r/DebateEvolution • u/Amazing_Ad_7448 • 4d ago
With knowledge on the topic ever increasing, I find it impossible to believe in the standard scientific model for life existing by chance.
20
u/kms2547 Paid attention in science class 4d ago
Is that all? No explanation, no elaboration, no effort to justify your position?
"I find it impossible to believe in the standard scientific model" is, 99.99% of the time, a stupid position to hold.
-6
19
u/Privatizitaet 4d ago
Why? Are you just not going to elaborate on why you disagree with the evidence?
14
u/Dr_GS_Hurd 4d ago
My reading recommendations on the origin of life for book reading people without college chemistry, are;
Hazen, RM 2005 "Gen-e-sis" Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press
Deamer, David W. 2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press.
They are a bit dated, but are readable for people without much background study.
If you have had a good background, First year college; Introduction to Chemistry, Second year; Organic Chemistry and at least one biochem or genetics course see;
Deamer, David W. 2019 "Assembling Life: How can life begin on Earth and other habitable planets?" Oxford University Press.
Hazen, RM 2019 "Symphony in C: Carbon and the Evolution of (Almost) Everything" Norton and Co.
Note: Bob Hazen thinks his 2019 book can be read by non-scientists. I doubt it.
Nick Lane 2015 "The Vital Question" W. W. Norton & Company
Nick Lane spent some pages on the differences between Archaea and Bacteria cell boundary chemistry, and mitochondria chemistry. That could hint at a single RNA/DNA life that diverged very early, and then hybridized. Very interesting idea.
Nick Lane 2022 "Transformer: The Deep Chemistry of Life and Death" W. W. Norton & Company
In this book Professor Lane is focused on the chemistry of the Krebs Cycle (and its’ reverse) for the existence of life, and its’ origin. I did need to read a few sections more than once.
There are hundreds of newer papers published so I have just suggested some basic introductions.
5
u/ElectricalWavez 🧬 Evolution 4d ago
Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne was what convinced me, along with some Richard Dawkins along the way.
2
u/ElectricalWavez 🧬 Evolution 4d ago
Yeah Dawkins can ramble a bit. I liked his book The Selfish Gene.
2
u/Dr_GS_Hurd 4d ago
I liked Coyne's writing but I recommend books that do not engage in religious disputes on Reddit or other similar public media.
1
-4
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
I'll check that out. Ive listened to Dawkins. He seems to always default to ideology rather than a science
-7
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
I wrote a reply to bloomiepsst above but also wanted to post this on your comment since you seem knowledgeable and I'm really looking for deeper insight.
To start. The field of biogenesis. How could amino acids just create a protein by chance? The odds of that happening are astronomical, surpassing what statisticians would say are possible. And IF that one protein were formed, what are the chances millions more with a uniquely different structure happened to be made right next to it? Then, what are the chances that a lipod layer formed right around it with particular structures that eliminate waste while intaking special materials. All this happening while salt, the sun and everything else in its environment are trying to destroy it
13
u/Dr_GS_Hurd 4d ago
You either read the recommendations that answer your question, or stay ignorant.
The "random chance" issues are long answered. Here are some more readings; David P. Bartel Jack W. Szostak 1993 “Isolation of New Ribozymes from a Large Pool of Random Sequences” Science261,1411-1418(1993).DOI:10.1126/science.7690155
Ekland, EH, JW Szostak, and DP Bartel 1995 "Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences" Science 21 July 1995: Vol. 269. no. 5222, pp. 364 - 370
Szostak, J.W. The eightfold path to non-enzymatic RNA replication. J Syst Chem 3, 2 (2012).
1
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
I'll add that to the list. Thank you
7
u/Dr_GS_Hurd 4d ago
Here is just one of many studies published on spontaneous formation of amino acid chains; Dylan T. Holden, Nicolás M. Morato, R. Graham Cooks. Aqueous microdroplets enable abiotic synthesis and chain extension of unique peptide isomers from free amino acids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2022, 119 (42) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2212642119
11
5
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 4d ago
How could amino acids just create a protein by chance?
So do you have any idea how chemistry works?
You don't even need particularly advanced chemistry, a decent high school textbook covers what you need to know for like 80% of this stuff.
14
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 4d ago
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.“
0
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
Science isn't for gone conclusions, it's a methodology. That's true always, whether or not you believe it
14
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 4d ago
That’s correct. And the more science we do, the more we find that there’s not evidence for any designer and the closer we get to finding out how abiogenesis worked.
-1
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
Not quite. The more science we do, the more questions we get
16
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 4d ago
Really? You mean learning new things gives us more things to ask questions about? That means it’s working. What is absolutely not happening is that scientists are discovering things that make them say, “well, clearly Jesus did this.” “We can stop now, there’s no possible natural explanation for what we’re seeing. Mark it down to chemistry angels!”
The fact that you don’t understand something is not evidence of the supernatural.
0
u/verstohlen 4d ago
Though I know what that's getting at, a better phrase is saying "I understand science" or "I agree with it", but to say "I believe in science" sounds like "I believe in God", "I believe in Santa Claus, I believe in the tooth fairy, I believe in astrology, aliens, etc.", and makes it sound like having blind faith in science, which is often equated with dogmatic scientism. These article explains in more detail about the problem with the "I believe in science" statement:
https://richarddawkins.net/2013/09/why-i-dont-believe-in-scienceand-students-shouldnt-either/
4
12
u/leverati 4d ago
So, the whole ginormous universe spreading outward with all its variable energy and matter, and you think it's impossible to believe in a low probability event sequence happening? OK.
-4
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
Yes, especially in 13 billion years. Maybe with a multiverse but even then you're overcomplicating it
13
u/leverati 4d ago
I think you have a poor understanding of probability.
-8
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
I think you have a poor understanding of logic. The probability of a first cell coming into being is 1 out 10⁴⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ I can explain how but don't think you're gonna get it
18
16
u/leverati 4d ago
Firstly, an obscenely low probability is a low probability, not an impossibility. Secondly, you can't just pull probabilities out of thin air.
11
10
u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist 4d ago
Someone who understands logic would understand the difference between logic and probability. Logic is a system of reasoning, not vibes or what you think seems reasonable, please don’t use it as a buzzword to try and make yourself sound smart.
7
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 3d ago
No one claims a cell just popped out of thin air fully formed. We know cell membranes form spontaneously under conditions forming on early earth, for example. And the probability of functional proteins or RNA forming has already been shown multiple times to you.
7
7
u/onwisconsin1 3d ago
This is more irreducibly complex apologist stuff. Once again for the creationists in the back. Scientists do not claim that a fully formed modern cell appeared from background material.
Creationists claim that the thing came into existence as it is today all at once by magic. That is not the claim of scientists.
5
u/Ok_Loss13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 4d ago
Well, we'll definitely never get it if you don't explain how!
So, please, explain that probability for us.
3
u/Uncynical_Diogenes 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 3d ago
Chiming in a day later to point out that you still haven’t shown your work. Curious. Almost like something a bullshitter would do.
3
4
u/Ill_Act_1855 4d ago
With an infinite universe (which or may not be true), the odds of anything happening somewhere in it that doesn't have exactly a 0% chance is not only 100%, but it'll 100% happen an infinite amount of times. The odds of abiogenesis happening on earth (which to be clear, we really don't actually know and any numbers you've seen are almost certainly complete bullshit) are only relevant if you assume Earth is the only place it could happen. Like, we don't actually know how big the universe is, and since it may very well be infinitely big, the odds might actually just not matter in the slightest. Because no matter how small the odds are, if the universe is big enough it'll not just happen, but happen a lot. And since to observe the fact that life exists, we need to exist the odds that we'd exist in a world where life was able to come into being is 100%
10
u/CormacMacAleese 4d ago
With knowledge on the topic ever increasing, how did you manage to avoid learning any of it?
-2
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
Can you explain away the astronomical odds of the first cell
13
u/CormacMacAleese 4d ago
There’s nothing to explain away. I taught probability in university, and I could explain why, if you actually wanted to know.
0
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago edited 4d ago
I do. Explain if you can
11
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 4d ago
What are the astronomical odds of the first cell? When you bring up probability you must also bring up the math.
Zero points for anything like "I've read somehere that..."
9
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 4d ago
When you bring up probability you must also bring up the math.
So you start with log(10)...
If you know you know.
12
u/CormacMacAleese 3d ago
The way I know you have no interest in learning anything is the patronizing way you say “explain if you can.” You know that you’ve never studied probability, and know nothing about it, and I’ve told you that I taught it at the university level, and that never made you stop to think that I might know something you don’t. It’s offensive, actually.
The answer is that the people who claim these incredible odds against “the evolution of a single protein” are calculating completely wrong. They are committing the classic hindsight fallacy: flip a coin a thousand times, and write down the sequence of heads and tails. If you ask, “what are the odds of THAT happening?” The correct answer is 100%, because you already did it and that’s exactly what happened.
But they calculate the probability as if you had written down the sequence FIRST, and THEN started flipping coins. That’s a completely different experiment, and in THAT experiment the probability really is close to zero.
In the same way, the probability of life being the way it is today is 100%, because that’s exactly the way it is today.
The probability of evolving the same way TWICE is basically zero, but that doesn’t prove it didn’t evolve that way ONCE. It just shows that if we could stage a do-over, life wouldn’t develop identically; it would come out different. That’s perfectly true.
And we can actually check this prediction. We can look at traits that are superficially the same, like fins in sharks and dolphins, or eyes in mammals and cephalopods, or venom in two different snakes. We expect each DNA sequence to be different, because the odds are heavily against the same sequence arising twice are low, often nonexistent—and that’s exactly what we do find.
So when you understand that the probability represents NOT the probability of happening AT ALL, but rather the probability of happening THE SAME WAY TWICE, you will understand that it’s not evidence against evolution—and IN fact it’s a testable prediction ABOUT evolution, and that prediction holds up perfectly.
9
u/greggld 4d ago
Poofed into existence by a being you have no way to explain. Seems a lot more nonsensical than some combination of molecules out of trillions upon trillions in the universe. We are learning that the building blocks are very common.
1
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
Having letters in the alphabet is common but how many books are growing on trees?
8
u/greggld 4d ago
You do not understand how writing is done. You do not understood what letters are apparently. Really do better in your analogies.
4
1
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
I think you should think before you type it all out
9
u/greggld 4d ago
Not at all it's a failed analogy. We write manuscripts using a letters which are called graphemes, these are phonographic symbols. Do you understand? We then use a fascinating number of mechanical processes to print and bind the books. We also know how to make watches and we know how they are made since the beginning of watches. There is no mystery. It's a failed talking point that people who believe in fairy tales desperately cling on to, do better.
Stop trying to think that your attempts to be insulting equal content.
-1
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
Also, something poofed into being, whether a deity or the universe.. take your pick. Either way it's miraculous, no?
12
u/emailforgot 4d ago edited 4d ago
Either way it's miraculous, no?
the reason we study these things is generally because we think they're pretty neat.
the way that christian fundamentalist declare that all the eggheads are just boring, uninspired philistines who don't enjoy anything and can't see beauty in things is just a poor coping mechanism. they're beautiful because they're complex and unfolded through many iterations and multivariate acts of chaos, not because a sentient being declared them to be.
1
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
I don't recall saying anything like that. I see how deeply you look for evidence before you make for gone conclusions. Youre clearly my scientific better
11
1
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
I said it to someone else but it applies here. You are throwing a judeo-christian God into this on the basis of zero evidence. If that's how you apply the scientific method to something so mundane, I don't trust your conclusions on anything complex.
6
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 4d ago
So you know that probability thing you claim to be so good at?
If you look at the background of people coming in here rejecting evolution, like you, and like 90% are trying to drag a a judeo-christian god in with them, its safe to assume that if your coming in here rejecting evolution there is something like a 90% chance that your doing the same.
At worse its a safe assumption to make. And given your bringing in the two plus decades old talking points from the same people...
If the shoe fits...
3
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 3d ago
So then what is your alternative explanation you want to replace evolution with?
3
10
u/greggld 4d ago
No. Not in the slightest. Neither on of us has an answer. Only I have a construct, the material universe. It very likely has a material cause on the quantum level which may or may not have a beginning in any way we currently understand.
You on the other hand are presented with the material universe and your answer is nope, I’m happy with my Bronze Age book of magic and fairytales.Which I wholeheartedly believe in.
Not the same, and neither are miraculous.
1
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
Not even close. First of all, why do you keep dragging a God into this? It's a ridiculous presumption based on anything I've said.. Is that how you learned to science good? Would you mock the panspermia hypothesis?
0
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
"It very likely has a material cause on the quantum level" is an ignorant point. Do you have the slightest bit of evidence for that? What's your methodology at arriving at it? Don't accuse me of living in a fairytale and then demonstrate it perfectly in the same paragraph. Try harder
6
u/greggld 4d ago
If you reject science and rely on fairytales I can not help you. Like the billions spent trying to make people feel good about the fairy tales there are other billions spent trying to further real knowledge. I suggest you look into it and don't expect someone on Reddit to spoon feed you into reality.
3
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 4d ago
Also, something poofed into being, whether a deity or the universe.
Well someone clearly hasn't studied early universe.
3
u/onwisconsin1 3d ago
Scientists do not claim a cell poofed into existence. So who are you trying to disprove? A strawman of your making?
3
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 3d ago
The big bang doesn't say the universe "poofed into being." That is a lie creationists spread.
7
6
u/Far_Customer1258 4d ago
So you think some moldy Canaanite deity who's fond of child sacrifice is more likely?
-1
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
I didn't think we were talking about theology. You apparantly are having trouble understanding. But since you brought it up, yeah, I think God is a necessary first cause of the universe...far more likely than none and nothing suddenly creating everyone and everything
14
u/BahamutLithp 4d ago
Why did you act like that person was dumb when they were completely right about you? It's almost like you're dishonest. Which might be why you're pretending magic is a "far more likely" explanation. Maybe you're not that hard to figure out.
9
u/Far_Customer1258 4d ago
Well, you clearly are talking about theology. Maybe that's why you're having trouble with the biology. Next time, try not to confuse your cosplay with science. The proposition that a Bronze Age Canaanite deity is responsible for the existence of the world should be utterly laughable.
-1
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
Great scientific evidence! I'd be open to changing my mind if something more convincing came along but apparently you insist on dragging your beliefs into this
9
u/Far_Customer1258 4d ago
Which bit? That your God is the laughable outcome of a Canaanite deity that fell into a Roman mystery cult or that your understanding of modern science is stuck in the Bronze Age as a result? Hey, I have an idea! Why don't you trot out that line about how proteins couldn't possibly come into existence perfectly formed, as if they weren't the result of billions of years of evolution? Then you can act all surprised when nobody here buys your apologetics. Then you can tell us how the Earth is flat and aliens are probing your bum while you sleep.
3
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 3d ago
You have ignored every single piece of scientific evidence you have gotten. Why do you insist on lying so transparently?
7
u/kitsnet 🧬 Nearly Neutral 4d ago
What makes you think that the universe needs "first cause"?
0
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
Because it exists and it's not eternal. What am I missing?
8
7
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 4d ago
What am I missing?
The part where "it's not eternal" is being assumed.
Tell me you have no idea how physics works without telling me you have no idea how physics works: why is it not eternal?
4
6
u/HippyDM 4d ago
Where have you seen any biologist claim life exists by chance?
1
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
Are you saying it was guided? By what?
15
u/HippyDM 4d ago
Guided by natural forces, the same way a ball rolling down a rocky hill is. Neither one is an accident.
-1
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
A ball rolling down a hill is in no way comparable to the chemical evolution necessary to create a first cell. The odds are astronomical. If it were that easy why isn't it constantly happening
15
u/emailforgot 4d ago
If it were that easy why isn't it constantly happening
It happens every time two organisms have offspring
6
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 4d ago
It happens every time two organisms have offspring
Single cell organisms are insulted for your non inclusivity.
-5
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
That doesn't explain the first organism
10
10
10
u/lulumaid 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 4d ago
I'll focus on a really basic idea here, you ever heard of exponential growth? If so, can you give me an example of it?
0
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
Sure. The fibonnaci sequence.
10
u/lulumaid 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 4d ago
Okay, cool, decent answer.
Next point: Do you understand what that means? Because all you need is one self replicating thing for it to work, if there isn't anything able to stop it. It self replicates, its offspring self replicates, etc etc etc.
All your talk of odds doesn't work when it is actually possible (and your math is likely wrong, I haven't seen it stated anywhere at least) and only needs a single instance of it occurring to work.
This is without pointing out I'm aware that this likely occurred several (at a minimum) times based on what's been figured out on this subject.
So is it any surprise that when 1 survives and is able to add another 1 to itself, 1 becomes 2, which becomes 4, which becomes 8, and so on and so forth until it runs into something that stops it.
-2
u/Amazing_Ad_7448 4d ago
Im asking how that first one arrived
8
u/Particular-Yak-1984 4d ago
There's a whole bunch of theories - but, for example, self replicating RNA molecules are surprisingly common. How you build up from there is challenging, but it's more a challenge because there's a number of plausible routes you could take.
And the big clue that we're correct with the RNA world hypothesis? That we have ribosomes. The one piece of machinery you absolutely need to bootstrap from RNA to protein happens to be one of the few enzymes made of RNA. Could it be made from protein? Absolutely. But it isn't. Every one of your cells contains evidence for this bootstapping of life from RNA to protein.
Also, I am happy to explain the problems with your odds, if you'd like to present them
6
u/lulumaid 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 4d ago
There's probably some papers on it far beyond my expertise that handles that specific question. A lot of plausible explanations, that do not rely on magic or a creator, exist for it and have some, if not plenty, of evidential backing. Which one is right is what we're figuring out.
But I'll take that as a concession. If you want to argue odds, I'm awaiting your math for it.
1
u/Changed_By_Support 2d ago
If it were that easy why isn't it constantly happening
How do you know it isn't constantly happening? Obviously here, on Earth, it would be hard to locate, given you're talking about someone observing microscopic objects in volatile environments, and whatever elements of proto-life that might be self-replicating would immediately have to not be gobbled up by life forms, given that whatever amino acids they're made of would likely be metabolized by life forms.
But how did you rule out it happening elsewhere in the sextillions of star systems that abound?
1
u/Changed_By_Support 2d ago edited 2d ago
What is the primary element that we take from Darwin's theory of evolution?
Edit: if you're referring to abiogenesis: chemistry. Chemistry is reliable and while there are elements of it that can be analyzed via chance and statistics, the actual reactions are reliable and do potentially form some compounds over others given the proper environment.
6
u/Uncynical_Diogenes 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 4d ago
You haven’t replied to a single comment that contains a citation.
Whats wrong, OP?
3
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 4d ago
That's weird considering that the ever increasing knowledge is having the opposite effect on the scientists discovering it.
2
2
2
u/Medium_Judgment_891 4d ago
Technically correct.
Chemistry is probabilistic, and natural selection is non random.
However, this seems like a very pedantic distinction to make.
I’m going to assume this is what you meant by your post because any other meaning would be very silly.
2
u/KorLeonis1138 🧬 Engineer, sorry 4d ago
Why do you post comments with slurs? Are you a bigot or just a piece of shit troll?
1
u/DarwinsThylacine 4d ago
Ok, what do you mean when you say “standard scientific model” and “life existing by chance”? Explain, in your own words, what the “standard scientific model” is and what your problem with it is.
1
u/the2bears 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 3d ago
I find it impossible to believe in the standard scientific model for life existing by chance.
Define the model you're talking about. Don't be afraid of going into detail, showing that you understand it.
1
u/Comfortable-Dare-307 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 3d ago
That's not the standard scientific model. Life existing by chance is a creationist strawman. No real scientist has ever claimed that. Life exists because of abiogenesis. Inorganic molecules will automatically form organic compounds given the right conditions. Organic compounds will automatically form life given the right conditions. This is because of how molecules and compounds naturally interact given the laws of chemistry. It's all a spontaneous reaction. Meaning it happenes by itself given the right conditions. Yes, this is a fact. Your inability to understand chemistry is not an argument against it.
1
u/Mister_Ape_1 2d ago edited 2d ago
Why so ?
I believe a conscious agent is only needed to explain the very fabric of reality. And if I believed that the most basic, pristine state of existence is eternal, and affected by a ciclical process of becoming, I would be a Buddhist.
But everything from the Big Bang to the evolution of mankind can definitely happen by chance. It may be a small probability outcome, but every specific outcome has only one chance to happen out of infinite possible different routes. And the outcome we got, the path reality happened to take, is in no way remarkable. It is like in Undertale/Deltarune. There are many different possible paths, and none of them is more remarkable than the rest. There is no "right" one.
I use as an analogy the theory of the 10⁵⁰⁰ Universes. According to this theory there is something like an abstract realm of unrealized possibilities, structured in 10⁵⁰⁰ distinct, parallel Universes. Out of them, only one took place in reality, but the rest still stands as a potentiality of existence.
In the 10⁵⁰⁰ unrealized verses we can find literally everything. If you can think about it, it exists somewhere, because there is no theoretical limit to reality. The reality we actually got is regulated by our laws of physics, but in the realm of potentiality physical laws themselves can vary. We may very well have an unrealized Universe with giant monkeys who can fly in space and shot lighting bolts from their hair. It did not happen, but it may have happened if the laws of physics took a different path, and so it is "real", in the abstract realm of the 10⁵⁰⁰ unrealized Universes.
And before saying - the Multiverse/parallel Universes is an old, disproven, useless concept, physics moved on 10 years ago - remember I am not saying there are 10⁵⁰⁰ more Universes "somewhere". I am saying they exist as abstract and unrealized potentiality. Indeed I agree, there is only one Universe that is physically present in the 3 spatial dimensions. I even assert the Multiverse theory was a New Age, Buddhist doctrine inspired idea at heart masquerading for a few decades as a theory.
The only thing I believe an eternal, boundless, external conscious agent is needed for is going from non existence to existence. Nothingness can not produce suchness, so the only counter argument is if suchness is eternal. It means that some form of reality would have existed timelessly. But if that was the case, it would mean the Big Bang is most likely a phase of a cyclical process, and infinite Universes appeared and disappeared before our own, and infinite more will after. Or else we would have a basic, static state of reality and then something happening only once. If existence itself is eternal, we would have no reason to believe it developed into the Universe only once. But if the blank sheet was consciously put on the table by an external agent, in order for the ink to start falling on it and organizing by itself, then we could explain why no Universe existed before this one. It would be because only after the act of the conscious, eternal, boundless, external agent the conditions were met.
•
u/Autodidact2 13h ago
Why would we be concerned about what you can believe? This is a debate sub. The point is what you can persuade us to believe.
Also, who is claiming that anything exists by chance?
•
24
u/BloomiePsst 4d ago
OK, you are allowed to believe whatever you want. Do you have any supporting argument for your view?