Origins Thread

[Tiger]

Why does God hide God so well ? !

See, Clarke, now you're doing a 'James'. Lazily throwing out a trite question, making no qualified statement of your own. Tell us what your expectation of proof of God would be. A king type person sitting on throne of gold in a big castle? What?

Firstly; your question assumes that God is an object among other objects, in other words - something you could locate under a microscope if He were “real enough.” But if God exists as the ground of being itself , the source of existence rather than one existent within it; then He doesn’t “hide,” because He’s not that kind of thing. Asking why God hides is like asking why logic can’t be seen through a telescope.

Secondly; God doesn’t hide; he’s written into everything. The order of the cosmos, the fine-tuned precision of its laws, and the mathematical coherence behind reality all scream of design, not accident. So, much so, that idiots have to invent fairy tales about aliens 'seeding' the universe to try and explain it.

God went further: He entered history, in flesh and blood, performed public miracles, was crucified under Rome, and rose from the dead before witnesses who died proclaiming it. That’s not hidden; that’s recorded history.

And now even modern medicine echoes the same truth: thousands clinically dead have reported a consciousness more vivid than life itself. The evidence of God is overwhelming.

 

[clarke-connolly]

See, Clarke, now you're doing a 'James'. Lazily throwing out a trite question, making no qualified statement of your own. Tell us what your expectation of proof of God would be. A king type person sitting on throne of gold in a big castle? What?

Firstly; your question assumes that God is an object among other objects, in other words - something you could locate under a microscope if He were “real enough.” But if God exists as the ground of being itself , the source of existence rather than one existent within it; then He doesn’t “hide,” because He’s not that kind of thing. Asking why God hides is like asking why logic can’t be seen through a telescope.

Secondly; God doesn’t hide; he’s written into everything. The order of the cosmos, the fine-tuned precision of its laws, and the mathematical coherence behind reality all scream of design, not accident. So, much so, that idiots have to invent fairy tales about aliens 'seeding' the universe to try and explain it.

God went further: He entered history, in flesh and blood, performed public miracles, was crucified under Rome, and rose from the dead before witnesses who died proclaiming it. That’s not hidden; that’s recorded history.

And now even modern medicine echoes the same truth: thousands clinically dead have reported a consciousness more vivid than life itself. The evidence of God is overwhelming.

So, God could make everything good, but God can't really be bothered doing that, because God is too busy watching day-time TV ? !

If your God exists then that God must be a lazy God !

If your God exists, why is it a lazy God ? A half-arsed God ?

Is your God smoking too much pot to motivate itself ?

Is it time for this God to get off it's back-side to Fight Islam ? !

 

[AN2]

The problem you have now James is that I’ve exposed you as a spoofer time and time again.

You're deluded

I’ve also exposed your tired schtick of endless, relentless gormless questioning to deflect from having any serious debate.

So, people will naturally start to ignore you as some sort of online troll. Precisely because you behave and communicate exactly like an online troll.

They've always been like that

 

[AN2]

See Sham, James doesn’t understand that all words were made up at some point. Even the word - science. Perhaps he thinks that Aliens gave us the English language in addition to creating our universe?

It’s difficult to converse with Jimmy because he doesn’t read books, so he prefers to make up his own understanding of things on a whim.

He’s clearly unaware that the word ‘scientism’ is not a fringe invention, but a well-established term in philosophy referring to the belief that science is the only path to knowledge. This term is used and respected by philosophers like Karl Popper, Michael Polanyi, Edmund Husserl, Hilary Putnam and Richard Feynman.

The usage of the word - materialism goes back to ancient philosophers Democritus, Epicurus and Lucretius.

Like I said, debating James can be frustrating due to his innate ignorance.

The "all words are made up" argument, how original

Of course, as always you ignore context, I said that those words are popular with beliebers. The top comment on the video I posted yesterday of Professor Dave exposing Stephen Meyer is -

Calling science "Materialist Science" is like calling maths "Calculational Mathematics"

 

[AN2]

Perhaps he thinks that Aliens gave us the English language in addition to creating our universe?

There are a couple of things to say about this

First of all, no one said that, not I and not Dawkins. In fact, Dawkins said that that couldn't have happened, life in the universe couldn't have been originated by aliens. Geez Louise

Secondly, you have this habit of just because someone talks about something, assigning that belief to them. A previous example was when we were talking about Penrose's CCC theory, I think both myself and Haven trying to explain to you that it isn't a multiverse theory (to no avail of course) and then, just because we talked about it, it was what we believed to be true

It’s difficult to converse with Jimmy because he doesn’t read books, so he prefers to make up his own understanding of things on a whim.

He’s clearly unaware that the word ‘scientism’ is not a fringe invention, but a well-established term in philosophy referring to the belief that science is the only path to knowledge. This term is used and respected by philosophers like Karl Popper, Michael Polanyi, Edmund Husserl, Hilary Putnam and Richard Feynman.

The usage of the word - materialism goes back to ancient philosophers Democritus, Epicurus and Lucretius.

Like I said, debating James can be frustrating due to his innate ignorance.

 

[AN2]

So, God could make everything good, but God can't really be bothered doing that, because God is too busy watching day-time TV ? !

If your God exists then that God must be a lazy God !

If your God exists, why is it a lazy God ? A half-arsed God ?

Is your God smoking too much pot to motivate itself ?

Is it time for this God to get off it's back-side to Fight Islam ? !

You're wasting your time.. Tiger never answers a question

 

[clarke-connolly]

You're wasting your time.. Tiger never answers a question

God might step in.

 

[Tiger]

You're wasting your time.. Tiger never answers a question

Tbh James, I thought that post was so ludicrously child like and retarded that I didn’t genuinely think anyone was expecting a reply.

This is supposed to be a discussion forum for adults, not special needs children.

Statements like “God must be too busy watching daytime TV” and wondering why God isn’t busy fighting Muslims seemed not to be genuine attempts at an adult conversation.

It’s doubly hilarious that you think his post is a serious attempt at adult discussion

Maybe Clark can elaborate on his cartooning of God as an anti-Muslim warrior. Would He rock up to the Middle East on a horse or in a tank? How are you picturing this scenario CC?

 

[AN2]

Tbh James, I thought that post was so ludicrously child like and retarded that I didn’t genuinely think anyone was expecting a reply.

This is supposed to be a discussion forum for adults, not special needs children.

Statements like “God must be too busy watching daytime TV” and wondering why God isn’t busy fighting Muslims seemed not to be genuine attempts at an adult conversation.

It’s doubly hilarious that you think his post is a serious attempt at adult discussion

Maybe Clark can elaborate on his cartooning of God as an anti-Muslim warrior. Would He rock up to the Middle East on a horse or in a tank? How are you picturing this scenario CC?

You never answer any question, is what I said

 

[clarke-connolly]

Tbh James, I thought that post was so ludicrously child like and retarded that I didn’t genuinely think anyone was expecting a reply.

This is supposed to be a discussion forum for adults, not special needs children.

Statements like “God must be too busy watching daytime TV” and wondering why God isn’t busy fighting Muslims seemed not to be genuine attempts at an adult conversation.

It’s doubly hilarious that you think his post is a serious attempt at adult discussion

Maybe Clark can elaborate on his cartooning of God as an anti-Muslim warrior. Would He rock up to the Middle East on a horse or in a tank? How are you picturing this scenario CC?

Well the Christians with God as their God did at one time give the Islamists plenty of hammerings down the years ~ ~ Back when Christianity and the Christian God had Balls ! !

 

[céline]

It might be possible to be religious while still believing in evolution.

 

[clarke-connolly]

Bro, I'm not a Dawkins hater, he's so irrelevant I'm not bovered.

Dawkins isn't that impressive but at least he came out against the Trans-Nutters and maybe to a lot lesser extent against the Islamic-Nutters ! !

 

[AN2]

Bro, I'm not a Dawkins hater, he's so irrelevant I'm not bovered.

Get ta fuck

PS. You liked Tiglet's post lying about me (and himself as it happens)? Rat

 

[AN2]

It might be possible to be religious while still believing in evolution.

Not really. Because even though evolution is accepted by men in robes, it (evolution) doesn't contain any supernatural element to it i.e. God

It is of course possible to be religious and not a retard (unless you're talking about someone like Tiger)

 

[AN2]

They tried to tell us that all nature is the result of mutations. Therefore they are mutants.

Please don't talk about things that you don't understand, you're at Tiger levels of embarrassing yourself


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Akv0TZI985U&t=55m37s

 

[Tiger]

Please don't talk about things that you don't understand, you're at Tiger levels of embarrassing yourself


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Akv0TZI985U&t=55m37s

The only person with comprehension issues is you James. This subject matter is way beyond your reach. It’s a sad state of affairs when Jimbo has to ALWAYS fall back to Fake Dave, an embarrassing charlatan. Why not try to discuss what Sham has said in your own words. Is it because you have nothing to say?

Fake Dave videos are nonsense James. He’s a grifter who thinks that men can be women and women can be men and tried to give a scientific explanation to prove it. A proper buffoon. He makes his living off illiterate, immature ignoramus’s like you.

 

[Tiger]

From the butt hurt site mutant himself.

James is incapable of anything other than posting dodgy YouTube clips or his latest hobbie of posting AI answers - because he doesn’t read books.

You’ve raised an interesting part of this debate by mentioning mutations and the best he has in response is some knee jerk reaction by posting the first Fake Dave video he can find.

Whether he likes it or not, mutations are considered by the evolutionist to be the engine of evolution, however all studies show that they are neutral or harmful and even the extremely rare beneficial ones are tweaks to what’s already there versus creating something entirely new. It’s impossible for mutations to explain the rise of life’s intricate structures and systems from scratch.

He knows this. So he tries to childishly deflect immediately.

 

[AN2]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Akv0TZI985U&t=55m37s

Whether he likes it or not, mutations are considered by the evolutionist to be the engine of evolution, however all studies show that they are neutral or harmful and even the extremely rare beneficial ones are tweaks to what’s already there versus creating something entirely new. It’s impossible for mutations to explain the rise of life’s intricate structures and systems from scratch.

There you have it folks. Someone stating basic facts about evolution and someone regurgitating intelligent design slop.. all in one place

 

[AN2]

The only person with comprehension issues is you James. This subject matter is way beyond your reach. It’s a sad state of affairs when Jimbo has to ALWAYS fall back to Fake Dave, an embarrassing charlatan. Why not try to discuss what Sham has said in your own words. Is it because you have nothing to say?

What was there to discuss? I think the only thing to discuss was the connotation of the word mutation, which was discussed in the video (click play, it's timestamped)

Fake Dave videos are nonsense James. He’s a grifter who thinks that men can be women and women can be men and tried to give a scientific explanation to prove it. A proper buffoon. He makes his living off illiterate, immature ignoramus’s like you.

LOL @ ignoramus’s

Deary me

 

[Tiger]

There you have it folks. Someone stating basic facts about evolution and someone regurgitating intelligent design slop.. all in one place

Another hopeless unscholarly reply from James. Quelle surprise.


The uncomfortable fact for you remains that random mutations have never been shown to produce the kind of organised, information-rich complexity found even in a single living cell; a limitation acknowledged by many evolutionary biologists themselves. It's another nail in the coffin for neo-Darwinism.

Here's a question for you to dodge or stick in your AI search (showing how little YOU know) -

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?

 

[AN2]

The uncomfortable fact for you remains that random mutations have never been shown to produce the kind of organised, information-rich complexity found even in a single living cell; a limitation acknowledged by many evolutionary biologists themselves. It's another nail in the coffin for neo-Darwinism.

LOL @ fact

Here's a question for you to dodge or stick in your AI search (showing how little YOU know) -

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?

Almost? So you're not going with your boy Meyer who says always?

So we've got: neutral, good and bad mutations, would you accept that?

Do you know what natural selection is?

 

[Tiger]

LOL @ fact



Almost? So you're not going with your boy Meyer who says always?

So we've got: neutral, good and bad mutations, would you accept that?

Do you know what natural selection is?

Oh I see, we’re back to me educating you again.


Natural selection isn’t a creative force James; it could only filter what already exists. So, if mutations don’t generate genuinely new, functional information, what exactly is selection supposed to “select” from in the first place? And if you’re suggesting that natural selection somehow guides the process, aren’t you just smuggling in an intelligent principle under another name; especially when we’re talking about the origin of the first self-replicating cell, where no such selective mechanism yet existed?

If even in modern cells with fully formed replication and repair systems, beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare (almost non-existent), so, how could random mutations plausibly generate the first functional proteins and metabolic pathways in a prebiotic environment where no selection could operate?

 

[AN2]

Oh I see, we’re back to me educating you again.

It's hilarious that I need to explain the very basics of evolution to you

This is what happens folks when the only "books" you read are by Discovery Institute clowns like Stephen Meyer

Natural selection isn’t a creative force James; it could only filter what already exists. So, if mutations don’t generate genuinely new, functional information, what exactly is selection supposed to “select” from in the first place? And if you’re suggesting that natural selection somehow guides the process, aren’t you just smuggling in an intelligent principle under another name; especially when we’re talking about the origin of the first self-replicating cell, where no such selective mechanism yet existed?

If even in modern cells with fully formed replication and repair systems, beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare (almost non-existent), so, how could random mutations plausibly generate the first functional proteins and metabolic pathways in a prebiotic environment where no selection could operate?

 

[Tiger]

It's hilarious that I need to explain the very basics of evolution to you

This is what happens folks when the only "books" you read are by Discovery Institute clowns like Stephen Meyer

James ‘the question dodger’ Dawson strikes again

 

[AN2]

James ‘the question dodger’ Dawson strikes again

I've answered all of your (repetitive) questions which usually take the format of you spewing forth some ID nonsense (i.e. a false premise) and then the only acceptable answer for you is your God (whatdunnit)

And you also frequently slip in abiogenesis (as you did in your previous post) in a discussion about evolution

 

[Tiger]

I've answered all of your (repetitive) questions which usually take the format of you spewing forth some ID nonsense (i.e. a false premise) and then the only acceptable answer for you is your God (whatdunnit)

And you also frequently slip in abiogenesis (as you did in your previous post) in a discussion about evolution

Nope, you haven’t

James ‘the question dodger’ Dawson strikes again

This is the latest question that he is dodging-

If even in modern cells with fully formed replication and repair systems, beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare (almost non-existent), how could random mutations plausibly generate the first functional proteins and metabolic pathways in a prebiotic environment where no selection could operate?

 

[AN2]

Natural selection isn’t a creative force James; it could only filter what already exists. So, if mutations don’t generate genuinely new, functional information, what exactly is selection supposed to “select” from in the first place?

And if you’re suggesting that natural selection somehow guides the process, aren’t you just smuggling in an intelligent principle under another name

Poppycock

Natural selection is the natural process by which living organisms that survive and thrive best in their environment pass on their genes to future generations

You really don't know anything about evolution, do you

Nope, you haven’t

James ‘the question dodger’ Dawson strikes again

This is the latest question that he is dodging-

If even in modern cells with fully formed replication and repair systems, beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare (almost non-existent), how could random mutations plausibly generate the first functional proteins and metabolic pathways in a prebiotic environment where no selection could operate?

I mean,

"And you also frequently slip in abiogenesis (as you did in your previous post) in a discussion about evolution"

QED #groundhogday

 

[Haven]

Nope, you haven’t

James ‘the question dodger’ Dawson strikes again

This is the latest question that he is dodging-

If even in modern cells with fully formed replication and repair systems, beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare (almost non-existent), how could random mutations plausibly generate the first functional proteins and metabolic pathways in a prebiotic environment where no selection could operate?

https://scitechdaily.com/discovery-supports-a-surprising-new-view-of-how-life-on-earth-originated/

Not So Random After All: Scientists Uncover Surprising New Clues to the Origin of Life

New research shows that fluctuating environmental conditions helped chemical mixtures self-organize and evolve in structured ways, challenging the notion of chaotic early chemical evolution. A new study examines how complex chemical mixtures evolve under changing environmental conditions, offerin

scitechdaily.com

 

[Tiger]

https://scitechdaily.com/discovery-supports-a-surprising-new-view-of-how-life-on-earth-originated/

Not So Random After All: Scientists Uncover Surprising New Clues to the Origin of Life

New research shows that fluctuating environmental conditions helped chemical mixtures self-organize and evolve in structured ways, challenging the notion of chaotic early chemical evolution. A new study examines how complex chemical mixtures evolve under changing environmental conditions, offerin

scitechdaily.com

Haha, Tank, you've just 'done a James' - by lazily googling the problem being presented, in a desperate effort to find some sort of a reply and hope the reading audience doesn't understand.

That Nature paper being cited doesn’t demonstrate evolution at all; it shows chemistry doing what chemistry naturally does: settling into stable patterns under changing conditions.

There’s no replication, no inheritance, no mutation, and certainly no coded information. Calling that “evolution” stretches the term beyond recognition. What the authors observed was thermodynamic bias, not the spontaneous rise of a self-organising system capable of storing and refining information, the very definition of life.

 

[AN2]

Haha, Tank, you've just 'done a James' - by lazily googling the problem being presented, in a desperate effort to find some sort of a reply and hope the reading audience doesn't understand.

Let the reading audience understand that abiogenesis - not understood by all of science is the question that you're demanding the answer to. Your answer being intelligent design (creationism) claptrap

That Nature paper being cited doesn’t demonstrate evolution at all; it shows chemistry doing what chemistry naturally does: settling into stable patterns under changing conditions.

There’s no replication, no inheritance, no mutation, and certainly no coded information. Calling that “evolution” stretches the term beyond recognition. What the authors observed was thermodynamic bias, not the spontaneous rise of a self-organising system capable of storing and refining information, the very definition of life.

 

[Haven]

Haha, Tank, you've just 'done a James' - by lazily googling the problem being presented, in a desperate effort to find some sort of a reply and hope the reading audience doesn't understand.

That Nature paper being cited doesn’t demonstrate evolution at all; it shows chemistry doing what chemistry naturally does: settling into stable patterns under changing conditions.

There’s no replication, no inheritance, no mutation, and certainly no coded information. Calling that “evolution” stretches the term beyond recognition. What the authors observed was thermodynamic bias, not the spontaneous rise of a self-organising system capable of storing and refining information, the very definition of life.

Have you tried Google Gemini? I got it to produce this which is better than what you generated.

The findings do not constitute support for evolution itself, but rather for a specific hypothesis within the field of origin-of-life chemistry. The experiment successfully demonstrated a chemical reaction that links nucleotides, solving a problem of synthesis, but it does not—nor does it attempt to—address the massive gap between a short, enzyme-free, self-assembling molecular strand and a robust, coded, cellular life form capable of true heritable variation, differential fitness, and open-ended complexity.

For evolution to begin, the first self-replicator must not only exist but must also be sufficiently prone to beneficial error and fidelity to sustain an ongoing process of improvement. The article offers no experimental support for this critical feature, meaning it remains a study in chemical feasibility that sets the stage for, but does not confirm, the long-term process of biological descent with modification.

 

[Tiger]

Have you tried Google Gemini? I got it to produce this which is better than what you generated.

The findings do not constitute support for evolution itself, but rather for a specific hypothesis within the field of origin-of-life chemistry. The experiment successfully demonstrated a chemical reaction that links nucleotides, solving a problem of synthesis, but it does not—nor does it attempt to—address the massive gap between a short, enzyme-free, self-assembling molecular strand and a robust, coded, cellular life form capable of true heritable variation, differential fitness, and open-ended complexity.

For evolution to begin, the first self-replicator must not only exist but must also be sufficiently prone to beneficial error and fidelity to sustain an ongoing process of improvement. The article offers no experimental support for this critical feature, meaning it remains a study in chemical feasibility that sets the stage for, but does not confirm, the long-term process of biological descent with modification.

Tank, firstly - my reply is clearer and more accurate than the AI text you pasted.

Secondly - what exactly was your point in posting it? You replied to a question with the wrong answer, then doubled down instead of admitting it.

It’s obvious to everyone that you skimmed the headline and never actually examined what the study was about or whether it addressed the question being asked. That’s what I meant by “doing a Jambo.” Ironically, your AI-generated response ends up admitting my very point: the study doesn’t demonstrate evolution, mutations, or the emergence of heritable information, which was the core of my original challenge.

In other words, you’ve just confirmed that your first reply was a deflection built on a headline, not an understanding of the science.

What's next, maybe a link to a Fake Dave video? Why not go 'full Jambo'? - as you're already halfway there.

 

[Haven]

Tank, firstly - my reply is clearer and more accurate than the AI text you pasted.

Secondly - what exactly was your point in posting it? You replied to a question with the wrong answer, then doubled down instead of admitting it.

It’s obvious to everyone that you skimmed the headline and never actually examined what the study was about or whether it addressed the question being asked. That’s what I meant by “doing a Jambo.” Ironically, your AI-generated response ends up admitting my very point: the study doesn’t demonstrate evolution, mutations, or the emergence of heritable information, which was the core of my original challenge.

In other words, you’ve just confirmed that your first reply was a deflection built on a headline, not an understanding of the science.

What's next, maybe a link to a Fake Dave video? Why not go 'full Jambo'? - as you're already halfway there.

Because if you wanted it, you can ask your AI engine to spin it positive, for the same article.

Like this.

"This discovery provides powerful support for the overall theory of evolution by strengthening its necessary foundation: abiogenesis, the natural origin of life. The finding that simple, prebiotic chemistry could have readily synthesized the building blocks of both DNA and RNA using a common compound, diamidophosphate (DAP), eliminates a massive theoretical hurdle. Biological evolution, driven by natural selection, can only begin once a self-replicating molecule capable of carrying heritable information exists. By showing that the primary genetic molecules (DNA/RNA) could have arisen through common, non-biological chemical pathways on the early Earth, this research provides the essential, naturalistic starting point required by the theory of evolution, lending credibility to the entire continuum of life from simple chemistry to complex organisms.

Furthermore, the discovery supports an evolutionary framework by proposing a model of gradualism and continuity. Instead of viewing the "RNA World" as a discrete stage followed by a miraculous jump to modern DNA-based life, the research suggests the first replicators were likely chimeric molecules, part RNA and part DNA. This suggests the transition from the earliest, most primitive genetic systems to the highly stable, double-stranded DNA of modern cells was not a sudden, unexplainable event, but a smooth, evolutionary process built on a shared set of simple chemical reactions. This continuous, stepwise path from chemical complexity to biological complexity reinforces the core evolutionary principle that all of life's complex features, including its fundamental genetic machinery, arose through natural, measurable steps over deep time."

 

[Tiger]

Because if you wanted it, you can ask your AI engine to spin it positive, for the same article.

Like this.

"This discovery provides powerful support for the overall theory of evolution by strengthening its necessary foundation: abiogenesis, the natural origin of life. The finding that simple, prebiotic chemistry could have readily synthesized the building blocks of both DNA and RNA using a common compound, diamidophosphate (DAP), eliminates a massive theoretical hurdle. Biological evolution, driven by natural selection, can only begin once a self-replicating molecule capable of carrying heritable information exists. By showing that the primary genetic molecules (DNA/RNA) could have arisen through common, non-biological chemical pathways on the early Earth, this research provides the essential, naturalistic starting point required by the theory of evolution, lending credibility to the entire continuum of life from simple chemistry to complex organisms.

Furthermore, the discovery supports an evolutionary framework by proposing a model of gradualism and continuity. Instead of viewing the "RNA World" as a discrete stage followed by a miraculous jump to modern DNA-based life, the research suggests the first replicators were likely chimeric molecules, part RNA and part DNA. This suggests the transition from the earliest, most primitive genetic systems to the highly stable, double-stranded DNA of modern cells was not a sudden, unexplainable event, but a smooth, evolutionary process built on a shared set of simple chemical reactions. This continuous, stepwise path from chemical complexity to biological complexity reinforces the core evolutionary principle that all of life's complex features, including its fundamental genetic machinery, arose through natural, measurable steps over deep time."

More silly deflection and spoofing.

You’re treating AI-generated rhetoric as if it were evidence, when it isn't. Anyone can prompt an AI to spin a narrative around a study, but that doesn’t make the narrative true. The text you just quoted is a theoretical gloss, not a description of what the paper actually demonstrated. The Nature study didn’t show self-replication, heritable information, or mutation, it showed chemical bias under cycling conditions.

You’re defending the story of evolution, not the data. And that’s precisely why my original question matters; because it exposes a fundamental problem in evolutionary theory that no amount of headline-spinning or AI rhetoric can fix. Pretending the question doesn’t exist doesn’t make the problem go away.

 

[Haven]

More silly deflection and spoofing.

You’re treating AI-generated rhetoric as if it were evidence, when it isn't. Anyone can prompt an AI to spin a narrative around a study, but that doesn’t make the narrative true. The text you just quoted is a theoretical gloss, not a description of what the paper actually demonstrated. The Nature study didn’t show self-replication, heritable information, or mutation, it showed chemical bias under cycling conditions.

You’re defending the story of evolution, not the data. And that’s precisely why my original question matters; because it exposes a fundamental problem in evolutionary theory that no amount of headline-spinning or AI rhetoric can fix. Pretending the question doesn’t exist doesn’t make the problem go away.

As I said, try something different with the AI material you post.

 

[Tiger]

As I said, try something different with the AI material you post.

Pathetic.

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 deflection response here

 

[Haven]

Pathetic.

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 deflection response here

 

[AN2]

Pathetic.

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 deflection response here

Why are you asking a question that I answered yesterday, you spa?

 

[Tiger]

View attachment 8310

That’s 100% wrong.

In a desperate attempt to avoid answering a question that shatters your belief in evolution, you’re now trying to steer the debate to be what is and isn’t AI. That’s even worse than promissory scientism.

 

[Tiger]

Why are you asking a question that I answered yesterday, you spa?

You answered nothing.