops jimmy and his weekend tray of Dutch Gold.

 

[AN2]

*yawn

So, Is James…

A) A bonfide simpleton
B) An online troll with no interest in good faith debates
C) A lonely old geezer looking for interaction and stimulation
D) All of the above

Winning answer to be announced later today!

 

[Tiger]

Btw, this is a common tactic from creationists. Let's have a look and see..

AI, does abiogenesis undermine evolution?

View attachment 8323

Haha, The absolute stench of desperation off of you is palpable.

Can evolution begin in a system with no self-replicating molecules James?

 

[AN2]

Haha, The absolute stench of desperation off of you is palpable.

Can evolution begin in a system with no self-replicating molecules James?

lol Oh. My. God.

 

[Tiger]

Along pops jimmy and his weekend tray of Dutch Gold.

Which answer from my quiz are you going with Wolf?

A, B, C or D?

 

[AN2]

Which answer from my quiz are you going with Wolf?

A, B, C or D?

These people truly have zero self-awareness..

 

[Tiger]

lol Oh. My. God.

James ‘the question dodger’Dawson strikes again!

You could have your own TV show James.

Meanwhile….the one sided debate continues…

 

[AN2]

James ‘the question dodger’Dawson strikes again!

Deluded

You're basically asking the same nonsensical question as you did in the last Tiger Challenge. You have no ability to learn

 

[Tiger]

Deluded

If evolution depends entirely on replication, mutation and selection, then how can evolution begin in a system where no self replications molecules exist?

Answers on a postcard please…

(this is the bit where you deflect…)

 

[AN2]

If evolution depends entirely on replication, mutation and selection, then how can evolution begin in a system where no self replications molecules exist?

It doesn't

Answers on a postcard please…

(this is the bit where you deflect…)

 

[Wolf]

Which answer from my quiz are you going with Wolf?

A, B, C or D?

D

 

[Tiger]

It doesn't

Haha, I set the traps and you walk into them Jimmy.

You’ve just contradicted the very definition of evolution, by definition, it requires replication, heritable variation and selection. Without replication, there’s nothing to inherit.

We’ll start tonight’s scoreboard now shall we…

Tiger 1 - 0 DimJim

 

[Tiger]

D

And the winner is…..

 

[AN2]

The adolescent brats obviously want to take over this thread now..

Sad

 

[AN2]

Haha, I set the traps and you walk into them Jimmy.

You’ve just contradicted the very definition of evolution, by definition, it requires replication, heritable variation and selection. Without replication, there’s nothing to inherit.

We’ll start tonight’s scoreboard now shall we…

Tiger 1 - 0 DimJim

The only traps you ever set are for yourself