Deep Sight:
^^^ And very simply, it did not produce life, as ooman claimed.

ooman did not claim that it produced life but "living molecules ". oomans living mecules are molecules that make like up life like aspartic acid etc that the experiment produced.

incase you dont know, they are nucleotides that make up DNA that make you up.

poopli:

ooman did not claim that it produced life but "living molecules ". oomans living mecules are molecules that make like up life like aspartic acid etc that the experiment produced.

incase you dont know, they are nucleotides that make up DNA that make you up.

Oh please someone wake me up from this dream please!

poopli:

ooman did not claim that it produced life but "living molecules ". oomans living mecules are molecules that make like up life like aspartic acid etc that the experiment produced.

incase you dont know, they are nucleotides that make up DNA that make you up.

There is no such thing as the "living" molecules that he claimed, period.

Secondly, he did claim that they explain the origin of life.

https://www.nairaland.com/1192447/religion-no-place-21st-century/3#14314732

davidylan:

You didnt need 4 pretentious lines to tell us you had no answer to the facts. Like Fox News, you all live in a fact-free bubble so no surprises there.

u are a real duce dunce. whenever I read your post, I feel pitty for a mannerles, tackless dying id.iot that you are.

u lack basic understand of thesis.
u tell people to request for school fees but u should start from nursery 1.

poopli:

ooman did not claim that it produced life but "living molecules ". oomans living mecules are molecules that make like up life like aspartic acid etc that the experiment produced.

incase you dont know, they are nucleotides that make up DNA that make you up.

err mr poop, aspartic acid is not a nucleotide and the miller-urey experiment didnt produce ANY thing that is a constituent of DNA.

Did you sleep during integrated science class?

poopli:

u are a real duce dunce. whenever I read your post, I feel pitty for a mannerles, tackless dying id.iot that you are.

u lack basic understand of thesis.
u tell people to request for school fees but u should start from nursery 1.

there really is no tact or manners needed to address someone who claims that aspartic acid is a NUCLEOTIDE and hence a component of DNA!

Please seek a refund of your school fees and pay your tithe.

This is ooman's statement -

ooman: @deepsight; organic evolution explains origin of life. the experiment was made and living molecules spontaneously formed without help from any scientist. google stanley- urey experiment.

https://www.nairaland.com/1192447/religion-no-place-21st-century/3#14313970

davidylan:

there really is no tact or manners needed to address someone who claims that aspartic acid is a NUCLEOTIDE and hence a component of DNA!

Please seek a refund of your school fees and pay your tithe.

U ARE A DUMB FO.OL FOR IMPLYING WHAT I NEVER MEANT.

aspartic acid was an example, the experiment did produce formic acid, is that an amino acid or nucleotide too.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT OOMAN'S " LIVING MOLECULES "

u think u r intelligent but u are not.

Poopil are you Ooman's lawyer? How can you a freethinker,jump to someone's defence because he claims to be an atheist?

GOOGLE is ur friend!!!!

poopli:

U ARE A DUMB FO.OL FOR IMPLYING WHAT I NEVER MEANT.

aspartic acid was an example, the experiment did produce formic acid, is that an amino acid or nucleotide too.

u think u r intelligent but u are not.

this is what you said and i quote - ooman did not claim that it produced life but "living molecules ". oomans living mecules are molecules that make like up life like aspartic acid etc that the experiment produced.

incase you dont know, they are nucleotides that make up DNA that make you up.

So what nucleotides were you talking about? Who made them?

What is the relevance of formic acid here? It is not a human product of any relevance.

davidylan:

this is what you said and i quote - ooman did not claim that it produced life but "living molecules ". oomans living mecules are molecules that make like up life like aspartic acid etc that the experiment produced.

incase you dont know, they are nucleotides that make up DNA that make you up.

So what nucleotides were you talking about? Who made them?

What is the relevance of formic acid here? It is not a human product of any relevance.

I was talking about ooman's living molecule. for anything to qualify as "living molecules", it has to be adenine, cytosine, thymine (uracil) or guanine. combination of these make up aspartic acid (AAU AAC).

I thought you of all, with your "intelligence " would understand that.

I mentioned formic acid so u' d know I wasn't meaning aspartic acid when I mentioned nucleotides.

about who made them, I dont know but I am more certain that the hindus or muslims got their origin right than your silly outdated bible.

One advice poopli, distance yourself from ooman and start thinking for yourself. He's a fraud and you are beginning to sound like rev. Kings followers.

Deep Sight:

Here is one example: he claimed that an experiment produced life and "living" molecules.

Sheer illiteracy.

If there is a discourse on the ORIGIN of Life, then life definitely has an inanimate parent.

poopli:

I was talking about ooman's living molecule. for anything to qualify as "living molecules", it has to be adenine, cytosine, thymine (uracil) or guanine. combination of these make up aspartic acid (AAU AAC).

huh?

A combination of nucleotides make up aspartic acid? Have you been drinking?

Kay 17:

If there is a discourse on the ORIGIN of Life, then life definitely has an inanimate parent.

perfectly right

Kay 17:

If there is a discourse on the ORIGIN of Life, then life definitely has an inanimate parent.

perfectly right but not fully understood.

davidylan:

huh?

A combination of nucleotides make up aspartic acid? Have you been drinking?

if nucleotide sequence does not make up amino acid which make iife, tell me what does.

you are way too dull to talk about this.

poopli:

if nucleotide sequence does not make up amino acid which make iife, tell me what does.

you are way too dull to talk about this.

Actually you are the dullard. You just admitted that aspartic acid is translated from DNA (really as a component of proteins)... that makes nonsense of the Miller-Urey experiment because it was unable to make nucleotides which are the precursors of proteins!

So where did the nucleotides come from?

davidylan:

Actually you are the dullard. You just admitted that aspartic acid is translated from DNA (really as a component of proteins)... that makes nonsense of the Miller-Urey experiment because it was unable to make nucleotides which are the precursors of proteins!

So where did the nucleotides come from?

I told you I dont know, chemical evolution is a possibility, am assuming you know better genius. but pls dont reiterate biblical nonsense.

poopli:

I told you I dont know, chemical evolution is a possibility, am assuming you know better genius. but pls dont reiterate biblical nonsense.

i have not said anything remotely close to the bible here so i dont know what you're on about "reiterating biblical nonsense". You call the bible "nonsense" but have zero grip on your science alternative.

Chemical evolution makes zero sense... you trumped the Miller-Urey experiment as proof that it was a possibility but then ended up looking like the foolishly ignorant person you are. Yes Miller generated 80% coal tar and 1.05% glycine (including useless and dangerous D-isomers that are NOT found in nature by the way)... but we now know that the atmosphere then (which was not reducing despite the lies you've been fed) does not support that experiment. Besides... what made the nucleotides that are precursors of the amino acids or were amino acids generated independently?

davidylan:

i have not said anything remotely close to the bible here so i dont know what you're on about "reiterating biblical nonsense". You call the bible "nonsense" but have zero grip on your science alternative.

Chemical evolution makes zero sense... you trumped the Miller-Urey experiment as proof that it was a possibility but then ended up looking like the foolishly ignorant person you are. Yes Miller generated 80% coal tar and 1.05% glycine (including useless and dangerous D-isomers that are NOT found in nature by the way)... but we now know that the atmosphere then (which was not reducing despite the lies you've been fed) does not support that experiment. Besides... what made the nucleotides that are precursors of the amino acids or were amino acids generated independently?

I have noticed that you are really empty with no message to pass across.

you keep asking what when I told you twice I do not know and since you obviously know how to debunk other people 's ideas I thought you might have an answer yourself but you dont seem to.

stop asking me, you tell me and if you dont know, stop wasting my time.

so what made the first life and all life, how did everything come about? you have to give answers, dont just be an enemy of progress, use your head and add to the progress yourself.

this is the same question I asked brokoto and now, he is no where to be found.

am waiting.

what religion does is to blindfold people and stop them from having any real understanding of a premise.

thank you poopli for expantiating what I meant. I SHOULD HAVE SPOON FED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. MY ONLY MISTAKE IS THAT I THOUGHT THEY HAVE ENOUGH BRAIN TO COMPREHEND, BUT NOW I KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM. TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING AS IF TALKING TO NURSERY SCHOOL STUDENTS.

concerning the stanley ure experiment, that fact that a recognizable complex chemical spontaneously formed at all is a path to the possibility that chemical evolution is possible, even though not proved yet, but religion has blindfolded them to this possibility.

the question is this, if chemical evolution is not possible, then why did chemicals produced by living systems (formic acid by Ants) and contained by living systems (glycine, aspartic acid) SPONTANEOUSLY FORMED IN THE EXPERIMENT NO MATTER THE CONDITIONS OF EARLY EARTH?

if chemical evolution is not possible, them WHY SOMETHING INSTEAD OF NOTHING.?

poopli:

I have noticed that you are really empty with no message to pass across.

you keep asking what when I told you twice I do not know and since you obviously know how to debunk other people 's ideas I thought you might have an answer yourself but you dont seem to.

stop asking me, you tell me and if you dont know, stop wasting my time.

so what made the first life and all life, how did everything come about? you have to give answers, dont just be an enemy of progress, use your head and add to the progress yourself.

this is the same question I asked brokoto and now, he is no where to be found.

am waiting.

@poopli, you are simply wasting your time arguing with Davidylan. He has no grey matter between his ears. I called him out on one of ooman's thread. He tries to pretend he is intelligent, but he is simply one of the most unintelligent being I have ever had the misfortune to come across.

poopli:

I have noticed that you are really empty with no message to pass across.

you keep asking what when I told you twice I do not know and since you obviously know how to debunk other people 's ideas I thought you might have an answer yourself but you dont seem to.

stop asking me, you tell me and if you dont know, stop wasting my time.

so what made the first life and all life, how did everything come about? you have to give answers, dont just be an enemy of progress, use your head and add to the progress yourself.

this is the same question I asked brokoto and now, he is no where to be found.

am waiting.

in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth