>>18509327
Its the price of living in the material world.

>>18509327
I think the correct quality will be "omnibenevolent", think about it for a second and what implies to you and what your examples may hint at your behaviour.

>«iF GoD ReaL, WHY BaD THiNG HaPPeN?»


THE UNIVERSE IS STOCHASTIC; THERE IS ACCIDENCE IN THE COSMOS; ACCIDENTS OCCUR; GOD DOES NOT MICROMANAGE THE OPERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE, NOR THE EVENTS IN IT.

>>18509327
It’s all part of the masterplan o algo

>>18509327
those babies would grow up to become communists

File: fall of man.jpg (838.1 KB)

This is still why.

>>18509366
You are an Epicurean, Pablo. Chance does not exist. All things whatsoever happen in time are superintended by the sovereign providence of God according to His wise counsel.

>>18509404

>You are an Epicurean, Pablo.

?


>Chance does not exist.

ACCIDENCE DOES NOT EXIST, BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN ENTITY WITH SAPIENCE, NOR WITH AGENCY; EXISTENCE IS EXCLUSIVE TO ENTITIES WITH AGENCY, AND WITH SAPIENCE.


>All things whatsoever happen in time are superintended by the sovereign providence of God according to His wise counsel.

YES, SUPERINTENDED, NOT MICROMANAGED.

Because death and suffering are not the great evils you think they are. Separation from God is.

>>18509414
Okay then you're fine with someone tearing out your lungs with a knife?

File: Bible Prophecy + confirming future science facts.png (169.0 KB)

>>18509327
Humans are suffering in this world to wake them up and show them their need of Jesus Christ saving them from their sins, because God doesn't want them in Hell, which is worse than whatever happens on earth. Will you reject what God wants for you or will you accept the gift of salvation. You see the effect of sin by all these bad things happening, like babies suffering, and now that you see it, what do you choose? If nothing bad happened you wouldn't understand just how serious this situation is, and how angry God is with this evil wicked world.

Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. He died on the cross as a sinless sacrifice for all the sins of the whole world to save you from eternal hell, the punishment for your sins. He was buried, then rose again from the dead. One day you will stand before Him, and He will judge you. You can either repent to God by receiving Him and be saved, or reject Him and go to hell for your sins.

Rom. 3:23-25: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;”

1 John 5:7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9, given by God, Romans 10:8 & 17) only in the one, final, effectual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:8-12) dying in your place (1 Cor. 15:3-4) as a substitutionary offering for sin (Rom. 5:1-10). His blood atonement made for you is finished, so if you have received the Lord Jesus by faith (John 1:12) in your heart, you're forgiven of all your sins and are saved, once for all; finally and forever! (Rom. 8:38-39, Romans 4:5)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc
https://truthischrist.com/seven/

>>18509503
>Humans
So animal suffering is pointless? Or do you just maintain they don't suffer?

>>18509494
For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. So, yeah, if it had to happen. Not my first choice, but I'm fine with it.

>>18509519
Most transparent lie I've seen in a while. Why can't you just be honest?

>>18509410
>EXISTENCE IS EXCLUSIVE TO ENTITIES WITH AGENCY, AND WITH SAPIENCE.
Do rocks exist, señor?

>>18509523
>Literally countless examples of Christians living this sentiment out under death threats throughout history
Sorry about your historical illiteracy, anon. Get well soon.

>>18509327
Sin entering the world is like entropy entering the world. A perfect world would never have death.
A world cursed by sin does.

File: 7^7.png (76.2 KB)

>>18509517
Animals suffer too, they suffer because when mankind was "sold under sin" (Rom. 7:14), animals were under the authority of man. It's not just animals and humans, when Adam sinned the whole earth including the ground and what grows on it was cursed by God.

Just because God allows suffering to happen in order to show to people the result of sin, why does that make God unjust? Is suffering some sort of impossible obstacle that you cannot pay back no matter what? If I offered to give you a gold bar for pricking your finger, you would accept despite the fact that it causes you suffering.

In the same way, since God is omnipotent, He can easily make any suffering, trauma etc. go away easily and replace it with something else. The present makes sense if you have future as a context.

The important thing to remember about God is His holiness. The love of God is rooted in God's holiness. All of God's love, in this age, is vested in the righteous life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Apart from Christ, God loves no man (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8); apart from Christ, the sinner abides in God's wrath (John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”).


We sin because we are "in Adam," (Rom. 5:19); we die because we are "in Adam" (1 Cor. 15:22; Rom. 5:17). But when a man receives Christ as his Saviour, he is no longer "in Adam"; he is then "in Christ" (1 Cor. 12:13, 27; Eph. 5:30).
Moreover, Christ is in you (Col. 1:27) in the person of the Holy Ghost (Rom. 8:9-16). When God looks at a saved man, He does not see a sinner in Adam's image, but His own Son who is "the image of God" Himself (2 Cor. 4:4; Heb. 1:3). The old Adamic nature in the flesh divided from the new man in Christ Jesus (Col. 2:11-13, 3:10). And someday God will change that sinful body and adopt it into His family too (Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:50- 54; Rom. 8:23-29).

>>18509327
>If God is real why do babies die from cancer
the jew devil that jews worship causes all evil, and so through the destruction of all jews all evil will cease to exist

File: Paul.jpg (7.6 KB)

God is punishing us for not containing and segregating the homosexuals

>>18509327
The sensible answer is God is not all good.

>>18510246
I don't think He is, but hey, it's worth a try.

>>18509545
>if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
The rocks only exist if they are observed. Observation is required to prove existance.

>>18510247
God, by definition, is good. Bad agents are not defined as "God".

>>18509327
most of the time it's due to genetic problems which are a result of mutations in the first place, and then incest which increases the odds of the infant inheriting two copies of a dangerous gene that can cause cancer. some will say that childhood cancer, in particular, is not genetic, but also apparently all we are is expression of genes so w/e.
It's not a coincidence that the places on earth with the highest rates of child cancer, birth defects, and child mortality generally all practice incestuous marriages, as well as being highly polluted and disease-ridden.

a place which follows God's morality of being cleanly, not spreading disease, and abstaining from incest will see a general decline in child mortality.

>>18510341
I don't see "le daddy Jew + talking snakes" under the definition of "good" in any dictionary.

>>18510333
>Idealism
Philosophical schizophrenic

>>18510374
Its just semantics. It depends on how you define "exist". Most people dont worry about this, because its arbitrary. I can understand both points of view.

>>18510369
God is defined as a judgmental figure that forms heaven and earth through division, separation, cutting, pruning, etc. There is something there, and his "formations" are a choice is being made. That choice is defined as good in genesis 1.

God saw the light, and said it is good.

In Job, which was actually written before genesis, Satan is defined as a privation of the good messages that are being formed by God.

It's all there in the narrative.

>>18510374
Jesus and Israel have two natures.
God and Man.
The geometer and the carpenter.

>>18509327
>If God is real why do babies die from cancer
Free radicals.

>>18509545
Look up what "to exist" means, retard.

>>18510689
>God saw the light, and said it is good.
Biblically false.

>>18510718
>1. have objective reality or being
Glad we could establish that stop eating crayons

>>18510683
>Its just semantics.
Stop repeating that phrase, you are giving it a bad rep
>>18510696
??????????

>>18509327
From god's perspective, why would it matter whether a person dies of cancer when they're young or when they're old?

Assuming something like the Christian concept of god, he knows that the brief life of the flesh is a blink of an eye compared to the eternal life of the soul, and for those who are not sinners, that eternal afterlife is far better than the life we have here on Earth. If anything, dying as a baby is the best thing that could happen to you, since you'd be getting out of the mortal world faster, without the risk of a lifetime of temptations that could lead you to damnation.

>>18510784
God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

According to Platinga it's unironically because of fallen angels and Satan

But then that raises the question - why doesn't God just kill them

>>18510916
So then by that logic, why does any life matter at all? What is 1 year to 80 years, to eternity. God is basically the ultimate nihilist then “oh who cares if babies die your lives are short anyways they don’t matter”

>>18511012
I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit

>>18511012
>fallen angels and Satan
Privations

>>18510788
Proof of objective reality requires measurement.
Measurements require observations.

>>18510969
Exactly. Now re-read your previous post and notice how wrong you were.

>>18511102
Proof of an object may satisfy an observer’s epistemic duties, but its ontological being is wholly independent of proof.

>>18511032
Well, yeah. That's kinda the whole idea of the Book of Job. None of this matters, and just have faith until you die.

>>18509327
God is an ontological necessity. He’s the source of all being. So the question isn’t “if God exists explain babies having cancer”, it’s “why does God permit some babies to die of cancer”

The answer is I don’t know. I’m not God. The official church teaching is that it’s a consequence of every subsequent human since Adam being born out of sync with God from original sin, and thus liable to disease and death. And that God permits these things when it aligns with a greater good.

>>18511206
>life and suffering don’t matter because we’re all going to die anyways
And Christians say atheists are nihilists

>>18511243
Christians often say earthly conditions don’t matter when compared to eternity. Material things don’t matter like the way we think they do. Our behaviour and disposition definitely matters a great deal. And ultimately there is inherent meaning in the world (God).

Many atheistic nihilists deny meaning whatsoever in life. It is illusionary, and ultimately all will be devoured by a vast and uncaring universe. All will end in death, silence and the triumph of entropy.

>>18509327
Only evil babies

>>18511290
Except that presupposes an afterlife actually exists. Practically speaking your outlook on life, insofar as it influences your behavior is functionally no different from saying “none of it matters we’re going to die anyways”

>>18511205
Not only does God say that it is good, he says that it is very good.

>>18511156
Not only does God say that it is good, he says that it is very good.

>>18511205
Proof offers validity, but observation and ontological being are required for the soundness of an argument to exist.

>>18509327
God has a sense of humor.

>>18511012
Platinga is genuinely a moron, every one of his philosophical arguments are trash. I don't think anyone takes him seriously.

>>18511240
>God is an ontological necessity. He’s the source of all being.
Except this isn't true so you're going to need to come up with something better. The character in the bible is not in any way "ontologically necessary", it's literally a fairy tale character that doesn't exist.

>>18512046
>t. 110 IQ
Please go back. Y'all are worse than retards.

>>18512053
My IQ is 148
You are profoundly mentally retarded.

>>18511299
And all babies are by nature evil because of this >>18509403. We must understand every breath we ever take is God’s mercy and grace, we are sinners by nature and God would be most just to let us drop from the womb straight into the mouth of hell. We can make no demand of Him, we must make a plea to Him for mercy in Christ.

>>18512058
If that’s true (I doubt it, most likely a lie) it would be evidence that IQ is a dubious metric and more likely to predict low intelligence at very high levels, because you’re dumb as hell.

>>18512065
No, buddy, telling you that the bible is not the word of God and that the fairy tale bible character is not an "ontological necessity" is not indicative that IQ isn't real.

>>18512081
I agree, it’s indicative that you aren’t the sharpest knife in the drawer

>>18512083
You are very stupid. Sorry buddy.

>>18512085
No you

>>18509503
>1 John 5:7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
This is a fake quote. A forgery you bozo

>>18512087
Still accords with the truth though.

>>18509327
God isn't real.

>>18512096
You will never be a real woman.

>>18512097
>TRANNIES TRANNIES
I'm not a tranny, you dumb faggot.

>>18511389
Not atheists' fault you don't even know the difference between "saw" and "said."

>>18512094
>>18512087
How did you get this quote? Did an LLM generate it or did you misremember the quote? The actual scripture is similar in structure, but differs in content. It reads, "For there are three that testify: the spirit and the water and the blood: and these three agree." (1 John 5:7-8) and it refers to the testimonies above human testimony to the divinity of Jesus Christ, namely the witness of the spirit, the baptism of Jesus which included the spirit descending on Him like a dove and the Voice of the Father from heaven, and the blood of the Lord which cleanses us from all unrighteousness. These three agree, thereby providing persuasive confirmation for believing in Jesus as the Son of God. This relates to the Old Testament as the OT taught that every charge must be confirmed by "two or three witnesses."
All of this is to say that I don't understand where the quote of yours originated from because it seems misaligned with content, context, and meaning of 1 John 5:7, though sharing similar structure.

File: Gymnasts are healthy.jpg (1.4 MB)

>>18512106
He said it to himself in his mind.
He also said it in the Bible when he inspired the words to be written down.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

>>18512151
>He said it to himself in his mind.
Why does it say "saw that" and not "thought that"?

>>18512162
Why should it say "thought that" and not "decided that"?

>>18512121
>LLM
It's called the "Comma Johanneum", a widely-attested forgery found in the KJV Bible and the clearest scriptural evidence for the trinity. One of the reasons why it still makes the rounds on the internet (apart from there being a weird cult of KJV-onlys). It's excluded in new translations like NIV
>it is highly unlikely that the Comma Johanneum was originally a part of 1 John. None of the oldest Greek manuscripts of 1 John contain the comma, and none of the very early church fathers include it when quoting or referencing 1 John 5:7-8
>Due to intense pressure from the Catholic Church and others who wanted it included because of its support for trinitarianism, Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum in later editions of the Textus Receptus. His decision resulted in the Comma Johanneum being included in the King James Version of the Bible and later in the New King James Version.
>Of all the modern English translations, only the New King James Version and Modern English Version include the Comma Johanneum.
>Some ancient scribe, either intentionally or accidentally added it to a Latin manuscript, and then that addition was copied thousands upon thousands of times. This eventually resulted in the Comma Johanneum appearing in the vast majority of Latin manuscripts. Whatever the scribe’s motives, it is absolutely wrong to add to God’s Word

>>18512174
Very interesting. Thank you for the lesson, anon.

File: Carpenter with a saw.jpg (39.3 KB)

>>18512162
It's good that you are asking these questions, so that I can enlighten you with proverbs and parables, sayings and riddles of the wise.

Whoever has ears, let them hear.

The reason it says, "saw" is because God creates this way. He divides, seperates, cuts, and prunes what is there.

In contrast, he has a problem with that hoe over there, because, in it's search for weeds, it has started uprooting too much wheat before the harvest.

>>18509327
just banter

Well, hopefully the vision was truthful - not God's doing

>>18512151
What if the woman is single is it still adultery?

>>18512062
legitimately deranged worldview champ, you should see a therapist

>>18512559
In matters of the heart, yes, because lust does not take into account the feelings of the woman. Even if a single woman does not yet have an earthly husband, every single woman on earth belongs to God. Honor her as someone who belongs to Him.

>>18509327
God is against dysgenics, and that's good.

File: reddit 4.jpg (46.4 KB)

>>18509327
>bad things happen therefore God isn’t…le real!
Go back

File: 4df2d68d8540038ad080bcae86597fd81754a34eab9fdc5dc1a4e6e9e999d77e_1-3258560261.jpg (94.7 KB)

>>18512795

>>18512629
Deflection by accusation so you don't have to think about it. Classic pseud move.

>>18512629
God bless you.

>>18509327
What if in the end God gives you an answer that makes perfect sense and perfectly justified him and in that moment you realize that God is 100% correct and then you wished with all your heart you had been among those believed him and took his side and defended him but you weren't and instead were among those who accused him and hated him and made him seem evil in the eyes of others and then you immediately regret it and become trembling with fear and anguish and you beg him with all your heart to forgive you and let you be with him but he says no?

No one who chooses God will ever lose. They will not be the one put to shame in the last day. They will be the honored ones who will be given eternal fame. In a million generations and a billion ages people will still know their names.

>>18512819
What if you took your meds

>>18512832
God is my med.

>>18511299
>Only evil babies
Shrewd. Reincarnation explains it as carrying over sin from a previous life (original sin is a brainlet formulation of this).

I read an account by a medical seer who said that in a given instance, the baby had gotten ill and died because the soul had incarnated into the baby for the express purpose of teaching the parents something, and once the mission had been achieved, dipped out again by means of the illness.

>>18509366
All you're doing is coming up with an explanation of how God COULD exist in tandem with the universe, rather than giving evidence to show that God DOES exist.

>>18513238
Evolutionary biologists and psychologists argue that humans possess (have relationships with) innate, hardwired moral intuitions (God) because they were necessary for the survival (salvation) of our species (Adam). These aren't just arbitrary preferences; they are objective responses programmed (gracefully given by God) into human biology.

>>18513388
Evolution isn’t real

>>18513389
Evolution is directly observed

>>18513389

I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

I dont really mind if you call "natural selection" by the name of "supernatural chooser".

Either way, I will love my neighbor as myself, so that the law and prophets are supported.

>>18513457
Spontaneous biogenesis, the lynchpin of evolution as the origin of species has not been directly observed.

>>18513457
Nobody has ever observed monkeys turning into people. Evolution is false and has been disproved

>>18513496
Macro evolution has been directly observed. Humans are apes, which is a type of monkey, which is a type of mammal, which is a type of tetrapod, which is a type of vertebrate, which is a type of animal, etc. Evolution is a directly observed and proved fact, and you denying it will not stop it from being true. It has, in fact, been proved.

>>18513490
>spontaneous biogenesis is the lynchpin of evolution
I’d call you a retard but I don’t want to offend the retards by comparing them to you

>>18514440
>as the origin of species
Anon, I do not share your concern. You are a retard.

>>18514456
Kek. Give him a break, anon. Troglodytes haven't yet adapted to read entire sentences. That trait will arise as the weaker readers among them die before they can procreate.

File: BigBrainTime.jpg (87.5 KB)

>>18509327
>If God is real
(x) Doubt.

File: babearino.jpg (6.2 KB)

>>18509327
>If God is real why do babies die from cancer
Ah you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but BLINDING!

>>18514456
>>18514487
"spontaneous biogenesis" is not the lynchpin of evolution as the origin of species. You are both massively retarded.

>>18514985
>spontaneous biogenesis" is not the lynchpin of evolution as the origin of species.
Sure is.

>>18515005
No, it isn't. If you mean origin of life research as in abiogenesis, that is not "spontaneous biogenesis" and it isn't the lynchpin of the origin of species - mutation and selection is.
As for abiogenesis, that's almost solved. I don't think you guys realize how much is already known about it

>>18515009
>almost solved
So it's not solved, anon? Are you making a faith-based statement that it will be solved?

>>18515009
>abiogenesis, that is not "spontaneous biogenesis"
>Abiogenesis refers to the process by which life arises from non-living matter, while spontaneous generation (often called spontaneous biogenesis) is an outdated theory that suggested living organisms could arise from inanimate substances.
>They're the same thing, but one uses less coarse language.

>>18515009
>As for abiogenesis, that's almost solved
The goalpost of accounting for how you get from organic matter to an actual organism is lightyears away. You're just scientifically illiterate.

>>18515012
God of the gaps is not an argument
>>18515018
Abiogenesis and spontaneous biogenesis are not the same thing. Your own quote says is.
>>18515027
No, it isn't. Almost every part is already known. You don't know how much is known and how close the field is.

>>18515031
Retard.

>>18515031
>life arises from non-living matter
>living organisms could arise from inanimate substances.
These are absolutely the same fucking thing.

>>18515036
They aren't. One is about chemical evolution, the other basically says that living beings can magically appear out of dirt.

>>18515042
Those both say the same thing. One's just more careful about not offending your religious devotion to le heckin science.

>>18515034
Yes, you are.
>>18515036
No, they aren't.
Spontaneous biogenesis is full formed multicellular mice and stuff coming out of hay and beer. Abiogenesis is recursively complex self-reproducing molecules becoming more and more complicated under entropy and selection. They are completely different. The field already knows almost every step for abiogenesis.
You guys need to stop listening to Tour or just in general pushing the formation of life onto supernatural cause. Life did not form supernaturally or via an intervention from a teleological mind engineering it, so when the field is solved (which is happening soon) you're going to be caught with your pants down. There is no supernatural element in life.

>>18515031
>Almost every part is already known
You're delusional. The only thing considered "mostly solved" is prebiotic synthesis. Polymerization (how do you get proteins, RNA, DNA?) is an open question. Self-replication is an open question. Metabolic closure (how do you get self-sustaining biological processes?) is an open question. Genetic coding/translation is an open question with an apparent bootstrap paradox: DNA needs proteins to replicate, but proteins need DNA to code for them. There's probably a bunch of other things I'm not even thinking of. Have fun with your religion of willful ignorance.

>>18513508
Evolution isn’t real.

>>18515052
Polymerization of polypeptides and self replicating nucleotides has been known for some time. You don't know what you're talking about.

File: genius-brainlet.png (248.5 KB)

>>18515046
>Abiogenesis is recursively complex self-reproducing molecules becoming more and more complicated under entropy and selection. They are completely different. The field already knows almost every step for abiogenesis.
Ok. List every step.
>inb4 1. entropy 2. selection

>>18515046
>which is happening soon
No, Christ is returning soon. You don't want to be caught with your pants down on that one.

>>18515057
>Polymerization of polypeptides and self replicating nucleotides has been known for some time
That doesn't contradict anything I wrote. You're profoundly retarded and delusional.

>>18515046
>There is no supernatural element in life.
You say that with religious certainty. Problem is that your religion is for faggots who masturbate to their own perceived superiority to others. Nobody wants to be a part of that.

>>18515066
Buddy, the "bootstrapping problem" is not real, we know both the generation of RNA and DNA and proteins in pre-biotic environments. We know almost every one of the things you brought up already. You just don't know the state of the field

>>18515071
You have a severe mental illness and aren't capable of reasoning about the subject. You got filtered by every sentence in >>18515052, which stands unchallenged.

>>18515073
Half of the problems you brought up are problems that are solved already. Your putting your eggs in a god of the gaps that the rest won't be, because that's all you guys have. It is not an argument.

>>18515059
No, he isn't. Jesus thought the earth was flat with a dome. He wasn't god and he didn't rise. He's never coming back.

>>18515076
He is God. He rose, He is seated at the right hand of the Father. You lost and will continue to lose eternally if you do not repent.

I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis and all the detailed research therein; then I look at the severe mental diarrhea of repeatedly claiming "goddidit" and/or Genesis, and it immediately becomes apparent how intellectually bankrupt religion is.

>>18515078
Buddy, your fairytale is not real. You are severely delusional. Christianity is not true, he didn't rise, he is never, ever coming back.

Kek, we went from man was made from clay and his wife from his rib to - long strands of RNA are impossible because of hydrolysis.
In reality most of the problems are already solved.

>Despite its small size, QT45 showed an ability to copy a variety of different RNA templates, including sequences with tightly folded secondary structure and those encoding a hammerhead endonuclease ribozyme. Most importantly, QT45 was able to synthesize a copy of both itself and its encoding template—the two key reactions necessary for self-replication.
We're doing pretty good. I bet if we finally achieve a proto-cell creationists will claim that it couldn't be achieved outside of a lab.

>>18515075
>Half of the problems you brought up are problems that are solved already.
You have a delusional mental illness. There are toy models for a bunch of the supposed milestones to get from inorganic matter to life, but almost every one of them is based on implausible laboratory conditions and has a ton of unanswered questions regarding how it would have worked in real life, if at all. This is not a controversial statement. This is the mainstream scientific position.

>>18515079
>>18515082
They basically only listen to apologists lie about stuff and think that's the state. Like Stephen Meyer was going around the past few weeks regurgitating his script about how "DNA is coded information and coded information only comes from a mind so DNA is from a mind!" argument which equivocates between different definitions of information and just outright lies about how DNA works.

>>18515084
>if at all
Nah, abiogenesis is pretty much accepted in the scientific community. The research is obviously ongoing, but we know a lot already. No, people like Tour aren't taken seriously, they don't add anything to the actual discussion or publsh any papers.

File: dicapriokek.png (799.2 KB)

How did atheists get so quickly from pretending they're for muh science and muh rationality to openly denying the scientific consensus at every turn and trying to sweep the entire origin-of-life field of biology under the rug? Imagine mumbling about muh abiogenesis, only to claim the scientists trying to resolve its countless riddles are fake creationists only pretending to do real work and to have serious debates...

>>18515090
>abiogenesis is pretty much accepted in the scientific community
Your irrelevant nothing-statement doesn't contradict anything I wrote. Take your antipsychotics, give them a few hours to kick in, then tell me your "pretty much accepted" solution to Eigen's paradox, just for one example.

>>18515094
Because their only goal is to justify their anger towards God. They don't actually care about the origin of life or even about science beyond its use for denying God. They're just mad that mommy made them go to church.

>>18515096
Both abiotic formation of proteins and abiotic formation of RNA as well as basic ribosome-like RNA that produces polypeptides have all been observed. Eigen's paradox isn't real.

>>18515094
>the Moldovan schizo shit for brains isn't even hiding his seethe anymore.
You're a subhuman buddy
>>18515100
Buddy, no one is angry at God. God simply does not exist. You're profoundly retarded.

>>18515106
>Eigen's paradox isn't real.
I accept your full concession of >>18515094

>>18515110
We have directly observed RNA spontaneously forming and then going on to synthesize polypetides. Eigen's paradox is not real, it is not the case that "you need proteins for DNA but you need DNA for proteins". It turns out you do not need proteins for DNA or RNA

File: okkid.jpg (15.3 KB)

>>18515113
>Eigen's paradox is not real
This is where atheism's at. See >>18515094

>>18515088
They're still rehashing the same debunked memes from 30 years ago like irreducible complexity.

File: dogshit.jpg (160.5 KB)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.00106

>Origins of life research is marred by the problem of ambiguous or open ended questions and goals. Because of so many unknowns and disagreements about definitions and theories, it is not, and will not, be clear how to know when such goals have been achieved. For example, one of the goals of the origins of life community is to make “life in the lab”—a formidable task, to put it
lightly—but perhaps even more difficult will be to convince others that this was achieved. This is because “life in the lab” is not yet a well defined concept, because life is not yet a well defined concept. These kinds of indefinite goals do not lend themselves to incremental progress because they deemphasize advancements which could be made through well-defined objectives

>We propose a list of challenges with clear Finish Lines, similar to the X-prize, (and to a lesser extent the Hilbert problems), as a jumping off point for the origins of life community [8,9]. Each Finish Line is a description of what will be achieved if the goal is reached. The intent is not to impose, top down, what should be areas of inquiry, but instead to compel the community to coalesce around explicit problems of the highest priority

>>18515108
>profoundly
Like profundity could even exist in a universe devoid of meaning ascribed to it by One with the authority to do so.

>>18515137
>Finish Life: Creating a population of self-replicators that can spontaneously bypass Eigen’s error threshold

>Why it's important: The error threshold can be expressed generally as the number of mutations that a replicating polymer can sustain per monomer before reliable information transfer becomes impossible [23,24]. If the mutation rate is too high, then the longest polymers which fall below the error threshold are only on the order of ~100 monomers, which are much smaller than the smallest known encoding of error correcting enzymes. While the error threshold could be overcome by the existence of lower mutation rates, higher mutation rates are likely still problematic in a number of scenarios.

>A number of proposed solutions to the error threshold have been investigated via models, but have as of yet, not been demonstrated experimentally [25–27]. Experimental demonstration of a self-replicating population of polymers, either by implementing an existing proposed model solution, or another solution, would resolve this outstanding paradox in the early evolution of life.

>>18515140
Eigen threshold is irrelevant because the original assumption has been revised multiple times already. There are other models making the original threshold of 100 monomers highly questionable.

File: benormal.png (811.0 KB)

>atheists continue openly denying science

>>18515118
Buddy, we have directly observed the thing that Eigen's paradox is claiming is paradoxical. You're just in denial.

>>18515168
>we have directly observed the thing that Eigen's paradox is claiming is paradoxical.
Notice how your psychotic illness will force you to repeat this claim while failing to provide any relevant evidence.

>>18515159
This is one of the newest ones.

>Non-enzymatic error correction in self-replicators without extraneous energy supply

But there are also other ones.

>Real ribozymes suggest a relaxed error threshold
From 2005

File: 1733314913885750.png (364.4 KB)

>>18509327
God is the reason that babies can be saved from cancer. But you refuse to see the light, and do not recognize the fruits of the Spirit.

>>18509327
God is not real, so why are we wasting time with this? If Harry Potter is real why doesn't he magically heal all babies with cancer?

>>18515180
>we present a theoretical model
>for specific set of parameters
>"plausible" pathway
>error ratio of 10^-4 (vs. 10^-10 needed for actual life)
>assumes kinetic asymmetry in prebiotic nucleotides
>doesn't resolve the compartmentalization issue
>doesn't explain the transition to ribozyme-based catalysis
>etc.
Sounds like settled science to me.

All you've demonstrated is that it was still an open question as of 22 February 2026. Stay mentally ill.

>>18515194
>>we present a theoretical model
Eigen paradox is also a theoretical model.

>>18515182
He's also the reason there are million species of viruses that parasite on living cells. This intelligent designer doesn't seem to be particularly intelligent. Were viroids designed as a joke? What about prions? He was all like: you know what this paradise needs? Misfolded proteins that turn mammalian brains into a sponge.

>>18515214
>psychotic patient confabulates an incongruent response
Still waiting for you to list those "direct observations" that refute the Eigen paradox. What you've done so far was to demonstrate that no such observations were available as of 22 February 2026, when your paper was published with a theoretical attempt to resolve part of the Eigen paradox (which wasn't real, according to you).

Maybe take your anti-psychotic medication before you hurt yourself even more.

>>18515194
>theoretical model
What else would you expect for a theoretical """paradox""", you idiot?

>>18515216
>Viruses are bad because I say they are
Look at you with your 16 years of life experience, thinking you're wiser than someone eternal. It'd be cute if it wasn't so arrogant.

>>18515221
>What else would you expect for a theoretical """paradox"""
The "direct observations" mentioned that are supposed to refute it. So now apparently they can't exist because the paradox is theoretical. And the model that refutes it is also purely theoretical and one shouldn't expect it to be empirically validated. :^)

Notice how your psychotic illness forces you to dig a deeper and deeper hole.

>>18515220
I already posted one.

>Real ribozymes suggest a relaxed error threshold

>>18515229
That poster linked a paper which you were too retarded to look at.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1621
>Here we show, on the basis of comparative analysis of two extensively mutagenized ribozymes, that with a copying fidelity of 0.999 per digit per replication the phenotypic error threshold rises well above 7,000 nucleotides, which permits the selective maintenance of a functionally rich riboorganism6 with a genome of more than 100 different genes, the size of a tRNA.
So the 100 base pair "error threshold" is a total theoretical fabrication without sound basis

>>18515233
>I already posted one.
Then what was your 2026 paper supposed to demonstrate?

Note how your psychotic illness precludes you from basic coherence.

>>18515233
>>18515236
>crude samefagging
>I already posted one.
Then what was your 2026 paper supposed to demonstrate?

Note how your psychotic illness precludes you from basic coherence.

>>18515224
>someone eternal
We are all talking about the same Iron Age Middle Eastern god that supposedly punished snakes for being cunts to humans. Apparently he also punished some other legless animals but that wasn't mentioned.

>>18515240
Just say you don't understand metaphors or genre. A lot of autistic people have that problem, we won't judge you.

>>18515239
Retarded clown.

What will you guys say when we finally create the first proto-cell I wonder. You will probably claim it would be impossible outside of the lab.

I still remember how you claimed that spontanous formation of nucleobases would be impossible. Meanwhile we find those on asteroids.
For all we know it took life at least millions of years to form, meanwhile you expect us to create it in a few years in small laboratories. Still we achieved a lot and scientists proved that a lot of the issues could be overcome on the prebiotic earth.

>>18515239
You're talking to two different people.

>>18515259
Notice how your psychotic rage prevents you from explaining coherently why you needed a theoretical model from 2026 to "resolve" an issue that you claim was empirically resolved in 2005.

Maybe if you take your anti-psychotics we could talk about the difference between modern, extensively evolved ribozymes from lineages that already survived the error threshold problem and primitive ribozymes in a prebiotic setting. Maybe you could even explain where their "copying fidelity of 0.999 per digit per replication" comes from. Why doesn't the 2026 paper use it as the prebiotic fidelity level?

But as it stands, you lack basic coherence and aren't capable of having a technical discussion. Meds first, science later. :^)

>>18515264
>retarded samefag continues squirming
I can tell you're having a real hard time without the updoots. Either way, see >>18515271

>>18515271
>i-i-it doesn't violate the theoretical made up 100 nucleotide threshold b-because of these retarded reasons i just made up
Got it. Anything else?

>>18515278
Notice how your psychotic rage prevents you from explaining coherently why you needed a theoretical model from 2026 to "resolve" an issue that you claim was empirically resolved in 2005.

Maybe if you take your anti-psychotics we could talk about the difference between modern, extensively evolved ribozymes from lineages that already survived the error threshold problem and primitive ribozymes in a prebiotic setting. Maybe you could even explain where their "copying fidelity of 0.999 per digit per replication" comes from. Why doesn't the 2026 paper use it as the prebiotic fidelity level?

But as it stands, you lack basic coherence and aren't capable of having a technical discussion. Meds first, science later. :^)

>>18515281
Oops, did this retarded moldovan bot break down again? Someone should alert its handlers / programmers.

>>18515285
I accept your full concession, even if it comes in the form of your foaming at the mouth and mumbling incoherently. Clearly, the researchers who wrote the 2026 paper understood the difference between modern and prebiotic rybozymes. Always nice to see imbeciles posting random links and accidentally refuting themselves. :^)

>>18515271
>extensively evolved ribozymes from lineages that already survived the error threshold problem and primitive ribozymes in a prebiotic setting
>primitive ribozymes in a prebiotic setting
You have some of those in your house so we could check them?

>>18515290
>You have some of those in your house so we could check them?
No. Do you, mentally ill retard?

>>18509403
Why are women portrayed in such a nasty way in these old paintings? I mean the unflattering proportions, the sad droopy faces, the double chins...

>>18512062
baptism removes that, though
that's basic religion trivia

>>18509327
>if God is real
Stop reading here. You're not ready.

But seriously. Why doesn’t God just use magic and save every baby from cancer.

>>18512062
So
>all babies are evil
>the reason why babies can die from cancer is because of a choice someone else made thousands of years ago
>god doesn’t intervene because ???
>god intervenes in other ways with other people but not babies either cancer because ???

>>18511102
>Proof of objective reality
We demand "proofs" for purely logical, a priori statements, such as the ones we use in mathematics, but when it comes to real phenomena that may not necessarily exist, we demand "evidence".

File: bibble thumper.jpg (193.4 KB)

>>18516491
Look you don't need me to answer this. Just chop off your cock and give me 10% of your income!

>>18516494
You hate God, you do all that he hates and hate all that he loves. Your hatred for God attracts evil and calamity and your baby get cancer, instead of repenting you blame him and curse him and tell everyone how evil he is, why should he save your baby?

>>18511299
>evil babies

>>18516602
Atheists are healthier and get cancer less often and diseases and such less often than Christians. What you're saying doesn't work.

>>18518082
source: I made it up

>>18516494
Strawman

File: amazing atheism.jpg (115.3 KB)

>>18516511
>Just chop off your cock
But enough about atheism

>>18518082
Humans aren't divided between atheist and christians. A lot of christians hate the true God and despise his rules and worship a god they carved in their heads that they molded to liking them and hating their enemies.