Checkpoint

...

...

...

You know, I don't even mind the fact they have these beliefs and are raising these questions, but it's crazy-obnoxious how they're communicating this by smiling psychotically and holding up the questions written down on pieces of paper.
The "taking a picture of yourself holding up text on a piece of paper" fad already annoyed me pretty badly independent of whatever content people express through it.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

How is salvation a purpose?
God created you to test you and then if you pass the test you get a second better life that lasts forever and feels better after you die in the first one?
That "purpose" just collapses into empty hedonism after the test is over.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Last one!

The only reasonable question asked.

>posing with shitty almost-bait questions and a smug fucking smile
is that the microagression i keep hearing about?

some of these make me want to fucking cry.
w-h-a-t
informed, if unintelligent
cute
just end my life

Well of course he's influencing kids POZitively.

Bill Nye wants kids to POZ their NEG asses.

>implying hedonism isn't a good answer for the meaning of life

To be fair, nobody has ever created any kind of life form with any process from scratch (totally from the elements). Let me repeat that, true abiogenesis has never been done in a targeted process in the lab, let alone in a random primeval soup simulation.

Answer is "i dont know, we have some ideas but were not sure, what makes you sure it had to be god?"

The duplication and mutation of DNA.

Alright? Does that somehow imply that the Christian God exists? Or that any god exists?

Just saying that if you would create a sign reading "If chance did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By god?", you would be equally right or wrong than this lady if you are working with evidence based logic.

So you're telling me that her reasoning is just as valid as evidence based reasoning that concludes by saying "we are not sure"? Why?

>Because science by definition is a theory-- not testable, observable, nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?
What I really don't get about this one is she's basically saying creationism should be taught because it's just as bad as science.
I don't get why that isn't more of a warning sign for creationists, that they spend a lot of time trying to argue scientists are just as bad as they are instead of focusing on ways creationism has advantages that mainstream science doesn't.

(OP)

>To be fair, nobody has ever created any kind of life form with any process from scratch (totally from the elements).
To be fair we should get a slightly larger fraction of the 1 billion plus years of trial and error nature got to have before drawing conclusions.
Or a test planet with the same conditions Earth had before life emerged here, since I'm pretty sure the various changes that happened as a consequence of life existing are pretty strong sources of interference to any new instances of life emerging.

Technically, she doesn't claim there has to be a god. She is just questioning whether god is the explanation for something we haven't understood yet.
In that case, her sign is not as stupid as the other signs which are about things we have understood yet like "how do you explain a sunset if there is no god". We are pretty certain that the explanation for sunsets is that our earth is a sphere and rotating, so it seems foolish to think another reason with no evidence (god) is more likely than the explanation we already have.

>1 billion plus years of trial and error nature got
wrong

>the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago
That's 890 million years after the first oceans formed on Earth. "At least 3.5 billion years ago" is just what we have undisputed evidence for.

>The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is unknown. They may have lived earlier than 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years ago
So possibly as early as 130 million years after the first oceans formed. If you are thinking in astronomical time units, you could say life was here at about the instant that life was remotely possible here (don't forget that even 3 billion years ago the earth was very hostile for the standards of most of life we have today)

>after the first oceans formed on Earth
Yes, you do come up with a different answer if you change the starting point to after oceans formed.
>So possibly
And why are you using the non-emergence of a hypothetical form of life we have no evidence for and then using that as the basis for saying that's when life really emerged?
Sure, life could have emerged much earlier than the earliest forms of life we have evidence for, but there's nothing coherent you can say about it because we have no evidence for it.

t. Attention seeking faggot

Well, we haven’t found any life in fresh lava yet. Before the first oceans earth was basically a lava ball. So hot that so many organic molecules can‘t exist. Even the cysts of tardigrades would not have survived there. Hard to imagine that our original ancestor could form under these conditions, given that none of it’s successors today have remotely that kind of heat resistance.

That's true of her question as written but only without understanding that it's coming from someone who is a Christian who was asked to question the beliefs of atheists. She is a Christian supporting Ken ham, she believes that the Christian God is real.

I'd like to "bang" this fat girl

To be fair, this is pretty valid. You're a fucking moron if you believe aliens genetically engineered us

>macfag

"God of the Gaps"

If I dont know the cause then God did it.

why would you say astronomist and not astronomer?

I wont delve into the topic at hand, but will only add; why do they all have such immaculate hand writing? I either call photoshoot bullshit, or, "here, you have some dumb concept you're to stupid to put into words... let me articulate it for you."

implying that decedents billions of years later would retain the exact same heat resistance.

Close enough for me.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081016141411.htm