[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 14 KB, 395x395, lenny.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3374881 No.3374881 [Reply] [Original]

NOTE: Please read the whole fucking post first.

"It is easier to build a house than it is to create life.

The probability of a house created itself out of nothing is zero.

Therefore the probability of life creating itself out of nothing is less than that.


Therefore life requires intelligent design."


I need a rebuttal to this fucking bullshit agrument.

>> No.3374894

It's easier to take a shit than to perform a thermonuclear reaction.
The probability of shit taking itself is zero.
Therefore, the probability of sun shining is less than that.

>> No.3374906

>>3374894


I need something that actually attacks the argument itself, not just providing a counter example.

>> No.3374911

>It is easier to build a house than it is to create life.
The metric is vague, and hense "easier" may not be a meaningful word here, but fine.
>The probability of a house created itself out of nothing is zero.
False. Simply false. The probability is VERY SMALL.
>Therefore the probability of life creating itself out of nothing is less than that.
But still finite.
>Therefore life requires intelligent design."
CHICKEN AND THE EGG, BITCH, but at this point the argument is refuted anyway.

Intuition does poorly with very large numbers, and should be relied upon.

>> No.3374912

it's a false syllogism.

>> No.3374916

Houses are, by definition, artificial--made by people. There is no agreed-upon definition of life that states that it's artificially created; that's why you're arguing to begin with. houses and life are categorically different.

>> No.3374917

>>3374911
>and should NOT be relied upon.

Fixed.

>> No.3374925

>>3374916

This. The argument presupposes that life has to be created in the first place.

>> No.3374931

>>3374881
a cell replicates by completely naturalistic means. this happens every day, it is far easier than building a house, and we know how cells replicate, this doesn't require a supernatural explanation, but each new cell is new life.life literally does create itself, life can self replicate, but not out of nothing, the same way a house isnt built out of nothing, you need bricks and mortar. but life can actally be easier to build.

>> No.3374936

"almost zero"
(Wikipedia -> almost surely)

>> No.3374940

The problem being addressed is abiogenesis - the formation of the first replicator that had both enough stability and enough mutability to both continue and to change.

That problem is not a solved one, by any means. But there's not justification for believing it is impossible.

Besides, modern life is not the target for abiogenesis. Multicellular life, or even modern single-celled life, is very like far, far more complex than the first replicators.

>> No.3374952

>>3374925
+1
The entire framing of the problem presupposes intelligent design, though that isn't the fatal flaw. The second statement is.

>> No.3374953

if the bricks are drawn together by unknown forces then the house would build itself, the chances of it supporting life would be less than finding furniture to fit the oddly shaped rooms

>> No.3374954

>>3374952
No, there's still a problem from the bad framing, because what is hard for us may be easy for undirected natural processes.

Making snowflakes is hard, for instance. Unless you just let nature do it.

>> No.3374957

last time i checked, it was easier to have sex than to make a house

>> No.3374959
File: 22 KB, 300x300, HGttG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3374959

Recommend your friend or whoever read the book The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (NOT any of the movies). They cover this stuff quite well under the guise of satire. The probability is not zero, but rather very small. It is quite unlikely that it would happen, but it is conceivable that it could happen.

Actually, life coming about is far more likely than your friend thinks. The issue is they have not heard of all the lab studies and tests that have taken place to prove this point. Scientists have long been able to create all the building blocks of life in extremely simple (and abundant) conditions. The only wonder is that the life has existed for so long. Evolution explains how even the most simple forms of life can eventually lead up to creatures as complex as we are.

Then the trouble will shift to not having your friend immediately dismiss the argument because of the word "evolution". Instead, try to explain the process and avoid that specific work altogether. Only when they accept the basic logic and at least admit it is plausible should you mention the word.

>> No.3374963

So, what we've got so far is that the first statement assumes the conclusion and also assumes that purposeful human creation can currently and more easily accomplish anything has ever occurred naturally, while the second statement is outright false, and then the rest is doomed.

>> No.3374969

>>3374959
The actual issue is abiogenesis, but I agree that you need evolution to explain and support how low the bar for abiogenesis really is. We don't need lions to just "happen" without prior replicators.

>> No.3374972

I can't wait for us to discover extraterrestrial life, even microbes, just for the incredible trollface on the faces of every sane biologist in response to arguments like the OP's for the rest of time.

>> No.3374978

>"It is easier to build a house than it is to create life.

I would have to disagree

>> No.3374987

>>3374972
Look for religious arguments refuting the age and prior existence of dinosaurs. They will apply them to extraterrestrial life as well, no matter how simple.

>> No.3374988

>>3374972
I'm not sure how many biologists are especially concerned with convincing fundies directly.

That said, there's a fun short story I got from Youtube about a creationist and an "evolutionist" getting to watch the last 65 milliion years of evolution... personally, and at the normal rate. The journal got really long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sxh_L1LUNk

>> No.3374999

>>3374881
>"It is easier to build a house than it is to create life.
>never built a house before
>never knocked someone up before

>> No.3375005

A house is just a certain combination of matter.
So is life.

>> No.3375011

Fundamental Calculus is your answer.

You cannot suppose an outcome based on a variable which is infinite.

As t, time, approaches infinity, the probability of a house being constructed in perfect, working order by a tornado reaches %100.

Same thing goes for life. Assuming 1) Existence and 2) The amount of matter in the universe is constant and 3) The states of matter are always changing

Therefore:

As time approaches infinity, all configurations of matter are possible.

>> No.3375012
File: 4 KB, 259x194, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3375012

>It is easier to build a house than it is to create life.

This is the crux of the argument. It rests on the reader accepting this premise, and it tries to trick the reader into doing so by using a vague word "easier", and not defining the conditions well. Here would be a better-formed premise which would allow the rest of the argument to continue as normal:

>It is more likely that a house would emerge from natural processes over millions of years than that life would emerge from natural processes over millions of years.

We now see that the argument uses circular reasoning because step 3 says:
>Therefore the probability of life creating itself out of nothing is less than that.
But this is an assumption of the initial argument. So what you "proved" is really a hidden premise.

I could explain how step 4 does not follow step 3 but it's no necessary.

>> No.3375021

>it is easier to build a house than i is to create life
Correct.
>The probability of a house creating itself out of nothing is zero.
Also correct.
>Therefore
Stop right there motherfucker. Neither of the previous statements were related, one involved building a house, the other involved a house spawning out of nothing.

>> No.3375023

You deon't need a rebuttal, you NEED a sledge hammer, a book that lists debate arguments,m and a book that explains logic.

>> No.3375024

Life didn't create itself out of nothing.
People with said bullshit arguments need to read up on abiogenesis.

>> No.3375035

>>3375011
However, we have a definite timeline of 13-14 billion years since the Big Bang.

But the very possible infiniteness of the universe saves the argument anyway.

>> No.3375036

>>3375024

its most likely a computer simulation using matter, primitive but if you look hard.. you can just see the code poking through

>> No.3375042

>>3374881
That argument is making the mistake of saying
>building a house
is equal to
>a house creating itself out of nothing.

Because it implies that the creation(non-intelligently) of life is harder than both.

>> No.3375051

>>3375021
>>The probability of a house creating itself out of nothing is zero.
>Also correct.
No, it's false. But as you noted, it is irrelevant.

>> No.3375058

>>3375051
Well, so extremely unlikely that you may as well say it's impossible.

Just as I say God is so extremely unlikely that I say he doesn't exist.

>> No.3375062

design intelligent requires life therefore. that than less is nothing of out itself creating life of probability the therefore. zero is nothing of out itself created house a of probability the. life create to is it than house a build to esier is it? theres your fcking rebuttal

>> No.3375068

>>3375021
Exactly this.
Also, life didn't create itself out of nothing. It used "premade" elements and chemical reactions.

>> No.3375070

>>3375024
>Life didn't create itself out of nothing.


Hey Fucker, you do realize that statement makes absolutely no logical sense right?

>> No.3375072

>>3375058
>Well, so extremely unlikely that you may as well say it's impossible.
This is often a valid approximation. It is never logically valid. It is false.

>> No.3375073

All you saying it's easier to create life (sex) than a house, you're forgetting it's engineers that build houses. It's impossible to have babies by gay sex if you've forgotten.

>> No.3375077

>>3375073
Is the probability zero, or just very low?

>> No.3375081

On a distant planet in a distant galaxy somewhere where humans will probably never see there stands an eons old house that was created purely through the randomness of the universe.

>> No.3375084
File: 7 KB, 210x239, images (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3375084

>>3374881

>It is easier to build a house than it is to create life.

Easier to construct house/life as in "self-replication" or actual "construction"?

>The probability of a house created itself out of nothing is zero.

>house created itself

That is illogical.
To construct, you must already exist.
To construct yourself, you must already exist (but you cannot exist as you havent constructed yourself yet(( and if you were constructed by another occurrence, then you cannot construct yourself as you already exist)) ) which is a contradiction/paradox.

The remainder of your post, is hence also illogical as it relies on the previous illogical instance.
Most basic Sophism i've encountered today.

>> No.3375101

>>3375084
Sure, but it's not OP's argument.

>> No.3375106

Where is his proof that a house can't spontaneously be constructed?
Is he omnipotent?
Foolish

>> No.3375111

But houses have been built out of random processes.

The random process of humans evolving, and then building them.

>> No.3375118

Since when was building a house easier than having sex?

>> No.3375119
File: 6 KB, 243x207, images (3).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3375119

>>3375101

>Sure, but it's not OP's argument.

How is that relevant?
Have i claimed that it is his "argument"?
Does the origin of that "argument" affect my remark of it at all?

>> No.3375121

Thousands of people have lived in naturally formed caves.
Are these not houses?

>> No.3375123

>>3375084

Actually that is exactly OPs argument.

he's saying that life can not be created by nothing.

>> No.3375130

Caves used as houses, houses don't survive, gradual steps, strawman ect.

>> No.3375136

>>3374972
Sadly, they will simply claim it was a metaphor, and god yet again retreats from science

>> No.3375139

>It is easier to build a house than it is to create life.
I can build a house in 35 years or 2 weeks. I can produce life in 9months, and its considered "alive" before then.

It's a terrible analogy, That's your rebuttal op.

>> No.3375152

i think we are missing a point somewhere here, to build a house requires uniform parts.
these uniform parts would be limited by external factors ie environment

so either way, you have a system that makes houses or a system that does not.

its op's argument for intel design again

>> No.3375154

>>3375136

That's fine. An ever retreating "God of the gaps" is a nominal outcome. The limit of suspension of disbelief approaches 0.

>> No.3375156
File: 7 KB, 183x275, images (4).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3375156

>>3375123

>Actually that is exactly OPs argument.

If you respond to my post, have the decency to read it in its entirety.

OPs "argument" relies on the assumption that principal cause and effect are the same.

Which is illogical.

>> No.3375160

>>3375154

You.

More transhumanism less religion.

>> No.3375161

>>3375119
Sorry, the "your post" part led me to believe you thought that OP was presenting the argument as though he believed in it. Nevermind.

>> No.3375172

>>3375139
>I can Replicate life in 9months

FIXED!

The first replicator was not created through replication.

>> No.3375180

>>3375172
Yep. But that doesn't make the argument OP presents any less wrong.

>> No.3375201

>>3375172

What if nothing is the first replicator and it can replicate itself into any and all phenomena and objects?

>> No.3375213

obviously have never built a house and/or had sex

>> No.3375216

>>3375201

>What if nothing is the first replicator and it can replicate itself into any and all phenomena and objects?

Has anyone really been as far as decided to use even want to go look more like?

>> No.3375217

>>3375201
Drugs are bad, mkay?

>> No.3375221

I'm not sure if this has been said already, but it's so obvious:

Houses don't give birth to other houses. The analogy is crap.

>> No.3375233
File: 199 KB, 1024x768, sci1305256198041.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3375233

>>3374881

First error: It is less _or equal_ (otherwise you say the chance is non-zero, while at the same time you say it's zero).

Second error: The chance is non-zero, thermodynamics just makes it highly unlikely. Since all probabilities are higher than zero, the chance of life to be created per accident is larger than zero.

>> No.3375235
File: 43 KB, 400x368, duck_alligator_photoshop_funny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3375235

>It is easier to build a house than it is to create life.
Assuming we are discussing constructing a house versus abiogenesis, well... yeah. But this argument assumes the reader has already bought into Intelligent Design. Anybody without prior knowledge or bias, though, I think would immediately think it's easier to create life because the act of sexual reproduction is simpler than the act of building an entire house. This opening statement is flawed.

>The probability of a house created itself out of nothing is zero.
Well... duh. If we're still discussing a finished house.

>Therefore the probability of life creating itself out of nothing is less than that.
...but this relies, again, on the reader already knowing something about Intelligent Design and goes back to the faulty first line of the argument. To a layman, the answer again would be: "wait... sex?"

>Therefore life requires intelligent design."
Not with a crappy first statement like that.

>> No.3375238

>>3374881
houses don't have consciousness. Your analogy fails.

>> No.3375249
File: 617 KB, 900x1393, frac1310253057907.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3375249

>>3375233

By the way, you don't need quantum mechanics for the chance to be non-zero, inb4 decoherence herpaderp

>> No.3375270

>>3375012
Nice.

>> No.3375276

>>house out of nothing

stopped reading there, your thr饿啊的 is霸道安定有手榴弹feelbad

>> No.3375286

We have models for life arising through natural processes.

Models for houses (I assume they mean a modern house with wood and nails) arising naturally don't exist.

>> No.3375303
File: 75 KB, 600x600, 1271051319874.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3375303

>>3374881
You can live in a cave. Which makes a cave a house.
Water makes caves therefor no intelligence required in building a hose.

>> No.3375308

>>3375286

That doesn't change the fact that the natural process starts with something coming out of Nothing.

>> No.3375309

>>3375012

Straw-Man.

>> No.3375310

A house is harder to come about by nature than life. For a house to come about, life needs to come about, and then that life has to evolve to need the specific things that a house provides, and that life needs to construct a house. For life to come about, life simply needs to come about.

>> No.3375311

>>3374881
for me i found it too easy to create a life, the one time I didn't use protection and I end up a dad... I wouldn't even know where to being when building a house, but if its easer that fucking then i'll give it a go.

>> No.3375319

>>3375308

Is exactly the same as this:(>>3375201)

Drugs are bad, mkay?

>> No.3375345

>>3375319
>God did it.

Yep and i bet you also believe jesus used to ride dinosaurs.

>> No.3375362

>>3375345

Straw-Man and Ad Hominem.

Hahaha

>> No.3375369

>>3375303

go join the evolution thread

>> No.3375370

>It is easier to build a house than it is to create life.
What is the 'ease' associated with a self-replicating polymer or protocell naturally forming? The word 'ease' really shouldn't be used here. Perhaps a 'what is the probability' type question should be used.

>The probability of a house created itself out of nothing is zero.
Who claimed that anything 'created itself out of nothing'? This reeks of 'herp,atheists think the universe exploded out of nothing, derp'

>Therefore the probability of life creating itself out of nothing is less than that.
There is such a thing as a probability of less than zero?

>Therefore life requires intelligent design.
Seeing as every previous step of this argument was riddled with flaws, I'm going to comfortably reject the premise.

If we want to take about abiogenesis, then let's talk about protocells and self replicating polymers. False analogies about houses forming themselves, finding watches in the woods and tornadoes assembling B2 bombers are irrelevant here.

>> No.3375373

>>3375308
something NEVER comes from nothing, the life forms that arise from nature had everything they needed to come into being right there, so don't try and lave other peoples arguments as "something came from nothing"

>> No.3375386

What you said is not true, if you change your rendition of a house from being a modern structure to the actual meaning of a place concealed from the elements, i.e a cave.

>> No.3375393

A cave is a shitty place to live because it is not a house, and you are surrounded by cold stone.

>> No.3375398

>>3375156
>>3375084

These two have solved the thread.
All posts after these two are redundant.

>> No.3375399

>>3375393
What would you call a brick house, light a fire you jackass, people have lived in caves longer than modern houses.

>> No.3375402

>>3375393
And early life was shitty compared to us.

>> No.3375408

>>3375399
>>3375402

I don't fucking care what either of you think. A cave is not a house. Eat shit.

>> No.3375410

>>3375373
There's nothing, something, and anything. The start of the universe was anything, indescribable. The current state of the universe is something. If heat death affects the universe, then there will be nothing.

However, none of these states is physical, they're informational. There'll still be everything, and the only change is how something and nothing are related to anything.

>now stfu with you god damn semantics, as it's either a troll or you're just blindfully ignorant.

>> No.3375417

>>3375373
>Something never...

Stopped reading right there.

Please keep your bullshit to yourself.

>> No.3375420

we could substitute house for anything and sht would get real pretty quick

>> No.3375430

>>3375417
>>3375410

hahaha faggots arguing semantics and syntax because it would disprove their god.

>> No.3375438

>>3375430
no, we're saying words are useless.

>> No.3375454

>>3374881
Let me condense this argument:
Houses don't form themselves, yet the earliest form of life supposedly did. You can't explain that.

>> No.3375460

>>3375438
Then you should stop talking.

>> No.3375472

>>3375454
>the earliest form of life supposedly did.

I've seen huge hedges that could be used for simple housing.

>> No.3375475

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

Potholer54's video The Origin of Life Made Easy

>> No.3375479

>>3375454


Please! Please! Read this before making those statemts. >>3375084 >>3375084 >>3375084

>> No.3375495

>>3375479
Stop linking to that post. It wasn't a bad post, but it wasn't the definitive end of the thread.

>> No.3375513

>>3375430
>He thinks that the universe is static.

Looks like you're the one who's really religious

>> No.3375548

A semi intelligent discussion on /sci/?

I never thought i'd live to see this day come.

>> No.3375580

>>3374881
I won't bother rebutting anything until *you* provide proof for your argument, faggot.

>> No.3375584

what if a state of energy is the natural state,

ie

imagine a infinity of energy

that develops sentience

creates universe by simply removing energy from a given space.

being able to manipulate said energy is the only prerequisite.

maybe thats how the universe was created.

each change in energy state results in different matter with predictable properties.

so god is the universe,
imagine it as space but white, then someone makes it black, then adds white bits back in.

but outside the blackness its still all white,
that white bit being god... no racism implied

>> No.3375587

>>3375584
Fucking stoner pantheists

>> No.3375637

>>3375587

these are my clarity days, you should have seen me when i smoked.

anyway, next time you experiment with your chemistry set

>> No.3375639

>>3375587
Seriously, I'm a stoner and talking to dipshits like that one gives me an anyurism. I like entertaining bat-shit crazy theories, but only if they're actually interesting and may explain things.

>> No.3375723

>>3375584

>energy

>infinite

Pick One!

>> No.3375746

>>3375723

it must be infinite or the expanding universe would reduce temperature,
inb4 iceage and global warming.. i know its relative

>> No.3375757

>>3375746

you dont know jack,
man i keep samefagging myself like im a personality type

>> No.3375767

Here, OP, and others who would like a nice, indexed list of rebuttals to many creationist claims.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

>> No.3375783

>>3375746
>>3375757

im actually a pharmaceutical scientist and have no knowledge of physics, im of to bed.

an advantage of anon is that you get to see the damage years of drug use has done.

>> No.3375786

>>3375639

aneurysm*

FTFY

>> No.3375870

>>3375746
You realise that's exactly what it's done so far and that it's predicted to do?

>> No.3375885

It might have been said already, but I'll post it anyway.

The likelihood of life starting spontaneously and evolving is low.
The likelihood of an omnipotent being coming out of nowhere and starting life is even lower.

That's it OP. Thank Dawkins for that perfect end to the argument.

>> No.3375907
File: 9 KB, 52x48, Cdsdsaasdapture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3375907

I'm more complicated then a house! LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME!

>> No.3376012

>>3375885

>The likelihood of an omnipotent being coming out of nowhere and starting life is even lower.

I don't agree, not knowing what caused it does not imply we can also speculate about the other side 'the believers'. With our current knowledge we cannot perfectly say how this universe has come to exist so we cannot predict what it is and isn't.
I'm an empiric junky lately so I quite agree with what you are saying and I do think any sort of deity might be involved, but we can't speculate just because it's out of our grasp. What you say is not evidence based, it's also a belief system. You should only go on what currently is known; sure, certain implications can be made and certain suggestions evaluated, but you musn't delude yourself. Every sort of belief system, no matter how distinct it is, even when it's powered by something as strong as science, will turn into a crapfest of two parties flinging shit to eachother.

What I do believe is this:
>It's easier to build a house than it is to create life

This is not true, simply because life, created by the abundancy of molecules being at the right time at the right place ARE NEEDED to build the house.
The house comes after life. It's a next step in the progression.

>> No.3376037

>>3375907
Oh glider, you're so silly.

>> No.3376079

>>3375084
>>3375119


BINGO, a perfect and logical conclusion to OPs question.

Anything after this post is pure utter garbage. It's too bad the retards on this board will never understand this.

>> No.3376091
File: 9 KB, 53x51, eater.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3376091

>>3375907
The hell do you think you're doing?

>> No.3376106
File: 8 KB, 37x40, glider3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3376106

>>3376091
You want to say that to my face?

>> No.3376122
File: 2 KB, 78x76, Undsdsadsasdsatitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3376122

>>3376106
Come at me bro!

>> No.3376135
File: 9 KB, 66x65, Captkilure.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3376135

>>3376106
DIE BITCH

>> No.3376151

"What came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Science proved it was the chicken.

>> No.3376152
File: 2 KB, 57x58, nope.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3376152

>>3376135
*cough*, help!

>> No.3376154

>>3376135

Calm down Wolfram.

Nobody gives a shit and you're old news.

>> No.3376155

Life DID create itself, it just took time, amino acids, carbon, and some other materiel, and the time is over millions of years.

>> No.3376166
File: 10 KB, 131x131, Caonepture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3376166

>>3376152
THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!

>> No.3376170

a house is not an organic lifeform evolved from billions and billions of years.

comparing an inanimate, man-made object which took anywhere from 30 seconds to a few years to build with lifeforms that took an unmeasurable amount of time to get to where they are now is absolutely retarded.

>> No.3376205
File: 107 KB, 500x375, 524235.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3376205

Here is a house that made itself

>> No.3376220

>>3376205
No, obviously that is the handiwork of Almighty God.

>> No.3376234

>>3376220
yes obv.
House: residence for human beings.
Humans once resided in caves. ie: "Caveman" ? get it?

therefore a cave is a house by definition

>> No.3376239

>>3376234
oh woops, sorry the only text that showed up was "no obv"

>> No.3376245

Life didn't create itself, it was circumstantial.

>> No.3376252

"Definition of HOUSE

1
: a building that serves as living quarters for one or a few families : home
2
a (1) : a shelter or refuge (as a nest or den) of a wild animal (2) : a natural covering (as a test or shell) that encloses and protects an animal or a colony of zooids
b : a building in which something is housed <a carriage house>
3
a : one of the 12 equal sectors in which the celestial sphere is divided in astrology
b : a zodiacal sign that is the seat of a planet's greatest influence
4
a : household
b : a family including ancestors, descendants, and kindred <the house of Tudor>
5
a : a residence for a religious community or for students
b : the community or students in residence
6
a : a legislative, deliberative, or consultative assembly; especially : one constituting a division of a bicameral body
b : the building or chamber where such an assembly meets
c : a quorum of such an assembly
7
a : a place of business or entertainment <a movie house>
b (1) : a business organization <a publishing house> (2) : a gambling establishment
c : the audience in a theater or concert hall <a full house on opening night>
8
: the circular area 12 feet in diameter surrounding the tee and within which a curling stone must rest in order to count
9
[from The Warehouse, Chicago dance club that pioneered the style] : a type of dance music mixed by a disc jockey that features overdubbing with a heavy repetitive drumbeat and repeated electronic melody lines"
~Merriam-Webster Dictionary

>> No.3376620
File: 6 KB, 200x191, lenny_leonard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3376620

ITT: People who didn't read the entire post and assumed I was making this argument.

>> No.3376621

Life creates itself like moss-it forms to nothing, but is not formed OF nothing.

Life comes from the most basic elements in our universe.

Also, given an infinite (sufficient) amount of time, the blocks /will/ arrange themselves, then the patterns materialise in natural selection and evolve to the covergent evolution needs.

God doesn't roll the dice and hope it works-the world is something were anything will work in anything given time.

>> No.3376640

>It is easier to build a house than it is to create life.

I have no carpentry ability but I can create life with just my dick and an adult woman. I'd say it's easier to create life.

>> No.3376766

>>3376640

No you can't you fuckin Dumb Ass. You can replicate life but you can never create it.

>> No.3376834

>>3376766

relplicating, creating, whats's the fucking difference?

>> No.3376845

>>3376834


well replicating is taking pre-existing life and creating new life from that.

creating is creating life out of nothing.

you dumb fuck

>> No.3376864

>>3376845
so creating a wooden sphere is replicating? that's like saying that everything in the modern world was replicated.

>> No.3376892

Sometimes a house is naturally occurring.

Not a complex house, but a simple one.

In the same way, simple life too can be naturally occurring.

>> No.3376897

I haven't read the thread, I'm just going to say the first thing that came to my mind. A house can't reproduce itself therefore there is no chance a house that could evolve would exist.

>> No.3377001

bump

>> No.3377787

>>3374881
Houses are also naturally occurring. We call such houses caves.
Life didn't create itself out of nothing. It created itself out of the chemical and physical environment present in the early Earth.
The parts of liposome protobionts snap together and self-assemble due to their molecular forces.
To make this analogy complete, your 747 in a junkyard in a hurricane would have to have all its parts with magnetic latches that weld themselves together whenever they hit in the right way, repel when they get stuck the wrong way, and then copy itself every time it gets an extra piece right.