SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2013, 07:59 PM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
The Terrifying Truth About Bananas




Kingschosen is not a liar!!!!!!(...but his beliefs are "derp")
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2013, 06:21 PM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
(25-07-2013 11:44 AM)Jakel Wrote:  

O'Reilly: "I know I'm not the smartest guy in town."

He states the obvious.Laugh out load

Even if God and Jesus existed and I could live forever just by believing in them, I'm not so sure that eternal hellfire would be worse than having the omnipotent psychopath and his bastard kid looking over me for all eternity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 12:36 AM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2013 12:43 AM by f stop.)
The video and its perfect response.
O'Reilly puts his foot in his mouth at 1:54.








Even if God and Jesus existed and I could live forever just by believing in them, I'm not so sure that eternal hellfire would be worse than having the omnipotent psychopath and his bastard kid looking over me for all eternity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 02:18 AM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
I'm related to a banana, but only distantly. Third cousin, twice removed, but still Big Grin Oh, I know you was preparing to hear something scientific before I dashed your hopes with laser-guider expertise.

Okay, now. Yeah, we cannot say with certainty that we are related to the banana. Technically though we cannot prove beyond all doubt that we are related to apes that share 98.6% similar DNA, though the evidence overwhelmingly suggests it is so. Anyhow, there is a little more credence to a claim that we aren't related to a banana. But very little.

We don't know how life came to be. Many believe the right primordial ooze combined with the right amount of heat, pressure, bombardment of masses hitting earth, yadda, yadda, yadda. If the conditions were right for life to form, why is it not just as possible that multiple forms of life form independently under very similar conditions in close approximation to one another (close in astrological terms). Now, it stands to reason that the hypothesized independent life forms could be very similar, and very simplistic. They could have evolved independent of one another in similar conditions, but it is very likely over time that even if there were independent life forms would eventually 'breed' with one another. Life on earth has been kicking around for quite a while. I saw again, I am related to a banana!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 05:35 AM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
(27-07-2013 02:18 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  (close in astrological terms).

Huh? Huh

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 08:09 AM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
(27-07-2013 02:18 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'm related to a banana, but only distantly. Third cousin, twice removed, but still Big Grin Oh, I know you was preparing to hear something scientific before I dashed your hopes with laser-guider expertise.

Okay, now. Yeah, we cannot say with certainty that we are related to the banana. Technically though we cannot prove beyond all doubt that we are related to apes that share 98.6% similar DNA, though the evidence overwhelmingly suggests it is so. Anyhow, there is a little more credence to a claim that we aren't related to a banana. But very little.

We don't know how life came to be. Many believe the right primordial ooze combined with the right amount of heat, pressure, bombardment of masses hitting earth, yadda, yadda, yadda. If the conditions were right for life to form, why is it not just as possible that multiple forms of life form independently under very similar conditions in close approximation to one another (close in astrological terms). Now, it stands to reason that the hypothesized independent life forms could be very similar, and very simplistic. They could have evolved independent of one another in similar conditions, but it is very likely over time that even if there were independent life forms would eventually 'breed' with one another. Life on earth has been kicking around for quite a while. I saw again, I am related to a banana!

We actually share something around 50% of our DNA in common with a banana! The statistical odds required for the banana to have derived for a separate abiogenesis and develop 50% identical DNA with humans really is climbing mount improbable. I'm going to employ occam's razor on this one and call the banana a relative.

There has so far not been any DNA evidence for a separate abiogenesis event. We really do all seem to be linked. That may seem a bit surprising at first that life wouldn't have developed twice, or more times, separately. But if you think about it for a moment it really makes more sense that it wouldn't.

If a new abiogenesis event happened right now, today, it would start out as naturally occurring amino acids coming to arrange themselves as simple nucleic acids, exposed with no membrane to protect them. But those nucleic acids would be surrounded by life, bacteria that would love nothing more than to feed off them. Any new life that might otherwise start to form today would be utilized by already living organisms before it could get off the ground.

That is why we don't find random new life forming itself in jars of peanut butter.

Kingschosen is not a liar!!!!!!(...but his beliefs are "derp")
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 08:21 AM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
(27-07-2013 08:09 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(27-07-2013 02:18 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'm related to a banana, but only distantly. Third cousin, twice removed, but still Big Grin Oh, I know you was preparing to hear something scientific before I dashed your hopes with laser-guider expertise.

Okay, now. Yeah, we cannot say with certainty that we are related to the banana. Technically though we cannot prove beyond all doubt that we are related to apes that share 98.6% similar DNA, though the evidence overwhelmingly suggests it is so. Anyhow, there is a little more credence to a claim that we aren't related to a banana. But very little.

We don't know how life came to be. Many believe the right primordial ooze combined with the right amount of heat, pressure, bombardment of masses hitting earth, yadda, yadda, yadda. If the conditions were right for life to form, why is it not just as possible that multiple forms of life form independently under very similar conditions in close approximation to one another (close in astrological terms). Now, it stands to reason that the hypothesized independent life forms could be very similar, and very simplistic. They could have evolved independent of one another in similar conditions, but it is very likely over time that even if there were independent life forms would eventually 'breed' with one another. Life on earth has been kicking around for quite a while. I saw again, I am related to a banana!

We actually share something around 50% of our DNA in common with a banana! The statistical odds required for the banana to have derived for a separate abiogenesis and develop 50% identical DNA with humans really is climbing mount improbable. I'm going to employ occam's razor on this one and call the banana a relative.

There has so far not been any DNA evidence for a separate abiogenesis event. We really do all seem to be linked. That may seem a bit surprising at first that life wouldn't have developed twice, or more times, separately. But if you think about it for a moment it really makes more sense that it wouldn't.

If a new abiogenesis event happened right now, today, it would start out as naturally occurring amino acids coming to arrange themselves as simple nucleic acids, exposed with no membrane to protect them. But those nucleic acids would be surrounded by life, bacteria that would love nothing more than to feed off them. Any new life that might otherwise start to form today would be utilized by already living organisms before it could get off the ground.

That is why we don't find random new life forming itself in jars of peanut butter.


The world as it stands today is inherently hostile to new life. Even if said life were to happen in a hermetically sealed environment there is no free floating material on which to feed everything is more complex now that it was at the beginning simply because all the free resources were swallowed up then forcing the earliest life to adapt to a new reality in which one group placed all their chips into energy collection and metabolization (aka Plants) and the other diversified and became hunters (aka animals). Even beginning at that that stage, it would have been insurmountable for a second abiogenesis to occur, conditions had changed life had moved on and new freshly formed life would have been easy prey for the now more advanced (if only just slightly) life already existent.

[Image: Hitchhikersguide_zps7678fbae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
27-07-2013, 08:29 AM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
Oh yeah! What about this salient argument?





But seriously, what did he expect to find in there when he opened that jar?! "Oh shit! New life that I can already see with the naked eye"! Dumbass creationist...

Kingschosen is not a liar!!!!!!(...but his beliefs are "derp")
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 08:32 AM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
(27-07-2013 08:21 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(27-07-2013 08:09 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  We actually share something around 50% of our DNA in common with a banana! The statistical odds required for the banana to have derived for a separate abiogenesis and develop 50% identical DNA with humans really is climbing mount improbable. I'm going to employ occam's razor on this one and call the banana a relative.

There has so far not been any DNA evidence for a separate abiogenesis event. We really do all seem to be linked. That may seem a bit surprising at first that life wouldn't have developed twice, or more times, separately. But if you think about it for a moment it really makes more sense that it wouldn't.

If a new abiogenesis event happened right now, today, it would start out as naturally occurring amino acids coming to arrange themselves as simple nucleic acids, exposed with no membrane to protect them. But those nucleic acids would be surrounded by life, bacteria that would love nothing more than to feed off them. Any new life that might otherwise start to form today would be utilized by already living organisms before it could get off the ground.

That is why we don't find random new life forming itself in jars of peanut butter.


The world as it stands today is inherently hostile to new life. Even if said life were to happen in a hermetically sealed environment there is no free floating material on which to feed everything is more complex now that it was at the beginning simply because all the free resources were swallowed up then forcing the earliest life to adapt to a new reality in which one group placed all their chips into energy collection and metabolization (aka Plants) and the other diversified and became hunters (aka animals). Even beginning at that that stage, it would have been insurmountable for a second abiogenesis to occur, conditions had changed life had moved on and new freshly formed life would have been easy prey for the now more advanced (if only just slightly) life already existent.

It is certainly possible, possibly almost certain, that many kinds of self-replicating molecules came into existence.
Complexes of interacting molecules would have been in competition. They could even all have died out and been replaced by a new batch.

We may never know, but what is clear is that one chemistry won the early trials.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
27-07-2013, 08:33 AM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
(27-07-2013 08:29 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Oh yeah! What about this salient argument?





But seriously, what did he expect to find in there when he opened that jar?! "Oh shit! New life that I can already see with the naked eye"! Dumbass creationist...

Here is a great example of what I was talking about. New life would be unable to convert the Peanut Butter into energy. Digestion is evolved and without that conversion is impossible.

[Image: Hitchhikersguide_zps7678fbae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: