The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[Novowels]

[rant]

smashattack, methinks you need to learn the difference between "your subject" and "you." I am treating you honorably; not so your bull**** debate tactics.

I know that this is a subject near and dear to your heart, but if you're going to debate it, you have to understand that people are going to tear it apart. If you can't handle that, simply don't go into religious debates. (lol, you wouldn't last 5 seconds at the Internet Infidels forums. They won't put up with crap like this.)

When you come into a serious debate about evolution and abiogenesis, say nothing but things like...

Then Novowels actually uses God's name... strange, since he does not believe in Him, yet calls upon him to d a m n BBT. "D a m n" meaning that Novowels wants God, the "totally nonexistent being", to send BBT to h e l l. That's funny. Really, it is.

...you do nothing but obsfucate the subject and argue semantics. I'm sorry, but that's idiotic, and I'm going to call it when I see it. It has nothing to do with the debate. It has nothing to do with anything. I don't know if you're trying to cloud the issue or if you are actually serious but obviously the fact that I use the expletive "goddmn" has piss-all to do with anything. Like I said before, it's like you using "Thursday" (Thor's Day). Words have common usage that have nothing to do with where they come from.

I think you were getting a lot better at debating before that post (and the 2 after it were just as bad). Learn from your mistakes, don't whine about it and cry "foul" because we called you on them.

You think I got this "good" at debating without making mistakes? I got ripped a new one over my mistakes on various message boards for years. The difference was: I didn't whine about people telling me like it is. I learned from my mistakes.

I have no problems with you personally. You'll note I called your arguments stupid, and not you - I have never attacked you to my knowledge, only your arguments. I'm perfectly willing to let you stay and keep trying to debate, because that's how you learn-- But I'm sure as heck going to point it out when you do something stupid. You should be thankful I care enough, instead of simply ignoring or dismissing you. You'd never learn anything that way.

Then again, I'm nicer than Bee. After the last 3 posts, I'd be surprised if you weren't banned from the Debate Hall altogether.

[/rant]

 

[smashattack]

I have no problems with you personally. You'll note I called your arguments stupid, and not you - I have never attacked you to my knowledge, only your arguments. I'm perfectly willing to let you stay and keep trying to debate, because that's how you learn-- But I'm sure as heck going to point it out when you do something stupid. You should be thankful I care enough, instead of simply ignoring or dismissing you. You'd never learn anything that way.

Yep, yep. Agreed.

But I already said I wasn't going to debate anymore. I learned enough and it's really rather boring. Maybe you didn't read the post...? I only said I'd be back to defend myself or my beliefs when necessary. I will post that quote again...

...but for smashattack's stupidity about the phrase...

Uh... "Smashattack's stupidity"... hmm... doesn't sound like you're trashing my beliefs there. A little while ago you did (which I have no problem with), but when you said "Smashattack's stupidity"... hm. Hey, I'll quote you again:

methinks you need to learn the difference between "your subject" and "you."

Oh, yeah, I've never had a problem with you, either. Your beliefs are ultimately crummy in my opinion, sure, but you know what? I respect them. Not saying that you shouldn't "tear down" my beliefs... no, go ahead and do that. Nothing says you can't.

When I said this:

Then Novowels actually uses God's name... strange, since he does not believe in Him, yet calls upon him to d a m n BBT. "D a m n" meaning that Novowels wants God, the "totally nonexistent being", to send BBT to h e l l. That's funny. Really, it is.

...I said it because I had pretty much decided I was done with the debate. Just messin' around because I realized the true debators here are Gora_Nova, Flaming Blaze, and Serious Sam.

Learn from your mistakes, don't whine about it and cry "foul" because we called you on them.

I don't understand why you put this here... uh... I did do that, but I shaped up. My last post wasn't filled with "whining". I simply defended myself.

I have no problems with you personally.

Hey, that's great. I'm glad you're mature about it. Not too many people are.

Why in heck am I going on about this? This entire post has had nothing to do with your guys' debate! Please, continue. I will not interfere unless once again I am forced to defend myself.

 

[Novowels]

owned!

Yes, "smashattack's stupidity."

IE, what you said was stupid; not that you are stupid.

This isn't the "Messing Around Hall" it's the Debate Hall.

 

[smashattack]

Sold!

Well, then, you need to clarify what you mean, lest you actually make someone angry. :D:D:D

 

[trigun]

Sorry about the late post, I have gone through great pains to get signed on to this site.

Novowels
quote:
When do I get to start making up statistics to prove my point?
...oh wait, I don't get to do that.

No you don’t get to do that, you send us to *cough* abiogenesis info *cough* so we can read Dr. Ian Musgrave made up statistics. After all if we can’t trust blaze’s source, for what well thought out reason should we trust yours? Back to Dr. Musgraves web site. When you read it you'll find he invokes the use of a mystery progenote, "because in modern abiogenesis theories the first 'living things' would be much simpler" stating that "these simple molecules [were] probably not more than 30-40 subunits long". This can't be proven of coarse, but it is tossed around as though it's fact.

Next he conjures up a primitive planet that is teaming with all the, well here are his words. “In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates.†Again I'm sorry to say this can not be proven.

The next question that comes to mind is.

If Dr. Musgrave is right and it was so simple for life to come in to existence on a fledgling earth with many hurtles in the way, (not big ones according to Dr. Musgrave.) Although these are my words, you must realize the whole purpose of his web site is to prove how truly simple the process of abiogenesis is. Contrary to what Sirus011 said when responding to blaze’s post.

quote:
Furthermore no one has ever said the process of evolution was simple and easy. That’s what religion is blaze...

If according to Dr. Musgrave it is simple enough that, “billions of building block molecules [interacting] in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines†can spontaneously generate life, we should then be able to make the next logical assumption.

Scientists and chemists should be able to whip up batch after batch of this simple early life. But alas they haven't. Why? Because it is still too complex for the guided purposeful hand of man to CREATE. Should they stop trying? NO! After all if they do bring together a simple life form it will prove one thing, with the hand of an intelligent creator life can be brought into existence...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Novowels
quote:
Abiogenesis --
LOL. Blaze... Abiogenesis is a fact…Life, as we know it, is here: That's proof of "abiogenesis" (note that I don't say we understand everything about HOW or WHY it happened, just that it did).

HUH That is circular logic, which is poor debate (and scientific) etiquette. Abiogenesis is a theory at best, a hypothesis at worst, but certainly not a fact.

abiogenesis

\Ab`i*o*gen"e*sis\, n. [Gr. 'a priv. + ? life + ?, origin, birth.] (Biol.) The supposed origination of living organisms from lifeless matter; such genesis as does not involve the action of living parents; spontaneous generation; -- called also abiogeny, and opposed to biogenesis.

I shall call the . . . doctrine that living matter may be produced by not living matter, the hypothesis of abiogenesis. --Huxley, 1870.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=abiogenesis&db=*

 

[smashattack]

Owned!

Hah ha! That's the way I wish I could debate!

Trigun, you are really making me want to join this debate again... I'll sit and watch, though... see if I can help anywhere... right now I'm looking up this crummy "abiogenesis" dirt and it's exactly how you've put it. You've got to have faith to purely believe Mr. Musgrave's stuff...

I'll stick around, just in case.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

smashattack- You are in violation of rule 3 and 4. You did not create a rebuttal or post new knowledge, you merely agreed with what trigun stated.

You are spamming. If you do not stop, you will be reprimanded further.

 

[Novowels]

Returned!

Originally posted by trigun
No you don’t get to do that, you send us to *cough* abiogenesis info *cough* so we can read Dr. Ian Musgrave made up statistics. After all if we can’t trust blaze’s source, for what well thought out reason should we trust yours?

Well, probably because "Dr. Ian Musgrave" is only the organizer of all of the information on abiogenesis at talk.origins. I never said he did all the experiments himself. Or, as you so quaintly put it, "made up." Neither does the article. It's just a place with all the relevent information from various scientific experiments, usually from peer-reviewed magazines, in the same place.

In case you didn't notice, the article has a bibliography of 29 different sources (all with links to the appropriate materials) and even a selection of books and outside link sources (including links to creationist arguments) which have even more information on the subject.

I don't recall ever saying Abiogenesis was highly improbable or not. Either way, it's a moot point. You're misunderstanding how probability works. It's ok, I thought this was a good argument 6-7 years ago too.

Anyways, the bad thing about these posts (and the reason I'm always posting at circa 7:30am, lol) is that I usually get sidetracked by the interesting links I find on the way. I end up reading about this stuff for 4 hrs or more and never get to where I'm supposed to be going. :D I know you have many more arguments in your post that are well worth discussing. I will get to them later. Only one more to poke at quickly before I go to bed:

re: Abiogenesis/fact/circular argument.
The only way some form of abiogenesis did not occur is if life (in some form) existed forever. AFAIK all of the evidence points towards life being peculiar to Earth, and since the Earth was not around forever, abiogenesis had to occur at some point.

I suppose calling it a fact was a bit strong, however even if you're a creationist you believe "abiogenesis" happened -- you'd just define it as "Goddidit."

I never claimed that the exact theory put forth in the talk.origins FAQ happened as fact - I just said that life formed from lifelessness. The exact cause of said formation is certainly up for debate.

However, I will agree that the statement "Life exists because abiogenesis happened, therefore abiogenesis happened because life exists" is indeed a circular argument. I was certainly not trying to put it forward as a proof for the exact definition on talk.origins!

Meanwhile, everyone has done a very good job of pretending my examples of non-intelligent design don't exist.

1) The Prostate Gland: In all human males, the urethra goes directly through the prostate gland, a gland that is easily infected-- which causes it to swell. This blocks passage through the urethra. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that expands to block flow in the tube is not good design. Anyone could design male "plumbing" better, even if it were just to put the gland atop the tube or make the tube rigid. Evolution explains it quite satisfactorily (modification of a previous trait/organ). But if man were "created" then he was created with an appallingly badly designed urinary system. (added: 1 in 3 adult males will require prostate surgery in their lifetime.)

2) The Joints: Prolonged kneeling can lead to an expansion of the bursa in front of the patella, a condition known as housemaid's knee. Likewise, there's a design flaw in the human elbow. At the knob on the lower end of the humerus the ulnar nerve is exposed just under the skin. A sharp blow by a hard object causes that numbing, painful sensation called "striking the funny bone." This could be easily remedied, both are mostly a side-effect of going from quadripedal to bipedal movement, I believe.

3) The Skull: The adult human skull is too thin to provide adequate protection to the gigantic brain. Plus the absence of brow ridges leaves the eyes extremely poorly protected. You can see the difference in skull thickness and the dissapearance over time of the brow ridge in fossils of human ancestors.

4) Human Eyes: Not only are the eyes not designed well (optical wiring is on the back, creating a blind spot) but squids and octopi have evolved a much better optical system. Well, they've had a bit more time to work on it than us, I guess. I won't bring up the theory that God's created the earth for giant squid.

.....just in case you happened to skip over them the first time.. Or forget. :D

 

[MrSilver]

Some people seem to think that a very low probabilitie means it couldn't have happend. No matter how low the probabilitie is, if there is one it's possible. Even if something only happens once out off every 100 billion trys, it could just as well happen at the very first try. So even is the probabilitie that life came into existance by is extremely low, then that doesn't meen it didn't happen that way.

 

[PorCorpWis]

.

I really want to say out of this pointless debate but this just provoked me to respond.

<<When you read it you'll find he invokes the use of a mystery progenote, "because in modern abiogenesis theories the first 'living things' would be much simpler" stating that "these simple molecules [were] probably not more than 30-40 subunits long". This can't be proven of coarse, but it is tossed around as though it's fact. >>
Hmm, it "can't be proven," so the opposing web site gets to throw it around as though the opposite were fact? No, neither one is "proven." The reason he tosses it around as though it were fact, though, is it's so d@mn obvious that life wouldn't go straight from random chemicals to a fully complete organism as the opposing web page suggests. It's is even so kind as to point out that the chances of that happening are next to nothing- so I guess that means it was proving the theory of simpler steps to be true.

<<Next he conjures up a primitive planet that is teaming with all the, well here are his words. “In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates.†Again I'm sorry to say this can not be proven. >>
Now I'm sorry to say that this is just idiotic. Do you think that there was only ONE puddle in the entire earth where the chemicals necessary to form life existed? Even if it were a little puddle, that would be THOUSANDS of simultanious trials being performed. What are you even suggesting? How would it even be possible that there was only ONE trial being performed at a time? The entire ocean is full of the chemicals needed, which means that billions of simultanious trials WERE occuing. You should really try to understand the implications of the things you say before you post arguments like this.

 

[trigun]

NOVOWELS I did see your other topics and would enjoy debating any of them, but I started working on this one before you originally posted them I just don’t have the time to debate more that one topic/issue at a time. I’m very busy and I end up doing the same thing you do when I get on here I can get side track and spend many hours reading stuff and never accomplish the task at hand.

PorCorpWis

The reason he tosses it around as though it were fact, though, is it's so d@mn obvious that life wouldn't go straight from random chemicals to a fully complete organism as the opposing web page suggests.

This is the whole point it CANNOT happen unless we invent something that works more to our advantage, enter Dr. Musgrave, and his mystery progenote, "because in modern abiogenesis theories the first 'living things' would be much simplerâ€.


PorCorpWis

It's is even so kind as to point out that the chances of that happening are next to nothing- so I guess that means it was proving the theory of simpler steps to be true.

I addressed the it’s so simple, in my last post. You musta missed, that’s ok I repeated it in this one.


PorCorpWis

The entire ocean is full of the chemicals needed, which means that billions of simultanious trials WERE occuing.

Actually in todays ocean (and else where on the planet) some of the chemicals need for life are very rare, some are found almost exclusively in living things. In addition to being very rare some are very fragile and would be destroyed quite easily in nature.

Thus the need for Dr. Musgrave to invent a primitive planet that is teaming with all the, well here are his words. “In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates. This isn’t fact, this hypothesis was needed to make abiogenesis workable.



Novowels

Novowels: I never claimed that the exact theory put forth in the talk.origins FAQ happened as fact.

If you don’t think the exact theory happened as fact, why would you use it in the debate? It seems illogical to present information that you say supports your position, ridicule people as you post it (“When do I get to start making up statistics to prove my point? ...oh wait, I don't get to do that.â€), then make another post that leads us to believe you refute some part of your supporting information.

Novowels

I don't recall ever saying abiogenesis was highly improbable or not. Either way, it's a moot point. You're misunderstanding how probability works. It's ok, I thought this was a good argument 6-7 years ago too.

I don’t recall either you or me indicating you believed whether “Abiogenesis was highly improbable or notâ€. Probability is certainly not moot though, mathematicians say that a probability of greater that 1 in 10 to the 50th power is a statistical impossibility. That doesn’t sound moot to me! S.E.T.I. doesn’t believe probability is moot. They listen for random sounds to become orderly. Why? Orderly indicates intelligence. Everyday they probably receive enough random information to fill a library. Yet there isn’t enough orderly information to indicate anything of importance, let alone intelligence. In our everyday lives we can clearly observed that chaos does not result in order without inserting intelligence. The Second law of Thermodynamic is not real friendly towards the idea of abiogenesis either. Abiogenesis is allowed to be the one aspect of this planet/universe that violates these clear observations.

This is all well and good but statistical impossibilitys were not the point I was trying to get across. So I will summarize my point.

You must realize the whole purpose of Dr. Musgrave’s web site is to prove how truly simple the process of abiogenesis is. If according to Dr. Musgrave it is simple enough that, “billions of building block molecules [interacting] in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines†can spontaneously generate life, we should then be able to make the next logical assumption.

Scientists and chemists should be able to whip up batch after batch of this simple early life. But alas they haven't. Why? Because it is still too complex for the guided purposeful hand of man to CREATE. Should they stop trying? NO! After all if they do bring together a simple life form it will prove one thing, with the hand of an intelligent creator life can be brought into existence...

 

[Pirate Yoshi]

I can't stand it. I gotta post.

First off, I admire you, Snorsnor. You obviously know your Bible extremely well, and it makes me proud to see such dedication in people still.

Second of all, I'd like to point out that Christian has many different meanings. Each form of christianity has its own sort of quirks: (none of this is a slam!) Baptists seem to be heavy into evangulism (sp?), or converting and forming support groups and such. Catholics seem to often be a bit inconsistant, as we've seen in these forums (many stick with their religion, but it appears a lot leave Christianity). With my religion, we're up tight about a lot of things. Every form has some little quirks about it.

One thing I really want to get off my back is the myth about Christians hating war all the time and loving everybody and such.

"I chased and overtook my enemies. I turned not back till I destroyed them all. They cried to you, but there was none to save. You made me strong, you crushed them under me...." Psalm 18. God sent his people out and told them to destroy people! Not just the men, but he commanded them to kill off EVERYBODY in some places, and he directed them over and over thorugh battles. God killed off the first born of every Egyptian family during the Exodus (sp?). Even Jesus in the temple got real mad when he found the merchants selling crap there and he threw their stuff all over and kicked them all out. It just shows that Christianity does not mean you love everybody and you never show anger or violence.

 

[Bazooka Lucca]

I believe it's the mennonites who are against war (pacifists). (I have no rebuttal, just new information)

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Here is a little more information for you guys to ponder...

Proteins make up most of living matter, which are long chains of amino acids. It has been known since 1930 that amino acids cannot link up if there is oxygen present.

An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that "imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers."
-Philip Morrison, "Earth's Earliest Biosphere," Scientific America, Vol. 250, April 1984, pp.30-31.

I believe this [the overwhelming tendency for chemical reactions to move in the direction opposite to that required for the evolution of life] to be the most stubborn problem that confronts uw--the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of life].
-George Wald, "The Origin of Life," p. 50.

The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.
-D.E. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," Nature, Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p. 694.

 

[Cos.]

Originally posted by Pirate Yoshi
It just shows that Christianity does not mean you love everybody and you never show anger or violence.

??? That's quite strange, doesn't christianty preach, we should love are next? Aren't all our nexts.

I don't think that (even if it might sound harsh) it was meant that god stopped loving those who sinned against him, but as his decissions are (uncomprehendible for us humans) he choose that to save some of his flock and protect them he had to destroy their opressors.... Maybe.
(I hope this isn't off topic)

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

wow, I didn't even notice FB's last post.

So you're saying that oxygen prevents amino acids from linking up?
Here, let me try to show you how silly that assertion is:

1. Amino Acids link up to each other today.
2. There is oxygen in today's atmosphere.

Feeling stupid yet?

Your other quotes suffer from the same weakness against logic. If chemistry says that life should be decomposing itself and not synthesizing itself, why does life exist? If this was true, life would have destroyed itself. But it hasn't. Strange...


-B

 

[Gods little brat]

BANNED

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Proteins make up most of living matter, which are long chains of amino acids. It has been known since 1930 that amino acids cannot link up, to create proteins, if there is oxygen present.

Sorry about that. The power of forgetting a couple of words.:D

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna

Your other quotes suffer from the same weakness against logic. If chemistry says that life should be decomposing itself and not synthesizing itself, why does life exist? If this was true, life would have destroyed itself. But it hasn't. Strange...

Please tell me you realize what you said! That is the exact reason I believe in God. Unless there was an intellegent hand guiding the process then there would be no life.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

ummm...that doesn't change anything.

How is that supposed to change anything? Let me rephrase.

So you're saying that oxygen prevents amino acids from linking up to create proteins?
Here, let me try to show you how silly that assertion is:

1. Amino Acids link up to create proteins to each other today.
2. There is oxygen in today's atmosphere.

Your mind always amazes me in the way it fails to comprehend simple logic.

My point about chemistry is that what you said about life decomposing itself is WRONG. What you are doing is making up the idea that life should be decomposing, and then saying that God is preventing this made-up decomposition. While that's certainly possible...It's infinitely simple to jsut say your made-up decomposition doesn't exist. You are always confusing, FB...Where do you get this stuff?

-B

 

[Novowels]

(oopsie, wrong thread)

VIOLATED© by BBT: tsk tsk...Novo, if you're going to post in the wrong thread, turn off the sig! Bad Novo!

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna

1. Amino Acids link up to create proteins to each other today.
2. There is oxygen in today's atmosphere.

Very true.

The thing you fail to understand is that these amino acids link exclusively in the nucleous of living cells. They are isolated from the air so they can link up.

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna

My point about chemistry is that what you said about life decomposing itself is WRONG. What you are doing is making up the idea that life should be decomposing, and then saying that God is preventing this made-up decomposition. While that's certainly possible...It's infinitely simple to jsut say your made-up decomposition doesn't exist. You are always confusing, FB...Where do you get this stuff?

So, you are saying, as long as science agrees with your faith that life is an accident you will agree with them, but any evidence that goes against your belief must be falsified by those creationists? I thought you told me not to do that so why are you? That just shows how closed-minded you really are.

I am not making up the idea life of decomposing, it is a scientific fact. It is something we see daily (if you live around a lot of animals anyways). Everything must follow the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[trigun]

1. Amino Acids link up to create proteins to each other today.
2. There is oxygen in today's atmosphere.

What you have stated is very misleading, true amino acids link up to create proteins today, and today's atmosphere is oxygen, but this is all happening inside living things. FB was talking about amino acids not being able to link up in an oxygen atmosphere apart from life. Her point is valid. Water and amino acids are also a problem. Water strongly inhibits amino acids from forming proteins, and amino acids dissolve readily in water. This becomes a big problem for Dr. Musgraves and his abiogenesis theory. Sloshing amino acids around on thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates would destroy them very quickly. Amino acids and some of the other chemicals needed for life are very rare, some are found almost exclusively in living things. In addition to being very rare some are very fragile and would be destroyed quite easily in nature.

I’d like to add you’ve all done a fine job of ignoring my previous post.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Originally posted by Flaming Blaze
So, you are saying, as long as science agrees with your faith that life is an accident you will agree with them, but any evidence that goes against your belief must be falsified by those creationists? I thought you told me not to do that so why are you? That just shows how closed-minded you really are.

Ahem, if you would please give us some proof of this decomposition...

I am not making up the idea life of decomposing, it is a scientific fact. It is something we see daily (if you live around a lot of animals anyways). Everything must follow the second law of thermodynamics.

Uh-huh. So: in a closed system all energy goes between order and entropy until equilibrium is created between the ordered and disordered. Now, this doesn't say that life decomposes, and you seem to forget that we are not in a closed system. Sol is continually adding energy to this little system we call Earth all the time.

 

[Flaming Blaze]

We are still talking about amino acids, I was getting ahead of myself. I was thinking of something else.

As for the proof of decomposition of amino acids, here it is...


The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.
-D.E. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," Nature, Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p. 694.

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna

Where do you get this stuff?

Where do I get this stuff? From magazines like Nature and Scientific America.

(What did you expect me to say, the evil Christians network on the web? )

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

haha

Oh, so you trust Scientific American? It's a good source?
Well, I'm sure you'll love this article:

15 common creationist myths

As for the amino acids, let me ask you a common sense question.

If the reactions involved in bringing amino acids together are much more effective at taking them apart...why do amino acids come together instead of fall apart? Why has life not destroyed itself by these decomposition reactions? Because they don't exist?

As for your other stuff...What are you guys talking about? Water is this big obstacle for amino acids? You do know that water is essential for life and makes up some 80% of your body? Meaning it's right there in your cells while amino acids are linking up.

Heh what I should just say to all this stuff you bring up about things happening in the past:

"How do you knoww?!?!! Were you there!?!?!??", every Christians favorite non-argument.

-B

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Now, my question to you, can you post proof? Trigun and I have, can you find proof that shows the opposite is true? All you have posted is your opinion about what I have stated.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Yes, I can, and I have.

1.If the reactions involved in life were more effective at destroying life than creating it, life would destroy itself.

2. Life has not destroyed itself.

3. Therefore, the reactions involved in life are more effective for creating it than destroying it.

How hard is that to understand? Perhaps you need to clarify what those quotes meant instead of only extracting a single quote from a long scholarly journal report? I can't say I'm certain I know what you're trying to say with them.

-B

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Exactly what I thought, you couldn't find anything to prove your point. You are still posting your opinion. Where are your sources?

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna

…the reactions involved in life are more effective for creating it than destroying it.

That is creating life from life, not life from non-life. Life from lifeless matter is what we are talking about here. Remember, abiogenesis!


In the quote they were talking about amino acids, before they ever become life. It is very true that the things that are used to link amino acids up are more effective in destroying amino acids then bringing them together, outside of living things that is. The whole point trigun and I are trying to make is about the beginning before there was any life, there is too much evidence against the "theory" that amino acids linked up to start life. It is an uphill battle from the very get go!

Trigun put up a very intriguing question earlier and everyone is doing a good job of ignoring it. I'll summarize his point but you should go back and read it, here it is...

If it is SO easy for chemicals sloshing around on the shores of a primitive planet to create life, then why haven’t scientists been able to whip up batch after batch of primitive life?

 

[trigun]

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna

Water is this big obstacle for amino acids? You do know that water is essential for life and makes up some 80% of your body? Meaning it's right there in your cells while amino acids are linking up.

Again I was also talking about amino acids outside the body, before life began, which should have been obvious. There is no question that amino acids link up just fine within living organism. Amino acids linking up in a living organism is a totally different scenario than linking amino acids outside of life it’s self. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. The statement in my previous post (“Water strongly inhibits amino acids from forming proteins, and amino acids dissolve readily in waterâ€) came from Michael J. Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box†p. 169-170. I continue to hold to my conclusion: "this becomes a big problem for Dr. Musgraves and his abiogenesis theory!"

 

[Sirus011]

....

As if it hadn't already been explained to you before...

If it is SO easy for chemicals sloshing around on the shores of a primitive planet to create life, then why haven’t scientists been able to whip up batch after batch of primitive life?

Blaze, blaze, blaze...* Sigh * I wonder if you realize the absurdity of that question...probably not...


The reason we have not created life is because modern man has not been around for billions of years like our planet has. You seem to throw the immense spans of time required for these things to occur right out the window. It takes a great deal of time to recreate events the fact that we have only recently in our history begun on-going experiments regarding life origins in general shows just how baseless an argument like the quote I took from you post is. How long would it take you to build a car from base elements blaze?? Or perhaps your god would simply create one for you instantly despite the fact that matter has to come from a source and cannot be created, simply reused.

Furthermoe Bee- made a valid point agianst your post and you chose instead to avoid it yet agian. Instead of chastizing you about it I choose instead to allow B- to do so at his discretion.

While this might start to turn into a flame I think it needs to be said.

Your so eager to give your side some substance or appear to be winning the debate that you post drivel like this time and time agian. You creationists blaze inpaticular have a habit of ignoring the facts we present you and instead attempt to focus on (for lack of a better term or metaphor) a single sentence out of a paragraph.


Wake up and start debating like an adult instead of nitpicking every single word and phrase in a vain attempt to prove somthing you can't.

End-

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Sirus, trigun is the one how said that. I dare you to try and take him on. Good luck!

Also, why hasn't there been any argument with evidence from the other side? You go on and post this and fail to prove why we are wrong with scientific evidence. You should start taking your own advice.



The point is (which you seem to have missed) is that scientists have never been able to naturally create even something as simple as a protein. They have these enormouse multi million dollar machines that have been able to do it (by filtering out everything so only the desirable components are left, something that doesn't happen naturally), but have never been able to take the conditions of early earth together in a test tube or whatever, and just let it do its own thing. Never has there been a naturally created protein.

 

[Crono]

Let's not forget it's impossible to perfectly recreate the conditions on Earth 3 billion years ago when we only have a general idea of how things actually were. The element of time is always missing from these experiments as it is.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Atheism: The Struggle Against Superstition

The most deadly form of insanity is the Obsessional Neuroses commonly called "religion." This aggressive and contagious mental health disorder has caused more death and suffering than any other communicable disease. At the root of this disease is the delusion that impossible creatures and worlds exist-angels, gods, saints, hells, heavens, etc., and that these imaginary beings demand mind deadening obedience.In its advanced stages this insanity destroys all sense of right and wrong, and the most ghastly crimes become saintly acts. The terrorist attacks of September 11th and the "War on Terrorism" are the latest products of this insanity.

Science must launch an ongoing study of this deadly disease in all its forms, to find how it might be cured or controlled. This insanity cannot be suppressed by force as it thrives on persecution - both to suffer and to inflict - so it must be treated in other ways yet to be discovered.

 

[smashattack]

One thing... it is obvious that this is the basis of all your arguments, Gamer4Fire. So your arguments are not going to be too good if spite underlies them.

Just had to let you know. Please continue with the debate. If you think this would have been better as a PM, please delete it and let me know.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

The problem here

The problem is this thread is about evolution, yet the creationists are only talking about abiogenesis. If you guys want to debate that, make a new thread, please. Since this one has gotten incredibly off track. Make a succinct thread explaining the points you think you have brought up about abiogenesis that supposedly haven't been answered, and it will be easy to continue. Abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with evolution though, so quit switching the two around.

-B

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Actually, this was originally a religious debate. I believe the name of this thread is "The aetheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature." It is not really supposed to be about science at all.

If you really want though, I will start a new thread about abiogenesis.

Originally posted by Crono

Let's not forget it's impossible to perfectly recreate the conditions on Earth 3 billion years ago when we only have a general idea of how things actually were. The element of time is always missing from these experiments as it is.

Good point but there are a lot of factors that point to scientists belief about the early atmosphere of earth.

I will post some stuff tonight (I hope) my son is trying to play with the keyboard.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

oops

you're right, I goofed. I thought I was still in the recently revived "Evolution vs. Creation" thread. Either way, though, a separate thread would probably be a good thing.

-B

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Ok then BBT I will try and do it sometime maybe tomorrow.

But first let me give Crono the info I said I would.

"In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distrubutions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well-preserved sedimentary rocks." Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, "Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distibutions of Carbon Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron," Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 9, September 1976, p. 1161.

What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but there is much against it." [emphasis in original] Philip H. Ableson, "Chenicl Events on the Primitive Earth," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 55, June 1966, p. 1365.

An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that "imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers."
-Philip Morrison, "Earth's Earliest Biosphere," Scientific America, Vol. 250, April 1984, pp.30-31.

Scientists can tell what Earth's early atmosphere was like because they can look at the "oldest" rocks and see this.

 

[Sirus011]

Finished your project yet Blaze??

I was just curious as to whether you completed the challenge put fourth by Bee and Novo. It might be interesting to see what you've come up...

 

[Nall]

In my opinion (and other friends) you can't disprove religion. But one complaint I do have is that there are too many false religions. My religion is Christianity. And I understand that some other christians(so called anyway) abuse the religion by creating their own false sins/what's you shouldn't do and they end up 'spiritually' abusing their children or other people . I agree that religion can be a bad thing, but I also think there is a religion out there that is real. There are even people who say they've died (a temporary death) and expirienced both heaven and ****. I would write more but I'm in a hurry and must sign off

[FREE SIG REMOVAL SERVICE]