₦airaland Forum

Lol, it just gets worse. STILL re-quoting his gaffe -

Logicboy03:

Take a look at the bold. What I clearly meant was that they had to prove otherwise with evidence [size=32pt]because[/size] that was their claim in the first place

The bold word closes the argument.

Daaammmnn! ! !

Logicboy03: You lied that i said first person to make a claim matters.

I didn't tell any lie son. I QUOTED you verbatim.

I denied it and clearly told you that the burden of proof is on the claimant. So it doesnt matter who made the first claim or second claim- everyone has to prove his claims.

This is just digging your grave deeper, faster and ever more frantically. This is another concession of the point - - - yet again! You say everyone has to prove their claims, bingo! You see, the very simple point made obviously flew over your head. Do you remember the word "default?"

This just shows again what a waste of time it is discussing anything with you.

[size=18pt]A question for DeepSight and his supporters;

Does the phrase "that was their claim in the first place" have anything to do with establishing who made a claim first or establishing what the original claim was[/size]

If it is the latter (establishing the original claim) Deepsight is a liar

Oya, tell me your reason for saying "that was their claim in the first place." Go ahead and tell me it had nothing to do with showing why they had a burden of proof. IN FACT, that is what you were answering to - showing why they had a burden of proof!

Ol boy, don't worsen your embarrasment. When caught out as badly as this, it is better to slink quietly away.

chukkynwob: Kmcutez you really are a piece of work!!! Lol

Feisty aint you?

Arise Sir Logicboy the knight and defender of anything(I believe you just dote on attention).
You will never concede to a loss even if the evidence struck square and fair in the face. LMAO .

Deepsight refuted your arguments with your words and you are shouting blue murder?

The worst and most shameless aspect of it is his attempt deny his bare words referring to a claim being made by the scientist "in the first place" for which he said they then had a burden of proof. Worst of all, he does this notwithstanding that that is indeed his own argument as to why they had a burden of proof - even after admitting that the prior position was indeed a claim as well. . .after this he proceeds to demand that we show where he mentioned anything about first, and when shown, he then says that it does not mean "first" is important. . .unbelievable.

Now, this same person goes about the thread calling me a liar for same? What lie did I tell, I wonder?

You see, falsehood is its own revealer.

thehomer: The main problem here is that with respect to an issue like whether or not the earth goes around the sun, what should we consider as good evidence that would help us decide one way or another?

The church thought claiming that God created earth specially or that the Bible says or implies something along those lines were good enough. Do you think that such lines of thought are good enough to determine whether or not the earth goes around the sun?

Basically, what the church presented and thought was enough evidence to meet their claims actually wasn't good enough. They would have been better off saying they didn't know but it was the church after all.

Copernicus obviously discharged his burden of proof by turning to naturalistic means.

My basic point is that everyone bears a burden of proof in a discussion and it shifts from time to time in the discussion.

The notion did not arise from the church or the bible. The notion arose from what people saw everyday in the sky: namely the sun "moving" from East to West. Simple.

This is the same way that people's everyday experiences lead them to believe in God - because everyday they observe causality, and they observe intelligent design in themselves and their own creations.

That's the point. Nevertheless I am content with your last line. It sums it up correctly.

Lol. Liar indeed. Your words are up there. i have not put a single word to you that you did not say. What is clear is that the OP was right about you. You sir, are a coward. The worst kind of invertebrate coward. The lowest. Your admission was wholesale and glaring and clear. Your words were specific. And now you dare to insult your intelligence by trying to change the meaning of your phrase "they made a claim in the first place" which was your reason for saying they needed proof. Even after you had admitted that the first claim was the other statement, or do I need to quote that one as well?

I am more than disgusted. It is one thing to lie, it is quite another to tell glaring, shameless lies especially when your own words are clearly recorded in the thread for all to see. This would mean that you have no shame, no sense of personal dignity whatsoever, and that you are capable of deliberately attempting to deny your own written words. This would mean that you also have no trustworthiness and renders you an awfully low character.

The thread is there for anyone to read and infer exactly what was said and what was not said. Your words cannot be denied. End of.

I don't need to shout. Anybody can indeed see what you wrote. You have maintained that anyone who makes a claim needs the proof. You also wrote up there that they made a claim in the first place. Your words, not mine. You then challenged me to show where you "said or implied" same, so there you go.

Well I guess you don't have the one thousand pounds afterall? Yikes, no honour.

Anyway I am satisfied that your words are clearly written up there. Peeps can see and know who is twisting and indeed telling most invertebrate lies.

As for me, I have indeed discharged my burden.

Logicboy03: First claim?

See the liar? When did "first" ever matter or appear in my argument? I said it- you have no point.


The argument is simple- the burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim. First, second or last, you have to prove your claim.


I will pay you £1,000 to show me where I;

-Mentioned/implied that "first" claim mattered
-Or that I mentioned/implies that corpenicus and Galileo didnt have to prove their claims because they didnt make the first claim!

Here is your quote - and please note the bold.

Logicboy03: Take a look at the bold. What I clearly meant was that they had to prove otherwise with evidence because that was their claim in the first place that the earth wasnt at the centre of the universe and the sun didnt rise! They had to prove their claims!

So now, what is your point? You just showed how dubious you are!

Now, who is dubious, you or me?

Please I demand payment of the One thousand pounds ASAP.

I hope you can also see, in addition, that you did indeed concede and mix up issues very badly. There it is in bold for you to see yourself. I hope you will not go and edit your posts now?

Logicboy03: Can everybody notice how all of them- Anony, Striklymi and co jumped in after Deepsight ridiculously twisted my words?

None of them even stressed why they felt Deepsight was right (Deepsight was wrong anyways).


Furthermore, if even I made Deepsight's point (whatever fraudulent point it was), why is it true? I mean, are these people now acknowledging that I use logic and that the points stand because I said it or what? Why is what they think I said true?

Ol boy you did not even make my points for me. THE QUESTIONS i put to you made the point and there was no escape once the questions were asked. . . you just didn't know it until you had made your fatal concession. Abeg make I go jaare. Later.

Logicboy03: Take a look at the bold. What I clearly meant was that they had to prove otherwise with evidence because that was their claim in the first place that the earth wasnt at the centre of the universe and the sun didnt rise! They had to prove their claims!

So now, what is your point? You just showed how dubious you are!

Lol, now you say Galileo and Copernicus were the one's making the first claim.

You forget that you already admitted that the first claim was that the sun moves around the earth.

Give it up mate. This one is done.

See ya larrerrrrrr. . . .

wiegraf: Because it was accepted by the authorities of the day, which were not actually scientific. Acceptance does not equal proven, that much is rather clear even in today's world. Not so with modern science though.

You see, you have to leave the authourities of the day out really. I mentioned them only because Galileo had to go before them.

In reality, it is not the "authourities" alone that were the issue. Every normal common man saw the sun moving in the sky from East to West everyday. As such, this was what every normal common man would believe.

Now, as modern men, we say that they were ignorant, no?

How did we know that? That's right - proof that they were wrong was adduced.

Too simple actually, it ignores other factors. Like it was never proven as far as the modern scientific method is concerned, it was a default position made in ignorance.

It's still That any contradiction of a default and PROVEN position must be proven. as far as scientific claims are concerned.

Lol. In reality, seeing the sun move from east to west everyday would more than count as proof. So don't go there.

Just the way seeing intelligent cause and design for things we create everyday also counts as proof.

Now, your position is that both of these are ignorant, no wahala.

Just as one was disproved, so the other should be disproved.

So there is a burden.

That's it.

Logicboy03: Fucktards.

Easy now, i did not force you to write your concession. You did it of your own reasoning and logic. You wrote that

1. Believing that the sun moved from east to west as a claim and belief

2. That it was based on their "proof" of seeing such movement daily

3. That such was ignorant and finally -

4. That the scientists had to prove otherwise with evidence - better evidence, you said.

End of!

wiegraf: I know no vacuums have been observed anywhere. But I fail to see how random gases and virtual particles are the same thing.

The way I understand it, so long as a particle exists, there is the potential for it to show up anywhere in the universe. That potential is, more or else, virtual energy. A particle moving anywhere as a wave would need to spread itself and flow. How does that flow work? What determines just how much does this bit move and that other bit move, etc etc? As far as we know, nothing. It's completely unpredictable.

We can try and measure and know at this point the particle has this much energy, it's this long at this moment, etc, but we can only guess what these values would be the next moment, or even concurrent complimentary ones. They fluctuate widely, but overall everything balances out (else this universe would be nonsensical). This unpredictability is seemingly determined by; nothing. It springs out from nowhere. Energy showing up and disappearing all the time. This potential is measurable everywhere and is used by every particle at every moment, more or else.

If I have it right, gas particles, like all other particles, need virtual particles to move around. They are a different thing to virtual particles.

This has no bearing on the point made. Unpredictability is not nothingness.

To say that something is unpredictable does not show that it comes from nothingness. There is no such thing as nothingness observed anywehere: and the referred substitute for nothingness (quantum vacuums) have been shown NOT to be nothing.

Logicboy03: Your argument makes no sense. They claimed and believed that the sun moved from east to west and their proof was that the sun rises and sets int hose places. They were ignorant. The scientists had to come and prove that it was otherwise with evidence...better evdence.

Thank you. You have said exactly what I needed you to say. Transposing your exact words into this burden of proof issue on God would read exactly as follows -

"Your argument makes no sense. They claimed and believed that the sun moved from east to west God exists and their proof was that the sun rises and sets int hose places. based on their daily experience, complex functionalities require intelligent cause and design. They were ignorant. The scientists had to come and prove that it was otherwise with evidence...better evdence.

As such, you have just conceded the point.

Have a nice day.

wiegraf: The church's position was never proven. It was one built around ignorance.

IF IT WAS NEVER PROVEN, THEN WHY DID IT NEED TO BE DISPROVEN?

Why did the scientists have to adduce proof? Why could they not reject it simply as " never proven?"

It may have been a claim, but an invalid one by today's standards. It was default of the church though.

Thank you. And that, sir, is my point. That any contradiction of a default position must be proven.

Simple.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I stand corrected. However I didn't mean creatio ex nihilo in the sense of an actual realm of nothingness but just to point out that outside the creator, nothing else exists i.e. no transcendent authority to which He is subject.
Continuing; A more accurate description would be creatio ex deo. I reject creatio ex materia because it leads to infinite regress.




Actually I've thought about it and I don't quite agree with you.

If the creator didn't have a choice then He didn't really create rather the universe would be merely an extension of the creator.

Also, it would be impossible for his creation to have the luxury of choices because they too will be extensions of the creator's nature and hence it is either they will have no freewill or their choices would have no consequence i.e. no good no evil just nature.
If this is the case, the creator might as well not exist since the creation is not something He consciously did but something that happened to Him.
Also leading us to further infinite regress because we would have established a creator subject to a more transcendent law to which we will have to ask for it's law giver.

Inasmuch as I hold that logic and morality are self-existent, I hold that they are so because God is self-existent i.e. the nature of God is what defines good. Good is not separate from God and as such God must be unchanging. However this does not mean that God lacks the ability to change only that it would contradict His nature.

That God cannot change is not a statement of ability but a statement of character.



As I said earlier; God is not under any moral obligation towards His creation in the sense that He is not their genie who exists to appease them. When God "acts morally" it is because it is His nature to do so and not because He ought to by reason of some higher moral law.

For instance; God cannot fail when He has promised. This is not because God is bound by some higher moral code which He must adhere to, it is also not the case that God owes any explanation to His creation should He choose not keep it rather it is because of His nature being God that He cannot fail. This is why in the bible, you will come across instances where God swears an oath in His own name based upon His own integrity.

Hebrews 6:13 (NLT) For example, there was God's promise to Abraham. Since there was no one greater to swear by, God took an oath in his own name, saying:

I hope you get my drift now. The point I have been trying to make to those who like to say that God is evil is that a man cannot judge God's actions based on the moral laws that men are subject to in much the same way that you cannot criticize the Government's imprisonment as illegal just because it is illegal for an individual to kidnap.[/quote]The fundamental thing you are missing from my post is that I said that these attributes are the core nature of God ITSELF - and not that there is something like a higher code above God which God is subjected to. As such, the problem of the infinite regress does not arise in my post.

Secondly, note that you are speaking of a particular notion of God (Judeo-Christian) which is revelatory through scripture and which specifically discusses the nature of God, the principles of God, even the intentions of God. As such you cannot say that which you say. To use your own example, such scripture would be like a Government that has through its enacted and published laws, explained why there is imprisonment by law and why kidnapping is illegal.

Furthermore, you missed the most salient point about the fact that such a view would render life meaningless. This would mean no one can ever know the intentions or purposes of God (which could be true, but certainly is not holistic Christian moral teaching) and as such, it would be fair to say that anything goes. If I murder someone today, how do I know it is not the will of God? In fact there will then be a good argument that anything that happens is the will of God. And a further deeper argument that everything that can happen must in fact happen somewhere in time. This makes nonsense of morality and moral choices or the need for them. I believe this question arose from the issue of evil befalling children or something like that. If your answer is that which you gave - namely that we cannot know God's "moral" position on the matter - and in fact that God owes us none, then how on earth does naything that happens to anyone matter at all in a moral sense?

Finally, you surely cannot really mean to say that God can change, and that it is a question of character and not ability?

Do you really believe that God possesses the ability to change? This will require a thread of its own, if you believe this.

Logicboy03: Of course, they had the burden of proof on them. They made a claim about space or the solar system. They should prove it.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I dont kn ow why you are trying all these twists and turns. The result is the same; burden of proof is on the claimant.


mtchew

Settle down and simply read. You are being simplistic. That is exactly why I laid out the questions so simply for you.

I asked if the Church's position was not a claim? I asked if it was in fact not the default claim?

Did you not read that?

Now mind you, in reality, this is not even about the Church. The common observation of common men was that the would see the sun moving in the sky from East to West, no? So is this thing not the default claim?

Why did that default claim need no proof?

wiegraf: Note I've already stated that we do not have the full picture, but as it stands, they do emerge from nothing. If not, how does matter move as a wave?

Virtual particles do not emerge from nothing because the quantum vacuums in which they are observed are not nothing. They contain low gaseous pressure. That is not, and cannot be nothing. Aside from this, no perfect vacuum has ever been observed anywhere. Never ever. Check it out.

wiegraf: Copernicus was making a claim, he did bear the burden of proof but to the scientific community, not the church. Ie assuming he was challenging established science. Church could do as it pleases, it's not exactly a disciple of the scientific method.

Note, there was no proper scientific community before galileo for the most part though, science and church were well mixed in those days. Not so today, of course.



Same as above.

My first question was whether the church's position was a claim.

I then asked if it was the default position.

(I am glad you recognized that the knowledge community was "mixed" in the church at the time - if we may use that word. Please note though, this was not just a question of the Church. Common observation gave the common man to think that the sun moved from East to West, no?)

I hope you see the reason for the two questions above. I want to know if and why Copernicus or Galileo would have to adduce proof of their perspectives?

Logicboy03: lol.....again with the sophistry and shenanigans.

Question everything. The church was right in questioning the scientists but wrong in dismissing evidence.


Burden of proof lies on the claimant. Atheism makes no claim. It is a simple disbelief in God. We ask the people who claim that there is god to give us evidence

I asked you a simple question as to if they scientists had a burden of proof to discharge, and if so, why?

That's all I asked you, can you answer that?

You can say "Yes" they had a burden of proof, or "no" they did not.

Logicboy03: Burden of proof is on the claimant. So it doesnt matter if the claim is negative or positive.

Simple and short. Atheism makes no claim. It is a disbelief in God. It is the theists that make the claim- there is a god.

If you look at the thread I did on burden in proof, you will also see that burden of proof is by no means static. The preponderance of the burden is dynamic and may shift based on that which appears more probable prima facie, at any point in time.

wiegraf: I do not think that's the only option.

It is: because something cannot come from nothing: as such since things exist, then there always was a something or the other. As such, its either matter is self-existent, or it has a self existent cause. One or the other.

To be more precise, I do not think the idea of something physically existing for all time is a prerequisite.

I said I am not arguing physical or non-physical. Doesn't matter here.

For instance, modern science does not have a full picture, but it does support the idea of something from nothing.

Modern science does not support any such thing my dear. I hope you are not thinking about virtual particles or other such. They do not emerge from nothing. There is no perfect vacuum ever observed by science anywhere.

It supports the idea of potential energy being turning into real energy. Something like that, potential ie, I can also see as existing by default. Any other thing, including time, would not be necessary in this scenario.

It's possible some potential turned into physical imo, but as a totally abstract device it might be virtually impossible to explore it or even make sense of it. Note that without time etc, nothing physical existing before it, there'd be a definite start time, and who knows, it might even have an end time. Then 'elsewhere' potential becomes real, physical energy, etc, etc. It could be even happening right now.

There is no potential energy discussed in science in the absence of the factors in which the potential resides. In other words you only talk about potential energy with reference to things already existing. As such, it does not address the nothingness scenario in the least.

Can you show me where potential energy has been described or discussed in the absence of anything existing?

wiegraf: Key word here is 'default'. And you need only show that it is wrong, not provide an alternative. If the wrong found is not critical, it's possible the position is true but some bits require further study, but it certainly wouldn't be the full picture if it's shown to be wrong.

When nothing has been proven yet the burden of proof does not lay with the claim against. There's nothing to disprove. Consider string theorists for instance, who have done just about everything except provide physical evidence to back their assertions. We don't accept their assertions as true though, impressive as they may be to those versed in the sciences. Even the theorists themselves don't assume their assertions are true for the most part. They assume them as likely true, but don't go around stating them as fact. Until they provide good evidence, no one need do anything to disprove them, they haven't proven anything yet.

Please can you also take up the questions I put up there on Galileo and Copernicus to logicboy.

Logicboy03: How foolish.


Someone claims that his dog is pink.

a) The burden of proof is on me to prove that he is wrong about his dog
b) The burden of proof is on him to proide a picture of his dog or show us his dog.


Basic logic that Deepsight can not understand. Yet, Dawkins is a philosophical dunce

I discussed this at length in a thread I opened a while back. Believe me, I have always held that the burden of proof rests with the Theists, until I had a conversation which caused me to think a little deeper on the subject.

Let me ask you a few questions.

1. When, contrary to accepted thought at the time, a Nicholas Copernicus asserted that the earth was in fact not the centre of the solar system, but that the sun was, and that contrary to the thinking of the church, the earth was in motion round the sun, and not vice versa -

a. Was the position of the church at that time a claim or not?

b. Was it not a default position?

c. Was the accepted thought right or was the scientist right.

b. Did the scientist have a burden of proof?

2. When, contrary to accepted thought at the time, Galileo asserted again against the idea that the Earth was static, in favour of the ideas of Copernicus -

a. Was the position of the Church a claim or not?

b. Was Galileo right or was the Church right

c. Did he bear a burden of proof?

In the event that you think either of the excellent gentlemen above had a burden of proof, why is that the case?

Or would you say that that they had no burden of proof?

Please address. And no, do not address it with "#Empty Rhetoric, debunked"

Many thanks.

toba: Arrant Bulshitz. You strongly believe that there's no god, right? whats your proof that there's no god? If you make a claim, why are u acting like a coward in terms of backing up ur claims?

Indeed, as I have argued on this forum before, anybody making a claim against a default position, must bear and discharge a burden of proof - even where the default position is wrong. This is exemplified by the likes of Nicolaus Corpernicus - bless his soul, its his birthday today.

The default position of mankind based on its common experience is intelligent causality: and even if this position is wrong, anyone who says the contrary would therewith be saddled with a burden of proof.

wiegraf: No, I am not sold on infinities physically existing, but that's another issue. To me, something popping out of nowhere is as likely as an infinity, like infinite time. Or when was the 'first' anything?

You are arguing for deist god btw, which isn't judeoxtian god. But whatever popped out of nothing, or was self-existent since forever would much more likely have to have been basic, elementary imo. Not complexity to simple, but the opposite.

No worries, and no; I am not in this instance arguing for "deist" or any version or God. Nor am I in this instance arguing for physical or non-physical, infinite or finte, no.

I just hope you do know that at all events, something or the other must be self-existent. As such, you cannot speak about this "popping" out of nowhere or out of nothing. There is nothing like nothing, and there is nowhere like nowhere.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Good you raised that objection but let me point out to you that we are talking of a being that created out of absolutely nothing.[/quote]I do not think that it is right to argue for creatio ex nihilo - for the simple reason that nothingness, by very definition, is nothing at all and as such does not exist. To say that God creates out of nothing will be to adopt the unreasonable thinking of some atheists who also say that the universe may have sprung from nothingness. It don't think it is a question of omnipotence here, or mystery. I think it is as simple as saying that God cannot create a square circle. Omnipotence, as far as I understand it, does not infer illogical notions or powers. A logical paradox remains a logical paradox. As such, I am inclined to outrightly reject the notion of creatio ex nihilo.

Edit: Let me add for emphasis: creatio ex nihilo is logically inconsistent because it already ascribes a quality to nothingness - namely that it is capable of being made something. That nothingness possesses that capacity to be made into something. That would mean it is not nothingness in the first place.

Creatio ex materia (creation out of some other pre existing eternal material) or creatio ex deo (creation out of the substance of his own being) are far more tenable in my view.

Whatever concept of morality or logic the creation has, it is because the creator willed it so.

That may be true, but do you think the creator had a choice in this matter? Think carefully on this. You see if the creator is genuinely self-existent, then IT would be the compound of self-existent laws. As such, a deep reflection on this alone may suffice to consider that "natural law"; "physical laws" and indeed all other laws inherent in creation may not necessarily be flippant 'choices' made by the Creator. These laws may rather be seen as the self-existent reality that is teh essence of what the creator in fact is.

2nd Edit: And God's nature and principle all the way down to the created being would follow accordingly. As such, things like Love, Justice, Truth - [b]would not be moral choices made by the creator, but would be self-existent components of its eternal nature by which it is bound. [/b]

Therefore it will be wrong for the creation to expect it's creator to be subject to the same rules it's creator used to define it's existence.

I certainly agree: since the creation is not self-existent and is a different specie from the creator, that is true. Nevertheless it begs the question because it is effectively a hidden answer. If the creation is a living being, you would be logically fair and right to say that the creator, (especially in light of its nature - and particularly when you speak from a Christian point of view - wherein the Creator has revelatory scripture discussing his intentions and nature) - - - it would then become tedious, nay, escapist to use this argument that the creator has no moral obligation in reference to the created.

That would throw up a notion of God that could not resonate with anybody. If anybody believed that God is of such a nature, taht on account of his intrinsic sovereignty, may smash, destroy, toy with his living creation on a whim, then I dare say no one would believe in such a God. Or be interested in such a God. Rather, people of faith do know within them that their God has a chord, a relationship with them, based on certain given ideas, aspirations and principles. None of those is the sort of "God has no moral obligation" notion that you advance.

In fact, if you think about it deeply, such a notion would render life meaningless, to the extent that no one can ever know the mind and purpose or principles of the creator. I submit that this is actually the anti-thesis of religious faith - which rather bespeaks revelation of God, his purposes, his principle, and yes - his morals.

wiegraf: So with the bold, (which isn't nonsense by the way, that's indeed how it's supposed to work most of the time) we can do plenty of that. It's been done on this very page for instance; how did your god pop out of nowhere? Magic? Magic isn't science, yes?

God "popping" out of nothing is as bad as the universe "popping" out of nothing, no?

Besides that, have you sat down to really reflect on what is at play here? You do realize, do you not, that whichever way the dice is rolled, something or the other must be self-existent, do you not?

Surely you do know this, do you not?

@ Anony: I have one issue with your notion of "lack of moral obligation" on the part of a creator.

That caveat is this: if the created thing is a living being which is capable of feeling pain, anguish, despair, confusion and other such emotions, in such an instance, would you say that the creator has no moral obligation to be fair to that created being in light of the level of its sentience?

I could only accept your notion if the created thing is inanimate; and even at that, only where anything that happens to it will have no other negative effects anywhere in existence on other living beings.

Gbawe: can i suggest 4 cups of strong black coffee instead?

Lol, come on na. I am not always so slow, you know? I actually have an idea, but i don't want to jump the gun or make assumptions. You are clearly speaking of the processes in our oil industry. Please just be specific, I am not looking to argue, I just want to be informed. Thanks.

Gbawe: For example many world leaders will wonder why GEJ has failed to act when a public document, being the submission of a solution-provision committee, suggests that Nigeria , as the only major oil exporter doing so, must immediately stop the odious and corruption-abetting practice of selling its endowment through traders.

How can you receive a directly suggested solution like that you have total discretion and power to adopt immediately yet you fail to act in the interest of what is best for the nation you lead? They will wonder why this man abets theft against his nation for even one second if not a thief himself !!!!!!!

Sorry, i'm a bit slow today. Can you please clarify this post and speak specifically.

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

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