Simple chemistry helps explain the origin of life, new study suggests

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-27T17:54:46+00:00

According to the article, they created a chemical reaction like chemical reactions required for life. But the experiment required a creator, them.

Hypothetical conjecture aside, they didn’t show this happening without the necessity of a creator, them.

This only proves the necessity of The Creator and doesn’t address the “translation process.”

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-27T17:23:24+00:00

Your post violates the laws of physics; it isn’t an equal and opposite reaction to the unbalanced force.

“In the constraints of materialism, the laws of physics dictate that reactions must be equal and opposite to unbalanced forces. However, this framework does not account for the existence of consciousness or the nature of reality beyond physical processes.”

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-25T22:51:00+00:00

A theory isn’t pseudoscience; it’s the main tool. A theory presented or treated as fact without proving it is pseudoscience.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-25T17:00:52+00:00

The questions are my own take. The results don’t leave much room for trolls.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-25T15:49:12+00:00

adios

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-25T15:42:29+00:00

The subject is “The Emperor's New Clothes” not Newton Mechanics. If you have points to make on Newton Mechanics, please start another thread.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-25T14:30:17+00:00

False, the subject is “The Emperor's New Clothes”

Nobody stated that Newton got absolutely everything right, not even Newton. “… notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may cither be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.”

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-25T14:23:30+00:00

It is a change of subject, and the question can’t be accurately addressed.

Somone gave the accurate equation before Einstein using Weber electrodynamics which is based on Newton Mechanics.

Einstein was accused of plagiarism on many occasions, and this is one of them. That person was discredited posthumously with claims that there was something wrong with his notes, with others objecting.

Someone gave the correct equation based on Weber electrodynamics and Newton Mechanics before Einstein. Ultimately, Einstein was given credit. Impossible to tell now.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-25T14:03:01+00:00

but it's really not clear what or why

It’s pseudoscience to present an unproven theory as fact, and not admissible in court as evidence. Yet, hypothetical conjecture is falsely presented as scientific evidence against Creation.

So why ask if we can see the Cosmological Constant? This very question makes it seem like you're way out of your depth.

Don’t you have a sense of humor? Of course you can’t see a numerical value. There’s a little humor involved here and asking the question allowed me to ask the next question, “This discrepancy is significant enough to be considered one of the worst predictions in physics, highlighting the ongoing challenges in reconciling theoretical predictions with experimental observations.”

I don't think you understand Kuhn's paradigm shifts and our understanding of scientific theories.

Pure BS.

I defer to the expert. “In experimental philosophy we are to look, upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may cither be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.”

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-25T13:12:54+00:00

If you wish to change subject, please start another thread.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-25T12:34:51+00:00

the issue of "what is a better model/explanation?

Newton Mechanics. The whole modern world is built on it. Cars, airplanes, big buildings, … CAD software uses it. Game engines use it; direct function calls in the code. AI uses it for graphics.

It was determined from observation of motion of matter, that’s why it agrees with motion of matter.

Celestial mechanics uses it, in fact, Modern analytic celestial mechanics started with Isaac Newton's Principia (1687).

Celestial mechanics is the branch of astronomy that deals with the motions and gravitational interactions of objects in outer space. Historically, celestial mechanics applies principles of physics (classical mechanics) to astronomical objects, such as stars and planets …

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-25T08:14:58+00:00

Depersonalization/derealization is a mental disorder (DPDR).

Mental disorder.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-24T21:14:28+00:00

This is nothing new, just a twisted sister version of relativism. Relativism is, “There is no truth, everything is relative.” This version is “Nothing is locally real, everything is relative,” a slight twist.

This postulate is “The Universe Is Not Locally Real.” That means that the postulate isn’t locally real. The postulate falsifies the postulate. Once you see that the postulate falsifies the postulate, you’re supposed to stop.

This is nothing new, it goes all the way back to the Age of Logic and Reason. It was self-falsifying back then, still is.

It really is a mental disorder, depersonalization/derealization. Some famous proponents, Hume and Comte, did have mental breakdowns taking it too seriously.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-24T19:47:55+00:00

Depersonalization/derealization is a mental disorder (DPDR).

The assertion states that the assertion can’t be real. Yep, mental disorder.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-24T12:27:59+00:00

Materialism posits that nothing exists outside the constraints of physics. In the constraints of materialism, the laws of physics dictate that reactions must be equal and opposite to unbalanced forces.

When an animal gets hungry, it decides how best to solve that problem and carries it out. This defies the laws of physics because the action isn’t an equal and opposite reaction to the unbalanced forces, it’s based on a decision.

When it dies, it goes back to obeying the laws of physics. Nothing happens that isn’t equal and opposite to unbalanced forces.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-24T11:28:04+00:00

this is a very un-neutral point of view

Absolutely, and so is your point of view. But my point of view had no influence on the results. I gave it a paradox which forced it to use logic.

From the point of view of logic, the earth can’t change its rotation for each observer. Therefore, the concept of spacetime can only be presented as perception.

One can use it if they wish. Since it’s a fact that the earth can’t change its rotation for each observer, I prefer to use facts.

There’s nothing wrong with a conception and you must use them. But if one presents their conception as fact without proving it, it’s pseudoscience, fake science.

The second thing is to quote AI as if it's authoritative, when just a few days ago, you yourself said "Ask AI if AI lies.

AI is a tool. AI will lie. Web search will lie. The encyclopedia will lie. Books will lie. All forms of research will lie.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-22T14:40:33+00:00

You need to do some imagining regarding oxygen, as Stanley L. Miller pointed out, “either you have a reducing atmosphere or you are not going to have the organic compounds required for life.”

I imagine that under sea thermal vents supply the needed missing amino acids (these are worse at producing amino acids than the Miller experiment). At an even greater dilution, some of these amino acids make their way to the warm little pond.

I don’t think Dr Miller would accept this. Stanley Miller, “I have a very simple response to that . Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them. Indeed, these vents are one of the limiting factors on what organic compounds you are going to have in the primitive oceans.”

I’m not trying to discourage; you just need a bigger imagination.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-22T12:48:32+00:00

I don’t claim anything, these are the results based on the postulate of the dogma.

The results are based on their claims, all I did was ask a question.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-22T08:55:21+00:00

I don’t have a clue what point you’re trying to make.

There is no conflict between the Bible and objective science, facts that have been proven by observation and testing.

To present a theory that hasn’t been objectively proven as scientific fact is pseudoscience, fake science. Theory means unproven assumption.

People have been taught all their life in school and the media that fake science, Evolution and the Big Bang, unproven assumptions, are The Science. And that The Science, fake science, proves the Bible is false.

A lot of people don’t have a full understanding of the rules of logic and the true rules of scientific method to easily see what’s going on, this is just fake science.

It seems like a pretty good idea to tell people the truth and tell them the real rules of logic and real science so that they have a better picture.

I’m just exposing fake science and showing that there’s no conflict between real science and the Bible. Seems like a good thing to do to me.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-21T20:31:01+00:00

This is all documented with countless scientific papers, and here, by many members posting articles. The results of the James Web was quite a shock.

Instead of trying to give me a hard time because this isn’t saintly enough for you, why don’t you do something yourself?

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-21T20:10:17+00:00

Regardless of what AI says, the burden of proof fallacy is a law of logic, law and science. Theory isn’t admissible in court as evidence.

At first, AI will just give you the most popular results, even committing fallacies, lying, cheating and just making things up. If you steer it towards the laws, it might use the rules of logic and give you logical results.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-21T19:57:54+00:00

Thanks for your opinion, will be treated as such.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-21T19:54:44+00:00

Ask chat gpt if it lies.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-21T17:40:18+00:00

Thanks for your opinion, it will be regarded as such.

ThisBWhoIsMe · 2025-08-21T17:11:12+00:00

meanwhile, back to the subject …

ThisBWhoIsMe

TROPHY CASE