Abiogenesis has not produced a single product on 30 years that could be created in nature without humans making it happen. Abiogenesis does not even meet the requirements for a hypothesis because there are zero experiments that show how the components for life are created. Nothing. Abiogenesis is purely organic chemistry creating some chemicals. Just because it’s the only thing trying to explain how life started it doesn’t mean it works.
Helping the algorith here, because this is really well presented and comunicated. It gives a really clear overview of what we are pretty sure of and sort of know so far
A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP. The book explains that Shannon information does not apply to the code for life. It is more like the Enigma code of the Germans in WW2 that changes with time regarding what the code stands for and changes to the coding members themselves.
This was an amazing video thank you! I can't believe this only has 1000 views, I have been searching for a good video on this topic for ages. I saw you've replied to a few questions in the comments, so I wondered if you had an answer to some of mine or somewhere to point me? I would really like to know the mechanisms by which fatty acids are created near hydrothermal vents (and also how nucleotides are formed in stars and nebulae) Also how difficult is it for RNA to form RNA replicase? is it a very unlikely process or will lots of arrangements produce similar results? Are there any plans for experiments that could simulate the creation of life from scratch (with a few expedients to avoid waiting 120 million years)? Are processes like the ones you describe currently taking place in the wild around hydrothermal vents, and have we observed them?
Thanks for the kind words. Lots of questions, but that's great! Not sure I can answer any with much satisfaction, but here's a recent paper on fatty acid production around hydrothermal vents: www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01196-4
@@TurtlesWayDown "Nucleotide production in proto solar system material" That might not be accurate. I read the abstract and it mentioned nucleobases, not nucleotides.
There was a big jump in this video. Where did the informational code come from that could self-replicate? It seems the nucleotides would be random sequences, and to find a self replicating sequence would be astronomical odds!
The process of self-replication and the nucleotide sequences within that replicating molecule are completely independent from each other. In other words, any sequence - random or not - could be self-replicated. It doesn't matter what the sequence is. The nucleic acid simply needs to bond to its opposite sequence, one nucleotide at a time. The issue, as mentioned, is once you have the double helix of RNA does it then unzip itself to form two strands? In PRESENT DAY life, this is easily achieved by enzymes, such as helicase. But during the time of RNA World, when no enzymes were available, this presents a problem.
Yes I see what you are saying. The point I was trying to make (poorly) is that the sequence of the base pairs is important as well since that holds the information to make proteins for example, else it is just replicating gibberish with no functionality
@markfly480 Yeah, you're exactly correct. Apparently in the RNA World Model the nucleotide sequence IS gibberish nonsense before any protein production mechanism evolves. But once that process begins a tight correlation between nucleotide sequencing and amino acid pairings evolves. This all proceeds through the growth of intermediary molecules such as tRNA and ribosomes RNA. These are very nuanced and detailed chemical pathways that researchers are struggling to find and make clear. These details are certainly still a mystery.
Right! Astronomical odds for a single organic episode, but when you have trillions to the trillionth of organic opportunities the odds could possibly represent a probability under Goldilocks conditions. So, the astronomical argument wouldn’t provide a credible conclusion of anything.
8:42 Your statement is correct, but could be confusing to people not familiar with what you mean by "oxygen". For example, the diagram you show has oxygen in 3 of the 7 molecules. What is meant by "oxygen" in your statement is not the element oxygen, but molecular oxygen ... O2.
14:29 Sometimes you make correct statement by saying parts of nucleotides, but other times you make false claims by just saying nucleotides. Starting at 14:30 is an example. No nucleotides have been found in space. Parts of nucleotides, such as nucleobases have.
10:00 I know you didn't make the animation of DNA, but I have a few problems with it, but will address only one - the one that is different from most animations. It shows the base pairs as strings of base-10 digits ... 24 or so such digits. In reality, a canonical base pair has only 4 possibilities, and so can store at most 2 bits of information. That is an astronomical difference. 4 possibilities vs a trillion trillion possibilities. Some might consider that a nitpick, but it is kind of like having an animation of Earth as a small circle 1 inch in size, and a human walking around on it, with the human being a trillion miles tall.
Probably that would not happen ... because life already exists and is ubiquitous. Assume organic molecules had to accumulate and complexify over 10 million years for life to arise. That probably could not happen today because prokaryotes or some simple eukaryotes would incorporate or consume the organics, long before organics could transition to life.
You might be thinking of that myth where some dude made a Golem doll from non-living mud and gave it a B.J. At least he only got sand in his mouth. I am confident it sounds like a story that will appeal to you.
@hasegawataizo4069 said, "Does God cease to exist because you can explain a phenomenon compatible with your current level of knowledge, in your estimation?" Cease to exist? He can't cease to exist until he first exists. And you have failed to show that he does exist, or that he ever did exist. And you failed to do so, despite your having made more then 2 dozen posts after claiming he exists and being asked for evidence.
I understand, but my target audience is general. For those who are much more versed in biochemistry and organics they can get extremely nitpicky and find flaws with my videos and facts. I am constrained to several minutes to help explain in as broad terms and as understandable ideas to the lay public as possible. I could have said, "most cellular membranes are composed of bilayers of phospholipids. Phospholipids are a subset of lipids. The following are the differences between the two. These are the different molecular structures of various lipids. This subcategory here is a phospholipid. The compositional structure of phospholipids are such and such, etc, etc" Sure, I could have made exceedingly explicit, and much more accurate and detailed facts about these biochemical subtleties. But I chose not to. The choices are dictated by weighing how much knowledge to explain about abiogenesis to someone who knows nothing about it (including nothing about the chemistry) AND staying within a reasonable amount of viewing time vs having the viewer roll their eyes and say this is too much information for me, boring, and much too abstruse AND they get NO knowledge of abiogenesis. I'd rather err on the side of making some nitpicky faux pas while having a (possibly religious?) audience come away from it with some scientific knowledge for how the world REALLY works.
Phospholipids are worthless without proteins to regulate the internal environment…..there are roughly 30 different ones. These proteins would have to be created first in order to have a living cell so your over simplified video is actually harming not helping those watching.
You can read about the Fermi Paradox. One idea is that there is a great filter of some kind: once life reaches a certain level of technology, it destroys itself. Think about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, global warming from fossil fuel use, global pollution and things like microplastics working their way into everything we eat, etc.
I don't agree fully with what he said about proteins, but he said they came after life. In his view, life existed before proteins made from amino acids that were homochiral (enantiopure) existed. By the time there is life, with life producing the molecules, homochirality is not an issue.
24:40 You soon claim that RNA replicase is made of RNA. It's not. RNA replicase is a protein ... a protein enzyme. At that point you are not talking about the origin of life, but today .... because at 24:40 you start by saying ... "can, and still does". RNA replicase in "life" today is a protein; the RNA that presumably replicated in the prebiotic word would have been an RNA replicase RIBOZYME.
If you listen carefully to this video you will learn that Abiogenesis is impossible because at no point does the video ever reach the Abiogenesis event.
@@TurtlesWayDown that entity in the video is *not* life at all, whatsoever. This is a common mistake in all Abiogenesis material published for the general public: the origin of life is misattributed to some molecule or entity which is very much *not alive* and couldn't ever become alive.
@@TurtlesWayDown your definition of life is fine (it is good enough and that's the best science can do) but the entity described in the video as life (the so called Protocell composed of lipids and RNA and presumably something else) is *not* life. Scientists cannot create such an entity in a laboratory and it couldn't form anywhere else, but even if such an entity did exist it is a dead end and could only die rather than live.
@sentientflower7891 Thanks for the comment. However, I disagree with some of your assumptions. For example, creating phospholipid vesicles in the lab is very easy to do. Also, producing random or meaningful RNA and DNA strands can also be done in a lab and is done routinely using PCR techniques. Combining the two procedures can also be done rather easily in a lab. Of course, this is all done in a lab, as you mention. We've yet to observe all these steps come together in nature. I also have to disagree with the statement that the protocell will necessarily fade away. It may, but if it can replicate itself - the cellular envelope and the nucleic acids - then it is, by definition, reproducing itself. Copies will spread, with possible slight changes in its necleic acid sequencing. If that process continues then natural selection can work in tandem to produce ever more complicated and functioning structures.
Even with bare bones definitions, we really need 4) a metabolism, and 5):a membrane delimiting life from its environment. Panspermia is so stale! How about we dump it, since it only dislocates the question at hand. We all seem to agree that simple forms of reproductive, envitalized integrities have little trouble emerging on Earth-like planets. The truly forbidding hurdles are complex, nucleated cellularity, with energizing respiration and metabolism, sexually generated diversity and the rare contingencies of tectonic geology and orbital mechanics, such as orbital periods, obliquity, eccentricity, etc. And beyond cell complexity comes metazoology, behavioral particularities and peculiar anatomies that permit sociality, sentience, consciousness, sapience, language, volition and nobility.
@hasegawataizo4069 said, "The invocation of fantastical creatures to dismiss the existence of God may serve as a clever jest ..." Nope, it's a valid point. God is an alleged fantastical being ... even more extraordinary than fantastical creatues like werewolves, mermaids, zombies, and genies. God is the more extraordinary claim, and so there needs to be even more extraordinary evidence for god than there is for werewolves, mermaids, and genies. Yet there is exactly as much good evidence for their existence as there is for god's ... none. Which is why even after 26 posts you have failed to provide any good evidence that your god exists.
You Musk be kidding ourselves 😂👍 Over 80% of organic evolutionary creations isn't to my liking at all , it's full of imperfections & disgustingly oversaturated with tremendous amount of long lasting suffering , pain & fear . Human beings are in constant battle with evolutionary imperfections all the time tretening our existence with countless diseases continuously evolving in parallel to our progress that only discovers more of complex ailments starting with variety of cancers , viral & bacterial infections . Evolution of our warfare is our way of mimicking the soffisticated ways of inflicting pain and suffering by evolution itself ....What an evolutionary waste of our time looking from our perspective at the brutality of 150 millions years ! Of Jurassic era with the blood thirsty Dinosaurs. ..... From the perspective of being young and healthy high on psychoactive substances EVERYTHING created is perfect until the time of our personal demise experiencing everlasting multitudes of many pains piled up together . Our goal of painless , without suffering lives if realized is called good KARMA 😂😂 The best science is medicine trying to keep us in state of Homeostasis & not contemplating on our mortality ....
If we were directly created by an omnipotent being, they must've been stupid. Apparently they used way more chromosomes and DNA for "simple" organisms compared to us "complex" organisms. I wonder why they thought wisdom teeth or the appendix was a good idea - WHY do we have a vestigial tail bone??? WHY are our testicles exposed while cetaceans get to keep them inside their body (unfair...)??? Why do we humans, which you people like to say is the pinnacle of life, have WAY worse and less complex eyes than ancient trilobites or modern day mantis shrimp? So much for a god creating us.
@@rickdelatour5355interesting question but have you wondered what about if beings can exist in higher dimensions? God is considered to posses similar powers as a higher dimensional being would like controlling time, initial point of origin, understanding and knowing of the infinite universes that exists? Again there cant be a straightforward evidence on this but still it does proves the concept of a supreme being controlling or even interpreting its lower dimensional beings.
@@musasaeed6648 sorry, but that doesn’t prove anything, nor respond to my question. It’s just an assertion. We don’t even know if a god exists let alone know what kind attributes it may or may not have.
@@flowstate2394 Ivan could be right. My dog is very clever. I stumbled and accidentally kicked it in the butt, and it made a bolt for the door, quicker than you can say Ken Ham looks like a monkey's uncle.
@@TurtlesWayDown If you cannot prove a naturalistic phenomenon by natural means, like consciousness, then you are observing a supernatural phenomenon. This is only a guess, but is your RUclips handle related to solipsism (turtle on a turtle, on a turtle)? If so, then you already know you are discussing a topic that cannot currently be explained with our limited understanding of reality. Your bias, and mistake, is replacing a natural belief system for logic and reason under the auspice of science. Those are merely tools of cognition.
@hasegawataizo4069 All science works this way. I'm just explaining what science has to say about each of these big questions. I make no claims that science has an ultimate answer to any. That's why I have a question mark at the end of the titles. If you hope to get an absolute answer from me that science has struggled to solve, you've come to the wrong place. I'm merely helping to illuminate the mystery and trying to explain what science knows about it. Science communication. Nature is filled with mysteries. Science progresses and continues to fill in many of these gaps. However, before they are clarified by science, I certainly wouldn't call these mysterious gaps "supernatural". Because by doing so, you automatically claim that these mysteries are "above nature" and, therefore, cannot ever be explained by science, which is false. All the previously mysterious ideas of nature that HAVE been explained by science were obviously NOT supernatural to begin with. Why not think of the current mysteries of science (consciousness, etc) the same way?
@@TurtlesWayDown We disagree on the supernatural and natural, and that's okay. I too, am a man of science and knowledge. Just because you've plotted a data point doesn't make it strictly natural. Cogito ergo sum? I don't think Decarte would agree with modern "science's" interpretation of reality. But he's dead, and we aren't. Allow me to be more pointed with my question: Does God cease to exist because you can explain a phenomenon compatible with your current level of knowledge, in your estimation?
I’m so happy that RUclips brought me your video! You’re an excellent science communicator TY
Abiogensis is the prevailing scientific view of most biologists.
Abiogenesis has not produced a single product on 30 years that could be created in nature without humans making it happen. Abiogenesis does not even meet the requirements for a hypothesis because there are zero experiments that show how the components for life are created. Nothing. Abiogenesis is purely organic chemistry creating some chemicals. Just because it’s the only thing trying to explain how life started it doesn’t mean it works.
@@crackheadbiden3273 everything you said is wrong.
but its not like you care.
@@spatrk6634 Prove it. Don’t just run your mouth, back it up, show me how I’m wrong
Helping the algorith here, because this is really well presented and comunicated. It gives a really clear overview of what we are pretty sure of and sort of know so far
Great job!
what a wonder, and an even bigger wonder that we may eventually understand it!
Best explanation ever, thank you
Thank you
Great vid, very calming and pleasant to listen to
@Morrimurr Wow, thanks for compliment. Glad you enjoyed the video.
I LOVE the channel name....... yes indeed it is turtles all the way down, which explains everything.
Very interesting and well presented. We do not know yet if life is ordinary or extraordinary, but in all circumstances, let's make sure it thrives!
Do not miss this one. Factual, no creationism and most importantly up to date in the field of abiogenesis
You present a very difficult subject in an easy-to-understand way.
You're not fooling me science man! It's Turtles, all the way down!
Lol, yeah, I guess so. 😅
A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP.
The book explains that Shannon information does not apply to the code for life. It is more like the Enigma code of the Germans in WW2 that changes with time regarding what the code stands for and changes to the coding members themselves.
Thanks for the recommendation!
This was an amazing video thank you! I can't believe this only has 1000 views, I have been searching for a good video on this topic for ages.
I saw you've replied to a few questions in the comments, so I wondered if you had an answer to some of mine or somewhere to point me?
I would really like to know the mechanisms by which fatty acids are created near hydrothermal vents (and also how nucleotides are formed in stars and nebulae)
Also how difficult is it for RNA to form RNA replicase? is it a very unlikely process or will lots of arrangements produce similar results?
Are there any plans for experiments that could simulate the creation of life from scratch (with a few expedients to avoid waiting 120 million years)?
Are processes like the ones you describe currently taking place in the wild around hydrothermal vents, and have we observed them?
Thanks for the kind words. Lots of questions, but that's great! Not sure I can answer any with much satisfaction, but here's a recent paper on fatty acid production around hydrothermal vents:
www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01196-4
Nucleotide production in proto solar system material: www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29612-x
Detection of nucleotide bases in nebulae: www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12404-1
@@TurtlesWayDown thanks!
@@TurtlesWayDown "Nucleotide production in proto solar system material"
That might not be accurate. I read the abstract and it mentioned nucleobases, not nucleotides.
Great video
Thanks!
Thanks for a comprehensive summary of our knowledge. But in the end it’s just another “Just So” story.
Is this dude a religious loon? If yes, I can stop watching.
Great video!
Glad you enjoyed it
Really well done! I just happened upon your channel - I'll be back!
There was a big jump in this video. Where did the informational code come from that could self-replicate? It seems the nucleotides would be random sequences, and to find a self replicating sequence would be astronomical odds!
The process of self-replication and the nucleotide sequences within that replicating molecule are completely independent from each other. In other words, any sequence - random or not - could be self-replicated. It doesn't matter what the sequence is. The nucleic acid simply needs to bond to its opposite sequence, one nucleotide at a time. The issue, as mentioned, is once you have the double helix of RNA does it then unzip itself to form two strands? In PRESENT DAY life, this is easily achieved by enzymes, such as helicase. But during the time of RNA World, when no enzymes were available, this presents a problem.
Yes I see what you are saying. The point I was trying to make (poorly) is that the sequence of the base pairs is important as well since that holds the information to make proteins for example, else it is just replicating gibberish with no functionality
@markfly480 Yeah, you're exactly correct. Apparently in the RNA World Model the nucleotide sequence IS gibberish nonsense before any protein production mechanism evolves. But once that process begins a tight correlation between nucleotide sequencing and amino acid pairings evolves. This all proceeds through the growth of intermediary molecules such as tRNA and ribosomes RNA. These are very nuanced and detailed chemical pathways that researchers are struggling to find and make clear. These details are certainly still a mystery.
The biggest jump in Evolutionary theory is between our primates the Monkeys & appearance of humans with consciousness & self awareness ...
Right! Astronomical odds for a single organic episode, but when you have trillions to the trillionth of organic opportunities the odds could possibly represent a probability under Goldilocks conditions. So, the astronomical argument wouldn’t provide a credible conclusion of anything.
8:42 Your statement is correct, but could be confusing to people not familiar with what you mean by "oxygen". For example, the diagram you show has oxygen in 3 of the 7 molecules. What is meant by "oxygen" in your statement is not the element oxygen, but molecular oxygen ... O2.
14:29 Sometimes you make correct statement by saying parts of nucleotides, but other times you make false claims by just saying nucleotides. Starting at 14:30 is an example. No nucleotides have been found in space. Parts of nucleotides, such as nucleobases have.
10:00 I know you didn't make the animation of DNA, but I have a few problems with it, but will address only one - the one that is different from most animations. It shows the base pairs as strings of base-10 digits ... 24 or so such digits. In reality, a canonical base pair has only 4 possibilities, and so can store at most 2 bits of information. That is an astronomical difference. 4 possibilities vs a trillion trillion possibilities.
Some might consider that a nitpick, but it is kind of like having an animation of Earth as a small circle 1 inch in size, and a human walking around on it, with the human being a trillion miles tall.
The hydrothermal vents on the bottom of the ocean may be creating new forms of life right now,and may have been doing so for billions of years.
Probably that would not happen ... because life already exists and is ubiquitous. Assume organic molecules had to accumulate and complexify over 10 million years for life to arise. That probably could not happen today because prokaryotes or some simple eukaryotes would incorporate or consume the organics, long before organics could transition to life.
Wow,new bedtime story.
You might be thinking of that myth where some dude made a Golem doll from non-living mud and gave it a B.J.
At least he only got sand in his mouth. I am confident it sounds like a story that will appeal to you.
@hasegawataizo4069 said, "Does God cease to exist because you can explain a phenomenon compatible with your current level of knowledge, in your estimation?"
Cease to exist? He can't cease to exist until he first exists. And you have failed to show that he does exist, or that he ever did exist. And you failed to do so, despite your having made more then 2 dozen posts after claiming he exists and being asked for evidence.
Why do these videos always have annoying music in the background?
The info is very good, but I find the voice hard to listen to.
The engineer drank the black goo
10:54 You are confusing lipids for phospholipids. Phospholipids are a subset of lipids. Not all lipids have a round head and two legs.
I understand, but my target audience is general. For those who are much more versed in biochemistry and organics they can get extremely nitpicky and find flaws with my videos and facts. I am constrained to several minutes to help explain in as broad terms and as understandable ideas to the lay public as possible. I could have said, "most cellular membranes are composed of bilayers of phospholipids. Phospholipids are a subset of lipids. The following are the differences between the two. These are the different molecular structures of various lipids. This subcategory here is a phospholipid. The compositional structure of phospholipids are such and such, etc, etc" Sure, I could have made exceedingly explicit, and much more accurate and detailed facts about these biochemical subtleties. But I chose not to. The choices are dictated by weighing how much knowledge to explain about abiogenesis to someone who knows nothing about it (including nothing about the chemistry) AND staying within a reasonable amount of viewing time vs having the viewer roll their eyes and say this is too much information for me, boring, and much too abstruse AND they get NO knowledge of abiogenesis. I'd rather err on the side of making some nitpicky faux pas while having a (possibly religious?) audience come away from it with some scientific knowledge for how the world REALLY works.
Phospholipids are worthless without proteins to regulate the internal environment…..there are roughly 30 different ones. These proteins would have to be created first in order to have a living cell so your over simplified video is actually harming not helping those watching.
If it's the case, shouldn't we see life out there? Earth wasn't the only planet with chemical soup and lightnings.
You can read about the Fermi Paradox. One idea is that there is a great filter of some kind: once life reaches a certain level of technology, it destroys itself. Think about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, global warming from fossil fuel use, global pollution and things like microplastics working their way into everything we eat, etc.
Hmm protein chirality seems to be missing...
I don't agree fully with what he said about proteins, but he said they came after life. In his view, life existed before proteins made from amino acids that were homochiral (enantiopure) existed. By the time there is life, with life producing the molecules, homochirality is not an issue.
GOD!😊
24:40 You soon claim that RNA replicase is made of RNA. It's not. RNA replicase is a protein ... a protein enzyme. At that point you are not talking about the origin of life, but today .... because at 24:40 you start by saying ... "can, and still does". RNA replicase in "life" today is a protein; the RNA that presumably replicated in the prebiotic word would have been an RNA replicase RIBOZYME.
Why is life defined the way it is?
because that's how we attempt to understand it, from our position as a living thing
Life. I.S. 01 beginning T end
If you listen carefully to this video you will learn that Abiogenesis is impossible because at no point does the video ever reach the Abiogenesis event.
24:06 Abiogenesis: Life from Non-life
@@TurtlesWayDown that entity in the video is *not* life at all, whatsoever. This is a common mistake in all Abiogenesis material published for the general public: the origin of life is misattributed to some molecule or entity which is very much *not alive* and couldn't ever become alive.
So then you differ with what defines life as I discussed earlier in the video. What is your definition of life?
@@TurtlesWayDown your definition of life is fine (it is good enough and that's the best science can do) but the entity described in the video as life (the so called Protocell composed of lipids and RNA and presumably something else) is *not* life. Scientists cannot create such an entity in a laboratory and it couldn't form anywhere else, but even if such an entity did exist it is a dead end and could only die rather than live.
@sentientflower7891 Thanks for the comment. However, I disagree with some of your assumptions. For example, creating phospholipid vesicles in the lab is very easy to do. Also, producing random or meaningful RNA and DNA strands can also be done in a lab and is done routinely using PCR techniques. Combining the two procedures can also be done rather easily in a lab. Of course, this is all done in a lab, as you mention. We've yet to observe all these steps come together in nature. I also have to disagree with the statement that the protocell will necessarily fade away. It may, but if it can replicate itself - the cellular envelope and the nucleic acids - then it is, by definition, reproducing itself. Copies will spread, with possible slight changes in its necleic acid sequencing. If that process continues then natural selection can work in tandem to produce ever more complicated and functioning structures.
Ability to reproduce.
Is a human (or other animal) that was born sterile, and therefore could never reproduce, not alive?
Even with bare bones definitions, we really need 4) a metabolism, and 5):a membrane delimiting life from its environment.
Panspermia is so stale! How about we dump it, since it only dislocates the question at hand.
We all seem to agree that simple forms of reproductive, envitalized integrities have little trouble emerging on Earth-like planets. The truly forbidding hurdles are complex, nucleated cellularity, with energizing respiration and metabolism, sexually generated diversity and the rare contingencies of tectonic geology and orbital mechanics, such as orbital periods, obliquity, eccentricity, etc.
And beyond cell complexity comes metazoology, behavioral particularities and peculiar anatomies that permit sociality, sentience, consciousness, sapience, language, volition and nobility.
@hasegawataizo4069 said, "The invocation of fantastical creatures to dismiss the existence of God may serve as a clever jest ..."
Nope, it's a valid point. God is an alleged fantastical being ... even more extraordinary than fantastical creatues like werewolves, mermaids, zombies, and genies. God is the more extraordinary claim, and so there needs to be even more extraordinary evidence for god than there is for werewolves, mermaids, and genies. Yet there is exactly as much good evidence for their existence as there is for god's ... none. Which is why even after 26 posts you have failed to provide any good evidence that your god exists.
You Musk be kidding ourselves 😂👍
Over 80% of organic evolutionary creations isn't to my liking at all , it's full of imperfections & disgustingly oversaturated with tremendous amount of long lasting suffering , pain & fear .
Human beings are in constant battle with evolutionary imperfections all the time tretening our existence with countless diseases continuously evolving in parallel to our progress that only discovers more of complex ailments starting with variety of cancers , viral & bacterial infections .
Evolution of our warfare is our way of mimicking the soffisticated ways of inflicting pain and suffering by evolution itself ....What an evolutionary waste of our time looking from our perspective at the brutality of 150 millions years ! Of Jurassic era with the blood thirsty Dinosaurs. ..... From the perspective of being young and healthy high on psychoactive substances EVERYTHING created is perfect until the time of our personal demise experiencing everlasting multitudes of many pains piled up together . Our goal of painless , without suffering lives if realized is called good KARMA 😂😂 The best science is medicine trying to keep us in state of Homeostasis & not contemplating on our mortality ....
It was created by an omnipotent being.
If we were directly created by an omnipotent being, they must've been stupid. Apparently they used way more chromosomes and DNA for "simple" organisms compared to us "complex" organisms. I wonder why they thought wisdom teeth or the appendix was a good idea - WHY do we have a vestigial tail bone??? WHY are our testicles exposed while cetaceans get to keep them inside their body (unfair...)??? Why do we humans, which you people like to say is the pinnacle of life, have WAY worse and less complex eyes than ancient trilobites or modern day mantis shrimp? So much for a god creating us.
Got any evidence for your claim? Any reason at all to believe you?
The explanation presented in the video is only that from a scientific perspective. Not a theological one.
@@rickdelatour5355interesting question but have you wondered what about if beings can exist in higher dimensions? God is considered to posses similar powers as a higher dimensional being would like controlling time, initial point of origin, understanding and knowing of the infinite universes that exists? Again there cant be a straightforward evidence on this but still it does proves the concept of a supreme being controlling or even interpreting its lower dimensional beings.
@@musasaeed6648 sorry, but that doesn’t prove anything, nor respond to my question. It’s just an assertion. We don’t even know if a god exists let alone know what kind attributes it may or may not have.
God made life?
How simple are you? Why even bother watching or commenting on a video you have no interest in?
Who/what made god?
Yep! Spoke it into existence in Hebrew 😅
@@flowstate2394
Ivan could be right.
My dog is very clever.
I stumbled and accidentally kicked it in the butt, and it made a bolt for the door, quicker than you can say Ken Ham looks like a monkey's uncle.
God.
The explanation presented in the video is only that from a scientific perspective. Not a theological one.
No.
@@TurtlesWayDown If you cannot prove a naturalistic phenomenon by natural means, like consciousness, then you are observing a supernatural phenomenon. This is only a guess, but is your RUclips handle related to solipsism (turtle on a turtle, on a turtle)? If so, then you already know you are discussing a topic that cannot currently be explained with our limited understanding of reality. Your bias, and mistake, is replacing a natural belief system for logic and reason under the auspice of science. Those are merely tools of cognition.
@hasegawataizo4069 All science works this way. I'm just explaining what science has to say about each of these big questions. I make no claims that science has an ultimate answer to any. That's why I have a question mark at the end of the titles. If you hope to get an absolute answer from me that science has struggled to solve, you've come to the wrong place. I'm merely helping to illuminate the mystery and trying to explain what science knows about it. Science communication. Nature is filled with mysteries. Science progresses and continues to fill in many of these gaps. However, before they are clarified by science, I certainly wouldn't call these mysterious gaps "supernatural". Because by doing so, you automatically claim that these mysteries are "above nature" and, therefore, cannot ever be explained by science, which is false. All the previously mysterious ideas of nature that HAVE been explained by science were obviously NOT supernatural to begin with. Why not think of the current mysteries of science (consciousness, etc) the same way?
@@TurtlesWayDown We disagree on the supernatural and natural, and that's okay. I too, am a man of science and knowledge. Just because you've plotted a data point doesn't make it strictly natural. Cogito ergo sum? I don't think Decarte would agree with modern "science's" interpretation of reality. But he's dead, and we aren't. Allow me to be more pointed with my question: Does God cease to exist because you can explain a phenomenon compatible with your current level of knowledge, in your estimation?
In the beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth… Genesis 1:1
Mary had a little lamb, it's fleece was white as snow ... Nursery Rhyme
You've been brainwashed lol
Easier to believe Jesus Christ is god then this
*than
Better to believe what comports with reality.
It's mostly just chemistry. Do you not believe chemistry happens?
Where is everyone then. No alien out there. They must be hiding?
Yeah sure the white bearded mystical wizard in the sky is always the answer when you can't comprehend the subject matter at hand lol