But I just realized the whole "primordial soup" thing is literally science's creation myth with no proof (at least the Big Bang has something to go off of).
There is no evidence it happened. It is a "hypothetical set of conditions on the Earth around 3.7 to 4.0 billion years ago", and the theory was proposed about 98 years ago by a Russian commie and his science pal, an ENGLISHMAN (worse).
Mods, move this to /sci/ if you want but /sci/ has no traffic and you know it
Other urls found in this thread:
amir.eng.uci.edu
twitter.com
BIG BANG IS JUST A REFASHIONING OF KIKE RELIGION BIBLE. YAH WEH IS THE SOUND A JEW MAKES WHEN HE BUSTS A NUT. SO TO SAY THE UNIVERSE COMES FROM A "BIG BANG" IS THE SAME SHIT JUST WRITTEN ANOTHER WAY, LOW INFO CRYPTO BRIT OR FRENCH KIKE CUQNADIAN LEAF NIGGER...........
Yes because geometric forms are eternal
damn, i kneel
wdym by that? very mysterious thing you said just now.....
Geometric Forms are eternal.
Despite these theories, primordial soup or big bang, neither deny that energy is eternal.
Geometric forms are the expression of eternity in the condition of time space.
kek, Sacred Geometry is just more Christian nonsense. Can't really refute science with that.
>The now-famous "Miller–Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gases—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.
>hydrothermal vents have an abundance of CH4 (methane) and NH3 (ammonia)
>hydrothermal vents produce fluids with very high hydrogen concentrations
so we know that those conditions can produce organic molecules from inorganic molecules
>Apart from the Miller–Urey experiment, the next most important step in research on prebiotic organic synthesis was the demonstration by Joan Oró that the nucleic acid purine base, adenine, was formed by heating aqueous ammonium cyanide solutions
>Jeewanu (Sanskrit for "particles of life") are synthetic chemical particles that possess cell-like structure and seem to have some functional properties
>Using photochemical reaction, they produced coacervates, microscopic cell-like spheres from a mixture of simple organic and inorganic compounds. Bahadur named these particles 'Jeewanu' because they exhibit some of the basic properties of a cell, such as the presence of semipermeable membrane, amino acids, phospholipids and carbohydrates. Further, like living cells, they had several catalytic activities.
the 'primordial soup' soup theory has plenty of evidence of it being /possible/; it's 100% been demonstrated that the requisite elements for it to happen are all there, and, barring a better theory coming along (panspermia ultimately just kicks the can down the road), we have to accept it as a 'best guess'
if you've got a better guess, which is falsifiable, which can make predictions, and which we can test and look for evidence for, then make a name for yourself proving 'primordial soup' to be bullshit
>But I just realized the whole "primordial soup" thing is literally science's creation myth with no proof
evolution appears implausible because it's so complex, but if you break everything down into the small steps evolution took over billions of years to create the organisms of today, it makes perfect sense.
Without geometry you don't have technology.
You wouldn't even have soda cans.
I can't prove that something didn't happen 4 billion years ago, sorry. And as far as me needing to be capable of inventing the correct theory? No. The onus is on science to prove their retarded claim.
I'm not interested in being a scientist at the moment (I wonder why?).
Science requires belief in the transcendent in order to formulate ideas outside of and contrary to the views of the scientist. To test their perceptions. To wrestle with god and pull truth from chaos. The lie is that scientific method is atheistic or agnostic when it is actually theistic. The god of the scientific method is that constant truth that we strive towards. The light that gets ever brighter.
>replication crisis
Satan is coming.
you can't just say:
>"no evidence"
because there is ample evidence it's possible:
your argument is just:
>"I haven't looked for evidence, and I think it's stupid, so it's wrong"
and frankly that's a dog-shit retard argument
you're attacking the theory by ad-homming the creators, and you seem to think proof is only possible by inventing a fucking time machine and going back and physically looking at the conditions of Earth, and that's just fucking wrong
what kind of proof would you need to believe it?
we know the temperatures and chemical composition of the thermal vents
we've done experiments showing the building blocks of life can form from the inorganic matter produced by thermal vents
we've shown how basic cell structures can form from these building blocks based on thermal and/or photochemical reactions
what kind of fucking "proof" are you actually asking for?
it's a perfectly fine theory, until something better comes along, with better evidence
What does technology have to do with the price of tea in China? I think you'd be better off talking to a wall, my friend.
there IS evidence it's possible
and in lieu of a better theory, we say:
>yeah, that's probably the best guess we have at the moment
that's how this works
it doesn't matter how much you don't like the idea; unless you've got a better one with better evidence, you're shit out of luck
The proof I require is a theory that follows the rules the scientists made themselves. It's not a "working" theory right now, it's literally just something two guys thought up 100 years ago. Some pair of gay retards (probably [sry, I like to spice it up with some ad hom]), whose dogma you are defending for some unknown reason.
what rules doesn't it follow?
>god created himself out of nothing
>then he created the universe out of nothing
>then he took some of that universe dust and made a man
>then he took a rib from that man and made a woman
>then they fucked and had kids
>then they fucked their own kids and their kids fucked
>and that's how we all got here
Yeah your theory is much more plausible
read
No. That's not how any of this works. That's not the rules of science.
Again, I do not need to be a science expert coming up with something better to know that there is something wrong with the "taste" of the primordial soup. Just like if I went to a restaurant and tasted the soup, I don't need to be a master chef to know that it tastes like shit. That's the nature of your logical fallacy. Now stop posting, your IQ is way too low for me.
Don't pretend like you don't know the ones I'm referring to. And if you really don't know, leave the conversation please.
you dodged my question, genius
make your argument
I'm not going to do it for you
I think you better work on your reading comprehension there, genius.
gg now be gone
I'm not the one claiming to be intelligent
what rules doesn't this particular theory follow?
enlighten me
Not my job. Go watch a science documentary lol.
>I'm not the one claiming to be intelligent
I think we're done here
you don't know "the rules of science"
that's why you're flailing
argue your position "lol"
The price of tea in China is the result of systematic pressures of weather which also follow geometry.
Nice quads, satan worshiper
thanks, desert manual enthusiast
You beg my pardon? I said BEGONE SATAN.
I am not your educator. You don't even know the difference between intelligence and knowledge, you fool. Go read a book before you dare speak to me.
Big bang was recently proven false.
None of it happened because nothing is real. This is a dream with one observer, an observer stuck in a type of coma dreaming up "reality" it never existed
argue your position
what "rules of science" does the primordial soup of the heterotrophic origin of life theory break?
Huh, no kidding... so what do they think now?
We're done. I win. You lose. Hidden.
argue your position
what "rules of science" does the primordial soup of the heterotrophic origin of life theory break?
listen retard. I will let u in on a secret. earth is flat under a dome (firmament). the sun, moon, and stars are in the firmament which rotates around flag earth
"space" is fake and gay
Please tell me more.
Earth is obviously flat.
But the real red pill is that space is flat.
argue your position
what "rules of science" does the primordial soup of the heterotrophic origin of life theory break?
The Building Blocks of Life in time-space require geometric architecture to exist
Consciousness is an increasingly complex geometric form in resonance with the entirety of time space.
we live in a universe with a incomprehensible amount of stars, with an incomprehensible amount of planets. of course this “primordial soup” shit is bullshit, but to pretend like that life exists is evidence of some sort of omnipotent being is retarded. at some point it’s just probability, eventually if you have enough time some shit is going to happen eventually.
Wouldn't you like to know
To be clear, I am NOT making a case for God here. Just pointing out some science fiction for you guys.
...in other words, what I'm saying is, nobody knows how life came to be (not even close), and to claim otherwise (as scientists do) is a matter of faith, not science. You can see for yourself in this thread how strongly people defend the dogma just because they were educated as such. Total ignorance.
>at some point it’s just probability, eventually if you have enough time some shit is going to happen eventually
but that's completely irrelevant to what's being discussed; it's the precise mechanism by which it happened which concerns us
the probability of it happening is made irrelevant here, by the simple fact we're the fucking organic chemicals theorising about how organic chemicals came to be; of course it was probabilistic enough to happen
but "how?"
To quote/paraphrase Lennox
Mathematics doesn't just come tumbling out of nowhere, we didn't create mathematics, we discovered it's forms.
We discovered the design and so with it a self governing designer, over the totality of existence
You would say you control your biological processes, you can affect them by your input but a force greater than yourself does, nature.
obviously
that's why I'm repeatedly asking
>it is very difficult to learn anything about the distant past, therefore pic related
Primordial Soup model is a play on Ordo ab Chao