Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 447

Thread: Questions for creationists

  1. #211
    Jack_www
    King Jack_www's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jul 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,407
    Country
    This is Jack_www's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Now I am going to go over breifly the apparent conflict in the Gensis chapter 2. The information provided here may seem to contridict what was just said in the preivous chpater. The fact is that Gensis chapter 2 is merely providing more detailed information about the creation account that was omited form the first chapter. Genesis 2:5 start out form the thrid creative day and then ends at the sixth creative day. It is basicly a parrall account of the creation of the earth.

  2. #212
    Jack_www
    King Jack_www's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jul 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,407
    Country
    This is Jack_www's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    I would like to now focus on scientific evidence that life here on earth was created, and it not happen about by chance. According many evolutionists the early atmosphere of the earth consisted of methane, ammonia, water and carbon dioxide. Through varrious forms of energy form the sun, volcanoes, and lightning that the these chemicals were broken down and then form amino acids and they went into the sea were they formed a chemical soup of organic componds. Many evolutionist hold that after some period of time, be accendent that a molecule that could reproduce formed. After this happen for some time simular molecules grouped to gather and formed a protective membrane of protein molecules around themselves.
    (If you feel above information is wrong feel free to point out what I got wrong, I am willing to admit my mistakes.)

    The question is could a cell spontaneous generate form non living matter?

    The idea of spontaneous generation of life has been around a long time. In the middle ages people believed that flies and rats spontaneous generated from piles of garbed and rotting meat. Many of you are no doubt are aware of the experiment by Francesco Redi, an Italian physcian. He proved that magets only apeared on meat that flies could get to, but not on the meat that the flies could not get to. After this though many people still believed that micoscopic organisms spontaneous generated on meat and other things. Many of you are most likely aware of the experiments that Lewis Pasteur on weather or not microscopic forms of life could spontaneously generate. He was able to prove with his experiments that this was not the case. And to date no lab experiment has been able to spontanously generate singled cell life or other microscopic forms of life.
    So we now that life does not spontaneously generates, and that life can only come form preexisting life. But could this have been possible in the past, billions of years ago?

    Many who support evolution will point to the famous experiment that was proformed by Stanley Miller in 1953, and say that this shows that life was able to spontaneous generate in the past.
    Miller assumed that the primitive atmosphere had to be free of chemically uncombined oxygen, because if there was oxygen was present it would quickly decompose any amino acids that were formed. Miller got a sealed flask with hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and boiling water. He sent a electric sparks through the mixture of gasses inside the flask and in a weeks time got many amino acids, the bluiding blocks of life.

    First question that rises with this is, was the early atmosphere of the earth really like this?
    Two years afte Miller conducted his experiment he said "These ideas are of course specculation, for we don not know the Earth has a reducing atmosphere when it was formed . . . No direct evidence has yet been found."
    -Journal of the American Chemical Sciety, May 12, 1955.

    As of yet no conculsive proof has been found to prove that this was the case for the early atmosphere of the earth. But there is anther problem with this. Recent computer models of such an atmosphere inidcate that if such an atmosphere lacked oxygen that ultraviolet radiation, that is currently blocked by the ozone layer would quickly destroyed any amino acids that were formed. But as was stated that if oxygen was present that these amino acids would never have been able to be formed.

    Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
    I will post more evidence I have latter.

  3. #213
    -=Vagrant=-
    Settler -=Vagrant=-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2002
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    15:59
    http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/engli...000/217054.stm creationist explanations, any one?

    Jack_www, the way you put that early atmosphere theory does sound like circular reasoning. However, I have never read such a version of it. I have to find out more about it.
    "A witty saying proves nothing."
    - Voltaire (1694-1778)

  4. #214
    Jack_www
    King Jack_www's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jul 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,407
    Country
    This is Jack_www's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Vagrant I read parts of the article that you have a link to. I would like to point out, as of yet no one has been able to spontanously generate singled cell life or other microscopic forms of life. I am going to try and find the info, the article said it is in Nature, so I will try an look up there research. I cannot really says anymore about it because the info on the experiment is not very detailed. Thanks for the info though. Since this was published 4 years ago I wonder if they have progressed any futher in their rescearch.

  5. #215
    Zealot
    King Zealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2000
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,275
    Country
    This is Zealot's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    14:59
    Jack, I can't send you private messages! Check your control panel, please!
    "BANANA POWAAAAH!!! (exclamation Zopperoni style)" - Mercator, in the OT 'What fruit are you?' thread
    Join the Civ2 Democratic Game! We have a banana option in every poll just for you to vote for!
    Many thanks to Zealot for wasting his time on the jobs section at Gamasutra - MarkG in the article SMAC2 IN FULL 3D? http://apolyton.net/misc/
    Always thought settlers looked like Viking helmets. Took me a while to spot they were supposed to be wagons. - The pirate about Settlers in Civ 1

  6. #216
    Jack_www
    King Jack_www's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jul 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,407
    Country
    This is Jack_www's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Zealot, if you want to send me a pm, I have now enabled them, so you sould be able to send me a pm.

  7. #217
    Jack_www
    King Jack_www's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jul 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,407
    Country
    This is Jack_www's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Vagrant I went to the website for Nature and could not find the issue that contained the info about the self reproducing mocules. Do you know what issue of Nature it might be in??

  8. #218
    Urban Ranger
    Deity Urban Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 May 1999
    Location
    The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
    Posts
    14,613
    Country
    This is Urban Ranger's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    21:59
    Originally posted by Jack_www
    According many evolutionists the early atmosphere of the earth consisted of methane, ammonia, water and carbon dioxide.
    That would be geologists. They might happen to be evolutionists, but what they hold in terms of this area is not significant.

    The best evidence for this is look at the gas coming out from volcanic vents. That should resemble what primodial atmosphere was like.

    Originally posted by Jack_www
    The question is could a cell spontaneous generate form non living matter?
    How is that required given the current hypothesis in abiogenesis, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. If you want to look at the facts, fine, make sure you have the most basic rights one before you proceed.

    Originally posted by Jack_www
    So we now that life does not spontaneously generates, and that life can only come form preexisting life. But could this have been possible in the past, billions of years ago?
    What does that have to do with evolution?

    Originally posted by Jack_www
    Many who support evolution will point to the famous experiment that was proformed by Stanley Miller in 1953, and say that this shows that life was able to spontaneous generate in the past.
    Spontaneous generation is not the same as abiogenesis. If you look at what the discarded hypothesis of spontaneous generation, you'll find it different from abiogenesis.

    Originally posted by Jack_www
    Miller assumed that the primitive atmosphere had to be free of chemically uncombined oxygen, because if there was oxygen was present it would quickly decompose any amino acids that were formed.
    I strongly doubt that that Miller made that assumption. How is the presence of oxygen will quickly decompose amino acids? Can you suggest a mechanism of how that occurs, and how does that reconcile with the fact that there is life on earth? Afterall, all life on earth are based on protein, which are just amino acids concatenated together.

    Originally posted by Jack_www
    First question that rises with this is, was the early atmosphere of the earth really like this?
    See my reply above. Another good reason is Venus. Venus has an atmosphere that has similar compostion to the earth's early atmosphere.

    Originally posted by Jack_www
    Two years afte Miller conducted his experiment he said "These ideas are of course specculation, for we don not know the Earth has a reducing atmosphere when it was formed . . . No direct evidence has yet been found."
    -Journal of the American Chemical Sciety, May 12, 1955.
    IIRC, lots of evidence has been found since 1955. You are using a quote from 1955? What is the assumption here? That science has not progressed for, what, 45 years?

    See, for example, this

    Originally posted by Jack_www
    But there is anther problem with this. Recent computer models of such an atmosphere inidcate that if such an atmosphere lacked oxygen that ultraviolet radiation, that is currently blocked by the ozone layer would quickly destroyed any amino acids that were formed. But as was stated that if oxygen was present that these amino acids would never have been able to be formed.
    Source?

    The problems with computer models is of course with their assumptions. Computer models don't lie, humans do.

    Water also absorbs UV ray. That's why there's no life on land until the ozone layer was sufficiently thick.
    (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
    (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
    (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

  9. #219
    -=Vagrant=-
    Settler -=Vagrant=-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2002
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    15:59
    Is/are there any scientific evidence to support creationists' claims about the Creation, the Biblical Flood, Noah's Arc, fast ice age, young Earth and all the rest? Haven't found any. Still looking. Bye...
    "A witty saying proves nothing."
    - Voltaire (1694-1778)

  10. #220
    Ethelred
    King Ethelred's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Mar 2002
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    1,083
    Country
    This is Ethelred's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Originally posted by Jack_www

    I with Jehovah time does really matter to Him, He has all the time he could possibly want. Maybe he could create the earth in 7 days, but the Bible does not tells us that, refer to my post above.
    It says six days and its pretty clear. However at least you can see that six days is not at all right and are trying to deal with reality.

    Jehovah may not treat time as we do however the book was not written for Jehovah. If the authors didn't mean days then the authors aren't people that can be depended on for accurate reporting. So the rest must also be treated similarly. That is, it can not be trusted and there is no reason to call it the word of god.

  11. #221
    Ethelred
    King Ethelred's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Mar 2002
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    1,083
    Country
    This is Ethelred's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Originally posted by Jack_www
    I will now go over the Gensis Creation account.

    First Day- Gensis 1:1-5
    Here the Bible states that the earth was already in existence for quite some time and was orbitting the Sun already.
    Nice adding. It doesn't say that. It says the earth was without form and void. Things that don't exist are without form. A vacuum is a void. It does mention waters though. I guess that is where you are getting that.

    It says that the earth was covered with water and that light apeared on the suface of the earth and a division between light and darkness had appeared.
    It doesn't say the earth was covered with water. It doesn't say the light apeared on the surface of the earth. Just that there was light and it was divided form darkness.

    A translation of the Bible by J.W. Watts says this, "God Proceed to say, 'Let there be light.'; and gradually light came inot existence." (Gensis 1:3).
    Which is a peculiar translation not based on anything in the Hebrew. Its an invention of his own. It could be the author meant it that way but it isn't in the words.

    The hebrew verb which is translated here as "gradually ... come" is a verb that denotes progressive action that takes a long time to complete.
    Which would be nice but the verb isn't there. 'Let there be' is the usual translation for the actual Hebrew word which is 'hayah' which is not gradually.

    01961 hayah {haw-yaw}

    a primitive root [compare 01933]; TWOT - 491; v

    AV - was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become,
    pertained, better for thee; 75


    Now there is nothing in the word hayah that shows that it must have been instantly but neither is there anything inherently gradual either. So I would say that was a translation of convenience rather than anything inherent in the words.

    Thus the Sun was in existence, but the sunlight could not reach the reach, most likely because there were gases such as water vapor and volcanic ash in the atmosphere and that this gradually started to clear and let light reach the surface of the earth.
    Only it says nothing about the Sun existing. Light but no sun. To claim the Sun was there is to deny the Bible for:

    Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

    That makes it clear the Sun was not created till the FOURTH day. Strange? Yes. Inherently wrong? Yes. Nevertheless that is what the Bible has. Light without sun mornings and evenings also without a sun and even plant life on the third day without the Sun.

    So you are doing a massive rewrite of the Bible. Not examining what it says but ignoring it and writing a new testament.


    Second Day- Gensis 1:6-8

    God now formed a layer of water vapor that was in the upper atmosphere of the earth and cover the whole earth. This layer of water vapor was created form the earth's occeans. The space in between these layers was called the heavens, a term which many people use today to discribe the part of the atmosphere were plans and birds fly.
    Boy thats a lot from little. Looks like a lead to the disproven vapor canopy nonsense. Still there is nothing there that contradicts the Bible unlike your handling of the first day.

    Third Day - Gensis 1:9-13

    During this period of time God started to form major land masses. He most likely used the geological forces that are still move the plates of the earth crust. Also plant life was created at this time and appears to have continued into the Sixth creative day.
    Yes plant life is created then. Still without a Sun but there is light apparently without a source yet. The problems though are not limited to there being no sun. It says GRASS and the Hebrew supports it.

    Grass is not a early plant. It didn't exist till the after the dinosaurs went extinct. Life in the water preceeded grass by hundreds of millions of years. Here we have a claim for grass before animals of any kind. So like light without a sun previously the timing is wrong.

  12. #222
    Ethelred
    King Ethelred's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Mar 2002
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    1,083
    Country
    This is Ethelred's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Originally posted by Jack_www
    Fourth Day- Gensis 1:14-19

    Here the process that was started in the first creative day came to an end, and the earth's atmosphere was clear enough to be able to now see the Sun, moon, and stars form the surface of the earth.
    REWRITE. It says they were MADE then not became visible.

    Its made in the Hebrew as well.

    If you have to rewrite so much perhaps you should just give up on it.


    Fifth Day- Gensis 1:20-23

    During this time period sea animals and animals that fly in the air were created.
    Which for once what the Bible actually says without rewriting. However its not accurate.

    Animals that fly came AFTER land animals. This has at least some kind of flying animal before any life on land at all.

    Real oder

    life in the sea
    life in the sea diferentiate between plant and animal
    hundred million years or so pass
    fish show up
    plant life colonizes land
    first animal life colonizes land- millipedes are the earliest known
    much later flying insects show up for the first flying animals.

    The Bible is talking about fowl though and so that comes even later. Birds don't show up for over a hundred million years.

    Sixth Day- Gensis 1:24-31
    Now land animals were created, and so was the first human pair. The garden of Eden was made at this time and the first humans were put into the garden.
    The only problem there is the fifth day allready had the birds. They should be on the sixth.

    Seventh Day- Gensis 2:1-3
    This is the day that God stop creating, and thus rested in the sense that he was not creating anymore. It is also interesting to note that no were in the Bible does it say that this day has yet ended. In fact the bible stated 4000 years after this Seventh Day began that is was still going on. (Hebrews 4:4-6). Thus anther reason why the creative days do not represent a 24 hour period of time.
    Actually this is the only day without a morning and evening. This one day is the only one that you can really say was not a 24 hour day without stretching the Bible a considerable amount.

    orginally I had the preivisous three post as one, but since it took me a long time, when I selected post that it promted me to log in again, and then it said something like no thread was specfied and I lost all the stuff I typed. Thus when I retyped my post I broke it up so this would not happen again to me.
    It may have just disapeared when you tried to post it. Just below the entry box there is a link that says

    check message length

    If you click on it you will see the character count for the post and the maximum number of characters permitted. 20,000 which is a fair amount. I haven't come near that yet and I tend get VERY wordy. I had to exercise care on some other forums I have been on.

    Another thing I recommend is to do this for longer posts:

    For PC users anyway;

    Click anywhere in the text entry box
    Hit Control-A
    Hit Contol-C

    That copies what you wrote to your clip board. I often open notepad at that point and paste it in there. I dislike losing an hour of typing because the internet is busy.

    I put a hotkey in my Notepad shortcut so I can open it easily.

    I use Control-Alt-N.

    By using these techiques I have experienced a considerable decrease in frustration levels.

  13. #223
    Ethelred
    King Ethelred's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Mar 2002
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    1,083
    Country
    This is Ethelred's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Originally posted by Jack_www


    I dont believe many of things that Creationists says, much of it does not make any sense. Up to the 8th grade I went to private school, and of course the only private schools are religous ones, at least were I live. Accept in 5th grade I went to one that was not a religous school, but that school only went up to the 5th grade.
    I spent six years in Catholic school.

    I am going to bring up scienctific evidence that proves that God created the Universe.
    This I gotta see. I have seen the attempt before though. Never the acuality. It would be major news if such evidence existed. Usually what ensues after someone says they will do that is a bunch of stuff that boils down to:

    'I don't understand everything therefor god did it.'

    Which is rubbish.

    I just wanted to first clearfy what the creation account in Gensis really says. For I am a Christian and regard the whole Bible as the word of God.

    So how come you did a major rewrite instead of discussing what the Bible actually says?

    I would also like to think that I would like to keep an open mind, and rexam my own beliefs to make sure that they are really true, or just a bunch of falsehoods. I do not blindly believe in Creation, I have made proved this to my self by studying the Bible and scientific evidence.
    Well thats admirable. So far I think that real debate is possible with you. That can get interesting when a believer really is open minded.

    No one has been merely wittnessing. Not even Zelot who has decided to ignore me in his infinite tolerance.

  14. #224
    Ethelred
    King Ethelred's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Mar 2002
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    1,083
    Country
    This is Ethelred's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Originally posted by Jack_www
    Now I am going to go over breifly the apparent conflict in the Gensis chapter 2. The information provided here may seem to contridict what was just said in the preivous chpater. The fact is that Gensis chapter 2 is merely providing more detailed information about the creation account that was omited form the first chapter. Genesis 2:5 start out form the thrid creative day and then ends at the sixth creative day. It is basicly a parrall account of the creation of the earth.
    Unfortunatly it does not merely add more detail. It has timing conflict. It has the animals created AFTER Adam.

    The main thing of interest to me about the second acount is the name change for god in the Hebrew. In the first account it is always 'elohiym and in the second acount it is always Jehovah.

    There is some strong indications that there were TWO versions of Jewish scriptures. They were mixed together later, perhaps during the Babalonian capitivity. The one set almost always used 'elohiym and the other set mostly used Jehovah. The creation story is not the only parallel but different version of a story in the Old Testament.

  15. #225
    Ethelred
    King Ethelred's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Mar 2002
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    1,083
    Country
    This is Ethelred's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Originally posted by Jack_www
    I would like to now focus on scientific evidence that life here on earth was created, and it not happen about by chance. According many evolutionists the early atmosphere of the earth consisted of methane, ammonia, water and carbon dioxide.
    According to geochemists and astronomers. Evolutionist is a creationist term only. Used to avoid real scientific terms.

    Through varrious forms of energy form the sun, volcanoes, and lightning that the these chemicals were broken down and then form amino acids and they went into the sea were they formed a chemical soup of organic componds.
    Also organic molecules have been found in space and in the tails of comets and on meteors. So it is likely that organic chemicals actually fell to earth in some quantity.

    Many evolutionist hold that after some period of time, be accendent that a molecule that could reproduce formed. After this happen for some time simular molecules grouped to gather and formed a protective membrane of protein molecules around themselves.
    Membranes can form spontaneasly from fatty acids. This can be seen by going to any beach on earth. The foam you see is from fatty acids on the surface of the bubbles. It is suspected this sort of thing may have been the source of the first cell walls. Not quite pure speculation but not hard science either.

    The question is could a cell spontaneous generate form non living matter?
    Bogus question. Invented by creationists to add uneeded complexity. The question is can a self-reproducing molecule arise. They have been made in the laboratory. Whether that can happen in the real world is now the real question.

    The idea of spontaneous generation of life has been around a long time. In the middle ages people believed that flies and rats spontaneous generated from piles of garbed and rotting meat.
    A standard Creationist ploy is to mention spontaneous generation even though they know it has no relation to the beginning of life. Creationist hold on to disproven things and rarely let go of them. On the internet even the things the ICR has given up on still show up.

    Big snip of more irrelevant stuff about spontaneous generation.

    Many who support evolution will point to the famous experiment that was proformed by Stanley Miller in 1953, and say that this shows that life was able to spontaneous generate in the past.
    Not that I ever saw. I only see creationists make that claim. Scientists see the experiment as a early step in learning how the Earths early chemistry might have functioned to eventually bring about the first self-replicating molecules.

    Miller assumed that the primitive atmosphere had to be free of chemically uncombined oxygen, because if there was oxygen was present it would quickly decompose any amino acids that were formed.
    Miller looked at other planets to see what the atmosphere might have been. He had no need to assume that oxygen wasn't in them. The evidence that the early Earth had no free O2 is quite substantial. All signs point to life as the source of free oxygen.


    Miller got a sealed flask with hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and boiling water. He sent a electric sparks through the mixture of gasses inside the flask and in a weeks time got many amino acids, the bluiding blocks of life.
    He got a little amino acid. Not much. However we now know that amino acids even exist in space. He left out some important precursers as well. Cyanide for instance. Deadly to us oxygen breathers but it is important to organic chemistry.

    First question that rises with this is, was the early atmosphere of the earth really like this?
    Two years afte Miller conducted his experiment he said "These ideas are of course specculation, for we don not know the Earth has a reducing atmosphere when it was formed . . . No direct evidence has yet been found."
    -Journal of the American Chemical Sciety, May 12, 1955.
    We can be pretty sure it was a reducing atmosphere. Miller said that nearly half a century ago. Last I saw he is still alive and even working.

    As of yet no conculsive proof has been found to prove that this was the case for the early atmosphere of the earth.
    Creatinists never consider anything conclusive no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Well some of them have given up on the claim of their being human and dinosour tracks in the same layer on a Souther river bank. Of course it wasn't till the person the claimed to have found it confessed to modifying the tracks that they gave up on that. Long after. ICR had its nose rubbed in it many times over many years before they stopped repeating the falsehood.

    But there is anther problem with this. Recent computer models of such an atmosphere inidcate that if such an atmosphere lacked oxygen that ultraviolet radiation, that is currently blocked by the ozone layer would quickly destroyed any amino acids that were formed. But as was stated that if oxygen was present that these amino acids would never have been able to be formed.
    Well we allready know the oxygen would not have been present. We also know that UV is quickly absorbed by water and has no relevance to the question at all because of that.

    Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
    I will post more evidence I have latter.
    Since there was nothing circular there you must be quoting one of the new creationist ploys. Take what the critics say and then, without understanding them, aim the phrases back at them.

    Lately the Creationists have been calling linear thinking circular and open minds closed. I guess they just got tired of hearing those phrases aimed at them. Well they earned them.

    The Bible is true because the Bible says so. Thats circular.

    Evolution can't be true because the nice man in the pulpit says it can't be true. Thats a closed mind.

  16. #226
    Jack_www
    King Jack_www's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jul 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,407
    Country
    This is Jack_www's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Etherland I have just read all your posts. I have not had the time yet to give a proper response to them yet. One of thing biggist reasons why I do not believe that the theory of evolution is true is that I have I really hard time believing life can arise form non living matter on its on by accendent. How can this have occured?? As far as I know this is not happening on the earth right now and, no one has ever seen it occur naturally.

    For the theory of evolution to be true, the spontanous generation of life must also be true.

    Anther thing is that I want to first focus on weather or not life was created or not before I start debating on weather or not what is written in the Bible is true or not. Do you guys think we should start a new thread on this, since this one is getting pretty big??
    Last edited by Jack_www; April 7, 2002 at 00:14.

  17. #227
    Ethelred
    King Ethelred's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Mar 2002
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    1,083
    Country
    This is Ethelred's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    One of thing biggist reasons why I do not believe that the theory of evolution is true is that I have I really hard time believing life can arise form non living matter on its on by accendent.
    Thats more like a justification for going with creation. No one knows how likely or unlikely biogenesis is. The people that say its likely because of how quickly life started on earth are speculating but they do have a point. A point based on the assumption that there wasn't something that started life in a non-spontaneous manner. I use that circumlocution because a creator is not required for life to start in a less than spontaneous manner.

    Life could be spread from planet to planet for instance by natural means. Or there could be a inteligence that is doing it deliberatly. The inteligence could have arisen from another planet where life did spontaneously arise but happened long after the planet settleled down. With billions of years of reactions life would have thousands of times more chance of arising spontaneously.

    However it happened life started on Earth shortly after it became possible. The earliest signs are some rocks from 3.86 billion years ago and that is believed to be very shortly after the surface cooled enough for liquid water.



    For the theory of evolution to be true, the spontanous generation of life must also be true.
    Let me take this first because its easier.

    That just isn't true. Evolution is the process of LIFE adapting to its environment. There is no evolution till some sort of self-replication begins. Not self-replication like a crystal either for there must be room for change.

    You are equating evolution with the beginning of life. It doesn't work till AFTER that. Even if a god started life on Earth evolution would still exist. Its inherent in how life works on Earth. There simply is no way for self-replication to occur without evolution as long as there are copying errors. Only a cloning lifeform could have the property of reproduction without change and it would not be able to adapt to change. No sexual life could possibly exist without evolving over time.

    Errors happen. Genetic material is exchanged and rearanged by sexual reproduction even without errors of copying. Bad changes will be selected out. Good changes will increase in the population. There is no way around this. That is all that evolution is. The gradual accumulation of change over time while adapting to the environment.

    If the gene pool is small change can occur more rapidly and if the environment changes then changes in the gene pool will be driven towards adaptation to the new environment. This is as inevitable as a the movement of the Moon to a higher orbit due to tides. You can't see it except over time yet it has to occur. The only real questions about evolution is the details.

    When did man seperate from the other apes? Is punctated equilibrium more important than gradualism? Can speciation occur without isolation into different environments? How did sexual reproduction arise and what is its adavantage over asexual reproduction? Why don't human women go into heat like most other mammals?

    Yet ALL of these signifacant questions about evolution implicitly accept the FACT of evolution. We can see it. We can see change in the past. We can even see change in the present. We can see mutations and the forces of selection on them. There is no doubt that evolution occurs in the minds of any remotely competent biological scientist.



    How can this have occured?? As far as I know this is not happening on the earth right now and, no one has ever seen it occur naturally.
    No can see it occur naturally on this planet. Life is allready here and it is entrenched. There is little free floating organic material for some primitive self-reproducing molecule to use as raw material. It only has to happen once for evolution to get started on adaptation and radiation. Soon all that free raw material would be tied up. It wouldn't take long when we are talking about exponential growth rates. How it could have occured though is an all together different question than why we don't see it happening.

    How? We don't know is the short answer. We may never know. Small molecules that are good to eat don't last long in the environment. It is unlikely that we will ever find signs of what life was like before cells arose. It may even be that life started in a lipid envelope that formed naturly. There just is no way to know.

    Experiments can done on possible means. People have done experiments on lipid envolopes recently. Self reproducing molecules have been made but its unlikely they have any resemblance to the first to arise naturely. The early environment can be guessed at. An educated guess but still a guess. We don't know enough yet to be sure what the early Earth was like exactly.

    Its possible that the odds of a self replicating molecule occuring is very low. If so we won't create one in the lab just by putting the right ingredients under the right conditions. Yet it could still have happened in the real world.

    A lab test would be a limited experiment with thousands of reactions in a vial or a hundred vials, maybe even thousands over days or even years. However in the early Earth it could be gigatons of material reacting in terratons of water over the entire earth. Not just for hours or day or even years but for milenia.

    If the odds were a million to one for a specific reaction to occur it would happen almost instantly with the whole earth as a reaction chamber. If the odds were trillions to one for it occur in a given one cubic inch volume per second it would take longer to occur but enventually it would occur. Its a big planet. There is a lot water. A million years takes 31,536,000,000,000 seconds. Thats 31 trillion seconds. 31 times the length of time for a 50% chance for one cubic inch.

    Of course the odds could be a thousand times that and life would still arise easily in a million years with all the earth to work instead of a single cubic each. So nowadays creationist like to invent numbers out of thin air with lots of zeros. They spend no effort at all on justifying the basic assumptions they make. The whole idea is to tack on more zeros. Only thing is the molecules the biologists have made in the labs are a very tiny fraction of the size the creationists are claiming are needed.

    They usualy like to use hemoglobin as an example protein. The say it can't work if it isn't perfect. Which is either preposterous ignorance or a plain lie. We humans use seven different types of hemoglobin. Six of them before birth. Not counting at least two known mutations that work poorly but do work. And thats just human hemoglobin and hemoglobin is a complex molecule that has evolved over hundreds of millions of years for high efficiency. Its not what anyone would expect for a first self reproducing molecule.

  18. #228
    Jack_www
    King Jack_www's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jul 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,407
    Country
    This is Jack_www's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Tell me if this is right or not. Does not theory of evolution hold that life came about on its own with out the help of an intelligent force? I understand to be the basic foundation for the theory of evolution.

    Lets just say amino acids were able to be formed and survived and made it into the ocean of the earth. Could protiens have formed, which of course basic componds of life here on earth.
    First problem I see with this is that water breaks down things, dissloves them. Also how could the amino acids once in the water get the needed energy for further chemical reactions which are needed if any protiens are to be formed.

    Also anther thing to considered is that there are 100 different amino acids, but only 20 are used by living things. Also of these 20 all of them are "left handed." In the experiment Miller conducted he got an even distrubution of amino acids between right and left handed amino acids. Also the odds of the most simplists of protiens to form on its own is 10 to the 113 power.
    Also this is more than the total estimated atoms in the Universe.
    If we look at a cell, it need around 2000 types of protiens to function. The chances of this cell getting by chance is one in 10 to the 40000 power. Pretty high odds if you ask me.(Evolution Form Space, p 24 ).
    Lets just say that the most simple protein to form 2 billion years.
    Lets say that every second that there is a chance for this protein to form, the possible times it has to form would be about 6.3 to the 16 power. This still would a large odds for even most simplist of proteins to form.
    I dont see with these large odds how this can be.

    Also I will conceed the point that scientist could get self reproducing moculces to form. But this was done in a lab with controlled envirment. Could these mocules formed on the earth billions of years ago under the conditions that most scientist believed to have existed then? Also scientist were there to set up the right conditions for these mocules to form, thus these mocules had some short of outside influence acting on then so to speak.

    Also anther thing that you might want to consider. The most advanced supercomputer needs someone to design it and build its parts and put it togather. Humans have not even come close to making a truely thinking machine. The human brain is far more advanced then any suprecomputer and can store billions of volumes of informaion in it. It is a truely amazing thing. Yet this somehow came about be a series of accendents?
    Last edited by Jack_www; April 7, 2002 at 04:24.

  19. #229
    Jack_www
    King Jack_www's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jul 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,407
    Country
    This is Jack_www's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    One question I would like to ask, what is one of the biggest reasons why you dont believe that someone created life?

  20. #230
    Jack_www
    King Jack_www's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jul 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,407
    Country
    This is Jack_www's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Anther thing to consider, the physical laws of the Universe. With these laws we can predict were planets and stars will be at any given time. The law of gravity and many of Newtons laws we know how to put stalites in orbit around the earth, and calucate many other things. These laws take a long time to study in school and we do not know all the physical laws that govern the Universe. How could these physical laws come about on acciendent?

  21. #231
    -=Vagrant=-
    Settler -=Vagrant=-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2002
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    15:59
    Originally posted by Jack_www
    Tell me if this is right or not. Does not theory of evolution hold that life came about on its own with out the help of an intelligent force? I understand to be the basic foundation for the theory of evolution.
    The birth of life on this planet has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

    The chances of this cell getting by chance is one in 10 to the 40000 power. Pretty high odds if you ask me.(Evolution Form Space, p 24 ).
    Have you considered that odds are a minor part, because molecules and proteins work under the chemical laws. It has very little to do whit chances and odds. Besides, even if the odds were really bad for cell getting by chance, it would _still_ be possible.
    One question I would like to ask, what is one of the biggest reasons why you dont believe that someone created life?
    The reason why I don't _believe that is that there is NO evidence to support that claim. If some evidence is found I'll change my "religion". Then again, I wouldn't have to believe in it, I would _know_ it. Just like I konow today that evolution is true, and that I have no Idea how life started on this planet. I'm a man enough to admit it. I dont' know! But I sure won't start believing in something that hasn't been proved.
    Last edited by -=Vagrant=-; April 7, 2002 at 05:41.
    "A witty saying proves nothing."
    - Voltaire (1694-1778)

  22. #232
    Jack_www
    King Jack_www's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jul 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,407
    Country
    This is Jack_www's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-

    The birth of life on this planet has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
    I know that the threoy of evolution deals mostly with changes occuring in the DNA, that the through survival of fittest that certain changes are selected and eveunatlly produce new species.
    But many who believe in this theory also hold that life came form on living matter on its own. I would think that this would at least have something to do with evolution.

    Have you considered that odds are a minor part, because molecules and proteins work under the chemical laws. It has very little to do whit chances and odds. Besides, even if the odds were really bad for cell getting by chance, it would _still_ be possible.
    This would be true if that were the only possible way for life to come about, but that is not the only explaination. When I look at it is more likely for someone to have created life then for it to have come about on its own.
    Please explain to me how chemical laws aftect this?

  23. #233
    -=Vagrant=-
    Settler -=Vagrant=-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2002
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    15:59
    Originally posted by Jack_www
    But many who believe in this theory also hold that life came form on living matter on its own.
    That is an another field of science. Many people actually believe many things at the same time.

    This would be true if that were the only possible way for life to come about, but that is not the only explaination. When I look at it is more likely for someone to have created life then for it to have come about on its own.
    Please explain to me how chemical laws aftect this?
    Something creating life is a good alternative for abiogenesis, but it explains everything in such a simple way that i beg to differ.
    Chemical laws control what molecules and chemical compounds can and can't do. Odds are almost nonexistent in this.
    "A witty saying proves nothing."
    - Voltaire (1694-1778)

  24. #234
    Logical Realist
    Settler
    Join Date
    21 Jan 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    0
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    05:59
    Lung:

    I say "live and let live", and if they insist of closing their minds to anything beyond the scope of the bible, so be it.
    Why do you then get involved in this debate?


    Of course, their feeble attempts to convert those who base their beliefs on knowledge are destined to fail, so we have nothing to fear.
    Destined to fail, eh? Teachers at some of the local high schools in this area are afraid to mention evolutionary theory and so will skip over the subject. In light of this I'd say your optimism was unwarranted.

    I think the big difference is creationists place their faith in religious institutions in the absence of knowledge, while evolutionists place their faith in knowledge and the promise of science to uncover truths not yet revealed.
    Evolutionists don't have to place faith in either evolution or science to find answers. There is overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory and science has found answers which are based on solid evidence. The conflict is thus not so much, faith in creation vs "faith" in science but one of evidence vs a religious superstition that pretends to be scientific.

    I must say that putting faith in creation is much more promising with the promise of an after-life, but the bombardment of evidence to the contrary makes that faith seem more and more delusional.
    I'd hardly call the prospect of hellfire promising. Also by "promsing" if you really mean comforting you might be right for some....but what I'm talking about here is truth-value and in respect to that the belief has very little promise whatsoever.

    In light of this, it's no wonder many people prefer to not know the complete truth. After all, the shattering of such illusions would be quite devastating to the unprepared!

    Well then its a good things I'm part of the elite "prepared" who can handle the truths those too "unprepared" are incapable of grasping.

    But back to reality: Do you really think that the abaondoment of creationism will really lead to some sort of psychological breakdown? Or a plague of depression?

    I for one really doubt it. I doubt people really take that much comfort from the creationist position, and I doubt that the truth of evolution would really disturb anyone enough to warrant that we allow a superstition to run rampant. especially when it wishes to parade itself as legitamite science.

    Do you ever stop to ask yourself whether or not the truth of our origins is worth preserving, no matter how "uncomfortable" it might make a very small minority?

  25. #235
    Adalbertus
    Prince Adalbertus's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Feb 2001
    Location
    Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    655
    Country
    This is Adalbertus's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    14:59
    Originally posted by Logical Realist:
    It is thus by logic that one defeats such skepticism, not by arbitrary dictums.
    You cannot prove absolute skepticism wrong, first, because it denies you the use of logic (in the case of Descartes), but also the use of a set of axioms. You can only show that it doesn't lead to anything, and so virtually any other system is superior (and if only because it can be proven wrong).

    Originally posted by Logical Realist:
    Descartes main problem lies in his denial of logical principles then his claim that he can know this with certainty "I think therefore I am". If you really examine his statement though it doesn't hold water. His whole argument of " I think therefore I am" is that, "if I wasn't and I thought", it would be contradictory, for a non-existent thing cannot think, Descartes imagined that an "evil God" capable of decieving his senses and logic, still couldn't decieve Descartes about his own existence, for to decieve someone, that person must exist.So even if there was an evil God, Descartes could know of one things with certainty: that he exists.
    Here we are at a typical problem of philosophy: The lack of definitions. "To think" can be treated as something quite obvious (at the moment, I hope). But what is "to exist"? If you define "existing" as "having some property" (which is probably difficult in itself), then the "I think therefore I am" is simply the application of a definition (I have the property to think. If you doubt I am thinking: I have the property to believe to think). This is at least not what is classically thought of as application of a logic argument. It uses the mechanisms of logic, however.

    About "deceived by an evil God": We don't need it as soon as we accept the evolutionary theory. We perceive having a logic. This is formed in an evolutionary process (even if mostly traded by education, this doesn't change the argument). There is no reason to be sure that logic is an universal truth, or even that it exactly matches a property of nature. We only know it works quite well as a system in itself (Mathematics being the biggest test), and that it works quite well when dealing with nature (tested by natural sciences). There is no guarantee of an universal truth.

    Apart of that we are tied to logic. We cannot build a different system (when you change logic tables, it's changing of definitions, not of logic itself), the best thing we could do is to refuse using it. If we refuse using logic, we don't arrive at anything, even not at disproving Descartes' sentence. If we accept logic, "I think therefore I am" is true (trying to use most natural definitions of "thinking" and "existence"). This works also if our logic is distorted (in the sense that it doesn't reflect any truth exceeding the personal frame).
    Why doing it the easy way if it is possible to do it complicated?

  26. #236
    Ethelred
    King Ethelred's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Mar 2002
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    1,083
    Country
    This is Ethelred's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Bloody Shockwave installer shut down my browser without asking. Lost several paragraphs. Macromedia needs to learn manners.

    Tell me if this is right or not. Does not theory of evolution hold that life came about on its own with out the help of an intelligent force? I understand to be the basic foundation for the theory of evolution.
    Well it isn't. I did answer that in my previous post.

    Evolution is about LIFE. That is evolution by natural selection. No life no evolution. Pretty simple really. What you have there is a typical creationist ploy to change definitions and then attack what they created as if was the original.

    Now creationists don't like the idea of biogenesis either but they really have no reason to combine the two seperate ideas except to obfuscate things.


    Thats shorter than before. I hate losing stuff I wrote like that.


    Lets just say amino acids were able to be formed and survived and made it into the ocean of the earth. Could protiens have formed, which of course basic componds of life here on earth.
    Two amino acids come into proximity in the primeval ocean. They exchange electrons release energy and bond. Instant protein.

    Proteins are not necessarrily the basic compound of life anyway. RNA is a better candidate for the earliest self-reproducing compounds. It can store information and do real chemistry unlike DNA or proteins which are only good at one of those things each.

    RNA = Jack of all trades.

    First problem I see with this is that water breaks down things, dissloves them.
    Would you be alive if that was true? You wouldn't. There would be a pool of water and disasociated chemical elements where you are now if that was to suddenly become a law of the universe.

    Also how could the amino acids once in the water get the needed energy for further chemical reactions which are needed if any protiens are to be formed.
    Well they could get energy simply by engaging in exothermic reactions with each other. Or they could get it from electical sources like Miller was doing with his simulated lightning.

    It not exactly hard to get. Other chemicals could provide energy like hydrogen sulphide which is produced in geo-thermal vents.

    Also anther thing to considered is that there are 100 different amino acids, but only 20 are used by living things.
    I don't know about the 100 but its more like 24 that are used. WE only use 20. Some obscure lifeforms use the other four. Makes thing simpler anyway. To many different types in use would make things less robust due to chemical similarity. Its likely that the 20 used in most life were the 20 most prevelent when life got started.

    Also of these 20 all of them are "left handed." In the experiment Miller conducted he got an even distrubution of amino acids between right and left handed amino acids.
    So ignore all the right handed ones. They can change handedness over time anyway. When they are left handed they get used by the left-handed self-reproducing molecules. Its not a problem. Soon there are only left hands around the place.

    Like I didn't expect what comes next. I alluded to this in my last post.

    Also the odds of the most simplists of protiens to form on its own is 10 to the 113 power.
    So where did you copy that from? Never mind its bogus.

    Combine two amino acids and you have a protein. ANY two. A very simple one but a protein nonethless.

    Someone is pretending that the protein must be a specific one. It only has to be a self-reproducing one. It doesn't even have to be protein. Its likely it was RNA or some other similar molecule. No one nows how simple it was. So there is no way at all to say what the odds were. That number you have was invented simply to make it look impossible.

    There could be billions of possible molecules. There may be very short chains that will do the job. The shorter the chain the higher the odds. The more chains that will work the higher the odds that one will form.

    Also this is more than the total estimated atoms in the Universe.
    More than the sub-atomic particles. Which is the reason that number was pulled out of thin air. It has no meaning since NO ONE knows just how small and just how complex the original self-reproducing molecule was. The chain could be quite short. A few dozen amino proteins maybe less sounds fairly reasonable and it need not be a specific few dozen. Just any that will self reproduce.

    Modern proteins have evolved since life started. For 3.8 billion years the molecules of life have been refined and increased in complexity. The size they are today is no reflection on how large they were at the start. There are some very short proteins used in life.

    If we look at a cell, it need around 2000 types of protiens to function.
    If we look at a cell we are not looking at the beginning of life.

    The chances of this cell getting by chance is one in 10 to the 40000 power. Pretty high odds if you ask me.(Evolution Form Space, p 24 ).
    Yes but those odds have ZERO to do with life getting started. The author most likely knew it too. Cells are not needed to get life started. Nor is all that modern molecular machinry. Nor was that a remotely resonable choice of cells for an example. We ourselves only have 30,000 genes and thats the most of any animal. The simplest presently living bacteria has 470 genes. Ancient bacteria are likely to have been simpler. So that 2000 number was chosen for usual reason. To add zeroes.

    Life is unlikely to have started with a cell. No with multiple compounds. Just one compound that can reproduce itself not quite perfectly will do to start. The rest comes through evolution.

    Here is a nice link regarding a small self replicating peptide:

    http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...-peptides.html

    Sample text.

    The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix and having a structure based on a region of the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by accelerating the amino-bond condensation of 15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution (see Fig. 1 on page 525).


    Of course it only works under special lab conditions.

    Then there is that Miller guy you mentioned from the 50's

    Bottom of the page
    http://scicom.ucsc.edu/SciNotes/0001/cooking.htm

    Sample

    The answer could be a combination molecule, a hybrid of peptides and RNA that existed in the early years of Earth’s formation but eventually died out once it lost its usefulness. One candidate is a peptide-nucleic acid hybrid, known as PNA. This molecule has a peptide backbone with RNA-like units sticking out of it. Bada and others, including amino-acid pioneer Stanley Miller, now at the University of California, San Diego, believe PNA was the first living entity. "The beauty of PNA is that its backbone is easy to make under early Earth conditions," says Bada.

    Recently, Miller showed that PNA can arise spontaneously from the ingredients available on early Earth. Unlike RNA, PNA is easy to make. Unlike amino acids, PNA carries lots of information. And unlike both of them, PNA is symmetrical so it doesn’t have the chirality problem.


    Sometimes scientists don't do all their best work when they are young.

    Rybozymes that can copy RNA

    http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01n.html

    An interview of Dr. Miller in '96

    http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html

    I can't get to his homepage at the moment. It should be at UC San Diego and the site is being recalcitrent.


    Lets say that every second that there is a chance for this protein to form, the possible times it has to form would be about 6.3 to the 16 power. This still would a large odds for even most simplist of proteins to form.
    I couldn't see what that two billion number was coming from. It seemed to have been invented like all the other numbers you used.

    Well if you chose the odds to get impossilbe results thats no suprise. So how about I make that number even worse by rounding off 6.3 to a full 10.

    We get 10 x10 ^16 = 10,000,000,000,000,000

    OF course that is NOT taking acount the volume of the earths ocean. You completely left out a per unit volume dimension so I choose this one. Per CC or cubic centimeter which is fairly standard unit in chemistry. You invented your numbers so I will invent the one you left out.

    A cubic kilometer contains 10,00,000,000,000,000 cubic centimeters. Hmmm thats the number I rounded up to from yours. What a nice coincidence, sure would look funny if I had picked the starting number. How did you pick your number?

    Well even without talking about more than one second we allready get a 50/50 shot. Not exactly large odds is it? Thats per second. For just one cubic kilometer not the whole ocean. With millions of years to fool around with thats a lot of seconds. Still think the number is all that huge?

    Also I will conceed the point that scientist could get self reproducing moculces to form. But this was done in a lab with controlled envirment. Could these mocules formed on the earth billions of years ago under the conditions that most scientist believed to have existed then?
    Its a big ocean. Why not?

    Also scientist were there to set up the right conditions for these mocules to form, thus these mocules had some short of outside influence acting on then so to speak.
    Thats the damned if you do and damned if don't trick. If you don't test it then creationists say you have no evidence and if you do test it they say you did it in the lab. So which is it to be? Experiments or hiding from the evidence? Creationists are real good at hiding from evidence. They don't like real research at all.

    The main place they pretend to do their own research is less than 100 miles south of me. ICR is in the San Diego area. Same as Dr. Miller.

    most advanced supercomputer needs someone to design it and build its parts and put it togather. Humans have not even come close to making a truely thinking machine.
    You sure are impatient. We took 3.86 billions years to get the point where could make a computer. 50 years is nothing in comparison. We evolved we weren't designed. If we were designed we sure did have a bad designer. We get clogged arteries, rotten teeth, disease, bad eyesight, and we kill each other for the hell of it. I see no evidence that we were designed.

    We aren't built. We grow. There is an enormous difference. Computers are designed to the last detail but we follow a set of GENERAL instructions. If one leg is a little short we compensate. Its not at all the same and the comparison is bogus. Nevertheless give humans a tiny fraction of the 3.8 billion years evolution had and I don't think it will be at all unlikely for us to make a thinking machine.

    Yet this somehow came about be a series of accendents?
    Only the changes are random. The selection is by the environment and that is not the same as random accidents. And nothing ever guaranteed that we would be the result. We are an accident. There could easily be NO ONE to ask questions. Or an altogether different species asking that same exact question and snearing while setting traps for those annoying little primates in the orchard.

    And that mention of a super computer. Its the equivalent of a modern cell like the one you used for attempt to show excessive complexity. The earliest computer was much less complex. Vastly less. Yet is was far more complex the least complex computer possible. Alan Turing's theoretical general computer was just a paper tape a punch, a sensor to read the tape and a simple set of switches to act on the holes in the tape. Very few switches. That Turning Machine is the man made machine equivalent of the first life on Earth.

  27. #237
    Ethelred
    King Ethelred's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Mar 2002
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    1,083
    Country
    This is Ethelred's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Originally posted by Jack_www
    One question I would like to ask, what is one of the biggest reasons why you dont believe that someone created life?
    The biggest reason is simple. I see no need to believe in a creator.

    A belief in a creator is just a response to not knowing all the answers. If you had been raised without any exposure to religion would you believe in a creator. I mean NO exposure, not raised agnostic.

    Every claim of proof of god that I have ever seen has always come down to 'we don't know all the answers therefor god exists'. Which is what your previous post was doing. Saying we don't know everything. Heck basicaly it even said that we don't know things we do know.

  28. #238
    Ethelred
    King Ethelred's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Mar 2002
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    1,083
    Country
    This is Ethelred's Country Flag
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    06:59
    Originally posted by Jack_www
    How could these physical laws come about on acciendent?
    How could a god arise by accident?

    You were again saying we don't know there for there is a god.

    A god only adds another layer of complexity. Everything you asked plus the same things about the hypothetical god.

    Now there may be a god. I simply don't see any reason to think there is one. Except wishfull thinking.

    I DON'T wish for the god of the Bible. If you really look at the things Jehovah did you will see something not at all admirable. Forget the sugar coated kiddy versions. Read the real thing.

  29. #239
    Jon Miller
    OTF Moderator Jon Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 1999
    Posts
    17,414
    Thanks
    75
    Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    07:59
    Originally posted by Ethelred


    How could a god arise by accident?

    You were again saying we don't know there for there is a god.

    A god only adds another layer of complexity. Everything you asked plus the same things about the hypothetical god.

    Now there may be a god. I simply don't see any reason to think there is one. Except wishfull thinking.

    I DON'T wish for the god of the Bible. If you really look at the things Jehovah did you will see something not at all admirable. Forget the sugar coated kiddy versions. Read the real thing.
    why need a god to arrise at all?

    in physics we have cause and effect (which also puts a damper to the notion of physics begining but anyway(yes I know there are theories, but while they are cool they are highly speculative)), but god would not need (in fact could be defined to not be) to be limited by the rules of physics

    Jon Miller
    Jon Miller-
    I AM.CANADIAN
    GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

  30. #240
    Jon Miller
    OTF Moderator Jon Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 1999
    Posts
    17,414
    Thanks
    75
    Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
    Local Date
    September 2, 2014
    Local Time
    07:59
    Originally posted by Ethelred


    The biggest reason is simple. I see no need to believe in a creator.

    A belief in a creator is just a response to not knowing all the answers. If you had been raised without any exposure to religion would you believe in a creator. I mean NO exposure, not raised agnostic.

    Every claim of proof of god that I have ever seen has always come down to 'we don't know all the answers therefor god exists'. Which is what your previous post was doing. Saying we don't know everything. Heck basicaly it even said that we don't know things we do know.
    observer = somone who has never heard of the conception of a god

    yes, it is logical since observing the physical world points to a beggining, but nothing is obvious in physics to the casual observer which would cause the beggining

    now would an observer would had all the knowledge and understanding of our most brilliant physicists at the moment of their birth beleive in a creator?

    I think that answer to that is different, which would be some percentage either way

    Jon Miller
    Jon Miller-
    I AM.CANADIAN
    GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Creationists please explain this
    By TheStinger in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: April 10, 2008, 20:03
  2. Creationists PWNED
    By Kuciwalker in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 316
    Last Post: February 7, 2005, 01:59
  3. Creationists take heed
    By Urban Ranger in forum Off-Topic-Archive
    Replies: 134
    Last Post: May 13, 2003, 04:34
  4. A Question for Creationists
    By Bosh in forum Off-Topic-Archive
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: June 7, 2002, 22:19
  5. Will creationists buy/play this game?
    By Tree in forum Dinosaurs-Archive
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: February 6, 2000, 04:38

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions