I just have one thing to say in response to this… Knock Knock?
4 Likes
Ah, the old No True Scotsman argument. Can’t you do better than that? There are plenty of Christians out there right now who would like nothing better than to annihilate entire rival religions and their followers if they could.
And who was behind those abortion clinic bombings and killing of doctors performing abortions? Oh yeah, they were Christians.
5 Likes
I just don’t get why Christians have such a big problem with abortions. Their god and his followers in the bible was pretty big on forcing women (non believers and unfaithful women) to have miscarriages. He even taught Moses how to do an abortion on an unfaithful wife with a priest.
While Christians will argue that the word “abortion” isn’t in the bible, there is plenty of bullshit in the Bible that describes forced miscarriages which isn’t that much different.
For example, a man beating a pregnant woman in the abdomen will induce a miscarriage. That’s really not that different from an “unsafe” abortion.
The Bible is not Pro-Life. There’s a fuck ton of people that were murdered by this deity for pissing it off or not adhering to it’s list of silly rules.
If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.~ Exodus - 5:27
More scripture on abortion or forced miscarriage including the part where God dashes newborn babies on rocks.
Deuteronomy 28:18-24
2 Kings 8:12
2 Kings 15:16
Isiah 13:18
Hosea 9:10-16
Hosea 13:16
2 Likes
How is that not evident is all I have said. The big bang happened and no on knows exactly why at this point. Inserting your god into the mix is fallacious. Your attempt to do so, regardless, of all that has been said, makes your posts look idiotic. What evidence do you have to support the idea that your god thing actually exists. It must be demonstrated to exist prior to it being any sort of a possibility for the cause of the expansion of the universe.
3 Likes
Theists typically argue that something can’t come from nothing when trying to refute the Big Bang, but don’t seem to have any qualms with claiming their god has always existed “outside of space and time”. Of course they don’t offer any explanation for how that can be. To them, the possibility that the cosmos itself has always existed and universe-creating big bangs are occasional rare events in the cosmos isn’t even in the same league as their magic man existing at all.
4 Likes
Holy Christ on a cracker! Can’t you people be just a little bit grateful for a change? Obviously, something cannot come from nothing. (Whatever the hell nothing might be. But, wait… If nothing were something, then nothing wouldn’t be nothing anymore, would it? Unless there is something somewhere that’s nothing, suggesting that nothing could be almost anything. Dammit, here comes the headache. Anyway…) Uh, where was I? Oh, yeah… Look, since God has always been everywhere but has never been nowhere, we should be thankful he (she? it?) was available and decided to take (make?) the time to create everything from the nothing in the darkness that surrounded him (her? it?). Uh, by the way, is darkness nothing? Or is it something? Aw, shit… Here comes the headache again… 
It is interesting how many theists reference science until it reaches the point where it conflicts with their dogma. They accept the Big Bang, thus they must accept the math and procedures that got them that far. But it is inconvenient for them to accept anything before the Big Bang, thus they reject anything else.
1 Like
How do you know anything you read in history is true? How do you know that any person you read about in history was real? For me, when I think about how I normally trust historical sources, and I apply it to the Bible, I find that the Bible (and thus Jesus) is remarkably trustworthy.
Let’s start with Josephus. (Josephus - Wikipedia) Josephus was a Jew working for the Romans as a historian and military leader, and he was not a Christian. He says this:
(63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3
He clearly mentions Jesus and the things the bible says he did. This is a clear historic source of Jesus.
Another historical source of Jesus is a letter from Roman governor called Pliny the Younger who writes seeking advice on Christian trials.
Want a little more? Jewish history says this in Sanherdrin 43a of the Babylonian Talmund:
“On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazaren after they killed him by way of stoning.”
Now it does say by way of stoning here, but this is most likely because by the time this was written the details concerning Jesus tended to be uncertain. The important thing is that even though most Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, there is no attempt in their history to say he didn’t exist; he is cleary referred to.
We also know for sure that Pontious Pilate existed and he was a key figure in the Bible who interacted with Jesus.
The normal history you read is based on sources such as these. Do you question the existence of other historical figures you read about? No probably not; Jesus is no less reliable than these. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed. The only reason people question it so much is because they don’t want Jesus to have existed.
Now for the validity of the Gospels
First off, the writers of the gospels mention embarrassing material such in Matthew 26:40-45 where Jesus repeatedly finds the disciples sleeping, Mark 4:10 where the disciples don’t understand Jesus’ teaching, and John 20:1 where the empty tomb of Jesus is found by woman; at the time woman did not have a high social status so if someone made up that story why would they say woman found the tomb?
If you were writing the New testament wouldn’t you try and make yourself look good? The fact that such embarrassments exist show that the writers were more concerned with writing the truth than they were with making themselves look good. And if you wrote the New testament, wouldn’t you try to make it as convincing as possible? Well the fact that they use woman, who had such a low social status, as an eyewitness shows they were telling the truth.
The Gospels go into such detail about what happened and record the same events without contradicting.
Usually, if four different people faked one story, the stories would not be exactly alike; they would be full of contradictions, but the Gospels tell one story from four perspectives with many of the same details and no major contradictions.
So what the Gospels say add up. It’s gonna take some more evidence for you to assert that the world’s best selling book of all time is partially fake.
I do understand this is quite confusing yes, but when God created us he gave us something: free will. God loves us, but he is also just. God gave us free will, and we were the ones who rebelled against him. @Tin-Man We were the ones who brought sin into the world; God gave us the free will to do it.
If someone commits a serious crime and is standing on trial, a good judge would punish them. That judge would be wrong to ignore their crime. God is the same way. Humans have chosen to follow, so being a good judge he has to punish people, but that’s not the end of it. God made a way for people to enter heaven through Jesus dying and paying for our rejection because he loves us. If you are in a court of law and someone pays your fine, the judge can let you go rightfully. That’s what Jesus did for us.
That’s why I’m on here now talking to a bunch of people who think I’m stupid because God has made the way to eternal life; all we have to do is accept it.
Everything is true, but to fully understand why certain things happened and what God is like, you have to look at the story as a whole and not just focus on the negative parts. So certain things are harder to understand than others. That’s why I talk about context.
You won’t find anywhere in that story that God condones that. This is an example of human evil nature. God was merciful to Lot because Abraham prayed for him to be spared, and God loved Abraham so he did. Lot did lots of wrong even after God showed him mercy, and it doesn’t say anywhere that God condones it.
I have already said this, and I will say it again: those are not Christians. Even if they claim to be, they are maniacs doing terrible things under the the flag of Christianity. You will not find God telling Christians to kill those who don’t believe in the Bible (Unless you use some out of context verse from the old testament that is not talking to Christians). God tells us to do exactly the opposite.
If you look at a computer, how do you know someone made it? Do you look at a computer and think it created itself? No, you know it had to have been created because the computer with its programming, hardware, and ability to perform functions obviously exists. You know that those things didn’t come from the computer itself; you know it had to have been built.
The same with creation; I know there’s a creator (A deity) because creation–the earth and life– and intelligence– our ability to think and feel– exist.
The fact that the universe exists and we all exist is proof of God in itself. We have never observed life coming from randomness much less the ability to think and feel emotion coming from randomness. We clearly observe that life and intelligence only comes from other life and intelligence.
It doesn’t make scientific sense then for all life to come from chemicals or anything non-intelligent, no matter how much time you give it; but since life exists, there must have been some sort of intelligence from which everything came.
So if there was an intelligence from which everything came from, it makes perfect sense that that intelligence would be a creating God. It doesn’t make sense any other way.
God isn’t an idea to fill the gaps that you can’t figure out; based on the most basic science and everything we have ever observed, it is IMPOSSIBLE for everything to exist without an intelligence creator.
“God hates sin, but he loves the sinner and commands Christians to do the same”
Matthew 5:44 “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”
Why would God tell us to love our enemies unless he to loves them? Why would he then say in Romans 1:18 “For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all Godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness, suppress the truth”? Because he hates the godlessness and unrighteousness in people, not the people themselves. He literally died to open a way to heaven for people (look back at Josephus, he proves this ); I say that proves he loves us.
That is a worthy question. Aristotle was a famous figure from that distant past, and one could also question whether he existed, or was just a story. But his presence is confirmed by letters and other manuscripts by his contemporaries and students. He was literate and some of his writings still exist.
For jesus, he was obviously illiterate (sort of funny for being a son of god) and NONE of his contemporaries wrote anything about him, only until at least a full generation after his death was there anything written about him. There are NONE, no first hand accounts about this jesus.
Are you aware of the history of the bible, that it was just a select collection of stories that were assembled by a council (325 AD) with the express purpose of selling this religion? Does anyone have any confidence that those stories were edited to augment jesus? That some stories were deliberately omitted because they did not augment the jesus story, maybe even disprove it?
The bible is the claim, not the proof.
Getting back to the original question, what about the tales of Robin Hood and King Arthur and his knights of the round table? Both of those characters were stories about cool stuff, rob from the rich, etc etc. But IMO those characters probably had a seed character, and as the tales passed from word of mouth to word of mouth (the telephone game) other characteristics are added on, tales were exaggerated and even added. And until someone truly provides valid evidence instead of referencing someone who wrote about a character at least a generation after his death, the tales of jesus and Robin Hood and King Arthur are all just great tales.
2 Likes
You might want to tell THEM that. And I’d be willing to bet one of Cog’s rotten bananas that THEY would likely tell us YOU are not a true Christian. Oh, my goodness! Who should we believe? You and your few hundred Christian friends who say “those other guys” are not true Christians? Or should we believe those other Christians and THEIR few hundred Christian friends who say YOU and YOUR few hundred friends are not true Christians? Or should we believe the few million OTHER Christians out there who would likely claim NEITHER of your two groups are true Christians? Golly gee… Decisions, decisions… 
3 Likes
So who/what created the “Intelligence Creator”? After all, as you just said, it is IMPOSSIBLE for anything to exist without a creator.
Yep. God loves the sinners SOOOOO much that he will send them to hell to be gruesomely tortured for all of eternity if they don’t bow down and kiss his ass. Arrogance, egomania, and narcissism… Ain’t they wonderful? The supreme irony here is those traits are SINS for we mere puny humans, but they are traits to be highly PRAISED and admired in the Lord Almighty. (I swear, I can’t make this shit up, folks.)
4 Likes
Some problems with your acceptance. 1. Demonstrate that nothing exists. (This is an oxymoron.) It is fallacious at its core. How does “nothing” exist? If it exists it is not nothing, but rather, something.
-
How does something become nothing? Something exists, we all agree. How do you get all the something to become nothing?
-
A thing that exists for no space and no time is a thing that is non-existant. Demonstrate anything that exists without time or space in which to exist.
-
We can know nothing about the cosmos at this point. Everything we know falls apart at Planck Time. 10 to the 20th power of a second. It is a barrier we have not figured out how to cross yet.
The theists claim is nothing but an empty assertion with no facts or evidence supporting it in any way.
I have nothing but qualms when the theists are allowd to make such inane assertions unchallenged.
1 Like
Really? Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum in the Antiquities of the Jews. Do you think we crawled out from under a rock yesterday?
- Josephus; born c. 37 AD. Jesus died in 33 AD. Antiquities of the Jews was written in 93 AD, 60 years after the imaginary death of this Jesus character. Josephus is not contemporary and anything he learned was from word of mouth. But what does he actually say?
[About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.}
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 ( A claim written 60 years after the death of this imaginary Jesus and crammed into a book so that it did not fit.) NOT EVIDENCE AT ALL.
The Testamonium occurs right in the middle of a story about a war. It is just inserted and it is out of place. The best evidence suggests Eusebius wrote it and not Josephus… 1. If you remove the Testimonium from its larger context, the previous paragraph flows together. This section seems conspicuously out of place. 2. No one mentions this passage until the 4th-century. (Eusebius) Why don’t early Christian apologists like Justin Martyr, Tertullian or Origen make use of this passage? Josephus mentions over 20 other men by the name of Jesus in his works. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, most scholars believe that this passage was doctored by Christian interpolators. The Josephus Testimonium: Let's Just Admit It's Fake Already • Richard Carrier
3 Likes
61 – c. 113 Not a contemporary of Jesus. Jesus had been dead, if he ever existed, for 22 years by the time Pleny was born. Chronological order for the documentation begins with Pliny writing around 111 AD , then Tacitus writing in the Annals around 115/116 AD and then Suetonius writing in the Lives of the Twelve Caesars around 122 AD.
Pleny the Younger wrote 76 years after the death of your supposed Jesus friend. NOT A CONTEMPORARY OF JESUS. The letter is the first pagan account to refer to Christianity, providing key information on early Christian beliefs and practices and how these were viewed and dealt with by the Romans.[ It is a report about Christian behavior and beliefs. It is not a report about the existence of Jesus.
Stoning and uncertain. It is another claim, not evidence. What evidence do you have backing up the story of the stoning of Jesus?
SERIOUSLY? You want to assert that this is the same guy as the Christian Jesus?
" Sanhedrin 43a[77] relates the trial and execution of a sorcerer named Jesus (Yeshu in Hebrew) and his five disciples. The sorcerer is stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover.[78]
Sanhedrin 43a tells of a Jesus (“Yeshu”) "offended his teacher by paying too much attention to the inn-keeper’s wife. Jesus wished to be forgiven, but this rabbi was too slow to forgive him, and Jesus in despair went away and put up a brick idol and worshipped it.
The identification of Jesus with any number of individuals named Yeshu has numerous problems, as most of the individuals are said to have lived in time periods far detached from that of Jesus; Yeshu the sorcerer is noted for being executed by the Hasmonean government which lost legal authority in 63 BC, Yeshu the student is described being among the Pharisees who returned to Israel from Egypt in 74 BC. Yeshu ben Pandera/ben Stada stepfather is noted as speaking with Rabbi Akiva, shortly before the rabbi’s execution, an event which occurred in c. 134 AD. These events would place the lifetime of any Yeshu decades before or after the birth and death of Jesus. NOT CONTEMPORARY. IF JESUS EXISTED, NO ONE IN HISTORY EVERY NOTICED HIM OR ANY OF HIS MIRACLES.
YOU HAVE PROVIDED NOTHING.
3 Likes
Nonsense. This entry has been acknowledged as a pure forgery since the 11th century. If you want to pretend your sources are valid please do some proper research.
Oh please. Once again Pliny was wriitng for advice on how to treat troublesome sects in the early SECOND CENTURY. (about 112CE) Nobody argues that christians existed. They are not EVIDENCE that your Jesus figure did.
" As the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus now in modern Turkey) Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan around 112 CE and asked for counsel on dealing with Christians. In the letter Epistulae X.96, Pliny detailed an account of how he conducted trials of suspected Christians who appeared before him as a result of anonymous accusations and asked for the Emperor’s guidance on how they should be treated Pliny had never performed a legal investigation of Christians and thus consulted Trajan in order to be on solid ground regarding his actions. Pliny saved his letters and Trajan’s replies and these are the earliest surviving Roman documents to refer to early Christians"
Babylonian Talmund: A 3rd - 5th Century CE compilation of Oral and fragmented Jewish lore and law.
Oh FFS are you that deluded? Sorry ignorant?
" Tradition ascribes the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud in its present form to two Babylonian sages, Rav Ashi and Ravina II Rav Ashi was president of the Sura Academy from 375 to 427CE. The work begun by Rav Ashi was completed by Ravina, who is traditionally regarded as the final Amoraic expounder. Accordingly, traditionalists argue that Ravina’s death in 475 CE is the latest possible date for the completion of the redaction of the Talmud. However, even on the most traditional view, a few passages are regarded as the work of a group of rabbis who edited the Talmud after the end of the Amoraic period, known as the “Savoraim” or “Rabbanan Savora’e” (meaning “reasoners” or “considerers”)." Courtesy Wiki
Really? The gospels authors are a matter of tradition, not fact. The earliest “Mark” could not have been written (by an anonymous Greek copyist/author) before 70CE. The other synoptics copy most of Mark (which incidentally has been extensively altered and extended over the centuries). “John” we know was written by up to 4 authors over an extended period dating from about 90CE onwards.
Of course it does most of it was interpolated altered, translated, retranslated and bowdlerised for the last two thousand years by clerics with the main game in mind.
I will summarise: There is not one contemporary (to his alleged life) reference to a Jesus figure as described in the Gospels. NOT ONE.
Please prove me in error.
2 Likes
This god sure does appear to condone it . It’s clearly offered up in the story in the first place as an example of Lot’s wonderful hospitality to his guest and shows why we shouldn’t adopt the morals of ignorant people from the past. The same people that equate homosexuality with a sin worthy of death thought that offering up your virgin daughters to be gang raped was the right thing to do to spare your precious male guest. Many of the things the bible tells you to do would rightly get you in prison today, such as killing someone for gathering sticks on the sabbath or killing a woman who was raped if it’s thought she didn’t fight back hard enough. I also don’t understand how your all powerful, all knowing god doesn’t even know who is worthy to be saved and must be counseled by a human in these matters.
2 Likes
@C2187
Argumentum Ad Populum. Which offers up nothing that I asked. You’re making more claims and going off of a shit Watchmaker Analogy with computers. Then you go on to use the Bible in your argument. Something that you were advised not to do.
Then you go on to downplay historical evidence that was proven by hundreds of historians. So comparing Jesus being real to historical figures like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln is really absurd. We call that a Reductio Ad Absurdum.
You were asked to demonstrate with objective evidence for the existence of any known deity. Not proselytize your superstitions.
You made a god claim therefore you automatically accepted the Burden of Proof. Please do as you were asked as you have not offered any physical, circumstantial, contemporary, emperical, or objective evidence. This evidence is used in courts.
The Bible is a claim, not evidence. It is a fictional book that fails to back its claims.
I’ll ask again. What objective evidence can you demonstrate for the existence of any deity?
Can you summon this deity? Can heal the sick in Jesus’s name? Can you make the insane sane again? Can you drink snake venom without dying? Move mountains? Can you demonstrate miracles as stated in the scriptures of that fictional book of yours?
Oh that’s right. You cant.
If you are familiar with Hitchens Razor then you know “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
Therefore I dismiss every claim and argument you try to convince me with until you can meet your Burden of Proof. The fact that you think arguing your beliefs to an Ad Nauseam will not give you results.
3 Likes
God sucks. His favoured people travelling and making sure they stay with his favourite folks following Jehovah’s “perfect” laws… (vs 12 “No. We won’t go into any city whose people are not Israelites. We will go on to Gibeah.”)
Judges 19: 22 While they were enjoying themselves,(T)some of the wicked men(U) of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.(V)”
23 The owner of the house went outside(W) and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing.(X) 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter,(Y) and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”
25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her(Z) and abused her(AA)throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.
29 When he reached home, he took a knife(AB)and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.(AC) 30 Everyone who saw it was saying to one another, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt.(AD) Just imagine! We must do something! So speak up!(AE)”
Ah,.the rancid smell of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy lingers in the air again.
Except that your goat herder mythology contains several explicit exhortations to kill all who do not conform. Exhortations that have been gleefully pursued by mythology fanboys across the best part of two millennia of European history. Your glib attempt at hand-waving away embarrassing facts won’t wash here.
The short answer to this: bollocks.
The longer answer: first of all, we know computers are human artefacts. We have evidence to this effect.
On the other hand, we have zero evidence that a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology was responsible either for the universe at large, or the biosphere in particular. Instead, we have, courtesy of several million peer reviewed scientific papers from the relevant disciplines, evidence that testable natural processes, involving well-defined entities and interactions, are sufficient to account for vast classes of observable phenomena, including classes thereof that the authors of your goat herder mythology were incapable of even fantasising about.
Oh, and your glib, ignorant peddling of “randomness” merely highlights how excremental your inane apologetic vomitings are. First of all, what scientists actually postulate on the origin of life, is, as I stated above, that testable natural processes were responsible, in this case, chemical reactions, and the reason that scientists postulate this, is that life IS chemistry writ large. Millions of chemical reactions are taking place inside your body right now, and if some of those reactions stop, you die.
Furthermore, over 100,000 peer reviewed scientific papers from the prebiotic chemistry literature, document in exquisite detail the experiments demonstrating that the chemical reactions postulated to be implicated in the origin of life all work. Furthermore, that literature is now covering experiments with synthetic protocells, in order to illuminate further the likely pathways that led to life emerging from chemical reactions.
As for your nonsense about “randomness”, it’s obvious that you don’t understand how this term is used in scientific disciplines. Quite simply, a random variable is a variable whose values conform to a probability distribution. The fun part being that such a variable can behave in this manner, while the underlying mechanisms driving that variable are themselves well-defined and deterministic. Indeed, when scientists use the word “random”, they do so as a shorthand for the fact that they know, courtesy of relevant experiments, that several well-defined mechanisms can produce a given result, but that they lack the audit trail of data telling them which of those several mechanisms actually operated in a given instance. As a corollary, they model the result using a probability distribution, and a Markov chain process whose individual pathways have a probability assigned to them, a modelling process that has been extremely successful in several branches of science.
Indeed, every pathway in a Markov chain process is a deterministic process, but when several such paths lead from event A to event B. those different pathways are assigned a probability value, on the basis that [1] any given single transition from A to B can only involve one of those pathways, and [2] multiple transitions from A to B could involve any of the pathways in question. But I don’t expect mythology fanboys to understand elementary concepts such as this.
In short, your blather consists, at bottom, of “I can’t understand how testable natural processes can achieve the end result, therefore Magic Man did it”, a posture that is vacuous and intellectually bankrupt.
Indeed, not only have scientists constructed experiments demonstrating that RNA strands can be synthesised with ease, simply by allowing the constituent simpler molecules to come into contact with a catalyst (and montmorillonite clay, one of the commonest mineral substrates on the planet, happens to be an efficient catalyst for said RNA synthesis), but other experiments have demonstrated that those RNA strands, once they have been synthesised, undergo Darwinian evolution. I have the relevant scientific papers documenting these experiments in my collection.
Furthermore, containerisation of those RNA strands within lipid vesicles is also achieved with ease, courtesy of the fact that many lipid molecules have been demonstrated experimentally to arrange themselves spontaneously into organised structures, such as micelles, bilayer sheets and liposomes, and they require no other impetus to do this, than turbulent agitation of the medium in which they are suspended - in short, shake the bottle. The electrostatic forces between, and uneven charge distribution on, each lipid molecule directs the requisite self-assembly. But since you obviously never learned the basic physics involved, it’s no surprise to observe that you’re incapable of understanding any of this.
Indeed, if you suspend lipids in solution alongside RNA strands, then shake the container, some of those RNA strands end up being encapsulated inside the requisite lipid structures, which then act as selectively permeable membranes allowing some molecules from outside to enter, while screening out others. Again, all understood for decades by chemists. Once said encapsulation has taken place, those lipid structures act as filters keeping out deleteriously competing molecules, while allowing other molecules of metabolic interest to enter the structure.
Far from being “impossible”, all of the above has been demonstrated not only to be possible in laboratory experiments, but has been replicated numerous times by different teams of researchers. “I don’t understand the science” doesn’t invalidate the science, and doesn’t validate a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology.
As for cosmology, oh boy you’re in for a serious surprise when you learn what cosmological physicists are postulating in their recent scientific papers. But I’ll leave that for another time.
5 Likes
That’s for sure. I didn’t realize that it was a down right habit for men to offer up women to be raped in place of males in that perfect, holy of holy books. I mean WTF?
1 Like