A group for those without religion, as well as those who oppose it.

  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
We seem to be winning.
embed
share
previous next
 
Post comment Comments
plyuto518
plyuto518 Feb 4 2013, 10:56pm says:

Ha ha ha ha :D!

+7 votes     reply to comment
Rrtaya_Tsamsiyu
Rrtaya_Tsamsiyu Feb 5 2013, 8:12pm buried:

(buried)

“no evidence.”

Science proves Creationism. Here's how;

From a logical point of view, there are only two possibilitys of how life originated.

1. abiogenesis
2. creationism

Possibility One; that a bunch of atoms somehow came together perfectly to form DNA, , Enzymes, all of the different parts of a cell, all at once, all in the same place. Not only did these things come together so perfectly that the cell could consume/use energy, it could also reproduce itself. The chance of all of this happening, all at the same time, is incredibly small. Usually something in science with a extremely small chance of happening is referred to as “impossible.”

Possibility Two; God created everything. There isn't much of a obvious scientific way to prove or disprove this other than what i'm about to type here.

So, two possibility.
The first, abiogenesis, disproved itself with being against extremely long odds. Which, by process of elimination, only leaves creationism, proving that God is real.

-9 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 5 2013, 8:44pm replied:

Ah... Aaaahhh... No, dont hurt me!... Stop the **** it!... Aaaahh.... It hurts!...

If you just wanted to give us a kick to our shinbones, you have done a really good job, at least to me.
But if you just showed how well you know the scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis, then you just deserved an impossibly well synchronized facepalm from use with a global echo. Remember Bart Simpsons Megaphone test? Something like that. I guess you will figure out why.

+6 votes     reply to comment
☭Evanp☭
☭Evanp☭ Feb 5 2013, 8:44pm replied:

Are you trolling? Or just ******* retarded?

+6 votes     reply to comment
Rrtaya_Tsamsiyu
Rrtaya_Tsamsiyu Feb 5 2013, 9:32pm buried:

(buried)

I wasn't trolling. i tried to make that post as non-offensive as possible.

Neither of you have said where i was wrong.

-7 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 5 2013, 10:05pm replied:

Ok, sorry for being grumpy to you. You are just not the first who gets it wrong and we are not very happy about people getting science so badly wrong - no matter what faith or non-faith they have.

Abiogenesis did never happened at once, it took maybe billions of years, considering that the earth is 4.3 billion years old. Neither did the materials came together perfectly formed - perfection is an impossible concept anyway - nor was their any complex organism that could jump out of the water till 700 million BC, if Im correct. Giving it the right conditions it is not a matter of chance, but of time.
Your example was not abiogenesis at all, it rather seemed to be the creation story just without a god.

Just to give you a simplefied analogy: If you have a pot full of water and the sun shines on it, the water will vaporize as long as the temperature is above the freezing mark. 3 conditions of which 1 (the sun) dont necessarily have to be, because water is a gas and as long as it is not frozen it can vaporize by other circumstances, maybe wind. The time does not matter.

Same goes for abiogenesis: as long as you have the required circumstances, it will happen. Only the time is uncertain since it depends on the catalysts how long it will take.

+3 votes     reply to comment
☭Evanp☭
☭Evanp☭ Feb 5 2013, 10:40pm replied:

Alright then, YOUR WRONG

+4 votes     reply to comment
xxT65xx
xxT65xx Feb 9 2013, 9:28pm replied: Online

*You're wrong

trololololol

But seriously you're wrong, and we've already had a long winded argument about this on the debating society forum.
If you must, take it there, but I'm tired of debating and I'd recommend you at least skim through my previous arguments.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Feb 10 2013, 10:43pm replied:

Ok Rrtaya, i don't know who you are- but because i am a nice guy i will tell you something to help you survive in life...

DON'T PREACH TO ATHEISTS!!!!

We don't care about what you believe and we will tear you appart because we have to deal with arrogant religious a-holes all the time. you may be a nice guy- but believe me that doesnt matter its like if a racist went to a minority rights rally preaching segrigation, he may believe he is doing the right thing, in the least offensive way possible but in the he is still wrong and will not get along with the rest of the gathering.
I just thought i would warn you we dont like being harrassed

if you wish to come hear please avoid preaching or religious trolling and we will be friends

+2 votes     reply to comment
Rrtaya_Tsamsiyu
Rrtaya_Tsamsiyu Feb 5 2013, 10:15pm buried:

(buried)

i wasn't saying any complex organism, just one single, “simple” cell. All of the cell's components would have to be at the same place, at the same time, do their jobs as their supposed to, ect. The chance that all of this happens correctly are extremely small.

FYI i did get what your saying in your analogy.

edit; hmm, apparently i didn't hit reply to comment:/

-6 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 5 2013, 10:36pm replied:

So maybe this will help you a bit to understand it:

Youtube.com

Youtube.com

+3 votes     reply to comment
Rrtaya_Tsamsiyu
Rrtaya_Tsamsiyu Feb 6 2013, 8:11am replied:

hmm, watched both videos. a single cell needs millions of the different components mentioned in order to be complete, and all of them would have to be exactly correct in order for the cell have the things it needs to live. It would also have to come to life somehow. im still liking my odds

0 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Feb 6 2013, 10:35am replied:

Those vids also explained how it works.

"It would also have to come to life somehow."

No, because it is already at that point. Magical word: chemical reactions. Also watch part 3:
Youtube.com

+1 vote     reply to comment
xxT65xx
xxT65xx Feb 9 2013, 9:31pm replied: Online

It wasn't exactly *poof* then cells. First there would need to be self-replictaing molecules, it's a little more complex than you might think.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho
Sarge_Rho Feb 6 2013, 5:10am replied:

Wrong. Very wrong. Mitochondria were separate from eukaryote cells at first, as a form of bacteria. The other organules were formed over time from what I know. Lipids tend to form pro-cell membranes under the right conditions, and Aminoacids are abundant in the universe.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Image Details
Type
Comedy
Date
Feb 4th, 2013
Size
544×169
Options
URL
Embed (big)
Embed
Share
Report Abuse
Report media
Add Media
Members only