rationalist
Member
Aron: Does it matter? I mean, I'm sure I can find it. I've found other studies like that. But do I really need to waste my time answering your question when you'll only ignore the answer again?
Reply: See, when it comes to the specifics, you immediately dodge, rather than giving an honest answer. I can answer my question for you. They had all to emerge together, erasers, readers, and writers, and the histone code. None of them have function by themselves. That observation ALONE kills your worldview. But you cannot admit it, because you are emotionally committed to believe what you want to be true. Your claim that you are not biased is not demonstrated with your attitude, and how you deal with the difficult questions.
Aron: It is NOT my job to disprove your unsupported assertions. It is your job to show that they are justified.
Reply: Yes, it is your job. If you want to have a case for materialism, it must rest on its own feet. The new atheists tactic is a lousy one. We have a case, and you dismiss it, but do not provide a better one.... thats lame and cheap.
Aron:Once again, what you're calling materialism is the lack of any reason to believe in the supernatural world that you're claiming exists.
Reply: How i love to smear this on your face: 125 reasons to believe in God
https://******************************/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god
The obviousness of Creation is hidden from those who reject God. There is no evidence that we can exist without a creator.
Since there is being, being has always been. Beginning requires a beginner. Contingent beings depend on a necessary cause. Creation requires a creator. Design requires a designer.Laws require a lawmaker. Mathematics requires a mathematician. Fine-tuning requires a fine-tuner, Codes require a coder. Information requires an Informer. Translation requires a translator. Life has only been observed to come from life. Logic comes from logic, Consciousness comes from consciousness, Factories require a factory-maker, Objective moral values come from a moral giver. The "God of the gaps" argument is invalid. And so, that there is no evidence for God(s).
Aron: We don't care what you believe, except when people who believe as you do are in charge of everything at every level of State and Federal government, and you are imposing your falsehoods onto sequestered students and enforcing your religious bigotry against our Constitutional rights.
Reply: yes, i know that canard as well.... your script is not new to me. And i have an answer for that.
Why do positive, active, strong militant atheists or weak atheists/agnostics promote their views with such fervour and time spending?
Atheism is an idea that doesn’t matter. It leads to no good, it helps no one and it tends to either universal anarchy and chaos or totalitarian despotism, and the ultimate fate and consequence is to die and be judged upon their own sins and mistakes and paying for their sins and rejection of God in Hell forever and ever.
Jeffrey Dahmer:
If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?,” "That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing.”
Atheists protest against something they say that there is no evidence for. They have an itch they can’t scratch and it’s driving them crazy. They think the only salve to their itch is to convince others of what they themselves are not certain of. They are desperate to destroy others thinking that is the path to their salvation. Why should a theist know about your willingly chosen incredulity ¨& ignorance? Do you also wear t-shirts where you inform everyone that you don't believe in Pink Unicorns and Aliens? Is your internet-atheology-misotheology-activism & militancy not an entirely senseless foolish, and meaningless endeavor?
Aron: You're saying that a brother and sister can't be different from each other unless they're completely different from their parents?
Reply: Thats not what i am saying. What i say, IMHO, is this:
Irreducible Complexity: The existence of irreducible interdependent structures in biology is an undeniable fact
A piston has no use by its own. But only, when working inside a gasoline engine. A flagellar filament structural protein has no use by its own unless inserted and conjoined with all other proteins to form the flagella filament proteins In the same sense, as an engineer would not project, invent, create and make a blueprint of a piston with no use by its own, but only conjoined, and together with all other parts while projecting a whole engine, envisioning its end function and use, its evident that unguided random natural events without foresight would not come up with assemblage of tiny molecular machines, enzymatic structures with unique contours, which bear no function by their own, but only when inserted in cellular structures with higher ends, being essential for cells to self-replicate, and perpetuate life.
Natural selection would not select for components of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system.
In other words: Why would natural selection select an intermediate biosynthesis product, which has by its own no use for the organism, unless that product keeps going through all necessary steps, up to the point to be ready to be assembled in a larger system? Never do we see blind, unguided processes leading to complex functional systems with integrated parts contributing to the overarching design goal.
A minimal amount of instructional complex information is required for a gene to produce useful proteins. A minimal size of a protein is necessary for it to be functional. Thus, before a region of DNA contains the requisite information to make useful proteins, natural selection would not select for a positive trait and play no role in guiding its evolution.
Aron: I really didn't need to reply to anything in this whole post as none of was really relevant or substantive.
Reply: So here you are again dodging and exposing your bias. i can go a bit in detail here, and unmask why your narrative is BUNK.
The Origin of Multicellularity 5
From an evolutionary perspective, support for the transition from unicellular (single cell) to multicellular organisms requires the emergence of several novel biochemical systems. Such systems include:
- pathways that transform cells from generalized to specialized forms during growth and development;
- mechanisms for the migration of cells relative to each other during growth and development;
- structures that support cell-cell adhesions;
- and mechanisms for cell-cell communication.
- All of these systems have to be in place and operate in an integrated fashion to support multicellularity.
If you cannot deal honesty with this issue, you are demonstrating once again that your entire position is not based on evidence, but wishful thinking.
Aron: I told you, we have to start with amino acids first.
Reply: Yes, you have a LOT to explain in order to have a case. Starting by explaining how the 20 amino acids were selected prebiotically.
Aron: So let me be clear. Success would be, if an experiment would provide evidence how the 20 amino acids could have originated prebiotically on early earth. That has NOT been done.
That has been done, as I just showed you.
Reply: No, you didn't. Did tryptophan exist prebiotically ? If so, how did the transition from a prebiotic synthesis to a enzymatic/metabolic synthesis occur ?
Aron: Different experiments using different base chemicals each produced amino acids. That was the goal, to prove that could happen.
Reply: That is a far fetch from what is required. Once you find answers to the question that i ask here, we talk:
Open questions in prebiotic chemistry to explain the origin of the four basic building blocks of life
https://******************************/t1279p75-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible#7759
I remind you, these are not simply open question, because they have not been investigated. Quite the contrary. They are open question despite the fact that over half a century science has tried, but only unraveled how big the problem actually is. It is a CONCEPTUAL problem. Molecules do not urge to themselves being sorted out into functional ones that life can use.
Aron: I correctly said that it was later discovered that the original study produced 22 amino acids, much more than previously thought. I made no false claim like you have.
Reply: Ok, i correct myself. It was not you. It was the Secular Humanist Society that heralded that ALL 20 of the amino acids found in proteins – plus a few others, were produced. That is not true. So since it was not those used in life, these experiments did not provide the evidence which you claim they have.....
Aron: I remind you that Stanley Miller died in 2007, still thinking his volcano in a bottle experiment was a "dud". Now we know better. Here is a study from just last year that shows, just as I already said, that heating water to 70ºC in the presence of iron hydroxide (simulating geothermal vents in the anaerobic conditions of the prebiotic earth) also produced amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids in the lab.
Reply: Did they produce all used in life? Did they figure out how early life sorted out those 20 used in life from those that are not used in life? Did they figure out how to solve the homochirality problem, and how to polymerize them ? If not, they have work to do. And i predict, these are not solvable problems, because molecules have no urge to become functional subunits for molecular machines....
Aron:Life should be able to be based on either left or right-handed amino acids, but we know that it doesn't work if they're mixed. So, given the evolutionary laws of monophyly and biodiversity, whatever life started with, it has to stick with. I hardly see why you think this is a problem?
Reply: Your bias shines through. You argue this is not a huge problem ? This KILLS your worldview, and since you are unwilling to acknowledge this OBVIOUS fact, i have good reasons to call
you out as dishonest which you really are.
Aron: You seem pretty desperate not to admit the simple truth that I already put to you. So let me ask that same question again, do you accept and admit that water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen generate amino acids when heated and charged with electricity? That the same thing happens when you change the mix to include Carbon-dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen-sulfide and sulfur-dioxide? And that heating water to 70ºC in the presence of iron hydroxide also produced amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids in the lab?
Reply: Your deflection tactics do not work with me, Aron. Thats why you are inexcusable. I remember you did wear a T-Shirt once: Unforgivable. Yes, if you are unwilling to acknowledge that amino acid synthesis is an unsolvable problem, any other evidence you will dismiss as well. You and Matt Dillahunty go really together. You both are irrational and liars. You do NOT permit the evidence to lead wherever it is. Otherwis, RIGHT HERE, you would have given a stop, and said to yourself: Wait a minute. Nature cannot do this, unless a guiding hand was involved. Fortunately, i know you for many years already. And i am not writing this for you, but those that are following this topic. You Sir, need to repent and convert. God loves you. The one that you hate.
Aron: In order for a thing to exist, it must have properties. Natural laws are when we figure out some of those properties and phrase them in a succinct sentence or a mathematic equation. They are not called laws because of any cosmic legislator.
Reply: Wow. Really ? You must be kidding, right ?
The argument of the nature of established laws
1. Physical or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. Law is defined in the following ways:
a. Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
b. Stable. They are unchanged since they were first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws).
c. Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
2. Some of the examples of scientific or nature’s laws are:
a. The law of relativity by Einstein.
b. The four laws of thermodynamics.
c. The laws of conservation of energy.
d. The uncertainty principle etc.
e. Biological laws
i. Life is based on cells.
ii. All life has genes.
iii. All life occurs through biochemistry.
iv. Mendelian inheritance.
f. Conservation Laws.
i. Noether's theorem.
ii. Conservation of mass.
iii. Conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum.
iv. Conservation of charge .
3. Einstein said that the laws already exist, man just discovers them.
4. Only an omnipotent, absolute eternal person can give absolute, stable and omnipotent laws for the whole universe.
5. That person all men call God.
6. Hence God exists.
Aron: What you're calling "fine-tuned for life" obviously isn't what you say it is nor why you say it is. Not that any of that has anything to do with evolution, which was the topic, if you could just focus.
Reply: This is full denialism. Amazing up to what length you go to deny the obvious.
John Gribbin and Martin Rees :
https://******************************/t2810-multi-tuning
If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for everyone that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic chemistry.
Changes in the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism affect not only cosmological processes but also galaxies, stars, and planets. The strong and weak nuclear forces determine the composition of the universe and, thus, the properties of galaxies, stars, and planets. As a result, we ultimately can’t divorce the chemistry of life from planetary geophysics or stellar astrophysics. Although we have only scratched the surface, it should be clear that
there are many examples of “cosmic-scale” fine-tuning in chemistry, particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Most published discussions of such fine-tuning are limited to the requirements for life, but cosmic finetuning
extends well beyond mere habitability.
Aron: I don't want to be fooled into believing anything that is not evidently true.
Reply: Yes, sir, you are lying to yourself, and are not only an atheist, but a misotheist. You hate God. The problem with most people like you is that you have a distorted unreal idea about the character of God. Were it different, you would not want to know about anything else in this world, than to know God, and seek him, like a thirsty seeks for a spring to drink clear water. You don't know my God, thats why you deny him. Your problem, Aron, is not a scientific problem, but spiritual, of will and emotion. Your worldview is being exposed right here and right now, and you show your denialism nicely.
Aron: Once again, I have already corrected you on this; we are not looking for an individual first cell to be the common ancestor of all life. A first species, perhaps.
Reply: In that case, multiply that number , 10^722000 for any number of first cells or species you like. The odds will get just greater and greater. Another problem is that viruses and cells had to emerge together, since they are interdependent. Thats another BIG unsolved problem. Also there is a wide variety of virus replication machinery that does not exist in life, which you also to account for. How did it emerge ??!!
Aron: I note Otangelo has dodged nearly every question put to him.
Reply: Thats a big FAT lie. You, Sir, have dodged the most relevant issues, and simply denied its problems. Your worldview is bunk, and you are selfdelusional. As long as you live here on this godgiven mastersuite of the universe, you are fine. Its Gods gift to you. Once you depart, i wish you come to your sane mind, and realize that the God that you unjustly deny exists, loves you, and is waiting to save you. But that depends on your surrender, and give up your rebellion. God is good. And just.
Reply: See, when it comes to the specifics, you immediately dodge, rather than giving an honest answer. I can answer my question for you. They had all to emerge together, erasers, readers, and writers, and the histone code. None of them have function by themselves. That observation ALONE kills your worldview. But you cannot admit it, because you are emotionally committed to believe what you want to be true. Your claim that you are not biased is not demonstrated with your attitude, and how you deal with the difficult questions.
Aron: It is NOT my job to disprove your unsupported assertions. It is your job to show that they are justified.
Reply: Yes, it is your job. If you want to have a case for materialism, it must rest on its own feet. The new atheists tactic is a lousy one. We have a case, and you dismiss it, but do not provide a better one.... thats lame and cheap.
Aron:Once again, what you're calling materialism is the lack of any reason to believe in the supernatural world that you're claiming exists.
Reply: How i love to smear this on your face: 125 reasons to believe in God
https://******************************/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god
The obviousness of Creation is hidden from those who reject God. There is no evidence that we can exist without a creator.
Since there is being, being has always been. Beginning requires a beginner. Contingent beings depend on a necessary cause. Creation requires a creator. Design requires a designer.Laws require a lawmaker. Mathematics requires a mathematician. Fine-tuning requires a fine-tuner, Codes require a coder. Information requires an Informer. Translation requires a translator. Life has only been observed to come from life. Logic comes from logic, Consciousness comes from consciousness, Factories require a factory-maker, Objective moral values come from a moral giver. The "God of the gaps" argument is invalid. And so, that there is no evidence for God(s).
Aron: We don't care what you believe, except when people who believe as you do are in charge of everything at every level of State and Federal government, and you are imposing your falsehoods onto sequestered students and enforcing your religious bigotry against our Constitutional rights.
Reply: yes, i know that canard as well.... your script is not new to me. And i have an answer for that.
Why do positive, active, strong militant atheists or weak atheists/agnostics promote their views with such fervour and time spending?
https://***************************...naturalism-with-such-fervor-and-time-spending
Atheism is an idea that doesn’t matter. It leads to no good, it helps no one and it tends to either universal anarchy and chaos or totalitarian despotism, and the ultimate fate and consequence is to die and be judged upon their own sins and mistakes and paying for their sins and rejection of God in Hell forever and ever.
Jeffrey Dahmer:
If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?,” "That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing.”
Atheists protest against something they say that there is no evidence for. They have an itch they can’t scratch and it’s driving them crazy. They think the only salve to their itch is to convince others of what they themselves are not certain of. They are desperate to destroy others thinking that is the path to their salvation. Why should a theist know about your willingly chosen incredulity ¨& ignorance? Do you also wear t-shirts where you inform everyone that you don't believe in Pink Unicorns and Aliens? Is your internet-atheology-misotheology-activism & militancy not an entirely senseless foolish, and meaningless endeavor?
Aron: You're saying that a brother and sister can't be different from each other unless they're completely different from their parents?
Reply: Thats not what i am saying. What i say, IMHO, is this:
Irreducible Complexity: The existence of irreducible interdependent structures in biology is an undeniable fact
https://***************************...uctures-in-biology-is-an-undeniable-fact#2133
A piston has no use by its own. But only, when working inside a gasoline engine. A flagellar filament structural protein has no use by its own unless inserted and conjoined with all other proteins to form the flagella filament proteins In the same sense, as an engineer would not project, invent, create and make a blueprint of a piston with no use by its own, but only conjoined, and together with all other parts while projecting a whole engine, envisioning its end function and use, its evident that unguided random natural events without foresight would not come up with assemblage of tiny molecular machines, enzymatic structures with unique contours, which bear no function by their own, but only when inserted in cellular structures with higher ends, being essential for cells to self-replicate, and perpetuate life.
Natural selection would not select for components of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system.
In other words: Why would natural selection select an intermediate biosynthesis product, which has by its own no use for the organism, unless that product keeps going through all necessary steps, up to the point to be ready to be assembled in a larger system? Never do we see blind, unguided processes leading to complex functional systems with integrated parts contributing to the overarching design goal.
A minimal amount of instructional complex information is required for a gene to produce useful proteins. A minimal size of a protein is necessary for it to be functional. Thus, before a region of DNA contains the requisite information to make useful proteins, natural selection would not select for a positive trait and play no role in guiding its evolution.
Aron: I really didn't need to reply to anything in this whole post as none of was really relevant or substantive.
Reply: So here you are again dodging and exposing your bias. i can go a bit in detail here, and unmask why your narrative is BUNK.
The Origin of Multicellularity 5
From an evolutionary perspective, support for the transition from unicellular (single cell) to multicellular organisms requires the emergence of several novel biochemical systems. Such systems include:
- pathways that transform cells from generalized to specialized forms during growth and development;
- mechanisms for the migration of cells relative to each other during growth and development;
- structures that support cell-cell adhesions;
- and mechanisms for cell-cell communication.
- All of these systems have to be in place and operate in an integrated fashion to support multicellularity.
If you cannot deal honesty with this issue, you are demonstrating once again that your entire position is not based on evidence, but wishful thinking.
Aron: I told you, we have to start with amino acids first.
Reply: Yes, you have a LOT to explain in order to have a case. Starting by explaining how the 20 amino acids were selected prebiotically.
Aron: So let me be clear. Success would be, if an experiment would provide evidence how the 20 amino acids could have originated prebiotically on early earth. That has NOT been done.
That has been done, as I just showed you.
Reply: No, you didn't. Did tryptophan exist prebiotically ? If so, how did the transition from a prebiotic synthesis to a enzymatic/metabolic synthesis occur ?
Aron: Different experiments using different base chemicals each produced amino acids. That was the goal, to prove that could happen.
Reply: That is a far fetch from what is required. Once you find answers to the question that i ask here, we talk:
Open questions in prebiotic chemistry to explain the origin of the four basic building blocks of life
https://******************************/t1279p75-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible#7759
I remind you, these are not simply open question, because they have not been investigated. Quite the contrary. They are open question despite the fact that over half a century science has tried, but only unraveled how big the problem actually is. It is a CONCEPTUAL problem. Molecules do not urge to themselves being sorted out into functional ones that life can use.
Aron: I correctly said that it was later discovered that the original study produced 22 amino acids, much more than previously thought. I made no false claim like you have.
Reply: Ok, i correct myself. It was not you. It was the Secular Humanist Society that heralded that ALL 20 of the amino acids found in proteins – plus a few others, were produced. That is not true. So since it was not those used in life, these experiments did not provide the evidence which you claim they have.....
Aron: I remind you that Stanley Miller died in 2007, still thinking his volcano in a bottle experiment was a "dud". Now we know better. Here is a study from just last year that shows, just as I already said, that heating water to 70ºC in the presence of iron hydroxide (simulating geothermal vents in the anaerobic conditions of the prebiotic earth) also produced amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids in the lab.
Reply: Did they produce all used in life? Did they figure out how early life sorted out those 20 used in life from those that are not used in life? Did they figure out how to solve the homochirality problem, and how to polymerize them ? If not, they have work to do. And i predict, these are not solvable problems, because molecules have no urge to become functional subunits for molecular machines....
Aron:Life should be able to be based on either left or right-handed amino acids, but we know that it doesn't work if they're mixed. So, given the evolutionary laws of monophyly and biodiversity, whatever life started with, it has to stick with. I hardly see why you think this is a problem?
Reply: Your bias shines through. You argue this is not a huge problem ? This KILLS your worldview, and since you are unwilling to acknowledge this OBVIOUS fact, i have good reasons to call
you out as dishonest which you really are.
Aron: You seem pretty desperate not to admit the simple truth that I already put to you. So let me ask that same question again, do you accept and admit that water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen generate amino acids when heated and charged with electricity? That the same thing happens when you change the mix to include Carbon-dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen-sulfide and sulfur-dioxide? And that heating water to 70ºC in the presence of iron hydroxide also produced amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids in the lab?
Reply: Your deflection tactics do not work with me, Aron. Thats why you are inexcusable. I remember you did wear a T-Shirt once: Unforgivable. Yes, if you are unwilling to acknowledge that amino acid synthesis is an unsolvable problem, any other evidence you will dismiss as well. You and Matt Dillahunty go really together. You both are irrational and liars. You do NOT permit the evidence to lead wherever it is. Otherwis, RIGHT HERE, you would have given a stop, and said to yourself: Wait a minute. Nature cannot do this, unless a guiding hand was involved. Fortunately, i know you for many years already. And i am not writing this for you, but those that are following this topic. You Sir, need to repent and convert. God loves you. The one that you hate.
Aron: In order for a thing to exist, it must have properties. Natural laws are when we figure out some of those properties and phrase them in a succinct sentence or a mathematic equation. They are not called laws because of any cosmic legislator.
Reply: Wow. Really ? You must be kidding, right ?
Scientific law - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The argument of the nature of established laws
1. Physical or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. Law is defined in the following ways:
a. Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
b. Stable. They are unchanged since they were first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws).
c. Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
2. Some of the examples of scientific or nature’s laws are:
a. The law of relativity by Einstein.
b. The four laws of thermodynamics.
c. The laws of conservation of energy.
d. The uncertainty principle etc.
e. Biological laws
i. Life is based on cells.
ii. All life has genes.
iii. All life occurs through biochemistry.
iv. Mendelian inheritance.
f. Conservation Laws.
i. Noether's theorem.
ii. Conservation of mass.
iii. Conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum.
iv. Conservation of charge .
3. Einstein said that the laws already exist, man just discovers them.
4. Only an omnipotent, absolute eternal person can give absolute, stable and omnipotent laws for the whole universe.
5. That person all men call God.
6. Hence God exists.
Aron: What you're calling "fine-tuned for life" obviously isn't what you say it is nor why you say it is. Not that any of that has anything to do with evolution, which was the topic, if you could just focus.
Reply: This is full denialism. Amazing up to what length you go to deny the obvious.
John Gribbin and Martin Rees :
https://******************************/t2810-multi-tuning
If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for everyone that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic chemistry.
Changes in the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism affect not only cosmological processes but also galaxies, stars, and planets. The strong and weak nuclear forces determine the composition of the universe and, thus, the properties of galaxies, stars, and planets. As a result, we ultimately can’t divorce the chemistry of life from planetary geophysics or stellar astrophysics. Although we have only scratched the surface, it should be clear that
there are many examples of “cosmic-scale” fine-tuning in chemistry, particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Most published discussions of such fine-tuning are limited to the requirements for life, but cosmic finetuning
extends well beyond mere habitability.
Aron: I don't want to be fooled into believing anything that is not evidently true.
Reply: Yes, sir, you are lying to yourself, and are not only an atheist, but a misotheist. You hate God. The problem with most people like you is that you have a distorted unreal idea about the character of God. Were it different, you would not want to know about anything else in this world, than to know God, and seek him, like a thirsty seeks for a spring to drink clear water. You don't know my God, thats why you deny him. Your problem, Aron, is not a scientific problem, but spiritual, of will and emotion. Your worldview is being exposed right here and right now, and you show your denialism nicely.
Aron: Once again, I have already corrected you on this; we are not looking for an individual first cell to be the common ancestor of all life. A first species, perhaps.
Reply: In that case, multiply that number , 10^722000 for any number of first cells or species you like. The odds will get just greater and greater. Another problem is that viruses and cells had to emerge together, since they are interdependent. Thats another BIG unsolved problem. Also there is a wide variety of virus replication machinery that does not exist in life, which you also to account for. How did it emerge ??!!
Aron: I note Otangelo has dodged nearly every question put to him.
Reply: Thats a big FAT lie. You, Sir, have dodged the most relevant issues, and simply denied its problems. Your worldview is bunk, and you are selfdelusional. As long as you live here on this godgiven mastersuite of the universe, you are fine. Its Gods gift to you. Once you depart, i wish you come to your sane mind, and realize that the God that you unjustly deny exists, loves you, and is waiting to save you. But that depends on your surrender, and give up your rebellion. God is good. And just.