/lit/ - Literature

Depends on what you mean by religion

Could a loving god create such an abomination?

it proves ["neo"]platonism

Not inherently.

>>15800300
It refutes braindead literalist Protestants

>>15800337
I know you posted this question ironically so that you could bring up how much you dislike the way abos look in an unrelated thread but Ugly fat people with bad teeth will have a fundamentally different experience due to the tribulations that those impediments cause and in some of them that will produce an insight that is valuable to the human race as a whole so yes a loving God can create suffering for the betterment of his creation.

>>15800397
This. Fuck Protestants they worship Satan without even having the balls to make it look super metal.

>>15800300
bro that's an evangelion

>>15800300
No and nobody believes it did

No but Dinosaurs do

>>15800300
No, religion theory refutes evolution.
Also the picture you posted is fake.

>>15800411
i love you

>>15800397
>>15800440
>catholicks
Lowest IQ subspecies of the lowest IQ genus of religion.

>>15800476
How?
The Bible describes dinosaurs.
See: behemoth, leviathan
Also assyrian dragons or just dragon myths in general, like Beowulf, Saint George of Lydda, etc

>>15800411
Based

>>15800507
Behemoth is clearly a mammal

>>15800517
Behemoth is clearly diplodocus

>>15800300
No, there are literally only about 10 80IQ rednecks in Georgia that deny evolution. 99% of modern Christians understand it's 100% compatible with the creation.

>>15800300
God killed behemoth (dinosaurs) in the bible so humans (mammals) could inhabit the earth

>>15800533
Does that look like a dinosaur to you?

>>15800554
>we could've had dinosaurs in zoos today if not for the flood
Bros...

>dude that fact that the sun has to be stable
>the moon has to exist to cause tidal waves and tilt the earth so it is not a radical weather-hell
>our planet has to be just right temperature so it is neither too cold or too hot
>it has to be just the right size so it is not too small to have weak gravity
>or too big to crush whatever comes to life with gravity
>to have gas giants like Jupiter and other planets to catch all the meteorites and asteroids
>the fact that plate tectonics is unique to Earth and is what makes liquid water possible
>all this is just a weird coinkadink and religion is a dumb dumb theory because le SCIENCE and evolution is based

>>15800300
It proves Plato correct, so no

>>15800562
>literally who's drawing of a cow
The bible clearly describes a huge animal who eats leave, has a huge-ass neck but also a huge-ass and strong tail, thicker than a tree.

>>15800609
Leading theory in le scientific community is big bang theory
Let me rephrase:
the theory is that there was nothing but then suddenly a giant explosion of energy that then gradually created planets and galaxies and everything
from dust
i.e. from dirt

does it not sound familiar?

>>15800300
Darwinism refutes religion but also provides it with a most fundamental reason for being, since religions can be interpreted as memes that behave as powerful vehicles of natural selection on a group level

>>15800631
The origin of the Universe does not explain the origin or even reason of life and worse, consciousness.

>>15800609
>>15800631
whoa man so you're saying that evolution is just a theory (a geuss? ) holy shit I didnt think of it that way man.

>>15800300
>Does evolution theory refute religion?
unironically asks this
unironically posts Haeckel

>>15800300
Yes, but not theism nor necessarily animistic or pantheistic beliefs.

>>15800643
Consciousness is such bullshit

>>15800300
>Does evolution theory refute religion?
No, because is like refuting harry potter, religion is fantasy, not science or dialectics

>Does evolution theory refute religion?
>if you are asking about falseable arguments, yes, evolution theory refutes religion.

>>15800554
Why even make them in the first place

>>15800720
The Lord works in mysterious ways

>>15800300
It refutes literal readings of most creation myths.
With that it tends to remove the sort of the intuitive authority religion used to have (Q: who put that there? A: God(s) did)
it does not refute any of the fundamental ideas and beleifs and it does not refute any tradition, custom, sense of spirituality, etc etc
really only insecure midwits argue evolution disproves religion or vice versa

>>15800300
No. Jesus broke through the wheel of generation and re-opened the path to heaven.

>>15800620
What about William Blake’s interpretation?

>>15800703
Evolution does not explain the reason for life, just the process of life.

>>15800609
wow i can't believe one out of the 10 trillion trillion planets in the universe has the 7 criteria that allowed for life to develop and then adapt to those criteria, clearly big man in the sky did it so that i could shitpost on the internet all day

you're a braindead retard

Darwin lived at a time before DNA was understood, before genetics was even a thing, before we knew how unbelievably complex cells are. The leading theory at the time was that cells were basically extremely simple life forms mostly full of bio goo, but now we know that something as complex as a cell could not have come together on its own because of all of the interlocking mechanisms. If even one of the trillions of things that are going on in cells was off, the entire multicellular organism would instantly die.

There’s also the fact that life has NEVER been observed to come from no life. No matter how long you stare at a rock or a puddle of amino acids or proteins, you’re not going to get all of the little bio machines that exist inside cells to make it work. These machines are so small, some are constructed out of atoms, and look like actual machines we would build, just at the atomic level.

Variation and speciation occur, we can and do observe them. That’s Darwin’s finches and dog breeds. But a finch will ALWAYS give birth to a finch, and a dog will ALWAYS give birth to a dog, no matter what.

tl;dr Evolution, as popularly “understood” is a complete lie, and anyone who believes in it is either grossly misinformed, or simply refuses to accept reality and facts of actual science which is about repeatability and testing hypotheses in a lab, not “hand wavy” “””””science””””” like evolution that doesn’t explain anything about how it’s supposed to work in the real world and not in the world of theory.

>>15800397
Christians who aren't literalists are going through the greatest cope possible.

>>15800783
wrong on all accounts, words for the sake of words, Dunning-Kruger in full effect

>>15800761

>>15800782
>durr life just came out of non-living materia for no reason haha
Nice theory dumb dumb

>>15800825
hhahahaha you got him bro its (evolution) jus a GEUSS

>>15800737
Cope

>>15800838
How did evolution start from inert matter?

brother evoluiton? its more like EVILution man. fuck tht

>>15800825
where did god come from?

>>15800822
>Dunning-Kruger
You’ve been spoon fed your entire life to believe in a lie. At least try to do the minimal amount of research into the topic. Accept evolution just because is accepting it on blind faith because “smart people say so”. Why are you taking the word of someone else that clearly has an agenda and a specific world view that agenda supports?

>>15800854
How did evolution start from inert matter?

>>15800868
i don't know, where did god come from?

>>15800822
Faith is literally the ultimate dunning Kruger. You think people who study Christian theology don’t believe in evolution?

>>15800901
If they do they're lying to themselves about one or the other position

>>15800868
The Earth at the time was hardly inert.

>>15800300
It only refutes Abrahamic literalism, which is to say, retarded amerimutt protestants (and probably some Muslims as well but I can’t be bothered to check if they accept evolution). It does not in any way refute the existence of God and On The Origin Of Species is not Atheistic in content, to the extent that in the final paragraph of the book, Darwin makes reference to “the Creator”. Darwin did not believe in abiogenesis and the only people who try to associate evolution and atheism are: atheists who want to pretend atheism is well founded by associating it with a well established scientific theory; literalists who would have been considered stupid a millenium before Darwin’s birth, the literalists want to demonise evolution (as it shows that they are wrong) by associating it with a belief with as little weight as atheism.
>>15800609
>evolution is based
Correct, it in no way conflicts with the existence of God whilst refuting the gay parts of many faiths about loving no matter what race someone is.

>>15800864
>You’ve been spoon fed your entire life to believe in a lie.
baseless assumption

>At least try to do the minimal amount of research into the topic.
Everyone can see that you've never read a single scientific article on the subject of evolutionary biology but also that you don't understand basic concepts like probability, idk why you insist that people who disagree with you are uninformed when you say such things as "dogs can't give birth to finches lol". A child could point out the hole in this logic and I really hope you will have the decency to ponder on it yourself instead of immediately asking me to like some kind of gotcha.

>Accept evolution just because is accepting it on blind faith
baseless assumption

>Why are you taking the word of someone else
whose word

>an agenda
what agenda

>a specific world view
what world view

>>15800945
>it in no way conflicts with the existence of God
It claims that creation does not need a creator, which is blasphemy.

>>15800411
>>15800503
>>15800515
Name a single ugly fat person with bad teethe who has ever in the history of the entire world contributed anything of note to the world.

>>15800300
It refutes Christianity. The reason we need a messiah according to Christianity is that we sinned in Adam and evolution says there was no singular Adam. Never understood how they could be reconciled.

>>15800868
Amino Acids have been found to generate in absence of life (glycine, the simplest, is made by mixing ammonium chloride and acetic acid, both of which can be formed in the absence of life), namely on comets. Amino-acids are the building blocks for proteins. Amino-acids have been demonstrated to be able to bind together in the absence of life. While I hesitate to call two amino-acids joined together a protein, it would be fair to call them a micro-protein. Micro-proteins, under the right conditions, can bind together. This goes on until a micro-protein of sufficient size is created.

This has been demonstrated. We can see these things happen in front of our eyes. The question is how the jump from proteins (or amino-acid chains, again, if you want to be pedantic and argue that it's not a protein unless it's folded a certain way) occurred. One theory is "RNA world".

tl;dr Go read a book, or fucking hell at least look up "abiogenesis" on Wikipedia.

>>15800962
who created the creator, retard?

>>15800825
That’s not evolution, that’s abiogenesis. Darwin believed that God created the first sparks of life on Earth which evolution then acted on (the laws of evolution he of course determined to be created and enforced by God). Evolution was made evident over 100 years ago and has been strengthened further by genetics. Abiogenesis is the belief that life spontaneously generated from molecules in the water and has essentially no basis, it also has nothing to do with evolution

>>15800916
The accept mss theory is that the earth was at one time completely covered in lava which then cooled and the continental plates formed, even though we have observed no such plates on Mars, but we’ll set that aside. After the earth cooled, it was dry and lifeless. Then you have to somehow get 326 million trillion gallons of water out of comets and asteroids. That number looks like this: 326000000000000000. It’s so large, we can’t even fathom it. Then you have to somehow get non-living chemicals, and amino acids, to form the first cells, which by the way would mean DNA just came together by itself, despite being the single most complex chemical compound in the known universe. Do you know what water does to DNA? It degrades it. How do you get DNA to form spontaneously in a planet literally 70% covered in water when water will disintegrate DNA? You don’t.

>>15800979
if Darwin's theory on the beginning of life is correct then that still refutes Christianity because 1. we wouldn't be in the image of God and 2. what >>15800975 said

>>15800975
Read esoteric interpretations of the Fall. I'm not qualified to speak on them but they offer some perspective.

>>15800962
>It claims that creation does not need a creator
>the core text of evolutionary theory states that a creator would have put life on Earth in one or a few simple forms
>it then says that evolution is a process that the creator acts through
Getting your conception of evolution from Redditor atheists who study computing and illiterate American Protestants will not give you a good understanding of it.
The only people who have trouble with this are retards with extremely limited perceptions of God, God isn’t just some guy who created the universe like a carpenter making a chair, God is a perfect being of truth that underlies and controls all of the mathematical and physical processes of the universe, evolution is one of those processes

>>15800980
See >>15800977. Everything up until complex proteins emerge has been demonstrated to occur in the absence of prior life.

You have no idea what you're talking about in terms of the reaction of water and DNA, by the way. DNA is held together by hydrogen bonds, and does not dissolve or degrade in water in water. Additionally, the jump from proteins to DNA doesn't have to happen. Why would you assume that DNA of all things suddenly occurred? Why not some other protein? Nobody assumes that DNA was the first protein, or even complex molecule, to come about. RNA world is one of the more popular theories of pre-cellular "life" (quotes because it's not really life at that point).

>>15800973
Sartre, Kant, Hume and Hobbes all come to mind.

>>15800978
kek, go pretend to read some more dawkins

>>15801032
DNA is polar due to its highly charged phosphate backbone. Its polarity makes it water-soluble (water is polar) according to the principle "like dissolves like".

>>15800977
Cool. You googled a theory that didnt prove anything and told me to read a book. Good job.

>>15800973
Thom Yorke

>>15801053
>m-maybe if i laugh it off he won't realize i don't have an answer

>>15801012
>we wouldn't be in the image of God
Why couldn’t God have moulded life slowly into his image? I don’t see the problem here, if God creates man in his image through evolution rather than spontaneously, it’s in his image either way.
>the fall
Perhaps the garden of Eden was more metaphysical, considering that literalist interpretations aren’t being considered in this anyway. Or God intervened again to make two apes truly perfect into Humanity. Or the likeness of God is less physical than it is Cerebral

>>15801088
> where did life come from?
>> it came from x
> heh that's just a theory loser, theists win again

>>15801114
Then that wouldn't be evolution because it would be guided towards an end goal, while the whole point of evolution is that life grew naturally according to basic rules.

>>15801032
See also articles like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28963636/

> However, it is generally assumed that the water "erodes" a large part of the DNA depending especially on the exposure time.

>>15801019
Could you please at least recommend me a particular book on that topic?

>>15801133
Who would have determined those basic rules? Why are the rules the way they are? God, obviously.
This is again a confusion stemming from a limited idea of God as someone who is seemingly described as having preset rules, that would make him a demiurge, not God, who would write the rules.
On The Origin Of Species attributes the establishment of the laws of evolution to God. What occurs naturally is occurring according to God.

>>15800973
Socrates

>>15800973
we got too cocky britbros

>>15800609
>all this is just a weird coinkadink
Prove that it isn't.

>>15801202
Socrates was ripped my man

>>15801202
He was only ugly, by all accounts he was in good shape, idk about teeth though

>>15801198
Then we're not created in the image of God. You can't have it both ways.

>>15801239
You’re right. God creating evolution as a natural process would mean that God himself would be directly responsible for death and suffering in the world. But God is holy and cannot sin. So evolution will always result in removing God from the equation. Atheists understand this very keenly, yet a lot of Christians do not.

>>15800767
Could've been a rhino or elephant, if you're talking about Behemoth. Or any other hide-covered, massive creature with trunk-like legs and tusks.

>>15800635
It doesn't refute anything, it's just a falsifiable theory; besides, it merely attempts to explain the evolution of and biology of religious thought. Obviously thinking about God or religious thought isn't going to be some supernatural, unobservable thing, as it is performed by a human, and in the brain. If anything, it is fortuitous that "religious thought" persisted in humans as a beneficial thing, as God wouldn't be demanding something wholly unnatural of us.

>>15800693
And the laws of nature? From where did these originate? Unless they don't even exist

>>15800720
Why don't you ask The Man Himself? Hell, I can do this, too- look:
>"Why did God do X? Why did God do Y?"
>Here's why: "bla bla bla…"
>"How can you know why God did that? I thought he was unknowable."
>He is unknowable, I was just hypothesizing in order to give you an answer
>Cope
>Cope

>>15800749
It may seem far-fetched, but God could merely be testing our faith with the disparity between creation myths and what science observes.

>>15800782
How many planets are there in existence?

>>15800854
He is the beginning and end. Simple as. He didn't come from anything, He didn't have a beginning, rinse and repeat for all of your further questions.

>>15800901
What other non-arguments do atheists make?
>you have dunning kruger
>religion is Munchausen's syndrome
>religion is a cult but mainstream

>>15800962
God could have caused the Big Bang

>>15800978
God is an uncreated creator, by definition.

>>15801012
The image of God refers to the soul, not the human body.

>>15800975
The modern evolutionary belief is not easily reconcilable with the Edenic origin story of Man. One could claim that Adam and Eve were the first humans, while the proto-humans science claims preceded the first human never actually culminated in a human.

>>15801306
wrong

>>15801271
Atheists don’t understand that there are Gods other than the Christian God. Atheism is irrational because of its denial of Impersonal Gods of truth eg Plato’s, Spinoza’s Etc.

>>15801347
>Atheists don’t understand that there are Gods other than the Christian God.
What? That's one of the most common arguments atheists use against monotheism though.

>>15800440
grow up

>>15800973
Every well known british.

Belief in God is the ultimate cope.

>>15801191

Adam and Eve didn't have parents.
But yeah totally compatible with human evolution, just a metaphor bro.

>>15801699
Stop worshiping Satan

>>15800300
God is the result of evolution.

>>15801365
By God I mean a monotheistic God, atheists have a huge problem recognising God as an ontological argument arisen through classical philosophy rather than just a deity in the conventional sense, they absolutely cannot and do not address the God of Plato, Plotinus, or Spinoza (who is enlightenment not classical but ideas are clearly derived)

>>15800802
How could you have litteral reading of a book that is chuck full of allegories and symbols?

>>15801849

Dangerously based

>>15802447
I don't know, read more genealogies

>>15801872

This. I was a huge fedora until I realized that God doesn't mean old testament skydaddy.

>>15800973
churchill?

>>15801108
>who created the creator, retard?
There is no answer because you failed to compose the question. You're an empiricist that doesn't even know the axioms of empiricism. You're blindly taking a leap of faith whilst declaring that leaps of faith are irrational. There is no hope for you.

even if evolution is wrong and God truly exist, which of the 100000s God is the right one? they cannot all be true because they contradict each other all the time
>inb4 the religion that you happen to be born just happen to be the right one!
oh luck you anon!

Religion refuted evolution

>>15800411
this is why i like 4chan

>>15800507
>behemoth
Behemoth in hebrew is some kind of rodent iirc, left untranslated because 1. it wasn't present outside of Levant 2. you wouldn't be scared of it if it was.

>>15800300
>Does evolution theory refute religion?
Lmao no. You'd have to be a brainlet to believe that.

God bless.

>>15800411
dubs of truth, a literal hero

>>15800411
>that will produce an insight that is valuable to the human race as a whole
Which is completely unnecessary in the presence of a god that is perfect in every way, shape and form. God is all knowing. He can give us those insights right now, without any need for suffering, or even effort. In fact, it would save us a lot of time, which can be spend on worshipping him more, so it would benefit him as well

>>15800505
There was a post on /his/ about how the people posting these pictures don't understand the true context of this act. Jesus humbled himself and washed the feet of His disciples before the Last Supper. That's literally what's going on here. It's only people with massive addictions to pornography that unironically think this is a bad thing and turn it into a BLACKED fetish thing. Sure if you are a pagan or an atheist, you won't be swayed by this argument since you don't believe in God in the first place. But if you are a Christian, why is following Jesus' example bad?

>>15803875
>Jesus humbled himself and washed the feet of His disciples before the Last Supper.
Yes, and that’s exactly the whole problem. Endless humility is seen as a virtue by Christianity, even when it isn’t

>>15803898
Prudence is also a Christian virtue and you have to be prudent when you are to be virtuous and show a person mercy and when to protect and serve yourself and the ones you love. If the person means no harm then there is no harm in being merciful and humbling yourself. If he does or you can sense deceit, then be prudent and assert your intention not to give in to his evil ways.

>>15803912
And prudence was already a virtue in polytheism, so what was the conversion to Christianity for, then?

>>15803935
>And prudence was already a virtue in polytheism
No it wasn't, judging by the number and popularity of weird sex cults that popped up where men had to be castrated in order to join (which they did) and they had excessive degenerate orgies, behavior not conducive to prudence or any of the other four virtues. Only really the eudaimoniac philosophers like the Platonists, Peripatetics and the Stoics had a concept of the virtues an even then, they line up more with Christianity on the ethical side and to a decent degree on the metaphysical since they profess in only one God instead of multiple gods.

>>15800411
Based as fuck.

>>15803968
That's not even going into abandoning children to die, adultery, savagery and murder and other degeneracies pagans not only tolerated but praised. Again, not very prudent, nor temperant, nor really brave (unless it is a case like fighting for your tribe to your death, in which case it is) and there is definitely no sense of justice in taking advantage of the weak like pagans did.

>>15803968
Again, this is an absolutely childish understanding of polytheism, and just shows your immense ignorance of it. Polytheism is not a single set of beliefs, or a single belief system. That’s quite literally what the poly part entails, that there’s more than one way to wisdom. This is like me saying that all Christians commit idolatry, just look at those Catholics. At best, it shows a complete lack of knowledge about the core principles of polytheism, and at worst it’s willful ignorance used to slander those who disagree with you.

Let’s look at the most prominent examples you present, temple prostitution and human sacrifice. Neither of these were universal practices, and they were in fact banned, by other polytheists. For example, the Baccanalia was banned, not by Christian authorities, or any other other monotheistic authority, but by the Roman senate, for public displays of sexual excess. Furthermore, the priests and priestesses of many pagan cults were expected to remain celibate, the most famous ones of course being the Vestal virgins.

Then, there’s the issue of human sacrifice. Again, this practice wasn’t universal, and was again condemned, by polytheists. We return to the Vestal virgins, who performed ritual sacrifices to Vesta. They didn’t burn babies, they used straw effigies. Furthermore, the practice of human sacrifice was banned, again, not by Christians, or monotheists, but once again by the Roman senate, in 97 BC.

So what’s the point of this? To me, the point of this is that polytheism is all about free choice, which includes the freedom to make bad choices. Does the ability to make bad choices invalidate the freedom of choice? It doesn’t to me. It merely means that we should temper the excesses of free choice, which the polytheists did. That’s what it means to have moral progress. You attempt, make mistakes, and learn from them. Polytheism is not perfect, and will always be a work in progress, but to present its worst excesses as the norm is completely disingenuous. It would be like me saying that every single Christian that ever lived is morally on the same level of some wicked pope. It’s completely dishonest

>>15800300
Not until evolution can replicate consciousness.

>>15804054
So what’s the point of this? To me, the point of this is that polytheism is all about free choice, which includes the freedom to make bad choices. Does the ability to make bad choices invalidate the freedom of choice? It doesn’t to me. It merely means that we should temper the excesses of free choice, which the polytheists did. That’s what it means to have moral progress. You attempt, make mistakes, and learn from them. Polytheism is not perfect, and will always be a work in progress, but to present its worst excesses as the norm is completely disingenuous. It would be like me saying that every single Christian that ever lived is morally on the same level of some wicked pope. It’s completely dishonest

Polytheism became obselete with progress bud, moral, philosophical and scientifical progress wiped it off the map, now it only shows its retarded face on murky edges of the world and Internet, and now there's just you struggling terribly to hold yourself together

>>15800411
True in general but I wouldn't expect much from an abo.

>>15800300
I have a hardcore protestant friend who says evolution exists but humans aren't the product of evolution, only other animals are.
When I asked him why can we find fossils of other traces of the homo genus which get closer and closer to modern day humans, he told me the human body is the perfect body and therefore evolution "strives" to reach it

>>15804129
consciousness doesn't exist brainlet. Our brains are just more complicated monkey brains

>>15804484
Another midwit who discovered reductionism.

>>15804534
Another midwit who has been brainwashed into believing all kinds of spooks exist and who cannot let go of them

>the year is 2020 AD
>all the people who argue about evolution online think that evolution has any bearing on the existence of God
>this is despite numerous references to the existence of “the Creator” throughout On The Origin Of Species, the core evolutionary text
>this means that everyone who argues about evolution online (especially all the atheists) have not read On The Origin Of Species even once
>these people hold strong convictions about a book they have never read
Evolution discussion threads should be banned unless everyone has read that book to prevent this happening constantly. Evolution is real and it is a process governed by laws of God, like every single other natural law, people don’t argue about gravity or the lack of a firmament disproving God, they’re fine with metaphor there.
>inb4 retards confusing evolution with abiogenesis
Stop it, they aren’t the same thing no matter how many retards pretend they are.

>>15800977
A few amino acids lining up isnt even close to creating life even if it were to make an organism somehow there isn’t means to reproduce

>>15804705
I'm fine with the jesus metaphor and the god metaphor too

>>15800300
science has nothing to do with metaphysics

>>15804739
>evading the point that evolution and belief in God are unrelated

>>15804748
As far as the christian god is concerned, a large number of Christians, some of whom are on this board, would disagree. Otherwise, yes, it's unrelated. There is a reason that evolution triggers religious people, it's because to any passive observer it appears random and self guided, and that doesn't look, at least on the surface, as guided or precise.

>>15804727
An amino acid sequence that can arrange loose amino acids into sequences identical to (or at least similar to) itself is "reproduction", in a sense. It's not life at the stage, so that makes a lot of these terms really fuzzy (do viruses really "reproduce", given that they aren't alive? Or do they just rearrange matter? But what makes a human making another human "reproduction" given that it too is just rearranging matter?).

We've already seen that this can happen with large scale complex proteins. Prion diseases are the result of prions (improperly folded proteins) bumping into working proteins and forcibly screwing up their folding. We've also seen that amino acid sequences smaller than proteins can arrange other amino acid sequences.

So, we know that amino acids can result from abiogenesis. We know that amino acids can form sequences on their own. We also know that amino acid sequences can form replicating chains. We also are working on such an incredibly long timespan that a single molecule being really small doesn't really matter, because it's got plenty of time to build up.

>>15801074
>>15801183
DNA does not dissolve in water, it undergoes degradation. Reading the paper you cited. As far as its role as a carrier of information, yes, it gets fucked, which is part of why viruses are not considered life (if they get damaged they cannot repair themselves). However, you're skin is made up of proteins, and you don't dissolve in water, so clearly the idea that a water resistant protein came about at some point isn't out of the question as these things do exist (otherwise you'd melt in the bathtub). I'm not sure why you're arguing that DNA was the first molecule to come about, because anon was talking about RNA World. It's not like DNA (Or RNA, for that matter) were just floating around. What exactly do you think RNA and DNA do?

>>15800609
Sun is actually pretty unstable compared to the majority of the stars - orange and red dwarfs

Radical weather-hell is caused by the tidal lock to the Sun, which itself is controlled by the distance from the Sun. If anything, Moon only slows down the rotation of the Earth over time.

You can make Earth hotter or colder and it will host live just as good if not better. Check the history of Earth's climate. Besides, life can dwell in in the hottest of thermal vents and coldest of subterrain rivers as many species, even multicellular are discovered there.

While no proofs are found, it is theorized that life can easily exist on planets with weaker or stronger gravity. Also it heavily depends on the star type given planet rotates about and to be fair, Earth could be more protected from the cosmic radiation and such if it had stronger gravity.

Gas giants are super common as astronomers are discovering them daily.

How the hell are plate tectonics unique to the Earth? Jupiter's moon Europa has them and probably even more planets have them in other solar systems.

Yes, there are trillions of planets in our galaxy alone. By pure coincidence you can probably find millions of planets which have ticked all the boxes as good or better than Earth.

Actually, think how good Earth as a habitable planet really is? It orbits about our Sun which is a G type star - rather short lived and prone to solar winds compared to most of the stars out there. One third of Earth's landmass is desert, most of the oceans are too deep for life to thrive - there is practically nothing in the middle of the ocean when compared to coastal life.

>>15800980
I have DNA sitting in water on my lab bench. It's been stable there for months.

>>15805363
We never keep any of our nucleic acids at room temp, what is your lab doing? Even at 2-8° C in nuclease-free water DNA can degrade due to hydrolysis, its why its better to store nucleic acids at either -20° to -80° in a buffer solution.

>>15804860
Earth is good as a habitable planet, as it supports life. Not even that; it's teeming with life. Think of all the bacteria and lifeforms found in extreme conditions, the ability of organisms to adapt to their environment, and more. Life's not an inhabitable planet just because there's a "lot of empty space." It's not bad that the whole of the earth, from crust to core, isn't full of life. Besides, the 1/3 desert portion of the earth isn't necessarily inhabitable, and life can still thrive, even in deep oceans. Vomiting trivia to try and sully our admiration of earth is just unimaginative. Our idea of perfection is a finite, human conception.

>>15803871
First, God isn't a magic fairy who grants wishes when you pray to him. Nor does he wish to for optimal prayer production -- or anything for that matter. God observes a sentience that he created in the image of himself (not physically)
Now secondly, without the experience that produces those insights are those insights still equally as valuable? Would a Human beings who knew no suffering still be a human being? That which makes up a man is a collection of experiences being bounced off of some essential quality that makes the individual. If you take away those experiences which create suffering does it push that essential quality of man in a direction? What are the consequences of that push? God by his nature knows all including all suffering and to know suffering he must also experience it therefore does God himself not suffer willingly?

>>15800361
tell me more I always thought people said platonism made evolution harder to understand

>>15800300
only a moron faggot protestant would think so

>>15800300

No. Claiming otherwise is just Rational bankruptcy. Though I think the idea of transgenerational metamorphosis is absurd for many reasons, I maintain that it is nevertheless important to Theologically evolve, so to speak, so that one would not even have to refute it proper, but find the principles whereby it cannot be in the first place.

>>15805689
Live a little, pussy

>>15804054
>polytheism means moral relativism
You're not helping your case.

>>15805363 I am enjoying life, and please do not be upset, it does not change the properties of nucleic acids.

Considering the water temperature of the early earth was well in excess of room temperature today, considering that RNA is less stable than DNA, the idea of self catalyzing naked RNA lasting long enough and being adaptable enough to continue into earth's cooling phase is unlikely, and is one of the issues with the current RNA world hypothesis, which is one of the best bets we currently have.

>>15800300
ITT: coping christcucks

>>15800300
evolution is still a theory. theory. the o ry. got it?

>>15809144
Are.. are you serious? You do realize scientific theories are never 'promoted' to laws?

>>15800761

Why is an Egyptian holding the staff of Hermes?